Today, I learned a new word. That one might be too useful in the future.
And Conor McGregor was just at the White House.
Ooh, I know the answer to this one: whatever parts Putin wants
From today’s Globe and Mail:
“Canada needs to develop its own nuclear weapons.
French National Marine officers parade in front of a new nuclear submarine, in Cherbourg, France, in 2019. The only independent nuclear force in Europe is France. Former president Charles De Gaulle had insisted on it in the early years of NATO, believing he could not trust a future American leadership he had never met.
We are in the midst of the largest geopolitical realignment since the end of the Cold War. The United States, once a staunch ally, is slowly pulling out of European security arrangements, leaving everyone guessing about its security commitments to allies. Canada, therefore, needs to bolster its own defence, and many have argued for shoring up the Canadian Armed Forces’ capabilities.
But it is likely not sufficient. Canada is an enormous territory, and we have at the moment about 65,000 active duty troops. What once was a ludicrous idea is becoming an important question: Should Canada explore developing nuclear weapons?
A window of opportunity is opening. NATO allies are rethinking their nuclear stances for the sake of their security and that of Europe. Poland is overtly signalling it will look at acquiring nuclear weapons. Germany had nuclear discussions in recent years, and they are likely to pick up. There is a rationale to developing a nuclear capacity for Canada that aligns with European allies and directs it toward Russia, while ensuring our continental security against a former friend, the United States. It will be an important discussion to have with our allies.
Some in Canada are waking up to this new reality. During her Liberal Party leadership run, Chrystia Freeland suggested British nuclear weapons could help protect Canadafrom Donald Trump. There are important issues with this proposal. First, it does not address the main threat of Russia or China. Second, Britain’s nuclear arsenal is intertwined with the Americans’ through the Trident missiles it uses, and therefore is not independent. There are already rumours Washington might terminate this collaboration.
The only independent nuclear force in Europe is France. Former president Charles De Gaulle had insisted on it in the early years of NATO, believing he could not trust a future American leadership he had never met. Paris appears willing to extend its protection to Europe and perhaps Canada, but questions remain, namely about credibility.
In normal circumstances, obtaining or developing nuclear weapons would be unthinkable for Canada due to the cost on its foreign relations, security and reputation as a strong non-proliferation state. We are, however, going through uncertain times and should develop our nuclear capacity.
Canada is in an enviable position. It has almost all the components and infrastructure to develop nuclear weapons. The country historically participated in the Manhattan project, and it currently has one of the strongest nuclear energy industries in the world. Only Kazakhstan produces more uranium, and we have stockpiles of heavy water, which can be used to develop nuclear weapons.
The only thing missing is reprocessing facilities to make weapons-grade plutonium. Plutonium would produce a bomb faster than uranium, taking a year or two. Alternatively, Canada could seek to purchase materials. Reprocessing technologies are dual-use, meaning commercial sectors use them as well, which can provide cover for a nuclear program.
The next hurdle is to ensure that Canada has the proper delivery mechanisms – missiles, aircraft or submarines – that allow the weapons to be used. Nuclear latency – the possession of nuclear knowledge and technology – has no value without it. There are a few options here Canada should explore.
Ideally, Canada would move forward with an independent rocket launch capacity as sending rockets into space uses the same technology as missiles. Moreover, Canada would move away from the hybrid diesel-electric submarines it is planning on buying and move to nuclear-powered submarines capable of carrying nuclear weapons, such as the French Suffren-class submarine. These powerful submarines would protect the weapons, and as an added bonus, would be more effective in icebound Arctic waters.
Moving away from the purchase of American F-35 fighter jets is another option. Calls are being made in Canada already to cancel the purchase. If other allies follow suit, it might provide justification to align on what NATO allies will purchase instead. The Dassault Rafale or the Eurofighter Typhoon would be adequate replacements since they are nuclear-capable.
The idea of shoring up Canada’s nuclear weapons capabilities would have been ludicrous just a few months ago. However, our new security reality forces us to ask hard and difficult questions. Canada needs to develop the means to adapt to the worst-case scenario: a continued and serious threat of annexation by the United States, or an anticipated conflict with Russia in Europe or the Arctic. The territorial integrity of the country is at stake.
There is no plan to invade Canada – yet. However, as the United States continues its democratic backsliding, it is impossible to predict with certainty that plans would not materialize. It is time to hedge our bets.”
An argument could be made that the answer is 97.7%.
Probably a good idea given the frequency the USA has invaded countries who have nuclear weapons.
This is not quite correct.
Obtaining enough weapons grade material is not followed by a missile delivery system.
You still need to design the actual nuclear weapon.
The first nuclear fission bombs were clunky and large. They wasted most of their fissionable material, thus they had to go through testing in order to improve the design and get it small enough to fit on top of a missile (in this case it looks like they want to launch it horizontally via a submarine). This took many years in the US and they used the uninhabited Pacific to do it, as well as some underground testing.
Thats the part that might create problems for Canada.
France tested their designs in their uninhabited colonies in the Pacific, with some underground tests as well.
Canada would have to do it underground (likely in the Arctic Tundra) which means you would have to build a large facility to be able to accomplish that.
Totally doable for Canada as they do have the technical ability but this would definitely be noticed (not to mention the nuclear test detonations underground). The US might respond by upping the ante with more tariffs (or worse) so there is that to consider
And the Envirommentalists would absolutely go bonkers over the nuclear testing.
We keep it at the bottom of the.lake.
Nuclear weapons, maybe? I doubt we even need sophisticated delivery systems. A trebuchet pointed south and one north should be enough of a statement.
I do think there may be better ways though to acheive the same thing. A lot more.money spent on military might be enough. Like, our own ships/subs/planes. Which frankly we should be doing anyway, both to properly own the north and to lessen our reliance on the US.
Unfortunately ive no idea what that looks like financially/economically. Maybe good longterm? I dunno.
Yes, Canada has a long history in nuclear matters but not in nuclear weaponry. Maybe France could help us.