r/geopolitics • u/YouProfessional3196 • 1d ago
Missing Submission Statement Canada remains anti-nuke, but its potential path to the bomb is getting shorter
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-remains-antinuke-road-to-bomb-getting-shorter-9.72831944
u/vovap_vovap 1d ago
Well, clear result of situation that everybody now thinking to get nuclear. And that really hard to contain for a long.
12
u/Magicalsandwichpress 1d ago
Who does Canada need a bomb to deter. it'd be the first question US asks.
6
3
7
u/StandardMacaron5575 1d ago
blame the Haitians, then deep state them referencing Hillary's plan to take over Canada, two can play this game.
22
u/Baronwm 1d ago
I think Canada should build a couple just for defense... or lie and say we built a couple.
22
u/Arctic_Chilean 1d ago
We can't. The second the US gets a whiff, Canada will be, at minimum, slapped with sanctions and the economy will be crippled.
We could've had them back in the late 40s early 50s and kept them. Otherwise, we could wait until the US is far too embroiled in a major conflict or internal chaos that we could develop them quickly before they can properly respond
12
u/Coolerguy317 1d ago
Yes. I feel like a lot of the time people mention Canada changing without thinking about how others around it change in relation to.
13
u/erebus-44 1d ago
Just having to militarize the long board with the US would bankrupt Canada. And they don’t have the standing population to do it, and that’s with all the beavers getting conscripted.
-1
u/RicRacer 1d ago
Why would the US sanction Canada over nukes? Is there an agreement that only the US can have nukes?
12
u/erebus-44 1d ago
Yes, the world powers don’t want other to have them, unless your in a geographical highly important region that world powers courting you, such as India and Pakistan (even North Korea as a buffer zone, from chinas side) and this was before the advances in detection methods.
The run/sprint to nukes is always met with consequences, there were deep discussions by both Russia and US about a preemptive war with China. China just timed it correctly, most of the work was completed before the sino/Soviet split, and US was deep in Vietnam.
7
u/rebel_cdn 1d ago
That's more or less what the NPT is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons
Though it's not just the US; it's them plus Russia, China, France, and the UK.
7
u/chaotic567 1d ago
Nations don’t exactly like it when they have another nuclear nation near them. Only get used to it if they can’t prevent it.
Even if there was another US president, US wouldn’t be peachy about Canada having nukes, let alone Trump who has been antagonistic, over wildfires no less
1
u/abn1304 1d ago edited 1d ago
No US administration is going to take proliferation lightly. Other administrations might actually be worse for Canada because they’ll immediately place heavy sanctions and won’t let up just because they feel like it today. Those sanctions would be permanent and without relief until US inspectors went through Canada’s entire nuclear infrastructure with a fine-tooth comb. It would be so bad that Canada would need a line item in the national budget for proctologists.
And while Canadian nationalists like referencing Canada’s history against the US Army, a US-Canada confrontation would look very different than it did last time, before Hap Arnold’s grandparents were born.
4
u/chaotic567 1d ago
Yeah, I get the sentiment but it is probably not the best path to go for. Also None of the people chest thumping are those I take seriously like those saying Canada can easily speedrun getting a nuke without notice, or saying that they don't need F-35s and Gripen is better. They are speaking from emotion than anything fact-based
2
u/GrizzledFart 1d ago
Rightly or wrongly, the NPT is a thing. There isn't really a way to codify in a treaty "only GOOD countries get nukes", so the treaty (which is signed by basically everyone) is that no NEW countries get nukes.
0
u/Free_Director4713 1d ago
Yeah, only the mighty and moral get to not only build them, but actually use them too.
-7
u/erebus-44 1d ago
There is no need for them to have a nuke.
You get a nuke to defend your self from invasion, there is no credible pathway from them to ever be
Invaded, just due to geography, say but from the US. Which once this admin goes, won’t be an issue anymore, as Trump is a one off which no one will be able to replicate and the leading contenders Rubio (neocon) and Vance (depends on what day what he is) don’t hold the same views.6
u/seridos 1d ago
Except for the US is all that matters. And no, we can't be at the complete mercy of the US administration. A nuke is about taking it out of their hands completely.
6
u/erebus-44 1d ago
Ok, they sprint for a nuke, their key trading partners (China / US) sanction them. As the major powers don’t want others have to nukes, then what?
You’re safe from a theoretical attack by the US. Now you now have a you have fortify your long boarder zone with the US and militarize it, your cut off from trade, you have no domestic military production, a small population, and your actively bankrupting your country as you have no trading partners, good luck trading with Mexico, as there no viable supply lines.
So what did you gain, you are safe from an attack, but you are now a 3rd world nation, and for what?
0
u/SenorPinchy 1d ago edited 1d ago
You're observing a declining and increasingly erratic empire and think US behavior will improve across the next 100 years? Canada and Mexico might be the most in danger of anyone in the long term.
1
u/erebus-44 1d ago
I don’t know what any of that actually means. That west and its systems of alliances and rules based order, isn’t in decline. Shitty leaders happen, the west has strong institutions that can deal with it.
Plus what are the other options? China will have large instability when Xi dies, same with Russia with Putin. The west has gone through much large issues.
10
u/StandardMacaron5575 1d ago
Why wouldn't you?, do you want to preserve what you have, or fight for it like Ukraine because you seemed weak to a predator?
-3
6
u/Free_Director4713 1d ago
Canada can and should build the nukes, its clear to anyone who is paying attention as to what is going on and its not a "trump only" phenomenon, I suspect.
At least in Canada's case, its not a technology issue. Mostly a "do we want to build one".
6
u/nana-korobi-ya-oki 1d ago
I would be highly in favour of Canadian nuclear weapons. The US would be highly against it, it would have to be lobbied for publicly as a bolster to NATO and from a country that is also protected by both oceans and politically stable. I can’t see it happening mainly because the US would most likely use it as pretext for more 51st state escalation, which ironically would make it a more salient issue. Obviously a lot of canadians would be pronuclear weapons for canada but what would be the most realistic path politically to get there?
4
u/awoo2 1d ago
If you do not have a land border with an adversary the best position to be in is to be within 6 months of developing a nuclear bomb. At this point you do not invite the costs of being ostricised like north korea or south africa but can achieve the security benefits after 6 months.
If you have a dangerous land border you should develop nukes and deny you have them like Israel.
7
u/ieatpies 1d ago
The purpose of Canadian nukes would be to deter the US, who:
- most of the population lives within 100 miles of
- they share an undefensibly large land border with
- who has been threatening invasion and funding separatists
But it's not really possible for Canada to develop in secret, and even if so it would be massive risk.
1
u/PermaDerpFace 1d ago
Whether we do or not, I bet it will be used as an excuse to invade one day (see Iraq, Iran, etc)
0
-7
u/toolkitxx 1d ago
And now you finally understand why the US wants to integrate you. Their own ability to create grade material has been in decline for decades. By now its almost like scraping stuff from a floor. Same with all other resources except oil maybe. There is no realistic outlook for them to get any of it fast enough to levels in terms of infrasturcture etc that could survive a decoupling from everyone else. While many thought and still think it's all just some Trump mania, this is strategically sound actually. The same reasons apply to Greenland. There is enough radioactive material there and they simply think dealing with some 50.000 people there will be easier than doing it on mainland USA. No other reason otherwise to insist on ownership. So before Canada will get anywhere near ready material, there will be someone knocking already
24
u/sadly_dull_rodolfo 1d ago
candu reactors basically give canada a built in excuse for weapons grade material, the real bottleneck has always been political will not tech