A few weeks ago, an opinion piece appeared in The Globe and Mail, advocating Canada to become a nuclear state. A follow-on article was also offered by Bloomberg, discussing the same thing.
Midjourney’s depiction of a hypothetical Canadian nuclear test.
Absurd or not, Canada is in a precarious position. It is a very large country (second only to Russia), sandwiched between Putin’s Russia and Trump’s America. It is underpopulated, but rich in much-coveted natural resources. In other words, a prime target in a future resource war.
On the other hand, Canada is also one of the original nuclear states, so to speak. Much of the research of the British “tube alloys” project took place here, research that began before the Manhattan Project. A project in which Canadian scientists played a role, and Canadian raw materials were used. Canada also has a vibrant nuclear industry. Long story short, if Canada chooses to go nuclear, it has everything required to do so, over a time scale of a few years, tops, possibly less.
Of course it would mean violating the non-proliferation treaty. And a nuclear capability also requires suitable delivery systems, such as missiles or aircraft. Even so, I think it is an investment Canada should seriously consider, before it is too late. The actual future alternatives may be far worse than Trump’s “proposal” to turn our country into the “51st state”.
Recently monsieur Macron theorized about using European (and particularly French) nuclear weapons for shielding Europe… And experts were posting curious articles about how much such weapons France has and what they could be useful for in such a number.
How many warheads / kilotons you think would be appropriate for Canada?
> before it is too late
Am I right to suggest that in the current situation such a hypothetical move may turn Canada into Iran v2.0 from the US perspective? If so, then it is definitely too late from the start :(
Well, first of all, don’t forget that Canada started sometime back in 1942, as a participant in the British “Tube Alloys” project, before the Manhattan Project even began. And unlike Iran, Canada needs no centrifuge farms… we make Pu-239 :-)
As to what it takes… well, a credible nuclear deterrent really has to accomplish three things. First, there must be enough weapons to make an attack not worth the cost for the attacker, no matter what. Arguable it doesn’t take much; a small handful of warheads is quite sufficient to deter any adversary. Second, a capable delivery system is needed, either conventional (ballistic missile) or unconventional (e.g., smuggled weapons). And three, the weapons must be well protected against a pre-emptive attack (submarine-launched weapons can do wonders in this regard.)
Lastly, from the US perspective, it need not be anything like Iran. So long as the US is not interested in sabotaging NATO, destroying the Canadian economy, or aspiring to turn Canada into the “51st state”, I don’t think Canada will ever consider a conflict with the US. But that still leaves the threat from Russia on the table, and the US being an unreliable ally, Canada can no longer necessarily count on a joint North American defense.