Close Menu
    Kanada

    Kanada habe kein Interesse am Erwerb von Atomwaffen, sagt der Verteidigungsminister


    Kanada habe kein Interesse am Erwerb von Atomwaffen, sagt der Verteidigungsminister

    https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-nuclear-weapons-acquire-defence/

    View 39 Comments

    39 Kommentare

    2. Firestorm238 on

      I hope this is a lie, because it’s absolutely essential to defend the sovereignty of a country the size of Canada in a world where we no longer can count on the US as an ally and where global institutions carry no weight.

      If Carney’s Davos speech was sincere, then this isn’t really up for debate.

    5. Onterrible_Trauma on

      Even if we were interested, it’s not like we would ever say that publicly.

    6. supermau5 on

      Oh come on just few so we can sit at the big boy table and not have to worry about becoming American

    7. bocwerx on

      Just buy the subs with some nukes preloaded. A few for the West and East Coast. 😁

    9. vollyn on

      Who in their right mind would expect the defence minister to come out and actually say: “Yes, we are interested in acquiring nuclear weapons”? This would result in immediate international backlash and violate the nuclear nonproliferation treaty we signed.

      Also, add the fact that there’s someone down south looking for any reason at all to justify an invasion of this country…

    10. Catch_22_Pac on

      The only way we get nukes is by getting deeper into the American pocket, which might defeat the purpose. Otherwise they would never let it happen. The attempt itself would be considered a provocation.

    11. mikey_likes_it______ on

      And if we become a 51st state? Will nuclear weapons be placed here by the USA ? There was a study to place them on Greenland during the Cold War.

    12. Obscure_Occultist on

      Let’s be real, if we were acquiring nuclear weapons, we’d never say it out loud. Both North Korea and Iran have both claimed they never intended to acquire nuclear weapons. Saying we intend to build our own nukes is a fast track to invasion.

    14. Pirlomaster on

      Well, we should. Start laying the ground work and get it through when there’s a more sympathetic admin to the south.

    15. Outside-Storage-1523 on

      We should do more nuclear power plants and maybe something that can lead to nuclear weapons if we have to, and keep claiming that we absolutely have nothing to do with nuclear weapons. But then the number of centrifuge is going to sell us out, oh well.

    16. BassicNic on

      Hasan Nuclear Doctrine:

      Rule 1: Every nation should acquire nuclear weapons.

      Rule 2: Never give up your nuclear weapons (hey Libya, what’s up? )

      Rule 3: If you’re accused of having nuclear weapons, but you don’t, acquire them immediately.

    17. cautiouspp on

      Don’t worry guys, he had a hand behind his back with his fingers crossed.

    18. togocann49 on

      Wait, doesn’t Canada just need deployment, my understanding is that plutonium is a by product of some of their nuclear power production? If so, they just need to put it in bombs? I’m not stating this, I’m asking those who may know answer

    19. Dougustine on

      But some kick ass conventional weapons would not hurt.

      Of course endless fleets of low cost drones seems to be the new modern low cost way to senselessly kill ourselves

    20. SupOrSalad on

      Honestly I kind of agree. Canada has been the forefront of trying to keep peace among nations. Nuclear weapons would just signal to the USA that we are aggressive, and even with a handful of nuclear weapons, we still wouldn’t have enough of a deterrent to stand up to the USA. Most conflicts don’t involve nuclear weapons, and instead rely on barrages of smaller missiles for targeted attacks against key targets

      Instead I think it would be more beneficial to build up missile defence systems, and a more efficient military and weapons so Canada could defend itself, without seeming like we’re coming out as an aggressor.

      If it got to a point where nuclear weapons were being considered, it would already be world war 3 by that point

      Although… do you have any idea how many things we could mark off on the Geneva Checklist with nukes?

    21. ZardozSama on

      Here is how I see it…

      Having nuclear weapons would be a legit deterrent against any aggression, including potential US aggression.

      Canada probably has the resources to generate and refine the plutonium within a reasonably short time frame. We do have nuclear power plants and uranium. We would probably have the warhead part sorted pretty fast.

      I do not think Canada has the ability to manufacture missiles capable of delivering a nuclear weapon at this time. It might actually take us a bit longer to manufacture a reliable missile.

      There is no goddamn way we would be able to set up a program to manufacture missiles and produce plutonium without a US intelligence agency getting wind of it. Also no way to actually conduct a missile test or test detonate a nuke. Depending on how paranoid the US, attempting to acquire those weapons would run the risk of provoking a preemptive strike.

      And given the reality of our longstanding relationship with the US, the only reason we would suddenly want nukes is to guard against US aggression. There is no way to convince anyone that we are suddenly that worried about Russia, China, or North Korea when we were not that worried during the height of the cold war.

      END COMMUNICATION

    25. SheIsABadMamaJama on

      I am interested, but I don’t want the government everyone that they’re interested. I just want them to do it.

    27. cyclemonster on

      We could develop such weapons if we wanted them. We have vast natural uranium resources, and plenty of scientific and engineering talent. What would be the point, though?

    28. Hicalibre on

      How long til this thread is locked I wonder?

      Either way there’s some interesting comments.

    30. Born_Ad_4868 on

      Our defense is handcuffed by procurement rules and procedures it took years just to replace side arms. Do you really think we have the capacity, and money to plan, build and maintain a nuclear arsenal? I cannot believe this idea even made it to press. It’s beyond a laughable joke, it’s embarrassing. Just pure click bait for a news article.

    31. PoorAxelrod on

      I highly doubt the government is ever going to say something like this out loud in a sincere way. Doing so would likely be seen as tying its own hands. But in a world where the United States can no longer be reliably depended on to protect North America, Canada can and should be pursuing other defence options.

      It is interesting how history repeats itself, or at least rhymes. In the 1960s, John Diefenbaker was firmly opposed to the United States placing nuclear weapons on Canadian soil. It is widely known that he and John F. Kennedy did not get along. Kennedy reportedly viewed Diefenbaker as out of touch, while Diefenbaker saw Kennedy as impulsive and arrogant. When Pearson came in, that changed. Canada moved closer to the United States in military cooperation and defence dependence, particularly in the context of the Cold War and continental defence.

      Knowing what I know of that period, I probably would have disagreed with Diefenbaker at the time. Given the Cold War, nuclear deterrence, and the logic of NORAD, closer alignment with the United States made sense. But Diefenbaker’s underlying argument was that Canada should maintain stronger ties to Britain and the Commonwealth, and avoid ceding too much sovereignty or strategic dependence to Washington.

      In hindsight, he was not wrong to be wary of the United States. There are many good reasons to keep the US onside as an ally. Geography, trade, and defence realities all point in that direction. But that assumption was built on a shared understanding of alliances, norms, and mutual responsibility. That understanding predates Donald Trump.

      Some will argue that the United States has always behaved this way, that it has simply become more overt about it. There is truth in that. For most of modern history, the US has been the larger power and has acted accordingly. But past presidents, regardless of party, understood America’s role as a nation among nations, even when asserting leadership.

      Trump does not see the United States that way. He treats alliances as transactional, institutions as disposable, and sovereignty as something only smaller countries are expected to respect. That worldview is reflected daily in both domestic governance and foreign policy.

      What is the Canadian government going to say publicly other than no? Because the second they say yes Donald Trump freaks out again. Our dependence on the United States is a big chip for President Oompa Loompa.

    34. chaseonfire on

      Our politicians failed us post WW2, we could have built them at the same time as the rest of the Western powers and now we’re permanently vulnerable without them.

    35. Ok-Artichoke6793 on

      I think our best bet would be to „service“ Frances nuclear subs in our harbours until things settle down in the USA. Getting nukes right now is the pretext Trump is waiting for to allow him to make a move on Canada for „nation security“

    38. littlecozynostril on

      The truth is, since shortly after 9/11, the only guarantor of sovereignty is being a nuclear power. The US has made that abundantly clear. It would be a smart move for Canada get a few ‚on loan‘ from the UK or something. Then we could just say we were just holding them for an older boy.

    Leave A Reply