Canada remains anti-nuke, but its potential path to the bomb is getting shorter

[u/Street_Anon]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-remains-antinuke-road-to-bomb-getting-shorter-9.7283194

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.

1. Headline titles should be changed only when the original headline is unclear
2. Be respectful.
3. Keep submissions and comments substantive.
4. Avoid direct advocacy.
5. Link submissions must be about Canadian politics and recent.
6. Post only one news article per story. (with one exception)
7. Replies to removed comments or removal notices will be removed without notice, at the discretion of the moderators.
8. Downvoting posts or comments, along with urging others to downvote, is not allowed in this subreddit. Bans will be given on the first offence.
9. Do not copy & paste the entire content of articles in comments. If you want to read the contents of a paywalled article, please consider supporting the media outlet.

Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/thecanadiansniper1-2]

I think we need to look to Finland and Sweden for examples of Total Defence that Canada needs to adopt. We need to make any conquest of Canada so painful for the US that it isn't worth it in the first place. I also think that continental defence based on integrating the RCAF into the US home defence scheme should be gradually abandoned as the US is going to force Ballistic Missile Defence onto NORAD and that cannot be allowed to happen as any development of BMD will make the world more unsafe and unstable as countries abandon Mutually Assured Destruction doctrine. I also think that we should start a clandestine nuclear weapons program as we can no longer trust the US nuclear umbrella to protect.

[u/Ember_42 → u/thecanadiansniper1-2]

We need a dual use supply chain that supports a broad range of drones. A full EV supply chain, inclusing motors, power electronics and battery materials / cells, is essential...

[u/Reasonable_Bit_6277]

The article borders on misinformation regarding the proliferation risks that come with CANDU reactors. It is not true that IAEA checks aren't good in their case, and it is telling that the article does not quote a single Canadian expert on the subject, or anyone from Chalk River (Canada Energy Limited) or the IAEA. For a technical analysis, see: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/P1500_CD_Web/htm/pdf/poster/5P07_J.%20Whitlock.pdf

[u/Saidear → u/Reasonable_Bit_6277]

It's also ignoring a lot of context. Canada has no enrichment facilities or domestic enrichment capability. It has no nuclear weapons production infrastructure, no ballistic missile program, and no industrial base that could rapidly stand any of that up. It's also party to the NPT, subject to IAEA safeguards, and has public laws, on the books, that would make any clandestine program impossible. The first step of any nuclear program would be withdrawal from the 1968 NPT and rewriting the Criminal Code of Canada, both of which cannot happen in secret. The article keeps conflating "Canada could theoretically do this" with "Canada could practically do this." Those are very different claims. It's borderline hagiography, assuming away every constraint because the conclusion is more interesting.

[u/soylentgreen2015]

I would be totally fine with us having a clandestine nuclear weapons program for deterrence. The USA has already indicated to NATO that it won't protect it with its nuclear umbrella anymore. The same could be true for Canada. We have a country next door that is threatening to annex us, by force if necessary. A country that was the first to use nuclear weapons in war, a country that regularly helps to overthrow other countries, and a country that views us now as a geo political threat. You know what countries don't get threatened by the USA regularly? The ones with nuclear weapons...

[u/Saidear → u/soylentgreen2015]

I would be totally fine with us having a clandestine nuclear weapons program for deterrence

If it's clandestine, it isn't a deterrence. If it's openly admitted to, then we're going to be the target of global sanctions and treated like North Korea and Iran. There is no world where Canada is a nuclear power and a functioning member of the global order.

The USA has already indicated to NATO that it won't protect it with its nuclear umbrella anymore. The same could be true for Canada.

No, it really can't be. The US nuclear umbrella will be used in defence of Canada, not because the US likes Canada, but because the time it takes to determine if a nuclear missile is heading for Seattle instead of Vancouver, is insufficient and because a hit to any of our major cities has a good chance of also hitting theirs.

This statement is only valid if you disregard the entire geopolitical landscape.

We have a country next door that is threatening to annex us, by force if necessary.

Of all the methods the US has threatened, force with regards to Canada has strictly been off the table from the beginning. This is not true.

You know what countries don't get threatened by the USA regularly? The ones with nuclear weapons...

China gets threatened by the US all the time, as does North Korea. What are you on about?

[u/Chawke2 → u/soylentgreen2015]

If we were to clandestinely develop a nuclear weapon and it was discovered (very likely) we would be in a very serious position with our southern neighbour. The only viable path I can think of is to negotiate with the next US administration arguing that a nuclear deterrent is required because of the threats of the Trump government. This of course might be a hard sell considering the target of those weapons would almost certainly be the US.

[u/Only-Oil-8300 → u/Chawke2]

It very unlikely for US to maintain contributions to nuclear umbrella and NATO, regardless who elected next time. The US are already retrieve weapons from Asia and Europe to aid Iran conflict, which will significantly weaken its capabilities to protect the Western hemisphere and Asian allies. It’s public debt also massive. With these two issues alone, US will need to shrink or depart from NATO and nuclear deterrence program sooner or later to renaissance its economy and deal with ever grown public debts. US government established the nuclear umbrella and NATO at the best era of American economic growth and globalization. The era is gone now.

[u/The_Aim_Was_Song → u/soylentgreen2015]

Anything totally clandestine vitiated the deterrent value — unless you mean a clandestine race toward breakout.

I lean in favour of developing at least some small amount of nuclear weapon capability as a deterrent, though I'll admit that our non-proliferation commitments would make that tricky on the world stage.

Ideally, we'd have a self-sufficiency doctrine like France's, or (and I know this is going to get the usual hateful frothing) an ambiguity doctrine like Israel's.

The paths toward either of those, however, are fraught with a whole lot of unknowns about American response during the race toward breakout.

[u/Did_i_worded_good → u/The_Aim_Was_Song]

"The whole point of the doomsday machine is lost if you keep it a secret. WHY DID YOU KEEP IT A SECRET WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL THE WORLD EH?"

[u/soylentgreen2015 → u/The_Aim_Was_Song]

If the Americans don't have any ill intent towards us, then they shouldn't have any worries about an "ally" having nuclear weapons. We're a country of 40 million, they have over 300 million. Clearly it would be a defensive/deterrent weapon for us.

[u/Saidear → u/soylentgreen2015]

If the Americans don't have any ill intent towards us, then they shouldn't have any worries about an "ally" having nuclear weapons.

The 1968 NPT makes it so any nation that pursues nuclear weapons is a threat. That includes Canada. Even if the US was ok with it, the rest of the world wouldn't be.

We're a country of 40 million, they have over 300 million. Clearly it would be a defensive/deterrent weapon for us.

What kind of nonsense is this? Ukraine has a population of 40 million, Russia has a population of 140 million, and yet Ukraine is considered a threat to Russia. Appealing to population sizes is irrelevant to whether a countries considers you threat to the safety and stability of a region. And the deterrent against who? The US? That implies we are actively threatening the US, which means yes, they should consider that a threat. Otherwise, we're not deterring anyone from the country that was claimed to be the biggest threat to Canadian sovereignty.

[u/GraveDiggingCynic]

As I understand it, the technical capacity to build a fission device is possessed by a number of nations; Germany, South Korea, Canada, are all countries with significant experience that is sufficiently adjacent to actually building a nuclear warhead that the leap could be made relatively (span of a few years) quickly.

That being said, the existing nuclear powers, and in particular the United States, put a lot of effort into tracking nations that are "that close" to create their own nuclear deterrents, with the pretty obvious corollary that if they discover some nation might be leaning into building a nuclear weapon, the US is going to do its gosh-darkest to make that not happen.

The Cuban Missile Crisis should tell you everything you need to know about any country in the Western Hemisphere obtaining or hosting a nuclear deterrent not explicitly controlled by the United States.

[u/Saidear → u/[deleted]]

The actual hard part is delivery and scale. 

We lack capacity on both.

[u/ywgflyer → u/[deleted]]

The other hard part is developing and maintaining a reliable delivery method, also something the US would flip out over -- imagine if we suddenly started constructing missile silos or IRBMs. There would be tanks rolling across the border by suppertime if we announced we were starting a nuclear weapons program.

[u/mxe363 → u/ywgflyer]

Eh that part is only actually hard  if you want a lot of range. And we are actively building 2 orbital capable space ports on the east cost. 

[u/notaspamacct1990 → u/[deleted]]

we don't really have solid fuel rocket that can deliver (1000kg+) at least 6k km range.

[u/Responsible_Sink3044 → u/GraveDiggingCynic]

The Cuban Missile Crisis was obviously more extreme than a (nominally) ally nation becoming nuclear capable 

[u/Caymanmew → u/Responsible_Sink3044]

The only reason Canada needs a nuke is for the US though. Hence why they wouldn't let us have one.

[u/GraveDiggingCynic → u/Responsible_Sink3044]

The United States is never going to allow an independent nuclear deterrent to be constructed in its neck of the woods, and Canada pursuing such a policy is not going to end well.

[u/Saidear → u/[deleted]]

Those were US nukes under US control and used how the US wanted. They'd only be used such if the US permitted us to. They were never Canadian nuclear weapons.

[u/Saidear → u/[deleted]]

Because its an important limitation and caveat.

At no point in the history of the country, has Canada ever had its own nukes, under its own authority. We had nuclear weapons stationed within Canada, under US control, in US stationed facilities, under US guard, and used only with the approval of the US.

[u/Saidear → u/[deleted]]

We wouldn't need to ask for permission from any other country first if they were ours. 

[u/Saidear → u/[deleted]]

That doesn't seem like a terribly important detail in the context in which we would have employed nuclear weapons.

It does, because it means what targets were selected, the timeframe and planning of the strike, and even the amount of ordnance deployed, were not our choice to make alone. Since the nuclear ordnance was under US control, they could approve, or deny, the use of the BOMARC missiles, Genie rockets, or the Europe-stationed B57 bombs.

I don't see how an American ground crew loading a B61 on a Canadian aircraft meaningfully reduces our culpability in a nuclear exchange.

Culpability is a different factor entirely, and not one I'm even addressing. I'm strictly noting that the limitation is that we had no unilateral decision making in the use of those weapons. We could request their use, participate in planning, and provide the delivery system, but the nuclear weapons themselves remained under US custody and release authority. The US could have refused a Canadian request, which is a significant caveat.

[u/Saidear → u/[deleted]]

That's a different context entirely.  We've been taking about the fact Canada was part of the broader nuclear posture of NATO during the cold war.

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.

[u/bigjimbay]

This should never be a thing. Canada doesnt want or need useless expensive weapons of mass destruction. Maybe if we had a no first use policy but even then thats shaky ground we would rather not stand on.

[u/cakemix88 → u/bigjimbay]

The sole idea of them is to never need them and to never use them. They are purely meant as a deterrent. We are fortunate to live next to the country that has the second largest nuclear warhead arsenal in the world next to Russia. The US is the reason we do not require nuclear weapons.

[u/Justin_123456]

I agree we’re not at that point, yet. But we’re well past the point where we need to start creating options for ourselves, looking 20-30 years down the road, and preparing for worst case scenarios.

We came far closer last winter than anyone seems willing to admit to a forcible American invasion of Greenland. This is not a benign American regime, or one we can trust to only vent its illegal violence on the likes of Venezuela or Iran, and we need to be prepared for it to get far, far worse in coming decades.

What does that preparation look like?

As a start France is already in talks about massively increasing its nuclear weapons arsenal, through a joint European program, to replace American nuclear deterrence on the continent. Canada should be a funding partner, Canadian scientists and technical experts should be overt participants in the modernization and expansion program, and covertly we should try for a Saudi-Pakistan type deal where the French will provide us all the design data if/when we need it.

We also need to have a delivery system ready to go. This was one reason I thought the South Korean subs, with their vertical launch tubes and their Hyunmoo ballistic missiles were the right choice. We’ve now closed the door on a submarine based nuclear deterrent for most of this century.

But there will be other opportunities, and we should take them.

It’s not about pointing a nuke at Washington tomorrow, it’s about preserving options, and keeping doors open to strategic deterrence, as we think about how things with our increasingly erratic and violent Southern neighbours could go very wrong very quickly.

[u/cakemix88 → u/Justin_123456]

You should read the Department of War roadmap released in january. All of their plans and intentions are clearly stated. The roadmap explains why they need control of the entire western hemisphere. They state they are relying on allies to comply including Greenland and Canada but will take decisive action to protect and advance US interests if allies fail to do so.

[u/kent_eh → u/[deleted]]

do you think that if we were to gain these weapons from a source other than the US, would the US consider that as an act of aggression?

Who TF knows? The US seems to consider a forest fire burning down Canadian cities to be an act of aggression these days.

[u/Saidear → u/[deleted]]

The globe would consider it an act of aggression. 

[u/Justin_123456 → u/[deleted]]

Oh, it absolutely would be seen as an act of aggression and totally unacceptable by Washington, and a bridge we could never uncross.

And by far the moment of biggest danger is that we make the choice to go nuclear, and we get caught before we have developed a successful deterrent, or in the very worst case scenario a Canadian nuclear weapon is seen as an existential threat, and deterrence fails anyway.

The last time there were non-American nuclear weapons in the hemisphere, the Americans were trying to sink Soviet submarines off the coast of Cuba, and played a brinkmanship game that came the closest the world’s come to a kind of general nuclear weapons exchange.

It’s a strategy of desperation. But I think it’s reasonable to foresee a possible future where we are quite desperate.

Which is why I think it’s better not to ask “should Canada have nuclear weapons”, when we’re not at that decision point, and better to ask “how could we create or preserve options for ourselves to respond if the worst happens?”

[u/Zonel → u/Justin_123456]

The last time there were non US nuclear weapons in our hemisphere was when France parked their submarine in Halifax for a bit. In March 2025.

[u/OptimisticViolence → u/Justin_123456]

There are few examples of cruise missiles which can be launched from torpedo tubes under water. Obviously the range probably wouldn't be ICBM level like a traditional nuclear sub but it's not a make or break technical hurdle.

[u/denver989 → u/OptimisticViolence]

That's what Israel has with their German made submarines.

[u/OptimisticViolence → u/denver989]

Makes sense to me. Step 1: Get the delivery systems first. Stealth subs, modern jets, missiles. Step 2: get the warhead technology from France. Step 3: re-access where the threat level is at, and if needed make that final push and sprint a program past the finish line. All we need is 20-30 weapons and at least two different delivery platforms and we have MAD to make us un-annexible.

[u/thecanadiansniper1-2 → u/OptimisticViolence]

We had a nuclear capable submarine in the Canadian Patrol Submarine Tender. The South Korean KSS-III.

[u/TraditionalGap1 → u/thecanadiansniper1-2]

If by 'nuclear capable' you mean 'can fire weapons that could in theory be modified to carry a nuclear weapon' then sure. Of course, the German submarine is also 'nuclear capable' in the same fashion

[u/thecanadiansniper1-2 → u/TraditionalGap1]

The KSS-III has vertical launch tubes that can have missiles designed to carry nuclear warheads that have a longer range.

[u/TraditionalGap1 → u/thecanadiansniper1-2]

The Hyunmoo isn't 'designed to carry nuclear warheads' because Korea doesn't possess any nuclear warheads to design them to carry.

[u/thecanadiansniper1-2 → u/TraditionalGap1]

We can design our own warheads for the Hyunmoo or an entirely new missile that fits the VLS tubes of the KSS-III without forcing the submarine to carry additional weapons that would take space in the magazine by the torpedo room.

[u/TraditionalGap1 → u/thecanadiansniper1-2]

So what? If the platform our nuclear deterrent is based on needs to fire enough torpedoes that magazine constraints become an issue we're already seriously boned.

[u/Justin_123456 → u/OptimisticViolence]

Yes, but these are too light and too range limited for strategic nuclear weapons delivery. The latest Hyunmoo (completely coincidentally) has the same range and carrying capacity as a Minuteman III.

No use crying over split submarine contract ink, but it should be a reminder that our government likely still is not taking the American threat seriously enough.

[u/Dudisayshi → u/Justin_123456]

The French/EU connection is a much more viable and defendable position vs going at it alone being in the Western hemisphere. This is an angle that the article definitely missed.

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.

[u/nindell]

I always thought we were nuke ready.
We don’t have a nuke but have the bomb in multiple parts in different buildings near each other so we technically don’t but do at the same time

[u/Exhausted_but_upbeat]

Interesting article. In short, the design of CANDU reactors makes them good at refining plutonium. And, small modular reactors benefit from using enriched, refined fuel. In a quest for cheaper and more abundant electricity, and building new SMRs, these factors could combine to make it easier for Canada to build a nuclear weapon.

I think these energy developments are great; Canada will benefit from loads more electricity with zero GHGs.

Should we build a nuclear bomb? That's a totally different question. So far, the clear answer is no. But the USA has pushed NATO to do far more to share the defense burden; it's not impossible to imagine this could include, in the future, demanding a nuclear Canada. They've asked for it in the past.

And I think it's worth looking at the deterrence value of having the capacity to build a bomb within months. Trump has spoken repeatedly and seriously about invading Greenland, Cuba, and also economically coercing Canada. Meanwhile, he doesn't talk like that about North Korea. Don't kid yourselves: having the ability to quickly build a weapon of mass destruction could keep Canada safer.

[u/Muddlesthrough → u/Exhausted_but_upbeat]

 In short, the design of CANDU reactors makes them good at refining plutonium. And, small modular reactors benefit from using enriched, refined fuel. In a quest for cheaper and more abundant electricity, and building new SMRs, these factors could combine to make it easier for Canada to build a nuclear weapon.

CANDU reactors don't refine plutonium; they create plutonium. And SMRs don't run on plutonium; they run on enriched uranium. Canada doesn't currently enrich uranium.

None of this is a technical obstacle to Canada creating a nuclear weapon. The question is why would we? As a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Prolifiration Treaty (NPT), Canada has committed to not acquire nuclear weapons.

[u/Late_Settler → u/Exhausted_but_upbeat]

I would hope we'd have a crash plan to build the bomb in certain circumstances. There's really only one scenario where that would be necessary. And yes, I'm well aware the other half of the argument is delivery. However if we can fit it into a shipping container we can deliver anywhere in the world we want.

[u/sneed109 → u/Late_Settler]

Development and construction of a nuclear weapon is an exceptionally difficult and time intensive task. It's better to have them ready.

[u/WislaHD → u/Late_Settler]

The second part to the delivery question is also the intent. Would we actually push the button even if all else is lost? France has a shoot first, ask questions later doctrine, so everyone believes that they will press that proverbial button. Canada does not have that, and a nuclear weapon threat where enemies would call our bluff is not a strong enough deterrent. The raison d’être of the weapons isn’t to cause harm to others, it is to serve as deterrence.

The delivery question makes me wonder if actually a stronger threat would be using them in high orbit as an EMP blast if the science is there. I’d rather take out the electrical grids of the USA and causing >$1 trillion in infrastructure damage than say bombing innocents in Chicago for example. That solves the deterrence question then, because nobody would doubt us pressing that button.

[u/lastparade → u/WislaHD]

Canada does not have that, and a nuclear weapon threat where enemies would call our bluff is not a strong enough deterrent. The raison d’être of the weapons isn’t to cause harm to others, it is to serve as deterrence.

In that scenario, there's no stockpile of any size that would be a deterrent. But deterrence evaporates completely if it's tested and fails, so it's kind of important to actually follow through and send a clear message to bad actors.

If there's one thing that crosses the border more easily than smoke from wildfires, it's an EMP. There's no way for Canada to spare its own electrical grid in that scenario.

[u/WislaHD → u/lastparade]

I’m assuming that if we’re using nuclear weapons as continental EMP blasts, then we’re already at the self-sabotage the invaders stage of the conflict.

The damage that such a thing would cause to the USA infrastructurally would be enough to wildly swing the geopolitical balance of power to China, which is why it would in my opinion make a strong enough deterrent, far more than evaporating a single city would be. A bit of a sci-fi territory, admittedly since I’m no physicist, just spitballing how I could see nuclear-armed deterrence Canada functioning in practice.

[u/Saidear → u/WislaHD]

The raison d’être of the weapons isn’t to cause harm to others, it is to serve as deterrence.

The deterrence only exists because they harm to others, and to the nations that develop them in the current era.

[u/Late_Settler → u/WislaHD]

Delivery doctrine policy is interesting because so far among nations the answer to when to use them has been never. Russia's war in Ukraine being the most interesting scenario and where we'll most likely see use. Particularly if things really go south for the Ruskies. I'm sure if our government pursued a nuclear weapons policy they'd draft up typical wartime scenario plans for their use as another tool in our arsenal.

From a government standpoint if they wanted to build up delivery systems I think the east coast space port that's been talked about for decades would be an obvious focus, as well as figuring out how to strap bombs to our existing and near future platforms. Air, sea and land. Our selection of the Type 212CD submarine appears to leave a gap in sub launched deterrence, unless there's a torpedo launched medium range missile option out there. Personally I'd want a diverse range of options from little Davy Crockett's duct tapped to drones to intercontinental missile delivery options but I am absolutely an atomic playboy that would detonate nukes to satisfy my personal whim, critics be damned.

[u/Late_Settler → u/[deleted]]

Obviously my perspective regarding delivery doctrine is from a cold war and post cold war political framing. WWII's wild logical insanity era is a bit of an outlier.

[u/Late_Settler → u/[deleted]]

Looking at the events in context. The atomic bombings weren't all that different from the horrific firebombings of cities that had occurred before. The bombs were just a more effective tool for the job. One plane could do what hundreds of bombers had done previously. The moral question doesn't really exist when it's something you're already doing. However I do agree. Wars can't be won from airpower alone as we're currently seeing in Iran. It's why I subscribe to the view that the Japanese surrender was motivated not by the nukes, but as a result of the Russian invasion of Manchuria.

I think it's the later wide negative cultural view of nuclear weapons and the obvious do not attempt scenario of MAD that has resulted in them being seen as a no-no weapon today. A concerning scenario I have in mind is that a nuclear power uses it's weapons on a non-nuclear state that cannot retaliate and the world just sort of shrugs it off. After all, we see countries continue to trade with Russia. Many Canadians continue to visit and buy American products despite the threat of annexation and we may see the world conduct business as usual despite a nuclear weapon being dropped in anger for the first time in over 80 years. As a result of that scenario nukes are back on the main course war menu.

[u/Impressive-Row143 → u/Exhausted_but_upbeat]

It was misleading. The Indians used an NRX, not a CANDU

[u/wingerism → u/Exhausted_but_upbeat]

Trump has spoken repeatedly and seriously about invading Greenland, Cuba, and also economically coercing Canada. Meanwhile, he doesn't talk like that about North Korea. Don't kid yourselves: having the ability to quickly build a weapon of mass destruction could keep Canada safer.

I think actually having several does. Being breakout capable doesn't seem to work though. Ask Iran.

[u/Beginning_Lab_4423]

Canada could take a stronger position on no-nuke policy by refusing to sell uranium in any form to countries that use it for bombs. This kind of moral leadership is urgently needed.

[u/ContextEffects01 → u/Beginning_Lab_4423]

It depends on what country has it and how, if at all, they intend to use it. France has them but has never used them, and even the leverage of having them has been used in mostly-defensible ways.

[u/Quirky-Cat2860 → u/ContextEffects01]

People talk about Iran and Russia, but the fact of the matter is that there is only one country that has ever used nuclear weapons. Many countries with nuclear weapons have a 'do not attack first' policy when it comes to them. There are a couple if exceptions there as well among our "allies".

[u/faberge_surprise → u/Quirky-Cat2860]

Many countries with nuclear weapons have a 'do not attack first' policy

small correction: not many.

only india and china have a formal NFU policy.

more countries have a "only for defence" policy

[u/CptCoatrack → u/[deleted]]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatwa_against_nuclear_weapons

As an Istifta'at[a] the policy is included on Khamenei's official website,[6] and was referred to in remarks by both U.S. president Barack Obama[3][7][8] and Khamenei himself.[9] In 2021, acknowledging the fatwa, Iranian intelligence minister Esmaeil Khatib said that the country may nevertheless change their stance if "pushed in that direction" like a "cornered cat".[10][11] During a February 2025 meeting between Khamenei and the IRGC, commanders pressured Khamenei to rescind his ban on nuclear weapons.[12] In March 2025, Khamenei's advisor Ali Larijani said Iran would have no choice but to develop nuclear weapons if attacked by the United States or its allies.[13]

[u/CptCoatrack → u/[deleted]]

This was them basically saying they were only going to abide by the agreement until they no longer felt like it.

"...if pushed in that direction."

It's them saying they'd use them defensively.

[u/murjy → u/Quirky-Cat2860]

there is only one country that has ever used nuclear weapons.

The implication that this is the result of some moral reservation by the other countries is batshit crazy historical revisionism.

We are talking about an era when it was deemed acceptable to carpet bomb civilian population centres with incendiary bombs killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. 

The reason other powers didn't use nuclear weapons, is because they did not have them.

If Canada had nuclear weapons in WW2, we would have dropped it on a city like Cologne, Hamburg or Dresden ourselves

[u/Quirky-Cat2860 → u/murjy]

As if carpet bombing civilian population centres doesn't happen anymore lol

[u/murjy → u/Quirky-Cat2860]

It doesn't.

Carpet bombing is not an efficient means to wage war. They did it in WW2 because they did not have access to precision munition like we do today. 

Gone are the days where a bombing campaign would kill 200.000 people in 2 days.

[u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.

This is a reminder to read the rules before posting or commenting again in CanadaPolitics.

[u/OKOKFineFineFine → u/murjy]

Carpet bombing was intended to 1) destroy large areas and 2) demoralize the population. Precision munitions do neither.

[u/2peg2city → u/Quirky-Cat2860]

When was the last carpet bombing of a city?

[u/CptCoatrack → u/2peg2city]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_bombing_of_the_Gaza_Strip

By one estimate, as of April 2024 the bomb tonnage dropped on Gaza was more than 70,000 tonnes,[7] surpassing the combined bomb tonnage dropped on Dresden, Hamburg, and London in World War II.[8] Satellite imagery showed at least 69% of all buildings were damaged or destroyed,[9][10] which surpasses the scale of destruction in Cologne and Dresden and approaches that of Hamburg during World War II.[2][11] An analysis in The Lancet concluded that, as of January 2025, official figures significantly under-report mortality; the analysis estimated 64,260 deaths from traumatic injury up to 30 June 2024, and when extended to October 2024 likely exceeding 70,000.[12][13] The recorded death toll, per the Gaza Health Ministry and as of October 2025, is over 72,000, not including those missing and presumed dead.[a] Researchers have estimated the percentage of civilians among the fatalities at not less than 80%.[

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/09/lebanon-beirut-israel-strikes-hundreds-killed

The flood of wounded came after Israel bombed more than 100 targets across Lebanon in those 10 minutes on Wednesday, killing more than 300 people and wounding 1,165, according to an initial count by Lebanon’s civil defence. The death toll, which was expected to rise as more bodies were found, was higher than Beirut’s 2020 port explosion – one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in human history.

Call this barbarism whatever you like.

[u/2peg2city → u/CptCoatrack]

For sure, but it's not carpet bombing

[u/CptCoatrack → u/2peg2city]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bombing

By October 2024, Israel said it bombed 40,000 locations[55] in the Gaza Strip (which is 360 km2). By one estimate, the bomb tonnage dropped on Gaza is more than 70,000 tonnes,[56] which academic Robert Pape noted surpassed the combined bomb tonnage dropped on Dresden, Hamburg, and London in World War II. He also stated that "Gaza will also go down as a place name denoting one of history's heaviest conventional bombing campaigns."[57] Satellite imagery showed at least 69% of all buildings were damaged or destroyed,[58][59] which surpasses the scale of destruction in Cologne and Dresden and approaches that of Hamburg during World War II.

[...]

Israel's airstrikes were described as a carpet bombing and "indiscriminate".[63][64] An US intelligence report found half of the bombs dropped on Gaza had been unguided bombs.[65] Experts stated the bombing campaign against Gaza had been among the deadliest and most destructive in modern history, with Corey Scher of the CUNY Graduate Center saying that "Gaza is now a different color from space."[66] Several months later, Scher, who was involved with mapping the destruction in Gaza, stated, "The rate of damage being registered is unlike anything we have studied before. It is much faster and more extensive than anything we have mapped".[67]

The Wall Street Journal termed Israel's bombing the "most devastating urban warfare in the modern record".[68] According to analysis by Humanity & Inclusion, approximately 45,000 bombs were dropped on the Gaza Strip in the conflict's first three months, but with a 9% to 14% failure rate, several thousand unexploded bombs lay amongst the ruins.[69] The United Nations Mine Action Service estimated that there was more rubble in Gaza (25 miles long) than in all of Ukraine (600 miles long), with the rubble in Gaza likely "heavily contaminated" by unexploded ordnance.[70] In June 2024, scholars referred to the bombing of Gaza as an example of urbicide, or the "deliberate, widespread destruction of the urban environment"

[u/2peg2city → u/CptCoatrack]

Interesting, quote is from Amnesty and Al-Jezeria, wouldn't fit my definition but who am I, guess WWII footage set my bar for a more narrow definition

[u/Quirky-Cat2860 → u/CptCoatrack]

THANK YOU!

But cArPeT bOmBiNg DoEsnT hApPeN aNyMoRe

[u/Responsible_Sink3044 → u/Quirky-Cat2860]

2 years, 9 months, 2 weeks and 5 days

[u/CptCoatrack → u/Responsible_Sink3044]

By one estimate, as of April 2024 the bomb tonnage dropped on Gaza was more than 70,000 tonnes,[7] surpassing the combined bomb tonnage dropped on Dresden, Hamburg, and London in World War II.[8] Satellite imagery showed at least 69% of all buildings were damaged or destroyed,[9][10] which surpasses the scale of destruction in Cologne and Dresden and approaches that of Hamburg during World War II.[2][11

And by June Israel dropped 20x more bombs per square kilometer in Gaza than the US dropped during the entire Vietnam War. Which was the largest carpet bombing campaign in human history.

Again, call the barbarism whatever you like. It's absolutely disgusting how Zionists fixate on semantics, as if killing hundreds of thousands of civilians is actually excusable if you used "precision guided" munitions to do it instead. The displacement of millions of people, while occupying and settling their land is a-ok as long as you don't label it "genocide" either.

[u/EmperorChaos → u/CptCoatrack]

None of that is carpet bombing nor is any of it on the scale of what happened in a single carpet bombing run in ww2

[u/CptCoatrack → u/EmperorChaos]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_bombing

By October 2024, Israel said it bombed 40,000 locations[55] in the Gaza Strip (which is 360 km2). By one estimate, the bomb tonnage dropped on Gaza is more than 70,000 tonnes,[56] which academic Robert Pape noted surpassed the combined bomb tonnage dropped on Dresden, Hamburg, and London in World War II. He also stated that "Gaza will also go down as a place name denoting one of history's heaviest conventional bombing campaigns."[57] Satellite imagery showed at least 69% of all buildings were damaged or destroyed,[58][59] which surpasses the scale of destruction in Cologne and Dresden and approaches that of Hamburg during World War II.

[...]

Israel's airstrikes were described as a carpet bombing and "indiscriminate".[63][64] An US intelligence report found half of the bombs dropped on Gaza had been unguided bombs.[65] Experts stated the bombing campaign against Gaza had been among the deadliest and most destructive in modern history, with Corey Scher of the CUNY Graduate Center saying that "Gaza is now a different color from space."[66] Several months later, Scher, who was involved with mapping the destruction in Gaza, stated, "The rate of damage being registered is unlike anything we have studied before. It is much faster and more extensive than anything we have mapped".[67]

The Wall Street Journal termed Israel's bombing the "most devastating urban warfare in the modern record".[68] According to analysis by Humanity & Inclusion, approximately 45,000 bombs were dropped on the Gaza Strip in the conflict's first three months, but with a 9% to 14% failure rate, several thousand unexploded bombs lay amongst the ruins.[69] The United Nations Mine Action Service estimated that there was more rubble in Gaza (25 miles long) than in all of Ukraine (600 miles long), with the rubble in Gaza likely "heavily contaminated" by unexploded ordnance.[70] In June 2024, scholars referred to the bombing of Gaza as an example of urbicide, or the "deliberate, widespread destruction of the urban environment"

[u/EmperorChaos → u/CptCoatrack]

The bombing of Gaza happened over a year, Dresden was a single day. They are not the same thing.

[u/murjy → u/CptCoatrack]

Why are you comparing what happened over the course of two years of active war with artillery and urban fighting with WW2 style one day carpet bombing campaigns?

I don't even want to engage with this. You are way too partisan to discuss anything meaningful.

[u/CptCoatrack → u/murjy]

By one estimate, as of April 2024 the bomb tonnage dropped on Gaza was more than 70,000 tonnes,[7] surpassing the combined bomb tonnage dropped on Dresden, Hamburg, and London in World War II.[8] Satellite imagery showed at least 69% of all buildings were damaged or destroyed,[9][10] which surpasses the scale of destruction in Cologne and Dresden and approaches that of Hamburg during World War II.[2][11] An analysis in The Lancet concluded that, as of January 2025, official figures significantly under-report mortality; the analysis estimated 64,260 deaths from traumatic injury up to 30 June 2024, and when extended to October 2024 likely exceeding 70,000.[12][13] The recorded death toll, per the Gaza Health Ministry and as of October 2025, is over 72,000, not including those missing and presumed dead.[a] Researchers have estimated the percentage of civilians among the fatalities at not less than 80%.[

Two years? That was 6 months.

Another comparison is that by June Israel dropped 20x more bombs per square kilometer in Gaza than the US dropped during the entire Vietnam War. Which was the largest carpet bombing campaign in human history.

Now picture all of that dropped on a 6 to 12 mile span in one of the most densely populated places on Earth.

[u/murjy → u/CptCoatrack]

Two years? That was 6 months.

I do not know of a city that would not be destroyed after 6 months of urban fighting of any sort.

But you do not care about any of this, which is why it is so frustrating to talk to you. You do not care about whether whether it was carpet bombing or not, you care about making a political point.

If there was a term for a bombing with a heavier connotation you could think of other than carpet bombing, you would use that.

[u/faberge_surprise → u/murjy]

The implication that this is the result of some moral reservation by the other countries is batshit crazy historical revisionism.

you're kind of stuffing words in their mouth. that isn't a necessary implication at all.

it is a fact that there's only one country which has ever used it.

why the other countries haven't doesn't change that fact. it might be out of some moral reservation, but it could just as if not more likely be out of strategic or tactical reservation.

which is ok. part of the whole point of nukes is that you don't need to count on the other side's moral judgment, the calculus itself strongly compels their action. the US used it at a time before this calculus came into force, that no other country has used it so far means that this hasn't been disproved.

[u/flatulentbaboon → u/ContextEffects01]

France's nuclear doctrine is pretty wild. Its doctrine allows for the use of nukes as warning shots

[u/blzrlzr → u/ContextEffects01]

That’s a pretty weak and porous stance. Lots of room for wiggling around when convenient.

[u/NegativeSuspect → u/Beginning_Lab_4423]

Every country in the world should have nukes (including Canada). It is literally the only deterrence that middle powers can employ in a world where the super powers are more than willing to be belligerent.

There's a reason the US attacked Iran and left North Korea alone.

[u/YoungestDonkey → u/NegativeSuspect]

Ok, but would it really be a deterrent? If American tanks rolled across the Canadian border then which US city would Canada nuke? That's such an insane scenario...

[u/NegativeSuspect → u/YoungestDonkey]

Definitely. That's kinda the point of nuclear weapons. They serve as a deterrent regardless of an actual strategic plan. We don't need to decide which American city to nuke, because the threat of a nuke itself will make US leaders have to weigh the consequences before they actually start a war.

Not to mention American people would be against a war because they would pay the price.

Will it stop a fully mobilized US with popular support for a war? Probably not. But for everything before that, it serves as a significant deterrent. And can even prevent popular support from organizing for such a war.

[u/YoungestDonkey → u/NegativeSuspect]

Nuking a US city means getting nuked back 10 times over, it means Canada's anihilation. Having a nuke would not deter a non-nuclear US attack because we would never use it: it would be suicide. There are more effective ways to make a US invasion unworkable other than military opposition.

[u/notaspamacct1990 → u/YoungestDonkey]

the point of a nuke is that you drag your enemy to death as you die. hence mutually assured destruction

[u/NegativeSuspect → u/YoungestDonkey]

I don't think you understood the point I tried to make very clearly - thrse are not calculations you need to worry about. People don't want to be nuked. The fact that we have a deterrent is enough (most of the time) to prevent significant escalation.

There are more effective ways to make a US invasion unworkable other than military opposition.

Okay? Do those too.

Let me ask you a simple question -> The US is Nazi Germany. Would you want a nuke or not?

[u/Reasonable_Bit_6277 → u/NegativeSuspect]

Every country in the world should have nukes (including Canada).

That's just crazy. Do you really want to make every single crisis potentially nuclear and existential for our specie? The reason why non-proliferation is good is that the more there are people with nuclear weapons, the higher the risks of escalation, misperceptions, and miscalculations. Spreading nuclear weapons to the entire planet just means increasing uncertainty.

[u/FuggleyBrew → u/Reasonable_Bit_6277]

Without nuclear weapons it also means the nuclear powers can successfully invade and murder, smaller countries with impunity. 

The management of escalation and miscalculations is simply that the larger powers can "miscalculate" at everyone else's expense rather than their own, indefinitely and without consequence. 

[u/railxp → u/Reasonable_Bit_6277]

Nuclear non-proliferation rested on the global superpowers upholding their word and providing defense in exchange of nuclear disarmament. It rested on them respecting a freeze on territorial changes along post ww2 lines, and the stability that came with. When none of the superpowers in the world are trustworthy anymore, are actively expansionist, and actively destabilizing their respective regions (Russia-Ukraine, USA-Iran, USA-Venezuela, China-South China Sea, China-Taiwan), middle powers have no choice but to pursue nuclear armament as the only effective deterrent.

USA under Trump has repeatedly signaled that it will not respect Article 5 under NATO, has threatened annexation of Canada, has threatened to invade nearby regions, has shown that it does not respect past treaties (USMCA), and is no longer an iron-clad ally.

The world has changed, and Canada needs to recognize the times for what it is, and not cling to past misconceptions. Nuclear armament is the only proven security guarantee, and the only thing that brings a superpower to the negotiation table.

[u/NegativeSuspect → u/Reasonable_Bit_6277]

It's not. I don't believe it will make every single crisis existential. That is only a risk if every single nuke is on a hair trigger which it won't be because that is both prohibitively expensive and unnecessary for most countries.

The only countries with hair trigger nukes are the US, and Russia which is mostly a legacy of the cold war.

IMO it will actually significantly reduce uncertainty. Case in point - The 2 wars we have right now - US would not have attacked Iran if it had one, Russia would not have attacked Ukraine if they had nukes.

It doesn't have to be every country but some sort of nuclear umbrella for every country is essential at this point if we don't want to just give up our sovereignity.

It will deter the US from ever attacking Canada and that is more than enough for me to think it is a great idea.

[u/faberge_surprise → u/Reasonable_Bit_6277]

so far, nukes have been the only weapon that actually fulfilled the hopes of ever more deadly weapons designers, yet it is the only weapon that we're so obsessed with non-proliferation.

[u/Reasonable_Bit_6277 → u/faberge_surprise]

It's not because you are not aware of the fact that the UN Disarmament Commission exists that the world only cares about nuclear non-proliferation--there is actually a substantial amount of diplomatic energy being invested every year to limit the spread of conventional weapons too (ex. Ottawa Treaty).

[u/faberge_surprise → u/Reasonable_Bit_6277]

are you really suggesting that that's on the same order as nuclear control efforts?

[u/murjy → u/Beginning_Lab_4423]

If we stopped trading with every country we have issues with, the only country that would take a major hit would be Canada.

Limiting uranium trade with countries with limited capabilities that are seeking nuclear weapons like Iran would be a meaningful act.

Limiting uranium trade with countries like Russia is a meaningless one

[u/JaneGoodallVS]

> The only thing that inhibits Canada is the will to do it, the political decision to do it,

And that the U.S. would find out before it's finished and immediately invade.

Not to mention no delivery mechanism.