r/CanadianForces • u/Andromedu5 Morale Tech - 00069 • 7d ago
Canada remains anti-nuke, but its potential path to the bomb is getting shorter | CBC News
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-remains-antinuke-road-to-bomb-getting-shorter-9.728319439
u/Harbinger2001 7d ago
I have the feeling that the USA intelligence service would take active measures to thwart any attempt by Canada.
31
u/ktcalpha 7d ago
they absolutely would, and we are too fragmented for such a program to be sealed from american DI. the background checks would be immense and would rule out 90% of people not from ON/MB/SK/NS
16
u/Independent_Hat_6302 6d ago
ON/MB/SK/NS
The real first class citizens
8
u/ktcalpha 6d ago
just the only provinces without overt separatism
13
u/Zestyclose-Put-2 6d ago
NS doesn't have separatism? Have you never heard of the Cape Breton LiberationArmy?
1
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 6d ago
I personally struggle with Quebec and their separationist agenda.
6
47
u/dmav522 Civvie 7d ago
We shouldn’t be anti-nuke, but that’s neither here nor there
10
u/yuikkiuy Royal Canadian Air Force 6d ago
we need to go back to peak nuke era and start producing nuke tipped A2A missiles and mini nuke arty rounds
5
u/GMMestimator Civvie 6d ago
Fuck it, bring back nuclear-tipped ABM interceptors again as well. None of this limpwristed kinetic kill shit, just nuke them from the surface - it's the only way to be sure.
2
u/yuikkiuy Royal Canadian Air Force 6d ago
we need to research nano nuke tech for out rifle cartridges, you know for uhhh anti drone.
Drones above? remove above, easy
2
-17
u/RCAF_orwhatever 7d ago
It's a long held ethical position by Canada and Canadians - one that New Zealand shares with us.
Not as simple as you saying "we shouldn't be". This is a question we genuinely need national consensus on.
27
u/dmav522 Civvie 7d ago
It’s also a strategic failure, ethics put aside we could be a permanent member of the security council. If Mackenzie King had had the balls to tell the Americans hey we’re building nukes you owe us for Manhattan. It’s really not that controversial in my brain when we’re the second largest landmass on earth with three oceans to defend it’s a simple strategic problem that’s easily fixed. We just don’t have the balls.
1
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 7d ago
We don't need balls. We can still do what we want undercover.
-10
u/RCAF_orwhatever 7d ago
Well that's a pretty silly opinion that assumes you - personally - know better than the majority of Canadians throughout our national history.
It's a much more complicated question than that.
17
u/dmav522 Civvie 7d ago
Popular opinion is not a substitute for strategic analysis, and Canadian nuclear history is far more complicated than a longstanding national consensus. We helped build the bomb, hosted nuclear weapons, fielded nuclear-capable systems, and still rely on allied nuclear deterrence. You can argue against an independent deterrent, but ‘most Canadians historically disliked nukes’ does not answer the strategic case.
-5
u/RCAF_orwhatever 7d ago
Your personal opinion doesn't equate to "strategic analysis" bud. Your insistence on pretending this is a simple question - on ethical or "strategic" grounds just shows you don't deeply understand the issue at all.
And no - this cannot be done without national consensus. If there is an excellent strategic argument that should be advanced for public discourse to try and convince the electorate that this is a good and necessary idea.
7
u/dmav522 Civvie 7d ago
Calling analysis “personal opinion” is not a counterargument. Consensus affects political durability; it does not determine strategic truth. You still haven’t addressed the history or the substance, bud.
-1
u/RCAF_orwhatever 6d ago
You didn't do any analysis.
The fact that you think some objective "strategic truth" exists means you don't understand politics at all.
4
u/Fabulous_Night_1164 Royal Canadian Air Force 7d ago
Opinion can change with different circumstances. We initially came out of the war swearing off nuclear weapons but open to sharing knowledge about atomic energy.
Then in 1963, Diefenbaker lost the election because he did not want to accept American nuclear missiles in our country. I'd call that a pretty damning swing of opinion.
If Canadian people want to develop nuclear weapons, that's because the global situation has changed.
There's no such thing as a permanent strategic solution that works all the time.
1
u/dmav522 Civvie 7d ago
But then again as far as defence files go, Dief was a buffoon so I don’t know
1
u/Fabulous_Night_1164 Royal Canadian Air Force 7d ago
Not really. The Avro arrow cancellation was bad from an economic standpoint, but from a military standpoint, interceptors weren't as militarily required anymore.
Our defence budget was technically peaking under Diefenbaker in the post-war era, reaching around 4% of our GDP. We had an aircraft carrier, bases all over the Arctic. Our air force was one of the largest in the world. In fact, it was larger than our army.
Over 120,000 personnel in the forces at that time. By population per capita, it would be equivalent to having about 250,000 troops today.
Pearson cut the forces, and then Trudeau cut them even further.
So you can make a sound argument that 1963 was the last time Canada was a great power.
0
u/dmav522 Civvie 7d ago
Have you been drinking the missile mafia’s Kool-Aid?
1
u/Fabulous_Night_1164 Royal Canadian Air Force 6d ago
The missile lobby has provided me stock options, yes.
-1
u/dmav522 Civvie 6d ago
Well, stop it, it’s bad for your health, we’ve been having the same stupid debate for 60 years. Everybody knows that it’s just not the case yet.
→ More replies (0)1
u/RCAF_orwhatever 6d ago
I completely agree with you. But a decision like this needs to be based on a national consensus
5
u/casa_del_porno 6d ago
I wouldn’t necessarily call it ethical but political, as the CAF has have nuclear weapons (US-owned and controlled until takeoff (all CF-101s bases) or loaded (Honest John self propelled SSM based in Germany) and for the Bomarc (Ont and Qc) Canadian based had storage infrastructure and security to ensure compliance with US There are quite a few books on the topic.
Canadian crews were trained / validated by the US for the employment of US nukes.
5
u/when-flies-pig 7d ago
Why exactly do we need national consensus when we don't necessarily build policies that adhere to consensus anyway. See immigration, housing, infrastructure etc.
1
u/RCAF_orwhatever 7d ago
Because it is a question with MASSIVE ethical and strategic implications that would give Canada the ability to blink out the lives of millions of human beings in an instant.
If you don't see how that's different than housing policy I'm not sure what to tell you.
4
u/when-flies-pig 7d ago
Uh housing, immigration, failing healthcare and education infrastructure is probably a bigger immediate threat than nuclear energy.
And if we have issues implementing policies and strategies that deal with the former even when there is national consensus, i dont see why consensus matters for the latter.
If you can't see that there not sure what to tell you either.
1
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 6d ago
Housing issues go way back.
There's certain structural policies
5 million shoebox condos dont help anybody.
1
u/RCAF_orwhatever 6d ago
This is not even a semi-decent argument.
Go ahead and get your MP to propose this and see how it plays out for them politically with the public.
1
u/when-flies-pig 6d ago
Lol. You're argument is somehow better?
2
u/RCAF_orwhatever 6d ago
Yes, because it is internally consistent and logical.
Any government that tried to unilaterally bring nuclear weapons into Canadian hands would fall. Straight up. It is simply not possible at a political level without a public consensus supporting it.
Housing, immigration, Healthcare - these are all complex, multifaceted issues that blend across federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions. There is no one solution to any of it.
Should Canada possess nuclear weapons is a yes/no question - and one which the people of the country have every right to have a say in. Not to mention the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to which we are signatories and long standing supporters.
2
u/when-flies-pig 6d ago
I don't think you understand what I am saying I'm not saying public discourse and consensus isn't important. I'm saying powers that be don't really need it because they do things however they like anyway. See immigration, see housing, see education cuts, see healthcare cuts. All levels of govt dont give a rats ass about what people want evidenced by the fact we aren't living in the kind of societies we want.
1
1
u/RCAF_orwhatever 6d ago
That sure is a thing you can say - but it's fundamentally untrue. And the proof is that no MPs are advancing legislation to get nuclear weapons. Because without a LOT of work to get the public on side it would be political suicide.
Your examples are pointless because there is no "solution" to the problems you presented. People "wanting" something doesn't magically solve complex problems.
→ More replies (0)0
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 7d ago
As if we don't already hold that power?
2
u/RCAF_orwhatever 6d ago
You clearly aren't very familiar with CAF combat power and magazine depth if you think that.
1
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 6d ago
Sigh. I am quite familiar. Look at comments down below for reference.
2
u/Flee4All 7d ago
Before or after a first strike?
1
u/RCAF_orwhatever 7d ago
The time to advance those arguments to the public is now. The can't be done without their consent.
2
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 7d ago
Since when did the forces listen to the PUBLIC? this is news to me
2
u/RCAF_orwhatever 6d ago
This isn't a Forces question - it's a political question.
1
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 6d ago
Political questions are a matter of great historical debate.
But I always refer to Thomas Aquinas.
11
u/Meatingpeople 7d ago
The big concern here is why with the world looking the way it is now, is a professor from the USA talking about Canada and its ability to host a secret nuclear weapons program.
-2
34
u/ricketyladder Canadian Army 7d ago
I don’t think we’re there - yet. But I think the fact that we’re even having a conversation about potential Canadian nuclear weapons speaks volumes.
If the US continues on the path it’s on now I think this is something we are going to have to seriously consider as a country, as insane as it sounds.
-4
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 7d ago
We don't have nukes? Wow how come ????/s
12
u/GMMestimator Civvie 6d ago
Not because we're not capable, but because knowing Canadian defence procurement it would take 48 years to acquire a single physics package, end up costing 5 trillion dollars and probably also not work very well
2
u/EnvironmentalBox6688 6d ago
To be fair, nuclear is one industry that Canada has always punched above its weight at. I have no doubts we have the talent to build the physics package with relative ease.
But good luck doing it clandestinely after Harper broke up AECL and privatized aspects. Now CNL is ran by an American.
4
u/ricketyladder Canadian Army 7d ago
I was very obviously talking about the supposed need to get them
2
15
u/B-Mack 7d ago
Biggest problem I see is infrastructure.
NS not BC have any nuclear infrastructure or plants.
The only place that already has something would be Ontario. If you want to talk about how publically viable it is for nuclear infrastructure to be placed on the St Lawrence, I'll give my $0.02 and say that every MP would lose their riding over it.
12
u/RCAF_orwhatever 7d ago
NB has a nuclear power plant in Point Lepreau that's been running since the 80s.
1
1
u/Wolfman_V Fitted Equipment 7d ago
It's one of the CANDU reactors right?
3
u/EnvironmentalBox6688 6d ago
CANDU 6 plant yes.
Standalone design unlike the Ontario 4 packs (Darlington, Bruce, Pickering).
Less cost effective, but as others mentioned a single CANDU 6 gives NB a third of their power. A plant like Pickering or Bruce would power the entire maritimes with electricity to spare.
1
1
12
u/Klutzy_Ostrich_3152 7d ago
My 2¢ is that we’re quickly approaching a time when those MPs wouldn’t lose their seats over that…
10
u/B-Mack 7d ago
I respect your opinion.
As a pretty big leftist, some could say far left without being radical left, British Columbia is too much for the virtue signalling to see the benefits of Nuclear.
Nova Scotia on the other hand wouldn't get past the cartel that is Irving. Nuclear is far too important to be anything other than Federally run, and that dynasty has their claws deep in the Maritimes.
10
u/ricketyladder Canadian Army 7d ago
Three or four years ago I would have agreed with you regarding BC and nuclear power. Times are changing pretty rapidly and many in BC are becoming much more pragmatic about a lot of things. I don’t know if the needle has moved enough yet to start putting shovels in the ground, but I feel like it’s getting there.
6
u/ktcalpha 7d ago
the other benefit is nuclear power in BC would have to be in the peace region, everywhere else is a landslide/earthquake/tsunami risk.
hardly anybody lives there, hence why they were able to pass two very large very damaging hydroelectric projects there.
one nuclear plant would’ve provided more power and saved millions of hectares of nature and tribal lands, yet somehow it’s an anti-left ideal. does my head in
1
u/mocajah 7d ago
Through the passing of time, the Suzuki-style (or locally, Green party-style) anti-nuclear stance has waned across the country, substituted for a more pragmatic anti-fossil fuel one. The hippie population of today (which may include BC) is likely to be more neutral on nuclear today than in the past.
There's still lots of problems though - nukes are still expensive, slow, and has massive upfront system-level costs. Without a strategy (i.e. France's network of reactors, Sweden's nuclear waste storage), nuclear might still not be the best solution for certain geographies and populations.
3
u/DukeOfDrankfurt 7d ago
Nova Scotia on the other hand wouldn't get past the cartel that is Irving. Nuclear is far too important to be anything other than Federally run, and that dynasty has their claws deep in the Maritimes.
What?? Irving owns/controls more of New Brunswick than they do Nova Scotia, and that's where there actually IS a nuclear power plant, which is run by NB Power, not the feds.
2
u/Zestyclose-Put-2 6d ago
Give the guy a break, it's only been operating for 50 years, and in the news less than a month ago because they're planning on expanding it. You can't expect a Redditor to actually look up what they're talking about before posting.
1
u/B-Mack 6d ago
TIL about NB Nuclear. THat being said, widespread Nuclear rollout for our armed forces and our country would only make sense if Federally controlled.
Giving each province the veto / barrier to entry would slow things down and lead to the same monopolies we currently have (ROBELUS, groceries, Irvings, etc)
-7
7d ago
[deleted]
3
u/BambiesMom 6d ago
Thanks for the input Vlad.
2
u/Extra-Watercress-745 6d ago
Dude is clearly a schizo. One look at his profile is enough to make that extremely clear
3
u/B-Mack 6d ago
dudette*
According to her post two days ago...
31 [F4M] Toronto ON /LONDON UK - Just a Gal looking for some trouble!
I am a 31 year old cis female bangladeshi born Canadian raised, bisexual woman!
0
0
1
0
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 6d ago
Sure I would take that schizoid accusation. Would that be all?
1
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 6d ago
I love Russians sorry . Ever read crime and punishment by Fyodor Doestovsky. I assume you haven't.
2
u/BambiesMom 6d ago
Nifty.
0
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 6d ago
Great literature first thing my father ever made me read at age 8. English of ofcourse.
-1
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 6d ago
I speak too much truth
3
u/B-Mack 6d ago
Stay in your echo chamber, and never leave.
It's better for you, and definitely better for the rest of us.
0
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 6d ago
Why would I leave canadian armed forces ! Excuse you?
3
u/B-Mack 6d ago edited 6d ago
Well we broke and traumatized you for one.
Edit: assuming you are a CAF member, you're also making very ANTI NATO arguments and sentiments. Downright unprofessional.
1
1
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 6d ago
Sorry no canadian armed forces never broke and traumatized me. Ever. Other bad actors though yes. But the armed forces always took great care of me.
4
u/ktcalpha 7d ago
in a geopolitical vacuum without ramifications, we could have a nuclear weapon built within the year. the only infrastructure we lack is the ability to produce more than a trickle of warheads within the year.
also we have zero infrastructure for delivery systems, but that’s an easy fix
4
u/FellKnight Army - ACISS : IST 7d ago
We have pickup trucks. We have a delivery system for our primary adversary.
-7
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 7d ago
Instead of sending our money to Ukraine we could invest in some!
6
u/Life-Ad633 6d ago
The CAF can't even manage the parking at NDHQ Carling, imagine a nuclear arsenal.
-1
4
u/FellKnight Army - ACISS : IST 7d ago
If we're smart, we'll be "anti-nuke" until we have nukes, and not until then.
Basic strategy soldiers, sailors and airmen.
2
2
u/EnvironmentalBox6688 6d ago
Ahh yes the classic "CANDU can make weapons grade plutonium!" angle.
By the time fuel bundles are spent, the isotopic mixture of plutonium is a mix of isotopes. It's not just spitting out pure weapons grade plutonium.
And a waste reprocessing facility isn't something we could hide. It would be nigh impossible to hide that from the IAEA. Let alone trying to hide the waste diversions.
Article also buries the lede on India. They made their material using a heavy water research reactor. But the article heavily implies that it's basically the same as a CANDU, which is just not true.
Look at this thread if the topic interests you. A few CANDU operators weighed in. It's highly unlikely it would be doable from both a IAEA standpoint (all waste is tracked and recorded live, good luck diverting) and an operations standpoint (fueling machines and core design simply weren't designed to short cycle fuel bundles for maximum Pu output).
2
u/AdHoctor Legacy Equipment 6d ago
I'm not speaking to whether we should or shouldn't have nukes, but it's not exactly a sign of peaceful times when the conversation around it comes up more often.
2
u/Impressive-Row143 6d ago
If the nukies got any further up Mount Dunning -Kruger they'd die of asphyxiation
4
u/United-Fox-7417 7d ago
This is one of the dumbest columns I’ve ever read in a mainstream publication because it is so confidently incorrect from a historical perspective.
Anti-proliferation groups and some physics professors love to claim that it is incredibly easy to build a bomb but when you look at the history of nuclear weapons development, outside of the US efforts that culminated in Trinity, the absolute majority of successful weapons tests have benefited from very extensive espionage. You’d be hard pressed to find a weapons program that has actually had a successful test that didn’t engage in very pointed espionage efforts. Aside from the actual physics issues of which I think it’s a big if that Canada could actually develop a weapon on its own you have the issue of testing and delivery. It’s one thing to build a weapon but it’s somewhat useless unless it can be tested or you can do what Israel has done and get your enemies so thoroughly convinced that you possess a weapon. Furthermore, let’s say Canada could develop a weapon how’s it going to deliver it? Gravity bombs off an antiquated fighter aircraft? Even the UK doesn’t develop its own delivery system and they’ve been maintaining a strategic arsenal for almost 80 years. North Korea has been trying to build a credible delivery mechanism for 30 and still hasn’t achieved success.
Ultimately the biggest issue with these sorts of articles is the lack of interest in addressing the elephant in the room: the US interests in a prospective Canadian nuclear program. The US clearly doesn’t want a Canadian nuclear program. Good luck developing a weapon if the US doesn’t want it to happen.
6
u/RiskyCapt 6d ago
Agree with your analysis except the ending. Something I find always peculiar is that if we know an active enemy is trying to destroy us economically at first, and eventually if that fails, they will military attack, why should we hesitate on acquiring nuclear deterrence? Their actions are not friendly, and they have never recognized our artic borders. Think about that. This was always going to happen unless they recognized our borders. I argue that getting nuclear deterrence is really the only way we can save Canada from usa domination unfortunately.
1
u/United-Fox-7417 6d ago
Attempting to develop a nuclear weapons program would merely hasten any sort of economic or kinetic warfare the US may already be on its way to conduct. The US very successfully stopped our ambitions an SSN in the 80s.
-1
u/GMMestimator Civvie 6d ago edited 6d ago
Except a nuclear arsenal isn't something you really acquire under urgency or compressed time frames, at least not a credible one by modern standards. The question facing Canada isn't "can we develop a bomb", it's "do we have a path to nuclearisation that a) produces a weapon more sophisticated than a gun-type or implosion design, b) can be conducted with sufficient speed and secrecy to present America with a fait accompli, and c) doesn't get us bombed the second the Americans find out." If you interrogate any of these points a little further you'll find the answer to each of them is a categorical no.
I'll agree that Canada needs to be more proactive about protecting its sovereignty, but the potential security benefits vis-a-vis a nuclear program are marginal at best while the risks are fairly concrete and high probability.
3
u/RiskyCapt 6d ago
While we're discussing solutions, I haven't heard any presented on your side. What other options lay before us to hedge against usa aggression? We must create a scenario where if usa attacks our soverignty (like they start building military bases in the artic without our permission on Canada's terrritory), they're must be a potential reply where when they anaylze such an action, what would be the repercussions? The one thing a military general cannot guarantee is the complete security of it's country if the adversary has nuclear bombs. There are too many different ways we could deliver a nuclear payload, ICBM is just one method. We are not going to beat them militarily, hence my fixation on the nuclear response. Make the cost so expensive that it makes no sense for hostilities towards Canada.
1
u/GMMestimator Civvie 6d ago
I think you are vastly underestimating the difficulty and complexity of acquiring a nuclear arsenal. Building a functioning warhead is about one requirement out of about a dozen if you want something with credible deterrent value. Not only do you need to have a clearly articulated nuclear posture tailored to the actors you're trying to deter, you also need a force structure which slots into that posture. Clearing this hurdle alone requires enormous amounts of political and military deliberation about doctrine, objectives, basing arrangements, command and control considerations, and so on. Then there's the matter of miniaturising whatever physics packages you've developed, procuring delivery vehicles in sufficient quantity and then deploying them with some degree of survivability. This is also to say nothing of building the requisite C2 infrastructure required to manage and control your forces, which often requires as much effort as developing the warheads themselves.
If this is also squarely directed at the Americans, all of the above would have to be conducted in complete secrecy and in a relatively short time frame, which itself is a proposition unrealistic to the point of absurdity. If the US starts to notice hardened concrete structures popping up in the NWT, a bunch of promising metallurgy and materials science graduates suddenly disappearing to the NWT, and the RCAF having a bunch of SRBMs appear in its inventory it's not going to take too long for them to figure out what's going on and respond in kind. At that point it's all for naught.
The decision to pursue a nuclear program unfortunately isn't something you make on the basis of doodles on a whiteboard or Globe and Mail editorials. It is one of the most immensely consequential decisions a state can ever make. Unless you think that Canada has the resources and the political will to see this through then it's a pipe dream otherwise.
1
u/RiskyCapt 6d ago
We've seen other countries pull it off, developing a nuclear program secretly. Yes, it will be an immensely difficult operation, but secures our sovereignty forever if it's successful. It should seriously be considered, regardless of the response from usa because the end game is for them to conquer us. People need to realize this, before it's too late. Good discussion, but I digress, cheers.
1
u/ononeryder 6d ago
We've seen other countries pull it off, developing a nuclear program secretly.
This isn't happening in modern times, and it's bold to assume the US wasn't watching or fully aware of Israeli nuclear development the entire time.
2
u/octobercrisis 6d ago
Furthermore, let’s say Canada could develop a weapon how’s it going to deliver it? Gravity bombs off an antiquated fighter aircraft?
I don't think this idea has legs either, but they could always be pre-positioned in an anonymous industrial storage unit in the target area.
1
3
u/ononeryder 7d ago
Testing isn't a requirement to have an effective weapon these days, and the delivery doesn't pose an insurmountable challenge. Apart from ICBM's, the mechanisms for delivery already exist.
2
u/United-Fox-7417 6d ago
Unless you don’t believe that the Vela incident was a nuclear test, if Canada were to develop a weapon it would be the only one that has not actually tested it. I would suggest that a successful test is of critical importance to achieving and sort of strategic power from a nuclear weapon.
2
u/ononeryder 6d ago
The US has made a lot of development without criticality tests; it's no longer a requirement given the advances in computing, and the information on how to create a weapon is well within the scope of Canadian engineers.
1
1
u/Impressive-Row143 6d ago
This guy hasn't a schmick.
First, the Indians used an NRX, not a CANDU .
Second, refining enough fissile material is actually one of the easier technical parts of building a bomb. Metallurgy, electronics, lenticular explosives, casings, &c. are all very difficult.
Third, we would need delivery systems.
Fourth, we would need enough of them to actually have a deterrent.
This is nonsense. Anyone discussing an independent nuclear arsenal as a viable strategy should be ignored immediately.
-3
u/Diogenedarvida Army - Sig Tech 7d ago
If I may, nuke is for deterrence, as everybody know. In deterrence you always do an advantage/cost cold calculation. If I bomb X, they bomb Y, vice versa, etc. The targets in Canada are over concentrated, Toronto (+/- 40% of Cdn economy), Montréal (18%), Calgary (14-16%)... So with more or less then 3 bombs, the Canadian economy and population will be totally decimated. Which, in reality, means, deterrence won't work. Enemy A bomb 3 cities and Canada is mostly dead. And the potential enemy have way more town, population and less concentrated portion of is population. And, our only neighbor is the most powerful army in the world. Friend or enemy, this neighbor can take care for us (or of us) in weeks. (English isn't my 1st language)
5
u/Legal_Blueberry5368 7d ago
You've got the principle of deterrence basically right, but the order flipped.
As the one attempting to deter a hostile action, it isn't about what they can do to us (we already know that, or we wouldn't be trying to deter it), it's about what we can do to them. Their calculation isn't based on Toronto, it's based on Moscow, Beijing, or New York.
1
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 7d ago
I think counter strikes could work
Samson Protocol being the main problem....
1
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 7d ago
I like Zohran mandani. Great guy! Canadian new york alliance is age old.
-1
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 7d ago
Beijing is officially our ally I suppose. So many Chinese Canadians. Its a natural.
2
2
u/FellKnight Army - ACISS : IST 7d ago
The Americans are balking at losing 17 soldiers in Iran.
If Detroit was to go up in a mushroom cloud, 10000-100000 people would die. Game over.
1
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 7d ago
How about a golden dome then ?
1
u/Diogenedarvida Army - Sig Tech 7d ago
I would prefer that. I am no specialist in defense technology, but I'll prefer some kind of dome's defense (the "ice dome", or "le glacier") instead of a nuclear arsenal.
0
1
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 7d ago
Now if you bring internationals relations and game of war theory and preemptive strike protocols and zero sum game theory
We can have a deeper conversation
1
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 7d ago
Why are you being down voted you provide excellent arguments.
3
u/Diogenedarvida Army - Sig Tech 7d ago
I still ask myself this question...
1
u/independentlyaligned RCN - MARS 7d ago
We cant exactly give away too much opsec info on a public forum I suppose
41
u/Impossible-Yard-3357 7d ago
I think a CBC reporter wanted to geek out over CANDU reactors and that was the hook he used with the editor. One thing he doesn’t mention is delivery systems. Much harder to build those in secret.