Russia Has Nukes; Should Canada?

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Hard no but we DO need to get serious and increase our capabilities for patrolling the arctic. Along with our coastal areas. Defence spending has been pathetically low in this country for far too long.

I want to build a commercial port somewhere the province of buffalo could reach the open sea year round SO BAD.

[SeeGeeWhy]

No.. Canadians still need to atone for our role in creating the material that went into the bombs dropped on Japan. Our domestic nuclear program is peaceful and one of the top performing on earth, it’s a good idea to keep this reputation and guide others along a similar path.

But honestly, it might be a good idea for NATO to give Ukraine her piece back.

A condition of Russia’s reparations for this war should involve continued reduction in their stockpile by flowing the material through the fuel supply chain. They can be permitted to consult and sell through Rosatom to have an economic lifeline to recovery.

[sharkov]

Honestly, I find the NPT to be a joke as asking as Canada is a US ally, it can violate the npt without much consequence.

[dissentowner]

Nobody should have nukes.

[dammage79]

Canada should have some nuclear naval vessels though. Especially for arctic patrols.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Canada should have some nuclear naval vessels though. Especially for arctic patrols.

For that Canada needs to join with Australia who recent signed the AUKUS agreement to acquire the necessary knowledge to build nuclear powered submarines. But even with the help of the US and the UK, it's going to be a decades long process.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Canada should have some nuclear naval vessels though. Especially for arctic patrols.

Agreed. Good luck with that though. As soon as the general Canadian public sees the word Nuclear, they freak out about nuclear weapons and don’t read further to see that it actually says Nuclear Powered. That’s what happened the last time we were procuring submarines.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

Agreed. Good luck with that though. As soon as the general Canadian public sees the word Nuclear, they freak out about nuclear weapons and don’t read further to see that it actually says Nuclear Powered. That’s what happened the last time we were procuring submarines.

I’d wager half the people I know would guess that a nuclear subs main purpose was to carry nukes.

[karl262]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

No.. Canadians still need to atone for our role in creating the material that went into the bombs dropped on Japan. Our domestic nuclear program is peaceful and one of the top performing on earth, it’s a good idea to keep this reputation and guide others along a similar path.

But honestly, it might be a good idea for NATO to give Ukraine her piece back.

A condition of Russia’s reparations for this war should involve continued reduction in their stockpile by flowing the material through the fuel supply chain. They can be permitted to consult and sell through Rosatom to have an economic lifeline to recovery.

This is and will continue to be an interesting debate for a long time. Personally I disagree that Canada needs to "atone" for our role in the nuclear bombings which shortened the war and saved the lives of an estimated 6 to 10 million people.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Ironhorse

Agreed. Good luck with that though. As soon as the general Canadian public sees the word Nuclear, they freak out about nuclear weapons and don’t read further to see that it actually says Nuclear Powered. That’s what happened the last time we were procuring submarines.

I think if people knew how much diesel conventional vessels burn and lose to the environment, they might re-think their stance on nuclear powered vessels.

I agree though, the word "nuclear" just unnecessarily scares people because they think of nuclear weapons.

[EVERLAST]

Well be fine with our plastic knives and forks combined with some aluminum foil hats.... We haven't needed nukes so we can continue without.
Fighter jets we should probably have and some kind of way to shoot down anything above Edmonton before It reaches anything valuable in the province/ country.

[karl262]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think if people knew how much diesel conventional vessels burn and lose to the environment, they might re-think their stance on nuclear powered vessels.



I agree though, the word "nuclear" just unnecessarily scares people because they think of nuclear weapons.

If cargo ships were nuclear powered it would solve one of the biggest pollution problems we are facing. Most ships run on bunker fuel when in international waters and absolutely spew heavy pollutants that gets absorbed into the ocean.

Containerized SMR's ftw!

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by karl262

This is and will continue to be an interesting debate for a long time. Personally I disagree that Canada needs to "atone" for our role in the nuclear bombings which shortened the war and saved the lives of an estimated 6 to 10 million people.

The atonement I am referring to has little to do with that, and everything to do with how we went about procuring the material from the land in the first place.

And not to get into it, but that military calculus for the use of the weapon is not well supported.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think if people knew how much diesel conventional vessels burn and lose to the environment, they might re-think their stance on nuclear powered vessels.

I agree though, the word "nuclear" just unnecessarily scares people because they think of nuclear weapons.

Not just that, but how little training and expertise is actually required to run such a vessel. I don’t think very many people know the truth about the make up of an average nuclear sub crew.

[karl262]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

The atonement I am referring to has little to do with that, and everything to do with how we went about procuring the material from the land in the first place.

And not to get into it, but that military calculus for the use of the weapon is not well supported.

That's interesting, I really don't know very much about Canada being tied to the Manhattan project. Didn't even know that was a thing. Did some or all of the uranium come from us? And it sounds like mining it was pretty bad back then? I'm curious now, thanks.

And yeah, probably best not get into it, but even after the second bomb the war council in Japan was split 3-3 on surrendering. Those opposed felt strongly they could defeat an allied invasion and maybe they could, who knows? The Emperor was asked his opinion (very rare), he said surrender, and there was still a coup attempt by those that wanted to keep fighting to the end. US invasion planners (unaware of the bomb being a thing until it happened) estimated 500k to 1M dead troops by the time Japan was conquered.

[CaptainCrunch]

Converting to a nuclear navy would be extremely expensive and take a long time, and we would have to change how we build up our navy recruiting. We have enough trouble buying pistols and sleeping bags, Canada running nuclear submarines for example would almost be beyond our capabilities.


Canada does need to explore modern subs with Air independent systems as part of the defense of the arctic. Because Canada's navy is built around frigates on the surface fleet, its not conducive to a nuclear propulsion strategy.

[Monahammer]

After seeing the effectiveness of drone defenses in Ukraine, I am absolutely convinced that the primary military spending that Canada should engage on should be a fully domestic drone defense system. Canada needs force multiplication and has a huge area. Homegrown allows us to potentially export to allies, while also ensuring our own defense permanently with at least some domestically reproducible assets.

I think the scariest thing not many want to talk about during all of this is the analog between Ukraine and Canada vis a vis Russia and the United States. If the US continues to decline as a global hegemon and more volatile politicians take root, who's to say there isn't a future where they look to us for resource expansion? Maybe it's a century away, but it is sobering.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'd love to see the Canadian Military do a study on the Taigei class which is the new Japanese attack boat. But the cost per boat is about 600 million dollars.



The french have the Scorpene 2000 class that they're willing to export, The German's have the newer 214 class. which is more a coastal patrol sub.



I guess when you look at a nuclear attack boat the first thing that grabs you is the cost. A virginia class boat is about 3 billion. A LA class is about 1.6 billion in today's dollars. The trade off is unlimited range, unlimited time under water.



Most modern diesel electric boats with AIP. Have a more limited range. for example the 214 can stay at sea for 80 days. For Canada that's more then fine. the depth of dive is close to a nuclear boat. The diesel boats aren't quite as fast, and are a bit noisier at high rates of speed, so they're not sprinters.



On top of that, we wouldn't have to create a whole new nuclear engineering culture for basically 4 to 6 subs that we should probably have, and the cost would be half to buy new boats.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Wouldn't it make more sense for Canada to invest in a low-cost drone program for patroling its coasts and arctic region?

[Monahammer]

You still need command ships/ centres to run the drones. Submarines are an excellent idea for this in some cases IMO. A nuclear sub full of high power drones would be a fearsome combatant, like an underwater aircraft carrier.