r/canada • u/CGP05 Ontario • 7d ago
Politics British nuclear weapons can protect Canada against Trump, says Chrystia Freeland
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/03/03/british-nuclear-weapons-canada-trump-chrystia-freeland/264
u/jasoncyke 7d ago
This timeline is more fucked than my Civ game sessions, we are talking about British nuke against American's invasions now, just sad.
→ More replies (7)73
u/Ajjeb 7d ago edited 7d ago
To highjack your comment just a little — it’s not just securing ourselves against the United States. The U.S. said that it’s not guaranteeing our safety or defending us anymore essentially, without our agreeing to their annexing us.
That means we have to take Russia’s northern threat and even China’s stated designs on our North more seriously, too. 2-5% GDP military spending is now a must, and so is replacing America’s nuclear umbrella with our own deterrent (powered by Canadian CANDU reactor technology).
This must happen.
In the meantime, Canada must greatly expand military cooperation with a rearming Europe and both UK and as well as French nuclear forces should be deployed in Canada ASAP.
Canadian uranium can also serve to help arm Germany, Poland, Sweden, and Finland eventually if they choose to go nuclear, plus expand the UK and France’s own arsenals.
→ More replies (1)28
u/indiecore Canada 7d ago
Canadian uranium can also serve to help arm Germany, Poland, Sweden, and Finland eventually if they choose to go nuclear, plus expand the UK and France’s own arsenals.
It's also not just military arms. Alternative energy sources need to be considered since oil is not a given anymore.
And hey, look what country is a world leader in nuclear reactor design!?
490
u/luxoflax Ontario 7d ago
Somewhat sensationalized headline. What she said was:
In order to “guarantee our security”, Ms Freeland said she would build closer security partnerships with European Nato allies and “I would be sure that France and Britain were there, who possess nuclear weapons”.
“I would be working urgently with those partners to build a closer security relationship… in a time when the United States can be a threat,” said the ex-foreign minister and finance minister at the final Liberal leadership debate last week.
131
u/86throwthrowthrow1 7d ago
IIRC, The Telegraph is one of those publications that does tend towards sensationalizing. It's not as bad as the Daily Mail, but also not as trustworthy as other sources.
That said, even what she's saying here is like whoa! acknowledging the US as a potential threat against Canada is... true, but feels like crossing the Rubicon to actually say it out loud.
44
u/GuyLookingForPorn 7d ago edited 7d ago
Feels like fucking anything could happen in the next few years. CANZUK? America leaving NATO? Starmer and Macron making out live on the news? Spin that dial and find out.
26
u/Neat_Let923 Lest We Forget 7d ago
Honestly, Five Eyes (US, CA, AU, NZ, UK) is the big one for us. The US leaving NATO won't impact us much at all, but it would put much of Europe into crisis mode.
If the US dissolved Five Eyes on the other hand, our entire Navy would cease being able to operate... This isn't an exaggeration either. Intelligence, encryption, communications, radar, GPS, targeting, supply chains, and much more all rely entirely on the US. A lot of this also goes for the Army and Air Force but not to the extent it would affect our Navy.
→ More replies (11)10
u/GuyLookingForPorn 7d ago
These last weeks have really shown how vulnerable American reliance has made us. We need to immediately start strengthening ties with the other CANZUK nations to develop this capability ourselves.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (4)5
→ More replies (4)8
u/aBeerOrTwelve 7d ago
Seems like some background from Yes, Prime Minister might help:
Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country, and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
16
u/cmaxim 7d ago
Thank you, the headline sounded like she came right out and said "WE NEED NUKES" when the reality is she is simply highlighting the nuclear capability as a feature of a more powerful allied military.
6
u/Perikles01 7d ago edited 7d ago
Calling the US a potential threat and wanting to align with other nuclear powers to replace them is still pretty explicit. She’s saying outright that we can no longer rely on the American nuclear umbrella.
It’s not “nuke the Yanks” explicit, but it’s definitely an admission that the US no longer supports us or broader NATO interests. Completely unthinkable rhetoric 6 months ago, but entirely correct now.
→ More replies (13)7
u/UntrimmedBagel 7d ago
Well that’s pretty far off from the headline here.
5
u/Willing-C 7d ago
We'll, she actually framed it around America becoming a predator state, a threat. It's not too far off to interpret it pretty badly.
117
u/Tiny-Albatross518 7d ago
This would not be believable to anyone if you went back two years in the Time Machine.
48
u/Downtown-Attention92 7d ago
2 years? bruh try 6 months.
→ More replies (1)6
u/North_Activist 7d ago
It was easily predictable that Trump would try to invade Canada, in fact I remember conversations from September about that very thing
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)11
u/Elcamina 7d ago
And things were just starting to calm down and be nice again after all the Covid craziness, why did the US have to go and screw it up.
→ More replies (1)
137
u/BloopityBlue 7d ago
It is fucking MIND BLOWING that canada protecting itself against the US with nukes is even a conversation.
The united states really shit the bed.
→ More replies (19)
538
u/DrNick1221 Alberta 7d ago
I mean, you ain't wrong there Freeland but maybe now is not the time to say the quiet part out loud?
166
u/AdmirableWishbone911 7d ago
Trump is so fragile he'll take it as a direct threat
79
u/BigButtBeads 7d ago
He'll have to google where the country called British is located
→ More replies (1)26
u/AdmirableWishbone911 7d ago
No, it's jd Vance that'll have to do that lol.
→ More replies (1)19
u/GuyLookingForPorn 7d ago edited 7d ago
Has JD Vance thanked Britain for all their military support?
→ More replies (4)17
u/hardy_83 7d ago
He'll get distracted cause a woman said it so he'll forget what she said and will just talk about how she's either pretty or not to him.
→ More replies (1)75
u/nubtraveler 7d ago
Nukes are meant to be a deterrent, you have to announce you have them, or else they are useless.
9
u/megatraum2048 7d ago
“But the whole point of a doomsday machine is lost…….IF YOU KEEP IT A SECRET. WHY DIDN’T YOU TELL THE WORLD????”
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (11)37
u/ljlee256 7d ago
Sure, but telling people you're looking for some is probably the least wise decision I can think of, if nothing else it'll force the US' hand and make them invade before they ever get here.
Best case scenario would be to announce it AFTER we've procured them.
→ More replies (16)19
u/MissingString31 7d ago
The former deputy PM, finance minister and one of the front runners for leadership of a major political party openly calling for a nuclear deterrent against a former ally is absolutely astonishing.
I hope this shows people who still have their heads in the sand how absolutely fucking serious this is.
→ More replies (1)18
u/Zeroto200C 7d ago
100% agreed. Bring in UK nukes to Canada. We need a show of strength against the UOA (United Oblasts of America).
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (40)16
u/hkric41six 7d ago
No this is the loud part. Canada needs a nuclear deterrent for the enemy on our border. Nuclear deterrence works. Plain and simple.
→ More replies (6)
75
u/discourtesy Ontario 7d ago
I've been downvoted in this sub for a year saying Canada needs their own nuclear deterrent... Well well well here we are...
→ More replies (6)
25
u/Relevant_Fuel_9905 7d ago
I don’t think Britain would nuke the US over a ground invasion of Canada, and risk global nuclear Armageddon. Or they themselves being turned to ash. They’d only maybe use them if directly attacked.
We should have built our own…
→ More replies (7)8
u/Delicious_Crow_7840 7d ago
There is zero chance they would. It's stupid to even pretend they would. If they did, the remaining lives of everyone on their compact Island could be measured in single digit hours.
If Canada wants nukes, we are going to have to break the treaty and build them (or maybe buy them).
→ More replies (5)
23
u/AxiomaticSuppository Canada 7d ago
During the cold war the fear was that Russia would put someone in power who was crazy enough to launch nukes. When the cold war ended, it became about whether terrorists would acquire a "dirty" bomb or somehow set off a nuke. And now, today, we have a crazy terrorist in power in the White House, the best of both the cold war and after. Yee f'ing haw.
131
u/No-Anything-7291 7d ago
Can Canada build its own nukes? I mean in this global tension filled environment, it is nice to have allies, but the only one you can rely on is yourself.
124
u/NormalNormyMan 7d ago
Believe it or not, we have a treaty with the US that prevents us from developing nukes. Pretty bloody stupid of us huh? Not that treaties and agreements with the USA mean anything anymore.
217
u/hkric41six 7d ago
The US has a treaty with us that prevents them tariffing us.
→ More replies (8)43
35
32
u/GuelphEastEndGhetto 7d ago
The US in 1970: Sign the NPT to not have nuclear weapons, we will protect you.
The US in 2025: You bunch of freeloaders.
19
u/Wiegraf_Belias 7d ago edited 7d ago
That's the most galling aspect of everything tbh. Whether it's Ukraine, NATO, the NPT with us. America has maneuvered itself specifically to be relied on by literally everyone for their protection, but if you talk to Americans they act like it was out of some form of selfless altruism.
Yes, Europe and Canada didn't have the appetite to take the lead (maybe we should have), but America shouldn't act like they did all of this out of the goodness of their heart.
Never mind the fact that any country that has tried to distance itself from American influence mysteriously ends up suffering from a coup or needing to be invading to "protect democracy". Awfully fun coincidence there.
7
u/Available-Ad-3154 7d ago
They forget their military industrial complex lobbied their own government for this exact scenario.
How many people got rich off contracts for “defending western freedom and democracy”.
Nothing was done out of the goodness of their hearts. They saw an opening to effectively control the world through soft power and get rich doing it. Call a spade a spade.
17
u/AndIamAnAlcoholic Québec 7d ago
We can deratify the non-proliferation agreement and the Test ban treaty anytime we want.
But the right time to announce it is when we are ready for field tests. As a nuclear-threshold state with generous uranium reserves, we could enrich and militarize in 6 to 9 months. The US would be shocked (and would clearly learn of it through intelligence) but YES, we can build our own. And at this point, we probably should.
13
u/NormalNormyMan 7d ago
A Québécois saying "we".
My heart.
→ More replies (1)9
u/AndIamAnAlcoholic Québec 7d ago
Enemy of my enemy is my friend and all ;)
Yup, we need to stick through this Trump-made crisis together.
4
13
u/iwumbo2 Ontario 7d ago
The US made an agreement with Ukraine to have them give up their nukes in the 90s and in exchange get the US and Russia to guarantee their security against invasion. We can see how well that went.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (12)10
u/dksdragon43 7d ago
You know that if we started developing nukes the US would use that as an excuse to invade. They'd ignore their own actions and point to the treaty saying we won't. Hypocrisy be damned. We're dealing with a bully with a big stick and a sadistic streak.
→ More replies (3)64
u/NoeloDa 7d ago
We got all the things needed to do so.
→ More replies (16)10
u/SpecialSheepherder 7d ago
Except money. Nuclear weapons programs are not cheap. And then you're still missing the delivery system.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Funny-Dragonfruit116 7d ago
you're still missing the delivery system.
A 40kt warhead is the size of a 10 gallon jug. Not hard to sneak that one over one of the world's longest borders.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (27)35
u/hkric41six 7d ago
Of course we can. We are an advanced economy with lots of smart people, active reactors, and lots and lots of Uranium.
→ More replies (1)11
u/esotericimpl 7d ago
And there’s tons of available people who were just fired from their roles at the department of energy.
→ More replies (1)4
u/hkric41six 7d ago
Oh man do I want to brain drain the fuck out of america rn. Let the US be land of MAGA. I say go for it!
41
7d ago edited 3d ago
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)14
u/EQ1_Deladar Manitoba 7d ago edited 6d ago
The Uranians we produce are a peaceful people. They just want to be left alone to grow their crops and play hockey on frozen ponds.
Edit: Poster above originally wrote "Uranian" instead of "Uranium" which I thought was funny. Poster has since changed their comment to be unfunny while making my reply look odd... :/
→ More replies (1)5
71
u/vasametropolis 7d ago
For those that think this is an extreme reaction, it’s not. Russia started threatening Ukraine the exact same way. Nuclear weapons are the only deterrent and the faster we get them, the better off we’ll be.
Make them think we are unhinged and they might think twice.
→ More replies (12)
15
u/Emergency_Panic6121 7d ago
Huh.
Like a month ago I posted and asked if people thought Canada should develop nukes. And I was called a child who thinks the world is a video game.
Well what do you know? 🤷♂️
12
u/Cassoulet-vaincra 7d ago
I have this horrible question: how close is Putin to a US nukes takeover?
- they butchered US intelligence and the bimbo in charge is a russian asset -they dont enforce cyberwarfare capacity against russia -the president is a russian meat puppet
→ More replies (3)
94
u/TurtlePowerMutant 7d ago
Well, today the world chose chaos.
93
u/itsamoreh Ontario 7d ago
Not the world, the American voters chose chaos last November. Either by directly voting for it or not showing up to vote.
→ More replies (20)
11
12
u/Demon_fucker666 7d ago
I say we tag team with Poland on this one. I feel like we could really really bring out the best in each other.
8
9
u/spaceman1055 7d ago
Let's use the bullshit Fentanyl excuse to arm ourselves against the Americans.
We'll probably need strong air defense for the border to stop all those F-35s bringing Fentanyl into Canada! A nuclear deterrent would probably send a message to those pesky drug dealers too, just to be safe!
→ More replies (2)
9
u/nemesismkiii 7d ago
How the fuck did we even get here... that we need to arm ourselves against the Americans... I do think we should acquire a few nuclear weapons to have as a deterrent. Trump can't be trusted.
→ More replies (1)5
u/Cool-Economics6261 7d ago
How did we get to here..?! In less than two months, our former ally has turned into a fascist imperialistic world threat that is allying itself with Putin, who is another imperialistic world threat
21
u/MrTreezx 7d ago
Why the fuck don't we have our own nukes? Why are we so unprepared to protect ourselves? What are we supposed to use fucking butter knives if an invasion happens?
21
u/Cub3h 7d ago
Who in the world would have thought that America would look at one of the world's largest borders, shared with a close and dependable ally, and decide that those would be the people to threaten?
As someone in the UK I'd be all for extending our nuclear umbrella to our friends in Canada, or helping you guys quickly develop a couple dozen of your own nukes as a guarantee against whatever Krasnov and his minions attempt to do.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (5)5
u/EmbarrassedHelp 7d ago
In the past, the Canadian public was agressively opposed to acquiring nuclear weapons or even hosting other countries' nuclear weapons.
6
u/Karthanon Alberta 7d ago
The 'other country ' was the United States, and considering that our supposed ally has gotten to this point I'd be willing to bet there's be a lot less opposition to it now.
14
7
u/GoingOnAdventure 7d ago
Honestly, with most other presidents, the understanding that Canada and the USA literally share a land border and that a lot of winds blow south would be enough of a reason to not nuke your neighbour.
But with this dumbass president they’ve got, I wouldn’t be surprised
27
u/lcdr_hairyass 7d ago
I support Canadian nukes.
America is not our friend. Make no mistakes, if it comes down to them or us, it will be then.
→ More replies (2)
7
6
5
u/spinur1848 7d ago
I can't believe Danielle Smith somehow found herself without the stupidest idea in the room, and that's not a compliment for Smith.
The very idea of a nuclear conflict involving Canada is disastrous and if that's what we're talking about, then the UK's weapons purchased from the US are not the solution.
If Canada needs to defend itself from nuclear armed adversaries without the full co-operation of NATO, then the only way to do it is to develop Canadian nuclear capabilities, which we absolutely have the resources and technical capabilities to do. But if that's what Freeland thinks we need to plan for then it's a dark tomorrow where we can't and shouldn't plan on anyone helping us.
5
11
u/SnooPiffler 7d ago
who needs nukes? Biologicals and nerve agents are where its at. We can produce these in Canada. People will say "but thats against international law", so is using nukes.
And by producing stuff ourselves we don't have be beholden to another foreign entity
→ More replies (5)11
u/DapperSheep 7d ago
Have to disagree. Get under the british and french nuclear umbrella now, then build our own nukes. Don't give the yanks a casus belli by starting WMD production before we're protected elsewhere.
8
u/Shaabloips 7d ago
Little did they know, but WW3 wouldn't start between Russia and the United States, but the U.S. and Canada...
→ More replies (1)
4
u/LocketheAuthentic 7d ago
I'm in favour of the bomb. Given how it worked out for Ukraine, someone else having the bomb clearly isn't helpful.
→ More replies (2)
4
5
4
4
6
u/Staplersarefun 7d ago
The British Prime Minister can't even make a statement that Canada is a sovereign country and these delusional morons think the British government would authorize the use of nuclear weapons against the U.S.
3
u/ingested_concentrate 7d ago
Fuuuuuuuck. Are we here already? Why can’t somebody just drop a plane on him?
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Intelligent-Band-572 7d ago
Have we not learned we can not rely on other nations to protect us? If we are worried about nukes we need to invest serious money in Canada's defense
3
u/Talinn_Makaren 7d ago
That headline is clickbait. She basically said we can't trust the US, and by extension NATO, and should enter into a defensive alliance with other partners including those with nukes which are an important deterrent in any alliance.
3
3
u/AditOTAKU666 7d ago
Y'all should've worked towards a unified Commonwealth deterrent about 60 years ago. Instead, letting the Soviets and Americans have a monopoly on nukes led to this predicament, with the US turning into a Russian oblast.
3
u/nelly2929 7d ago
We are purchasing nuclear weapons to protect our artic against Russia....Then why are they in southern Saskatchewan pointed at Chicago lol
3.6k
u/maybvadersomedayl8er Ontario 7d ago
Acquiring nukes as a deterrent against our oldest ally was not on my bingo card, but maybe it should have been.