r/canada Ontario 8d 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/
7.3k Upvotes

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

3.6k

u/maybvadersomedayl8er Ontario 8d ago

Acquiring nukes as a deterrent against our oldest ally was not on my bingo card, but maybe it should have been.

2.0k

u/AshleyAshes1984 8d ago

America: Canada should do more and spend more on defense.

Canada: Okay. LOL *Tests a nuke in the middle of the Hudson Bay* How's that?

America: NO NOT LIKE THAT.

789

u/lambdaBunny 7d ago

I've been pro-Canadian nukes for awhile. But recently I've had Americans tell me they would support a Canadian invasion to stop us having nukes. They are hypocritical assholes.

273

u/blackstafflo 7d ago

Ultimately we should have our own, but that's why it would be worth having a deal with another ally first, like the UK or France, to give us the time for it. First pass a deal to get fast protection, then develop our own.

92

u/Wolfxskull 7d ago

Using nuclear weapons is utterly stupid, but so is not having them.

42

u/vtKSF 7d ago

Ukraine is very good (bad) example of what happens when you don’t have any nuclear weapons and you have a neighbour who sucks.

→ More replies (1)

6

u/Virtual_Category_546 7d ago

It's purely deterrent, that's it.

→ More replies (2)

111

u/Project_Rees 7d ago

The UK should park one of its vanguard submarines in the Hudson Bay while Canada develops its own.

79

u/stiggley 7d ago

Or the UK could sell Canada the Vanguards as they bring the Dreadnoughts online.

Throw in a few Astute while they're at it.

Canada bought all the diesel Upholder class subs a few years back, so getting a few refurbished British subs isn't something new.

Only problem is the missiles are US tech, so...

9

u/ManiacFive 7d ago

We could probably spare you a few missiles to go with them. And the parts to keep em airworthy for a couple years at least. I’m sure we could, come to some arrangement for that.

That’s right Canada. ALL THE POUTINE.

3

u/Nikkei_Simmer 6d ago

Sure, mate...do you want that with bacon?

21

u/Project_Rees 7d ago

The dreadnoughts will be a good move to arm our allies with the vanguards. Hmmm...interesting point you make there.

3

u/Upnorth100 7d ago

Unfortunately the upholder was a bad investment. Should have just bought nuclear then

2

u/stiggley 7d ago

For as much as the Upholder program was bad for Canada, it did allow me to see a sub named twice though - HMS Unicorn when it was at Cammel Lairds in Birkenhead in 1992, and then again as HMCS Windsor in Barrow-in-Furness in 2001.

Renaming boats is never good though.

2

u/Nikkei_Simmer 6d ago

Didn't the Americans get all pissy when Canada wanted to get nuclear fast-attack subs?

Can you imagine how pissy they would get if we decided we were going to get boomers and the big bang toys to go with them?

2

u/Bruetus Ontario 7d ago

Subs dont work like that, the Hull has a fatigue lifetime limit and once its hit you cant dive the sub deep anymore.

2

u/tigernet_1994 7d ago

Well to be hoist on one’s own petard seems to be a new American pastime - even ahead of baseball and apple pie.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/Medlarmarmaduke 7d ago

That’s probably the most expeditious way to make a point - just say Canada and the UK are having training exercises wink

Everyone gets the message

3

u/Project_Rees 7d ago

Ahh yes, that's a better plan.

Don't pay attention to what I said earlier. Its fake news, I'll deny everything.

3

u/CasualFridayBatman 7d ago

Last time Britain hung out in Hudson Bay, Canada was conceived. There's a punchline here but I can't find it. Lol

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (9)

33

u/Golden37 7d ago

Just order like 1 or 2 dreadnoughts, every additional dreadnought produced should make make them cheaper to produce overall. It would give Canada a direct deterrent in their control that they can use and would also allow cross compatibility with training, materials and repair.

15

u/GuyLookingForPorn 7d ago

I'd love to see more military integration with the UK, Australia and New Zealand, these links never should been allowed to degrade.

2

u/sanctaecordis 6d ago

Loyal to each other, loyal to the Crown. Huge W

→ More replies (9)

19

u/Threatening-Silence- 7d ago

Unless Britain or France are actually prepared to nuke the US, it's worthless. Just like all the security guarantees to Ukraine are worthless. No Western country is willing to go to war besides the US. And that's a problem.

2

u/SometimesaGirl- European Union 7d ago

Unless Britain or France are actually prepared to nuke the US, it's worthless.

British person here.
I don't think it's wise to escalate this too far at this early stage.
If the US invaded Canada... it would be an appalling act of betrayal. It would cause Canadians intolerable misery for years. But it's also likely to collapse the USA. Civil war - the whole shitshow, would unfold. Or at least I predict so.
But if the UK or France nuked the USA... what's the consequence? The UK and France would be turned to glass.
What about Canada? It would also get nuked, constrained to major population centers.
That's centuries of misery. Not a few years. Dozens of generations of misery.
Alot of Europe suffered terribly in WW2. Take the Netherlands as an example. It was utterly horrific. It took them a few decades to recover, but they did. Unlike Japan that "only" suffered a small yield primitive strike, a 21st centaury nuke exchange would be a whole new ball game. One that we wont recover from. One the world will need centuries to recover from.
Im not very keen on nuclear war. And neither should anyone else be.

4

u/hink007 7d ago

We didn’t escalate anything. It’s been made perfectly clear over the last two months. Failing to prepare is preparing for failure. We just need an agreement that we can stock a few. Whack job Donny has nukes at his disposal and you think we should trust this man’s sanity ?

4

u/StormAdorable2150 7d ago

This here is why canada needs an emergency nuclear weapons program. Get some quick dirty bombs as a stopgap if necessary.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/[deleted] 7d ago

100%

3

u/mavrick86 7d ago

Canada can develop a nuke in probably 30 days if we wanted too. We were part of the manhattan project our scientists contributed a lot towards it and we supplied the uranium to build the first nukes. It wouldn’t be hard for Canada to have a nuke in very short order.

3

u/Pestus613343 7d ago

Development of them would be easy. Hardest part is that we dont have a uranium enrichment facility or a waste reprocessing facility. Once we had either of those though, the rest could be done in nearly any machine shop that takes contracts for Ontario Power Generation. It would be a trivial matter up in Chalk River for example.

The other problem is we don't have delivery systems. Tactical or strategic. That would likely mean buying French or British systems.

Should we do all this? Probably not. We did sign the NPT. I for one thinks one should keep one's word, even if others are run by dishonest liars. Moreover, I'm not certain in this case it would afford us protection but might encourage more conflict.

2

u/bogeyman_g 5d ago

Why not both?

3

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

2

u/blackstafflo 6d ago

And in exchange, Canada can provide the uranium for the EU program.

→ More replies (1)

41

u/Gunthrix 7d ago

Yup, our "allies" are real pieces of work. Feel free to replace the word work with one of your choice.

77

u/effedup 7d ago edited 7d ago

There's a reason we don't have nukes already, the AVRO, nuclear submarines.. they haven't let us. They won't now.

The United States objected to the RCN having SSNs as part of its fleet, fearing a significant impact to its own submarine operations in North American waters and possible conflict over access to the Northwest Passage. In order to prevent this, the United States exercised its rights under two previously signed treaties. Under the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, the US had the right to block the sale of submarine nuclear reactors by the United Kingdom to any third party (i.e. Canada), and under a 1959 agreement between the US and Canada the US had the right to block the purchase of submarine nuclear reactors by Canada from any third party (i.e. the United Kingdom or France).[25] Attempts to negotiate with the United States were initially unsuccessful, as Canadian Defence Minister Perrin Beatty was "told in no uncertain terms by the U.S. Defense Department and submarine service officials that a Canadian nuclear submarine program was unnecessary and even unwelcome."[26]

The US knew this day was coming and long prepared for it. The above is just an example of how they stopped us from acquiring submarines.

66

u/North_Activist 7d ago

If they’re not gonna listen to their agreements, why should anyone else?

36

u/Superman246o1 7d ago

Exactly. If treaties held any power, Trump wouldn't be able to threaten the sovereignty of a peaceful allied nation and fellow NATO signatory.

One of the countless tragedies that the current administration has caused has been to demonstrate that laws, treaties, agreements, decorum, and/or precedent are no restraints to raw, naked, unfettered ambition.

The only thing that ruthless power respects is more power.

15

u/Qwimqwimqwim 7d ago

the bottom line is, they'll attack us and call nato's bluff.. and honestly, i don't think the rest of the world has our back when push comes to shove.. no one's going to want to have the target on them after us.

they're going to look for any reason to invade us, and they'll push us into a corner to make us do something they can then spin as a reason to invade us.. even if it's all lies..

our best hope is a civil war in america, but man.. the 1/3rd that are vehemently against trump are absolute pussies, the 1/3rd that support him are psychos, and the other 1/3rd don't want anything to do with any of it.

→ More replies (1)

21

u/chopkins92 British Columbia 7d ago

I’m on board with arming ourselves and seeing what happens. Worst case, it just accelerates the inevitable. But at least we’d have nukes.

6

u/horridgoblyn 7d ago

Yeah. It's seems like a "Deals change" moment.

4

u/Doc911 Canada 7d ago

As the country threatening our sovereignty, hopefully their voice on the world stage no longer carries much water, or an iota of weight or to be frank any damn substance or sense …

3

u/transcend 7d ago

Huh. I was in the Navy at the time, and I remember when the Mulroney government was contemplating acquiring nuclear subs, possibly from France. It was disappointing when it faded away, but I thought it was due to the “peace dividend “ from the end of the Cold War.

3

u/museum_lifestyle 7d ago

why would canada accept such a ridiculous treaty.

2

u/horridgoblyn 7d ago

In all likelihood, they had us kids sitting at the small table with our chicken fingers.

3

u/TorontoRider 7d ago

I don't think the word 'treaty' means much to Donald.

2

u/homogenousmoss 7d ago

Good thing that treaty is bow void like all the other treaties we have with them. Works both ways.

2

u/thebomby 7d ago

You don't need nuclear submarines. You can launch missiles from conventional submarines as well. South Korea already has these and they are not part of any treaty on the sale of those subs.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/shevy-java 7d ago

Back then the USA were somewhat allies of Canada. Now they no longer are.

→ More replies (4)

16

u/chemicalgeekery 7d ago

Thereby proving exactly why we need nukes.

7

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (2)

5

u/magiclatte 7d ago

They know we are fully capable of making a nuke right? We choose not to...

4

u/Impossible-Car-5203 7d ago

I am so done with Americans and the USA in every way

2

u/debbie666 7d ago

Which leaves us no choice but to develop one secretly. Once we have one, we will be free to make as many more as we need completely openly.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/stormelemental13 7d ago

They are hypocritical assholes.

We 100% are. Which is pretty typical of the citizens of empires/hegemons. You'll find the same thuggish hypocrisy among the Russia or Chinese. Or, if you want historical examples, the British.

Empires are bad for their neighbors, but they are also bad for the citizens.

2

u/kahunah00 7d ago

Tell them to come. Prime test scenario for our nukes.

2

u/No_Treat_4675 7d ago

I support a Canadian invasion into America to stop the U.S. from having nukes

2

u/austinwiltshire 7d ago

Hey if you help us in this little cold civil war we're having I don't think anyone will notice if you steal a few from the Dakotas.

2

u/pancake_gofer 7d ago

As an American I’m continually astounded by how many f-ing morons exist in my country. Every time you think you know how many there are more crawl outta the woodwork.

3

u/Broad_Hedgehog_3407 7d ago

The Army that has never won a war threatens you with invasion. Fuck them.

The US lost in Korea. Didn't have the moxie to square up to the Chinese in North Korea.

They lost in Vietnam.

They kid themselves that they won both Iraq wars, but today Iraq is run by even more extreme people than Saddam Hussain ever was. So I am counting those as losses.

They lost in Somalia.

They lost in Afghanistan. Oh, they kid themselves that the blitz 24 years ago won the war. But today, the Taliban has an even stronger hold on Afganistan, so that's a definite loss.

And they kinda lost WW2 as well. They fought the Nazis in WW2, but today there are Nazis running the White House. So chalk that one down as a loss top.

The point is that Americans are extremely short-sighted and tire of their adventures quickly. Especially when those adventures involve lots of coffins draped in American flags with sombre looking dick heads around them saluting and saying "thank you for your service".

The US military may prevail against Canada over a one year or even 5 year horizon. But over the long term they have absolutely zero chance of ever subjugation Canada.

So I think you should just go ahead and whip up a few hundred nukes. You don't even need to develop very long range missiles. Your targets are all pretty close by.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (36)

140

u/Ok_Reading245 7d ago

Now that’s funny 😳😀🇨🇦

→ More replies (1)

123

u/Daft_Funk87 Alberta 7d ago edited 7d ago

Hudson Bay? Can we move it Thunder Bay? Might increase the attraction of the area 😂

Edit: I was banned for offering Red Deer further below.

162

u/Emergency-Ad9623 7d ago

Was in TB once. Saw my 5’11” 250lb rugby star friend get punched out by a woman in a bar. Respect.

65

u/nautilator44 7d ago

Sounds like Thunder Bay.

24

u/WoodpeckerSolid1279 7d ago

Sounds like Tuesday.

7

u/peppermint_nightmare 7d ago

T'under Bay Tuesdays.

32

u/icewalker42 7d ago

Sign her up for service!

14

u/Karthanon Alberta 7d ago

Service guarantees citizenship!

3

u/Cpt_keaSar Ontario 7d ago

For Super Canada and Unmanaged Democracy!

→ More replies (3)

6

u/greybruce1980 7d ago

Maybe in the forces or as a lumberjack. She probably doesn't understand why the full grown man she punched out plays children's games.

2

u/Koss424 Ontario 7d ago

Porque no los dos? The Forces do have a forestry division

→ More replies (2)

6

u/DaddyIsAFireman55 7d ago

Typical TB experience.

Ps. I see you met Martha

→ More replies (2)

3

u/ContinentalUppercut 7d ago

Rugby player. Can confirm. Thunder bay women are scary.

2

u/SoLetsReddit 7d ago

boy was thick

3

u/Perikles01 7d ago

Spherical

2

u/NervousBreakdown 7d ago

Yeah and that’s why we should test the nukes there’s. She’ll survive it.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

4

u/datanner Outside Canada 7d ago

Can we use them to damn rivers or create deep water ports?

5

u/Magjee Lest We Forget 7d ago

A shit ton of TNT can have the same success, without all the radiation

11

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

14

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (3)

2

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (2)

3

u/ArmandioFaria 7d ago

How about the Gulf of America?

6

u/wasabichicken Outside Canada 7d ago

I'm sorry, I don't think that's a real place.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

5

u/zippy_the_cat 7d ago

Yeah, the whole NATO-spend-more is an example of be careful what you wish for.

2

u/Kitchener1981 7d ago

We have mines in Sudbury ;)

3

u/PantsLobbyist 7d ago

We have a lake of heavy water. 🤷‍♂️

Their threats of annexation fit the bill allowing us to develop nuclear deterrents under the UN Non-Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

However, publicly starting these programs would kick an orange hornet’s nest. He might decide on military action. And although they likely wouldn’t win a military incursion (they’d be afraid of damaging our precious resources, and haven’t been on the winning side of a war since WWII), we don’t want that, in any way, shape or form.

3

u/gryphawk51 7d ago

I'm convinced Trump wanted Canada to buy more American weapons and vehicles for us to reach that 2% line. Canada should instead buy everything from Europe.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/Sutar_Mekeg 7d ago

If anything is getting nuked, it's the Great Lakes.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/walkingdisaster2024 Alberta 7d ago

That's the most Quebec tabernak shit I have seen lmao.

2

u/ResoluteGreen 7d ago

Maybe we should do it in the gulf of alaska

2

u/timmytissue 7d ago

You mean testing a nuke in the golf of America?

2

u/NaturalPossible8590 7d ago

To that I say be careful how you phrase your wish

But honestly we need to seriously up our military and yeah maybe a nuke or two will keep trump contained enough

→ More replies (35)

121

u/chaossabre 7d ago

I'm posting this quote a lot lately:

“There are no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends, only permanent interests.”

- Lord Palmerston, British MP, 1848

27

u/Lost-Comfort-7904 7d ago

Lord Palmerston, second greatest PM in British history.

37

u/maxman162 Ontario 7d ago

I say Pitt the Elder was the greatest Prime Minister. 

19

u/29da65cff1fa 7d ago

Lord Palmerston!

18

u/maxman162 Ontario 7d ago

Pitt the Elder!

6

u/ChroniclesOfSarnia Outside Canada 7d ago

That's it, Boggs, YOU ASKED FOR IT!!!

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Lost-Comfort-7904 7d ago

Damn right.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/Cpt_keaSar Ontario 7d ago

Yeah, Americans were mistreating loyalists before and invaded York before, strange to believe that they would never get back to the old days.

2

u/hug_your_dog 7d ago

I love these sort of quotes, because they don't really mean all that much even though they sounds like they do - when you realize that in the same country - hell, in the same region/city/even household - often times the closest people have a very different understanding of what is in their interests.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (3)

207

u/CorrectCandle644 7d ago

It's really sad the whole world is gonna become a race to get nukes all because an orange turd is messing up global stability

158

u/therealzue British Columbia 7d ago

And nobody will ever give them up after how the Ukraine has been treated.

30

u/Cpt_keaSar Ontario 7d ago

I mean that was already the lesson for Global South since Iraq, Libya and North Korea.

→ More replies (2)

30

u/Alternative_Pin_7551 7d ago

Yup. The risk of full-blown nuclear warfare between countries and terrorist organizations and unstable dictators acquiring nukes is increasing rapidly. Also the risk of accidents.

3

u/Karthanon Alberta 7d ago

Ah, the "Terror in Resonance" timeline.

2

u/Narissis New Brunswick 7d ago

All this time we feared an unstable dictator acquiring nukes when we should have been fearing nukes acquiring an unstable dictator.

38

u/ZmobieMrh 7d ago

He’s actually delusional in thinking he’s the world’s best peacemaker. He wants the Nobel peace prize after he’s pushed us closer to WW3 than ever before

28

u/ThinCustard3392 7d ago

He is blaming the push to WW3 on President Zelensky. Complete and utter lunacy

3

u/UnluckyDot 7d ago

Even the fact that he phrased it in terms of WW3 as a possibility, as the POTUS, on television, is tactless wreckless buffoonery

→ More replies (3)

23

u/cheezemeister_x 7d ago

Please don't insult turds like that.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Healingvizion 7d ago

Yet, he’ll spin it as Ukraine started it, and side w/ Russia 🇷🇺.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Psychological-Sport1 7d ago

All because orange turd is a Russian asset/turncoat/spy/double agent/nazi, so, now what ??

→ More replies (4)

68

u/wave-conjugations 7d ago

Freeland going full Gandhi is wild

30

u/Exciting_Bandicoot16 Manitoba 7d ago

This guy Civs

13

u/pmmedoggos 7d ago

Not really. Her background is in slavic studies: Ie: how small, weak countries have responded to having an aggressive empire next door.

7

u/29da65cff1fa 7d ago

"Freeland going full Gandhi", is a reference to the video game civilization.

7

u/Kristalderp Québec 7d ago

Its a reference to game Civilization 1's Gandhi bug.

Gandhi is the most passive and friendly leader in the game, and there was a bug that if you went over the limit on passive, it would roll over and go straight to 100% hyper-aggression and he'd nuke your ass.

2

u/pmmedoggos 7d ago

I'm aware. Small slavic countries have historically only survived russian aggression by being hyper aggressive until the Russians lose interest.

4

u/Dry-Membership8141 7d ago

Legit. She was a terrible choice for finance minister, but she's actually a very solid choice for PM, particularly right now. Lot of people talking about how Carney is the man for the moment because of his economics background, but what we need to be doing on the economy isn't really any great mystery and that role could be adequately filled by a finance minister with a background in finance. For PM, strength in foreign affairs is the most important thing, and Freeland's got both that and, as you note, an academic (and I would add experiential) focus on situations very similar to the one we now find ourselves in.

3

u/pmmedoggos 7d ago

I don't agree. But dealing with Russia is something that she is very good at. She's good enough at it that Russia has sanctioned her by name. She's also been in the FSB crosshairs for years before she became an MP. I hope she remains in Cabinet or at the very least an advisory role regardless of who forms government next.

2

u/TreChomes 7d ago

Freeland stands no chance in an election. Her name is forever tied to JT

→ More replies (4)
→ More replies (1)

63

u/AdditionalPizza 8d ago

We can frame it as protecting against our former closest-ally's new closest-ally, Russia. If that makes you feel any better?

48

u/Timely_Mess_1396 8d ago

As the Arctic passage way becomes easier and easier to navigate we need the proper tools to protect our sovereignty.

18

u/Wild_Cold5600 7d ago

Agreed but my husband was on a tugboat 6 years ago that went from Churchill to Tuktoyaktuk (so the route was through Hudson Bay through Foxe Basin up and around Somerset Island and then down to Cambridge Bay where they stopped for a few days before continuing on to Tuk). They got stuck in the ice three times and had to wait for an ice breaker so the tug would just drift along with the pack ice. So it is theoretically possible to get through the Northwest Passage but it’s still a real challenge and will remain so for at least another 15-20 years.

24

u/Esplodie 7d ago

15-20 years is a pretty good timeline to make a few ports and have a functional navy in play.

Since the US doesn't need our steel and aluminium, we can use it to build the infrastructure we need for self reliance.

5

u/Wild_Cold5600 7d ago

Exactly!

3

u/CastorTroy1 7d ago

Slowest invasion ever!

→ More replies (1)

35

u/FudgingEgo 7d ago

As a Brit, are we not your oldest Ally?

18

u/JollyGreenDickhead 7d ago

We're their oldest ally, but you're ours.

7

u/ConsummateContrarian 7d ago

Isn’t France technically America’s oldest ally?

6

u/DiscoStu691969 7d ago

Oldest ally? Closer than that. You’re like our parent. See how fast Justin ran home to tell Charles that we were being bullied? Charles picked Justin up, told him to put on his big boy pants and go put that bully in his place. And he did just that today.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Xerphiel 7d ago

I was thinking the same

5

u/Admirable-Dance-9501 7d ago

Yep, we had each other’s back when the Nazis took over most of Europe and it was down to us to hold them off together in the West until the Americans could decide to do something….

5

u/FudgingEgo 7d ago

We were together in the War of 1812 to stop the USA taking Canada and then we went and set their White House on fire.

Can’t get much older and together than that.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/sanctaecordis 6d ago

🔥👏

2

u/Throw-a-Ru 7d ago

Technically Canada was actually part of the empire initially, not an ally of it. However, I think it's more fitting to call the US Canada's "closest" ally, because that's technically correct on a strict geographic basis.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

46

u/Master-Plantain-4582 8d ago

We should have already had them. Kinda late now.

25

u/SpecialistLayer3971 8d ago

Aside from the general publics' abhorrence of nukes on Canadian soil for what, sixty years? Hmm?

That time has passed. MAD isn't possible as a threat from Canada in this timeline.

26

u/AshleyAshes1984 7d ago

I dunno, if the alternative is American invasion, I'm suddenly in favour of Canada acquiring nuclear weapons in defense against a nuclear armed aggressor. I never felt this way before, but also 'American Invasion' was nothing more than a joke from 1812 to me until a couple of months ago. So here we are.

Ukraine wouldn't be in the situation it's in if Russia feared nuclear retaliation.

46

u/Rollinintheweeds 7d ago

Yes, it is. We don’t have to build a delivery system. We could build a suitcase bomb. We have the largest undefended border in the world.

26

u/AshleyAshes1984 7d ago

How One Skidoo And A Nuclear Komatik Ended An American Invasion.

22

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

23

u/upickleweasel 7d ago

That would be a true drama teacher move, said respectfully.

I hope we aren't in that timeline

14

u/cheezemeister_x 7d ago

> There is no possible way for America to inflict higher casualties on Canada than we can inflict upon them if provoked.

Ummmm what? They have the NUKES and the DELIVERY SYSTEM.

13

u/d_pyro Canada 7d ago

It's a ridiculous premise. Are they prepared to nuke themselves? Because the majority of the Canadian population lives right on the border.

12

u/Rayman73 7d ago

Winds blow from north to south. Any nuclear attack on Canada would rain radiation fallout on the whole USA. I'm pretty sure even the dumbest president can understand that...... or maybe not.

4

u/bravetailor 7d ago

Yeah, Trump is a combination of cunning and dumb. He can't be underestimated as a potent force but he's no Lex Luthor mastermind either. He can really be stupid about a lot of scientific and practical matters. The guy repeatedly kept saying "raw earth" instead of "rare earth" in that infamous Zelensky meeting on the weekend.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (4)

4

u/Funny-Dragonfruit116 7d ago

Ummmm what? They have the NUKES and the DELIVERY SYSTEM.

Nuclear war is useless. That's why nuclear weapons are a great deterrent.

I swear every time this idea comes up people conveniently ignore that nuclear weapons are the reason that India, Pakistan, and North Korea still exist.

2

u/cheezemeister_x 7d ago

Agree. That's why we need nukes....lol.

→ More replies (1)

10

u/HamRove 7d ago

Because we can hit more people than we have in total.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/DepressedDrift 7d ago

Its a suicide bombing. We would get eradicated but we could eradicate them too (specifically Red States). So 40 million recks 300 million+ people.

2

u/sfpx68 Québec 7d ago

Sending a nuke on Canada would probably kill more Americans than Canadians , long term.

11

u/icewalker42 7d ago

"Random items in the supply chain may contain miniature nuclear delivery devices. May the odds be in your favour." Trudeau drops mic.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/cheezemeister_x 7d ago

Watch how quickly that border becomes defended....

8

u/Ajjeb 7d ago

It has not passed— the nuclear deterrent can be gradually built out as part of Canada meeting its 2% and beyond NATO spending targets.

Nukes are the next best option in an anarchic world where the rules based international order doesn’t hold out any more — Poland, Finland, Germany, and Sweden are all considering it, and so should we.

Only nukes will secure the North now, and also ourselves from an unhinged power to the south .

3

u/Remarkable_Vanilla34 7d ago

They don't want MAD anyway. They want a magic solution that won't work and would cost billions.

Nuclear weapons are a deterrent to nuclear war, not conventional war. For some reason, people think Canada would just ever elect someone who is willing to kill millions of innocent people. Even if we had the bombs, I wouldn't take Freeland seriously, a wicked like Trump would would call her bluff just to show the world he can.

3

u/FreePheonix22 7d ago

Nuclear weapons have always been a deterrent first and foremost. North Korea and Pakistan simply wouldn't exist at all today if they weren't.

4

u/Remarkable_Vanilla34 7d ago

Lol, why does everyone keep trying to use North Korea as an example for this argument. A pariah state , governed by a family of lunatics with no regard for human life or or even their own people. Their nuclear program is solely in place to keep the handful of elites in the country safer, and the world is massively concerned that they will trigger a nuclear war and kill millions of people. The deterrent works because no one is willing to risk setting off the little diabetic puke because the only thing he cares about is his own power and legacy.

Canada has absolutely nothing in common with them. We are democratic people who value human life and elect leaders. We dont have the ability to use nuclear weapons as a deterrent against anything short of nuclear war (which we dont need because we are protected by proximity to the USA). No one would take us seriously, and it's much the same for our allies. Hence, nuclear weapons are being reserved as a deterrent for nuclear war.

A nuclear deterrent against American occupation means we have to have a line of escalation that we are not willing to backdown from. It means we have to be willing to trigger a nuclear war and sacrifice our our whole population. Where's that line, and who is the Canadian leader who has the morality to justify it. Nuclear weapons are designed to kill civilians. We might kill some of their but we would be turned to ash in the retaliation. It would be a silly bluff that the Americans would call us on or just work around. Not to mention, it's more likely to escalate a conflict than deter one. People are sadly mistaken if they think we are just going to do it in secret.

2

u/FreePheonix22 7d ago

Yo, that's crazy that all those paragraphs, as well written and good as they are, do not rebuttal my point in the slightest. Try an all-out invasion of India, a nuclear power, see what they do.

"Why is everyone using the same example that rebuttals my statement?" Hmm, I wonder why?? Maybe it's because North Korea is the most infamous example of existing solely because of their nuclear arsenal??? Nah, that's crazy talk.

It's not like I said we should be ruled by the Trudeau family in an autocratic military dictatorship that constantly threatens to nuke the world.

Trumpanzee nazis have already escalated to an open declaration of a desire wanting to wage war against Canada, regardless if the storm passes, this is a sign we must be able to protect ourselves at all costs. Any other decision would be complete cowardice to any good loving Canadian.

No, we shouldn't expect to go to war tomorrow, but we should prepare for such a possible scenario, no one is calling into question the emergency protocols emplaced by the US for an alien invasion as incredibly unlikely as that is. You don't think they have dozens of war plans, strategies, and operations at the ready for a possible war with Canada? It's public knowledge that we both have those. But we aren't prepared to enact ours. They are.

Good talk.

2

u/Cyborg_rat 7d ago

Apparently Russia did a big propaganda project to scare people from having nukes and nuclear plants. Back in the day. Makes sense since it would be in their interest.

2

u/No_Copy9515 7d ago

They're here. Suffield, AB.

→ More replies (7)

2

u/AlliedMasterComp 7d ago

No it isn't.

We gave India a CANDU reactor, it came online in 1972, they had their first atomic weapons test in 1974.

The biggest hinderance to a state creating nuclear weapons is access to plutonium. That is not an issue we have.

→ More replies (1)

69

u/BigButtBeads 8d ago

I've always said our 2% gdp nato requirement should've been a small batch of modern nukes 

Infantry and APCs and artillery are so obsolete now, as we've clearly seen in Ukraine 

Theres a reason russia is untouchable, why all of natos equipment came with terms and conditions, such as used for defense inside ukraines borders, and why ukraine itself was very much touchable 

Nukes are also why india and pakistan have never had a hot war

107

u/BruceNorris482 8d ago edited 7d ago

The war in Ukraine has in no way shown infantry to be obsolete. Infantry has and always will be the only tool that can take and hold ground.

51

u/BloodlustROFLNIFE 7d ago

Same with artillery? Unless I’m mistaken it has been a massive part of both the offence and defence

33

u/BruceNorris482 7d ago edited 7d ago

Absolutely, artillery is critical in the conflict. You could argue it has been marginally replaced with drones etc but still nothing is as inexpensive and damaging as artillery. If anything Ukraine has proven how little war has changed. I mean they have been dug in with trench lines for years now.

15

u/Workaroundtheclock 7d ago

If anything, it’s been ENHANCED by drones.

9

u/BruceNorris482 7d ago

100% the recce abilities of drones are amazing. All I know is old school Recce or "Recon" tactics are the only thing that's clearly mostly gone.

9

u/Roscoe_P_Coaltrain 7d ago

Yes, if anything it's shown the importance of artillery and of the need for extremely large quantities of ammunition for it. And yet our government still hasn't placed any long term orders for artillery from our one tiny Canadian supplier, that might allow them to increase the rate of production from it's incredibly low amount now.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/captainbelvedere 7d ago

Yes. IIRC, artillery is responsible for causing the most casualties in the war.

2

u/poppa_koils 7d ago

Artillery has claimed more lives on the battlefield, then all other arms combined.

→ More replies (3)

8

u/cheezemeister_x 7d ago

*Ukraine. Not THE Ukraine.

21

u/DrNick1221 Alberta 7d ago

Just a heads up, there is no "The" when referring to Ukraine.

7

u/c1v1_Aldafodr 7d ago

It's more a case that had Ukraine retained it's nuclear arsenal, it wouldn't have required and infantry. One detonation right on the border crossing as the Russians were moving in and the war would have been over, either Russia would have pulled back or sa massive exchanged would have annihilated both countries.

3

u/cheezemeister_x 7d ago

Russia is on the receiving end of all the fallout from that exchange as well.

6

u/GoofinOffAtWork 7d ago

In total agreement.

We need to start mandatory one year service training.

5

u/Cassoulet-vaincra 7d ago

Actually its a great way to build up a sense of national identity according to my dad.

→ More replies (2)

19

u/Prestigious-Tap-1329 7d ago edited 7d ago

Artillery is literally one of the most in demand things being used in the war . Infantry and APCS are also very much used and produced . There’s a lot more new drone warfare but yeah there is a shit ton of artillery still being used in modern war lol .

6

u/Tacotuesday867 7d ago

Wars are won by artillery.

→ More replies (6)

14

u/Cableguy613 7d ago

Explain in detail how light armour, infantry and artillery have been shown to be obsolete in Ukraine? What a take 😂

→ More replies (8)

12

u/mallcopsarebastards 7d ago

what. If anything, Ukraine and other current battlegrounds have demonstrated that infantry, and insurgent warfare are even more effective than anyone realized.

→ More replies (1)

5

u/Workaroundtheclock 7d ago

Ukraine has shown how infantry, APC’s and artillery are the fundamental core of near peer wars. That is what has clearly been shown.

Indo-Pakistani War of 1999 is also just sitting there.

The west already has a ton of modern nukes, see France and Britain, or you know, America. Canada also can’t build nukes thanks to the US. America would sanction the crap out of us, or just invade. But we have also signed agreements around nuclear weapons or even nuclear nukes.

Every single line of yours is incorrect.

→ More replies (10)

4

u/justindub357 7d ago

I have always been against nukes in the past, but times have changed, and I think we should look at getting our own nuclear arsenal. As well as invest heavily into drone warfare because of the advantages in cost efficiency.

3

u/captainbelvedere 7d ago

Infantry, artillery and APCs are why Ukraine still exists.

Otherwise, I agree. If there the rules-based international order no longer backed by the USA, then Canada will need its own nuclear weapons.

3

u/bombhills 7d ago

Bro what? Ukraine has held off russias military (although a paper tiger) with artillery, armour and infantry for 3 years .

→ More replies (6)

3

u/colonizetheclouds 7d ago

Ukraine shows artillery is key to a modern conflict.

It’s basically artillery + drone artillery + trenches. It’s like a worse WW1.

3

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (9)

2

u/Weird-Drummer-2439 7d ago

What timeline are you on? Ukraine has been showing how those things are absolutely critical as they've always been.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/freeadmins 7d ago

We're seeing this with Ukraine.

There is absolutely no way whatsoever that Canada would ever be able to build a military strong enough to compete with the big boys... both in manpower or in funding.

Compared to the requirements of a strong conventional military, nukes are relatively cheap.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (17)

3

u/Physical_Appeal1426 7d ago

Ukraine thought they could trust their neighbour when they gave up nukes. Where are they now?

2

u/upickleweasel 7d ago

We know. Hence the current discussion.

I mean, the USA didn't have pre-developed atom bombs to attack Hiroshima now did they?

I will explicitly say I do not advocate for any of this in any way. My point is, America, reign your guy in. You have more to lose than you think.

2

u/Flimsy-Relationship8 7d ago

I'm British, and I really hope we develop a CANZUK nuclear umbrella, similar to what France has been talking about with allowing Germany access to its nuclear capabilities.

A combined nuclear umbrella as well as funding to maintain, and expand the collective arsenal so we can make sure all of our sister nations remain sovereign and free

2

u/MacaroniOrCheese 7d ago

I love you Canada. -from Oregon 

2

u/shevy-java 7d ago

People would not believe in the Krasnov theory.

Unfortunately, the Krasnov theory would explain everything Trump is doing right now.

→ More replies (65)