Massage Adagio
Ashley Madison

Would you be okay with Canada acquiring nuclear weapons?

Previous Thread Next Thread

Would you be okay with Canada acquiring nuclear weapons?

  • Total voters
    30
  • This poll will close: .
P

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
27,484
5,578
113
So in light of Putin being a possible threat to Western countries, we might now also have a threat from our Southern "friends".
If you think Russia is no threat, read this: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024...ambling-to-counter-russia-china-in-the-arctic

Although not owning nukes directly, this has already been somewhat contemplated, : https://www.newsweek.com/canada-nato-nuclear-weapons-trump-2039244

Canada has a shitload of uranium. All we'd have to do is enrich it.
There would be no legal obstacle to us having nukes: https://www.icanw.org/canada
They serve as an excellent deterrent. Just look at NKorea, noone dares mess with them.

National position

Canada has not yet signed or ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Canada has consistently voted against an annual UN General Assembly resolution since 2018 that welcomes the adoption of the TPNW and calls upon all states to sign, ratify, or accede to it “at the earliest possible date”. It has described the treaty as “well-intentioned” but “premature”.

Canada supports the retention and potential use of nuclear weapons on its behalf, as indicated by its endorsement of various alliance statements of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), of which it is a member
Click to expand...
 
R

richaceg

Well-known member
Feb 11, 2009
15,133
7,103
113
Phil C. McNasty said:
So in light of Putin being a possible threat to Western countries, we might now also have a threat from our Southern "friends".
If you think Russia is no threat, read this: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024...ambling-to-counter-russia-china-in-the-arctic

Although not owning nukes directly, this has already been somewhat contemplated, : https://www.newsweek.com/canada-nato-nuclear-weapons-trump-2039244

Canada has a shitload of uranium. All we'd have to do is enrich it.
There would be no legal obstacle to us having nukes: https://www.icanw.org/canada
They serve as an excellent deterrent. Just look at NKorea, noone dares mess with them.
Click to expand...
NoKor is a bad example....the only reason nobody fucks with them is because they are led by an unpredictable Dictator...You can say it's "for defending ourselves" but late to this game (nukes). I would be more in support of an Iron dome. If Russia is gonna use nukes, it won't be for Canada...and US won't make it happen. Once t hose 2 started fighting with nukes...everyone one will be fucked anyways...
 
O

oil&gas

Well-known member
Apr 16, 2002
14,091
2,313
113
Ghawar
The question to ask first is would you be okay with other
countries acquiging nuclear weapons? The list of those
countries is long and will include: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine,
Venezuela, the Phillippines, South Korea, Taiwan etc

If the answer is yes I don't see why we could not have nukes.
My concern is how costly it will be maintaining them.
 
Shaquille Oatmeal

Shaquille Oatmeal

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2023
4,474
4,320
113
100% on board with this.
Contrary to popular belief, I hold that nuclear proliferation is a good thing.
Mutually assured destruction, works.
If you don't believe me, India, China, Pakistan and North Korea are examples.
China and Pakistan have both fought wars with India and yet no nukes.
North Korea being led by a maniac is only surviving because of nukes.
So we need nukes too.
But not just nukes, we need to vastly expand our military in general.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carvher and shakenbake
P

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
27,484
5,578
113
oil&gas said:
The question to ask first is would you be okay with other
countries acquiging nuclear weapons? The list of those
countries is long and will include: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Ukraine,
Venezuela, the Phillippines, South Korea, Taiwan etc

If the answer is yes I don't see why we could not have nukes.
My concern is how costly it will be maintaining them
Click to expand...
You need Tritium to maintain them. And guess what, we have a shitload of that too

Tritium — IPPNW Canada

www.ippnwcanada.ca www.ippnwcanada.ca

www.cnl.ca

Tritium Facility - Canadian Nuclear Laboratories

The Tritium Facility is capable of handling significant amounts of tritium, up to 37 PBq (1 MCi), in research and development activities.
www.cnl.ca www.cnl.ca
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shaquille Oatmeal
S

ShootNScoot

Active member
Jan 16, 2025
78
149
33
Protecting our own homes and lives should be priority over nuclear arms. I’m more concerned with the violent crimes in our own neighborhood’s than I am with an arms race.

Based on what we currently have as a means of defence is a joke… one US aircraft carrier has double or more what we have in our entire fleet!

Unless you can match the smallest number of nukes as other countries… which we would never get… why bother.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HEYHEY, Bucktee, The Oracle and 1 other person
Shaquille Oatmeal

Shaquille Oatmeal

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2023
4,474
4,320
113
D

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,890
5,473
113
That would be a dumb idea, this is a trade war, not a shooting war.

We could from one day to another build a couple of dirty bombs, that would be more practical, and very disruptive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bucktee and richaceg
P

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
27,484
5,578
113
danmand said:
That would be a dumb idea, this is a trade war, not a shooting war.

We could from one day to another build a couple of dirty bombs, that would be more practical, and very disruptive
Click to expand...
Dirty bombs are not powerful enough


A Dirty Bomb Is Not a Nuclear Bomb

A nuclear bomb creates an explosion that is thousands to millions of
times more powerful than any conventional explosive that might be
used in a dirty bomb. The resulting mushroom cloud from a nuclear
detonation contains fine particles of radioactive dust and other debris
that can blanket large areas (tens to hundreds of square miles) with
“fallout.”

By contrast, most of the radioactive particles dispersed by a
dirty bomb would likely fall to the ground within a few city blocks or
miles of the explosion
Click to expand...
 
D

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,890
5,473
113
  • Like
Reactions: richaceg
N

nottyboi

Well-known member
May 14, 2008
23,731
2,166
113
Bottom line is we know we cannot count on the USA for ANYTHING. A small stock of 100 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them will be sufficient. We can build missiles that are dual purpose, to launch sats and deliver single warheads. Maybe we can also license Indias Brahmos 2 missile and mount them on those. We can cut back on several areas to fund it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JeanGary Diablo
Shaquille Oatmeal

Shaquille Oatmeal

Well-known member
Jun 2, 2023
4,474
4,320
113
nottyboi said:
Bottom line is we know we cannot count on the USA for ANYTHING. A small stock of 100 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them will be sufficient. We can build missiles that are dual purpose, to launch sats and deliver single warheads. Maybe we can also license Indias Brahmos 2 missile and mount them on those. We can cut back on several areas to fund it.
Click to expand...
We'd need second strike capability and a nuclear triad.
Otherwise it isn't useful.
 
P

Phil C. McNasty

Go Jays Go
Dec 27, 2010
27,484
5,578
113
nottyboi said:
Bottom line is we know we cannot count on the USA for ANYTHING. A small stock of 100 nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them will be sufficient. We can build missiles that are dual purpose, to launch sats and deliver single warheads. Maybe we can also license Indias Brahmos 2 missile and mount them on those. We can cut back on several areas to fund it
Click to expand...
There is only the delivery problem we would have with nukes.
They are very heavy bombs, and you need a capable plane to drop them
 
D

danmand

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2003
46,890
5,473
113
Phil C. McNasty said:
There is only the delivery problem we would have with nukes.
They are very heavy bombs, and you need a capable plane to drop them
Click to expand...
So, as I suggested, the first step is to cancel F35 order. In a conflict, US would pull a switch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shaquille Oatmeal
You must log in or register to reply here.
Ashley Madison
Previous Thread Next Thread
Toronto Escorts
Top Bottom