Canadian Nukes? Should Canada consider arming themselves with Nuclear Weapons as Deterrent to Annexation Threat by Uncle Sam?

In light of the existential threat by Donald Trump, should Canada consider arming themselves with  nuclear weapons as deterrent?

Mushroom Cloud over Nagasaki, August 9, 1945

First, experts from the south of the border think it’s not advisable to do so:-

No, Canada should not pursue nuclear weapons, even as a deterrent against a hypothetical annexation threat from the United States. Here’s why:

1. No Realistic Annexation Threat

• The U.S. and Canada are among the closest allies in the world, with strong economic, military, and cultural ties.
• The idea of the U.S. invading Canada is highly improbable, given shared membership in NATO, NORAD, and numerous defense agreements.
• Any territorial ambitions from the U.S. would come with immense political, economic, and diplomatic consequences.

2. Nuclear Proliferation Risks

• Canada is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and has a long-standing policy against nuclear armament.
• Acquiring nuclear weapons would violate international agreements and damage Canada’s global reputation as a leader in diplomacy and peacekeeping.

3. Security Without Nukes

• Canada already enjoys strong defense protections, including NORAD cooperation with the U.S.
• A conventional military buildup or deeper alliances with NATO partners would be more effective in maintaining sovereignty.

4. Economic and Environmental Costs

• Developing and maintaining a nuclear arsenal is incredibly expensive.
• Canada’s stance as a leader in disarmament and nonproliferation would be undermined, leading to potential trade and diplomatic consequences.

5. Alternative Deterrence Strategies

• Strengthening conventional forces and cyber defense.
• Expanding military cooperation with allies like the U.K., France, and NATO.
• Leveraging soft power and economic resilience.

Conclusion

Canada does not need nuclear weapons. The idea of a U.S. annexation is more of a hypothetical scenario than a genuine threat. A strong diplomatic stance, economic interdependence, and conventional military capabilities provide sufficient deterrence. Pursuing nuclear weapons would cause more harm than good to Canada’s security and international standing.

---

While our own expert think we should do so,

Time for Canada to consider its own nuclear deterrent

Without the reliable umbrella of U.S. nuclear deterrence, anything else Canada spends on updating and expanding the Canadian Armed Forces will sadly be moot in the face of future aggression from nuclear adversaries like Russia, China or even possibly India.

Opinion By Jamie Carroll

In 1958, John Diefenbaker’s government deployed Bomarc missiles in the Canadian North. They were supposed to be nuclear-armed, but Diefenbaker refused splitting his cabinet and souring relations with the United States. Dief lost in 1963 and the Cuban Missile Crisis revived the nuclear debate, writes Jamie Carroll. Photograph courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

Well, this is something I never expected to say: I think it’s time for Canada to consider its own nuclear deterrent.

Canada has long avoided joining the nuclear club—not because we couldn’t, but because we didn’t have to.

To be clear, Canada has always been a willing participant in the proliferation of nuclear weapons: most of the uranium enriched at Oak Ridge for the Manhattan project (and subsequent U.S. weapons) came from Canada.

In 1958, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker’s government deployed Bomarc missiles in the Canadian North. They were supposed to be nuclear-armed, but Diefenbaker refused splitting his cabinet and souring relations with the United States. Dief lost in 1963, and the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis revived the nuclear debate.

That led to Canada hosting U.S.-owned nuclear weapons at Canadian bases like Goose Bay, N.L.; Cold Lake, Alta.; and others—including our bases in West Germany—until 1984.

The last substantive debate about “going nuclear” in Canada was led by Brian Mulroney’s government and focused on the prospect of nuclear-powered and/or armed submarines. It was met with stiff opposition and our underwater fleet has remained conventionally powered with no nuclear-armed weapons either in or owned by Canada.

Having said that, Cold War governments of both political stripes recognized in White Papers in 1971 and 1987 that the existence of such weapons was a Cold War necessity, with Mulroney’s government arguing “each superpower now has the capacity to obliterate the other … the structure of mutual deterrence today is effective and stable. The government believes that it must remain so.”

This was possible because we lived under the umbrellas of NATO and NORAD—mutual defence organizations where other members had a nuclear deterrent. In both cases, the “heavy” was the United States (although France, Germany, and the United Kingdom are also nuclear powers in NATO).

That brings us to today, and—as Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy learned last week—U.S. President Donald Trump’s America is no more reliable as a military partner against Russia than it is a trading partner for Canada.

Now, before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, no one is suggesting we need to prepare for a nuclear war with the United States. What most who don’t understand the space fail to grasp is that the point of nuclear weapons is—and always has been—to reduce the chances of war. Like all human ideas, it hasn’t been perfect, but, to this point in history, only one country has used a nuclear weapon in war and that was the U.S.—twice.

Fundamentally, nothing in the above quote from 1987 has changed. In fact, the reason Russian President Vladimir Putin has been able to invade Ukraine twice is the same reason that Zelenskyy should not be bending his knee as Trump clearly expected during their meeting in Washington: at the end of the last Cold War when the Soviet Union collapsed, Ukraine was promised—by the U.S. and U.K.—that in exchange for turning over all of their nuclear weapons, the two nations would provide for its territorial security, ostensibly from whatever became of Russia.

That commitment apparently had a best-before date.

So what would a Canadian nuclear deterrent look like?

To start with, to go along with the dozen conventional SSNs (attack submarines) the Royal Canadian Navy is already planning to acquire, we should enter discussions with France to buy a fleet of horizontal launcheable, nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

Given that submarines are the most complicated piece of kit in any modern military, and that we have no recent experience with nuclear weapons, we should be buying both on an “as is” basis without any significant “Canadianization.” This is often where costs in terms of both time and treasure run wild in our procurement system.

Enormous explosion in Ukraine, exact location and time unknown

Enormous explosion in Ukraine, exact location and time unknown
byu/kingkongsingsong1 inshockwaveporn

Second, we should buy a couple dozen (also French) Raphael fighter jets armed with nuclear-armed air-launched cruise missiles. Base them at Cold Lake and Bagotville, Que., and support them with some non-F35 modern fighter jets (the Saab Grippen, for example).

Focusing on a single supplier of military off-the-shelf systems for something as complicated as our first foray into nuclear weapons is only sensible. Not only will any contracts include provisions for maintenance, but they should also include a lend/lease arrangement for initial operators and technicians. This is an area where we don’t want to scrimp on training, or pretend national pride trumps real-world consequences.

This would be a huge—and hugely expensive—shift for Canada: meeting our two per cent of GDP spending obligation to NATO would no longer be much of a challenge. And it is a shift that is entirely born out of the decisions of the Trump administration.

But, without the reliable umbrella of U.S. nuclear deterrence, anything else our nation spends on updating and expanding the Canadian Armed Forces will sadly be moot in the face of future aggression from nuclear adversaries like Russia, China or even possibly India.

Don’t believe me? Just ask Ukraine.

Jamie Carroll is a former national director of the Liberal Party of Canada who is now a (mostly) Ottawa-based consultant and entrepreneur.

---

Expert from the other side of the world kinda… “Yes and No” as below:–

The idea of Canada arming itself with nuclear weapons as a deterrent to any potential annexation threat by the United States is highly speculative and not grounded in current geopolitical realities. Here are several reasons why this is not a practical or likely scenario:

1. Strong Bilateral Relations: Canada and the United States share one of the most stable and cooperative bilateral relationships in the world. They are each other’s largest trading partners and have a long history of military and political alliance, including through NATO and NORAD.
2. Non-Proliferation Commitments: Canada is a signatory to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Acquiring nuclear weapons would violate this treaty and damage Canada’s international reputation.
3. Economic and Political Costs: Developing and maintaining a nuclear arsenal is extremely costly and would require significant changes to Canada’s defense policy and budget. Additionally, it could provoke a regional arms race and destabilize North American security.
4. Public Opinion: Canadian public opinion has historically been against nuclear weapons. Any move to acquire them would likely face strong domestic opposition.
5. Diplomatic Repercussions: Such a move would strain Canada’s relationships not only with the United States but also with other allies and international organizations. It could lead to sanctions and other forms of diplomatic isolation.
6. Military Realities: The United States has a vastly superior conventional and nuclear military capability. Even if Canada were to develop a small nuclear arsenal, it would not serve as an effective deterrent against the U.S. given the disparity in military power.
7. Alternative Deterrents: Canada already benefits from the U.S. nuclear umbrella as a NATO ally. Additionally, Canada’s vast geography, strong international alliances, and robust diplomatic channels provide significant security without the need for nuclear weapons.

In summary, the idea of Canada arming itself with nuclear weapons is not a realistic or advisable strategy. The focus for Canada should remain on maintaining strong diplomatic ties, investing in conventional defense capabilities, and upholding international non-proliferation norms.

This is the Tsar Bomba the largest nuclear bomb ever made its blast radius is 37 miles made in 1961 Oct.30

We do folks at CanuckPost think?

We think… Don’t even think because we won’t stand a chance. 

Just look at Iran, haven’t we seen what have they gone through all these years simply  trying to equip themselves with nukes to deter bullying and/or obliteration of the Islamic Republic? And why would anyone thinks Uncle Sam will threat us differently?

Bikini Atoll nuclear test, 1946

Still one of the most fascinating and frightening photos ever seen.