Does Canada's military need a nuclear arms program?

Jean-Francois Belanger, assistant professor at the Royal Danish Defense College, explains why he says Canada should take advantage of its resources that are already enough to develop nuclear weapons.

+++

Connect with BNN Bloomberg:
--
BNN Bloomberg is Canada’s only TV service devoted exclusively to business, finance and the markets.

[polka]

Yes, finally someone saying it. A country with nuclear weapons dont get invaded

[VuNguyen-ucxe]

Look what happened to Ukraine after voluntarily giving up their nuclear weapons.

[bornamofid]

If Canada wants to remain sovereign, we need one of the strongest militaries in the world. Otherwise, with this much in resources, we are just waiting for the day for someone to take the keys.

[Geminixt]

As a Canadian, I endorse that no delays. PLEASE! Not just talk, it's time to walk now.

[derekcheney]

Yes, finally someone saying the quiet part out loud.

[alinathillaye]

Canadian natural wealth can not stay unprotected.

[Nonduality]

Canada's too nice. That worked for a while but it's a different world now.

[bonedust]

Ukraine relinquished its nuclear arsenal by signing the Budapest Memorandum, which provided security assurances, including a commitment from Russia not to violate its sovereignty. However, this agreement was ultimately disregarded when Russia invaded Ukraine, demonstrating the risks of relying solely on diplomatic assurances for national security. Hence, having a nuclear capability would be a smart security move by Canada.

[ylrltgj]

100%
nuclear subs, nuclear ice breakers and nuclear weapons (long and mid range)

[CretaAutentica-soym]

Yes. We require a deterrent, which is now obvious.

[inmotionadvertising]

I see a lot of Yes votes here from some smart people. Left or right views, this will protect Canada more than any jets, ships, or radar combined.

[Moekoffee]

It’s not about what Canada thinks, it’s about what Canada’s adversaries think

[peterburgess]

Every nation that signed onto the nuclear proliferation treaty did so under the umbrella of USA nuclear deterrent. This was the reasoning at the time because nuclear proliferation was sky rocketing.

Now that there is no such umbrella, there is no such treaty, and all those nations must arm themselves with nuclear retaliation potential.

Fellow Canadians, nuclear deterrent isn’t ugly. Nuclear deterrent means never having to say you’re sorry. Just ask Ukraine.

[james]

There is neither safety nor sovereignty for Canada without credible deterrence, simple as.

[Josie-fiup]

I think Ukraine 's experience shows that we should.

[chiggyvon]

Yes it does, I’ve been saying this for weeks now! I’m a gen Xer born and raised in Canada, and until recently I always believed in Canada’s non-proliferation stance. However, I now feel that to protect our sovereignty against aggression or in a worst case invasion, we need nuclear deterrence. A fleet of nuclear launch capable submarines patrolling the west/east coast and arctic.

[michellaurin]

100%, better to have it and not needing it then needing it and not having it

[miradschatten]

The world has changed and it is abundantly clear that it is necessary, given our wealth of natural resources and the willingness of others to take by force or other means. Just look at Ukraine.

[GarageShaman]

Absolutely! We need some kind of contingency against Washington's aggression.

[patrickalber]

Absolutely, we could produce one quickly.