this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2025
54 points (96.6% liked)

Canada

9400 readers
1238 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Personally, I feel like this is quite a level of escalation that I think is a bit too far for Canada. Nuclear proliferation is just incredibly risky, especially when it comes to normalizing the idea of more countries having nukes. If Canada gets nukes, then who are we to say that another country shouldn't also get nukes? What if that country is Iran, or Turkey, or some other country that has a notably loose concept of restraint while being next doors to a hostile country?

On the other hand, nuclear weapons is a form of protection that negates balance of conventional forces, and few imbalances are as great as that of Canada and the US.

For me, I think that we shouldn't get nukes, but a better idea is to help an existing nuclear power to reinforce their stockpile and come under their umbrella, like the UK or France. Canada is already one of the top uranium exporters and a major nuclear energy power, so there's little reason why we can't be a contributor to the building and maintenance of a friendly nation's nuclear stockpile in exchange for their protection.

Not to mention that it'll cut back the risk of proliferation.

[–] DarkFuture@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Nuclear proliferation is just incredibly risky

You could argue, convincingly, that it's incredibly risky not to.

Ukraine.

They made a deal with Russia to give up their nukes in exchange for Russia never invading them. Fast forward a handful of years and Russia invades them and they have no nukes as deterrent.

We're moving into a future where everyone is going to need nukes as a deterrent from being invaded.

Sucks, but humans are stupid, violent animals.

[–] Dearche@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

This is why I mentioned France and UK's nuclear umbrella. It's effectively the power of having nuclear weapons without actually having them.

Ukraine had the unfortunate fact that they only got a promise of nonintervention rather than a security guarantee backed by arms when they gave up their nukes.

Either way, while not having nukes might not entirely prevent others from pushing harder to get nukes of their own, at the very least, I believe we shouldn't be the ones starting this trend. It only takes one country with an itchy trigger finger to normalize using nukes in armed conflicts, which is one step away from preemptive nuclear war.

[–] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca 6 points 2 days ago

Fun fact, the US also provided security assurances. (Budapest memorandum.) Those turned out well, right?