Series over the decades: Canadian nuclear, an explosive debate

Each year is an opportunity to highlight event birthdays with round figures. 10 years ago as 100 years ago, they marked the little or the big story … and sometimes find echo in our current world. In the wake of the commemorations of the 80^e Anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, look at a debate that drives Canadian defense experts.

Should Canada have its own nuclear deterrence force? The question could appear to be absurd a few years ago, but it is now concerned several analysts. And some do not hesitate to respond positively to such a proposal, in a context of tensions with Russia and disengagement from the United States of its military alliances.

“Well, this is something that I would never have thought of saying: I think it’s time for Canada to envisage its own nuclear deterrent force,” wrote this spring Jamie Carroll, former national director of the Liberal Party of Canada, in the pages of Hill Times.

The one who advised two Canadian Prime Ministers died of his argument on the American desire to restrict his interventions abroad and stop assuming his role as West gendarme. “Like the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky, learned it […]the United States of Donald Trump is not more reliable as a military partner against Russia than they are as a trading partner for Canada, “he wrote, suggesting the purchase of submarines and nuclear missiles.

Since then, similar calls have been heard in the Globe and Mail or the National Post. Counterattack calls for traditional Canada policy, which has given up its nuclear weapons for over 40 years, in addition to being a signatory to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

“Nuclear weapons are something horrible. On the other hand, it is one of the rare tools available at present which can realizely dissuade an attack, an invasion or an attempted annexation from a hostile superpower, “argues Aisha Ahmad, an associate professor of political science at the University of Toronto.

This international relations specialist comes to this conclusion because of the difficult geopolitical situation, marked by the growing hostility of Russia in the face of democracies and the falling back of the United States of Donald Trump.

“Historically, the United States has always“ covered ”its democratic allies with its nuclear arsenal, and that is why nuclear weapons have not proliferated in these countries. But Trump eroded these security guarantees, and the United States is in a rapid democratic decline. This leaves Great Britain and France as the only two democratic countries in Europe to have nuclear weapons, ”writes Mr.^me Ahmad in an exchange of emails with The duty.

To oppose the Russian threat, it proposes the creation of what it calls a “democratic nuclear force”, which would unite the United Kingdom, France and, possibly, Canada. “If we cannot dissuade the hostile powers [de nous attaquer]we present ourselves as a victim. There are very few ways to dissuade superpowers, and nuclear weapons are the most effective. Acquiring nuclear weapons would be dangerous. Likewise, not having nuclear weapons in the global context is also very dangerous, ”she says.

“Even if Canada spent until his last penny for his defense, he would never arrive at a military parity with the United States, China or Russia,” she added. “But nuclear weapons eliminate the need for conventional military parity. […] That’s it, nuclear deterrence. It is the ugliest form of peace and the worst in the history of humanity. But this is where we went. »»

False good idea?

Émile Lambert-deslands, researcher and doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Studies at Queen’s University, is fake against such a proposal.

“It is imagining that nuclear weapons can solve all our problems. As soon as we acquire it, all of a sudden, we are protected from everything. However, if that was, why do European countries invest in their conventional forces? Why do the United States have the largest army in the world? Nuclear weapon allows you to protect yourself from certain cases, but it does not necessarily allow you to protect yourself from a conventional conflict, “he said in an interview with The duty.

And in the logic of a potential confrontation with our southern neighbors, “a nuclear arsenal, that does not protect against economic sanctions or against a conflictual logic in Washington”.

The costs of such a program would also be astronomical, he observes. “The United States spends more on its nuclear weapons than Canada for the whole of its defense,” said the researcher, before comparing such a business with more modest programs. “France and the United Kingdom spend billions each year for their nuclear programs, and it is very mature programs, which are the fruit of decades of investment. While we should essentially start from scratch, catch up with lost time and do it without the help of our closest allies “, since the United States is likely to oppose such a company.

Acquiring nuclear weapons would be dangerous. Likewise, not having nuclear weapons in the global context is also very dangerous.

The creation of a nuclear bomb implies not only the enrichment of a sufficient quantity of uranium and the development of the technology necessary to contain its power in the form of explosives, but also the development of “vectors” to use it, specifies Mr. Lambert-deslandes. For example, acquire missiles, planes or submarines capable of launching nuclear weapons, which also requires considerable investments.

“This script would imply in my opinion to cannibalize the defense budget with the nuclear component. This is a problem in itself, in a ministry where there has been a lack of investment for decades for decades, “added the researcher.

Rather than embarking on the nuclear adventure, “it is necessary to reduce Canada’s dependence on the United States on military issues,” adds Stéphane Roussel, professor of political science at the National School of Public Administration. “It means being able to intervene, patrol and control what is happening in Canadian territory. It would be a huge step in a number of fields of activity, to be able to act by yourself without having recourse to the United States. It is already a very large program. »»

And until proven otherwise, underlines Mr. Roussel, “American nuclear deterrence continues to apply on the scale of the North American continent. I don’t think Canada would have anything to win by claiming to have its own nuclear capacity. ”

To watch in video