AHC: Have Canada Develop And Keep Its Own Nuclear Arsenal Post WWII

Just as the title says, how could history change that Canada creates and maintains its own nuclear weapons during the Cold War? Also assuming that the war end colsly mirrors OTL, how would that affect Canada's post Cold War policy?
 
"Strikingly, Canada appears to have even refused an offer which would have seen the USA provide Canada with nuclear weapons. In 1951, an US official suggested to the head of Canada’s Defence Research Board that Canada might welcome some US nuclear bombs for its own control and use. 'As regards the possibility of bombs being stored in Canada, Dr Solandt reported that Mr Arneson had thrown out a suggestion which he might or might not have meant to be taken seriously, that the Canadian government might wish to have bombs stored in Canada for its own use.'32 Even if this offer was not serious, and whatever the details would have been, that it was apparently never explored is striking and suggests a genuine lack of interest.."
http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2013/Urban.pdf

(The paper's basic argument summarized by its author: "Canada’s non-acquisition of an independent strategic nuclear arsenal (hereafter, nuclear weapons) presents a particularly intriguing enigma for scholars of International Relations (IR), a group who have heretofore neglected this puzzle. This is because in foregoing acquisition Canada abstained from exploiting an unprecedented opportunity to ameliorate the massive imbalance in military power that existed between it and the USA. Realist theories of IR would suggest that any rational state endowed with Canada’s capabilities and facing such a situation ought to have leapt at the opportunity that acquisition presented to reduce this imbalance. Yet, not only did acquisition not occur, it seems that it was never even considered by Canada’s primary decision-makers. Below I argue that this result can best be accounted for through the recognition of the role played by trust in the Canada-USA relationship...")
 
define independent ?

- do you mean 'independent' of the US ? (i.e. as part of a Commonwealth scheme or working with the French)
- UK measure of 'independent' from the US ( see Skybolt, Polaris and Trident where physics packages and operational independence are maintained despite the use of common missile bodies etc)
- or truely independent in the model of the French or the states breaching the international agreements ?
 
Canada acquired a NORAD commitment to possess nuclear Bomarc-B and AIR-2A Genie missiles. It accepted a NATO commitment to possess an Honest John rocket battery in Europe and the CF-104 Starfighter was to deliver nuclear bombs. The last nuclear warhead left Canadian soil in 1984. The peacekeeper Lester Pearson authorized the Bomarc warheads.
 

Delta Force

Banned
Canada acquired a NORAD commitment to possess nuclear Bomarc-B and AIR-2A Genie missiles. It accepted a NATO commitment to possess an Honest John rocket battery in Europe and the CF-104 Starfighter was to deliver nuclear bombs. The last nuclear warhead left Canadian soil in 1984. The peacekeeper Lester Pearson authorized the Bomarc warheads.

The Liberals won the 1963 Canadian Election because the Conservatives didn't want to accept delivery for the Bomarc missiles they had agreed to purchase. Without the nuclear warheads, Bomarc was significantly less effective.

I've read that the United States even gave Canada something of a push towards accepting delivery of the warheads by placing nuclear armed air defense missiles along the border, and letting it be known that they would be willing to detonate warheads over Canadian cities to save those in the United States.
 
The Liberals won the 1963 Canadian Election because the Conservatives didn't want to accept delivery for the Bomarc missiles they had agreed to purchase. Without the nuclear warheads, Bomarc was significantly less effective.

I've read that the United States even gave Canada something of a push towards accepting delivery of the warheads by placing nuclear armed air defense missiles along the border, and letting it be known that they would be willing to detonate warheads over Canadian cities to save those in the United States.

The Liberals ordered the Arrow, and the Conservatives cancelled the Arrow because the bomber threat was gone, but ordered the Bomarc because there was still a bit of bomber threat. Someone found out that the Bomarc was nuclear, and decided that a manned intercepter was probably less destructive to the country, so, ordered the CF-101 Voodoo, pretty cheap. Then, they found out that the Voodoo carried nuclear Genies. Canada's defense policy never made a lot of sense. I didn't have much faith in the viability of 66 Voodoos either, but they did make a nice noise on 'burner.
 

Delta Force

Banned
The Liberals ordered the Arrow, and the Conservatives cancelled the Arrow because the bomber threat was gone, but ordered the Bomarc because there was still a bit of bomber threat. Someone found out that the Bomarc was nuclear, and decided that a manned intercepter was probably less destructive to the country, so, ordered the CF-101 Voodoo, pretty cheap. Then, they found out that the Voodoo carried nuclear Genies. Canada's defense policy never made a lot of sense. I didn't have much faith in the viability of 66 Voodoos either, but they did make a nice noise on 'burner.

How do you end up with anti-nuclear Conservatives and pro-nuclear Liberals anyways?
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The Canadians have had a difficult time generating the

Just as the title says, how could history change that Canada creates and maintains its own nuclear weapons during the Cold War? Also assuming that the war end colsly mirrors OTL, how would that affect Canada's post Cold War policy?

The Canadians have had a difficult time generating the political consensus to cover the costs of developing and sustaining anything close to "national" design/ manufacture/ operate capacity for aircraft (even subsonic), naval vessels, and ordnance; trying to do the same for nuclear weapons would be waay outside the envelope of the politically possible.

Especially given the willingness of the US to provide a strategic umbrella over Canada since (arguably) 1940-41 and the ABC staff conferences...

Canada has had - at various times since 1945 - some fairly impressive capabilities for a small nation (demographically and economically, in comparison to the regional powers), but there's never been enough resources to develop truly high-end capabilities in-house, even those that arguably would make sense for Canada and the strategic environment where the Canadian forces have to operate - nuclear-powered fleet submarines being an obvious example.

So, absent a strategic threat significantly greater than the USSR, what's the point of a "Canadian" strategic force?

Best,
 
Top