AHC: Independent Canadian Nuclear Deterrent

Based on the following Tellus comment:

Meh, I'm fairly bright I'll admit :p

And I didn't say we didn't need any military, a small amount of land and naval forces for local relief and such is indeed necessary, but you have to admit Canada's position is fairly hopeless on the military level.

There two kinds of possible threats: the USA and everyone else. If anyone else threatens us, America has to protect us, our security is a core interest to their homeland defense. That's rather obvious.

Then comes the real one: the USA is our ally but always places their interests before ours of course. In Maine, when drawing the western boudaries, the Alaskan/Yukon boundaries and now in the Arctic/Northwest passage issues they consistently screwed us territorially. In wars, they expect us to provide them with some degree of military assistance and legitimacy nonetheless by supporting their efforts everywhere, even when they are clearly in the wrong. And we generally go along because even if 'we're bigger and on top', we're their bitches, fundamentally.

This is the real nature of our relationship with the USA. We obviously cant fight them off conventionally or even use or good relationship to gain meaningful advantages (the softwood lumber crisis or the recent mess with passports are good examples of why fellating America on a regular basis doesn't mean she'll take you out to a good restaurant), so we tend to maintain a military and just go with whatever they ask.

Civil disobedience here would be to cut our military to such bare bones that we do not have the ability to project any power overseas anymore. It's not like there's anything meaningful to lose in the process. In fact, and I'm really pushing it here, was Canada to really want to play the military game and were we willing to grow balls, the only logical military expenditure in our situation would be to invest a small nuclear deterrent and short-range missiles. That's the only military expenditure that can change our strategic situation versus no military to speak of at all. I'm not saying we should, as Im not a fan of the whole concept, but if Canada was really worried about its national security and wanted to do something about it; we have one credible threat, and nothing but that can be a reasonable deterrent.

In the immortal words of Bachmann, we too can be "too nuclear to fail" :p . If not, well, fuck it, we're going to be the bitch, so let's not pay the dinner bill at least. I'll add that STEALTH fighters are obviously a buy designed to support US operations. Canadian interests that might need defense are in the arctic and require non-stealth, multi-motor aircraft with good bad weather tolerance... the exact opposite of the over-engineered pieces of platinum garbage they're pushing on us.

So, with as late a POD as possible, make it so Canada has an independent nuclear weapons capability.
 
Based on the following Tellus comment:



So, with as late a POD as possible, make it so Canada has an independent nuclear weapons capability.

Easy.

They ask the British to share weapons technology in the late 1950's and they say yes. The chances of Britain refusing a country that was not only one of the Queens dominions but a loyal ally in world war two and aslo afterwards is close to zero. As a matther of fact the British would love to have Canadian involvement in the Nuclear weapons programme.

For a start it reduces the cost of an independent nuclear deterrent and it keeps Canada and Britain closer together and less dependant on the US.

Canada doesn't have to worry about developing its own programme from a farmers field and doesn't have to try hard to lure its best scientists back from America.
 
The nuclear-tipped Falcons Canada had sorta count...

Honestly, developing the bomb isn't a problem; closer collaboration with the UK and it happens (all the Plutonium for early British bombs came from Canada). It's the delivery system, which either has to be bought from the US or developed separately (again probably by collaborating with the UK). There also has to be a darn good to not buy from the US, as that's vastly cheaper.
 
Collaborate with the UK throughout the early Cold War period. It has to be done between 1945-1957, the closest modern Canada got to an Era of Good Feelings politically.
 
The British Army is captured at Dunkirk.

Churchill takes the blame, and his government falls. The new government proposes an armistice with Germany. He leads a fight-on faction (even to the point of attempting to overthrow the new British government). The RN is still loyal to the Churchill government, and mostly flees to Canada. Tube Alloys goes with Churchill....
 
Well an Anglo-Canadian project is very feasible. A good POD would be the 1946 U.S. Atomic Energy Act which barred Britain and Canada from the fruits of the Manhatten Poject, despite their considerable involvment.

Britain and Canada both want to have the bomb (as they did in OTL). Britain has the larger military budget and superior research capacity. Canada has already got the worlds first Nuclear Reactor outside of the U.S. (1945) at Chalk River. Their combined research allows for an earlier Commonwealth Nuclear Bomb by 1950/51. Canada produces her own nuclear weapons in conjunction of with Britain but are wholly Canadian owned. Rising defence costs and shrinking budgets mean that an ever smaller stockpile is maintained throught the 60's and 70's. By the 1980's they're all but obsolete. With the end of the Cold War, Canada becomes the first western nation to commit to nuclear disarmament and ends up being the legitimate face of nuclear disarmament through the post Cold War era and into the 21st century.

Russell
 
*GETTING* nukes early is easy-peasy. There are any number of possible PODs:

- No Manhattan Project / Quebec Agreement, for whatever reason, so Britain and Canada plough ahead with Tube Allows, and are perhaps the first countries to have the bomb (although later than OTL Manhattan Project)
- Immediately post-war Canada tells the US it needs its own independent nuclear deterrent to defend North America from Soviet bombers in the Arctic, and the Americans oblige (not unreasonable given the times)
- Canada partners with Britain after being double-crossed by the Americans, with the program going faster than OTL due to Canadian involvement, possibly beating the Soviets to the punch

...the *MUCH* harder part is delivery systems and posture.

The Americans could care less if Canada has nukes on interceptors in the Arctic. In fact it'd probably welcome it. But if the unspoken-purpose of the nuclear arsenal is to immunise Canada from any conceivable threat of US aggression, you'd probably need an IRBM or ICBM force, which the Americans would likely take as a direct threat. Simple air-drop isn't credible since the USAF could overwhelm Canada so quickly, nor is sub launch since Canada is unlikely to have a large-enough fleet.

Hell, even *RIGHT NOW* the problem is no different: Canada is a very sophisticated large country with a large and diverse nuclear industry. It could throw together a whole whack of nuclear bombs if it wanted to in short order. What it'd struggle to do is throw together some way to deliver them, Canada having no missile program or expertise to speak of.

p.s. some crazier PODs

- Trudeau pulls Canada out of NATO and goes full-bore non-aligned. America obviously take this very badly. Trudeau orders weapons to be assembled in response.
- Canada remains *VERY* closely aligned with the British post-war, Americans response to Suez as OTL, Canada thinks it prudent to go nuclear in response
- An American submarine is caught red-handed in the Northwest Passage. Canada demands in the strongest terms that the US apologise and fully recognise Canada's sovereignty there. The US makes no such assurance, relations deteriorate to the breaking point, and the PM of the day thinks it prudent to start putting together bombs just to be on the safe side

And my favourite!!! Because it sounds like the kind of crazy thing Canada would actually do / not appreciate the full ramifications of:

- AECL, totally openly and earnestly, undertakes the world's first and only civilian nuclear explosives program. Canada uses nuclear explosives to build dams in Labrador and Northern Quebec, to blast harbours in the arctic, to get at deep mineral deposits in Northern Ontario, explosive fracturing for in-situ oil extraction in the tar sands, etc, etc. Canada also exports this technology abroad, Canadian nuclear explosives being used in projects as diverse as building not one but two railroads across the Andes, open-pit diamond mining in South Africa, reservoir building in SE Australia, etc.
 

abc123

Banned
Well an Anglo-Canadian project is very feasible. A good POD would be the 1946 U.S. Atomic Energy Act which barred Britain and Canada from the fruits of the Manhatten Poject, despite their considerable involvment.

Britain and Canada both want to have the bomb (as they did in OTL). Britain has the larger military budget and superior research capacity. Canada has already got the worlds first Nuclear Reactor outside of the U.S. (1945) at Chalk River. Their combined research allows for an earlier Commonwealth Nuclear Bomb by 1950/51. Canada produces her own nuclear weapons in conjunction of with Britain but are wholly Canadian owned. Rising defence costs and shrinking budgets mean that an ever smaller stockpile is maintained throught the 60's and 70's. By the 1980's they're all but obsolete. With the end of the Cold War, Canada becomes the first western nation to commit to nuclear disarmament and ends up being the legitimate face of nuclear disarmament through the post Cold War era and into the 21st century.

Russell

Yes, this is the most plausible development.;)
 
Canadian nuclear artillery shells and relatively short-ranged missiles could ravage the northernmost U.S. cities.

I think the possibility of losing Detroit, Chicago, and Seattle would be a major deterrent. One doesn't need missiles with the range needed to hit El Paso or Hawaii.
 
Canadian nuclear artillery shells and relatively short-ranged missiles could ravage the northernmost U.S. cities.

I think the possibility of losing Detroit, Chicago, and Seattle would be a major deterrent. One doesn't need missiles with the range needed to hit El Paso or Hawaii.

Of course, if push came to shove (it never would, but for argument's sake) a Canadian nuclear force concentrated right along the border is HORRIBLY vulnerable to a US first-strike.

The advantage of long-range missiles isn't that they can hit Hawaii or Miami, but that they can be placed in hardened silos in the middle of nowhere Northern Canada.
 

Delta Force

Banned
I don't really see why Canada would feel a need to acquire strategic nuclear weapons and deterrent because it is clearly under the US and UK nuclear umbrella. Acquiring tactical devices for interceptors, air defense, and perhaps submarines (nuclear torpedoes) is more likely. Those would be less expensive to maintain because they are used by existing equipment, while a strategic deterrent needs expensive dedicated equipment like strategic bombers, ballistic missiles, and missile submarines that are of little conventional usage. There may also be tactical nuclear freefall bombs deployed by bombers or short range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles (either for national defense or for forward deployed forces in Europe).
 
Top