How would the world react if Canada decided it wants nukes?

The only way I could see Canada doing this would be to activate a secret clause of the original agreement to develop atomic weapons that Canada, upon request, would be allowed to have their own copies of any weapons developed through the development effort of the program known as Tube Alloys and or Manhattan Project due to their supplying much of the initial raw material. This section of the agreement had been hidden in classified archives for years and when the Canadians did not invoke it in the 50s and 60s and accepted Dual Control with the Americans it was believed by the few that remembered it to be lost/forgotten/destroyed.

This could probably be made into a 'Clive Cussler' type novel!
 

Ian_W

Banned
What would be the delivery method is more what i wonder. I don't see canada building a bunch of ssbn with our badly maintened ssk. So either irbm/icbm, tactical ones for in germany nato commitment (genie analog or dumb bombs with slightly bigger yield) or a dial a yield bomb like i think the us b61 ( ie small to strategic yield...).

Keep it simple.

Airdropped bomb, from whatever the RCAF is using at the time.
 

Lusitania

Donor
I am actually thinking of a POD in the 1930s that British transfer all American colonies to Canadians due to economic and political reasons. The Americans while initially upset come to an agreement that Canada will work to grant these colonies independent in the near future. Then WW2 happens Canada bolstered or due to its Caribbean colonies build an even larger navy and allows for free movement of people from the colonies to north due to shortages of workers.

Canadian economy grows even faster and also contributes additional troops and material to war effort. End of war Canada feeling smug and happy but US then demands the colonies become independent. THis happens at same time as a movement to make several of the colonies into provinces. By 1949 when Newfoundland joins the Confederation so do all the Canadian colonies into 3-5 provinces. Relations with US while civil are cooler. Canada then joins Britain in jointly developing a nuclear program and build both submarines as well as bomber and together develop jointly with Australia a Rocket program starting in the 1960.
 
Depends on the time period. In the early 50s, they don't raise too much fuss as simply another western power arming itself, under British supervision, most likely.

After nonproliferation treaties are signed, though, I think people would start to wonder why. Canada after all is under the American nuclear umbrella and is a NATO member. It has no shortage of nuclear armed allies or strategic factors that indicate it is in a strong position vis-a-vis the nuclear musical chair shuffle. And for much of the Cold War it hosted American nuclear warheads.
 
What would be the delivery method is more what i wonder. I don't see canada building a bunch of ssbn with our badly maintened ssk. So either irbm/icbm, tactical ones for in germany nato commitment (genie analog or dumb bombs with slightly bigger yield) or a dial a yield bomb like i think the us b61 ( ie small to strategic yield...).
Given the ask for a contemporary time frame...

I'm thinking air dropped gravity bombs at first (via what ever aircraft the RCAF had / has in service.)

I suppose air launched cruise missiles might be a next step ?

A lot depends on why Canada believes they need their own nuclear weapons. The likely targets would probably drive the war head and delivery system design process.

Although given the political will to do so I can sort of envision Canada being able to undertake a program that results in fission gravity bombs that could be delivered by fighter bombers (I suspect they could probably also manage to produce viable air deliverable fission weapons without a test if needed) I am struggling to come up with a viable mission for them ?

Maybe a stand off missile system could also be produced that could be launched from a maritime patrol or transport aircraft, but again who would they be targeted against ? Any nation that can't devise a credible counter to that type of weapon system probably doesn't pose a large enough threat to Canada for the Canadians to decide they need to build their own nuclear weapons.

Maybe the OP can outline the threat a bit more :)
 
Could have collaborated with either us or uk depending on when it start. But don't see it being more than symbolic. (Ie not level or us/urss or even uk/france/china but a lower level like pakistan/israel/south africa for the number or warhead. )
To somewhat recap my other posts I am not sure what the point of a symbolic nuclear program would be for Canada. When the only nation that can really be threatened by a symbolic nuclear program is either your closest ally or one of your closest allies, a nation that you have strong cultural ties with and is a nuclear armed great power, why would Canada want a purely symbolic nuclear capability ?

Maybe in the Cold War era when Canada had significant forces based in Europe a symbolic nuclear force might have had a viable mission but I can't see it today. Canada being in a position to unilaterally decide to base their own nuclear weapons in Germany in the Cold War era probably requires a number of political changes but I don't think it would have been totally out of the question given a number of post ww2 policy changes on the part of the Canadians.
 
Last edited:
To somewhat recap my other posts I am not sure what the point of a symbolic nuclear program would be for Canada. When the only nation that can really be threatened by a symbolic nuclear program is either your closest ally or one of your closest allies, a nation that you have strong cultural ties with and is a nuclear armed great power, why would Canada want a purely symbolic nuclear capability ?

Maybe in the Cold War era when canada had significant forces based in Europe a symbolic nuclear force might have had a viable mission but I can't see it today. Canada being in a position to unilaterally decide to base their own nuclear weapons in Germany in the Cold War era probably requires a number of political changes but I don't think it would have been totally out of the question given a number of post ww2 policy changes on the part of the Canadians.
I was meaning symbolic because a) budget b) don t see canada develop a urss/us level of nukes without asb pod or pod far before 1900. c) I don't think it would be used to threaten our allies but more like for our nato commitment during cold war otherwise don't see why they would develop it out of the blue.
 
I was meaning symbolic because a) budget b) don t see canada develop a urss/us level of nukes without asb pod or pod far before 1900. c) I don't think it would be used to threaten our allies but more like for our nato commitment during cold war otherwise don't see why they would develop it out of the blue.
I'm still not sure why Canada would want their "own" nuclear weapons for a NATO role vs simply being prepared to use weapons supplied by the U.S. or perhaps other nations ?

I do seem to recall reading decades ago that there was some interest within the RCAF at one point in acquiring their own nuclear air defence weapons (vs having access to American supplied ones.) That might be a point of departure but I suspect producing miniaturized nuclear war heads for a Genie or Falcon style weapon would be a complicated and expensive task for an indpendent Canadian nuclear program.

Edit to add:
I also have my doubts that the rest of NATO would have been totally thrilled with Canadian NATO forces having their own nuclear weapons that the Canadians could in theory at least have the technical ability to decide to use on their own, but to partially recap a prior post given some post ww2 Canadian policy changes it proabaly wasn't entirely out of the question.
 
Last edited:

Zen9

Banned
Supposedly there was briefly plans to plant ballistic missiles around the Commonwealth from the UK.
The only way that might actually play out is if members like Australia and Canada gained something more than just being high up the Soviet target list.

Multiple centers of command is one of the more vexing problems for the Wizards of Armageddon as I understand it.
It makes it harder to do a deal if he other side is made up more than one nuclear armed state with the power to launch independently.
 
A lot depends on why Canada believes they need their own nuclear weapons. The likely targets would probably drive the war head and delivery system design process.

Diefenbaker tells Khrushchev that if he was planning to send bombers over Canada to get at the USA, he better plan on Canadian Bombers returning the favor, and budgets for the Navaho cruise missile (taking over from NAA) as well as Bomarc SAM, and keeps the Arrow, but that's to be a Rascal or Hound Dog cruise missile carrier
 
Diefenbaker tells Khrushchev that if he was planning to send bombers over Canada to get at the USA, he better plan on Canadian Bombers returning the favor, and budgets for the Navaho cruise missile (taking over from NAA) as well as Bomarc SAM, and keeps the Arrow, but that's to be a Rascal or Hound Dog cruise missile carrier

In that case I suspect most of the world would yawn and essentially view the Canadian nuclear forces as an extension of the US and not much would change :)

On a more serious note I suspect producing warheads similar to the ones the US used on the hound dog would be a significant challenge for the Canadians, but perhaps in this setting some form of Canadian / US nuclear weapons collaboration arrangement could be worked out.
 
I think a lot of how the world reacts is related is related to why Canada does it in the first place. Does it do so in conjunction with Britain, or did the Soviets make some blatant threat against Canada and America doesn't think Canada falls under the nuclear umbrella? I think you need both a more belligerent USSR and belligerent USA for Canada to feel the need to strike out on its own or in conjunction with the UK.
 
Declassified diagram of CX-27 atomic curling stone (0.5 kT yield) designed primarily for ice-breaking, or if the Canadian team is losing real bad in the Winter Olympics

img-0425.png
 
I am actually thinking of a POD in the 1930s that British transfer all American colonies to Canadians due to economic and political reasons...
If the colonies are costing money, they only reason I can see Britain wanting rid of them, then why would Canada want them? Is there that much prestige from having Jamaica and the British West Indies?
 

Lusitania

Donor
If the colonies are costing money, they only reason I can see Britain wanting rid of them, then why would Canada want them? Is there that much prestige from having Jamaica and the British West Indies?
Canada still believed it self part of British empire. It was actually in the early 1930s that Canada along with few other British colonies achieved greater independence from Britain (Canada actually issued its own declaration of war in 1939, compared to automatically entering the war in 1914) It would of been during that time that some of the colonies could of been transferred to Canada. To help with costs and for administration purposes.
 
Top