Key Takeaways:
- Canada is reevaluating its relationship with the United States and seeking new alliances with other mid-sized countries.
- Some Canadians are calling for the country to develop its own nuclear-weapons program as a deterrent against potential threats.
- However, experts argue that possessing nuclear weapons would not provide a significant advantage for Canada’s defense and would be a costly and unnecessary measure.
- Canada’s current collective security approach through NATO provides a range of deterrents on a superpower scale, making nuclear weapons unnecessary.
- The country should focus on contributing to military burden-sharing and relying on its collective-security umbrella, rather than pursuing nuclear armament.
Introduction to the Canadian Conundrum
The recent realization that the United States is no longer a reliable ally or even a competitor, but a tangible threat to Canada’s well-being, has sparked two different reactions from Canadians. On one hand, some are advocating for the country to reach out and renew connections with more reliable partners, while others are pushing for a more inward-focused approach, including the development of a nuclear-weapons program. This latter response is rooted in the idea that a Hobbesian 21st-century world requires individual countries to adopt nuclear arms to protect themselves.
The Case for Nuclear Arms
Proponents of a Canadian nuclear-weapons program argue that it would provide a necessary deterrent against potential threats from countries like Russia, China, and the United States. They point to the example of other countries that have developed nuclear arms as a means of protecting themselves. However, this argument is based on a flawed assumption that nuclear weapons are an effective deterrent against invasion or conquest. In reality, the possession of nuclear weapons has not prevented countries from being invaded or occupied, as seen in the examples of Ukraine and Pakistan.
The Collective Security Approach
Canada’s current approach to defense is based on the concept of collective security, which involves sharing the burden of defense with other countries through organizations like NATO. This approach provides a range of deterrents on a superpower scale, making it unnecessary for individual countries to possess nuclear arms. In fact, the idea of collective security was developed in the aftermath of World War II as a means of preventing future conflicts by providing a collective defense umbrella. Canada’s participation in NATO is a key part of this approach, and it has provided the country with a high level of security without the need for nuclear arms.
The Limits of Nuclear Deterrence
The recent examples of Ukraine and Pakistan demonstrate the limitations of nuclear deterrence. Despite possessing large nuclear arsenals, these countries were unable to prevent invasions or occupations. In the case of Ukraine, Russia’s nuclear arsenal did not deter Ukraine from invading and occupying the province of Kursk. Similarly, Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal did not prevent India from bombing its military sites or occupying parts of Kashmir. These examples highlight the fact that nuclear weapons are not an effective deterrent against conventional attacks or invasions.
Canada’s Defense Strategy
In light of these developments, Canada’s military has developed secret plans to defend against a potential U.S. invasion. These plans involve insurgency strategies and reliance on the country’s collective-security umbrella, including its European deterrents. While Canada may need to contribute more to military burden-sharing in the event that Washington withdraws from NATO, there is no need for the country to develop its own nuclear-weapons program. Instead, Canada should focus on strengthening its collective-security approach and contributing to the defense of its allies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the idea of Canada developing its own nuclear-weapons program is a flawed response to the country’s security concerns. The possession of nuclear arms would not provide a significant advantage for Canada’s defense and would be a costly and unnecessary measure. Instead, Canada should focus on strengthening its collective-security approach and contributing to the defense of its allies. By working together with other countries, Canada can maintain its security without resorting to nuclear armament. The country’s military should continue to develop strategies that rely on collective defense and insurgency tactics, rather than pursuing a nuclear-weapons program.
