3
Canada remains anti-nuke, but its potential path to the bomb is getting shorter (www.cbc.ca)
submitted 3 months ago by to c/canada@piefed.ca
comment fedilink hide all child comments
 

Canada's indigenous nuclear industry, homegrown tech, use of heavy-water reactors producing plutonium and tritium, and abundant domestic supply of uranium all position this country as a prime candidate for developing a nuclear weapon. The government now faces a big decision over whether to enrich uranium for use in new small modular reactors, the one missing piece before it can produce a modern, two-stage thermonuclear device.

no comments (yet)

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
there doesn't seem to be anything here
20 comments in c/canada@lemmy.ca view that post
[–] 13 points 3 months ago

If you read the article blinded to the publisher, it'd probably be a surprise to see that this is published by a Canadian crown corporation and not a private US-funded outlet

alarming statements made by folks in the US

The author interviewed 3 American scientists with ties to US Gov and heavily quotes them. Also, "Scientists consulted by CBC News said Canada would probably have little economic motive to build its own enrichment facilities." It's an under-statement to say that the Canadian voice is under-represented in this article

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 6 points 3 months ago (3 children)

    I hate that the idea of Canada acquiring nukes has become so prevalent. Having nukes does not help anyone, it merely increases the global risk of nuclear war. Every country with nukes is another country that can decide to pull the trigger.

    Consider the actual calculus that goes into MAD. If we think we have a nuke heading towards us, we have to act prior to verification. The decision that is effectively to be made is: do we let a potential nuke hit one of our cities and let millions of people die, or do we launch a counter attack and kill millions more people and prompt further response from the enemy? The most likely outcome of this is full scale nuclear war. Even between two countries, this would devastate the planet and result in countless deaths.

    Counterintuitively, even if we have nukes, launching a counterattack is the response that would result in the worst possible outcome. But it is also useless to have nukes if you have no possible intent of using them defensively. This is basically entering into the most apocalyptic game of chicken that anyone can play.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago* (2 children)

    I dunno, North Korea gets away with all kinds of shit. It's more that it definitely does help you, but hurts everyone. Those are two different things.

    Counterintuitively, even if we have nukes, launching a counterattack is the response that would result in the worst possible outcome. But it is also useless to have nukes if you have no possible intent of using them defensively.

    The term gets used for other things, but in game theory this is called a non-credible threat. A group of perfectly rational agents would be able to use backwards induction on each other, and always call the bluff.

    Real humans are capable of irrational spite, though, so MAD has held for decades.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    It's a tragedy of the commons, which is what the prisoners paradox is, which is what MAD is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    Sort of.

    Technically, it is more like chicken, which is a different two-player, non-zero-sum game. Wikipedia has a section with a nice gif on the difference between chicken and prisoner's dilemma. They are closely related, though.

    Conventional war and peace is also a game of chicken, but with nukes the severity, certainty and finality of the costs involved seems to lead to a very different equilibrium. Leading over a bombed-out country is a much more palatable option for leaders than being nobody in a radioactive wasteland.

    It's also worth noting that this toy model has simultaneous moves, while a real life nuclear exchange does not, which is what makes the threat of a second strike theoretically non-credible.

    Edit: And tragedy of the commons is an n-player version of prisoner's dilemma.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 16 points 3 months ago (4 children)

    Ukraine wouldn't have been invaded if they had nukes. Maybe Canada just builds a few, 50 sounds like a reasonable number. You wouldn't be hearing 51st state bullshit that's for sure.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    This is why fascism is constructing the golden dome. The goal is to be able to conquer the world without the threat of MAD.

    https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Dome_(missile_defense_system)

    By the time that's built they'll be able to mass produce cheap kamikaze drones that can kill an entire cities inhabitants for less than a billion dollars, all controlled by AI.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    • [+] 5 points 3 months ago (4 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

    Name the number of countries the USA has threatened that have nukes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)
    [deleted]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    USA has never threatened military action on North Korea since they acquired nukes. You proved my point.

    We can hold hands and pretend we can all get along, but countries with nukes don't get fucked around by the USA. This was heavily discussed by scientists at Los alamos. The reason to use the bombs in Japan was not to end the war in the pacific, it was to scare the world into not trying to start another world war.

    If we abolished nukes completely, we would return to invasions with conventional weapons, which also have megatons of destructive force, because we let countries buy them from anyone.

    Hiroshima was a 15 kiloton bomb. USA dropped 88 kilotons on Iraq.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
    load more comments (1 reply)
    • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    France and the UK should trade a few nukes to Canada to keep Mango Mussolini in check

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

    If we were going this direction, hosting foreign nukes would similarly effective, but much less provocative, and proliferation-y. It seems like a no-brainer, if there's a willing partner.

    France has just started loaning them out in Europe, but it's not clear if they'd be willing to expand to another continent. The UK is an interesting option in that we have the same de jure leader, anyway. But then again, they have a troubled relationship with their nuclear status as it is.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    Irsn need to troll canada by saying canada should not be allowed to have nukes

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
    •
    [–] 2 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    We should’ve had nukes ever since, being Canadian, we’d never want to use them, but as a deterrent.

    We don’t need to go scorched earth to bring down the Orange Turd, let him ruin the U.S. on his own, financially.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago*

    You might have too much faith in the "Canadians are nice" trope. I believe Canadians are not more nice than people anywhere else, we're just comparatively less toxic than Americans. We're not far behind though, and slowly but surely accelerating down the same toxicity slide. We often get compared to Americans since we're neighbors and I believe that's the crux of the "Canadians are nice" trope. Canadians are nice... compared to Americans.

    This is all just generalization though. I've met a ton of super nice Americans over the years. Just like anywhere else, there are great people and there are shitty people. Shitty Americans are just more annoying and arrogant than most in my experience.

    All this to say, I've no doubt that there are plenty of Canadians that would push the button too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent