Canada Should Get Nuclear Weapons

[Wisconsin9]

I know that it's extremely difficult to contain, and that when it comes into contact with regular matter it blows up.

But do you know that you would need a truckload of the stuff to do the damage you are imagining?

To destroy the world? Sure. To destroy a city? A few grams.

[Dracoria]

The subject is about as realistic as antimatter weaponry. Maybe less.

I think it's less.

Perhaps, but I've recently learned not to trust the opinions of Europeans.

[Segland]

It's ridiculously impractical and idiotic to create a weapon that could end up wiping out all life on the planet due to a false alarm

Nuclear weapons are like chemical weapons, they have a reputation so bad they're unusable, even in total war.

That's more or less because the nuclear-armed countries are politically at odds with each other. The deadly reputation of nuclear weapons is only second to the principle of mutually-assured destruction.

[FutureAmerica]

Even if Canada had nukes, your politicians will never have the balls to use them.
If you want to defend Canada, you should start with attack subs.
If the US invades, nothing will stop them because they will threaten to nuke you back 10 fold, eh.

[Rob Halfordia]

But do you know that you would need a truckload of the stuff to do the damage you are imagining?

To destroy the world? Sure. To destroy a city? A few grams.

More than that. And did you know that there aren't even a few grams of it in existence? And that one gram antihydrogen costs $62.5 trillion?

[Rob Halfordia]

I think it's less.

Perhaps, but I've recently learned not to trust the opinions of Europeans.

... well played.

[Planeia]

Here's a better question: why should anyone have nuclear weapons?

[Wisconsin9]

To destroy the world? Sure. To destroy a city? A few grams.

More than that. And did you know that there aren't even a few grams of it in existence? And that one gram antihydrogen costs $62.5 trillion?

Yes, I'm aware that there aren't even a few grams of it in existence and that it's ridiculously expensive. I'm just pointing out why it's stupid even if it was cheap. And no, not more than that. One gram of antimatter + one gram of matter = 43 kiloton explosion.

[Eastern Equestria]

Here's a better question: why should anyone have nuclear weapons?

Mainly because other people have them.

[The Two Jerseys]

Why the hell would we invade Canada for oil? We already have NAFTA.

[Rob Halfordia]

More than that. And did you know that there aren't even a few grams of it in existence? And that one gram antihydrogen costs $62.5 trillion?

Yes, I'm aware that there aren't even a few grams of it in existence and that it's ridiculously expensive. I'm just pointing out why it's stupid even if it was cheap. And no, not more than that. One gram of antimatter + one gram of matter = 43 kiloton explosion.

I guess city is a vague term. I mean, are we talking Bejing, or Portland, Maine?

[Wisconsin9]

Yes, I'm aware that there aren't even a few grams of it in existence and that it's ridiculously expensive. I'm just pointing out why it's stupid even if it was cheap. And no, not more than that. One gram of antimatter + one gram of matter = 43 kiloton explosion.

I guess city is a vague term. I mean, are we talking Bejing, or Portland, Maine?

OK, here you've got a point.

[Planeia]

Here's a better question: why should anyone have nuclear weapons?

Mainly because other people have them.

'Anyone' was italicized for a reason.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I think that this song is relevant to this discussion.

Anyway, I don't think that we need to.

We need to spend more time on our economy then nukes. Id say where safe from any invasion with the US at our sides. As for the US invading Canada, thats as likely as bear flying in to space to crap on the moon.

[Eastern Equestria]

Mainly because other people have them.

'Anyone' was italicized for a reason.

You know, I don't know how to answer that question. Let's ask Imperial Japan and the Cold War powers.

[The New Sea Territory]

It's all a bunch of silliness, honestly. Canada is too strong a trade partner for the US to risk damaging the infrastructure of, and such a move would not only cause NATO to implode but alienate almost every remaining partner of the USA. We'll argue about pipelines and fishing rights but that's about it. If anyone else threatens to attack Canada, well, NATO, the Commonwealth, and their southern neighbor say no.

Unless we're in Fallout.

DETH TU COMMIES!!!

[Planeia]

'Anyone' was italicized for a reason.

You know, I don't know how to answer that question. Let's ask Imperial Japan and the Cold War powers.

Fortunately the Cold War is over and nukes are no longer needed for defense, as if they ever were anything beyond retaliation/revenge.

[Mirkana]

The United States will never invade Canada. Besides , having nuclear weapons doesn't mean no one will ever dare attack you. Israel has nuclear weapons, and it's at war.

Um, it is not sure if Israel has nuclear weapons for sure.

The evidence is overwhelming. I think there was even a leak a few years ago...

[Imperializt Russia]

If it were able to deflect it off course, sure, but too close, or too powerful, then kablam, lots of other smaller but still deadly chunks hurtling towards Earth. Just a matter of angle and physics I dare say...

I think they've probably got a pretty good grasp of physics.

Tell it to the probe NASA lost when they input imperial-unit burn rates into a code built for metric.

To have nukes, one should have an army first.

The America of the fifties would disagree. It was proposed to disband the entire US armed forces and replace them entirely with nuclear arms.

Nobody should get nuclear weapons.

^THIS!

Nuclear arms are one of the few things that kept the Cold War from going hot.
The nuclear threat has consistently prevented escalation to large-scale conflict between parity states.

Centuries ago, no one would've considered the possibility of nuclear weapons. Theoretically, antimatter bombs would be very energy-efficient.

Technically, yes, but I like to think that the militaries of the world have more sense than to build a fail-deadly city-buster.

All of the this, friends.

Here's a better question: why should anyone have nuclear weapons?

Defence. Space travel. Canal-digging. Nuclear oil stimulation (atom bomb fracking), gas fissure sealing, transplutonic and transuranic element production. Additional plutonium synthesis for use in power reactors.

[Arkiasis]

The United States will never invade Canada.

The US has invaded Canada once before.

[Greater Beggnig]

I support this motion, if it means that the damn Yanks will stop firing rockets into Canada's side of the Great Lakes.

[Rephesus]

No.

No, well, I agree but no one seems to have mentioned that up to 1984, Canada had nuclear weapons. Weapons of their own and they hosted US installations as well. Since 1984 they have repudiated them and worked for non-proliferation.

It's been mentioned quite a few times, generally the consensus is 'meh'.

[Rephesus]

The United States will never invade Canada.

The US has invaded Canada once before.

Well yes they invaded the dominion of Canada in 1812, and fought British Regulars along with Canadian Militia, failed, and had the White House burned, then made a spectacular comeback in Baltimore. Although by that point the war was lost so they signed an agreement.

This point is, I don't believe we'll be seeing a US Invasion of Canada in the next century.

[Cymrea]

1) People are still using the "for oil" argument? Seriously? I thought they would've stopped after, you know, we didn't get any oil out of the place. Our gas prices certainly haven't gone down. Sorry, son, Iraq was about crushing a brutal dictatorship and removing a threat to ourselves and the world. We wouldn't spend a trillion dollars for some oil.

No to mention my home province of Alberta has been subsidising the hell out of the tar sands oil so that California will buy it. So we pay almost $5/gallon.

[Spoder]

I honestly think the OP shouldn't take Fallout so literally...