Infected Mushroom wrote:Socialist Xlyvania wrote:Canada? Nuclear Weapons?
For what? Use them in a war? If there was a nuclear war, there would be no winner.
which is why its a deterence against invasion.
No one would invade Canada if Canada had nukes, because they would have no chance fo winning. They would be completely destroyed in retaliation.
Canada could never muster the number of warheads or the quantity of delivery systems to assure that. Britain doesn't either, no-one's invading us.
The presence of nuclear weapons is a game-changer in itself, because conventional aggression will always risk nuclear escalation.
Doesn't matter if this is limited to tactical or operational ("strategic" military targets, such as large formations, depots, ports, airbases, staging areas, HQs) strikes - it's pretty unquestionable that the public doesn't like the idea of a nuclear escalation if their side might receive it.
Nationes Pii Redivivi wrote:My principle is the less nukes the better, and we should work on getting rid of the one we have now so that no one has 'em.
Not how it works. Total disarmament is a fruitless policy. Reduced and monitored proliferation and reduced arsenal size and capability, strive towards that.
The nuclear bomb is common public knowledge. Its design, certainly the basics to produce a low-capability one, is available on Wikipedia. The reactors to produce material have been public information once, briefly, mistakenly.
Nuclear arms, like chemical arms, biological arms, landmines, incendiary weapons are a thing you can't just erase, that others will try to seek.
It is undeniable that the nuclear threat prevents large parity conflicts between nuclear-armed states, else there wouldn't be a Germany to have won this year's World Cup.
South Africa is the only state to have developed nuclear weapons and totally disarmed.

