Canada has much to offer, and it’s time we start doing so.
Canada and our European allies have a problem.
If the United States leaves NATO, or withdraws its nuclear blanket from Canada and Europe, Russia gains a lopsided advantage when it comes to nuclear weapons.
Russia has about 5,580 total nuclear warheads, and about 2,000 deployed nuclear weapons.
By contrast, there are only two nuclear capable countries in NATO: France and the United Kingdom.
France has about 290 nuclear warheads, while the United Kingdom has about 225.
Of course, once you get into the dozens of nuclear weapons you’re looking at a credible deterrent. If one country is struck by 200 nukes, and responds by launching 2000, the world as we know it is ending anyway, and most major population centres/military facilities would be wiped out.
Still, such a disparity could be just enough for the more heavily armed country to think it could win a first strike engagement and cripple their adversaries’ retaliatory potential. Mainly when there are just one or two adversaries.
An even deeper problem is the disparity in territory protected.
By definition, Russia’s nuclear deterrent covers all of Russia.
By contrast, the U.K.’s nuclear deterrent covers the U.K., and France’s nuclear deterrent covers France.
If NATO were to collapse, a huge swath of Europe – along with Canada in the case of the loss of American security guarantees – would find themselves without the protection of a credible nuclear deterrent.
Russia would be tempted to believe that it could then threaten other nations with nuclear destruction as a form of coercion. For example, Russia could demand that Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania become Russian puppet states, and then – when a country like Germany or Poland (nations with strong military-industrial capabilities but no nuclear weapons) pledge to stand in defence of the Baltics – threaten to launch nuclear strikes against Poland and Germany.
The same could be true of Canada. Russia could demand the right to station troops on Canadian territory in the North, and then threaten a nuclear strike against our country if we don’t acquiesce.
By contrast, such threats against France and the United Kingdom would be unlikely, because both France and the U.K. could respond to a nuclear strike with a nuclear strike of their own.
Understanding their vulnerability in the case of the withdrawal of the U.S. nuclear umbrella, some European nations are already asking for deeper integration with the French nuclear deterrent, something French President Emmanuel Macron has expressed some openness to:
“Macron proposed a strategic dialogue with European countries that do not have nuclear weapons.
France and Britain are the only European countries with a nuclear arsenal.
“We have a shield, they don’t. And they can no longer depend on the American nuclear deterrent. We need a strategic dialogue with those who don’t have it, and that would make France stronger,” Macron told Le Parisien newspaper.
Germany’s likely next leader, Friedrich Merz, has suggested that Britain and France could “share” their nuclear weapons in the future.
In an interview with the weekly, Journal du Dimanche, Macron said it would take between five and 10 years to build up an autonomous European defence independent of NATO.
He also warned that if the US were to conclude an agreement with Russia “without the Europeans around the table… it would be a rupture within the alliance”.
More nuclear weapons production?
There is no guarantee France will extend its nuclear shield. There is some internal opposition to the idea within France, and nobody wants to make the first move provocatively. However, there has been a rapidly growing willingness by France to consider the idea, and each new bout of U.S. instability drives support even higher.
And, the fact that this is even being discussed indicates a profound shift in strategic thinking in Europe, and it’s a shift Canada needs to be a part of.
Whatever ends up being decided in Europe, it seems clear that more nuclear weapons will be the result.
In the event of a U.S. withdrawal from NATO and the potential abandonment of NORAD (the U.S. is musing about withdrawing Canada’s security guarantee) any future mutual defence organization (whether NATO without the U.S. or something new) will want a credible nuclear shield.
While that initial shield will have to be built on the foundation of existing French & British capability, there will also be a desire to produce more weapons.
And this is where Canada can assist.
Canadian uranium reserves and production can help Europe, and Europe in turn can help Canada.
Canada possesses about 10% of all uranium reserves on Earth. We are the second largest producer of uranium, representing about 15% of global output.
Canada is also a leader in uranium refining. The Cameco Blind River facility in Ontario is the largest uranium refinery on Earth. Additionally, the Port Hope conversion facility represents 21% of uranium hexaflouride conversion capacity on Earth.
However, Canada lacks uranium enrichment capacity, something that is needed for the production of nuclear weapons.
Thankfully, many of our European allies possess this capacity. France, the United Kingdom, Germany, and the Netherlands all possess significant uranium enrichment capability.
And – as noted above – France possesses a fully independent nuclear deterrent.
A deal to be made
There is a deal to be made here.
Canada can provide refined uranium to Europe at a significant discount. We can invest in ramping up production to increase overall output.
European allies can enrich that uranium.
That enriched uranium can be used to produce more nuclear weapons.
Canada can request that France station nuclear-armed aircraft on Canadian airbases, and secure a nuclear shield guarantee from France – extending nuclear protection to Canada for defensive purposes.
As the U.S. descends into zero-sum thinking, Canada must embrace mutually-beneficial agreements. We have what Europe needs to produce more nuclear weapons, and Europe has what Canada needs to ensure we have a nuclear shield.
It’s time to work together.
Spencer Fernando
Photo – YouTube
If this piece left you clearer than it found you, that's the point. I write for readers who want to think past the week, to see the longer pattern beneath the daily story, and to come away steadier rather than more agitated.
That longer view gets built somewhere. On Patreon, essay by essay, I'm constructing The Long Work, a body of analysis meant to outlast the news cycle that prompted it. The readers there make it possible. No subsidies, no strings. The work answers to them.
$8/month to read it as it's built, and to have a hand in building it.