Should Canada explore developing a nuclear weapons program?

Jean-Francois Belanger, assistant professor at the Royal Danish Defense College, explains why he says Canada should take advantage of its resources that are already enough to develop nuclear weapons.

Amid a changing global security landscape and ongoing sovereignty taunts from U.S. President Donald Trump, one military expert says Canada may need to reconsider its position on nuclear weapons.

In the current geopolitical environment, Canadians need to start thinking about “difficult questions” around national security, Jean-François Bélanger, assistant professor of Military Operations at the Royal Danish Defence College, said in a Tuesday interview with BNN Bloomberg.

“What does it mean when our Number 1 ally in the first place decouples from European security and also mentions that they’re tired of paying for Canadian security collaboration, and on the other hand threatens annexation?” he said.

• Trade War coverage on BNNBloomberg.ca

Bélanger argued that there may come a time when Canada can no longer rely on more powerful military allies for protection, and that creating a nuclear weapons program of its own may be a necessary deterrent against the threat of foreign aggression.

He said developing nuclear capability does not necessarily need to happen now, but Canada should be thinking about “shoring up” its nuclear latency “to the point where if we are in need and if we decide (to) as a nation… we’ll be ready to go.”

‘Bordering on the absurd’

Canada pursuing nuclearization in any way would be “bordering on the absurd as an undertaking,” Paul Meyer, adjunct professor of international studies at Simon Fraser University and a former Canadian diplomat, told BNNBloomberg.ca.

“There’s a whole series of obstacles that would be in the way of any government that wanted to go down that road, not to mention that I think no government would want to do it,” he said in an interview on Thursday.

“We have a long-standing legal obligation as a state party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) never to develop or acquire nuclear so it would mean a withdrawal from that treaty if we were going to pursue a nuclear program.”

Meyer, former chair and current director of the Canadian Pugwash Group, noted that to date, the only country that has ever withdrawn from the NPT is North Korea, “so I don’t think you’d want to be in that company,” he said.

Bélanger acknowledged that Canada would be in violation of the NPT, which it signed in 1968, were it to pursue nuclearization, however he argued that other nations with nuclear ambitions seem to be taking advantage of an opening “window of opportunity.”

“And when I say window of opportunity, I don’t necessarily mean something positive. There’s a drive for the acquisition of nuclear weapons in the world at the moment,” he said, noting that the global consensus around non-proliferation may be fading.

Bélanger pointed to nations such as Poland and Germany, where nuclear deterrence has become a talking point recently as the U.S. distances itself from its European allies, while South Korea “is talking about outright nuclearization.”

NPT under ‘increased stress’

Meyer said the viability of the NPT has indeed come under “increased stress” in the last decade or so, particularly because of Russia’s ongoing territorial ambitions in Ukraine.

“Russian aggression against Ukraine has caused second thoughts in some capitals about possessing nuclear weapons as a deterrent, and obviously, if they’ve gone in that direction, that weakens this norm of non-proliferation,” he said.

“(U.S. President) Donald Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal was also a case of irresponsible action that sets back the non-proliferation ideal, so that is unfortunate to say the least.”

Bélanger argued that these developments may eventually change the nature of the NPT, as well as defence partnerships like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

“Is NATO as an alliance going to rethink things or at least are our European allies going to be rethinking their stance on non-proliferation? If that happens, how does Canada position itself in that discussion?” he said.

“Because we don’t have the options that the Europeans have. I don’t think it’s credible to ask the U.K. and France for extended deterrence or the nuclear umbrella… Canada in this case would be left to its own design.”

Bélanger said that if Canada was subjected to, for example, Russian aggression in the Arctic, or if the trade war with the U.S. escalated to the point of armed conflict, Canada’s European allies would likely be too “bogged down” with their own security concerns to provide meaningful aid.

“Am I saying that the probability is that (these scenarios) are going to happen? No. Is it going to happen tomorrow morning? No,” he said.

“But we’re in a world now where we actually need to look at the chance that something like this could happen.”

Meyer said any movement away from the long-established global norm of non-proliferation would have “profound repercussions.”

“It’s a troubled picture for those that believe in the overall wisdom of maintaining an international security regime with a strong norm of nuclear non-proliferation and an impetus to, at some point, achieve a world without nuclear weapons,” he said.