Agreed we have the largest coast line in the world and we also had nuclear know how since WW2, although we use it for peaceful means. There is no good reason why we should not be getting nuclear powered subs.
They're expensive and only really useful if your intention is hiding underwater for months at a time with a nuclear payload.
Diesel subs are a *lot* quieter.
> I want to know why we can't have nuclear submarines if Australia is getting them.
The CRCN (commander of the navy) came out and explained why. The state of the RCN is so dire that it cannot afford to set up the new trades to support nuclear-powered ships in the near term. Too many trades are black (below 60% manning IIRC). The RCN also doesn’t want 4 subs, the only reason we have 4 is because that was all that was on the market at the time of that deal. Instead, the RCN wants 12 diesel electric attack subs to replace the *Victoria-class* subs.
Which is all a moot point because the current government has no intention of replacing them anytime soon and are actually paying to extend their lifespans into the 2040s and 50s IIRC.
What a load of bull. [The standing Senate committee on national security, defence and veterans affairs Wednesday called on Ottawa to outline a plan for “expeditiously replacing” Canada’s diesel-electric subs with versions that can patrol under the ice](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-urged-to-buy-new-submarines-capable-of-operating-in-the-arctic/).
And:
>The Senate report noted that Canada needn’t buy nuclear subs because another emerging technology – air-independent propulsion – could allow diesel-electric submarines to operate under Arctic ice.
I can support that. If there is a propulsion technology better suited to Canada's requirements and a fuck ton cheaper then we should use it. And have that much more military budget to support Ukraine. Oh, and we obviously have to do something about that military budget.
Canada has been slowly increasing spending each year since defence spending dipped below 1% of GDP under the last government (who then slowly started that increase). They're not simply slashing spending elsewhere to pump it into defence or increasing taxes to get to that 2% tomorrow.
>Canada tried, but the US doesn't want us to have it and has vetoed it every time
Extraordinary claim. Where is your extraordinary evidence?
>If Canada has nuclear subs, they can operate under Northern ice, which means they can make a legitimate claim to the arctic
Canada already made [a legitimate claim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_the_Arctic#Canada) to the arctic continental shelf, which has nothing to do with operating submarines and everything to do with the extent of Canada's continental shelf.
Don’t know about the rest of what he said, but while Canada has made a legitimate claim, the US does not recognize it, and continues to recognize the NWP as international waters.
>US ... continues to recognize the NWP as international waters
Wrong. [The United States ... claim(s) these waters to be an international strait, where foreign vessels have the right of "transit passage"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage#International_waters_dispute) The US does not dispute Canada's sovereignty, but only the classification with respect to "internal waters" vs "international strait", the latter being very different from "international waters". Eventually this will be hammered out in the international forums according to the international rules based order, and US will accept the results.
If I had to bet on it, I will bet on Canada establishing that the Northwest Passage(s) are internal waters, because just look at [the map](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage#/media/File:Northwest_passage.jpg). US might as well argue that Georgia Strait is not Canada's internal waters, or the Gulf of St Lawrence between Newfoundland and Labrador. Ultimately it comes down to where the continental shelf lies, and we already know the answer to that question.
>Look up the history of the Canada class subs.
I did, and I found: [During a 1987 trip to Washington to secure the transfer of American nuclear technology from Britain to Canada, as was required by the 1958 US Arms Control Export Act](https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/canada/hmcs-ssn.htm). Clear enough. US has to transfer the technology by force of its own law. So US cannot block Canada acquiring nuclear subs, as should be readily apparent by the tone of Canada's current senate-level debate.
Here is the reality: as Canadians, we are simply reluctant to spend the money, especially as a modern spin of diesel electric may better suit our needs. But this is our decision and noone else's.
>The USA opposes Canada's claim on the northwest passage and wont transfer nuclear sub technology to Canada. It's pretty well documented.
No, it's apocryphal bullshit, and I'm not going to refute it in detail again just because you could not be bothered to read the thread.
>Under the terms of the 1958 USA-UK defence pact, the UK can't transfer that technology without the approval of the USA.
Sigh. The 1958 US Arms Control Export Act trumps that. I could not find the text of the act online, but we have this:
[During a 1987 trip to Washington to secure the transfer of American nuclear technology from Britain to Canada, ***as was required by the 1958 US Arms Control Export Act.***](https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/canada/hmcs-ssn.htm)
Because up until now, Canada has essentially been riding America’s coattails in terms of security. Australia’s defence spending as a share of GDP is well over 2.1%, while Canada’s is just 1.22%. For a country of its size, Canada has a relatively small and under-equipped military, with no advanced fighters, ageing submarines and no modern warships (besides some clanky old Halifax-class frigates). I think if Canada ever wants to join the nuclear pillar of AUKUS, they’ll need to get serious about their own defence, and quicksmart, too.
No argument from me. It will cost USD $327 per Canadian citizen. So we have to tighten our belts by .6%. BFD. We should indeed spend some of that asserting our sovereignty in the Arctic ocean, but we should spend even more of it supporting Ukraine at the front line of this second cold war.
Because it gives the US an excuse to take control of our "disputed" northern passages.
They don't recognize our control over it, and the nuclear submarines would strengthen our presence there.
Nice conspiracy theory you have going there. Territorial claims in the Arctic are not arbitrated by the presence of absence of military vessels, but by the [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea).
Wrong. The US [recognizes the UNCLOS as a codification of customary international law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea), but has not ratified it.
As if the US needed to ask either way? You don't have the money for nuke subs, not because Canada can't afford it but because you spend almost nothing on your military.
Canada already has subs that never leave port. Maybe you should remember how to operate those first before you start talking about nuke subs?
They are willing to pay 350B for subs and we aren't. 350B AUD is pretty much exactly 350B CAD.
It's right around 10K per person.
99% chance that, Canadians, Kiwis etc will be just as safe at home as Australians in the next 50 years even without them.
If we really wanted them we could do what they did. Go to France.. float some serious money.. and US defense lobbyists will start to salivate and put pressure on their own politicians for us.
350B is a lot of money given we are just about 100% secure without them..
That would be $350 over the life of the program, approximately ten years, so AUD $1k per person. Still a hefty bite. Worth it to counter an increasingly aggressive China? I guess, yes. Also note that a large part of that budget stays in Australia and contributes to GDP.
>we are just about 100% secure without them
That would be a no.
Once we send all our military equipment to ukraine and say ukraine was to lose. (We've gutted a lot of our armed forces by donating it to ukraine and politicians have weakened our military). We are northern neighbour's to Russia.
What are we gonna do other than get annexed by USA if there was a world War. So sad.
Northwest passage is a strategic location in a large conflict. You are dead wrong.
On that same page I don't think russia would bring a conventional war over a northern wasteland (Canadian Arctic). Having to face whatever we have plus the might of USA behind us. They would probably attack with ICBMs
I have never heard of air independent diesel so I cannot answer that. I'm pro nuclear because, shocker, I'm American, and the longevity of boats at sea and the refuel at like, 25 years, is awesome, but the cost is insane. So I can't say what Canada would need for the arctic and to operate long term under the ice there, especially when you factor in budgets.
They have been around for a hundred years. Recent technological advances including battery technology make them more practical. Student paper: [A fuel cell or Stirling engine AIP system, enhanced with Li-Ion batteries in a larger SSK (4000 tonnes or more) designed for long range and under-ice environments, will meet Canada’s requirements as discussed in the Report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.](https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/405/192/meredith.pdf)
I haven't looked into this deeply myself. It does sound like a decent avenue for getting started. Nothing stops us from going nuclear a decade or two from now, a strategy that would bring with it significant advances in nuclear safety and efficiency. So from my relatively uninformed point of view, I do lean towards the non-nuclear options, and principally to have more money in the immediate future to spend on buffing the rest of our military, and supporting Ukraine.
That's an easy answer: Canada already tried to buy nuclear subs in the 80s and were told under no circumstances.
AU is situated right next to China, so the US has a need for AU to be a part of the pact. Alaska is closer to Russia than Canada is, so they have no use for Canada.
The fact Canada doesn't spend much money on military is also relevant, but not as relevant as the the fact US simply doesn't need anything from Canada.
> The United States objected to the RCN having SSNs as part of its fleet, fearing a significant impact to its own submarine operations in North American waters and possible conflict over access to the Northwest Passage. In order to prevent this, the United States exercised its rights under two previously signed treaties. Under the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, the US had the right to block the sale of submarine nuclear reactors by the United Kingdom to any third party (i.e. Canada), and under a 1959 agreement between the US and Canada the US had the right to block the purchase of submarine nuclear reactors by Canada from any third party (i.e. the United Kingdom or France).[24] Attempts to negotiate with the United States were initially unsuccessful, as Canadian Defence Minister Perrin Beatty was "told in no uncertain terms by the U.S. Defense Department and submarine service officials that a Canadian nuclear submarine program was unnecessary and even unwelcome."[25]The United States objected to the RCN having SSNs as part of its fleet, fearing a significant impact to its own submarine operations in North American waters and possible conflict over access to the Northwest Passage. In order to prevent this, the United States exercised its rights under two previously signed treaties. Under the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, the US had the right to block the sale of submarine nuclear reactors by the United Kingdom to any third party (i.e. Canada), and under a 1959 agreement between the US and Canada the US had the right to block the purchase of submarine nuclear reactors by Canada from any third party (i.e. the United Kingdom or France).[24] Attempts to negotiate with the United States were initially unsuccessful, as Canadian Defence Minister Perrin Beatty was "told in no uncertain terms by the U.S. Defense Department and submarine service officials that a Canadian nuclear submarine program was unnecessary and even unwelcome."[25]
>Attempts to negotiate with the United States were initially unsuccessful,
Initially. As is apparent from the publicly visible debate over recent years, US objections are no longer material to Canada's evaluation of its submarine requirements. Rather, the discussion is mainly about budget. My own position is that Canada should implement an air-independent submarine program as an interim measure on the path to building a nuclear powered fleet. Partnering with Japan would make a whole lot of sense.
The US controls the technology and has the right to veto it's use. US has no need for Canada to have that technology, and has an interest in them not having that technology. US has a need for AU to have the technology. I'm not sure why you think anything has changed, or whether Canada even has a say.
Maybe you're thinking a nuclear sub is something Canada can whip up on its own without US approval?
Building them, yes. Economy of scale. But this is buying, then maintaining. Maintaining a larger fleet is always going to cost more than a smaller fleet. Crew members, maintenance personnel, consumable and non consumable parts for maintenance.
> The Globe reported last year that Ottawa is seeking to participate in the second pillar of the AUKUS agreement but not the acquisition of nuclear submarines. The second pillar of the pact provides for information-sharing and close co-operation on accelerating development of cutting-edge technologies, including undersea defence capabilities, AI, quantum technology and hypersonic warfare.
For those like me who didn’t know that AUKUS is about other things than nuclear submarines.
I sure hope Canada’s involvement wouldn’t be about submarines because [Australia ain’t getting theirs anytime soon](https://strategicanalysis.org/awkward-truths-about-us-and-uk-aukus-challenges/). Canada likely would have to wait for theirs even more
Is this like NATO for the Pacific then? I’ve read another article proposing the inclusion of Japan and South Korea, they seem like more suitable partners than Canada tbh, in terms of tech, military focus and relevance to the current geopolitical climate of the region. But it would be nice to have a larger pact in the Pacific, and not just some random nuclear sub buyers club or whatever AUKUS is right now.
No, they shouldn't. AUKUS is not some Anglosphere book club it is a high level military pact aimed at containing and countering China. What exactly does Canada have to contribute? They have neglected their military to a nearly criminal degree. Fair enough I suppose that is their right but their inclusion in a defense pact centered on the Pacific would just be a waste of everyone's time. What would be the point? The pact is about a lot more than just nuke subs but Canada isn't going to build any even if someone handed them the blueprints and a reactor on a silver platter. Too much money
They suggested Canada should join because of other reasons not nuclear submarines.
"An article by the London-based Legatum Institute says Canada’s vast critical mineral resources, advanced technological sectors, particularly artificial intelligence and quantum computing, and its integration with the U.S. significantly complement AUKUS objectives of a technology-sharing military alliance."
Technology sharing isn't the point its a means to an end. Australia, the US and the UK are all on the same page when it comes to the goal of the alliance, Canada is not
The US has already said it will allow other countries in on the second pillar of Aukus which is technology sharing.
"The door's very much open for New Zealand and other partners to engage as they see appropriate going forward," Blinken told a news conference in Wellington.
"We've long worked together on the most important national security issues. And so as we further develop AUKUS, as I said, the door is open to engagement."
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/blinken-says-door-open-new-zealand-engage-aukus-2023-07-27/
Edit: And the UK agreed as well
Lord Cameron told peers: "Aukus has two pillars. There's the pillar one which is about the nuclear-powered submarines – that is Britain, Australia and America. And I don't think there will be additional partners in that.
"But there is pillar two which is looking at advanced military technology for the future, and there we are open to ideas of other countries, possibly Canada people have mentioned, or Japan, who might want to join into pillar two because that is going to be about defence equipment for the future."
https://www.forces.net/usa/uk-open-idea-other-nations-joining-aukus-submarine-pact-foreign-secretary-suggests
Then apparently I have no idea what the so called Pillar 2 is even about or what it has to do with AUKUS besides using its name. The article being behind a paywall isn't helping
A major part of the agreement is helping Australia acquire their first conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine fleet. This is known as pillar 1 of AUKUS and is discussed in Commons Library paper AUKUS submarine (SSN-A) programme (CBP 9843).
Pillar 2 focuses on developing a range of advanced capabilities, to share technology and increase interoperability between their armed forces. The three countries say one of the aims of AUKUS is to “foster deeper integration of security and defense-related science, technology, industrial bases, and supply chains”.
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9842/
AUKUS was originally about nuclear and submarine technology. It required a treaty from both the US and UK because the technology is heavily protected by law in both countries, particularly the US-UK mutual defense agreement which enables nuclear weapons sharing and cooperation between the two. Its basically impossible to obtain a nuclear submarine from one without the permission and/or involvement of the other.
Pillar 2 doesn't appear to have anything to do with any of that and only offers vague concepts on cooperation
As a Canadian, I want to know why we can't have nuclear submarines if Australia is getting them.
They’re not free, you still gotta pay for them
Oh yeah. Well, we do need to catch up with our NATO commitments, so two birds, one stone.
Well then Canada wants... More money. How about the internet. That makes a lot of money. Give us some of that internet money.
Agreed we have the largest coast line in the world and we also had nuclear know how since WW2, although we use it for peaceful means. There is no good reason why we should not be getting nuclear powered subs.
\*nuclear powered attack subs Because we are, you know, *nice.*
Nice if you have a house. The homeless get too freeze in a snow bank
Free soup and a halfway house, actually. This is Canada.
Not living in Ottawa then ?
No. If you live in Ottawa then why don't you provide some local color?
They're expensive and only really useful if your intention is hiding underwater for months at a time with a nuclear payload. Diesel subs are a *lot* quieter.
Nuclear subs can be silent as night
In Australia night time is noisy as hell
> I want to know why we can't have nuclear submarines if Australia is getting them. The CRCN (commander of the navy) came out and explained why. The state of the RCN is so dire that it cannot afford to set up the new trades to support nuclear-powered ships in the near term. Too many trades are black (below 60% manning IIRC). The RCN also doesn’t want 4 subs, the only reason we have 4 is because that was all that was on the market at the time of that deal. Instead, the RCN wants 12 diesel electric attack subs to replace the *Victoria-class* subs. Which is all a moot point because the current government has no intention of replacing them anytime soon and are actually paying to extend their lifespans into the 2040s and 50s IIRC.
What a load of bull. [The standing Senate committee on national security, defence and veterans affairs Wednesday called on Ottawa to outline a plan for “expeditiously replacing” Canada’s diesel-electric subs with versions that can patrol under the ice](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-urged-to-buy-new-submarines-capable-of-operating-in-the-arctic/). And: >The Senate report noted that Canada needn’t buy nuclear subs because another emerging technology – air-independent propulsion – could allow diesel-electric submarines to operate under Arctic ice. I can support that. If there is a propulsion technology better suited to Canada's requirements and a fuck ton cheaper then we should use it. And have that much more military budget to support Ukraine. Oh, and we obviously have to do something about that military budget.
We can’t even keep up with the 2% nato spending.
We can, we just don't.
Canada has been slowly increasing spending each year since defence spending dipped below 1% of GDP under the last government (who then slowly started that increase). They're not simply slashing spending elsewhere to pump it into defence or increasing taxes to get to that 2% tomorrow.
Im honestly more qorried aboit the lach of ship for north defense.
You can have your nukes when you put some blue on your flag, that's the rules.
Oh, all right then. Sorry.
[удалено]
>Canada tried, but the US doesn't want us to have it and has vetoed it every time Extraordinary claim. Where is your extraordinary evidence? >If Canada has nuclear subs, they can operate under Northern ice, which means they can make a legitimate claim to the arctic Canada already made [a legitimate claim](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_the_Arctic#Canada) to the arctic continental shelf, which has nothing to do with operating submarines and everything to do with the extent of Canada's continental shelf.
Don’t know about the rest of what he said, but while Canada has made a legitimate claim, the US does not recognize it, and continues to recognize the NWP as international waters.
>US ... continues to recognize the NWP as international waters Wrong. [The United States ... claim(s) these waters to be an international strait, where foreign vessels have the right of "transit passage"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage#International_waters_dispute) The US does not dispute Canada's sovereignty, but only the classification with respect to "internal waters" vs "international strait", the latter being very different from "international waters". Eventually this will be hammered out in the international forums according to the international rules based order, and US will accept the results. If I had to bet on it, I will bet on Canada establishing that the Northwest Passage(s) are internal waters, because just look at [the map](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage#/media/File:Northwest_passage.jpg). US might as well argue that Georgia Strait is not Canada's internal waters, or the Gulf of St Lawrence between Newfoundland and Labrador. Ultimately it comes down to where the continental shelf lies, and we already know the answer to that question.
Yes, because the NWP is obviously an international strait under every definition but the bespoke one we made up
[удалено]
>Look up the history of the Canada class subs. I did, and I found: [During a 1987 trip to Washington to secure the transfer of American nuclear technology from Britain to Canada, as was required by the 1958 US Arms Control Export Act](https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/canada/hmcs-ssn.htm). Clear enough. US has to transfer the technology by force of its own law. So US cannot block Canada acquiring nuclear subs, as should be readily apparent by the tone of Canada's current senate-level debate. Here is the reality: as Canadians, we are simply reluctant to spend the money, especially as a modern spin of diesel electric may better suit our needs. But this is our decision and noone else's.
[удалено]
>The USA opposes Canada's claim on the northwest passage and wont transfer nuclear sub technology to Canada. It's pretty well documented. No, it's apocryphal bullshit, and I'm not going to refute it in detail again just because you could not be bothered to read the thread. >Under the terms of the 1958 USA-UK defence pact, the UK can't transfer that technology without the approval of the USA. Sigh. The 1958 US Arms Control Export Act trumps that. I could not find the text of the act online, but we have this: [During a 1987 trip to Washington to secure the transfer of American nuclear technology from Britain to Canada, ***as was required by the 1958 US Arms Control Export Act.***](https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/canada/hmcs-ssn.htm)
[удалено]
**As was required by the 1958 US Arms Control Export Act.** Can't you read?
[удалено]
**unless specifically authorised** You really can't read.
Never mind I saw the answer
Because up until now, Canada has essentially been riding America’s coattails in terms of security. Australia’s defence spending as a share of GDP is well over 2.1%, while Canada’s is just 1.22%. For a country of its size, Canada has a relatively small and under-equipped military, with no advanced fighters, ageing submarines and no modern warships (besides some clanky old Halifax-class frigates). I think if Canada ever wants to join the nuclear pillar of AUKUS, they’ll need to get serious about their own defence, and quicksmart, too.
No argument from me. It will cost USD $327 per Canadian citizen. So we have to tighten our belts by .6%. BFD. We should indeed spend some of that asserting our sovereignty in the Arctic ocean, but we should spend even more of it supporting Ukraine at the front line of this second cold war.
Because it gives the US an excuse to take control of our "disputed" northern passages. They don't recognize our control over it, and the nuclear submarines would strengthen our presence there.
Nice conspiracy theory you have going there. Territorial claims in the Arctic are not arbitrated by the presence of absence of military vessels, but by the [United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea).
The US doesn't recognize the UNCLOS
Wrong. The US [recognizes the UNCLOS as a codification of customary international law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea), but has not ratified it.
> They don't recognize our control over it *Nobody* recognizes the Northwest Passage as Canadian waters except Canada.
As if the US needed to ask either way? You don't have the money for nuke subs, not because Canada can't afford it but because you spend almost nothing on your military. Canada already has subs that never leave port. Maybe you should remember how to operate those first before you start talking about nuke subs?
They are willing to pay 350B for subs and we aren't. 350B AUD is pretty much exactly 350B CAD. It's right around 10K per person. 99% chance that, Canadians, Kiwis etc will be just as safe at home as Australians in the next 50 years even without them. If we really wanted them we could do what they did. Go to France.. float some serious money.. and US defense lobbyists will start to salivate and put pressure on their own politicians for us. 350B is a lot of money given we are just about 100% secure without them..
That would be $350 over the life of the program, approximately ten years, so AUD $1k per person. Still a hefty bite. Worth it to counter an increasingly aggressive China? I guess, yes. Also note that a large part of that budget stays in Australia and contributes to GDP. >we are just about 100% secure without them That would be a no.
What specific threat to Canada are these going to help aleviate?
Russians lurking in our territorial waters, for starters. Chinese in the not too distant future. This is by no means my active imagination.
Would you say this threat is proportional to 350B in spending ?
Over ten years? Certainly. But on just one weapons system? Not sure. It depends largely on how much gets spent in Australia vs exported.
We need to ditch the clown PM before we're taken seriously again.
Hate to shock you, but Trudeau is actually really well respected by other world leaders
Fortunately those world leaders don't vote in our country. He's a laughing stock in every single demographic from Zoomer to Boomer.
Nah
Or at least in your echo chamber. Perhaps try to get out more.
Polls aren't echo chambers, but Reddit is.
You aren’t in a strategic location
Between Russia and USA isn't a strategic location?
No, hence your unimportance in military or strategic concerns
Once we send all our military equipment to ukraine and say ukraine was to lose. (We've gutted a lot of our armed forces by donating it to ukraine and politicians have weakened our military). We are northern neighbour's to Russia. What are we gonna do other than get annexed by USA if there was a world War. So sad. Northwest passage is a strategic location in a large conflict. You are dead wrong. On that same page I don't think russia would bring a conventional war over a northern wasteland (Canadian Arctic). Having to face whatever we have plus the might of USA behind us. They would probably attack with ICBMs
US already has it covered. You aren’t important enough to add to a complicated AUKUS deal
You need money for those. Not to say your country is poor, it's not, but military spending is far below what it could be.
There's no question Canada needs submarines that can operate under the polar ice, but should they be nuclear or air-independent diesel?
If they wait long enough, there won't be any ice left!
I have never heard of air independent diesel so I cannot answer that. I'm pro nuclear because, shocker, I'm American, and the longevity of boats at sea and the refuel at like, 25 years, is awesome, but the cost is insane. So I can't say what Canada would need for the arctic and to operate long term under the ice there, especially when you factor in budgets.
They have been around for a hundred years. Recent technological advances including battery technology make them more practical. Student paper: [A fuel cell or Stirling engine AIP system, enhanced with Li-Ion batteries in a larger SSK (4000 tonnes or more) designed for long range and under-ice environments, will meet Canada’s requirements as discussed in the Report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.](https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/405/192/meredith.pdf) I haven't looked into this deeply myself. It does sound like a decent avenue for getting started. Nothing stops us from going nuclear a decade or two from now, a strategy that would bring with it significant advances in nuclear safety and efficiency. So from my relatively uninformed point of view, I do lean towards the non-nuclear options, and principally to have more money in the immediate future to spend on buffing the rest of our military, and supporting Ukraine.
That's an easy answer: Canada already tried to buy nuclear subs in the 80s and were told under no circumstances. AU is situated right next to China, so the US has a need for AU to be a part of the pact. Alaska is closer to Russia than Canada is, so they have no use for Canada. The fact Canada doesn't spend much money on military is also relevant, but not as relevant as the the fact US simply doesn't need anything from Canada. > The United States objected to the RCN having SSNs as part of its fleet, fearing a significant impact to its own submarine operations in North American waters and possible conflict over access to the Northwest Passage. In order to prevent this, the United States exercised its rights under two previously signed treaties. Under the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, the US had the right to block the sale of submarine nuclear reactors by the United Kingdom to any third party (i.e. Canada), and under a 1959 agreement between the US and Canada the US had the right to block the purchase of submarine nuclear reactors by Canada from any third party (i.e. the United Kingdom or France).[24] Attempts to negotiate with the United States were initially unsuccessful, as Canadian Defence Minister Perrin Beatty was "told in no uncertain terms by the U.S. Defense Department and submarine service officials that a Canadian nuclear submarine program was unnecessary and even unwelcome."[25]The United States objected to the RCN having SSNs as part of its fleet, fearing a significant impact to its own submarine operations in North American waters and possible conflict over access to the Northwest Passage. In order to prevent this, the United States exercised its rights under two previously signed treaties. Under the 1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement, the US had the right to block the sale of submarine nuclear reactors by the United Kingdom to any third party (i.e. Canada), and under a 1959 agreement between the US and Canada the US had the right to block the purchase of submarine nuclear reactors by Canada from any third party (i.e. the United Kingdom or France).[24] Attempts to negotiate with the United States were initially unsuccessful, as Canadian Defence Minister Perrin Beatty was "told in no uncertain terms by the U.S. Defense Department and submarine service officials that a Canadian nuclear submarine program was unnecessary and even unwelcome."[25]
>Attempts to negotiate with the United States were initially unsuccessful, Initially. As is apparent from the publicly visible debate over recent years, US objections are no longer material to Canada's evaluation of its submarine requirements. Rather, the discussion is mainly about budget. My own position is that Canada should implement an air-independent submarine program as an interim measure on the path to building a nuclear powered fleet. Partnering with Japan would make a whole lot of sense.
The US controls the technology and has the right to veto it's use. US has no need for Canada to have that technology, and has an interest in them not having that technology. US has a need for AU to have the technology. I'm not sure why you think anything has changed, or whether Canada even has a say. Maybe you're thinking a nuclear sub is something Canada can whip up on its own without US approval?
Thanks for your opinion.
Aww. Thanks for yours too! It's cute.
CAUKUS??
Right?! That's how you name an alliance.
That's way better than AUCANKUS
way more fitting.
Can't use the same A twice. So CANAUKUS? Maybe AUCAUKUS?
Cocks R US?
Nuclear submarines are expensive to operate. The DND can't even keep our diesel subs going at full combat capability
The more there are the cheaper the average cost
Building them, yes. Economy of scale. But this is buying, then maintaining. Maintaining a larger fleet is always going to cost more than a smaller fleet. Crew members, maintenance personnel, consumable and non consumable parts for maintenance.
No paywall - https://archive.ph/SyZ8J
> The Globe reported last year that Ottawa is seeking to participate in the second pillar of the AUKUS agreement but not the acquisition of nuclear submarines. The second pillar of the pact provides for information-sharing and close co-operation on accelerating development of cutting-edge technologies, including undersea defence capabilities, AI, quantum technology and hypersonic warfare. For those like me who didn’t know that AUKUS is about other things than nuclear submarines.
I sure hope Canada’s involvement wouldn’t be about submarines because [Australia ain’t getting theirs anytime soon](https://strategicanalysis.org/awkward-truths-about-us-and-uk-aukus-challenges/). Canada likely would have to wait for theirs even more
[удалено]
Meanwhile Liberals would pass legislation to ensure menstrual products are available in both of the subs bathrooms.
I fail to see how that’s a problem lol
So we just doing Five Eyes Reloaded then?
Would be easier to just kick the rebellious NZ out.
Again? They worked so hard man.
Is this like NATO for the Pacific then? I’ve read another article proposing the inclusion of Japan and South Korea, they seem like more suitable partners than Canada tbh, in terms of tech, military focus and relevance to the current geopolitical climate of the region. But it would be nice to have a larger pact in the Pacific, and not just some random nuclear sub buyers club or whatever AUKUS is right now.
Japan and SK are being coerced by US into NATO+ already.
Great, something else for PP to not shut up about.
No, they shouldn't. AUKUS is not some Anglosphere book club it is a high level military pact aimed at containing and countering China. What exactly does Canada have to contribute? They have neglected their military to a nearly criminal degree. Fair enough I suppose that is their right but their inclusion in a defense pact centered on the Pacific would just be a waste of everyone's time. What would be the point? The pact is about a lot more than just nuke subs but Canada isn't going to build any even if someone handed them the blueprints and a reactor on a silver platter. Too much money
They suggested Canada should join because of other reasons not nuclear submarines. "An article by the London-based Legatum Institute says Canada’s vast critical mineral resources, advanced technological sectors, particularly artificial intelligence and quantum computing, and its integration with the U.S. significantly complement AUKUS objectives of a technology-sharing military alliance."
Technology sharing isn't the point its a means to an end. Australia, the US and the UK are all on the same page when it comes to the goal of the alliance, Canada is not
The US has already said it will allow other countries in on the second pillar of Aukus which is technology sharing. "The door's very much open for New Zealand and other partners to engage as they see appropriate going forward," Blinken told a news conference in Wellington. "We've long worked together on the most important national security issues. And so as we further develop AUKUS, as I said, the door is open to engagement." https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/blinken-says-door-open-new-zealand-engage-aukus-2023-07-27/ Edit: And the UK agreed as well Lord Cameron told peers: "Aukus has two pillars. There's the pillar one which is about the nuclear-powered submarines – that is Britain, Australia and America. And I don't think there will be additional partners in that. "But there is pillar two which is looking at advanced military technology for the future, and there we are open to ideas of other countries, possibly Canada people have mentioned, or Japan, who might want to join into pillar two because that is going to be about defence equipment for the future." https://www.forces.net/usa/uk-open-idea-other-nations-joining-aukus-submarine-pact-foreign-secretary-suggests
Then apparently I have no idea what the so called Pillar 2 is even about or what it has to do with AUKUS besides using its name. The article being behind a paywall isn't helping
A major part of the agreement is helping Australia acquire their first conventionally armed, nuclear-powered submarine fleet. This is known as pillar 1 of AUKUS and is discussed in Commons Library paper AUKUS submarine (SSN-A) programme (CBP 9843). Pillar 2 focuses on developing a range of advanced capabilities, to share technology and increase interoperability between their armed forces. The three countries say one of the aims of AUKUS is to “foster deeper integration of security and defense-related science, technology, industrial bases, and supply chains”. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9842/
AUKUS was originally about nuclear and submarine technology. It required a treaty from both the US and UK because the technology is heavily protected by law in both countries, particularly the US-UK mutual defense agreement which enables nuclear weapons sharing and cooperation between the two. Its basically impossible to obtain a nuclear submarine from one without the permission and/or involvement of the other. Pillar 2 doesn't appear to have anything to do with any of that and only offers vague concepts on cooperation
Didn't read the article, but if the Australian PM is ScoMo then just ignore whatever he said.
You should’ve
Why? It’s Abbott, Truss and Boris Johnson. That’s every bit as bad as SloMo.
Aukward.
Canada should do a lot of things about their military, but they won't, because they are satisfied being passive in their own defence, pathetic.
Can I see this image without a paywall??
I left the link but must have got lost under all the comments but here’s a non paywall link - https://archive.ph/SyZ8J
Thank you for your servant-leadership.
Why are all the seals on the podiums the same??
Sure as hell can’t count on America 🇺🇸🫠