Talk:Canada and weapons of mass destruction

Untitled
"Canada with its strong belief in multilateralism has long been a..."

Canada is not something that can have a belief. An appropriate phrase would be "with it's historical support for multilateralism...". Of course, that would have to be backed up by the facts. If you change that to Canadians, it implies a consensus that is not supported in the national political discourse. There is too much argument to support this.


 * I took this part about multilateralism out. Even if changed to "historical support", I think it runs foul of NPOV requirements. Spenceb 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Article also claims that Canada "does not possess any ...". Seems to say that there are none within the geographical boundaries of Canada. Which is not always true.

It has long been the stated policy of successive Governments that the Americans must have permission to station weapons here. This is well documented in the quoted sources. The statement is "Canada does not ..." and this implies that the Canadian State does not have custody or ownership. This is quite clear as Canada has not been accused of possession. It is certain that the United States owns such WMD and that they may transit northern waters in secret. The US do not recognize all of the Canadian claims in the Arctic but it would be a reach to claim Canadian possession of the warheads on board a USN 'boomer' in disputed waters. WMD systems are so expensive that they could not be concealed in the Canadian Military budget.

Should be changed to "The Government of Canada does not possess..."

The phrase "...is one of the world's nations most committed to limiting the spread of such weapons..." just doesn't mean anything.

Overall, the article has a strong "Canadian inferiority/superiority tone" (note, I am a canadian, and have had a lot of practice recognizing this)

Me too, I recognize a lot of denial of the sharpness of the pointed end of our military. I want to document the willful ignorance. Our UN troops used to stop in Lahr on the way to and from Peacekeeping missions. Their Yukon flights to Cyprus and Egypt would fly over Canadian nuclear strike CF-104 dispersals at Lahr in the early 1970's.

Indeed, it is very disingenius. Trudeau declares Canada a nuclear free country in 1971 but we still have nuclear armed warplanes in 1984? Someone is not connecting the dots very well. Also, the statement that Canada has no WMD is contradicted by the linked definition of WMD, which makes plain that all modern militaries have WMD. s-slater

The nuclear-tipped AIR-2 Genie is well documented and surprised me (an RCAF brat) when I read it. Trudeau eliminated the offensive nuclear weapons (wisely) as they were less survivable (hence less stable) than boomer submarines.

I think he was just too cheap to replace the CF-101 Voodoo with a modern jet. The CF-18 decision dragged on for years. j-austin

Biological weapons
Apparently Dr Banting gave a talk in London in 1939 that influenced HM Gov't to establish Porton Down. He was working on the Franks flying suit when he died but he was apparently an early influencer for bio weapons research.Jwaustin188 (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The US and the UK did a lot of work in Canada that the Gov't of Canada were unaware of. Grosse Ile and Suffield may have been the work of our rouge 'allies'. Jwaustin188 (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

''Canada has never had much of a biological warfare research program and has long condemned such weapons. Most Canadian research has involved developing protections against biowarfare attacks.''


 * Canadian biological and toxin warfare research were extensive and were specifically developed for offensive purposes. This includes botulinum toxin, ricin, rinderpest virus, Rocky Mountain spotted fever, plague, and tularemia.  See Donald Avery, Erhard Geissler, John Ellis van Courtland Mood, John Bryden, U.S. Government Printing Office, and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.   --Viriditas 22:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This whole page is based on assumptions, I was in the Canadian Armed Forces for 5 years and it is commonly known that there are 9 missile silos in the north of Nunavut, and as of 1991 they are full. most likely with nuclear weapons. 216.46.149.218

That is a load of crap. The Americans are paranoid about other people's custody and they don't even base their own in Alaska. Subs are a much better solution because of the resources they tie down in anti-submarine forces.


 * I do not know anything about the Canadian attitude towards those weapons but I agree with the above users who were irritated about some wordings. Just go ahead, to my experience most Canadians are nice people who do not freak out if you behave reasonably. Get-back-world-respect 15:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * And if we're not nice, at least we're (mostly) not armed... --Andrew 20:31, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * No original research, please. If you have personal knowledge of nuclear weapons in Canada, send your tips to the press or to your MP. An encyclopedia is not the appropriate forum for whistleblowing. --Yannick 19:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's a request for a reference regarding biological weapons research done in Canada...John Bryden in "Deadly Allies" gives evidence that Suffield, Alberta (Canada's current site for chemical, biological, and nuclear defence training) was used in the production of anthrax and testing of mustard gas. The ISBN is 0771017243. Most of the book is about biological and chemical warfare development, and some of the more ridiculous inventions that a British figure, Lord Mountbatten, wanted to develop in Canada. I would add the reference myself, but I'm not entirely sure about the formatting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gba111 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

CANDU and India
This page seems to claim that India used its licensed CANDU reactors to produce plutonium for weapons. I don't think that's true, although this is sort of a murky area. Let me explain why I think this: I'm convinced; I'll fix the article. --Andrew 20:31, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * India definitely uses a Canadian-built research reactor based on CANDU technology, the CIRUS reactor, to produce plutonium for weapons.  (This reactor was built in 1960; when India tested its first nuclear weapon, in 1974, Canada declared a sort of nuclear embargo on India).
 * India also uses a purely Indian-designed, -built, and -commissioned reactor (Dhruva) to produce plutonium; it's also a natural uranium, heavy-water reactor, but is not a CANDU, licensed or otherwise.
 * answers pretty definitively in the negative: what it says is that while CANDU technology (and maybe CANDU tritium) may have been used, it's India's non-licensed, non-safeguarded reactors (some CANDU derivatives) were used.

CANDU and proliferation
We now have the following paragraph:
 * Canada continues to promote peaceful nuclear technology exemplified by the CANDU reactor. Unlike most designs, the CANDU does not require enriched fuel, and in theory is therefore much less likely to lead to the development of weaponized fissile fuel. For this reason CANDU has been sold to countries where there is a threat of nuclear proliferation, on the basis that the construction of an enrichment facility would be noticed and clearly being used for weapons only. However, like many nuclear designs, CANDU can be used to produce plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. CANDU reactors are designed to be refueled while running, which makes plutonium production much easier.

In particular, what's new is the claim that the CANDU use of non-enriched uranium makes them more proliferation resistant, and that they were therefore sold to nations that might try to set up clandestine nuclear programs. I think this needs more justification (or at least discussion).

On the one hand, any nuclear reactor can be used to manufacture plutonium. The ability to refuel while running makes it easier to slip past inspectors: just sneak plutonium canisters into the pile when the inspectors aren't looking.

On the other hand, enriched uranium is a proliferation hazard. You can buy it from somebody, or you can build expensive and difficult uranium-enrichment plants. If you use a standard PWR design, you have to feed it enriched uranium. If you make the enriched uranium yourself, you need enrichment facilities; it's easy to sneakily produce some highly-enriched uranium with them. If you import the enriched uranium, you can't do this - the fuel doesn't make a decent weapon. You could still make plutonium, though.

Finally, there are other reasons you might sell CANDUs to poor nations:
 * They don't need huge pressure vessels
 * They can run on native uranium

So does anyone have a reference on this policy of selling CANDUs to nations that are a proliferation risk? --Andrew 07:28, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

A Nuclear Power Reactor is NOT a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Ontario Power Generation is supposed to have burned surplus Russian weapons-grade material as part of their power cycle.

Chemical Weapons

This catagory does not mention non-leathal Chemical weapons which Canada does posses and use. ie: CS gas, Pepperspray, ect. fall into this Catagory if anybody has studied NBCD. They should be included in this artical.

Aporter3

But those are riot-control weapons. Just because something is unpleasant and WMDs are unpleasant does not make CS and Pepper-spray into WMDs. There is a fundamental logic error in that argument. j-austin "Canada still employs Riot control agents which are classified as chemical weapons." This statement is wrong. According to the Chemical Weapons Convention, riot control agents are not chemical weapons, otherwise they would be prohibited. Canada still employs Riot control agents which are classified as non-lethal weapons. Lespin (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Voodoo

Removed "from front-line service." It is not in reserve either. Source?

Motorfix 19:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is explained in more detail in the John Clearwater book in the reference section, and also on the CF-101 Voodoo page. Essentially, the Voodoos were retired from front line service at the end of 1984, but two aircraft remained in service as electronic support aircraft until 1987.--Voodude (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like Canadian government propaganda, or it is written by someone deeply patriotic. I mean, I am extremely patriotic, but this is a little excessive in the praise department. 137.186.228.139 (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WWII Bombing
Does the section in the intro about Canadian participation in WWII bombing raids really belong in this article? Much less in the introduction? It was certainly mass destruction but it is not what is presently meant by the term "weapons of mass destruction". Megalophias (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought that 1,000 RAF Lancasters qualify as a WMD. They did a lot of destruction. It belongs because we went down that road and learned. We are not there now, unlike our four largest allies in that war. (USA, USSR, UK, France) j-austin

I wanted to develop the theme that Canada bought in to WMD's during WWII by building Lancasters and Mosquitos, training air crews and operating hundreds of aircraft in No. 6 Group, RAF Bomber Command. This force was one of the major bombing capabilities of the victors but Canada gave up building her own WMDs in 1945. Except for the CF-104s built in Montreal, Canada gave up indigenous development of WMDs. The RCAF was the largest air force of a country that did not follow the war with development of their own nuclear weapons. The United Kingdom, France, USSR and the USA all developed their own nukes right after the war. Canada did not. j-austin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.108.31 (talk) 01:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)