I can’t vouch for the author at all, but this seems like a nice detailed, technical look at the difference between the two.
TL;DR the 212CD is very good at what in biology would be called “sit and wait predation”. It’s designed to sneak into an ocean floor crevice and hang out there, possibly for for weeks until something comes by, and then attack it. The Hanwha offering, on the other hand, is less superlatively stealthy and maneuverable, but is much more flexible, allowing missile launches and likely having a much longer range.
“Land-attack capability via cruise and/or non-nuclear ballistic missiles”
Canada needs nukes.
No one needs nukes
It used to be nobody needs nukes, but…since our most powerful ally is the only nuclear power stupid enough to actually use them we get the deterrent value anyway. As client states we were all (UK, Australia, Canada etc) actively discouraged from developing independent capabilities that would reduce our dependency on the alliance or US arms industry.
If people found the US nuclear umbrella re-assuring then, many don’t now. I am Australian, but submarines and the US alliance are a huge issue here as well.
Canada’s geography is very important strategically to the USA like practically no other place. Canada has less need of nukes than just about anyone. Currently the fate of other US allies feels far less secure. It seems we are all just bits of land to be traded to our enemies by the US administration in return for who knows what? It is a very sad state of affairs.
It’s more like “everyone needs no nukes”. It’s just that being one of the nuclear powers is so much easier…
Having a delivery system in case we do decide to go down that path seems reasonable.
I don’t think Canada is in a place where it needs to have a nuclear weapon. There are no threats to Canada (besides Trump, and we know that’s not likely). Canada doesn’t need to lower itself to those levels.
Do we? Sometimes he TACOs, but sometimes he does exactly what he said he would. And what about whoever the next American autocrat is?
Getting in on one of the European umbrellas would be much better, though. We could even have British or French warheads on a Canadian sub, although I doubt it could launch a Trident as the delivery system.
Tell that to Ukraine.
Ukraine made a deal with America to disarm back when America was a little trustworthy. Things have changed, and I say they’re good to resume nukes.
Close.Ukraine made a deal with Russia to return their nukes in exchange for non-invasion with US and European signatories as guarentors. (Because Russia has never been trustworthy.)
It’s why Nato supplying Ukraine is legitimate. Russia renegged on the non-invasion treaty knowing full well what happens.
Edit: Ukraine has no nuclear building capabilities in the short to medium term. Long term , who knows?
That would solve nothing because they would be condemned for using it.
The point of nukes is to not use them. Countries with nukes negotiate. Countries without nukes get preyed upon.
Your comment is ridiculous considering there is an active war of invasion in Ukraine at present, and they traded their nukes in exchange for a promise not to invade. In retrospect, the nukes would have been better.
And if Russia doesn’t stop? What would you suggest they do?
Nuke east of the Urals and hope the clouds drift to North Korea.
Why are all you comments hopelessly misconstrued?
If they had nukes, there would have been no invasion.
OK, wait a sec. We all know what MAD entails. However, Ukraine is currenty striking deep into Russia, disrupting refineries and such. Yet Russia hasn’t blown Kiev with a nuke. That’s a legitimate issue to consider. I don’t think most would disagree that nukes reduce the chance of an armed conflict. However it seems like even so, we can’t rely on it to stop it entirely. It’s as if there’s a threshold of threat/intensity below which a hot war can be maintained despite having nuclear capability.
With all that said I do believe we need nukes yesterday especially because we have little ability to maintain a hot war with the US.
Amassing a large ballistic missle arsenal DPRK-style would also work as a deterrent. Perhaps even more effectively since we could fire some of it to prove we ain’t afraid to use it, without “starting a nuclear war.”
Russia hasn’t blown Kiev with a nuke because the consequences would be severe, Including possible tactical nuclear reciprocity, and becoming a global pariah who loses the few allies they have left. It also makes no sense to nuke the prize you want to own or pop off nukes upwind of your territory as your own people will be very pissed off with any fallout. It would also trigger a massive change in posture of NATO. Any country so irresponsible with nuclear weapons to use them on non threats, non-nuke countries becomes a candidate for a capitulating first strike.
Russia has updated their nuclear doctrine so NATO powers can’t conventionally cripple russia by proxy via Ukraine as it would risk devastating escalation. But again, no one wants escalation. It’s an unnecessary posture as Russia started this as an agressor, and played the great game very, very badly due to internal corruption. They could stop it at any time.
Edit: As for Canadian defense against the US, there is no hot war defense possible. There are 2 effective defensive possibilities.
Nuclear deterrent. (A sub based nuclear second strike only capability similar to the UK.)
Preparation for an insurgency. Like Vietnam, Afghanistan, the US can take and hold whatever it wants for as long as it wants. Canada could not defend against any hot war. An insurgency however would make it way too costly for the US to hold onto Canada for any length of time and would be devastating to onshore infrastructure and industrial capacity at a time where China is quickly rising. They would also be expelled from NATO and would have to counter China alone without its Western World allied military capabilities or soft power.
And if Russia said “fuck it” and called their bluff, what should Ukraine do?
What bluff?
Yeah, I was wondering why that was specified. I spent some time looking into if it could fire nukes as well this morning. The verdict is maybe; a lot is secret, but the kind of tubes the KSS-III has are thought to be larger than their ship-borne equivalent.