Talk:Canada and weapons of mass destruction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

"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.

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.

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"

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

[edit] Biological weapons

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. [1] --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

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)

[edit] 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:

  • India definitely uses a Canadian-built research reactor based on CANDU technology, the CIRUS reactor, to produce plutonium for weapons. [2] (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. [3]
  • [4] 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.

I'm convinced; I'll fix the article. --Andrew 20:31, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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


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)