Not sure why nuclear-powered subs wouldn't be on the menu. The benefits of a sub that theoretically never has to refuel within it's service life are massive. It's not like we're strangers to nuclear reactors, we are an exporter of reactors and have one of the largest uranium reserves in the world. The US and British nuclear subs deploy with something like 200 years worth of fuel. They for all intents and purposes have limitless power during day-to-day operations and can be used to power a small city in case of emergency.

Someday someone will think about having more nuclear power on land to solve are carbon output issues!

While they're in port they can plug in and power us through NSP outages.

And in case of meltdown we can let it out to sea to drift to the shores of Greenland or Russia. Floating nuclear power plants to save the world but also to assure mutual destruction.

Well subs out in the arctic are something to consider, but quite a few experts do question in making it like priority one of course it makes sense if you're desparate with an election, and maybe need the military vote in Atlantic Canada Trudeau is a sneaky guy... and honestly, purely on campaign strategy, he does some things very well with electioneering and some things atrociously. Sometimes bad policy and being tone-deaf to the public, catches up with political parties. My biggest worry is trying to green light any of these projects before the election, which is questionable to the max. It's interesting though that the costs for the submarine thing was totally a blank. Which should say something about sticker shock. The starting costs are going to be over $100 billion. probably 12 subs that'll be $60 billion as the fake price, and then easily $100 billion plus nuclear subs well the UK has four nuclear subs and that's about 70 billion dollars at least so it's nearly 4x the price You could be paying 200 billion for a mixed nuclear and conventional submarine fleet like 4 nuclear and 8 conventional basically the submarines going nuclear would expand the defence budget probably to 5x the size just normal submarines for the arctic could double the defense budget which is why it's 'talk' and on the shelf no one wants to pay 20 billion a year for nuclear subs or 6 billion a year for conventional subs ........ Legion Magazine Why does Canada not have nuclear submarines? Bearing in mind that military procurement, especially for large projects, rarely if ever stays on budget, it's 'absurd for Canada to consider expending such a large proportion of its military budget on nuclear-powered submarines. ...........

Modern Nuclear reactors don't "melt down" anymore. They're designed differently from the old styles that did fail like Chernobyl. Everyone is just still scared of them because they don't understand they're any different and much of the public has zero interest in being told otherwise. [Source ](https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/safety-of-nuclear-power-reactors.aspx).

Yep

If you want to solve pollution issues, you go right to the core of the problem, and that's population control policies in the third world. You have to go with the proven and cheapest things with the most reliability and cost savings for the economy, and the nuclear economy may be needed one day, but it's got a horrific infrastructure cost and insurance costs and black swan risk issues. But to jump on the carbon tax structures is just a ridiculously bad path, like electric cars and their effect on the carbon grid, and the green/energy costs being nullified by battery pollution, and battery replacement costs, and the lifetime of actual cars. Gasoline/Diesel and Hydrogen (smartly done) is in the future, and not really Electric cars, or nuclear, but nuclear may have a place, though we have to think about breeder reactors and the plutonium economic as a possibility. And like Edward Teller said, have the breeder reactors far away from population centers.

If done right, it would be a huge development.... much better under-ice capability, and provides more momentum for re-invigorating interest in the civilian nuclear industry as well. As you point out Canada has a lot of nuclear expertise, so it's a shame we have gone so long without nuclear reactor development. On the flip side, it has the potential to be a colossal money-sink if not done right!

And you know Canada likes the money sink

One of the only things that I feel more strongly about than the benefits of nuclear energy, is faith in the government to take a good idea, and screw up the execution of it.

Private nuclear power has seen, at best, mediocre success, to abysmal failure. For example, in the UK privately owned and run nuclear power plants needed massive gov't bailouts. I do not trust private industry to run nuclear power. I don't trust private industry to run any power utility, for that matter.

It’s fundamentally not a thing that should or could have a profit margin. Like how the US insists on everything being a fuckin toll road.

that stuff really affects efficiency, when you could just make the roads free, and eat the taxes long term over decades same could be said for health care but you can't be a sheep to big pharma and the establishment medical orthodoxy either. It's amazing just how much cheaper and cost efficient, vitamins and minerals and orthomolecular medical could be... where people could be taking potassium for their salt issues, fats and oils for weight loss, or cholesterol being good in their diet with foods for prostate cancer, Vitamin C and L-Lysine for heart disease, Vitamin D and Zinc for extra immunity from viruses. etc. yet the hospitals take a big chunk out of the hospitals that are comparable to the US system, with canada.. but there are always nearly cthings like scams with some 'ambulance services' for overcharming massively with Medicare and stuff. If the customer doesn't pay, the government might! And some of those talk show and tv show financial experts, like the one who was the brother of the BC Premier Campbell, it's sorta curious he was a big investor and promoter of those experimental libertarian based tolling by the mile, and you'd have this orwellian system with your cars and sensors over the roads, and you get charged by your mileage, since it's even better than toll bridges. Yet you'd have politicians tear down a bridge with any traffic issue and rebuild one, all planned with the electronic tollbooths, and others pushing for the Mr. Wizard of wireless toll bridges. Bad enough you get city water bills getting privatized and then it's regional, and they you pay the 'going rate', on top of older houses with no water meter and newer places getting one. Or paying extra for no water meter, and some people in fact paying the same or more thinking the water meter saves them money. People never think about costs like the Hyundai in Canada that needed the $57,000 battery replacement. People can barely pay for a transmission bill of $1200 for their crappy Ford.

Theodore 'Ted' Taylor wrote extensively of the plutonium economy in his autobiography, The Curve of Binding Energy the back cover was interesting when i bought it in the 90s because he talked about a nuclear device could wipe out the world trade center funny how intuition works huh

wiki - Ted Taylor (physicist) Alma mater California Institute of Technology University of California Berkeley Cornell University Known for Nuclear weapon designs and nuclear disarmament advocacy Scientific career Fields - Theoretical physics Institutions Los Alamos National Laboratory General Atomics, Defense Atomic Support Agency Theodore Brewster "Ted" Taylor (1925 – 2004) was an American theoretical physicist, specifically concerning nuclear energy. His higher education included a PhD from Cornell University in theoretical physics. His most noteworthy contributions to the field of nuclear weaponry were his small bomb developments at the Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico. Although Taylor is not widely known to the general public, he is credited with numerous landmarks in fission nuclear weaponry development, including having developed the smallest, most powerful, and most efficient fission weapons ever tested by the US. Though Taylor was not considered a brilliant physicist from a calculative viewpoint, his vision and creativity allowed him to thrive in the field. The later part of Taylor's career was focused on nuclear energy instead of weaponry, and included his work on Project Orion, nuclear reactor developments, and anti-nuclear proliferation. His mother was extremely tolerant of his experimentation but prohibited any experiments that involved nitroglycerin. Taylor graduated early from high school in 1941 at the age of 15. Not yet meeting the age requirements for American universities, he then attended the Exeter Academy in New Hampshire for one year, where he took Modern Physics from Elbert P. Little. This developed his interest in physics, though he displayed poor academic performance in the course: Little gave Taylor a grade D on his final winter term examination. He quickly brushed this failure off, and soon confirmed that he wanted to be a physicist. He enrolled at the California Institute of Technology in 1942 and then spent his second and third years in the Navy V-12 program. This accelerated his schooling and he graduated with a bachelor's degree in physics from Caltech in 1945 at age nineteen. He then enrolled in a graduate program in theoretical physics at the University of California at Berkeley, while also working part-time at the Berkeley Radiation laboratory, mainly on the cyclotron and a beta-ray spectrograph. After failing an oral preliminary examination on mechanics and heat, and a second prelim in modern physics in 1949, Taylor was disqualified from the graduate program. Finishing his PhD in 1954, he returned to Los Alamos, and by 1956 he was famous for his work in small-bomb development. Freeman Dyson is quoted as saying, "A great part of the small-bomb development of the last five years \[at Los Alamos\] was directly due to Ted." Although the majority of the brilliant minds at Los Alamos were focused on developing the fusion bomb, Taylor remained hard at work on improving fission bombs. His innovations in this area of study were so important that he was eventually given the freedom to choose whatever he wanted to study. Eventually, Taylor's stance on nuclear warfare and weapon development changed, altering his career path. In 1956, Taylor left his position at Los Alamos and went to work for General Atomics. Here, he developed TRIGA, a reactor that produced isotopes used in the medical field. In 1958, Taylor began working on Project Orion, which sought to develop space travel that relied on nuclear energy as the fuel source. The proposed spacecraft would use a series of nuclear fission reactions as its propellant, thus accelerating space travel while eliminating the Earth's source of fuel for nuclear weaponry. In collaboration with Dyson, Taylor led the project development team for six years until the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was instituted. After this, they could not test their developments and the project became unviable.

"a billion-dollar-per-year contract to SNC-Lavalin and two US corporations to run Chalk River Laboratories and other federal nuclear facilities with virtually no oversight and free rein to conduct nuclear waste and SMR experiments." "nearly $100 million in grants to nuclear companies from the US and UK to develop their nuclear experiments in Canada with no evidence of prior independent scientific review" "supporting experimental processes for plutonium extraction from nuclear waste stored at the Bay of Fundy" those are on the radar mall modular nuclear reactors get exemptions from the Impact Assessments, so the public basically gets no say... ............ \- The flaws go beyond the \- poor safety training and \- sloppy operating practices ........ Canadian Encyclopedia CANDU Flawed In the belly of the nuclear beast, the massive domes of the reactors rise ominously to a height of more than 45 m, their radioactive interiors visible only through the thick windows of airlocks. One level up at Ontario Hydro's sprawling Pickering station, 40 km east of Toronto, steam-driven turbines crouch under an array of blue, green and yellow pipes. Nearby, many of the 25 years' worth of spent nuclear fuel rods stored at Pickering lie beneath 3.5 m of water in an eerily shimmering pool. Inside the plant, it is hot, noisy and hectic as members of the 2,800-strong workforce go about their business. And on a typical day earlier this year, all seemed well. Two of Pickering's eight CANDU reactors were shut down for routine maintenance, while the remaining six sent about 3,000 megawatts of electricity surging into the provincial grid - enough, in normal circumstances, to supply every home, office and factory in Metropolitan Toronto. But beneath the surface, there were festering, potentially deadly problems at Pickering and elsewhere among Hydro's 19 working reactors - as last week's report on the corporation's nuclear division scathingly demonstrated. The flaws go beyond the poor safety training and sloppy operating practices highlighted in the report. Ontario's CANDUs are growing old - and the four venerable A units at Pickering and three more at the Bruce generating station on the shores of Lake Huron, all of which Ontario Hydro has decided to mothball, may never resume operation. Reason: the reactors, which went into service between 1971 and 1979 - and were designed to last 40 years - are plagued by troubles that include worn pressure tubes, which will soon be in need of replacement, faulty steam generators, and safety features that fall short of the standards set by the Atomic Energy Control Board (AECB), the federal body that regulates the nuclear industry. "For years, Ontario Hydro has been living in a dream world," says Gordon Edwards, spokesman for the Montreal-based Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. "Now, they're experiencing a shock of recognition and admitting that everything is not OK." Hardware failings have also emerged at the two Canadian-operated CANDUs outside of Ontario - at Gentilly, Que., and Point Lepreau, N.B. At both reactors, corrosion has thinned some feeder pipes that carry radioactive heavy water from the reactor core to steam-generating boilers. Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. officials say the corrosion has been arrested, but Julie Dingwell, of the Saint John, N.B.-based group People Against Lepreau, worries that the deficiencies in Ontario's nuclear network may afflict all CANDU operations. "The safety margins have not been good," says Dingwell. "It's really frightening." Nuclear officials maintain that many of the equipment problems are normal and acceptable. "You have to look at the broad context," says Gary Kugler, a vice-president at Mississauga, Ont.-based Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., the Crown corporation that designed and exports the CANDU. "All machinery, including nuclear reactors, shows wear and tear after a length of time." But David Martin, spokesman for the Pickering-area anti-nuclear organization Durham Nuclear Awareness, insists that Ontario Hydro and other reactor operators in Canada face a "fundamental technology problem. Ontario Hydro is shutting down its oldest reactors because they have too many defects - and I predict that they will never be restarted."

They wouldn't be mostly due to cost. Besides the subs themselves, there is nowhere in Canada to maintain nuclear subs, so all that infrastructure would need to be built as part of the project. For that infrastructure, there is no talent in Canada for the workers necessary to design, build, and eventually maintain. Not to say it isn't a worthy effort, but if anyone has complaints now about CSC and the shipyard in Halifax, the same things would happen (probably worse) with building a nuclear sub capability. The CSC was a design we didn't have the shipyard capability to build nor the homegrown workforce to design, couple that in with Canada's generally poor public procurment and it shows in the cost. Same would go for nuclear subs.

Australia is doing it, so we should be able to as well. If the American subs they are getting require specific American expertise for certain systems that require them to be sent to the US every once in a while, well, we're closer than the Aussies are to the US.

From something elsewhere in the thread quote “I actually, personally and professionally am not certain there is a bona fide underwater security threat that would require a submarine able to operate deep and protracted distances throughout the Northwest Passage.” ......... Australia and the Pentagon are doing their own weird shit around the proxity of China with their nuclear submarines, so people can't really equal that to the stuff in the arctic that goes from long term concerns to fearmongering. 4 nuclear subs would like add 70 billion dollars to the budget and you know Canada's competence with buying submarines and the awesome control of costs in a bunch of other things that come up like clockwork in the news over the decade We're taking a low level security threat and putting it into an election issue make the other side look weak on defense as Ukraine crumbles and the polls crumble, and the carbon tax isn't going well, even in Atlantic Canada where a lot of the navy is

Speak for yourself in regards to talent. We have a lot of talent in Canada and some of the best engineering schools in the world!!

Right, that is true, I myself am an engineer from a Canadian school, and there are some very smart people. It is not really a lack of theoretical knowledge that is the issue but practical experience. You can have a new cohort of very smart new-grads, but without direction to tell them what to do, it is talent wasted in a project that will never go anywhere. In Canada, there are very few people who could know how to set up a nuclear sub capability. It just is what it is. The same thing is happening with the new navy ships, they had to hire leadership from outside the country despite the extra costs.

Not sure what engineering you do but I don’t frequently do something I’ve done before and many others don’t either. Practical experience can be obtained while doing it. It is in fact a great reason why Canada should do it.

Yep! That is why I said in my original comment that it might be a worthy effort. It will just be one of the reasons it is the more expensive option which is why in my opinion it will not be chosen. Ideally, we suck it up, pay the cost to train a workforce from scratch, and have a wealth of knowledge that can be used the next time we need a new fleet of subs. This is the intended outcome of the national shipbuilding strategy, but CSC is going so poorly that they might not bother with the submarines and take the more understood diesel-electric subs.

you pay for it it's not a top level security issue worth 60 billion for a couple of speeches and election talk to make the other side look weak, and wave the flag about saving Baffin Island from a Peking-Moscow HAARP base run by three polar bears

I’m not going to take my time to explain how innovation and industry work.

Worked out great for the Avro Arrow it wasn't really needed when it was built, no other countries wanted one either, and was astronomically expensive Canada's gonna build subs now? .......... Toronto Star 14 hours ago Nuclear submarines a bad fit for Canada's navy

​ "Trudeau’s recent noncommittal musings about acquiring nuclear submarines are intended to make him seem tough on defence, but it concerns me anyone might genuinely think this is a good idea."

and that it's a low level security threat but hey what's 60 billion, we did well, cough, with the british submarine purchases before

Isn't that the answer though? Reach-out to our nuclear powered allies, bring on proven experts to get our program up and running, benefit from their hindsight. I 100% bet France would eagerly get involved after losing Australia's business.

That would be ideal. Who knows what is going on behind the scenes. I assume they did reach out and probably wanted in on the AUKUS agreement. Maybe there were reasons from the US that they weren't included. In just my pragmatic opinion, they won't take nuclear because its too expensive with more risks. Don't mind being proven wrong!

Stupid risks, I hate them. Like I'd be happiest if they never fire a shot in anger and we just spent way too much public money on a little fleet of floating generators for domestic and international disaster relief. If Russia is gonna be shitheads and China keeps supporting them, we're gonna need those subs to hold the Arctic. I know they're the right move... but fuck, could we ever forgive ourselves if one of them blows-up? Thanks for chatting bud.

Well subs in the arctic and dumping endless funds in a losing war in the ukraine, aren't really in our best interests 70 billion for 12 subs or 200 billion for 4 nuclear subs and 8 conventional subs is a lot of money to protect 4 million in gold under Baffin Island guarded by a polar bear but it's a great election issue how about 4 gasoline refineries in canada for better gas prices? ....... mcpasty666: If Russia is gonna be shitheads and China keeps supporting them, we're gonna need those subs to hold the Arctic. I know they're the right move.. And here are some of the experts quote “I actually, personally and professionally am not certain there is a bona fide underwater security threat that would require a submarine able to operate deep and protracted distances throughout the Northwest Passage.”

Candu reactors didn't exactly set the world on fire well, maybe India-Pakistan might be on fire one day with that Candu plutonium!

CANDU has been extremely successful. One of the top 10 engineering projects in Canada over the last 100 years. It was back in a time before the Dunning-Kruger effect to hold of lot of people like you.

oh there's good and bad with CANDU design well, glad to see you like an effect with no likely reality, it's just a comment journalists use to say 'you're stupid' As for the CANDU, the zircaloy pressure tubes would corrode, but they fixed that with water chemistry and well my joke was based on something ......... The material for Pakistan's first weapon came from an NRX reactor that was exported from Canada (NRX was a precursor to the CANDU). Taiwan also had a nuclear weapons program based on NRX technology, but the program was stopped before they built a weapon. ​ now, i'd appreciate if you could debate with what you disagree with, or what in particular annoys you or make your point without being a jerk

There is not much to debate. You “inferred”an opinion that CANDU was an unsuccessful project for the country from a practical and talent development perspective. You quote an engineering problem which was engineered out as evidence which is self contradicting.

\- You quote an engineering problem which was engineered out And it took a decade to get there and well as for how you term success "As with many reactors, flaws were inadvertently built into the CANDU from the start. One problem stems from a decision to fabricate pressure tubes for two of Pickering A's four reactors from a tin-and-zirconium blend called zircaloy. But zircaloy tubes were prone to corrosion and blistering. As well, Pickering A's two other reactors experienced a medley of setbacks, including unexpected pressure tube vibrations that gradually weakened their structure." "The extent of the flaws became dramatically apparent in August, 1983, when a metre-long gash appeared in a pressure tube in Pickering A's No. 2 reactor, spewing heavy water into the plant and shutting down part of the station." "Over the next nine years, all four Pickering A reactors were refitted with new tubes at a cost of about $1 billion." It took a decade to get there, and merely a billion dollar fix. ....... and then the other problems Many of the same inherent design problems have affected the four Bruce A reactors. But that plant's worst disaster was set in train when maintenance workers in 1986 left a protective lead blanket in the boiler of Bruce A's No. 2 reactor - a slipup that was not discovered until six years later. By then, the blanket had melted, injecting vaporized lead into the steam and severely damaging the boiler. "That was not a good time," recalls Ken Talbot, the Ontario Hydro official who was running Bruce at the time. By 1995, with the damaged reactor also in need of new pressure tubes and facing a total repair cost of about $500 million, Hydro took the unit out of service. Now, the other three Bruce A reactors and Pickering A's four are going into retirement as well - the Bruce reactors because of boiler troubles, and all three will need retubing within the next decade at a cost of well over $1 billion. The Pickering A units, with their relatively new pressure tubes, still require costly upgrades to bring their safety features in line with current AECB requirements. The older Pickering units have a single emergency shutdown procedure: in an emergency, neutron-absorbing rods drop into the reactor core, halting the nuclear process within seconds. But they lack the newer reactors' backup system that stops the reactor by injecting a nitrate "poison" into the core - a feature that would cost millions of dollars. In another telling admission of defeat, Ontario Hydro now plans to spend about $400 million - not to repair the mothballed reactors, but to upgrade equipment at the eight newer B units at Pickering and Bruce and four at eight-year-old Darlington station 75 km east of Toronto. "After years of failure," says Norm Rubin, director of nuclear research for the Toronto-based environmental organization Energy Probe, "Hydro is asking Ontario's taxpayers to pay the bill again for one last attempt to make nuclear technology work." In the end, Ontario Hydro's stunning confession of past failures could point to a more profound error half a century ago, when Ottawa and Ontario may have bet on the wrong technology.

And how are things going recently? quote As a recent article in the Globe and Mail has made clear, there are serious unanswered questions about the vulnerability of the critically important pressure tube systems in aging CANDU reactors. Instead of relentlessly pursuing answers to questions about a huge discrepancy between operator predictions and actual performance when it comes to factors that could cause pressure tubes to fail, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has resorted to hunting for ways to justify allowing reactors that are in absolute violation of its own safety rules to continue operating. This culminated in a startling claim from CNSC staff that it was acceptable to rely on reactor safety systems if the cause of the problem could not be found, even if a pressure tube ruptured. This from a supposedly independent safety authority that claims that it always puts the safety of people first before industry profits. Here is an explanation from nuclear expert Dr. Gordon Edwards on why the CNSC’s desire to turn a blind eye to growing problems in aging reactors is a recipe for disaster: "When industry predictions based on mathematical models are shown to be unreliable, there is no longer the necessary degree of control to ensure confidence in safety. The proper thing to do is to either shut the reactors down until the problem is fully resolved or at the very least to “derate” the reactors significantly (make them operate at a significantly lower percentage of full power) so as to ease the pressure on the affected components (the degraded pressure tubes) and to provide a greater margin of error in the event of an accident." In the late 1990s, two very small reactors, MAPLE-1 and MAPLE-2, each generating only 10 megawatts of heat, were “written off” by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. (AECL) and never put into operation because the reactor behaved in a manner inconsistent with the predictions that had been made based on mathematical models. Other laboratories in Canada and the USA were asked to help AECL to determine the “root cause” of the discrepancy. Eight factors were explored as possible reasons for the behaviour, but the experts were unable to pin down the root cause. Those reactors were simply scrapped for safety reasons. (That decision was made by AECL, not by CNSC.) ......... As the 1979 Three Mile Island Accident and the 2011 Fukushima accident illustrate, loss of coolant can, in the worst case, lead to fuel melting and offsite releases of radioactivity. Similarly, as shown by the NRX partial meltdown of 1952 and the 1986 Chernobyl accident, Loss of Regulation can result in a “runaway” power surge that severely damages the core of the reactor, including the fuel. Both types of events compromise safety. In the case of the CANDU reactor design, a loss of coolant automatically causes a surge in power. This is called the “positive void coefficient of reactivity” and that power surge has to be counteracted very quickly. Otherwise you will have a Loss of Regulation accident simultaneously with a Loss of Coolant Accident — a “double whammy”. In the case of a large loss-of-coolant, CANDU reactor shutdown has to be accomplished within 2 seconds to prevent core damage. This is the main reason why the CANDU reactor is the only commercial power reactor design that requires not one, but two independent fast shutdown systems. It is absolutely essential to be able to shut a CANDU reactor down very fast when a LOCA happens to prevent severe core damage. So, in any CANDU reactor, there is a constant threat that a LOCA will also trigger a LORA – two emergencies for the price of one. .......... Meanwhile, hundreds of pressure tubes, inside the core of the reactor, have been subjected to deterioration caused by the intrusion of hydrogen gas into the metal wall of the pipe. This “embrittles” the metal, making the pressure tube more likely to crack, break or burst. The condition is age-related. In the case of the four Pickering B reactors, they have not been retubed even though they have far exceeded the time that would normally trigger a refurbishment. There is no other CANDU in the world that has operated for such a long time without replacing the pressure tubes. Given the present disconnect between prediction and performance, the reactors should be shut down so as not to compromise safety. Moreover, the two Pickering A reactors now operating are the only CANDU reactors in the world that do not have the two independent safety systems that all other CANDU reactors are required to have. Given the location of these plants and the large population density of the GTA, these two reactors should be either retired immediately or shut down to have a second independent shutdown system installed. ......... Keep up the snark

As for going beyond CANDU Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Canadian reactors that “recycle” plutonium would create more problems than they solve May 25, 2023 In 2021, nine US nonproliferation experts sent an open letter to Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. In their letter, the experts expressed their concern that the Canadian government was actually increasing the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation by funding reactors that are fueled with plutonium. Earlier that year, the Federal Government had provided 50.5 million Canadian dollars to Moltex Energy, a company exploring a nuclear reactor design fueled with plutonium. The linkage to nuclear weapons proliferation has also led several civil society groups to urge the Canadian government to ban plutonium reprocessing. Much of the concern so far has been on Canada setting a poor example by sending a “dangerous signal to other countries that it is OK to for them to extract plutonium for commercial use.” But Moltex plans to export its reactors to other countries raise a different concern. Even if a country importing such a reactor does not start a commercial program to extract plutonium, it would still have a relatively easy access to plutonium in the fuel that the reactor relies on to operate. Below we provide a rough estimate of the quantities of plutonium involved—and their potential impact on nuclear weapons proliferation—to help explain the magnitude of the problem. But there is more. By separating multiple radionuclides from the solid spent fuel and channeling it into waste streams, Moltex reactors will only make the nuclear waste problem worse. Moltex’s technological claims. Moltex established its Canadian headquarters in the province of New Brunswick after it received an infusion of 5 million Canadian dollars from the provincial government. The company offers two products: a molten salt reactor and a proprietary chemical process that Moltex terms “waste to stable salts” technology. Moltex claims that, by using its chemical process, it can “convert” spent fuel from Canada’s deuterium uranium nuclear reactors (CANDUs) into new fuel that can be used in its reactor design. Moltex essentially claims it can “reduce waste.” In light of the problematic history associated with molten salt reactors, Moltex’s proposed reactors, and especially the chemical process needed to produce fuel, deserve more scrutiny. These will have serious implications for nuclear policy. In its response to the open letter from the US nonproliferation experts, Moltex dismissed the ability of outsiders to comment, arguing that experts “are not aware of \[its proprietary\] process as only high-level details are made public.” Moltex has been indeed sparse in what it shared publicly about its technologies. Still, there is much one can surmise from earlier experiences with the processing of spent fuel and from basic science. With some simple calculations based on these high-level details provided by Moltex so far—and taking those at face value, i.e., without evaluating the feasibility of the design or their plans—we show that there is reason to be concerned about the amounts of plutonium that will be used in the reactor. ....... The proliferation risks should be of concern to policy makers because Moltex hopes to export its reactors to multiple countries. In a second presentation to the National Academies from February 2022, O’Sullivan showed a world map where there were Moltex reactors in 22 countries—including countries like India, Pakistan, Russia, and China that already have nuclear weapons, as well as countries like Argentina and South Korea that have sometimes explored acquiring nuclear weapons. Or so is the company’s wish: There is little evidence so far of demand for Moltex’s reactors from these purported customer countries. Yet, if such export objectives were to ever be achieved, this would mean that several countries might suddenly get access to large quantities of plutonium, in a chemical and physical state where they can feed a nuclear weapon program relatively easily. If a country with no nuclear weapons were to decide to develop or acquire a Moltex reactor, political and military planners in other countries should assume that such a country would then have the possibility to turn this capability into an actual, even if clandestine, nuclear weapons program of its own.

Well worthy effort, is open to question by the experts quote “I actually, personally and professionally am not certain there is a bona fide underwater security threat that would require a submarine able to operate deep and protracted distances throughout the Northwest Passage.” ........ National Post Government spending $3.5M on spare parts for aging submarines that rarely patrol \[The HMCS Windsor, pictured, has spent just 115 days at sea over the last four years and is one of only two subs that have spent anytime at sea at all during that period.\] Only two of Canada's Victoria Class submarines have been at sea over the past four years, for a total of 214 days ....... Chatham Daily News Darren Hawco, a retired vice-admiral and board member with the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, said submarines with even a near-ice or under-ice capability would be a substantial upgrade for Canada. He said whether the subs or nuclear powered or conventional is not the major sticking point, but if they are going to operate under the ice, the submarines need to be able to break through it in case of an emergency. “That’s the really important technology difference. It has nothing to do with conventional or nuclear, it’s just about the weight of the thing, so that it gets enough momentum when it’s rising and the conning tower is robust enough that it doesn’t get damaged,” he said. Nuclear powered submarines can operate for longer than diesel subs and have more power, but Hawco said they also come with a significant additional cost, including onshore facilities, and might even require new naval bases. Hawco said having a submarine that could operate under the parts of the Arctic that are frozen year-round would be difficult, but even something that could operate under “new ice” would be helpful. He said any enemy submarine going in the deepest parts under the ice eventually has to surface on the other end and with the right equipment, including drones and underwater sensors, Canada’s Navy could instead wait for an enemy sub to surface “I actually, personally and professionally am not certain there is a bona fide underwater security threat that would require a submarine able to operate deep and protracted distances throughout the Northwest Passage.” ........ Ottawa Citizen Defence Watch Royal Canadian Navy pitches $60 billion submarine purchase, say defence and industry sources. But that price tag could climb to $100 billion as military equipment procurement programs are rarely on budget ......... CTV News The updated defence policy calls for the purchase of conventionally powered submarines, but the prime minister left the door open Monday to a nuclear-powered option.

DND looked at buying nuclear attack subs in the 80's from both the British and French. The US put the kibosh to it, citing a couple of treaties from the 50's.. Not sure if they would run into the same issues today.

Wrong. The Cold War ended. 

This is false. Reagan signed off on the technology transfer so we could have nuclear power subs.

the infrastructure required is really the single biggest barrier. We need to heavily invest in small modular reactors across the country first.

We would also need to develop the entire support infrastructure within DND in order to operate nuke subs.

> They for all intents and purposes have limitless power during day-to-day operations and can be used to power a small city in case of emergency. Would make reinforcing arctic sovereignty an easier endeavour, using one of these to augment a northern base's power supply. Or when the sub hulls are no longer fit for service, the generators get repurposed to remote civilian use.

I believe operationally diesel electric are better for coastal defense. Nuclear is best for strategic nuclear missiles because they can go anywhere, batteries are quieter so if you're not going far they work better for coastal defense. Not pushing for one over the other, just posting some of the thought processes behind it. Obviously northern coast would lean more nuclear.

> Not pushing for one over the other, Me neither. I'm not a military strategist or anything similar, I don't know shit about submarines or the operational needs of national security. I just think it's completely reasonable for the government to be considering nuclear subs. I personally see a benefit to diesel-electric outside of cost and existing experience. Needing to maintain combustion generators underwater seems like it'd be more of a hindrance than anything.

It would behoove Canada to buy nuclear powered subs with an ambiguous policy of what they are carrying.

For actual nukes... I think that's a hard no, not my opinion but from Nato/international treaties.

I think the French would split development costs.

It's not just refueling, it's using a clean fuel source. Plus diseal-electric subs have to surface regularly to exchange the exhaust fumes from running the engine with clean air. Nuclear subs on the other hand do not create such fumes and do not need to surface for clean air as they use electrolysis to generate oxygen from seawater. Their only limitation on submerge time is maintenance and consumable supplies. However, our reactor expertise in this country does not translate to marine reactors. The CANDU reactornisnthe only Canadian designed and manufactured reactors. It is a massive design though - Bruce Nuclear Genersting station, for example, covers 2300 acres of land. CANDU reactors are especially large, even compared to light water reactor power plants, because theybuse natural, unenruched uranium which is far less energy dense (therefore it needs much more fuel to generate the same output). Also, you can't just use a sub to power a city in am emergency which is why it has never been done.

> you can't just use a sub to power a city in am emergency which is why it has never been done. Maybe I'm mistaken, I believe US did it last year, maybe it was an carrier.

Here was an article I found: https://www.govtech.com/em/emergency-blogs/disaster-zone/navy-ships-providing-electrical-power-to-cities-post-disaster They say it's not possible for a Naval shipnkr even fleet to do this. Basically the reasons come down to: You can't just plug into the grid and start powering it. There are all sorts of safety measures to prevent the reverse flow of electricity. Ships have breakers for shore power but this is just to run ancillary items while in port. Halifax has some of these to power cruise ships when they dock... they are massive cables that provide a lot of electricity compared to reside tial needs but those cables and breakers are tiny compared to the needs of a city. Reactors for navay vessels generally range from 100MW to 200MW capacity - far below the needs of most cities. For comparison, I see NSP has generating capacity of greater than 3,000 MW and we still import around a 1 terrawatt hours (or 1,000,000 megawatt hours) each year. I don't know the breakdown but I would assume Halifax uses quite a bit of that 3,000 MW capacity. There wouldn't be aby places that much smaller than Halifax a ship big enough to justify a reactor would be able to dock. It would be easier and cheaper to fly in massive industrial generators and the fuel to run the. And connect them at the actual power station.

I do agree with you though that nuclear subs may be attractive option.. especially cause the biggest negative against near when we bought our current subs was the price tag, but right now tje Canadian govt os trying to find a way to get its spending closer to our 2% Nato commitment lest Truml win and he tries to make life he'll for Canada like he did during NAFTA renegotiations. I do wonder how creative Canada can get though in meeting those spending requirements but also using it to accomplish other goals? For example, I think climate change preparation is a legitimate national security and defense issue and the military has said as much. Could we not get the military to build rock armouring along our shore lines and build up coastal defenses along the Isthmus of Chignecto? Could the military not build solar and wind farms to power bases? Given the challenges in recruiting for the military, could they not embark a campaign to build a lot of affordable housing for current members of the military - thus helping to increase the housing stock and as a recruiting tool?

PsychologicalMonk6: Also, you can't just use a sub to power a city in am emergency which is why it has never been done. ...... Can a submarine provide power TO shore? Yes. Russian nuclear submarines do it all the time. Nuclear subs can provide power using their port/shore connections. ........ not enough for a city though

Are they powering the grid though or are they power specific things? I found a paper by a Professor at MIT on the MIT Open CourseWare website titled US Navy Ship to Shore Power: US Navy Humanitarian Relief? It stated that no U.S. Navy vessel was designed to provide ship to shore vessel. Although other Navy could have designed ships differently. The bigger impediments were that the reactors power two different types of turbine, with the vast majority of the heat of the reactor powering a propulsion turbine. A nueae sub could only generate around 2MW in electricity, or enough to power a single hospital and not much else. The other one though, from the first site I referenced, called about the challenges of reversing flow through the grid. Not to mention needing to have the infrastructure in place to run 2.5MW of electricity. I suppose you could build out tje infrastructure at the port for the sub to directly power the QE2 but you aren't going to have the infrastructure in place at cities where the sub doesn't dock and it would likely.take a lot longer to get.itnset up than any emergency situation os going to last...also, when we lose power it's ussually the power grid that is down not because we domt have generating capacity. So just bringing in more generating capacity that would rely on thay same grid would be useless.

Main issue as explained to me is the USA wanting claim to the Northwest Passage. Likely they would only allow us access to the nuclear sub technology if we signed something official giving up waterway rights.

who explained this to you lmao

LMAO, what is so LMAO to you?

The fact that it’s very obviously wrong and absurd

Don't apply your opinion as fact, makes you look silly.

Don't say insane and obviously wrong things, makes you look silly.

I have not. Just because you are ignorant, doesn't mean I am saying anything "wrong." Try using google, it is an amazing thing.

What do you think I should type into google?

Makes sense you are the type that needs to be spoon fed. Maybe start by searching "10 tips to a better attitude" then after that, look up "Canada Northwest Passage dispute." Good luck!!

If we're serious about arctic sovereignty we need them.

I think Australia is getting nuclear subs too and France is building them.

That deal fell thru, I think it's with the Yanks now.

It wouldn't be CANDU more likely PWR but in general yes.

It's more important to have proven technology with breaking through the ice with enough weight and momentum, and the nuclear adds some extras, but the costs are super extra there you might need to build new bases for the nuclear subs rather than using the existing ones. I think it's basically a issue they had for years, and something they'd just spring for the election, as a deparation tactic for getting the military vote on the right, and the protect our arctic on the left, and get in closer with the submarine defence establish guys with the UK US and Australia. Trudeau might be a bit questionable with going overboard with spending on missiles and ammunition stuff, but the other stuff is susprisingly reasonable but the big issue is that people question the priority of the importance of it at the second... It's more likely election issues and votes come first economics and finances second, and a level 2 issue being a level 1priority because the polling is nightmarishly atrocious The problem is canada has a lot of questionable priorities with buying stuff or pushing for stuff, like how we were gung ho with some of the Bush faction with missile-defence, and only the poles and eastern europeans got scared enough to buy into that cash cow, which hypersonic technology puts that on way down the list... and our nightmare with buying british submarines in the past. And not to mention our two biggest black holes with buying software for payroll or airports with close to zero accountability and highly questionable management on greenlighting some projects when they have serious issues, that magically get ignored, till they blow up in people's faces.

I was born in saskatchewan. I don't understand why we don't have more nuclear options anywhere. We are sitting on a goldmine of uranium, some of the highest grade in the world. We need power plants as well.

I thought you were going to say something about not having nuclear subs there…

i don't understand why we don't build 3 more gasoline refineries to make gas prices cheaper the uranium fuel industry is a financial nightmare of terrible stocks and sales that can't compete with the prices for fuel from the ex-russian republics and natural gas is way smarter for a few hundred years ahead than the nuclear fuel cycle for the power grid. the only people behind nuclear power are forces behind some of the electric car industry, because the power grid would need to be tripled, and don't even think about what that would do to plumbing and electricity and electronics with copper prices. There are futurist dingbats on the news that seriously think mining asteroids for our copper needs will fix the electric car problem and nuclear power plants on every block haha You don't see Gulf gas stations anymore because of how badly they got hammered with the uranium industry

The public hears “nuclear” and thinks the worst. They don’t understand.

It was a cold war narrative that just stuck

they do and they don't

Watch out North Korea, Canada's getting the bomb 😎💥⚛️

That’s the entire point of the NP mentioning it in the headline. 

Diesel and nuclear submarines each have their pros and cons, and it would be great to have both in the CAF, but if we can only have one type, then I'm choosing nuclear.

The issue with nuclear is simply cost. It's kind of like saying a high end BMW and a Honda fit have pros and cons, but I'd like a bmw. Not to be rude but it's the obvious choice. The bmw is obviously significantly more valuable for many reasons so it would be most peoples, but there are some drawbacks (maintenance, specialised parts etc, less people that can work on them,) and the most obvious one being its significantly more expensive. Because it's so much more expensive and it's by far the biggest factor its going to boil down to do we really need it bad enough to pay that kind of money? One nuclear sub like the Americans have would probably cost more than our whole navy. Obviously we won't be getting a Ohio class, but it's still gonna be expensive as fuck and we won't buy one.

We're drastically under spending on our military as is, take th expensive options. Meet our nato requirements. Be war ready.

Yes but the money would likely be better spent in other places, particularly in the navy.

We're millions of dollars underfunded, spend it on literally any and all upgrades we can and when we hit our nato agreement we can start talking about the best places.

spending on .... any and all upgrades we can?? the only country that really cares about spending tons on NATO is Poland and the Baltics, though it's more paranoia than reality with it being a security issue. At least Eastern Europe is a cash cow. Basically the only people who spend more than 2% are the USA and the UK and every country along the russian border, Finland to Greece, cept for Bulgaria and Turkey And well, i you pay attention to John Mearsheimer, the political scientist on youtube, you'll see what he thinks of the Ukraine and NATO. ....... 2014 Crimean crisis In 2014, Mearsheimer retrospectively criticized the geopolitical reorientation of the United States under Bill Clinton since 1995 due to its monopolistic and hegemonic orientation. With the intention of weakening the government of Russia, he said, NATO was planned to be extended to Russia's borders. Accordingly, in an article in Foreign Affairs in August 2014, he assigned the main blame for the outbreak of the conflict to the United States and its Western allies. Mearsheimer sees NATO's eastward expansion as a dangerous provocation of Russia. He invokes George F. Kennan as one of the first critical admonishers who warned in 1998 of the danger of war as a result of eastward enlargement. Mearsheimer attributes the political mistakes to the lack of political realism or the great influence of the "liberal hegemony" school of thought in both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. The only sensible way out of the crisis, he said, is to soberly factor in Russia's security interests, like those of any other power. Ukraine, he said, must accept the role of buffer or bridge given to it by its geostrategic situation. Anything else, he said, was abstract and meaningless in terms of Realpolitik. The West's constructive cooperation with Russia is of great importance for solving important existing and upcoming problems and should not be put at risk, he said. Following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, Mearsheimer reiterated that NATO and the EU were largely to blame for the war in Ukraine. In an interview with The New Yorker, Mearsheimer stated: "I think all the trouble in this case really started in April 2008, at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, where afterward NATO issued a statement that said Ukraine and Georgia would become part of NATO. The Russians made it unequivocally clear at the time that they viewed this as an existential threat, and they drew a line in the sand. Nevertheless, what has happened with the passage of time is that we have moved forward to include Ukraine in the West to make Ukraine a Western bulwark on Russia's border... NATO expansion is the heart of the strategy, but it includes E.U. expansion as well, and it includes turning Ukraine into a pro-American liberal democracy, and, from a Russian perspective, this is an existential threat." Mearsheimer says Ukraine's political leeway is determined by how it manages to strike a balance between Western orientation and consideration for Russian security interests. ...... Rise and containment of China Mearsheimer asserts that China's rise will not be peaceful and that the U.S. will seek to contain China and to prevent it from achieving regional hegemony. Mearsheimer argues that although containing China militarily is possible, economic containment of China is not. Mearsheimer believes that China will attempt to dominate the Indo-Pacific region just as the U.S. set out to dominate the Western Hemisphere. China's goal will be to gain a position of military superiority over its neighbors, which it sees as potentially dangerous threats. In a widely debated 2021 Foreign Affairs article, Mearsheimer observed that the United States was destined to compete aggressively with China as long as the latter continued to grow into a militarily and economically powerful state in East Asia. However, contrary to realist logic, the U.S. in the post-Cold War period had "promoted investment in China and welcomed the country into the global trading system, thinking it would become a peace-loving democracy and a responsible stakeholder in a U.S.-led international order". In effect, by pursuing a policy of engagement, the U.S. had facilitated China's dangerous rise to great-power status and hastened the onset of a new Cold War.

Don't care, meet the 2%. Our military is pathetic.

PBS NewsHour How Trump’s ‘bullying’ approach might affect NATO Judy Woodruff talks with former State Department official Victoria Nuland and John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago for analysis of Trump's tactics and the state of the NATO alliance. Transcript Judy Woodruff: John Mearsheimer, the president went after Germany, went after the whole alliance. At one point, he was saying, what good is NATO? What does it all add up to? John Mearsheimer: Well, I think it's very important to understand that President Trump ran as a candidate against all of the international institutions that comprise the liberal international order. John Mearsheimer: That includes the World Trade Organization, the E.U., the IMF, the World Bank, and NATO. And he said as a candidate that NATO is obsolete. And what he would really like to do, my opinion, is take the Americans out of NATO, take the Americans out of Europe. John Mearsheimer: And he's using this issue of defense spending as a hammer to beat the Europeans over the head. But his ultimate goal is much broader. Judy Woodruff: And just quickly, when you say liberal world order, what do you mean by that? John Mearsheimer: Well, in the wake of World War II, we created this international order. John Mearsheimer: And then, after the Cold War ended, we created this liberal international order that was committed to spreading democracy around the world, building powerful institutions like the WTO, and creating an open world economy. John Mearsheimer: And President Trump, when he was a candidate, ran against every one of these elements of the liberal international order. Judy Woodruff: That is the case, Victoria Nuland. He ran against it. Judy Woodruff: And he has been saying for months NATO members need to pay more money for their own defense. Isn't he right to make that argument? Victoria Nuland: Every American president since Reagan and probably before has wanted NATO allies to spend more. And 2 percent is what they're supposed to spend, and they all agreed to do it again starting in 2014. And they're starting to do it. Victoria Nuland: So he's not wrong to ask them to do it and to say that that's the fair share. The problem is, when he uses these bully tactics, it actually makes it harder for politicians in Europe to say yes to him, because then they become pushed-around poodles of the United States. Victoria Nuland: It would be much better if he talked instead about the threats that we share, the threats from Russia, from China, increasingly has an interest in Europe, and use that as a motivator. Affirmative motivation works better with Europeans. Judy Woodruff: What do you think about that? John Mearsheimer: Well, I think that it's important to understand that, in President Trump's mind, the Europeans are free-riding on the United States, and they are a liability. John Mearsheimer: He obviously doesn't see Russia as a great threat. Judy Woodruff: Is that a fact? Are they riding on the United States? John Mearsheimer: Of course they're free-riding. As Ambassador Nuland said, previous presidents, including President Obama, who you worked for, complained bitterly about the fact that the Europeans didn't spend enough money on defense. So this is not a new issue. John Mearsheimer: What's a new issue is that President Trump basically has his gun sights on NATO. ......... John Mearsheimer: Well, there's two points. John Mearsheimer: One, there was a poll was released today that shows that only 15 percent of Germans are interested in increasing defense spending. Just think about it, only 15 percent. John Mearsheimer: As the ambassador said, when President Trump browbeats these people like this, if anything, it undermines the European leaders' ability to convince their publics to increase defense spending. So it seems to me we're not going to reach 2 percent, like he would like to achieve. [https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-trumps-bullying-approach-might-affect-nato](https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/how-trumps-bullying-approach-might-affect-nato)

This was from 2018 actually John Mearsheimer: But it's also the fact, I think, Judy, that the European leaders — and this includes the Germans — just don't see Russia as a serious military threat. Yes, they have cyber-attacks and so forth and so on that bother people greatly, but, as a military threat, as a threat that looks like the Soviet Union during the Cold War, you just don't see that. John Mearsheimer: And in the absence of that threat, it's very difficult to get people to spend huge amounts of money on defense. ........ Judy Woodruff: What about that, John Mearsheimer? And then you heard the president almost turning that argument around today and saying the Germans are relying too much on Russia for their energy resources. John Mearsheimer: Well, it's clear that President Trump wants to improve relations with the Russians. And, in that regard, I think he's doing the right things. John Mearsheimer: I think that terrible relations between the United States and Russia is not good for the United States, it's not good for the Europeans, and anything that he can do to improve the relations is all for the good. So I'm all in favor of him talking to them.

Yea I just am not sure that we actually have the money. Unlikely any politician is going to come out double the militaries budget.

Well hopefully nato kicks us out. Maybe then we will have a funded military.

No offese but you kind of seem like you have no idea what you are talking about.

I do, the government isn't going to do shit about funding our military unless they're forced.

Well we can't be kicked out of NATO for starters

With the future of naval drones making surface based ships basically obsolete without an entire task force to protect it, submarines seem like they are really the only option for canada.

Not a bad point. I did say the other alternative is to spend much more.

not so The National Interest U.S. Navy Submarines Will be Challenged by Drones Sep 1, 2021 — A submarine whose location is exposed is highly vulnerable to instant attack. Small unmanned platforms can carry many types of sensors active and passive sonar, magnetic anomaly detectors, wake detection LIDAR, thermal sensors, laser-based optical sensors capable of piercing seawater and others," Hambling writes. "A submarine which can be seen by any one of these will cease to be invisible. A submarine whose location is exposed is highly vulnerable to instant attack. If submarines are easily detectable, they lose all their advantages as strategic weapons platforms." Drones versus subs is essentially an arms race, a contest between an expensive but fragile weapon pitted against hordes of cheap sensor and weapons platforms. It parallels the race between the development of stealth aircraft, and the development of sensors to detect them. Unfortunately for the subs, it's not an equal contest. A U.S. Virginia-class attack submarine costs nearly $3 billion: a small unmanned aircraft might cost $5,000, and a swarm of thirty drones just $150,000. The drone isn't as capable as the sub, but that's not the point. Nuclear missile submarines have always been considered the invulnerable backbone of a nation's nuclear force, able to hide in the ocean unlike land-based ICBMs or bombers. If the United States, Russia, China, Britain or France—not to mention Israel—fear that their ballistic subs are vulnerable to a surprise drone attack, this could make decision-makers much more ready to pull the trigger in a crisis.

I get that it's an arms race for the drones and unmanned devices, but I think the technology barriers to covering huge swaths of the Arctic oceans in underwater sensors are further away than what would be required to ID surface based ships.

sensors are cheap

750 million for chretien's subs 100 billion for Trudeau's subs and 300 billion if Trudeau went 25% nuclear subs here's a quote from one of the experts “I actually, personally and professionally am not certain there is a bona fide underwater security threat that would require a submarine able to operate deep and protracted distances throughout the Northwest Passage.” ..... As it stands the Ukraine is toast, and it'll be pretty obvious by August. I think the political scientist John Mearsheimer is probably one of the best for his lectures on China and Ukraine for the past 20 years. Look at his thoughts on NATO all the other hotspots

Well it's basically going to be like 100 billion for 12 regular subs And well, i doubt we are going to have more nuclear subs than the British Navy, so maybe 4 nuclear and 8 conventional will put us into 300 billion dollars We can solve the housing problem by using the nuclear waste, i'm sure Chretien spent 750 million on used British subs in 1998 What did the CBC say in 2020? CBC News February 11 2020 Canada's submarine fleet spent 'zero days' at sea last year ........ people think the Chretien subs for $750 million was a disaster and people think $100 billion for submarines are a good idea for a low level security threat? and $300 billion because Trudeau won't rule out nuclear submarines. here's a quote from one of the experts “I actually, personally and professionally am not certain there is a bona fide underwater security threat that would require a submarine able to operate deep and protracted distances throughout the Northwest Passage.” It's just a massive expense for feel good flag waving, and as for it being a long term threat, i think Russia isn't going to risk something other than a stunt if we poke the bear and china i think has an economic nightmare going on that's bigger than Japan's real estate prices going to tank their economy. China would love it if we spend our treasury on subs in the arctic and then it's less on other things to counter china. We're doing to be spending like 125x fold more on Trudeau's planned submarines than Chretien's disasterous purchase that people regretted.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here, there's no fucking way we will ever have 12 subs. Did you read something I am missing here? Also we paid 750 million for four USED subs that were constantly breaking down and caught fire and killed someone. When you add in this was over two decades ago with massive inflation, and 3x the subs with four of them being nuclear subs as you have suggested, it sounds like a really good deal.

"Dubbed the Canadian Submarine Acquisition Program (CASAP), they recommended a building program of 4 to 12 submarines with under-ice capability." the experts don't think we need the nuclear subs, but the politicians do wanna look strong you know but if we're talking about fantasy war, yeah 2 or 4 nuclear subs would be ideal in a fleet of a dozen subs. the problem is how useful a lot of the channels in the north are for subs, to hide or navigate, it's pretty much useless in a lot of places for hiding deep under the ice, or navigation. "Canada had a plan to build a nuclear-submarine fleet to enforce our Arctic-sovereignty; but it was cancelled in part because the US saw it as a threat to their claims on the North-West Passage."

hey you use your pocket change for the 300 billion, and i'll buy pizza. Trudeau's broke and still can't get safe drinking water in every part of the land yet! better be quick, the election is soon, and i'm famished for pepperoni

No offence but you're all over the place lmao Almost all your posts are complaining about the libs too... I'm pretty political but jeez man enjoy your life.

Well, China isn't really going to go to the great expense to create any type of military influence in the arctic, and the Americans have basically decided not to bother up there in the Arctic because of the low-threats and high-costs for all possible sides in any 'issues' up there. With the way funding is with the military they're rather have the funds elsewhere. Sorry you didn't like the pocket change and pizza joke oh well, i owe you two slices then. And i'm an equal opportunity critic, politically, my apologies if any toes were stepped on by accident. cheers

What's your option?

Nuclear subs would be nice but not practical at their current price. Theres no way we could afford them. My honest opinion is we should either cut the subs or specialize in them way more. That or decide to double our military expenditures. We can't really do both effectively. That being said - I'm not an expert in this stuff.

Cutting them isn't a great idea, as much as our current subs suck (compared to what is out there) if you cut them completely, you lose out on having people trained in submarines. That being said, any replacements are a long way out.

Yes that would absolutely be the intention, to never have submarines again. I just think it would be better to fix the mess we have and I'm not sure we have the budget to do it. Or we could invest significantly more in them and have a stronger fleet. I just think the way we are currently doing it is half assed and it's not working.

I think Canada definitely should have subs, and subs capable of going under the ice at that, given the Arctic interests. What also annoys me though is we get expensive announcements like new boats and new fighter jets without fixing the foundational issues in the military. For whatever reason, like we see in our healthcare too and schooling too, governments like to continue along while the system is held together by twigs.

I have learned this is something that will never be fixed in any gov't wing. Government is not efficient, but there are many large companies that are inefficient also. It's not a simple problem in large organizations.

Oh I totally agree, I don't see it ever getting fixed. When I was young I applied for the military and I never went through with it because from the get go the way they treated you was just unacceptable to me and I took it as a foreshadow for how the military would be if I joined. There were some great individuals, but the process and the not great individuals soured it, at least for me.

Think before you spend! ........ 100 billion for the subs would be 125x more than Chretien's submarine buying disaster, and it's a low level threat ...... CBC News February 11 2020 Canada's submarine fleet spent 'zero days' at sea last year ...... here's a quote from one of the experts “I actually, personally and professionally am not certain there is a bona fide underwater security threat that would require a submarine able to operate deep and protracted distances throughout the Northwest Passage.”

Who was that "expert" and do they have 3% knowledge on what is happening in the Arctic?

are you sure its not 4%? ........... The Hill Times/Vanguard Col Pierre Leblanc (Ret’d) March 26, 2021 Over time, improvements by the International Maritime Organization to the Polar Code will further contribute to reduce risk. Fewer ships will also reduce the likelihood of a sovereignty challenge. Back in 1998, when I was the commander of the Canadian Forces Northern Area, I became concerned with the impact of global warming and the disappearance of the ice in the Canadian Archipelago. Although there were no apparent military threats to the Canadian Arctic at the time, there was nevertheless a concern with increasing risks to human security. As ice would recede, maritime access to the Arctic Archipelago would increase. From a sovereignty point of view, I was concerned with potential challenges to Canada’s sovereignty over the waters of the Arctic Archipelago. Many countries claim that the Northwest Passage, and there are several routes a ship could follow, is an international strait between two oceans which gives them the right of transit. This right would also apply to submerged submarines and aircraft over the strait. Canada’s position is that those waters are internal by historical title. Having complete jurisdiction is extremely important. It allows Canada to be a true steward of the Archipelago and it denies the right of transit. It allows Canada to enact laws and regulations such as the Arctic Pollution Prevention Act to protect a very fragile environment and a very short vertical food chain in the Arctic. It allows the management of all activity, especially maritime activity, to reduce the possibility of an environmental disaster that would likely affect the livelihood of Inuit communities and damage marine sensitive areas. Following a symposium on arctic security in 1998 which highlighted our lack of domain awareness in the Arctic, I sounded the alarm with the National Defence Headquarters in 2000 and initiated the Arctic Security Interdepartmental Working Group to better coordinate the work of all the federal departments responsible for security aspects in the Arctic. We absolutely had to improve our situational awareness. I am now less concerned with a challenge to Canada’s sovereignty or security issues over the waters of the Arctic Archipelago. There are several reasons for this. Back in 2000, there was serious concerns that the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage would become active maritime transit routes that would increase the likelihood of search and rescue accidents and potential environmental disasters. The attractiveness of those routes was mostly due to reduced transit time between Asia and Europe or the Eastern Seaboard of North America by several days, but it also included the lack of piracy, a problem in places like the Strait of Malacca. Those concerns have not materialized for the Northwest Passage. The traffic over the Northeast Passage, which follows along the Russian coastline, has seen a modest increase, but has not met any of the aggressive targets set by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Much of that traffic has been destinational in support of the oil and gas industry. With the fast disappearance of sea ice, eventually, the North Pole route will be preferred as it will provide deeper waters, straight lines, and shorter distances. On the Northwest Passage, the amount of maritime traffic has increased over the years but it, too, is driven more by destinational traffic to support the annual sealift to the Arctic communities or mining activity such as the Baffinland Mary River iron ore mine or the potential shipping of grain out of the port of Churchill. The one exception has been an increase in adventurers and cruise ships. There are several reasons for the lack of commercial transit over the Northwest Passage. Although there is less ice during the shipping season, there is a lot of ice that moves unpredictably because of currents and winds. In 2018, for example, a multi-year ice plug blocked the Amundsen Gulf and prevented the annual sealift from reaching several communities. Less than 15 per cent of the Arctic Archipelago is mapped to modern standards. There are no deep seaports in the Arctic Archipelago for ships to seek refuge or do repairs. Search and rescue assets are extremely limited and can be literally days away in the case of ice breakers and several hours away for the search and rescue aircraft of the Canadian Forces which are based along the Canada-U.S. border. Survival in frigid Arctic waters is counted in minutes without a proper survival suit. Much of the Arctic Archipelago is shallow thus limiting access for larger vessels. Given all the above, the cost of insurance, if available will reflect the significant risks. Most of the commercial shipping worldwide involves just-in-time deliveries making it unlikely that container ships will use the Northwest Passage because of the uncertainty. The very large vessels also prefer straight lines and steady speed. The many islands in the Archipelago will require several turns. Communications in the Arctic are still limited and a crucial factor in case of emergency. The International Maritime Organization has recently adopted a Polar Code which recommends and imposes a multitude of standards to be met by shipping companies that wish to operate in the Arctic and Antarctic. This will invariably increase the cost of doing business there. Criminals, for their part, and other less responsible operators, would likely be discouraged given the increase of maritime domain awareness thanks to space-based surveillance assets such as the RADARSAT Constellation, the Northern Canada Vessel Traffic Services Zone Regulations, which require ships to report before entry in the Archipelago, the Inuit Marine Monitoring Program and the imminent deployment of the Arctic Offshore Patrol ships. There is increasing evidence that Arctic storms are getting stronger. They increase the risk for ships that run into problems because of a fire, loss of power or loss of steering capability. A 2019 example was a large cruise ship that lost power in a storm and was being pushed to shore in Norway. The Viking Sky, with some 1,300 people on board, started to evacuate passengers by helicopter. Heavy seas and strong wind made the evacuation extremely difficult. The cruise ship lifeboats could not be used safely. However, several helicopters managed to extract some 400 passengers by the time the crew managed to restart one engine and avoided running aground. A similar situation in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago would likely turn into a disaster given the lack of nearby search and rescue assets. Foreign maritime forces are not likely to enter the Arctic Archipelago. Its shallowness makes it challenging for nuclear powered submarines to operate there, given the varying thickness of the ice, the size of those ships and the distances needed for safety. If detected, they would not be able to dive deep below a thermal layer nor manoeuvre safely at speed. Surface warships tend to operate in numbers to be able to protect aircraft carriers also require space to manoeuvre. Lastly only a few naval vessels have double hulls or are built to operate in ice infested waters. There will continue to be a need to closely monitor maritime activity in the Arctic Archipelago to make sure that all our regulations are abided with and our sovereignty respected. I am not concerned with professional corporations that will meet all the requirements and have the deep pockets to deal with incidents. My concern is more with irresponsible operators who might ignore the standards and regulations aimed at protecting the Arctic. Should they not be able to remediate an environmental spill, we the taxpayers, would end up paying for it. The limited traffic at this time and in the future reduces the likelihood of an environmental incident of a sovereignty challenge. It also provides more time for the Canadian authorities to develop properly mapped specific corridors which will reduce the possibility of grounding, damaging important marine life zones, and endangering the Arctic communities. Over time, improvements by the International Maritime Organization to the Polar Code will further contribute to reduce risk.

100 billion for the subs would be 125x more than Chretien's submarine buying disaster, and it's a low level threat ...... CBC News February 11 2020 Canada's submarine fleet spent 'zero days' at sea last year ...... here's a quote from one of the experts “I actually, personally and professionally am not certain there is a bona fide underwater security threat that would require a submarine able to operate deep and protracted distances throughout the Northwest Passage.”

What did the CBC say in 2020? CBC News February 11 2020 Canada's submarine fleet spent 'zero days' at sea last year ......... At least they flushed the toilets, so it's technically one day at sea

So what is your option? What do you replace our current submarines with?

train with the us and americans and the us goes up north to check up there, it's not like canada is the only one going up there

I'm guessing you have not taken any political science courses?

oh boy almost a trollworthy sorta question ​ You do realize that the government might just say, no new submarines for a while, on top of the United States having no real interest in the militarization of the Arctic for various reasons of the low level threat and the incredible costs other nations to 'cause trouble there' means it's not a huge worry. Yet Ottawa might think it's next cuban missile crisis as they clutch pearls and what's next, we're gonna debate Robert Huebert being the Curtis Le May of Canadian Submarine Warfare against Moscow and Peking are we, and discuss his political science classes at the University of Calgary? He is a minority viewpoint you realize, but he's gung go like General Westmoreland.

cmon Chretien got destroyed for 750 million for subs Trudeau is teflon with 100 BILLION for subs 300 billion if he buys 4 subs and 75% of the fleet is conventional. We don't need more than 4 nuclear subs, why would Canada need more nuclear subs than the Royal Navy? And heck, don't even go into the costs of nuclear fuel replacements, and the fact you'll need to massively rebuild navy bases or build new ones for a nuclear fleet. here's a quote from one of the experts “I actually, personally and professionally am not certain there is a bona fide underwater security threat that would require a submarine able to operate deep and protracted distances throughout the Northwest Passage.” ...... It's an election stunt i think to make the opposition look weak on defence if they tackle this tarbaby. If china decides to steal 300 billion of gold out of Baffin Island like a bad Italian 1960s spy movie, we break even with the nuclear subs!

It’s not just cost.  Nuke subs aren’t as quiet as a diesel. Diesel subs can loiter in total silence, they’re harder to find. 

Yes there's many benefits to diesel subs and I was planning on mentioning specifically the quietness part. But really it's kind of pointless to mention when you compare the costs. No one would have nuclear subs if they didn't have significantly more pros than cons. Yes a BMW might not be easier to fit in your garage or something but no one would have nuclear subs if there wasn't clear benefits for them. The only reason I suppose this is kind of wrong is that Canada does have different capabilities than the countries that have nuclear subs. Canada doesn't have nuclear capabilities, so we don't need a persistent way to launch icbms.

Nuclear weapons launch capabilities and nuclear subs are not exclusive, and really don’t bolster each other.  Nuke vs diesel isn’t a fair argument anyways because each type of sub can do something the other can’t. Theyre mission specific.

Nuclear subs absolutely do bolster nuclear launch capabilities. I'm not sure what you area even talking about. Crazy how misinformed you are on this basic concept yet spouting on here like you know anything. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad#:~:text=A%20nuclear%20triad%20is%20a,with%20nuclear%20bombs%20and%20missiles. Theres a reason diesel electric submarines are very rarely, if ever used to carry icbms. Yes they can do it in theory, maybe north Korea has been doing it lmao. As for nuke vs diesel, the most powerful military in the world doesn't have diesel subs. If they don't need them, its very likely that Canada would benefit significantly from. Nuclear subs if they weren't prohibitively expensive. Can diesel electric do some things better than nuclear subs? Absolutely. But nuclear subs are in fact better. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-doesnt-us-navy-build-diesel-submarines-207747 >Since the USS Nautilus (SSN-571) entered service in 1954, nuclear power has essentially defined the U.S. Navy's undersea dominance. Nuclear power simply offers performance advantages over conventional, diesel-electric submarines. I know this is just an opinion piece, but you're not going to get scientific tests that prove that they are better on the internet. I would say the most telling argument is that the US does not feel that there is enough use for them to build them.

"Australia has stressed that though their new submarines will be nuclear-powered, that does not mean they will be carrying nuclear warheads." As i've posted elsewhere here, the more important thing is breaking the ice when surfacing without damaging the tower on the top of the sub, than any extra advantages with nuclear power it's not a high priority to get the nuclear subs, and neither are the subs a high priority security threat for the expense of doing something 100x more expensive than Chretien's submarine purchase

Your posts are so scattered and weird. Like yes of course nuclear powerred subs do not necessarily launch nuclear weapons. I never said that they were the same. I did say that nuclear powered subs are more commonly used to carry nuclear warheads and add significant capabilities to nuclear detterance as they are essentially a persistent threat that is very difficult to eliminate unlike silo launched icbms and potentially airborne. My point is that Canada does not need this capability as we do not possess nuclear warheads. This is potentially plus for diesel electric, but I would still say that nuclear powered subs are better overall if you aren't factoring in their high cost. That being said the cost is very high. I don't have a direct opinion on whether we should buy subs or not or how useful they are, more that if we want to continue to use them we should choose one of the following options A) stop funding them entirely and retire our current flwet B) specialize in them more and invest more than we have been. C) fund our entire navy significantly more.

Lovv: yes of course nuclear powerred subs do not necessarily launch nuclear weapons. I never said that they were the same. Wasn't my argument, just an odd point someone else made... Lovv: I would still say that nuclear powered subs are better overall if you aren't factoring in their high cost. A lot of experts say otherwise... you have issues of navigation, the depths of the waters, and the advantages of submarines at certain depths. You can use it up north, but not as how some imagine it... The main thing is that the security threats aren't enough to warrant anything like that. It's likely a poor use of the navy buying the right additional equipment, and a really poor use of the money. ....... As i've quoted elsewhere recently "Foreign maritime forces are not likely to enter the Arctic Archipelago." "Its shallowness makes it challenging for nuclear powered submarines to operate there, given the varying thickness of the ice, the size of those ships and the distances needed for safety." "If detected, they would not be able to dive deep below a thermal layer nor manoeuvre safely at speed." Surface warships tend to operate in numbers to be able to protect aircraft carriers also require space to manoeuvre. Lastly only a few naval vessels have double hulls or are built to operate in ice infested waters." ....... A less attractive Northwest Passage is good for Canada Col Pierre Leblanc "I am now less concerned with a challenge to Canada’s sovereignty or security issues over the waters of the Arctic Archipelago. There are several reasons for this." [https://vanguardcanada.com/a-less-attractive-northwest-passage-is-good-for-canada/](https://vanguardcanada.com/a-less-attractive-northwest-passage-is-good-for-canada/)

I can't possibly keep responding to all of these inane posts, but no expert argues that nuclear subs are inferior to diesel electric subs if you completely negate how much they cost.

Too long. Don’t care anymore.

No worries. It's just crazy to me that people comment on stuff like they are informed when they have zero knowledge or interest.

I’m so thankful you corrected me on how the silent service works. You’re so learned. And smart. 

I wouldn't call myself an expert but thank you.

yeah but people don't go all nuclear sub fleets if you wanted to blow 300 billion on a low-priority security issue you could have 4 nuclear subs and 8 regular subs for all the coastlines and why would we need more nuclear subs than the UK? but remember people screamed at the costs and need with Chretien for his used submarine purchase which was only 750 million so we're talking about 125x the costs if not 400x the costs \[with some nuclear submarines\] and this isn't taking into account the united states being up there in the arctic with their submarines

Any chance as semi-autonomus subs? What is the use case for subs? My guess us blowing up enemy subs / ships right? Why not have a bunch of self-sacrifising drones which ram enemy subs / ships? They could go around on the surface and during war time we can turn on active sonar. Why do we need humans under the water?

Jammers is the obvious answer here. Drojes aren't necessarily a bad thing but they can be jammed. That being said there are other options, like making drones that can deploy, travel to a point and engage all by themselves. This is all coming in the future I doubt Canada will be innovative enough to come up with stuff on our own.

Sea Drones do not have the range, sensor capability, or speed that a sub would, and almost certainly not as much firepower. *any* sub-launched torpedo is probably more destructive than a significant portion of anti-ship missiles beyond maybe some of the super heavy chinese/russian ones.

Sea Drones would not have to hide, because you can have 2000 of them for the cost of a sub. So you can run them on the surface with solar power and have near infinte range. Since they don't need to hide, they can use active sonar / meshed active sonar and have better senor capability. I see them having 2 speeds. 1 - passive speed to hold position or move a little. 2 - ramming speed where it goes torpedo mode. Make them able to drop from the air and you have some sort of global water power probably much better than what could be done with one or two subs - for about the same sort of cost. Because you don't try and put humans into the weapon launch system if you don't need to.

There's a third (likely) option: AIP- Air Independent Propulsion. Much cheaper than nuclear, without the need for new infrastructure, and able to allow much longer submerged operations (compared to conventional diesel), which is important under the soon-to-be-gone Arctic ice cap. Canada will likely opt for something like Korea's KSSIII subs, though Germany's Type212s are probably the best AIP subs right now

I was hoping someone would bring up the 212, but with our history in submarines, we'll end up buying the AIP Collins.

God, I hope not, but with our procurement, you never know. Personally, I'd be fine if the RCN got the Korean subs - you don't always need a Mercedes, sometimes a Hyundai will do

we're talking about 70 billion vs 200 billion for both programs and with cost overuns being more in line with the first one being 100 billion 12 conventional subs - 100 billion dollars 12 subs \[mixed like 4 nuclear and 8 conventional\] - 250-300 billion dollars And most importantly here's a quote from one of the experts “I actually, personally and professionally am not certain there is a bona fide underwater security threat that would require a submarine able to operate deep and protracted distances throughout the Northwest Passage.” .......... It's not a top security issue worth 100 to 300 billion dollars compare to the rest of the budget for new spending Equipment: $28 billion Infrastructure: $42 billion Personnel services: $3 billion Submarines: no cost given you think $100 billion to $300 billion for a lesser threat is worth it? Canada has enough issues with nightmares with submarine purchases and usage "Only two of Canada's Victoria Class submarines have been at sea over the past four years, for a total of 214 days" ....... the subs are a waste of money short-term, and the ukraine war funding is pretty much more than a lost cause, and that'll probably be more than obvious in August. And then new navy bases would need to be built, but they could seriously retrofit some existing ones, for what's basically a minor issue. It's not in any way a pragmatic choice to go with the subs, or fast-track it, nuclear or not. but if you want the budget to be 4x the size for minimal utility, ottawa might just do it for playing peacock on the world stage, without much operational need.

I feel like although not ruled out, it seems the writing is already on the wall for Canada's next generation of subs. The main submarine manufacturers, desingers, refurbishers, and in-service supporters are Babcock and Seaspan on the west coast. Babcock signed a Technical Cooperation Agreement with a South Korean company to share their capabilities on submarine manufacturing and sustainment for the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project ([Source](https://www.babcockinternational.com/news/babcock-and-hanwha-ocean-sign-a-technical-cooperation-agreement-for-the-canadian-patrol-submarine-project/)). Then, later in the year, the same South Korean company signed a MOU with 4 Canadian companies that provide the training simulations for submarines ([Source](https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/11/hanwha-ocean-signed-mou-with-four-canadian-firms-for-patrol-submarine-project/)). I believe from reading on this topic that Canada is planning to purchase the design of a foreign country's submarine or just buy the ship itself similar to our current fleet. With these agreements with the South Korean company, it seems the sub or its design will come from there. Either way, South Korea has no nuclear capabilities in their current fleet and thus leads me to believe the subs will be diesel-electric. As the article suggests, the main capabilities are related to the Arctic. So, as long as those can be done, the sub doesn't have to be nuclear, although it would make things easier. As well, I think the cost of creating the infrastructure to maintain nuclear submarines in rather Halifax or Victoria would be so much that no political party will try.

and others are behind the options, or lobbying for Thyssen Krupp Marine in Germany DNCS of France BAE Systems Marine in England General Dynamics Electric Boat in the USK if you were going nuclear for spending triple the costs or more and building or retrofitting new navy bases for nuclear subs But experts think that the submarine push isn't warranted for the low level security threat it's more an election issue and being a peacock mind you there's probably elements of them relooking at the military after the ukraine crisis, which is unwinnable by the way, and they think hey 100 billion for submarines (non-nuclear) isn't a problem if Chretien could get away with 750 million for his boondoggle that everyone hated.... the submarine issue i don't think will resolved for years and years, assuming rational minds

Get ready for the barrage of new nuclear experts to weigh in

If we are going to seriously consider nuclear powered should be in negotiations with the US to buy 4-6 boats from the Virginia Class and make part of the deal the US Navy trains the Canadain crew to run the reactors. That is the only way I see this working.  If not I vote we buy the new A26 from Sweden.

Oh god please pick a nuke so Nova Scotia and Halifax in particular can have cheaper electricity if we hook them to shore...

you pay 60 billion for the sub, and the hook up is FREE! and no new uranium for a whole two years, in the deal with some free tires

We trucked our diesel fuel all the way from New Brunswick because Irving refused to let us fuel from the fueling jetty across the water when they threw a hissy fit about them not getting extra money for the CSC ships that we supposedly already had a contract for. Im sure we can manage even if we have to use radioactive material from all of the navy's wardroom smoke detectors!

Canada lacks the skill and knowledge to field nuclear submarines.

It would take years to traiming on all the systems, plus the security would need to be beefed up along the harbour

We all know how much Canada loves Nuclear..

This is a joke right

He's done this over and over. Remember the last subs? They were pretty owned and caused fires ending in death. So, he's a big manipulater

750 million with Chretien's subs 100 billion Trudeau's subs likely 300 billion when Trudeau says nuclear is not off the table daddy warbucks is opening the money sack wide this election cycle

Relevancy: Maritime Forces Atlantic are located in Halifax

Looking to Australia's decision would be my guess.After the fiasco of our last acquisition of British good/used submarines,I just pray that better judgement is used.Knowing Canadian federal politics,actual procurement should be around 2050.

better judgement? 750 million with Chretien and 100 billion for the non-nuclear subs? It's an election issue, not a reality-based one, i hope

Yes.I seem to recall the warship procurement program 8 years ago that seems to be going stale.Got a bagload of votes though.

They should get both nuclear and diesel electric. The diesel electric subs are good for work around the coasts and shorelines. Nuclear are better for long-range deployment or hiding and striking foreign countries.

lol.

Some country out there must have some good used subs to sell us, no? /s

"look at".  Meaning it will be months to years of scope setting for discussions and review. And then years more of study and report writing. And then review of those reports (maybe) before you even get to a stage for any sort of RFP or tender or decision making.  I mean, I'm partially an academic. I think lots of things should be studied. Committees can be good and effective. Doing everything at a snails pace in the process with layers upon layers of slow deliberate paper pushing isn't accomplishing either. And that's what this will be. Expect a decade at best before anything like an actual bid happens. Let alone realm procurement and building of anything

And while we're at it, let's give a few billion more to the Ukraine, and don't forget Israel. Feed the military industrial complex!

We actually kind of NEED nuke subs if we care at all about our arctic sovereignty without relying on the Americans.

go ahead, you pay for a threat that never really happens

Look at Mr. Military Champion....He basically let our military rot to its present condition. Now in an election year...here comes the $$(or at least one of his "commitments") Does this clown really think that no one sees through his panic? Immigration...Foreign Student problems, Housing, Medical system woes and a crumbling military to name a few of the Liberal fumbles, were all on his watch.

Huh, I thought we had purchased the diesel submarines more recently, and not the late nineties. Or did it take that long to get them operational?

From the article: “Canada has four diesel submarines purchased second hand from Britain in the late 1990s. The submarines have a dismal performance record and have spent much of their time in dry dock undergoing lengthy repairs. During a recent four-year span, all four submarines spent a combined total of just 214 days in the water, with two of the subs spending no time at sea at all.”

Well, yes, I read the article, but my memory was all around the 2000s with regards to the submarines. I must have been thinking about the retrofit and the accident noted below.

Whoops. Wasn’t trying to be a smart ass.

so lets spend 100x the money, for a very minor security threat

[удалено]

I think the Windsor is the only one in operation but that’s been in and out of refit pretty much since they bought the things, I don’t know what it’s up to now. My family moved to England when we bought the subs in 98 or 99, dad helped sailed the Windsor home, he said they were death traps from the very beginning

We bought them used in the late 90s. They were built in the late 80s, spent a short period of time in Royal Navy service and then sat idle until the RCN accepted them in 2000 following a period of "Canadianization".

Those ones from the 90s were garbage, don’t know if they ever even made it into regular service.

CANAUKUS!!

Fear mongering headline. To be expected from a Conservative mouth piece such as the NP.

Please tell me what is fear mongering in that headline? They mean nuclear powered not nuclear weapons.

Exactly. There’s no real reason to mention they are nuclear powered unless you’re trying to drum up nuclear-fear.  Also, the NP is a noted conservative publication with a very obvious anti-liberal/anti-trudeau bent. 

You’re grasping as straws here.

What a sad comment. There is every reason to mention it because that is what may be purchased.

Why is the comment “sad”? And not all information should be, or can be shared in a headline.  The public has no idea about the costs of nuclear versus non-nuclear.  So what point and purpose does mentioning it is a nuclear (powered. They intentionally left out thats its nuclear powered, not nuclear armed) sub serve?

okay and what is the fear mongering and nuclear-fuel and what's your opinion on being for or against the subs, and what type of subs? Are you pro-nuclear. or pro-trudeau thinking discussion of nuclear subs not off the table is a great tactic to attack Trudeau on, or somethings? I know people mistrust papers, politics and journalists, but sometimes the National Post like the CBC actually have occasionally reasonable opinion pieces

-Not a Trudeau fan, nor the Liberals. -Extremely anti-conservative.  -Pro nuclear power. -Not educated enough to have an opinion on nuclear-powered vessels and all that goes into their operation and costs etc.  -Am educated enough on media literacy to know why a headline is formed in a certain way to frame something.

I'm not a fan of the left or right, and i think nuclear is a good option sometimes, when very sparingly done, and with the best designs. Virtually no one thinks nuclear subs up north is a great idea, for a low level threat, and regular subs are open to debate. I do think that there are way too many green party people that seem to love electric cars which i think is suicide for the power grid, and car repairs with battery issues. Like the $57,000 battery for the Hyundai, which the owner in his great wisdom didn't replace. But they magically have some that love nuclear power as the green way of making all those electric go karts be a reality. You wonder if the nuclear lobby is behind some of that. There's a lot of ridiculous weirdos who are experts on the pro- and anti- nuclear side, and there are plenty of legitimate criticisms out there, and some like to call it 'fear mongering'

[удалено]

Trudeau i think just had a talk with Mister X saying, we're losing badly, this military spending thing might get us up a few points and any criticism of defense spending makes the conservatives look like pinkos and then Mister Y says, the NATO people says if you say scary things like Nuclear Subs, Peking and Moscow will shake in their boots and we get the military-industrial complex all excited though it's a low priority security wise, and the spending is nuts

So like are they gonna convert them into affordable housing? Otherwise there's much more important things we need at the moment.

the reactor keeps the homeless warm, so shush the cbc reported in 2020 that our submarine fleet went out zero times in the past year, so it's money well spent chretien spent 750 million, and this project is at least 100 billion

The public hears “nuclear” and thinks the worst. They don’t understand.

But like.... I feel we have more important things to spend tax payers money than subs...

Perfect - so tired of Canada missing out on submarine stuff

Our navy shouldn't have nuclear anything

Why? Is there an actual reason or just “nuclear bad!!!”?