CANADA: Nukes And Mandatory Military Service

—

By Aisha Ahmad from The Conversation

—

Trump has also suggested using illegal force to achieve his own imperialist ambitions, even against former allies.

Message received.

Canadians and Europeans understand the American partnership is over.

They’re now processing the implications of America’s apparent democratic collapse for global security.

Does Trump’s stance mean that liberal democracies are now vulnerable to invasions, annexations and theft of natural resources? Yes, it does.

International security scholarship shows that, unless they are deterred, predatory superpowers use force to seize territory and natural resources for the purpose of aggrandizement.

POILIEVRE: Are You Trump Or Not? THE VOTER

While an invasion of Canada is not imminent, the threats to democratic nations are now fully detectable and predictable.

The responsible time to deter these threats is right now.

Asymmetric deterrence

Deterrence works when the imposed cost of an action is higher than its expected benefit. That means a hostile power won’t attack Canada if the risks of invasion are higher than the value of seizing our natural resources.

Given that Canada is extremely resource-rich, that’s a challenge.

While the Canadian government can make smart choices on military procurement, there is little any Canadian leader can do to transform the Canadian Armed Forces into a superpower army.

Even if Canada redirected every penny of its budget to defence spending, it could not catch up with American, Russian or Chinese military power. Given this asymmetry, is deterrence possible?

Absolutely.

To get there, Canada must take two big steps: first, adopt a “whole-of-society” defence system to protect the homeland; and second, contribute to a democratic nuclear umbrella.

Whole-of-society defence

In “whole-of-society” defence, all citizens play a role in national security and emergency response. This approach requires mandatory military service and nationwide civil defence preparations.

Whole-of-society defence not only improves societal resilience, but it also scares away potential invaders.

Ordinary citizens can in fact defeat superpowers using nothing more than small arms and light weapons. The U.S. and Russia have both been trounced in the past by well-armed resistance movements.

For a power-drunk dictator, whole-of-society defence is a sobering reality check.

The presence of a large, well-armed and well-trained domestic population promises invaders a bloody, expensive and protracted ground war. That means high risks, low rewards, skyrocketing costs and decades-long timelines.

That’s enough to deter a predatory superpower.

Many of Canada’s democratic allies have already embraced whole-of-society defence. Norway, Finland, Sweden and Switzerland all have mandatory military service and civil defence, and sensible gun regulations that allow law-abiding citizens to contribute to national security.

Canada has every reason to adopt the Scandinavian approach to national defence, including mandatory military and civil service and the removal of some restrictions on Canadian firearms. An excellent model to consider is Sweden’s brand new “Total Defence” system.

Norwegians, Finns and Swedes are peaceful people who have learned to survive next to a dangerous superpower. Canadians must look at their own vulnerabilities and see the logic and wisdom behind the Scandinavian approach.

A democratic nuclear umbrella

Although the 1968 Non-Proliferation Treaty prohibits nuclear weapons development, the Trump administration’s utter disdain for democratic allies has prompted a global rethink. Trump has demanded NATO countries stop relying on the U.S. military and spend more on their own defence.

Nuclear weapons acquisition complies with his demand.

Germany and Poland have reopened the nuclear debate, but most European democracies lack the materials to develop their own weapons. Instead, they are looking to France and the United Kingdom to create a new European nuclear umbrella.

Some Canadians hope the U.K. and French umbrellas could protect Canada, too.

That’s the wrong mentality.

The U.K. and France have a combined 515 nuclear weapons. Russia has 5,580.

Instead of asking the U.K. and France to further stretch their limited arsenals, Canada could step up and contribute to the solution.

Canada is already a nuclear-threshold state with both the know-how and raw materials to develop a nuclear weapon. It would take time and money, but Canada is in a better position to help than most other European countries.

Once across the nuclear threshold, Canada would have a bulletproof defence of its homeland. It could then work with the U.K. and France as an equal and reliable partner, contributing to a democratic nuclear umbrella to protect vulnerable allies.

This would require formal withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but that action doesn’t need to be provocative or unilateral. Canada could co-ordinate its withdrawal with European allies as part of a collective defence of liberal democracies.

In the face of rising tyranny and superpower conquest, Canada can either choose to be a burden on its overstretched French and British allies or a source of renewed safety for its democratic friends.

Defending democracy

Deterrence is hard work, but it is infinitely better than the horrors of invasion.

Mandatory military service and nuclear weapons may be new ideas for Canadians, but other friendly democracies have been using these strategies for decades.

The good news is that successful deterrence means stability and peace, so citizens can relax and carry on with their lives. Canadians want this safety for themselves, and for their allies, too.

LRT: A Vital Issue Of Open Government

The time for Canada to act is now, when threats are foreseeable but not imminent. Waiting until an army amasses at the border is too late.

To deter aggression, Canadians need to step up and be a little more like their Scandinavian, British and French allies. That is the price of continued freedom.

Aisha Ahmad is an Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Toronto

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.