this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2025

38 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

10697 readers

452 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

Canada’s Submarine Dilemma: Type 212CD vs KSS-III (www.michaeljlalonde.com)

submitted 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by CanadaPlus@futurology.today to c/canada@lemmy.ca

48 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I can't vouch for the author at all, but this seems like a nice detailed, technical look at the difference between the two.

TL;DR the 212CD is very good at what in biology would be called "sit and wait predation". It's designed to sneak into an ocean floor crevice and hang out there, possibly for for weeks until something comes by, and then attack it. The Hanwha offering, on the other hand, is less superlatively stealthy and maneuverable, but is much more flexible, allowing missile launches and likely having a much longer range.

top 48 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 0 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

such pure disgusting treason. Everyone responsible for this analysis needs to be labeled as a traitor or at least fired.

these subs will be expected to deploy far into the North Atlantic with NATO and push across the Pacific to support the Indo-Pacific Strategy

The only mission any Canadian military equipment procurement strategy needs to focus only on defending and attacking the US. If we need a sub, it is to destroy American harbours, and blockade any commerce or oil rigs. All concepts of aiding US domination of the world must be suspended until we at very least get our fair share in the evil pillaging.

It's great that we are building a large VW engineered battery factory. If we need subs, the German coastal one is the choice, and if it is purchased, the money should be reinvested into a VW EV plant. If we don't need subs because we don't understand a need to fight/destroy the US, then we should use the money to make an EV plant.

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 1 points 3 hours ago

The guy should get fired from his own blog? Lol.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Focusing on only a single country is, simply put, stupid.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Really absurd. Any countries that Canada should invade? There are no other countries than US who will invade us.

[–] Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Russia would be the other option that Canada needs to keep in mind.

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 2 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

China, maybe even India if the Khalistan stuff gets out of hand.

Like, the US is by far the main threat directly to us right now, but it's a big world and a long future.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 day ago (2 children)

"Land-attack capability via cruise and/or non-nuclear ballistic missiles"

Canada needs nukes.

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 5 points 1 day ago

Yeah, I was wondering why that was specified. I spent some time looking into if it could fire nukes as well this morning. The verdict is maybe; a lot is secret, but the kind of tubes the KSS-III has are thought to be larger than their ship-borne equivalent.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe -2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

No one needs nukes

[–] shirro@aussie.zone 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

It used to be nobody needs nukes, but...since our most powerful ally is the only nuclear power stupid enough to actually use them we get the deterrent value anyway. As client states we were all (UK, Australia, Canada etc) actively discouraged from developing independent capabilities that would reduce our dependency on the alliance or US arms industry.

If people found the US nuclear umbrella re-assuring then, many don't now. I am Australian, but submarines and the US alliance are a huge issue here as well.

Canada's geography is very important strategically to the USA like practically no other place. Canada has less need of nukes than just about anyone. Currently the fate of other US allies feels far less secure. It seems we are all just bits of land to be traded to our enemies by the US administration in return for who knows what? It is a very sad state of affairs.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe 1 points 6 hours ago

A nuclear weapon is only as good as the resolve to use it

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago) (1 children)

It's more like "everyone needs no nukes". It's just that being one of the nuclear powers is so much easier...

Having a delivery system in case we do decide to go down that path seems reasonable.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe 0 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I don’t think Canada is in a place where it needs to have a nuclear weapon. There are no threats to Canada (besides Trump, and we know that’s not likely). Canada doesn’t need to lower itself to those levels.

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

besides Trump, and we know that’s not likely

Do we? Sometimes he TACOs, but sometimes he does exactly what he said he would. And what about whoever the next American autocrat is?

Getting in on one of the European umbrellas would be much better, though. We could even have British or French warheads on a Canadian sub, although I doubt it could launch a Trident as the delivery system.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe 1 points 7 hours ago

Trump isn’t trying to take over Canada. He’s focused on making money for himself. If he puts a single foot in Canada the rest of the world is going to shun the states (even more). It’s pointless.

Imo, Canada doesn’t need weapons of mass destruction.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Tell that to Ukraine.

[–] corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca 0 points 10 hours ago (2 children)

Ukraine made a deal with America to disarm back when America was a little trustworthy. Things have changed, and I say they're good to resume nukes.

[–] humanspiral@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 hours ago

Ukraine's independence from USSR, included constitutional neutrality and no nukes. US was not main negotiator.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Close.Ukraine made a deal with Russia to return their nukes in exchange for non-invasion with US and European signatories as guarentors. (Because Russia has never been trustworthy.)

It's why Nato supplying Ukraine is legitimate. Russia renegged on the non-invasion treaty knowing full well what happens.

Edit: Ukraine has no nuclear building capabilities in the short to medium term. Long term , who knows?

[+] velindora@lemmy.cafe -7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That would solve nothing because they would be condemned for using it.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The point of nukes is to not use them. Countries with nukes negotiate. Countries without nukes get preyed upon.

Your comment is ridiculous considering there is an active war of invasion in Ukraine at present, and they traded their nukes in exchange for a promise not to invade. In retrospect, the nukes would have been better.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe -2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

And if Russia doesn’t stop? What would you suggest they do?

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Why are all you comments hopelessly misconstrued?

If they had nukes, there would have been no invasion.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

OK, wait a sec. We all know what MAD entails. However, Ukraine is currenty striking deep into Russia, disrupting refineries and such. Yet Russia hasn't blown Kiev with a nuke. That's a legitimate issue to consider. I don't think most would disagree that nukes reduce the chance of an armed conflict. However it seems like even so, we can't rely on it to stop it entirely. It's as if there's a threshold of threat/intensity below which a hot war can be maintained despite having nuclear capability. If that's a realistic possibility, we should tackle it. Maybe after we get nukes.

With all that said I do believe we need nukes yesterday especially because we have little ability to maintain a hot war with the US.

Amassing a large ballistic missle arsenal DPRK-style would also work as a deterrent. Perhaps even more effectively since we could fire some of it to prove we ain't afraid to use it, without "starting a nuclear war."

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 2 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

Russia hasn't blown Kiev with a nuke because the consequences would be severe, Including possible tactical nuclear reciprocity, and becoming a global pariah who loses the few allies they have left. It also makes no sense to nuke the prize you want to own or pop off nukes upwind of your territory as your own people will be very pissed off with any fallout. It would also trigger a massive change in posture of NATO. Any country so irresponsible with nuclear weapons to use them on non threats, non-nuke countries becomes a candidate for a capitulating first strike.

Russia has updated their nuclear doctrine so NATO powers can't conventionally cripple russia by proxy via Ukraine as it would risk devastating escalation. But again, no one wants escalation. It's an unnecessary posture as Russia started this as an agressor, and played the great game very, very badly due to internal corruption. They could stop it at any time.

Edit: As for Canadian defense against the US, there is no hot war defense possible. There are 2 effective defensive possibilities.

Nuclear deterrent. (A sub based nuclear second strike only capability similar to the UK.)
Preparation for an insurgency. Like Vietnam, Afghanistan, the US can take and hold whatever it wants for as long as it wants at a high cost. Canada could not defend against any hot war. An insurgency however would make it way too costly for the US to hold onto Canada for any length of time and would be devastating to onshore infrastructure and industrial capacity at a time where China is quickly rising. They would also be expelled from NATO and would have to counter China alone without its Western World allied military capabilities, supply chains or soft power.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

You're expanding on why they haven't nuked Kiev or any other part of Ukraine. That all makes sense. I assumed that already in my argument and went for the next - they're not using nukes and they're engaing in a hot war mostly on Ukranian but also on Russian territory. Therefore having nukes doesn't guarantee you won't get a hot war on your land. You're not addressing that bit. I'm not saying you must, I just think there's a reasonable argument that a hot war under certain intensity on your territoty is possible even if you have nukes. Even if less likey than without having nukes. That's not an argument against getting nukes for Canada.

To speculate a bit, because of many of the same reasons you stated for why Russia hasn't nuked Ukraine, I don't think Russia would have nuked Ukraine, even in a fantastical scenario where Ukraine started the war with incursion into Russia.

Agreed on the points of Canadian defence.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 2 points 10 hours ago

Therefore having nukes doesn't guarantee you won't get a hot war on your land.

No guarentees in life, but it is a bold statement with no evidence that comes to mind. Can anyone name a single nuclear armed country who was invaded?

All wars since nukes have been proxy wars by great powers. Russia is exceptional, in that it invaded a weaker, non-nuke non-threat country and flubbed it so badly guerilla strikes are hapening behind its front lines and frankly, across the country. They weren't invaded, and Ukraine poses no real threat to the USSR so there are still no examples to support your statement.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

And if Russia said “fuck it” and called their bluff, what should Ukraine do?

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

What bluff?

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe -2 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Answer

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 2 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I did. This sounds suspiciously like trolling.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe -4 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

It’s not like trolling. I’m asking you a legitimate question and you keep copying and pasting bullshit. Answer with your own words.

If Ukraine got a nuclear weapon and Russia continued to do what it’s doing without using your nuclear weapons, what do you think Ukraine should do about it?

Answer with your own words otherwise you are the fucking troll

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 3 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Fuck off. My words would explain MAD, just like wikipedia did, but I'm too lazy to rewrite wikipedia for someone who has the knowledge of a child and an allergy to reading.

Edit:

If Ukraine got a nuclear weapon and Russia continued to do what it’s doing without using your nuclear weapons.

Stop being ignorant. If Ukraine had nukes, Russia would never had invaded. Your scenario is preposterous and you appear oblivious to even rudimentary geopolitics or military theory. Litteral 12 yo children get this. Why don't you?

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe -4 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

OK, so you’re not actually willing to use your own words in a conversation and you have resorted to childishness. OK well… I don’t think that you should be deciding whether or not someone should have a nuclear weapon.

[–] TJDetweiler@lemmy.ca 4 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

This is coming off as deliberately obtuse.

If you have a nuke, and someone wants to take your shit or kill you, they will be deterred from doing so. Will anyone ever use a nuke in this situation? Who knows, but it would probably cause a world war. Millions, if not billions could die. Governments could collapse. Entire species could be wiped out. The results are nearly unfathomable. I don't think anyone wants to be the cause of that.

If Ukraine nuked Russia, or vice versa, it would likely result in the destruction of both countries regardless of who the nuke hit, hence the previous commenters wiki link to mutually assured destruction.

It's uncharted territory for humanity, and no one wants to fuck around a find out.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe -4 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

It’s not obtuse it’s a direct question

If a nuclear weapon was given to Ukraine, and Russia called bullshit, and continued to fight Ukraine… What do you think Ukraine should do?

It is a simple fucking question you are just too afraid to answer it.

[–] mholiv@lemmy.world 3 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago) (1 children)

You’re definitely being deliberately obtuse. Maybe even sealioning. Ukraine being given nukes after Russia invaded is a totally different thing.

As the other poster said if Ukraine had nukes Russia would not have invaded in the first place.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe -1 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

I’m not being obtuse. It’s a direct fucking question. If Ukraine had nukes, and Russia decided to say we don’t give a fuck what you have, we’re gonna invade you anyway… What Do you personally think Ukraine should do with that nuke? You just know that if you actually answer the question you’re going to lose any argument you make.

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 1 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

Your problem is the question has already been answered twice. You apparently aren't capable of understanding, so maybe talk less and read wikipedia more.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe -1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

I am not interested in what Wikipedia has to say, I am interested in what you have to say. The answers are Ukraine does nothing or Ukraine fires a nuke. Which one is it?

[–] Thedogdrinkscoffee@lemmy.ca 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Shhhhh.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe 0 points 8 hours ago

Exactly, Because answering it would mean you would have to admit that this mutually assured destruction is not actually assured, and then you would have to choose whether or not to nuke something. If you nuke something, then you’re a bad person and if you don’t nuke something then what was the point of them having nukes to begin with?

It’s disappointing that you have so many opinions and so little desire to back any of them up with rational conversation.

[–] mholiv@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Here is another article you won’t read. It’s mostly for the benefit of those who might wonder what’s going on here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe 0 points 8 hours ago

I can see that you don’t understand what sealioning is Even though you posted a link to it. I’m not asking for any evidence, which is the requirement for the word.

relentless requests for evidence,

I’m not asking for evidence. I’m asking for a person to provide an opinion about what would happen if a thing happened.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewalling

[–] OutForARip@lemmy.ca 0 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Nuke east of the Urals and hope the clouds drift to North Korea.

[–] velindora@lemmy.cafe 1 points 9 hours ago

Well, that’s just punishing the disabled child because they sided with a bully! Maybe if those clouds can be directed specifically to Kimmy‘s house..

[–] cecilkorik@piefed.ca 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I agree with the author's conclusion that the KSS-III is the most sensible choice at this moment. However this does not mean that our navy does not also need 212CDs. Unfortunately it probably, knowing Canadian politics, means we won't ever get them.

This phrase is rather telling:

since Arctic sovereignty remains popular within Liberal and Conservative circles alike

The fact that "sovereignty" is considered a political question at all, and is merely "popular" and not "essential" is beautifully emblematic of the completely absurd Canadian point of view on the issue. If we are not willing to defend our North, then we frankly do not deserve it, and almost certainly will not have it for much longer.

[–] CanadaPlus@futurology.today 3 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yep. If we want to stand on our own to feet, just the ability to attack a ship (eventually) isn't enough. The ability to roll up anywhere on the same ocean and fire missiles is at least as useful. Buying both might be an option, although that costs.

I think it was meant that the arctic isn't the only theater that matters. According to the bio Micheal Lalond was in the military, so it's not a "nobody will ever attack us" thing.