Europe is looking forward to France’s nuclear shield. Should Canada follow?
A very quiet line has been created in Europe where some of Canada’s long-standing and closest allies seek shelter under France’s small but strong nuclear umbrella.
The initiative of the French President Emmanuel Macron, who declared that the next 50 years is “the age of nuclear weapons,” – on paper – is intended to add another layer of deterrence to the security guarantees supported by America’s NATO.
Again – on paper – Russia is an enemy that needs to be contained.
But since US President Donald Trump has once again fired NATO allies because of their reluctance to join his war in the Middle East and surprisingly – but not surprisingly – the Financial Times reports that Denmark was preparing to fight to protect Greenland from American annexation, a completely new dimension appears in France’s advanced nuclear deterrence strategy.
Should Canada join that line?
US President Donald Trump said on Tuesday that NATO countries support a joint US-Israeli campaign against Iran, as they refuse to get involved. ‘All NATO partners agree with us … and they don’t want to help us, which is amazing,’ he said during an unrelated Oval Office event with Irish Prime Minister Micheál Martin.
Consider for a moment that Denmark is one of the eight nations in the line of negotiations and almost anywhere that preventive guarantees are given (France has already issued clear guarantees) will extend to Greenland.
If the provision was already in place in January, how would that change the attachment equation?
When Prime Minister Mark Carney and the five Nordic leaders met with the media last Sunday in Oslo, the most uncomfortable moment came when the question of France’s nuclear deterrent was raised.
Looking at the face of a certain leader, no one wanted to speak out loud.
Canada had no intention of going nuclear and getting its own deterrent, Carney said.
And while there is a difference between acquiring nuclear weapons and sheltering under someone else’s embargo, Carney offered cautious advice on Macron’s move to extend France’s weapons reach.
“We appreciate that move from the point of view of NATO, from the point of view of European security. It does not directly affect Canada,” said Carney, while noting the details of the French plan are still to be negotiated.
There are eight countries in line: the UK, Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Greece, Sweden and Denmark. Britain has its own, small nuclear power that is closely aligned with the United States in terms of technology.
The French arsenal is fully independent and has made the issue of control and control – the so-called one person, one button concept – something that does not start in negotiations with other nations.
Allied nations, Macron said, will participate in the development of auxiliary systems under France’s new nuclear doctrine, including space-based alarms, air defense systems and long-range missiles.
Prime Minister Mark Carney, in Oslo for a small conference with the leaders of the five Nordic countries, was asked by a Danish journalist whether Canada would commit troops to defend Greenland if another NATO ally tried to take over the territory – referring to US threats to take over the island. Carney said that territorial sovereignty must be upheld and that the future of Greenland and Denmark lies with their people. ‘We will take that back with the necessary measures, as partners,’ he said.
It leaves the question of whether Canada – with its now free access to the European defense market – will benefit in some way.
The number of French warheads will increase from around 300, but Macron would not say by how much. The country is also renewing its fleet of nuclear submarines.
From NATO’s point of view, the joint French and UK nuclear deterrent cannot replace the US nuclear umbrella, the UK’s Royal United Services Institute argues in a recent paper.
“It will not match the US or Russia – in numbers or position,” the paper said.
Russia has around 1,500 warheads while the United States reportedly has 5,177 – 3,700 active warheads in storage and 1,477 retired warheads awaiting decommissioning. That is according to data from the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
Having a nuclear weapon does not mean that it will be used. Threats are often used to great effect, which can be very damaging.
Russia has turned nuclear threats against NATO nations supporting Ukraine into a veritable cottage industry.
In the second stage we can play that game, some experts suggest that France’s nuclear deterrent could be useful in case the United States withdraws from Europe again.
“The deployment of French nuclear-armed aircraft to countries such as Germany and Poland will send a message to the Kremlin that Paris may be ready to undertake nuclear deterrence activities with its allies and represent them,” said Juraj Majcin of the European Center for Policy Analysis last week.
Both Norway and Finland made it clear during the press conference that they were not willing to host any forward-deployed nuclear weapons – either by the French or the Americans. However, Helsinki is in the process of amending its law to remove legal obstacles to such action if necessary.
The French military also last week sent a non-nuclear message announcing how its A400M Atlas heavy transport aircraft had crashed on an iceberg in Greenland along with soldiers from the 27th Mountain Infantry Brigade.
It was a gentle reminder that they stood by the Danes.
Sending nuclear-tipped jets to Greenland in a renewed crisis would be another matter.
And while Trump has backed off on his Greenland threats for the time being, it was clear that the Nordic leaders were hoping for the best by planning for the worst possible judgment for their responses last week.
This is where Carney’s mushy response becomes important.
Extending a potential French nuclear deterrence line from Greenland to Canada would be dangerous, perhaps even catastrophic.
Trump’s remarks on the 51st state and the proliferation of Canadian weapons have shaken the country in an almost unimaginable way in the past few years – a public debate about whether it was necessary to stop nuclear power.
Trump ordered the resumption of nuclear tests for the first time since 1992. A day earlier, Putin said that Russia had successfully tested a nuclear-powered super torpedo.
Writing last year in the magazine Policy Options, political science professor Julian Spencer-Churchill said that Canada’s full-scale effort to acquire nuclear weapons technology could anger the Trump administration – to the point of taking pre-emptive action.
“Canada’s official nuclear program, designed to reassure its citizens, will instead please the Americans to the max and could result in practical and irreversible US intervention,” wrote Spencer-Churchill.
He went on to say that there is no political will in this country for a nuclear weapons program and this program will require a much stronger security regime to prevent theft.
It is possible that his arguments against Canada for obtaining the bomb could be transferred to the idea of openly joining the extended deterrence of France.
During the same media availability last week, Carney was asked off-guard by a Danish reporter whether Canada would send troops to defend Greenland in the event of a US takeover attempt.
“We stand squarely behind the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity. It is for the people of Greenland and Denmark to decide their future,” replied Carney.
“We will support that with appropriate measures.”
Because of the six-nation format of the news conference, the question that was not asked of the Nordic leaders – but should have been – was: How far would Europe be prepared to go to protect Canada?
