Canadian military capability deficit creates impossible nuclear weapons debate. You’re watching former Chief of Defense Staff Wayne Eyre recommend Canada reconsider its hardline no on nuclear weapons. Trump threatens sovereignty. Japan’s Prime Minister questioned their nuclear taboo. South Korea explored programs. You’re thinking Canada needs dramatic deterrence now. But you can’t defend your own airspace. American F-22s intercepted the Chinese balloon over Canada because you barely have fighters capable of protecting your country.

Shimooka calls the nuclear debate backwards. Canada can barely defend itself with conventional capabilities. You don’t need nuclear weapons to threaten a country that can’t protect its own borders with basic fighters. The American ambassador already said it: if Canada doesn’t have F-35s, America will have to defend Canadian airspace. That’s not future tense anymore. The Chinese balloon intercept happened with an American F-22 over Canadian territory because Canada lacked capability. Submarine procurement jumping from four to twelve reveals massive Arctic capability deficit. Even those are conventionally powered, not designed for under-ice operations. One will operate in peri-ice conditions just to patch the security hole.

The nuclear weapons debate assumed Canada’s security problem is dramatic deterrence. America still defends Canadian airspace because Canada won’t fund conventional capabilities. Submarines matter more than warheads when you can’t patrol your own territory. The dependency isn’t the nuclear umbrella. It’s the conventional capability collapse.

Topics: Canadian military capability deficit, nuclear weapons debate, conventional defense gaps, Arctic submarine procurement, F-35 fighter dependency

GUEST: Richard Shimooka

Originally aired on2026-02-03