British nuclear weapons can protect Canada against Trump, says Trudeau party candidate. Chrystia Freeland says Canada should build closer security partnerships with Nato allies as US president is ‘threatening sovereignty’

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2025/03/03/british-nuclear-weapons-canada-trump-chrystia-freeland/

Posted by Make_the_music_stop

28 comments

  1. I’m sure she probably meant that Canada should source their arms from other partners, including the UK rather than buying sad arms from the United States. I don’t think she was saying let’s get some nuclear weapons from the UK that we can fire at the United States.

  2. Come back to daddy, I wonder how long before Australia joins us again?

  3. Imagine going back 25 years and showing someone this headline lmao

  4. A reminder that the cold war never went hot because of nuclear weapons.

  5. I did not have the UK nuking America in my 2025 bingo card….. And remember folk trump isn’t even 2 months into the 4 years

  6. Weird way to say it but no we shouldn’t rely on the US for anything, especially US weapons that might be used to defend us against the US.

  7. now is probably the best chance we have at pushing forward with CANZUK. personally id love to see some sort of union similar to the EU develop

  12. I would think France would have something to say if Quebec, in particular, was targeted by the US.

  13. Whoever had money on Canada wanting the UK to nuke the US in 2025….I bet you were ridiculed at the time but now who’s laughing, well played!

  14. Canadian here. We welcome to our new (old?) British masters. We would love to have some of your nukes.

  15. That’s why you don’t put all your eggs in a basket. Better many small countries to have nukes instead of a single super power

  17. If Canada wants nukes it is perfectly capable of building its own. And it should. The most likely and cheapest source of assistance (unlikely it is required) is Pakistan – they’ve both got a few bones to pick with India.

  18. Since the so-called ‘UK independent deterrent’ relies on American guidance, I can see a few problems with the original statement here.

  19. CANZUK & EU defence pact immediately. Britain needs to tell everyone who they want to be friends with because we are all in scary territory

  20. What does this even mean? Do these people think before they write?

  21. We can’t protect ourselves with our nukes lol the last two tests were a disaster made us look a laughing stock on the world stage

  22. I mean it makes no sense. Trident doesn’t really work and we only have sub based missiles.

    The French have plane launched weapons. They should lend some to the Canadians.

  23. We do not abandon our allies. If NATO, CANZUK or any other alliance we join is to mean anything, we have to do our part.

    That being said, Canada should probably start a significant military build up. We can at least take solace that not many US troops would obey the order to invade Canada, but it would take an alliance to make a potential US invasion too costly to be worth it.

  24. They should build their own, and they should go with France over the UK, until they can do so.

  26. Non-US NATO is bigger than US military. USA leads in airpower, quite significantly and navy. They don’t have the manpower, artillery, APCs etc. Manpower is 2:1, artillery is close to 3:1. It is almost like US military planning has relied on NATO members… US military is not build on defense but offense, the rest of NATO members are almost exclusively about defense in a land war. US military is built for rapid deployment overseas. Their logistics is really the area that allows any of it to work, they are quite amazing at that.

  27. Frankly pretty obvious, the UK has always been on the side of order while the US has always been on the side of chaos.

  28. Lets hand out nukes to all the countries in the world! Perhaps we can make an easter egg hunt type of event out of it!
    World peace guaranteed!

Comments are closed.