Talk:Canada and weapons of mass destruction

message: "Canada with its strong belief in multilateralism has long been a..."
Canada is not something that can have a belief.  An appropriate phrase would be "with it's historical support for multilateralism...".  Of course, that would have to be backed up by the facts. If you change that to Canadians, it implies a consensus that is not supported in the national political discourse. There is too much argument to support this. 
:I took this part about multilateralism out. Even if changed to "historical support", I think it runs foul of NPOV requirements. Spenceb 21:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: We now have the following paragraph:
:Canada continues to promote peaceful nuclear technology exemplified by the CANDU reactor. Unlike most designs, the CANDU does not require enriched fuel, and in theory is therefore much less likely to lead to the development of weaponized fissile fuel. For this reason CANDU has been sold to countries where there is a threat of nuclear proliferation, on the basis that the construction of an enrichment facility would be noticed and clearly being used for weapons only. However, like many nuclear designs, CANDU can be used to produce plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. CANDU reactors are designed to be refueled while running,  which makes plutonium production much easier.
In particular, what's new is the claim that the CANDU use of non-enriched uranium makes them more proliferation resistant, and that they were therefore sold to nations that might try to set up clandestine nuclear programs. I think this needs more justification (or at least discussion).
On the one hand, any nuclear reactor can be used to manufacture plutonium.  The ability to refuel while running makes it easier to slip past inspectors: just sneak plutonium canisters into the pile when the inspectors aren't looking.
On the other hand, enriched uranium is a proliferation hazard.  You can buy it from somebody, or you can build expensive and difficult uranium-enrichment plants. If you use a standard PWR design, you have to feed it enriched uranium.  If you make the enriched uranium yourself, you need enrichment facilities; it's easy to sneakily produce some highly-enriched uranium with them. If you import the enriched uranium, you can't do this - the fuel doesn't make a decent weapon. You could still make plutonium, though.
Finally, there are other reasons you might sell CANDUs to poor nations:
* They don't need huge pressure vessels
* They can run on native uranium
So does anyone have a reference on this policy of selling CANDUs to nations that are a proliferation risk? --Andrew 07:28, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)
A Nuclear Power Reactor is NOT a Weapon of Mass Destruction. Ontario Power Generation is supposed to have burned surplus Russian weapons-grade material as part of their power cycle.  
----
Chemical Weapons
This catagory does not mention non-leathal Chemical weapons which Canada does posses and use. ie: CS gas, Pepperspray, ect. fall into this Catagory if anybody has studied NBCD.
They should be included in this artical.
Aporter3
But those are riot-control weapons. Just because something is unpleasant and WMDs are unpleasant does not make CS and Pepper-spray into WMDs. There is a fundamental logic error in that argument. j-austin
 
"Canada still employs Riot control agents which are classified as chemical weapons."
This statement is wrong. According to the Chemical Weapons Convention, riot control agents are not chemical weapons, otherwise they would be prohibited. Canada still employs Riot control agents which are classified as non-lethal weapons.
Lespin (talk) 00:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is explained in more detail in the John Clearwater book in the reference section, and also on the CF-101 Voodoo page.  Essentially, the Voodoos were retired from front line service at the end of 1984, but two aircraft remained in service as electronic support aircraft until 1987.--Voodude (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  CANDU and proliferation 

message: Does the section in the intro about Canadian participation in WWII bombing raids really belong in this article? Much less in the introduction? It was certainly mass destruction but it is not what is presently meant by the term "weapons of mass destruction". Megalophias (talk) 05:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: WWII Bombing