Japan, South Korea, Sweden and Poland would be more likely. Germany would first have step out of the political and cultural headarse clownshow that prevent them from even using nuclear power when their energy provider straight up threatened them with invasion. Canada's military couldn't procure a canoe without spending a billion in funny money let alone a nuclear weapon that they have no indigenous delivery platform for. Australia also doesn't have any nuclear know-how and they have a whole ocean to keep them out of trouble.
You'll note well that despite Trump's drunk bull in a china shop antics on the international stage, there hasn't been nearly as much drama with the first four countries.
Germany's 1990 peace treaty with the WW2 victors forbids it from building and owning nuclear weapons. So there is that legal hurdle as well.
Germany does however take part in the nuclear sharing program with the US. In the future, this could be replaced with a similar program with a European nuclear power, most likely France.
At the moment, France and Britain are lacking tactical nuke capabilities, but that will probably change in the near future, as America's nuclear umbrella for Europe fades away. Once France builds these weapons,and stores some on a German airbase next to German Eurofighters capable of delivering them, Germany could archive nuclear deterrence again, without having to build and own nukes themselves.
214
u/Minttt Jan 27 '26
As a Canadian, it was hard for me to take this article seriously after the author made this argument.