# Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada



## the patriot

February 23, 2001

PM backpedals on missile plan
British ‘baffled‘ by Chrétien‘s suggestion NATO, Russia, China could veto U.S. shield

Justine Hunter
National Post

OTTAWA - Jean Chrétien yesterday played down earlier remarks made to Parliament that the U.S. President had told him his administration would not proceed on its controversial missile defence plan if there is significant opposition within NATO and from Russia and China.

Officials travelling with Tony Blair, the British Prime Minister, who was making a short stop in Ottawa before travelling on to Washington, said they were "baffled" at comments made by Mr. Chrétien in the House of Commons on Wednesday in response to questions on the missile defence shield by Alexa McDonough, the leader of the New Democrats.

Mr. Chrétien told Parliament: "We have discussed [missile defence] with the Americans who have decided they will not proceed if it will cause a lot of problems for NATO and they cannot find an arrangement with the Chinese and the Russians."

The missile defence plan is expected to be a key issue under discussion when Mr. Blair meets George W. Bush in Washington today.

Speaking yesterday at a news conference with Mr. Blair, Mr. Chrétien told reporters he was not suggesting key opponents of the plan -- Russia and China -- would hold what amounted to a veto on deployment of the controversial defence plan, which critics have argued will violate existing treaties on nuclear missile limitation.

Mr. Chrétien said that what he was insisting on is that the United States hold intense consultations with NATO members. The compliance of those members is important, he asserted.

Referring to his comments in the Commons, Mr. Chrétien said: "What I said is that they have promised they will engage in meaningful negotiations and discussions with us ... and the Russians and the Chinese. Of course it will be eventually a decision of the American administration.

"But we are insisting that they have a discussion with us because we don‘t want this situation to develop into a situation that could cause many big problems within NATO."

Mr. Chrétien discussed the matter two weeks ago in his first face-to-face meeting with the new U.S. President and appeared to disclose a new stance by Mr. Bush.

"It is our position that they have to discuss with everybody and if they want to discuss with everybody, we will not say no before a discussion. In a discussion we have to listen first."

Last December, Mr. Chrétien met with Vladimir Putin, the Russian President, who attempted to enlist the Prime Minister as a mediator to help persuade Mr. Bush to abandon plans for the defence shield, warning it would "damage significantly the established system of international security."

Speaking to a special joint session of Parliament yesterday, Mr. Blair made no reference to the missile defence plan, but rather urged Canada to help him "break the log-jam" that is impeding better trading relations between the European Union and North America.

Mr. Blair called on proponents of free trade to take on "misguided" critics who have dominated the agenda with their protests at world trade meetings.

"It‘s time we started to argue vigorously and clearly as to why free trade is right. It‘s the key to jobs for our people, prosperity and to development in the poorest parts of the world," Mr. Blair said.

"The case against it is misguided and, worse, unfair. However sincere the protests, they cannot be allowed to stand in the way of rational argument."

The Labour Party leader‘s comments were poorly received on the NDP benches -- the New Democrats are trying to align themselves with anti-globalization protests -- and brought a swift response from the Canadian Labour Congress.

Ken Georgetti, president of the CLC, who watched the speech from the spectator‘s gallery, said he was stunned by Mr. Blair‘s remarks.

"Prime Minister Blair fails to understand that people protest because they do not receive any benefits from these trade agreements, quite the contrary very often," he stated in a news release.

Mr. Blair, who was in Canada for a 24-hour visit before travelling to Washington to meet Mr. Bush, told the House trade relations between the EU and North America are "not as they should be."

After chronicling past failed initiatives to establish a transAtlantic free trade zone, he urged the Canadian parliament to help him secure a political declaration of intent on trade linking the EU with the North American Free Trade Agreement. "Ninety-eight per cent of our trade is trouble-free. We cannot allow the remaining two per cent to sour trading relations in the way it has."

He vowed to pursue an opportunity to break the log-jam at the next meeting of the EU, to be held in Sweden in June.
***********************************

-the patriot-


----------



## ninty9

Let the debate begin:

What are your feelings on Canada, NORAD and National Missile Defence? 

Should Canada support it, as it seems the US will go ahead with or without our suport?

Will it creat jobs?

Will it bring us closer to the USA, but distance us from other countries?


----------



## SNoseworthy

I understand the importance of continential defence, and for that purpose I support the NMD idea. However, there are underlying concerns, such as the system can‘t handle a large missile attack and doesn‘t have the best reliability to work. Furthermore, whether Canada joins or not, we‘ll just be a debris zone.


----------



## rolandstrong

My question is "why wouldn‘t we be involved?". Continental defense is within our best interests, and we might as well reap military and economic benefits from participating. As Snoseworthy puts it, we are a debris zone with or without it, so we may aswell get some benefits.


----------



## ninty9

I agree.  I think you summed it up pretty well.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

At least the American ambassador is speaking to us again!


----------



## Bert

NMD will have to be pretty comprehensive.  I
don‘t think Canada has muich of a choice but to be involed in it.  Our participation in NORAD and common defence makes us as much of a target as the US.

I don‘t know a nation that would be fool enough to attack the US with this system with ballistic
missles.  Maybe a group of nations working together could send off enough ballistic missles to hit enough targets and/or limit a US response.
These nations would have to employ an offense to the achilles heel of NMD.  Maybe we‘ll see a surge in submarines capable of launching ballistic missles or cruise missles to go under radar or space based offensive systems.  

NMD will likely up the ante in global geo-politics.  The US, rightly, wrongly, or fact of life, has altered the world.  The EU, Russia, China, and a host of intermediate countries fear the power and agressivness of the USA.  A power that would attack the US would have to be a group of countries capable of limiting the US military power projection, its defenses, and economy.

The EU, China, India are putting money into building their military forces,  Russia is heavy into R&D.  Surrounding these countries, are others trying to keep pace with them.  The Koreas, Japan, Israel, Iran, the EU are building their own space based, nuclear, and surveillence systems. 

Given the fear and ambitions each country in the world seems to have, it will be interesting to be see what will eventually challenge NMD.  May not take long.


----------



## Canuck725

I was wondering about the opinion of men in uniforms about the Star Wars program, personally, I believe that it is a waist of money, since all the money going in the program will not be invested in new equipment or better conditions for the soldiers.


----------



## dutchie

I don't know a lot about the program other than what I see on the news, but IMHO, I like it. If we are involved, it would help reaffirm Canada's committment to the defence of North America. 

Re:"waste of money....money not invested in new equiptment"....I see the missle defence program as seperate from CF funding......it's not like if they decide not to go ahead w/ missle defence that all of a sudden everyone's running around in new tanks, new CF-18's, or new aircraft carriers (unless Harper gets in - Ha Ha).


----------



## 291er

Yes it will cost a lot of money, but I think we should contribute to it.  We are the other part of NORAD, and I think this system will be an effective detterent to missile attacks.  The likelihood of a missile attack happening....slim, but it only takes one.  I don't think we can put a price on our safety, and also, I think that if we don't join this program, there will be serious ramifications from Big Brother (USA).  Let's face it, without them, we would'nt have NORAD.  Look at what happened when we sent two CF-18's up North to monitor a Russian Arctic exercise.  Russkies 2 Canada 0.  We can say all we like about the US but the reality is that they share a lot of resources with us, most notably intelligence and training resources.  I, for one, would'nt want these cut off and us left in the dark.


----------



## Inch

Are you kidding? Who wouldn't want to burn around the country low level in an X-Wing? I'm all for Star Wars, wait, what Star Wars were we talking about?

I say Fortress North America, even the Mexicans cause I like the idea of Siestas.

Cheers


----------



## Canuck725

So, what is your Opinion?


----------



## GregC

From what info I've collected on missile defence, it seems like a COLOSSAL waste of money, I'm talking about colossal on a scale I can't comprehend.

These missile interceptors have failed numerous times in the tests, however many will point out (and rightly so) that they also scored some hits. The problem was they were going up against single targets, with FULL KNOWLEDGE of the target's flight trajectory, speed, and heading. These tests were completely scripted and these missiles still failed!

Not only that, but the Russians also tested a warhead that could maneuver in space with small thrusters. This would negate the possibility of any interception, and the interceptors have not even been proven to be able to distinguish from a warhead with it's full complement of decoys.

This system is a joke, and I think the money could be better spent on preventative systems, such as a buildup of western intelligence services that have become so laughable. HUMINT on the ground in high risk countries could help stop a missile from ever being launched, and in my opinion be more effectice than a trillion dollar system. I heard the figures for operating the full system for 20 years, and it's mind boggling. I can't remember the figure, but it nearly dropped my can of pop when I heard it!

Canada should not waste it's money on this system. And we should not give out any land either, that is until the Americans start showing us a little respect on trade and social issues. I know this is an unrealistic stance because the USA can punish us far more than we can punish them, but we need to try and make a stand.

Of course, if Kerry is elected in November, maybe this debate need never have happened.


----------



## 291er

HUMINT on the ground did'nt stop Sept 11th.  We can't rely on intelligence all the time, we can have the greatest HUMINT, SIGINT and IMINT in the world, but it still does'nt mean we should'nt defend ourselves against the unknown.  Plus try infiltrating someone into Al Qaeda or one of these groups, not the easiest thing to do, they've been trying for years to no avail.


----------



## JBP

I think it's a waste of money, time, energy and resources! Not only does it not work good enough to use that many resources but think on THIS!

Most major power or "industrialized nations" signed a type of armistice to NOT PUT ANY WEAPONS INTO SPACE AT ALL EVER....

This program would put weapons in space, regardless if they're defensive or not. Other nations will use it as an escuse to put NUKES on orbital platforms/launching satellites for orbit of the planet!!!!

I wouldn't put it past them, and I'd HATE the thought that every 12-17 minutes a NUKE from another nation could be floating overhead!!!!!!!!!

Just my thoughts... Joe


----------



## JBP

So what your saying Mr. S_Baker, is that the Missle defence program is a larger waste of money then ever because North Korea can't even launch an actual ICBM or anything close to that range. Farthest reported /known/ by us I will admit is Sea of Japan. Far mind you, but not near North America.

I would like to note I do believe North Korea to be an unstable and dangerous threat mind you! But...

NOTE: This post not intended to offend Mr. S_Baker, only point out my point!

Obviously you might have more information on this defence program then we do.

PS> Anyone remember what happened when we TRASHED the AVRO ARROW for crappy unguided missles from the US back in the 1950's-1960's? WE NEVER NEEDED and/or USED the missles and they were ineffective and ended up costing more than the Arrow program would have. Plus we would have had incredible international sales for the jet and the engines!!!...

Again, just my two cents. Which is what this forum is about, all our "2 cents".

Joe


----------



## JBP

S_Baker,

When you put it in context that N. Korea does possibly have weapons that can reach that far, I would understand the US's need and want for any defence against such a threat, that is understandable. As you metioned yourself though, not only does Canada not have the political will to jump into the project, we don't have the money! Too many implications and not enough benefits for us at this point. But who knows, I'm not the Prime Minister or any Canadian official, the Liberal party of Canada (the ones in power at the moment), were in favor of the idea in the first place, mostly to increase relations between the US+Canada. I don't want to see NORAD gone though, it's too important. I do understand that the US has taken alot of the burden when it comes to defence of our Continent though so why wouldn't they be pissed if we didn't join. 

Who knows, we'll just have to wait and see!

Hopefully, I hope for both nations and ultimately ANY nation. That it never comes down to anyone having to use such a defence system. If the big bomb drops next, I fear everyone will pick sides and join the reign of fire...

I believe Canada and the US will continue to be co-operative and joint in the defence of the continent and peacekeeping efforts etc. Sadly it's just that at the moment, Canada can't fully honor all it's engagements abroad!

Hey Mr S_Baker, why not get the US to suggest Canada to spend more $ on thier military?  That might work! We need new equipment/machines!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

*Hey Mr S_Baker, why not get the US to suggest Canada to spend more $ on thier military?  That might work! We need new equipment/machines*

Paul Cellucci has been doing that ever since he became ambassador.


----------



## Guardian

Missile defence may work as intended (and S_Baker is right - the system isn't intended for overwhelming first strikes by Russia)... 

It very well may not - there are technical problems.

It is an extremely expensive program - but Canada is not being asked to pay for it. We may very well choose to build radar, command, or communications parts of the system with our own money if they are placed on our soil - simply to ensure our sovereignty (the same way we paid for the DEW line in the Cold War, and for the same reasons.) Those costs would be negligible campared to the value of NORAD to Canadian defence.

The simple fact is, without Canada's participation NORAD is dead. The US wants to integrate NORAD's airspace command and control and early warning functions into the missile defence system. This makes perfect sense. Maintaining a separate missile defence and air defence command symply because the "military pygmy" to the north doesn't like missile defence would be, to the Americans, a laughable (and unacceptable) proposition. Already, Canadian officers at NORAD are being cut out of discussions and procedures because we haven't signed on yet. If we don't join, the Americans will dissolve NORAD and form a national air defence command, which will still protect North America - but we will have no say or control. How does that help our sovereignty?

And Canada cannot protect or control its airspace on its own. We don't have the planes or the political will to spend the required cash. NORAD allows us to do this - and joining missile defence will ensure we continue to do this. Furthermore, if it's under NORAD, a Canadian will be 2IC of the system.

We have no choice - whether it's effective or a good idea is irrelevant. Our ability to protect our airspace, a cornerstone of our national defence (and therefore our sovereignty) depends on our participation. The price for Canada is cheap - political support and small investments in staff, infrastructure, and command & control systems. The price of not participating - imagine US aircraft defending Canadian skies for us, with no input from us... what implications could that have down the road for our sovereignty and independence?

Finally, like it or not, missile defence will happen. Sorry, GregC, but Kerry won't change anything if elected - this program was started in the Clinton years under a Democratic president, and there's no reason to believe it'll change (especially since Kerry is perceived as weak on defence - cancelling BMD would not help him at all).

My fingers are tired.....  :crybaby:


----------



## Bert

On a strategic level, as what Guardian described, ballistic missile defense 
 (BMD) and associated systems will take place.   The integration of 
space, land defense, air defense, will take place and not only on a 
continental scale.   US, Canadian, and NATO forces will make use of it 
sub-systems on a global scale.

Canada through NORAD and political accommodations is quite close 
to the US.   They make use of our air fields, training centres, ports, 
and so on.   Any enemy who wanted to disrupt or destroy US military 
or economic power on the continent would also have to destroy similar 
Canadian facilities.   No matter what, Canada and the US are intwined.

In the old days, a scenario where the Russians or the Chinese (whoever) 
could launch an attack use long range bombers and missiles.   Largely, 
there was little defense against missiles and bombers could be tracked
and dealt with by interceptors or missiles like the Bomarck.   Today, 
there is less reliance on bombers because one can see them coming from
so far away and more emphasis on ICBMs and the more devious cruise missiles.
Other than CF-18 interception and American assistance, theres not alot
Canada itself could do against a missile attack.     If a cruise missile was 
launched off of the west coast, its target would be obliterated in minutes,
and any country or terrorist organization could do it.

BMD itself is an evolving application within a grander scale.   The whole 
system will involve information gathering systems on a global scale (sats,
intel, land and sea surveillance), tied into command and control 
systems, to control weapon systems, rapid deployments, and activities.   
China, Russia, Europe, Japan, Israel, India, North Korea, and Iran are among 
countries deploying information gathering satellites and defense systems.   Whether
we like it or not the world is becoming a smaller place.


----------



## Chimera

A number of people have commented on Norad being our main commitment to BMD - but an overlooked possibility is integrating BMD capability into a future class of air defense destroyers (CADRE).  These vessels would be extremly useful for say protecting Japan from North Korea or Taiwan from China, not to mention filling the need for area air defence for our fleet.


----------



## Guardian

The CADRE project is up in the air right now - I don't even think it's funded... Any AD vessel we get is more likely to be a Halifax-class frigate that has the capability added during the mid-life refit.

Besides, imagine the hue and cry when Canada decised to buy / build an Aegis-type vessel class for a billion bucks apiece, and some bleeding heart reporter finds out that they can launch cruise missiles...

That said, they are talking about integrating maritime forces in a NORAD-like structure, or so I've heard. Having naval vessels under a unified command is only a logical extension of our present attachment of frigates to US carrier battle groups.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

included in the American Missle Defence system through NORAD.  He also added that this doesn't mean that Canada will participate in the missile shield as of now.

When I link pops up I will post it.  This was just announced on CBC.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1091724252082_87133452/?hub=TopStories

Norad pact amended to reflect U.S. missile plan
CTV.ca News Staff

Ottawa has agreed to amend its agreement in Norad to allow the U.S to use the missile warning system for its controversial plan for a ballistic missile defence system. 

The amendment authorizes Norad -- North American Aerospace Defence Command -- to make its missile warning function available to the U.S. commands conducting ballistic missile defence. 

Defence Minister Bill Graham insists the move doesn't commit Canada to the controversial U.S. weapons program. Instead, he says the decision had to be made to protect Norad because the U.S. was prepared to construct a parallel warning system if they couldn't use Norad.

"[The decision] had to be made and it had to be made now, or the United States would have commenced constructing that system and that would have ... eventually rendered Norad obsolete," Graham told a news conference Thursday.

"What this does is preserve Norad and give us the option to participate or not to participate. If we didn't to this today, we would have foreclosed our options."

He insisted that the amendment does not assure Canada's participation in the U.S. missile defence plan.

"This decision does not affect or in any way determine the ultimate decision as to whether Canada will participate in missile defence," Graham told reporters.

He also points to a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell from Michael Kergin, the Canadian ambassador to the U.S., informing him of the parameters of the amendment.

"This decision is independent of any discussion on possible cooperation on missile defence," Kergin writes in the letter.

Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew said a decision on joining the American missile defence plan will come after bilateral negotiations with the U.S., and with the input of Parliament.

NDP foreign affairs critic Alex McDonough didn't mince words in her anger with the amendment. She says the federal government and Prime Minister Paul Martin have betrayed Canadians.

"This is (U.S President George) Bush's plan for the weaponization of space, and frankly, Martin is making an ass out of himself in the international arena," she says.

Even the Conservatives, who initially backed the shield, are leaving their options open on their position. 

"This is going to change the strategic balance. It is going to change defence policy," Conservative Defence critic Gordon O'Connor told reporters. "And again, we are neither for it nor against it until we get the details."

Martin has said a decision on missile defence would be coming in the fall. That is the same time the U.S. is scheduled to deploy the first handful of interceptor missiles.

The interceptors are designed to knock down missiles fired by accident, or by a so-called "rogue" state. The U.S. is already in the process of installing interceptors in silos in Alaska.

Norad was established in 1958. Among its responsibilities are detecting and warning Canada and the U.S. of attacks by aircraft or missiles.


----------



## Spartan

http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=5c0e7be7-e431-45cf-9f4a-e7bfe657c085
-----
We risk 'diminishing our sovereignty' if we don't join controversial program, Graham declares
  
Mike Blanchfield 
The Ottawa Citizen 

September 23, 2004

TORONTO - Canada should sign on to the U.S. government's ballistic missile defence shield for North America, Defence Minister Bill Graham said yesterday in the strongest indication to date that the Liberal government will support President George W. Bush's controversial plan.

"This is not Iraq, this is not an engagement somewhere else. This is about North America. I think it's very important for us to be associated in any program that deals with the defence of North America," Mr. Graham told the Citizen in an exclusive interview at his Toronto constituency office yesterday. "I think Canada will regret it if we don't participate."

Mr. Graham said it makes no difference whether Mr. Bush is re-elected or his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry, wins the Nov. 2 presidential election.

"Whether it's Republican or Democrat down there, we want them to look us in the eye and say, 'we're your partner'," Mr. Graham said. "In my view, it diminishes our sovereignty significantly by not being a participant."

Mr. Graham acknowledged the widespread scientific criticism that the system lacks the technology to do what it is supposed to do: shoot down incoming nuclear or biological missiles aimed at North America with land-based interceptor rockets.

He said the technology will be improved in time.

"While there is a significant debate among experts as to how successful or effective the program might be, the Americans intend to do it. And, in my view, when it comes to continental defence, we should be associated with the Americans when they choose to do something. We should work with them on it," Mr. Graham said. "You can make an argument it isn't working today. But we don't know where it's going to go 10 years from now."

Mr. Graham said the government hasn't made a final decision and that negotiations continue with the U.S.

Canada wants assurances from the U.S. that the system will not lead to weapons in outer space, a condition that Mr. Graham said the government is not wavering on.

Mr. Graham acknowledged the decision might be unpopular with many Canadians who don't like Mr. Bush personally. But he said it is his job as defence minister to make the case to Canadians that the country should support the program.

"It's not about American domestic politics. It's about North American security," Mr. Graham said. "We can't afford to draw a border between Canada and the United States when it comes to defence of the continent of North America. We're seamlessly connected and we have to reinforce that."

Mr. Graham said he looks forward to a parliamentary debate on the issue "fairly soon." Despite the Liberals' minority status, supporting missile defence is not as politically dangerous as it might appear. The Bloc Quebecois and NDP oppose Canada's participation, evoking comparisons with a 20-year-old plan by former U.S. president Ronald Reagan -- known as Star Wars -- that envisioned weapons in outer space, but the Conservatives support Canada's joining the program.

It is also unlikely that the government would need to bring the matter to a vote in Parliament. In August, the government amended the Norad treaty to allow the joint Canada-U.S. aerospace command to be used as a monitoring system for the new missile shield.

Although Mr. Graham downplayed it at the time, that move was widely seen as precursor to Canada supporting missile defence.

In a speech last night to the Royal Canadian Military Institute, Mr. Graham dropped some public hints that Canada might be willing to sign on to the missile defence program.

"We have a fundamental responsibility to protect Canadians. We also have a fundamental responsibility to contribute to the defence of our continent. Ballistic missile defence might assist us in doing this," Mr. Graham told a gathering at the institute that also included the Atlantic Council of Canada and the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.

"One thing is certain: our American colleagues are determined to pursue it and it will become a part of the defence architecture of North America whether we participate or not. And so, we are exploring it -- as a responsible government, conscious both of the need to protect Canada and maintain a close working relationship with our American neighbours, should."

Mr. Graham said his three top priorities as defence minister are completing the government's much-anticipated defence review, studying new equipment purchases and finding ways to improve the well-being of troops.

Mr. Graham also told his military audience that the 5,000 new full-time troops and 3,000 reservists promised by Prime Minister Paul Martin during June's election campaign would not be paid for out of the current defence budget.

"Expanding the size of the Canadian Forces will not be done at the expense of our existing capabilities. This will not be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul," Mr. Graham said. "The additional troops will be funded through new investments by the government. And I'm working to have these new resources feature in the next federal budget."

-------


----------



## JasonH

Sounds good  :warstory:


----------



## MikeM

Very good, surprised we're actually going along with this and taking an actual stance on the subject instead of sitting on the fence.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

"Expanding the size of the Canadian Forces will not be done at the expense of our existing capabilities. This will not be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul," Mr. Graham said. "The additional troops will be funded through new investments by the government. And I'm working to have these new resources feature in the next federal budget."

This is what got my attention.


----------



## MikeM

I wonder where that money will come from for those "investments"..


----------



## canuck101

I woke up this morning and the first thing i say was the article on missile defense.  To say i was surprised is an understatement. This is one statement hoping to see more in the future.


----------



## Goober

A new article posted today.. Headline "We're undecided on defence shield"

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/09/24/641563.html

"SUN OTTAWA BUREAU

  
OTTAWA -- Stepping back from strong hints dropped a day earlier, Defence Minister Bill Graham says Canada's participation in a North American missile defence shield is not a done deal. The former foreign affairs minister said negotiations are important for Canada-U.S. relations, but insisted the fate of ongoing talks is still not known. Parliament will have all the facts for an informed debate on the issue, he said. 

"It's in this perspective of partnership that we continue our discussions. We will protect Canada's sovereignty, but we're also partners in North America. It's very important to keep that in mind," he said. 

Skirting the question of whether the U.S. would guarantee there would be no space weapons, Graham said President George Bush has been advised of Canada's firm position. 

"I cannot tell you what the Americans will do over the next 50 years, but this program has nothing to do with putting weapons in space," he said. "It's a program that is ground-based, land-based and possibly sea-based." 

North Korea, "rogue states" and terrorist organizations are the biggest threats to North America, he said. A ballistic missile defence shield would protect the continent from new dangers that rise in the future. "

But to me it still seems like they will go ahead with it.


----------



## ghazise

The missile defence shield does not work, even in extremely well scripted test cases where they knew launch postion, velocity, tragectory, they failed to get more than a 15% hit ratio,  so the US Government really should keep it in R&D instead of putting it operational.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Agreed.


----------



## ghazise

North Korea, "rogue states" and terrorist organizations are the biggest threats to North America, he said. A ballistic missile defence shield would protect the continent from new dangers that rise in the future. "

Nuclear Retaliation for North Korea along with rogue states, should be enough of a deterent, as crazy as the theory of Nuclear Retaliation Deterent is, it has worked.  The only benefit of a Missile Shield would be, it may allow the US another option besides a Counter Nuclear Strike.  If Canada is in on the Shield, just maybe we may have a say in command decision at NORAD.  But we circle back to the fact the Missile Shield doesn't work that well.

And it may lead to another arms race, Russia has begun the development of Manueverable Vehicle Missile, which would overcome the Missile Shield that doesn't work that well.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

However a missile shield is useless against a briefcase nuke.


----------



## ghazise

Not unless you attach the briefcase to a MISSILE


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

True but I doubt terrorists will launch an ICBM when they can leave a briefcase in New Yorks subway.


----------



## Brad Sallows

If it works once, it pays for itself.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Well you hit upon another problem.  Does it actually work like the Patriot did so well (sarcasm).


----------



## PPCLI Guy

2FtOnion said:
			
		

> The missile defence shield does not work, even in extremely well scripted test cases where they knew launch postion, velocity, tragectory, they failed to get more than a 15% hit ratio,   so the US Government really should keep it in R&D instead of putting it operational.



I am fairly certain that no one hin Ottawa believes htta it works.  Having said that, "joining" gets us a seat at the table, and may well parlay into a say in the development of Northern Command - which is why I am a supporter.


----------



## Bert

>
China: Weather Satellite Could Have Other Capabilities

Summary

China has launched its latest weather satellite. The new satellite might have
the clandestine capability to detect missile launches, if undisclosed sensor
and telemetry equipment has been built into its payload. If the satellite has
that equipment, two planned follow-on launches could complete a regional
launch detection and missile warning capability for China by 2006.

Analysis

The Fengyun (Wind and Cloud) 2C weather satellite was launched Oct. 19 from
China's Xichang Satellite Launch Center on a Long March 3A booster. The
satellite has both infrared (IR) and visual imagery sensors and is in
geostationary orbit.


China's new satellite could be the beginning of a rudimentary launch
detection and early warning system. Visual and IR sensors are not uncommon on
meteorological satellites, but IR sensors can also be used to detect and
track ballistic missile launches by their exhaust plumes. Minimal
modifications or enhancements to the satellite's IR sensor suite would be
required for it to be able to detect ballistic missile launches in Asia.

China has launched seven weather satellites since 1988. The Fengyun 1 series
consisted of four satellites in polar orbits, which are not useful for launch
detection/warning. The Fengyun 2 (FY-A and FY-B) satellites were placed into
geostationary orbits, similar to the Fengyun 2C. The Fengyun 3 series,
scheduled to be launched by 2006, will carry more sensors and be more
advanced than the previous satellites.

The Fengyun 2C has been touted as China's first modern meteorological
satellite, and is the third in a series of geostationary weather satellites.
It was developed and built entirely in China. Its geostationary orbit -- it
remains over a single point on the earth -- is necessary for constant
observation and monitoring of an area. The satellite's position at 105
degrees east longitude enables it to view the entire Asian landmass. Its
orbit altitude of 22,300 miles (35,786 km) makes the Fengyun 2C an
impractical satellite for imaging anything smaller than clouds, but it would
be capable of detecting heat anomalies -- which could indicate missile
launches -- in the region.

The satellite's position would limit any potential launch-detection coverage
to the Asian landmass. It could detect launches from India, Taiwan, Pakistan,
Russia (east of the Ural Mountains), the Koreas and Japan, for example, but
would be unable to detect events in the Western Hemisphere.

Currently, China has acknowledged no dedicated space-based launch detection
capability. At least three satellites are required for reliable, accurate
launch detection. China's plans to launch two additional Fengyun 2 satellites
by 2006 would give them such a capability. Launch detection from space can be
used to provide warning against incoming missile attacks and to track foreign
missile tests.

If the Chinese have built a launch detection/warning capability into their
latest satellite, it would be consistent with their emerging role as a more
serious regional power -- and be in step with their program of modernizing
their military and making it more technologically advanced. Having the
ability to track missile developments in the region and to warn against
theater ballistic missile attacks is a further and necessary step in this
direction.

(c) 2004 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.stratfor.com
<


----------



## bossi

Well, in a nutshell ... Star Wars is way over my head (no pun intended, although ...)
If missiles are going to be raining down on us, things are probably going VERY poorly ...

Until then, there are so many other more useful chores we could and should be looking after
(i.e. coastal defence, against smuggling and one-way tourists ...).

Another more practical use of this money would be items which we could use in the event of large-scale emergencies and disasters here at home in Canada, or internationally ...

And, in terms of "bang for the buck" ... the mantra of NATO was "they needed more boots on the ground" (i.e. for Afghanistan and other invitational events).

So, it's a gamble - which will kick in first - my official CF pension for reservists (a.k.a. Lotto 6/49), or the pressing need for a missile shield ... ?  (heck - it's only a toonie ... )


----------



## 2Charlie

No US Missile Defense Program in Canada   

This was sent to me, feel free to comment, sign or forward.  


http://www.petitiononline.com/NIMBYUSA/petition.html


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

No thanks, I'll take the protection they wish to afford us.[and economic spin-offs]
Thanks anyways.


----------



## Boydfish

Hmmmm.  Let's see, I live in South West BC and are likely already in range of the DPRK's ICBM program, I'll keep my support firmly for a system that might well keep me alive someday.

 :


----------



## clasper

Even if you're skeptical about the effectiveness of the missile defense systems, it's very important to participate in the process of continental defense.  If we just stamp our feet and refuse to play like a petulant child, we won't have ANY say about how we should defend North America.


----------



## Dogboy

who will shoot at us tho ?

N Korea no we are not a threat 
Russia no there a trade partner now 

no one else has the ability to shoot at us anyways its a distraction and money pit that i don't want my tax dollars paying for that dose not work to start with 

really is it not better to make Sure you don't get shot at in the first place the to need a sistom that dose not quit work to start with


----------



## Cloud Cover

Dogboy said:
			
		

> who will shoot at us tho ?
> 
> no one else has the ability to shoot at us anyways its a distraction and money pit that i don't want my tax dollars paying for that dose not work to start with
> 
> really is it not better to make Sure you don't get shot at in the first place the to need a sistom that dose not quit work to start with



You obviously have no idea what objectives BMD is directed at, or what the system is about.  Try objectively researching the system, rather than focussing on political bantering on the subject, and I am quite certain you will conclude your assertions are without any justifiable basis.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Dogboy said:
			
		

> who will shoot at us tho ?
> 
> N Korea no we are not a threat
> Russia no there a trade partner now
> 
> no one else has the ability to shoot at us anyways its a distraction and money pit that i don't want my tax dollars paying for that dose not work to start with
> 
> really is it not better to make Sure you don't get shot at in the first place the to need a sistom that dose not quit work to start with



Under that logic we should avoid persecuting the war on terror as well as it certainly makes us a much greater target.

Bottom Line:   We can't always leave it to the Americans to stand up to the world's tyrants and terrorists.   We should be taking principled stands and in this case providing strategic defence to our greatest friend and ally qualifies.



Matthew.


----------



## Guardian

Dogboy said:
			
		

> who will shoot at us tho ?
> 
> N Korea no we are not a threat



We're allies of the US, and the North Koreans consider themselves to be at war with them. I'll also point out that there has been no peace treaty signed between the UN and North Korea - as we were a combatant under the UN, we are still, technically, at war with them. 



			
				Dogboy said:
			
		

> who will shoot at us tho ?
> 
> Russia no there a trade partner now



Germany's biggest trading partner at the start of WW1 was - guess who? - France. Don't count on this.



			
				Dogboy said:
			
		

> no one else has the ability to shoot at us anyways its a distraction and money pit that i don't want my tax dollars paying for that dose not work to start with



What about China? They've got ICBMs, and a rather nasty set of rulers. People who run over their own civilians with tanks aren't people I would trust to keep the peace.



			
				Dogboy said:
			
		

> really is it not better to make Sure you don't get shot at in the first place the to need a sistom that dose not quit work to start with



I like the idea, but in the real world not everyone thinks rationally. Especially people like Kim Jong Il.... When it comes to defence, assume the worst and make preparations on that basis. Since the US is paying for the system, we have nothing to lose and potentially everything to gain from this.


----------



## Gryphon

The question that everyone should be asking is that if Canada does sign a missile defence pact with the United states, how much say would the Canadian government/military have in the matter... That's the more important aspect of it... sure, it may be more comfortable to let the US take care of everything, all we have to do is sign a small scrap of paper saying that they can put missiles in Canada... and then US acts with Canada as Big Brother, dictating our forgien affairs, our affairs of the military, and the affairs at home... for the interest of "Security" next thing we know, we're told to wear the US flag on our shoulder, kids are saying the pledge of alliegiance, and we've become the 51st state.

Or, the total opposite... Mr. Martin goes to the bathroom and uses the contract for toilet paper... and then what? Mr. Bush goes on a Crusade against the "ignorant Canadians", boycotts, tarrifs, a new defended frontier, visas to travel to the states, expulsion from NATO, and from NAFTA, American carriers patroling our waters, and basically just stirring sh*t in Canada and internationally...

OK.. these are the two extremes... but unteathered, it's a real possibility... unfortunatly...

My take on the issue... who is dumb enough anyways to launch a Nuke? as soon as one gets launched.. good bye world... kablewy.... so do we really need MORE flying death as a deterrant?

Sorry... Both sides of the argument are valid... but the question still remains.. US missiles? or NORTH AMERICAN missiles? Ultimatly, my question is, will the President be able to push a button, launch these weapons without consulting the PMO? If yes, then I wholeheartedly disagree... We've had so much brilliant intellignece come out of the Bush Administration  : that I wouldn't trust it..

Vice versa? The PMO launching a missile off of Canadian territory without having approval from the US President... I like the thought better, but I don't know.. We've had flawed info before..

Both neccessary? or some joint command decision? Then by all means... go ahead... i guess.. i don't know where I stand 100% on this topic, but if i were to say yes, then this would be the only way that I would be happy accepting it...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

QUOTE,
My take on the issue... _who is dumb enough anyways to launch a Nuke_? as soon as one gets launched.. good bye world... kablewy.... so do we really need MORE flying death as a deterrant?

You either didn't really think about the way that would read, or you've been living in a cave for 3 years.


----------



## Infanteer

Sometimes, I am in awe of the enlightenment that this board brings me; especially when insights into policy and strategy are dictated by those who have failed to grasp grammer and spelling.

 :


----------



## Canuck_25

The effectiveness and cost of "star wars 2" is a total joke. If the U.S. was willing to pay for all the expenses, then i would be on board.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

So Canuck_25 by your statement you believe that the US should solely shoulder the cost of continental defence? Whether the program works or not at least the US is making an attempt to protect themselves better. With your attitude its no wonder we have politicians like Carolyn Parrish in office.


----------



## MissHardie

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> The effectiveness and cost of "star wars 2" is a total joke. If the U.S. was willing to pay for all the expenses, then i would be on board.



As a (potential) junior partner, why shouldn't we contribute to the expenses? The purpose is to defend North America, and remember that Canada does make up a large part of that land mass. TANSTAAFL.


----------



## rw4th

> Sorry... Both sides of the argument are valid... but the question still remains.. US missiles? or NORTH AMERICAN missiles? Ultimatly, my question is, will the President be able to push a button, launch these weapons without consulting the PMO? If yes, then I wholeheartedly disagree... We've had so much brilliant intellignece come out of the Bush Administration   that I wouldn't trust it..
> 
> Vice versa? The PMO launching a missile off of Canadian territory without having approval from the US President... I like the thought better, but I don't know.. We've had flawed info before..


This argument makes no sense. These are not offensive missiles. It is a defensive net meant to shoot down incomming ICBM. As for launch authority, it would probably reside in a NORAD style facility manned by Americans and Canadians.

As for people being "to smart" to use ICBMs; is it really that hard to understand that if a group willing to use children as suicide bombers ever gained control of a missile silo we would be facing just that scenario?


----------



## Gryphon

First of all, i would like to appologize for my worstening spelling and grammar.. i'm overseas learning a forgein language.. and usually by the end of the day, i'm just so wiped out, that my grammar and spelling goes out the window..



			
				rw4th said:
			
		

> This argument makes no sense. These are not offensive missiles. It is a defensive net meant to shoot down incomming ICBM. As for launch authority, it would probably reside in a NORAD style facility manned by Americans and Canadians.


If this would be the case, then I don't see any sort of problem with it



			
				rw4th said:
			
		

> As for people being "to smart" to use ICBMs; is it really that hard to understand that if a group willing to use children as suicide bombers ever gained control of a missile silo we would be facing just that scenario?



I'm sorry.. i didn't even think of that type of situation...

point well taken


----------



## MikeM

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> The effectiveness and cost of "star wars 2" is a total joke. If the U.S. was willing to pay for all the expenses, then i would be on board.



A perfect example of another "lets hitch a free ride with the US" Canadian. The US cannot pay for everything, I fully support their efforts for continental defense, and we must throw in our fair share to the pot in order for it to succeed.


----------



## Dogboy

War has changed now days and the role of a ICBM is becoming out of date 

the war on terror is a asymmetrical war and a missile def. will not help at all 

the Rogue nation defence is leaping at best 

besides N-Korea their is no really nation with ICBMs that has anything to gain from using them agents Canada or the us for that matter 


and what would N Korea gain from it ?

war is about gaining something from using force who will gain anything from attacking Canada or the US  the only thing you'd gain is the total decimation of you nation


----------



## Cloud Cover

Why do you think BMD is ICBM centric? That is only one scenario for the technology.


----------



## MissHardie

Dogboy,

War has indeed changed, but you contradict that first statement by assuming with your last that war only occurs between nations and that only nations can benefit (or not) from the waging of war.  You'll notice, especially upon reflection of the past ten years or so, that this belief is simply not true.  Nowadays we have the notions of War on Terror and War on Drugs floating around, and while these are semantic fallacies, as war is conflict between two or more parties, the concept remains the same: destroy thine enemy.  The important point is that this enemy no longer has to be a state! The enemy is no longer necessarily a recognized entity under international law. 

Why are ICBMs becoming out of date? While we've seen a rise in asymmetrical warfare, this doesn't mean conventional warfare is now old-fashioned and useless.

I'd like to see some evidence before I believe North Korea is the only nation with ICBMs with something to gain from attacking North America.


whiskey601,

I think most people focus on ICBMs as the purpose behind BMD because that's the most publicized facet.


----------



## rw4th

> Why do you think BMD is ICBM centric?


Agreed, but we'd be arguing semantics. How about using the expression "incoming missile" instead? My point is that the system is defensive; they aren't looking to place offensive ICBM silos in Canada. 



> the role of a ICBM is becoming out of date


What about all those silos in former USSR states or Russia itself for that matter? Out of date or not the potential for destruction is there if the wrong people get control of them. This is not about wining a cold-war type scenario; this about preventing an act of terror using some kind of missile as the delivery mechanism.


----------



## Acorn

Is it cost effective? Maybe if one believes that no price is too great for security. That's not reality though.

I hate to say it, but my rudimentary "risk-benefit" analysis doesn't support the concept with the info I have. You (all supoorters) need to provide more convincing arguments that it is worth the expense.

Acorn


----------



## JBP

After reading all the posts on this thread and having read MANY posts on other threads about the same topic. One thing comes to mind I haven't seen mentioned yet at all.

If we put these defensive missle bases in Canada, that would make _targets_ in Canada for any nation(s) that went to war with the US and intended to even do a non-nuclear cruise missle/ICBM attack. HIGHLY unlikely, but regardless, in war, those bases/properties would be high-asset targets.

Suppose it doesn't make a big difference since the only time we've been attacked on our own land is by the US and our own people back in the William Lyon Mackenzie days!



Just a thought+point but it would make more targets in our borders. Just like the Niagara Falls power generating stations Adam Beck 1+2... Germans had spies in Canada back in WW2 (Maybe ww1 as well) who were making maps of the area+targeting info.

Joe


----------



## MissHardie

Hasn't Canada been a potential target for agressors since we first agreed to the concept of continental defence after WW2? Since we implemented the DEW line? Since our decision to make our navy interoperable with the USN?  Since our economies have so neatly and tightly integrated? They are our natural allies, and we theirs, if ever the North American continent was attacked.  I find it highly unlikely that Canada would simply sit back and watch the US be attacked in the event of agressive action, and the moment we step in to help them we also are a target.  Unless, of course, we were at war with the US, but that would be a suicidal policy and nigh unthinkable under the current circumstances.

In pulling away from the BMD system and refusing to play ball with the Americans, we are in effect saying that they're on their own, that we really don't mean it when we say we're in for continental defence, that we'll sit back and watch them take a beating while simultaneously expecting their aid should anything warlike happen to us.  I know we've heard it a thousand times, but the Canadian-US relationship is the tightest in the world.  That should mean something to us, something along the lines of responsibility and reciprocity.  Canada is trying to assert itself in a changing world, yet really doesn't have a defined foreign policy - lately it seems that all we're doing is distinguishing ourselves from the Americans.  While perceived as the right thing to do by many citizens on a national level, we're really not doing much to define our place in the world, aka the international level. 

There are many issues flying around regarding the BMD system, but I suppose being for or against depends on which you think is more important: our fledgling national identity and the 'prestige' of saying NO to the Americans or realizing that for better or worse our lot is with the US and no matter how hard we try to change that all we'll do is hurt ourselves by going in opposite directions.  There really is no third option under our present circumstances.  We are a middle power nation, and as such our choices, while there, are more limited than if we were a great power or acted like on on the international scene as we did in the 1950s - which earned us great international reknown and allowed us input into the important international decisions.   Why was Canada regarded as such a great nation after WW2? Worthy of respect and being solicited for opinions?  Because we pulled our weight - more than pulled our weight - during the war.  I see it as idealism versus realism, honestly.  We all want to be a separate and distinguishable entity, but is that really possible to the extent that most people seem to think is necessary for Canada to survive as a nation and not merely an American satellite? Personally I think we're doing just fine in that regard, although I'm interested in hearing other opinions.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> After reading all the posts on this thread and having read MANY posts on other threads about the same topic. One thing comes to mind I haven't seen mentioned yet at all.
> 
> If we put these defensive missle bases in Canada, that would make _targets_ in Canada for any nation(s) that went to war with the US and intended to even do a non-nuclear cruise missle/ICBM attack. HIGHLY unlikely, but regardless, in war, those bases/properties would be high-asset targets.
> 
> Suppose it doesn't make a big difference since the only time we've been attacked on our own land is by the US and our own people back in the William Lyon Mackenzie days!
> 
> 
> 
> Just a thought+point but it would make more targets in our borders. Just like the Niagara Falls power generating stations Adam Beck 1+2... Germans had spies in Canada back in WW2 (Maybe ww1 as well) who were making maps of the area+targeting info.
> 
> Joe



Here's another way to look at it....

Without BMD, the United States must rely on Mutually Assured Destruction.

Ergo, if an Al Qaeda sleeper gets into a Pakistani silos and decides to launch a missile, which of the following options would you like them to have:

Option One - No BMD
With no ability to defend themselves the ICBM will land in Seattle killing several hundred thousand people.   Two Choices - Nuke Pakistan - creating a great impetus for a world Jihad, or do nothing - and give Al Qaeda the a victory 10x greater than 09/11 reinvigorating its recruiting efforts worldwide.

Option Two - BMD
Shoot down the incoming missile first, then figure out what the hell happened before nuking anyone in response.

Run the hypothetical in your head again based on this model for both Pakistan and North Korea and try to tell me how BMD is a bad thing.....

Thanks,



Matthew.


----------



## Canuck_25

MissHardie said:
			
		

> As a (potential) junior partner, why shouldn't we contribute to the expenses? The purpose is to defend North America, and remember that Canada does make up a large part of that land mass. TANSTAAFL.



 Yes contribute to something that hasnt proved its effectiveness. The americans have money to waste, we dont.


----------



## MissHardie

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Yes contribute to something that hasnt proved its effectiveness. The americans have money to waste, we dont.



Yes, we should contribute to something that hasn't proved its effectiveness or yes, there is such a thing as a free lunch? I'm sorry; you're being unclear. 

Why do you say the Americans have money to waste? Just because they lavishly spend money on things that many Canadians don't happen to agree with as being important doesn't mean they're necessarily throwing money away.  Besides, they're the ones running the deficit while we're the ones enjoying a surplus.  Who has the means to invest? I realize there is a vast difference in scale between the American and Canadian budgets and thus the amount of money involved, but really, does this mean that even with our surpluses we're still behind the game?  While the Americans, running a deficit, are ahead and thus have the money to 'waste' on a defensive project?  I'd look closer to home for examples of wasting money.


----------



## a_majoor

We have a lot to potentially contribute and a lot to gain if we come on board. Canada has developed a "micro satellite" called MOST which is about the size of a barracks box and weighs @60kg. This was hand built for about $10 million Cdn, not much for space hardware. (It is a space telescope. See http://www.astro.ubc.ca/MOST/ )

We could tool up an assembly line for small satellites to act as part of the BMD system. The Americans get cheap spaceborn sensors and other systems, and we get access to the same spaceborn systems for our own uses (long haul satellite comms, space recce, SIGINT...). Seems like a very sweet deal for us, if we can put aside the ideology, and even if we accept that BMD isn't practical or effective (an unproven assertion, by the way).


----------



## Gryphon

My question is: If a terrorist launches a nuclear missile, and the US counteracts it with BMD, then wouldn't the ICBM still detonate?


----------



## Guardian

No, it won't.

Nuclear devices have to be triggered prperly to detonate. They aren't point-detonating weapons like Arty High Explosive rounds; they have to be "set off." If BMD intercepts a nuclear-tipped ICBM, the kinetic energy of the two projectiles hitting each other (each of them traveling well over the speed of sound) will completely destroy both missiles. 

The only danger is that some nuclear material will be released by the impact (and likely spread around). Think of that nuclear-powered Soviet satellite that crashed in Northern Canada during the Cold War (can't remember when, sorry) - we had troops crawling all over the tundra looking for radioactive waste.

Which, incidentally, is a reason to jump on board. I'd rather be inside the US perimeter than outside of it - that way, Canadian participation can ensure that if a missile is intercepted, it happens over the Pacific (or at least some barren stretch of tundra) rather than over Calgary or Winnipeg.


----------



## SHELLDRAKE!!

IMHO this equates to saying, why do we need an armed forces if the Americans are right next door to save us.This defence shield thing is raising the same problems as when they tested cruise missiles over Canada.Maybee Canada should be thinking about this more seriously as a defence issue but it sounds (IMHO) like more defence avoiding to me


----------



## Dogboy

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Here's another way to look at it....
> 
> Without BMD, the United States must rely on Mutually Assured Destruction.
> 
> Ergo, if an Al Qaeda sleeper gets into a Pakistani silos and decides to launch a missile, which of the following options would you like them to have:
> 
> Matthew.



thats a valid consern and chance of hapining 
verey good point


----------



## rw4th

<rant on>
The whole â Å“we don't want to make Canada a targetâ ? argument is a crock of sh*t. Canada has been and is a target. Acts of terror against Canada have already been planned (plans for attacks were discovered by troops in Afghanistan if I recall correctly) and some have already been carried out (namely attacks on Synagogues). The lib press usually does not report them as acts of terror however, but as hate crimes to reinforce their deluded belief that there are no terrorists in Canada 

Furthermore, the whole â Å“violence is not the wayâ ? or â Å“violence doesn't solve anything argumentâ ? has always been used by intellectual elitist who are too cowardly to stand behind their morals, draw a line in the sand, and say NO. These idealists have been around since the dawn of time and their unwillingness to act, even when faced with proof, is responsible for some of history's most disturbing atrocities (e.g. see the UN, it's staffed is replete with these types of people). 
</rant off>


----------



## winchable

I've never understood the objection to the BMD.
It doesn't even put (more) weapons in space!?!

We can't rely on Mutually assured destruction anymore as a defence.
We aren't dealing with the Soviets, we're dealing with a stateless group who could care less if they're destroyed in the process of carrying out "Gods Will."


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Dogboy said:
			
		

> that's a valid concern and chance of happening
> 
> very good point



That's why I get paid the big bucks....



Matthew      ;D


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

> * No Comment?*
> 
> According to Zaman Online the Russians have developed some sort of anti-missle shield:
> 
> "According to the Russian news agencies Interfax and ITAR-Tass, Putin disclosed that the trials of new missile shields system were complete and that the new missiles will be ready to use within a few years."
> 
> The details are few and far between so it is kind of difficult to determine what this system involves.
> 
> But my questions are... Why isn't Jack Layton screaming about nuclear armageddon? Why is Carolyn Parrish not screaming about those 'idiot' Russians?
> 
> Oh I forgot... Vladimir Putin isn't American.



http://canadiancomment.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_canadiancomment_archive.html#110072241004740532

Zaman article reference: http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&trh=20041117&hn=13954


----------



## Brad Sallows

I estimate that on one city block where I live, there are approximately 25 single detached residences.  In a grid square, I estimate there could be as many as 1800 residences.  Assuming the replacement cost of each to be $100K, including reconstruction, refurnishment, landscaping, replacement of vehicles, refurbishment of utilities, etc, that amounts to about $180M.  Now be conservative and cut the estimate by nearly one-half to a nice, round, $100M to replace one grid square blown away by a nuclear warhead.  A 3km radius of devastation?  Maybe $700M.  5km?  Maybe $2B.  Keep in mind my estimates should be on the low side.  I can't begin to estimate the cost of replacing densely populated high-rise residential or commercial property.  There are also, not incidentally, the lives.

Of course, there are the economic costs: what happens if in the aftermath of a detonation cargo stops moving out of the Port of Vancouver (check out the daily cost of a longshoreman's strike) and most of the surviving population decides to take an extended vacation with relatives east of the Rockies?  That could happen even if a near miss occurs and the worst that happens is that the "Lions" are slightly resculpted.

Likelihood of occurrence: very small.  Impact: very large.  Worth at least a little more commitment to research into preventive measures against missiles as well as sea containers?  You decide.


----------



## Canuck_25

The "star wars 2" missile defence system is plagued with problems. Why dont we pay into something that can be effective, and not a nuisance.


----------



## a_majoor

Like most new technologies, BMD will have teething problems. Can you remember using a PC with DOS or Windows 3.1? Computers have benefited from a huge production base and rapid market cycle, while BMD does not (the last actual US system "Safeguard" was deployed and closed down in the 1970s).

BMD is never advertised as a "perfect" missile shield, but rather as a defensive measure. The fact that BMD is deployed complicates the task of the enemy, since they cannot predict which missiles will reach their target. If they choose to attempt countermeasures, they will have to spend a lot of money and resources without adding to their offensive ability, and diverting resources away from other projects. That in itself makes BMD worth persuing. Like I said in an earlier post, Canada can offer a lot, and gain a lot of benefits by joining the BMD program and supporting certain aspects, *even if we do not believe in the possibility or efficiency of BMD*. The benefits are huge, the potential payoff is enormous, we are already targets regardless of what we would like to believe, so let's get on with it!


----------



## JBP

What I mentioned in my earlier posts about Canada being a target was not at all meaning we aren't or haven't BEEN a target. What I was saying if you read the posts carefully folks, was that those SPECIFIC bases would be targets especially+add more targets to Canada. That's all.

It would be smarter to buy into a defense system that could at least partially or have a chance of defending us from rogue nukes, but, that would be smart if we had the $ to waste on it... 9 billion surplus but they've already allocated where it's all going and not 0.01 cent is going to the military folks...

It is probably almost guarunteed we'll be joining the BMD program anyway but the whole question is will we be suffering in other areas needlessly because of it when it might not even be that effective etc?


----------



## Bert

The reason to prepare a defense is to protect yourself from a credible threat.  Statistically,
its unlikely any one of the readers tonight will have their houses broken into.  Yet, most
of us will lock the front and back doors just in case.  

Since the beginning of the century, weapon platforms have gotten faster and smarter and
its not likely to stop evolving.  Traditionally, the US and Canada (I should put Japan and
Australia into this because they are considering BMD) have fought against identifiable
enemies.  Rogue states and terrorists will combat their enemies but not necessarily use
the same methods of traditional foes. 

Many countries are upgrading and researching military and civilian technologies; note
"weather" satellites by Israel, Iran, and Pakistan, space delivery systems by China,
stealth missiles by Russia, BMD and mach 10 flight by the US, UAV flight by a
militant faction in Lebanon, and so on.  It is a fact military technology will
proliferate and everyone is in the game of offense and defense.

The US may have a good ocean sub-surface defense net and NORAD observes
the sky, the one thing the US cannot handle is a short notice, fast aerial attack,
by unidentified sources.  Actually, no one can.  In a militaristic technologically 
advancing world, is this not a valid scenario to consider?

If a enemy missile, projectile, or aircraft enters US airspace at short notice, defensive
measures like naval screens, real time recce, and the scrambling of aircraft takes time.
By creating a BMD, a systematic method and associated weapon platforms are in place
to engage the enemy sooner and further from the target.

I doubt the US will face war with China, Russia, or the EU in an all out nuclear exchange.
It is more likely an enemy that wishes to hurt the US will do so covertly, quickly, for
maximum damage based on what they can do, and cover their tracks.


----------



## MissMolsonIndy

Would any of you object if I stole a few quotations, here and there, for the purpose of an academic paper?


----------



## a_majoor

What is the topic of your paper?


----------



## oyaguy

Personally, I don't think Canada should join missile defence.
My main reason for not wanting to join missile defence, is because it is dumb. 
Let me qualify this "dumb". Missile defence as it stands right now, doesn't work. It is a research project. The fact that they have put in infrastructure for missiles that don't work, is moronic. The fact that they want other countries onboard is dumb too, because they have nothing to sign on for other than missiles that don't work. 
Another reason missile defence is dumb, is because they are lavishing money on infrastructure and contracts to house and build anti-B missiles {that don't work} when the Americans should either be spending the money on homeland security, or try to balance their budget. 
In reality, the Americans should scale back funding for missile defence and relegate it to what it is, a research project, that will in some future, show results, rather than rushing an immature system to production. Kind of like sending the US troops in Iraq, a new rifle that will jam after every fifth round. Not teething problems, but a system that is totally unprepared for service. This is where missile defence is at the moment. A defence system that can't fufill its objective.
Of course my reason for not wanting Canada to join missile defence is more personal. I hate government waste like this. Even though it is not my government wasting money. 
So heck, Canada should join missile defence, because I'm fairly certain Canada doesn't have to contribute monetarily, or even land for anti-b missile sites. The Americans will get off the PM's back, and maybe George W. Bush will reopen the border for beef.

A more articulate and knowledgable person on the subject is Fred Kaplan. 
http://slate.msn.com/id/2106853


----------



## Goober

oyaguy said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't think Canada should join missile defence.
> My main reason for not wanting to join missile defence, is because it is dumb.
> Let me qualify this "dumb". Missile defence as it stands right now, doesn't work. It is a research project...



Thats a little short sighted if you ask me. Kinda like Bill Gates saying computers only need 640k of RAM. When Dr Frederick Banting started to research a cure for diabetes his first experiments were failures, but he kept at it, learning as he was going and adapting his procedures.


----------



## a_majoor

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Like most new technologies, BMD will have teething problems. Can you remember using a PC with DOS or Windows 3.1? Computers have benefited from a huge production base and rapid market cycle, while BMD does not (the last actual US system "Safeguard" was deployed and closed down in the 1970s).
> 
> BMD is never advertised as a "perfect" missile shield, but rather as a defensive measure. The fact that BMD is deployed complicates the task of the enemy, since they cannot predict which missiles will reach their target. If they choose to attempt countermeasures, they will have to spend a lot of money and resources without adding to their offensive ability, and diverting resources away from other projects. That in itself makes BMD worth persuing. Like I said in an earlier post, Canada can offer a lot, and gain a lot of benefits by joining the BMD program and supporting certain aspects, *even if we do not believe in the possibility or efficiency of BMD*. The benefits are huge, the potential payoff is enormous, we are already targets regardless of what we would like to believe, so let's get on with it!



A constellation of early warning, communication, weather and other satellites is perhaps the one thing we could contribute, and will have a huge payoff just by themselves.


----------



## oyaguy

Goober said:
			
		

> Thats a little short sighted if you ask me. Kinda like Bill Gates saying computers only need 640k of RAM. When Dr Frederick Banting started to research a cure for diabetes his first experiments were failures, but he kept at it, learning as he was going and adapting his procedures.


I have to stop using the word dumb. The idea of Missile Defence, is okay. Make missiles that will shoot down incoming nuclear missiles. Good idea.
Dr. Frederick Banting had a good idea. Find a cure or treatment for diabetes. His research came up with Insulin. His research undoubtedly had problems, but Dr. Banting didn't stop in the middle of his research and tried to take what he had to market as the treatment for diabetes. He kept at his research till he had the solution. Then he took it to market.
Missile Defence, at the moment, cannot fufill its function. The Americans know this, and anyone who has thought of lobbing a nuclear weapon at the US, knows this. There is too much focus, on the idea of missile defence, rather than the nuts and bolts of doing. 
This isn't shortsighted, but aknowledging the truth that Missile Defence is a system that isn't suffering from teething problems, but doesn't work at all. This isn't saying don't work on it but make it work, before you deploy it.


----------



## karpovage

Oyaguy. It worked last week. Still a dumb idea?


Successful Test of Patriot, THAAD Radar
November 18, 2004 :: The Missile Defense Agency :: News

The Missile Defense Agency today completed another successful test of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 interceptor, at White Sands Missile Range. The test was described as â Å“the most complex flight test scenario to date for PAC-3,â ? with some six missiles in the air at one time. Also of significance is that the test included the use of radar for the separate, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) ballistic missile system. Tests of THAAD are set to resume in 2005.


----------



## Disillusioned

oyaguy said:
			
		

> I have to stop using the word dumb. The idea of Missile Defence, is okay. Make missiles that will shoot down incoming nuclear missiles. Good idea.
> Dr. Frederick Banting had a good idea. Find a cure or treatment for diabetes. His research came up with Insulin. His research undoubtedly had problems, but Dr. Banting didn't stop in the middle of his research and tried to take what he had to market as the treatment for diabetes. He kept at his research till he had the solution. Then he took it to market.
> Missile Defence, at the moment, cannot fufill its function. The Americans know this, and anyone who has thought of lobbing a nuclear weapon at the US, knows this. There is too much focus, on the idea of missile defence, rather than the nuts and bolts of doing.
> This isn't shortsighted, but aknowledging the truth that Missile Defence is a system that isn't suffering from teething problems, but doesn't work at all. This isn't saying don't work on it but make it work, before you deploy it.




Make it work? Until Russia or China find a way around it?

Also, how does this protect against a suitcase bomb, multiple warheads, or a killer virus? (It doesn't)

Sounds like a world-destabilizing 1-trillion follr handout to defence contractors to me.


----------



## a_majoor

> BMD is never advertised as a "perfect" missile shield, but rather as a defensive measure. The fact that BMD is deployed complicates the task of the enemy, since they cannot predict which missiles will reach their target. If they choose to attempt countermeasures, they will have to spend a lot of money and resources without adding to their offensive ability, and diverting resources away from other projects. That in itself makes BMD worth persuing. Like I said in an earlier post, Canada can offer a lot, and gain a lot of benefits by joining the BMD program and supporting certain aspects, even if we do not believe in the possibility or efficiency of BMD.



Unless China et al have frictionless economies, they will be trading some capability to gain the ability to circumvent or bypass BMD. If they have to remove one or two warheads per missile in order to deploy countermeasures, that is one or two warheads less for us to worry about. Do they want to build more missiles to swamp the BMD shield, or new generations of missiles with increased range and throw weight to carry all the countermeasures? What capabilities do they sacrifice to do so? The same process applies to diverting resources to supersonic (cavitation) torpedoes, killer virii and the mass vaccination of their own populations or any other system you care to name.

President Reagan won the Cold War by forcing the USSR into an economic/political/military confrontation that their economy was unable to support. Most totalitarian nations suffer from the same structural defects in their social/economic systems; they are too brittle to swiftly deal with direct challenges. On the other hand, the capitalist American economy grew by 30% during the Reagan years, even while deploying new generations of virtually every class of weapons system and rebuilding their armed forces! The net gain in GDP was equal to the total GDP of West Germany.

Summary: BMD is worth persuing, for its own sake, for the promise of spin-off benefits using associated systems, and the ability to force hostile challenger nations onto the defensive.


----------



## NavyGrunt

Disillusioned said:
			
		

> Make it work? Until Russia or China find a way around it?
> 
> Also, how does this protect against a suitcase bomb, multiple warheads, or a killer virus? (It doesn't)
> 
> Sounds like a world-destabilizing 1-trillion follr handout to defence contractors to me.



You have some serious anti-american sentiment you need to work out. Im sorry to say that the world isnt going to disarm , so take your hemp pants and pack er' in. We need to actively pursue countermeasures and defend ourselves. I know what your problem with the shield is- its a joint venture with the americans if it was the Canadian Maple Syrup Defense Shield...you would be all about it- talking about how Canadian researchers "are the bst in the world"......you cant take any cooperation between us and the "rogue nation"(your words not mine).

Sour grapes.


----------



## NavyGrunt

I just went over all your posts- every single one of them is in regards to how you dont like America(except one where you talk about Rick Mercer)....you have no Military experience......and you are a crap disturber.....what exactly is the point of you being here?


----------



## Disillusioned

Aaron White said:
			
		

> I just went over all your posts- every single one of them is in regards to how you dont like America(except one where you talk about Rick Mercer)....you have no Military experience......and you are a crap disturber.....what exactly is the point of you being here?




I read. Perhaps you should also read about these issues before you insult me. I like how you avoided my points.

Missile defence is an arms race with no purpose. The U.S. is the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons, and they continue to use illegal depleted uranium in Iraq.

In an arms race, one country invents something, and the other tries to get around it. However, in this case that isn't necessary because Russia or China could easily smuggle in a nuclear bomb in a ship container or suitcase (dirty bomb.)


Here's my "anti-American sentiment" from an American himself:   www.killinghope.org


Here is an article outlining how *American* physicists at M.I.T. tell the Pentagon that Missile Defence is a dumb waste of money:


www.islamonline.net/iol-english/dowalia/techng-2000-june-14/techng3.asp

Here is an excerpt of the article:


Physicists Slam Proposed US Missile Shield 
By Olivier Knox


WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US plan for a national missile defense (NMD) to guard against attacks by so-called "rogue states" is short on science and should be shelved, US physicists warned. 

Washington insists it needs NMD to protect itself from possible launches from North Korea, Iran, or Iraq. However, a group of scientists warned those nations could thwart the planned system with cheap and simple countermeasures. 

Some 35 scientists went to the US Congress to "tell our politicians that the planned national missile defense (NMD) will not work," said Lisbeth Gronlund, a researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). 

One of the men in the group, retired missile engineer Roy Danchick, said the Pentagon's own data shows that easily obtainable countermeasures would defeat the NMD being discussed. Danchick warned against "a fatal rush to deploy a system that doesn't work." 

"To proceed with this would be a tragic error," said Kurt Gottfried, an Emeritus Professor of Physics at Cornell University and the head of the Union of Concerned Scientists. "It may never be ready." President Bill Clinton is set to decide later this year whether to deploy the $60 billion system, which could be in place by 2005.


----------



## NavyGrunt

Thats cute. I bet you can point all the books I should read so that I come to the exact same conclusions you do right? Id buy a bigger tin foil hat- the one you have right now is too tight. Its choking off the blood flow to your brain.


----------



## Disillusioned

> President Reagan won the Cold War by forcing the USSR into an economic/political/military confrontation that their economy was unable to support. Most totalitarian nations suffer from the same structural defects in their social/economic systems; they are too brittle to swiftly deal with direct challenges. On the other hand, the capitalist American economy grew by 30% during the Reagan years, even while deploying new generations of virtually every class of weapons system and rebuilding their armed forces! The net gain in GDP was equal to the total GDP of West Germany.
> 
> Summary: BMD is worth persuing, for its own sake, for the promise of spin-off benefits using associated systems, and the ability to force hostile challenger nations onto the defensive.




The American economy is 7 trillion in debt....   

www.brillig.com/debt_clock/

"The estimated population of the United States is 294,913,533
so each citizen's share of this debt is $25,525.24.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$1.75 billion per day since September 30, 2003!
Concerned? Then tell Congress and the White House!"


they (the U.S.) are overextending themselves just as the Soviet Union did.......also where are these "aggressive challenger nations?" The soviet Union had a mammoth military, nothing compared to what North Korea, Iran, China or Russia have today.

It is inevitable IMO that the U.S. empire will founder. The question is whether Canada will be sucked away with it, when the Euro becomes the world currency, as it follows Saddam Hussain's example:


www.thinkandask.com/news/thedollar.html


----------



## Disillusioned

Aaron White said:
			
		

> Thats cute. I bet you can point all the books I should read so that I come to the exact same conclusions you do right? Id buy a bigger tin foil hat- the one you have right now is too tight. Its choking off the blood flow to your brain.




Is there anything you believe? For instance, is the sku blue, or are roses ever red?

Politics is always partially a matter of opinion, but I was only providing sources because I was asked.....but you posted this in the wrong thread.... ???


----------



## NavyGrunt

Right but as has been pointed out in other threads. This isnt politics.ca- and you have no interest in talking about the military but only about your perverted view of American society. 

And how is this not the right thread?  Every thread you are involved in is about how you dont like the U.S. 

We have a vested interest in defence of our entire continent. Not to mention we should be interested in being a partner with the Americans who are the nation who is most similar to our own. Anytime they fail, we, western society fail.


----------



## Ty

Aaron White said:
			
		

> Thats cute. I bet you can point all the books I should read so that I come to the exact same conclusions you do right? Id buy a bigger tin foil hat- the one you have right now is too tight. Its choking off the blood flow to your brain.



At the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist that you've labeled disillusioned as, I seriously have doubts about the legitimacy and requirement of the NMD system.   Please understand that I have no problem with continental defense systems- nor do I have a problem with paying for a portion of the cost.   My main issues are that NMD systems are not required and are not (yet) technically feasible.

To support my points, a 1997 BMDO Report to Congress has stated that until at least the year 2013, almost no country in the world besides the existing nuclear powers will achieve ballistic missile capabilities of threatening the USA- North Korea being the only exception with a reported marginal risk of ability to attack Alaska or Hawaii.   One can make the argument that NMD is a system for the future possibilities of this happening- my rebuttal is that NORAD should then wait until the system is ready in theory before rushing to deployment.

As far as the actual technical capability of the system, it still leaves a lot to be desired.   One caveat one must be aware of when evaluating NMD successfull tests is that the success of these tests is measured against operational objectives.   For example, if the operational goals of a simple missile system was to launch off the ground, fly ten kilometres, descend and detonate- then a test that achieves this is deemed a success- this does not mean the system is capable of this scenario in real world situations in which an enemy might deploy countermeasures against the missile.   The operational guidelines for NMD (from Defense Planing Guidance Update 2002-2007) is to aid in the neutralization of threats from rogue nations stemming from a limited missile attack utilizing unsophisticated countermeasures- and the tests being conducted will be successfully insofar as meeting those guidelines only. 

I'm willing to concede that the system may evolve to include technology that allows it to deal with more sophisticated countermeasures in the future- and hypothetically, all countermeasures as a best case scenario.   However, a key operational factor in NMD is that system utilizes hit-to-kill objectives.   That is, through kinetic energy or a controlled detonation, the defensive system will neutralize incoming threats by essentially crashing into them.   This assumes that the attacking country will not utilize a system in which they arm or detonate the device at this point to circumvent the defensive network- accordingly, this system cannot be an adequate defense in the reminal stage of flight but   rather would only be effective in midcourse interecptions at the latest.   This is where the system has the most problems (today) in discerning real threats.   However, the new operations goals state that teh system will be effective in any phase of flight.

To the credit of the programme, several modifications have been made to the operational guidelines to evolve the system closer to one that may be usefull in a practical situation.   However, until   a time at which a defensive system can prove to be usefull in the majority of practical applications, I strongly believe that we should not fund it's construction nor installation.   It's research should be funded if, and only if, technical experts in the field (not politicians) can get together and offer a technical white paper on it's feasibility in  a real world situation and defend that paper successfully.   It may sound academic, but when you have millions of lives (as well as dollars) at stake, it's the basic first step needed.

Some links for your review talking about both sides if the argument:


http://www.ceip.org/files/projects/npp/resources/Conference%202001/panels/physics.htm
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/news02/022702kadish.htm


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
To support my points, a 1997 BMDO Report to Congress,

Just open your new "Audiotronic" flyer and wonder what the same report would have to say about your home video camera recording directly to DVD, things are changing way too fast in electronics/ etc for a 7 year old report to mean anything.


----------



## Ty

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> To support my points, a 1997 BMDO Report to Congress,
> 
> Just open your new "Audiotronic" flyer and wonder what the same report would have to say about your home video camera recording directly to DVD, things are changing way too fast in electronics/ etc for a 7 year old report to mean anything.



Point well taken- do you believe that the legitimacy of that statement has changed?  Besides North Korea, I'm unsure if there is another country that can pose a ballistic missile threat.  Insurgence groups (read terrorists) can have an argument made for them in that respect- i.e. the hijacking of a nuclear power's launch capabilities.  Do you believe that to be a valid therat?


----------



## NavyGrunt

TA said:
			
		

> Point well taken- do you believe that the legitimacy of that statement has changed?   Besides North Korea, I'm unsure if there is another country that can pose a ballistic missile threat.   Insurgence groups (read terrorists) can have an argument made for them in that respect- i.e. the hijacking of a nuclear power's launch capabilities.   Do you believe that to be a valid therat?



Well I would be willing to put money on the fact that if we said "it couldnt happen" it will happen and soon.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

I really don't know enough about how they are protected to answer that,[ I'm sure others can wade in here] I sure that if it were ever to happen or be attempted,  it would be from a "group" rather than a country. In all honesty  you would have to know that it would be a suicide attack and sadly we have people willing to do that.


----------



## Disillusioned

TA said:
			
		

> Point well taken- do you believe that the legitimacy of that statement has changed?   Besides North Korea, I'm unsure if there is another country that can pose a ballistic missile threat.   Insurgence groups (read terrorists) can have an argument made for them in that respect- i.e. the hijacking of a nuclear power's launch capabilities.   Do you believe that to be a valid therat?




Maybe eventually some will provide a threat, but perhaps the solution is political? For example, don't create an arms race?

No one in their right mind would nuke anyone, and North Korea is (as was previously mentioned) not capable yet of even hitting most of the continental United States with their measely number of nukes.

Of course I wouldn't trust Russia or China, but what do they have to gain by nuking anyone?


----------



## Disillusioned

Aaron White said:
			
		

> Right but as has been pointed out in other threads. This isnt politics.ca- and you have no interest in talking about the military but only about your perverted view of American society.
> 
> And how is this not the right thread?   Every thread you are involved in is about how you dont like the U.S.
> 
> We have a vested interest in defence of our entire continent. Not to mention we should be interested in being a partner with the Americans who are the nation who is most similar to our own. Anytime they fail, we, western society fail.




1. This is the political section, which is a big part of military planning.

2. It's not the thread I posted those links in--the thread on NORTHCOMM is the thread I posted those link in.

3. It's America's job to defend themselves.

4. Saying western society fails when they fail would sound strange to someone in Norway or Sweden right now.


----------



## Blindspot

Disillusioned said:
			
		

> 4. Saying western society fails when they fail would sound strange to someone in Norway or Sweden right now.



I can imagine what is sounds like to Ukraine right about now. How about Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc.?


----------



## Bert

Many posts have articulated BMD will not work, may create an arms race, and is unnecessary because
the US maintains detente with its traditional "semi-friends".  Given the realities of the world 
(as terrorist organizations and some governments are not likely to follow the rules of detente) and
advancements of technology and sensing by various governments, does this mean methods of national 
or continental defense should stagnate or remain as it is indefinitely?  

By employing a method that went under or around military defences, Al-Qaeda was successful in
attacking the continental US and manipulating the US into a heavier conflict in the Muslim world.
Not too much different from Pearl Harbor.  From the points of view of Al-Qaeda, the USA, and affected 
countries, there were intended and unintended consequences from that point on.

The traditional "semi-friends" work within the boundaries of detente so far.  It is doubtful
terrorist organizations and those they could coherce are able to destroy the US, yet their intention
may be to hurt or cause the US/allies to be imbroiled in a larger conflict thus affecting others like 
Canada.  Arms races have been occuring for the lat 65 milliion years and will continue whether a
BMD is deployed or not.

Fast, stealthy, and covert methods are effectively used by terrorists and/or those seeking the
best entry through a NORAD defence.  BMD may be an awknowedgement this situation exists 
at some level and provides a sizable counter-method.  If you leave a door open in a neighborhood
of unfriendlies, someone just might walk in.


----------



## NavyGrunt

Disillusioned said:
			
		

> 1. This is the political section, which is a big part of military planning.
> 
> 2. It's not the thread I posted those links in--the thread on NORTHCOMM is the thread I posted those link in.
> 
> 3. It's America's job to defend themselves.
> 
> 4. Saying western society fails when they fail would sound strange to someone in Norway or Sweden right now.



3. And its Canada's to defend itself.But we'd be up shites creek without a paddle if it wasnt for the US defending us. We certainly cant defend ourselves at our present capabilities.

4. I dont believe I have anything in common with the people of europe. My political views most certainly dont fall anywhere near theres. I believe that we on this continent need to look out for each other. Whether you like it or not. Ive lived in both of these countries and I have family in both. Whether you like it or not "disillusioned" you could be picked up and tossed into most states and not miss a beat. Life would be exactly the same- except people would think you were an elitist prick because you think our "way" is so much more superior.

You couldnt move to europe with such ease. I lived in Europe as well. It is a far cry from how we live over here.

That being said- I do have faith in the BMD. It needs to be advanced as with any new technology. I think we should be aiming for a "total defence" instead of just looking for what the immediate threat is. And then changing every 10 years....


----------



## a_majoor

Yes, this is the Political section of Army.ca, and the United States has made a political decision to attempt to defend their homeland. BMD is perhaps the most visible and expensive portion of the job, but other measures such as the "USA Patriot act" and refurbishing the US Coast Guard are also happening in an attempt to counter threats from all ends of the spectrum.

We also need to make a political decision, which can be roughly stated as "Put up or Shut up". You might think of a more nuanced expression, but Canada must recognise the reality that the United States is serious about protecting their homeland, and decide to either cooperate on the best terms possible for us (moving into a continental perimeter with significant Canadian input into the decision making process), or turn our backs to their concerns, and accept consequences ranging from lessened access to the US for business and pleasure (imagine going to the US consulate 6 to 8 months in advance for a Visa so you and your family can visit Disneyland), to physical harm coming to Canada (BMD intercepts happening over Canadian territory, or US forces moving in "Hot Persuit" of fleeing terrorists into Canada).

If we decide not to go in, then it must be an informed decision, with all the potential risks and benefits laid out on the table. I have done the best risk/benefit analysis I can with open source information, and as you can see from my posts the answer I keep coming up with is "yes".


----------



## 48Highlander

Disillusioned said:
			
		

> The U.S. is the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons, and they continue to use illegal depleted uranium in Iraq.



Whattamaroon.  Listen, I don't particularily care what the UN says about DU, there's nothing illegal about it.  Nor does it have anything to do with nuclear weapons, so please, don't put them together in the same sentence.  It only demonstrates your complete ignorance on the subject.



> There is a lot of information available already. Different isotopes of uranium have exactly the same chemical and biological behaviour, which is why chemical methods cannot be used to separate them to produce enriched uranium. Therefore the chemical toxicity of DU is the same as that of natural uranium. The radiological toxicity of DU is lower than that of natural uranium, because the specific activity is lower. When uranium went into large-scale production to produce reactor fuel, the possible chemical and radiological hazards were recognised. Animal experiments were carried out to investigate them. These experiments (mostly carried out many years ago) showed that if the exposure was high enough, the most likely effect was damage to the kidneys.
> 
> Estimates of the risks associated with exposure to ionising radiation are based mainly on studies of people who were exposed to high levels of radiation. The most important study is that of the survivors of the atom bomb attacks on Japan, because this is a large group, including all ages, a wide range of doses, and the whole body was irradiated. Furthermore, the health of these survivors has been studied over several decades. However, studies on various other groups of patients and workers, and results of animal experiments, are also used in assessing radiation risks. These include internal as well as external exposures. In particular, bone cancers were seen in workers who ingested large amounts of radium while applying luminous paint to dials in the early part of the 20th century. Radium deposits in bone in a similar way to uranium, but has a far higher specific activity, and so ingestion of relatively small amounts can give high doses to bone. Using all this information, the risk of cancer from any radiation exposure (external or internal) is estimated from the amount and type of radiation each organ receives (per unit mass). Excess radiation-induced cancers cannot be seen at very low doses either in human studies or animal experiments, because the excess at low doses is small, and the same types of cancers occur naturally. For radiation protection purposes it is generally assumed that the risk of cancer is proportional to the radiation dose: if the dose is halved, the risk is halved. Some scientists believe that there is a threshold for radiation effects, partly because life evolved in a radioactive environment, and so it is reasonable to expect that at low doses the body would repair any radiation damage. NRPB, however, supports use of the assumption that all radiation doses, however small, carry some additional risk, which is proportional to dose.
> 
> An exception to the standard dosimetric approach to assessing radiation risks is made in the case of radon, a radioactive gas, which for most of the population gives rise to about half the dose from natural background radiation. A clear excess of lung cancers, which increases with increasing exposure to radon, is seen in groups of miners who were exposed to high levels of radon. Risks from radon are based on the excess lung cancers in these miners, because the comparison is more direct than the standard approach, which predicts rather more cancers than are seen in the miners, i.e. it seems to somewhat overestimate the risk in this case. Risks from radon at lower levels are again based on the assumption that the risk is proportional to the exposure.
> 
> Many thousands of workers have also been exposed to uranium compounds over many years, through the processing of uranium from the ore to the production of fuel elements. Studies have been carried out on the health of such workers. While some studies have reported excesses of cancers, unlike the miners, no clear excess of any cancer related to increased exposure has been demonstrated. The only clear finding is a 'healthy worker effect'; mortality is lower than in the general population. This is expected in such workforces, because of selection for employment, and the benefits of a regular income.



Take from that what you will.  If, after reading this, you continue to post about DU as if it were a weapon of mass murder, I'll know that your ramblings have nothing to do with ignorance and everything to do with your hate for the US.


----------



## 48Highlander

For anyone who's confused and thinks that missile defense is a new idea, you may want to take a look at this:

http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/bmd/nucleairnterceptors.htm

here's a small excert:



> The Pentagon experimented with nuclear-armed interceptors in the 1950s and 1960s and, for a short time in the mid-1970s, deployed an anti-missile system that relied on them. But the notion of nuclear explosions going off high overhead to block incoming missiles proved unsettling for many people. And the prospect that ionized clouds and electromagnetic shock waves associated with the explosions could end up blinding radar on the ground and scrambling electronic equipment eventually helped kill the plan.



    Frankly, I think that at this point nuclear payload interceptors are one of the few feasable options.  They gaurantee the ability to knock down an incoming ICBM without the need for pinpoint accuracy.  Back when they were first experimented with, the palyoads neccesary were fairly large so that damage caused by the interceptor going off would still have been considerable, although still far less than the damage which would result if the incoming missile detonated instead.  However, guidance systems these days are much more accurate, meaning that the payload required may be no larger than 10 kilotons.  Very VERY low collateral damage and much more chance of success.    Anyone have any idea why both the US and USSR stopped making these?  And why they're not being considered for the newest incarnation of the BMD shield?


----------



## a_majoor

I have little data on the former USSR's "Galosh" BMD system, but given the lower efficiency of Soviet era electronics, I would expect it was a nuclear system like "Safeguard". The main reasons nuclear BMD is not considered an option is mostly political, no one wants more Nukes, especially nuclear armed ABMs exploding overhead. (Russia may still use Galosh, simply because they have nothing better)

The technical reasons for avoiding nuclear explosions in the upper atmosphere are still valid, as well, there are hundreds of satellites in orbit which would be knocked out by EMP, causing grave damage to the world economy.

Hit to Kill makes sense in theory, needing the smallest interceptor and causing the least collateral damage. I suspect the "real thing" may actually resemble a bucket of sand, which is guided towards the target and "burst" in front of it. The closing speed would be about Mach 40, so even a grain of sand will pack enough kinetic energy to do some serious damage. BMD is a multi-layer system, though, with US warships capable of launching interceptors against missiles in the boost stage, and follow on BMD systems designed to hunt cold warheads during mid course intercept missions, and airborn lasers mounted on 747s to track and kill boosters or cruise missiles...We are only seeing the first generation at the very start of deployment.


----------



## Ty

a_majoor said:
			
		

> I have little data on the former USSR's "Galosh" BMD system, but given the lower efficiency of Soviet era electronics, I would expect it was a nuclear system like "Safeguard". The main reasons nuclear BMD is not considered an option is mostly political, no one wants more Nukes, especially nuclear armed ABMs exploding overhead. (Russia may still use Galosh, simply because they have nothing better)
> 
> The technical reasons for avoiding nuclear explosions in the upper atmosphere are still valid, as well, there are hundreds of satellites in orbit which would be knocked out by EMP, causing grave damage to the world economy.
> 
> Hit to Kill makes sense in theory, needing the smallest interceptor and causing the least collateral damage. I suspect the "real thing" may actually resemble a bucket of sand, which is guided towards the target and "burst" in front of it. The closing speed would be about Mach 40, so even a grain of sand will pack enough kinetic energy to do some serious damage. BMD is a multi-layer system, though, with US warships capable of launching interceptors against missiles in the boost stage, and follow on BMD systems designed to hunt cold warheads during mid course intercept missions, and airborn lasers mounted on 747s to track and kill boosters or cruise missiles...We are only seeing the first generation at the very start of deployment.



While the kill vehicle warhead might be   comparable to a bucket of sand (roughly 300 lbs), there is much debate as to how to get it there.   Keep in mind that we aren't dealing with short-range terminal phased flight interception, but a system that has to be capable of long-range interception at all phases of flight.   When you consider the "wobble" of incoming BM and countermeasures, the size and weight of the extratmoshpheric kill vehicle (EKV) has to increase as well.   This is a direct result of the increased need for fuel for range and needed "boost".   The latter is for course corrections needed because of the uncertain trajectory of incoming BM.   This leads me to believe that a Naval based component of the system would be very hard to achieve with standard missile magazines and cannisters due to the sheer weight of each missile.   I know that FAS is reporting that successful tests have been made for SMD, and I'd love a chance to peek at the physical data to disprove my crack-pot theories. 

As for airbourne laser MD (ALMD), the theory is sound- use a high powered laser to "heat up" the missile skin causing it to loose structural integrity and break up.   Pluses include very efficient targetting and delivery of the "payload" (laser beam) to the target at light speed.   This system is even more effective when used on incoming missiles as the atmospheric attenuation decreases exponentially with each passing second increasing the efficiency of the laser.   Problems with ALMD are that it causes the missile to break up, not to be destroyed as in hit-to-kill.   The warhead and booster might still, for the most part, be intact and land in an area that they could conceivably cause damage- negating the use of the system over populated areas. 

Keep in mind that all I've posted, while researched, is still just proclamations from a soap-box.   Unfortunately, the only readily available hard data on NMD are from its opponents with very little physics being offered by it's proponents to attest to its successes.   This is probably due to the sensitive nature of the material- nontheless, the engineer in me still has to yell "prove it".   If any other techy types can show me some sources to disprove some of my amateur conclusions, I'd love to see the other side of the coin...

Cheers

A link from FAS on ALMD:
http://www.fas.org/ssp/bmd/guide/airborne.htm


----------



## Ty

48Highlander said:
			
		

> For anyone who's confused and thinks that missile defense is a new idea, you may want to take a look at this:
> 
> http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/bmd/nucleairnterceptors.htm
> 
> here's a small excert:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pentagon experimented with nuclear-armed interceptors in the 1950s and 1960s and, for a short time in the mid-1970s, deployed an anti-missile system that relied on them. But the notion of nuclear explosions going off high overhead to block incoming missiles proved unsettling for many people. And the prospect that ionized clouds and electromagnetic shock waves associated with the explosions could end up blinding radar on the ground and scrambling electronic equipment eventually helped kill the plan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I think that at this point nuclear payload interceptors are one of the few feasable options.   They gaurantee the ability to knock down an incoming ICBM without the need for pinpoint accuracy.   Back when they were first experimented with, the palyoads neccesary were fairly large so that damage caused by the interceptor going off would still have been considerable, although still far less than the damage which would result if the incoming missile detonated instead.   However, guidance systems these days are much more accurate, meaning that the payload required may be no larger than 10 kilotons.   Very VERY low collateral damage and much more chance of success.      Anyone have any idea why both the US and USSR stopped making these?   And why they're not being considered for the newest incarnation of the BMD shield?
Click to expand...


Not trying to be facetious, but does this classical theory of MD remind anyone of the old video game "Missile Command". You know, where your missile's detonation caused a shockwave that disable incoming enemy missiles.  I just can't shake the image of a room, deep within the caves of Cheyenne mountain, completely dark and empty except for a bunch of cables running to an old Atari 2600 with a tech thumping furiously on the red button.

Maybe, with another round of budget cuts, this might not be too far off from the truth 

Cheers


----------



## Brad Sallows

>Many posts have articulated BMD will not work, may create an arms race, and is unnecessary because
the US maintains detente with its traditional "semi-friends". 

Deja moo.  "Many <objectors> have articulated <about to be developed and deployed US weapon system> will not work, may creat an arms race, etc."


----------



## Brad Sallows

>Missile defence is an arms race with no purpose.

Really?  You mean the the reason for BMD is "just because we think we can"?

>The U.S. is the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons

No.  The US is the only nation to ever use nuclear weapons other than during a test.  Regardless, so what?  Unless you care to expand, it made as much sense to include that as filler in your post as it does to write "Flipsy, flopsy, fiddle-de-doo."


----------



## Disillusioned

> 3. And its Canada's to defend itself.But we'd be up shites creek without a paddle if it wasnt for the US defending us. We certainly cant defend ourselves at our present capabilities.



I would have more faith in your fellow countrymen. That being said, why doesn't the military make a political fuss for more funding?




> 4. I dont believe I have anything in common with the people of europe. My political views most certainly dont fall anywhere near theres. I believe that we on this continent need to look out for each other. Whether you like it or not. Ive lived in both of these countries and I have family in both. Whether you like it or not "disillusioned" you could be picked up and tossed into most states and not miss a beat. Life would be exactly the same- except people would think you were an elitist prick because you think our "way" is so much more superior.
> 
> You couldnt move to europe with such ease. I lived in Europe as well. It is a far cry from how we live over here.
> 
> That being said- I do have faith in the BMD. It needs to be advanced as with any new technology. I think we should be aiming for a "total defence" instead of just looking for what the immediate threat is. And then changing every 10 years....




I'll ignore the insult. I'm not elitist for rejecting another country's foreign policy. I also know people in the U.S., and they're nice people, but I also don't think the societiess are identica at all....


----------



## Disillusioned

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Yes, this is the Political section of Army.ca, and the United States has made a political decision to attempt to defend their homeland. BMD is perhaps the most visible and expensive portion of the job, but other measures such as the "USA Patriot act" and refurbishing the US Coast Guard are also happening in an attempt to counter threats from all ends of the spectrum.
> 
> We also need to make a political decision, which can be roughly stated as "Put up or Shut up". You might think of a more nuanced expression, but Canada must recognise the reality that the United States is serious about protecting their homeland, and decide to either cooperate on the best terms possible for us (moving into a continental perimeter with significant Canadian input into the decision making process), or turn our backs to their concerns, and accept consequences ranging from lessened access to the US for business and pleasure (imagine going to the US consulate 6 to 8 months in advance for a Visa so you and your family can visit Disneyland), to physical harm coming to Canada (BMD intercepts happening over Canadian territory, or US forces moving in "Hot Persuit" of fleeing terrorists into Canada).
> 
> If we decide not to go in, then it must be an informed decision, with all the potential risks and benefits laid out on the table. I have done the best risk/benefit analysis I can with open source information, and as you can see from my posts the answer I keep coming up with is "yes".




If the U.S. had the ability to shoot down a Russian or Chinese missile, so you think they would wait until Canada gave them permission to shoot it down? Do you think they would wait until it was over American terriotry if we said no? :


----------



## Disillusioned

48Highlander said:
			
		

> Whattamaroon.   Listen, I don't particularily care what the UN says about DU, there's nothing illegal about it.   Nor does it have anything to do with nuclear weapons, so please, don't put them together in the same sentence.   It only demonstrates your complete ignorance on the subject.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of information available already. Different isotopes of uranium have exactly the same chemical and biological behaviour, which is why chemical methods cannot be used to separate them to produce enriched uranium. Therefore the chemical toxicity of DU is the same as that of natural uranium. The radiological toxicity of DU is lower than that of natural uranium, because the specific activity is lower. When uranium went into large-scale production to produce reactor fuel, the possible chemical and radiological hazards were recognised. Animal experiments were carried out to investigate them. These experiments (mostly carried out many years ago) showed that if the exposure was high enough, the most likely effect was damage to the kidneys.
> 
> Estimates of the risks associated with exposure to ionising radiation are based mainly on studies of people who were exposed to high levels of radiation. The most important study is that of the survivors of the atom bomb attacks on Japan, because this is a large group, including all ages, a wide range of doses, and the whole body was irradiated. Furthermore, the health of these survivors has been studied over several decades. However, studies on various other groups of patients and workers, and results of animal experiments, are also used in assessing radiation risks. These include internal as well as external exposures. In particular, bone cancers were seen in workers who ingested large amounts of radium while applying luminous paint to dials in the early part of the 20th century. Radium deposits in bone in a similar way to uranium, but has a far higher specific activity, and so ingestion of relatively small amounts can give high doses to bone. Using all this information, the risk of cancer from any radiation exposure (external or internal) is estimated from the amount and type of radiation each organ receives (per unit mass). Excess radiation-induced cancers cannot be seen at very low doses either in human studies or animal experiments, because the excess at low doses is small, and the same types of cancers occur naturally. For radiation protection purposes it is generally assumed that the risk of cancer is proportional to the radiation dose: if the dose is halved, the risk is halved. Some scientists believe that there is a threshold for radiation effects, partly because life evolved in a radioactive environment, and so it is reasonable to expect that at low doses the body would repair any radiation damage. NRPB, however, supports use of the assumption that all radiation doses, however small, carry some additional risk, which is proportional to dose.
> 
> An exception to the standard dosimetric approach to assessing radiation risks is made in the case of radon, a radioactive gas, which for most of the population gives rise to about half the dose from natural background radiation. A clear excess of lung cancers, which increases with increasing exposure to radon, is seen in groups of miners who were exposed to high levels of radon. Risks from radon are based on the excess lung cancers in these miners, because the comparison is more direct than the standard approach, which predicts rather more cancers than are seen in the miners, i.e. it seems to somewhat overestimate the risk in this case. Risks from radon at lower levels are again based on the assumption that the risk is proportional to the exposure.
> 
> Many thousands of workers have also been exposed to uranium compounds over many years, through the processing of uranium from the ore to the production of fuel elements. Studies have been carried out on the health of such workers. While some studies have reported excesses of cancers, unlike the miners, no clear excess of any cancer related to increased exposure has been demonstrated. The only clear finding is a 'healthy worker effect'; mortality is lower than in the general population. This is expected in such workforces, because of selection for employment, and the benefits of a regular income.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Take from that what you will.   If, after reading this, you continue to post about DU as if it were a weapon of mass murder, I'll know that your ramblings have nothing to do with ignorance and everything to do with your hate for the US.
Click to expand...



Depleted uranium may not be a nuclear weapon, but it is quite radioactive, which doesn't exactly dissipate overnight. I wouldn't want to be a . soldier near where the stuff was used.


----------



## Disillusioned

Blindspot said:
			
		

> I can imagine what is sounds like to Ukraine right about now. How about Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc.?



That's not western Europe.


----------



## a_majoor

Disillusioned said:
			
		

> If the U.S. had the ability to shoot down a Russian or Chinese missile, so you think they would wait until Canada gave them permission to shoot it down? Do you think they would wait until it was over American territory if we said no? :



I'd much rather be in on the decision making process and see the intercept as a fireworks show in the western Pacific then suddenly be showered with radioactive debris when the BMD interceptor knocked the enemy missile down over Calgary.

So far, Disillusioned, your posts seem to combine the negativity of "it can't be done" with the reflexive "If the Americans are doing it, it must be bad". I will grant there are a lot of technical issues to be worked out, and BMD V1 probably will be very leak prone indeed. Regardless, our neighbours are taking serious steps to defend themselves (as is their right and duty), and are generous enough to offer to shelter us as well. All we have to do is step up to the plate and provide some help, either technical, operational (changes to NORAD) or perhaps offering some territory for sensors, like the old DEW line, or some combination of the above. We need to make an informed decision, and fully understand what rejection of the BMD shield would mean to us. If your next door neighbour was becoming alarmed about break ins and suggested you pool some resources with him to establish a neighbourhood watch, install extra lights etc. would you sit back and mock his efforts? 

As for your other posts, what possible relevance does the use of DU have in this thread? You routinely use much more dangerous material on a daily basis: the Ni-Cad rechargeable batteries in your electronic devices (if you don't have Ni-Cads, good on you, but I'll bet there are lots at your school/place of work/ the bus you ride in) and I'm sure you take the same sensible precautions that armourers using *NON-RADIOACTIVE* DU munitions do (The CF uses DU shells on Canadian warships equipped with the PHALANX anti-missile system). 

Nuclear weapons? The French exploded lots of nuclear weapons in the Pacific with very rudimentary safety and environmental controls as late as the 1980s, when everyone "knew better", and the former USSR exploded the largest nuclear weapon ever (60 Megatonnes) in the open air over the arctic, perhaps you should investigate how other nations have been using the power of nuclear weapons before issuing blanket condemnations.


----------



## McG

Disillusioned said:
			
		

> Depleted uranium may not be a nuclear weapon, but it is quite radioactive,


Ah, no.   It is infact not "radioactive".   It is actually a stable form of uranium.


----------



## 48Highlander

Disillusioned said:
			
		

> Depleted uranium may not be a nuclear weapon, but it is quite radioactive, which doesn't exactly dissipate overnight. I wouldn't want to be a . soldier near where the stuff was used.




    You obviously didn't read the article.

    DU is so mildly radioactive as to be harmless.  You get exposed to more radiation every time your doctor takes an x-ray.  In fact, it's chemical properties are more harmfull than any radiation it releases.  If you ingest DU you're more likely to get metal poisoning than radiation poisoning.  And if you ingest tungsten or lead instead of DU, you'll still end up getting metal or lead poisoning, so don't bother trying to argue that it should be replaced with a different substance.  Do a little research or at the very least read the info I provided.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Thats enough, Disillusioned. How about some studying time?


----------



## Acorn

a_majoor said:
			
		

> (The CF uses DU shells on Canadian warships equipped with the PHALANX anti-missile system).



Actually, I don't think they do any more. Not that your point about the radioactivity of DU is incorrect. It's also used in industry as counter-weights for various applications, because it's very dense (more so than tungsten) and a cheap by-product of the nuclear power industry. A piece of DU in one's front pocket is not as dangerous as a Bic lighter.

That being said, there are lots of issues with DU that are better discussed on another thread.

Acorn


----------



## JBP

Some news+updates on the BMD thingy...

Not sure if this is old or new...

I watched on TV this morning a recorded interview with Paul Martin saying, and I quote directly, "There will be no missles on Canadian soil", he continued on to say it's not in the interest of Canadians to have BMD on Canadian soil, he further added that, "I'll address the issue of BMD when Canada is ready, I won't be dictated too!"...

I am surprised, he seems pretty adament about this issue now. It seems from his words that indeed there will be no missle bases on Canadian soil. Has he given this response to George W Bush directly yet??? I suppose that's what Bush gets for not talking about opening the border up to beef! 

Just kidding.... I was surprised though I must say and happy myself, given my stance on the BMD (I don't like it, to be simple).
Joe


----------



## Infanteer

Do most people oppose Ballistic Missile Defence because of its military qualities, or because it is an *American* system?

I wonder, if BMD was an initiative between the Philippines and Canada, would people think it was a great thing?


----------



## a_majoor

The former USSR deployed the "Galosh" ABM system in the 1970's, and have kept it in operation even to this day. It is suspected some Former Soviet (now Russian) AA missile systems are in fact "dual purpose" and capable of performing ABM intercepts, similar to the US Patriot SAM system. China has some of these systems, and I would not be surprised to hear they are working on a BMD system of their own.

The overwhelming volume of protests against the deployment of Russian and Chinese BMD systems...whats that? Only silence from the  "anti-war" crowd?

This situation is very similar the the great "nuclear missile scare" or the 1980's, when President Ronald Reagan began deploying accurate nuclear weapons (Pershing 2 IRBM and the Ground Launched Cruise Missile) in response to the Soviet deployment of SS-20 and similar generations of IRBM's to threaten Europe. Despite the fact the USSR had deployed the weapons first, and in fact deployed far more than the Americans ever contemplated, the "anti-war" and "leftist" crowds would only condemn the US systems as "agressive" and "destabilizing", creating a "threat to peace". The asymetrical nature of the protests then (as now) would indicate the true reason to oppose US systems is to limit the range of options the US and by extention, the West, can undertake.

As for Mr Martin, we can just pour syrup on him for breakfast. The man simply is waffling between the Anti-American public sentiment in Canada, and the very real and urgent requirment for the United States to bolster their security posture. Martin's choices? Loose support of the Anti-American crowd and watch votes go to the NDP, or P/O the US congress and watch our economic access dry up and take down the economy.


----------



## McG

The PM has been saying that he does not think BMD will work and so Canada does not want any part in it.



> U.S. missile-defence test fails
> _Associated Press
> POSTED AT 5:19 AM EST  Wednesday, Dec 15, 2004
> GlobeandMail.com_
> 
> Washington â â€ An interceptor missile failed to launch early Wednesday in what was to have been the first full flight test of the U.S. national missile defence system in nearly two years.
> 
> The Missile Defense Agency has attempted to conduct the test several times this month, but scrubbed each one for a variety of reasons, including various weather problems and a malfunction on a recovery vessel not directly related to the equipment being tested.
> 
> A target missile carrying a mock warhead was successfully launched as scheduled from Kodiak, Alaska, at 12:45 a.m. EST, in the first launch of a target missile from Kodiak in support of a full flight test of the system.
> 
> However, the agency said the ground-based interceptor â Å“experienced an anomaly shortly before it was to be launchedâ ? from the Ronald Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific Ocean 16 minutes after the target missile left Alaska.
> 
> An announcement said the interceptor experienced an automatic shutdown â Å“due to an unknown anomaly.â ?
> 
> The agency gave no other details and said program officials will review pre-launch data to determine the cause for the shutdown.
> 
> The military is in final preparations to activate missile defences designed to protect against an intercontinental ballistic missile attack from North Korea or elsewhere in eastern Asia.
> 
> Wednesday's test was to have been the first in which the interceptor used the same booster rocket that the operational system would use.
> 
> In earlier testing of tracking and targeting systems, which critics derided as highly scripted, missile interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.


----------



## Infanteer

Imagine the world dismissed the Apollo program as a "useless and technologically unfeasible waste of money" after the Apollo 1 disaster.

Infact, why are we even bothering with space exploration - it is obvious that with the destruction of the Columbia and the Challenger (among many satellite and probe failures) that NASA should be disbanded....


----------



## Acorn

Bill Gates is alleged to have once said something like "640k of RAM is all anyone will ever need."

The guys who say "that'll never work" are usually the ones forgotten by history.

Acorn


----------



## Infanteer

Acorn said:
			
		

> The guys who say "that'll never work" are usually the ones forgotten by history.



Hopefully we'll forget about Carolyn Parrish sooner then later, eh?


----------



## Acorn

Who?


----------



## a_majoor

Interesting link on BMD and the political aspects (actual paper is 11 pages long) 

James Fergusson, Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence: What we know, don't know and can't know!

http://www.fedcan.ca/english/pdf/fromold/breakfast-fergusson1104.pdf


----------



## RCA

Question:   For those missiles coming over the North Pole. Where will they be intercepted, and would matter whether we are members of BMD or not?

As for the analogy of the two houses, it is always preferable that the shoot out with the burglars happens in the other guys house.


----------



## DJL

"Well, boys, I reckon this is it - nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies......."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4052847.stm


"......we must not allow... a mine shaft gap!"


----------



## Acorn

There should be some sort of regulation. 

"501.b.iii any discussion involving nuclear weapons and capabilities, including defence from same, shall be declared complete at the first point a 'Dr. Strangelove' quote is invoked."

Acorn


----------



## Glorified Ape

I don't see much point in spending god knows how much money on a system to protect against an ever-decreasing type of threat. If nuclear attack comes, it's not likely to come from another state and even less likely to come in the form of a missile. The cliche "suitcase bomb" is far more likely, imo. States, be they North Korea or Britain, tend to guard their nuclear weapons quite closely, as they're their primary assurance of security while also being their greatest potential liability if they should be stolen or clandestinely sold to groups willing to use them. The money that would be spent on the program would be better spent on beefing up intelligence services and domestic security, not to mention our armed forces, as far as I'm concerned. 

That's to say nothing of the detrimental effect nuclear defense programs have on MADD. If a country believes itself capable of surviving (acceptably) a nuclear attack, it's that much more likely to be willing to launch one, the US included. I was under the impression that this is what the ABM treaty was intended to guard against. As someone else here said, arms races are always happening in response to the "arms race" argument against the shield. Agreed, though that hardly means we should encourage or initiate them. 

The program would only heighten the tension between the US and other semi-friendly nuclear countries, not to mention the downright unfriendly ones. The more the US and North America take initiatives to secure the continent from ballistic attack, the more these countries are going to worry about aggressive foreign policy stemming from our sense of security and take measures, be they weapons programs or diplomatic opposition, to counter us. In essence, I think that in this case the absence of security is a better means of achieving security. 

I read an interesting article regarding the issue of nuclear weapons and rogue states that seems apropos... here's an excerpt (a bit long, but worth the read): 



> Excerpt from Kenneth N. Waltz's article "Peace, Stability, and Nuclear Weapons"
> 
> "Despite the variety of nuclear motivations, an American consensus has formed on why some states want their own weapons - to help them pursue expansionist ends. "The basic division in the world on the subject of nuclear proliferation," we are authoritatively told,"is not between those with and without nuclear weapons. It is between almost all nations and the very few who currently seek weapons to reinforce their expansive ambition." Just as we feared that the Soviet Union and China would use nuclear weapons to extend their sway, so we now fear that the likes of Iraq, Iran, and Libya will do so. The fear has grown depsite the fact that nuclear capability added little to the Soviet Union's or China's ability to pursue their ends abroad, whether by launching military attacks or practicing blackmail.
> 
> The fear that new nuclear states will use their weapons for aggressive purposes is as odd as it is pervasive. Rogue states, as we now call them, must be up to no good, else we would not call them rogues. Why would states such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea want nuclear weapons if not to enable them to conquer, or at least to intimidate, others? The answer can be given in one word: fear. The behavior of their rulers is often brazen, but does their bluster convey confidence or fear? Even though they may hope to extend their domination over others, they first have to maintain it at home.
> 
> What states do conveys more than what they say. Idi Amin and Muammar Qaddafi were favorite examples of the kinds of rulers who could not be trusted to manage nuclear weapons responsibly. Despite wild rhetoric aimed at foreigners, however, both of these "irrational" rulers became cautious and modest when punitive actions against them seemed to threaten their continued ability to rule. Saddam Hussein further illustrated the point during, and even prior to, the war of 1991. He invaded Kuwait only after the United States gave many indications that it would acquiesce in his actions. During the war, he launched missiles against Israel, but they were so lightly armed that little risk was run of prompting attacks more punishing than Iraq was already suffering. Deterrence worked once again.
> 
> Many Westerners write fearfully about a future in which the Third World countries have nuclear weapons. They seem to view their people in the old imperial manner as "lesser breeds without law." As ever with ethnocentric views, speculation takes the place of evidence. How do we know that a nuclear-armed and newly-hostile Egypt, or a nuclear-amred and still-hostile Syria, would not strike to destroy Israel? Yet we have to ask whether either would do so at the risk of Israeli bombs falling on some of their cities? Almost a quarter of Egypt's people live in four cities: Cairo, Alexandria, El-Giza, and Soubra el-Kheima. More than a quarter of Syria's live in three: Damascus, Aleppo, and Homs. What government would risk sudden losses of such proportion, or indeed of much lesser proportion? Rulers want to have a country that they can continue to rule. Some Arab country may wish that some other Arab country would risk its own destruction for the sake of destroying Israel, but why would one think that any country would be willing to do so? Despite ample bitterness, Israelis and Arabs have limited their wars and accepted constraints placed on them by others. Arabs did not marshal their resources and make an all-out effort to destroy Israel in the years before Israel could strike back with nuclear warheads....
> 
> Despite North Korea's exposed position, Americans especially have worried that the North might invade the South and use nuclear weapons in doing so. How concerned should we be? No one has figured out how to use nuclear weapons except for deterrence. Is a small and weak state likely to be the first to do so? Countries that use nuclear weapons have to fear retaliation. Why would the North once again invade the South? It did so in 1950, but only after prominent American Congressmen, military leaders, and other officials proclaimed that we would not fight in Korea. Any war on the peninsula would put North Korea at severe risk. Perhaps because the South Koreans appreciate this fact more keenly than Americans do, relatively few of them seem to believe that North Korea will invade. Kim Il Sung at times threatened war, but anyone who thinks that when a dictator threatens war we should believe him is lost wandering around somwhere in a bygone conventional world. Kim Il Sung was sometimes compared to Hitler and Stalin. Despite the similarities, it is foolish to forget that the capabilities of the North Korea he ruled in no way compared with those of Germany and the Soviet Union under Hitler and Stalin.
> 
> Nuclear weapons make states cautious, as the history of the nuclear age shows. "Rogue states," as the Soviet Union and China were once thought to be, have followed the pattern. The weaker and the more endangered a state is, the less likely it is to engage in reckless behavior. North Korea's external behavior has sometimes been ugly, but certainly not reckless. Its regime has shown no inclination to risk suicide. This is one good reason why surrounding states counseled patience. "


----------



## Infanteer

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> I don't see much point in spending god knows how much money on a system to protect against an ever-decreasing type of threat. If nuclear attack comes, it's not likely to come from another state and even less likely to come in the form of a missile. The cliche "suitcase bomb" is far more likely, imo. States, be they North Korea or Britain, tend to guard their nuclear weapons quite closely, as they're their primary assurance of security while also being their greatest potential liability if they should be stolen or clandestinely sold to groups willing to use them. The money that would be spent on the program would be better spent on beefing up intelligence services and domestic security, not to mention our armed forces, as far as I'm concerned.



I think the ballistic missile spin-offs will be worth the research.  The research can spawn into better THAAD systems to protect against ballistic missiles aimed at soldiers in the operational setting - we have a hard enough time hitting a Scud, and that is nothing but a souped up V-2.



> That's to say nothing of the detrimental effect nuclear defense programs have on MADD. If a country believes itself capable of surviving (acceptably) a nuclear attack, it's that much more likely to be willing to launch one, the US included. I was under the impression that this is what the ABM treaty was intended to guard against. As someone else here said, arms races are always happening in response to the "arms race" argument against the shield. Agreed, though that hardly means we should encourage or initiate them.
> 
> The program would only heighten the tension between the US and other semi-friendly nuclear countries, not to mention the downright unfriendly ones. The more the US and North America take initiatives to secure the continent from ballistic attack, the more these countries are going to worry about aggressive foreign policy stemming from our sense of security and take measures, be they weapons programs or diplomatic opposition, to counter us. In essence, I think that in this case the absence of security is a better means of achieving security.



As has been elaborated before, I don't see how a system to deal with a handful of missiles at most factors into theories of MAD.  The Chinese and the Russians both know that they can overwhelm the system.  I think a far bigger issue (with regards to MAD) is the continuing existence of Launch-on-Demand forces.  Having an itchy trigger figure with these things isn't very good.


----------



## aesop081

I agree with infanteer, US BMD efforts are not a destabilizing factor when it comes to MAD.  Large nuclear countries are not the worry, smaller rogue nations or stateless organizations are more my concern.  No amount of US nukes can respond to that.......who are you gonna nuke in return ?  MAD does not apply to asymetric warfare .

The US scrapped the ABM and NTB treaties without any big impact.........everybody saw ABM comming .....


----------



## Glorified Ape

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I think the ballistic missile spin-offs will be worth the research.   The research can spawn into better THAAD systems to protect against ballistic missiles aimed at soldiers in the operational setting - we have a hard enough time hitting a Scud, and that is nothing but a souped up V-2.




Mmm.. good point. I don't see why such research can't be conducted without the development of the kind of shield the US is talking about, though. 



> As has been elaborated before, I don't see how a system to deal with a handful of missiles at most factors into theories of MAD.   The Chinese and the Russians both know that they can overwhelm the system.   I think a far bigger issue (with regards to MAD) is the continuing existence of Launch-on-Demand forces.   Having an itchy trigger figure with these things isn't very good.



One concern I have is that what was claimed to be for a few missiles only will inevitably increase into a larger program. It just seems pointless - the benefits gleaned seem far outweighed by the costs and side-effects. I don't see terrorists coming across intercontinental ballistic capabilities, nor the platforms from which to launch them since any state that did so would summarily cease to exist. I don't believe that the "rogue states" the US is so afraid of are suicidal. As irrational as they may seem to many of us, their governments are still characterized by a desire to continue to exist and maintain power - something that launching nuclear weapons (or the permission thereof from their soil) would run counterproductive to. 

Concerning the "launch on demand" threat to MAD, could you elaborate? I'm not familiar with it.


----------



## Baloo

Hey everyone, Chris here. Long time reader, first time poster.

In regards to the following statements, if they have been overmentioned, I apologize, I tried to read the entirety of the posts beforehand.

The US shield as it is being proposed, is turning into the fabled white elephant, just as the Maginot Line of WWII. Even if the missile tests yesterday (sorry if that date is incorrect) were successful, what would that prove? That it was capable of hitting the least sophisticated of missiles in ideal conditions? Please. Any missile, especially the SCUD, if it had the range, deploys certain counter measures, to confuse the missile trying to target it, for a fraction of the cost, compared with shooting it down. As stated, most nations with nuclear capability would either a) Have enough assets to overrun the system, or b) Be swayed by the prospect of being turned to glass themselves in a retaliatory strike. Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist group is not going to attack with a ballistic missile. Dirty bombs, in suitcases, would be their tactic. In my belief, this is their only option. They proved that missiles are unnecessary, when their manned, slow moving ones hit the WTC. What the US needs, or we need, for that matter, is a system to destroy missiles in launch phase, not mid flight where it is like shooting a bullet at a bullet. From what I have gathered, launch phase operations would be much more successful. 

Tactics are being developed all the time to overcome defenses. Every known defense has only been able to be instituted for so long. The Soviets had their complex SAM network, which was continually beaten progressively, in the intricate cat and mouse game with American spy planes. This too, will be beaten. 

I am sorry, but we have so many more priorities within the CF before we can even think of this one. 

PS. Again, if I just re-iterated too many other posts, just say.


----------



## a_majoor

> Arabs did not marshal their resources and make an all-out effort to destroy Israel in the years before Israel could strike back with nuclear warheads....



Just what history book did that idea come from? Obviously it must have been written before 1947, or only cover the post war period except for 1948, 1967, 1973, the "war of Attrition" period, the Infantada (s), the Scud Missile attacks.......

Baloo, while you have reiterated the "top ten" list of what's wrong with BMD, please read this thread again and you will see there are 

a: valid reasons to persue BMD
b: potential spin offs of BMD which will strengthen our conventional defense capabilities, and;
c BMD is part of a comprehensive package of measures the United States is persuing. Strengthening the Coast Guard might not be so "high tech", and the Patriot act might not seem to be defense related, but they are all part of the greater whole which includes BMD.

This is not a slam against you, just look again in greater depth, you will see the arguments both for and against are multifaceted and quite deep.


----------



## Acorn

Baloo said:
			
		

> Any missile, especially the SCUD, if it had the range, deploys certain counter measures, to confuse the missile trying to target it, for a fraction of the cost, compared with shooting it down.



"Especially the SCUD" fascinates me. Can you let us in on what countermeasures the SCUD employs? 

Acorn


----------



## Glorified Ape

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Arabs did not marshal their resources and make an all-out effort to destroy Israel in the years before Israel could strike back with nuclear warheads....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's actually quite accurate - the Arab nations did not make an "all out" effort, either in constituency or in the application of their forces. An ARAB all out effort would necessitate the entirety of the Arab states as well as a full commital of their capabilities in their entirety.
> 
> If they'd actually made an all-out effort, they would have won. The Arab-Israeli wars were relatively limited exchanges compared to the "all out" wars like WWI and II.
Click to expand...


----------



## a_majoor

If you read the various histories of the Arab Israeli wars, you will see the Arab nations did send as much of their strength as possible, even to the point of Iraqi divisions attempting to drive from Iraq, through Syria to the battlefield on their "tracks".

This incident alone should explain why the "all out" nature of the various Arab Israeli wars doesn't look very impressive to some of us: the Arab economies are small and inefficient (mostly due to nepotism and internal corruption consuming what little a "command economy" can produce), and so they can buy tanks from Russia, but not have anything left over for the tank transporters or the sundry other items which keep modern mechanized armies going. By the 1980s, the gap was almost insurmountable. Israel can undertake limited production of satellites and launchers, jet fighters (Lavi), and tanks (Merkava), while Arab nations are constrained to purchase weapons systems from outside nations.

The Arab hatred of Israel is intense and all consuming, and even more bitter because they can see a small, prosperous and relatively peaceful state (Israel has no equivalent of the secret or religious "police" which prop up various Arab regimes by terrorizing opponents), and cannot admit to themselves that the reason they don't live in peace and prosperity like Israel is their own social and government structures and beliefs. There is really no other reason that nations mired in poverty would spend so much on supporting terrorists, conventional arms, ballistic missiles (Saudi Arabia has a small fleet of Chinese "Long March" IRBMs), WMDs and especially nuclear weaponry. It would be more satisfying to their collective egos to destroy Israel than to change and adapt. 

It would also be more satisfying to wave the threat of nuclear weapons in our face to "prove" they are world powers, prevent our assisting Israel and blackmailing the West, hence the urgent need to get under the BMD shield.


----------



## Baloo

Acorn said:
			
		

> "Especially the SCUD" fascinates me. Can you let us in on what countermeasures the SCUD employs?
> 
> Acorn



Sorry about the manner in which I said this. It was meant not so much as "countermeasures", so much as say, the manner in which the SCUD fires. Erratic flight patterns. Breaking apart of the missile itself into smaller pieces, or jettisoning sections of the body. Spiralling of the missile. Less of programmed issues, more to do with the poor workmanship on certain models, that have been demonstrated to confuse such countermeasures as the Patriot Missile. In the end, while they are not as accurate, these problems could confuse any potential missile trying to knock it from the air.


----------



## a_majoor

A missile disintegrating in flight is not a "countermeasure" in the usual sense of the word, and I would think a BMD system that could strike that target would be protecting a lot more people, since such a missile will essentially land in a random location....


----------



## Baloo

But would the BMD even be able to distinguish between these? Even IF it was proven that this system ahd the capability to strike the mid-flight missile, in itself a feat, could it necessarily pick out the warhead still heading towards the ground, or the now defunct tail section of the missile. This doesn't make it an accurate enemy weapon by any means, but provides a huge problem for defenders.


----------



## Infanteer

Baloo said:
			
		

> But would the BMD even be able to distinguish between these? Even IF it was proven that this system ahd the capability to strike the mid-flight missile, in itself a feat, could it necessarily pick out the warhead still heading towards the ground, or the now defunct tail section of the missile. This doesn't make it an accurate enemy weapon by any means, but provides a huge problem for defenders.



Well, we would never really know if we never bothered to initiate the project research, would we?  Are you absolutely certain that technology could never overcome this problem, rendering the program worthless?

People who want to shut the BMD down on the lines of technological infeasibility remind me of Church officials knocking on Galileo's door....


----------



## aesop081

Infanteer said:
			
		

> People who want to shut the BMD down on the lines of technological infeasibility remind me of Church officials knocking on Galileo's door....



.....Love that one.........thanks infanteer, you made my day !!


----------



## Baloo

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, we would never really know if we never bothered to initiate the project research, would we?  Are you absolutely certain that technology could never overcome this problem, rendering the program worthless?
> 
> People who want to shut the BMD down on the lines of technological infeasibility remind me of Church officials knocking on Galileo's door....



Officials in the Renaissance being taken aback by a view that went against everything that was believed for centuries, and against the supposed laws of God is _slightly_ different than that of siphoning tens of billions of dollars for a decade into untested technology that was prematurely deployed. I would hope that in time the shield could work, but as it stands, there is no reason for Canada to deploy a system that might as well be a black hole of money. Test it, put all the necessary calculation to work, and put it through the most rigourous trials. Don't just send a mock warhead in broad, clear daylight on a preset trajectory. We cannot grow complacent or secure in a system that just doesn't work.


----------



## 48Highlander

Baloo said:
			
		

> Officials in the Renaissance being taken aback by a view that went against everything that was believed for centuries, and against the supposed laws of God is _slightly_ different than that of siphoning tens of billions of dollars for a decade into untested technology that was prematurely deployed.



Yeah, those silly Americans, siphoning massive ammounts of money into a tried and untested concept like "nuclear" research during WW2.  What were they thinking?  Shoulda known it would never work.  And that silly airplane idea too.  All the generals at the time would have told you it wouldn't have any military applications.  But those damn beurocrats all think they know better.  It's terrible I tell ya.


----------



## aesop081

In addition to that..there was a time when rockets were unproven technology.  But these very same unproven rockets were mated with nkes and put in the ground as ICBMs and formed the cornerstone of US deterence.........or was i sleeping during military studies classes ???

The fact that the US is begining to field ABM systems, however limited its effectiveness, will lead to the developements of more improved versions.  After all, ICBMs started out no more sophisticated that the V2 and look at them now.....we have gone from single warhead to MIRVs.........

Sometimes, in the long run, investment in "unproven" technology pays off, i beleive ABM will become an effective system and will become the cornerstone of continental defence.


----------



## Baloo

I am not debating with you the whole issues of technology. I am aware that most weaponry comes as a result of trial and error. Hell, if this was the case, then we would be still using spears and clubs. What I take issue with, is deploying a system before it has even been properly tested or sorted out. It's the attitude of "we'll fix the kinks along the way". As long as we're all going to quote history sarcastically, I will use the following examples:

"Let's use the Ross Rifle. It's a good marksmanship weapon. Sure, we haven't tested it in the proper environments, but we can fix that later..."
"Let's give our boys a shovel, with a hole in the middle of it, to allow them to shoot from behind it's cover. They can figure out how to dig with it later..."

There was a reason they sent monkeys or dogs into space before humans.

This attitude get's people killed.


----------



## 48Highlander

Baloo said:
			
		

> I am not debating with you the whole issues of technology. I am aware that most weaponry comes as a result of trial and error. Hell, if this was the case, then we would be still using spears and clubs. What I take issue with, is deploying a system before it has even been properly tested or sorted out. It's the attitude of "we'll fix the kinks along the way". As long as we're all going to quote history sarcastically, I will use the following examples:
> 
> "Let's use the Ross Rifle. It's a good marksmanship weapon. Sure, we haven't tested it in the proper environments, but we can fix that later..."
> "Let's give our boys a shovel, with a hole in the middle of it, to allow them to shoot from behind it's cover. They can figure out how to dig with it later..."
> 
> There was a reason they sent monkeys or dogs into space before humans.
> 
> This attitude get's people killed.



    The military needed a rifle.  The ross was a poor choice, but 10 more years of testing and troops without rifles would have resulted in a lot more deaths.  Sometimes you have to make use of something before it's ready and then fix it along the way.  Testing the missile shield for another 10 years before deploying it doesn't do anyone any good if in 2 years a Russian janitor slips and accidentaly hits the launch button


----------



## Baloo

48Highlander said:
			
		

> The military needed a rifle.  The ross was a poor choice, but 10 more years of testing and troops without rifles would have resulted in a lot more deaths.  Sometimes you have to make use of something before it's ready and then fix it along the way.  Testing the missile shield for another 10 years before deploying it doesn't do anyone any good if in 2 years a Russian janitor slips and accidentaly hits the launch button



So, instead of sending them with a British rifle, the best choice was to send them off with the Ross, untested, rather than buy British?

And deploying it now doesn't do us any good, if in 2 years that missile fires, and the missile does not launch, or misses, does it?


----------



## 48Highlander

Baloo said:
			
		

> So, instead of sending them with a British rifle, the best choice was to send them off with the Ross, untested, rather than buy British?
> 
> And deploying it now doesn't do us any good, if in 2 years that missile fires, and the missile does not launch, or misses, does it?



    Those in charge were convinced it was the best option yes.  But that doesn't apply to our current situation.  We can't very well buy a Brittish Ballistic Missile Defence system now can we?

    Deploying it now doesn't do any harm either.  You may as well argue that it also doesn't do us any good if nobody ever launches.  As a soldier you should understand the need for planning for as many eventualities as possible, even if you cannot gaurantee that you'll be able to deal with all of them.  If the shield fails to work and the US gets wiped out anyway, what have they lost?


----------



## a_majoor

A nice letter on the subject:

December18, 2004 THE OTTAWA CITIZEN 

RE: "OUR SOVEREIGNTY DEPENDS ON JOINING MISSILE DEFENCE" - OTTAWA CITIZEN LETTER / ALAIN PELLERIN / DECEMBER 18 

In light of Alain Pellerin's reasoned concern that "there is a mutual interest in co-operating on defence and security issues, especially the defence of the North American continent", one really wonders what all the fearful handwringing is about throughout "the true North strong and free" when it comes to the concept of a North American missile shield to "stand on guard for thee". Loud and passionate are the voices of insular pacifism in Ottawa, anxiously claiming that joining a U.S. missile defence system would risk Canadian sovereignty ... earnestly pretending that Canada, in fact, is in a position to ignore the reality of its North American geography. 

Not to worry! - Given North Korea's pending entry into the "nuclear club", surely all Mr. Martin would have to do is to seek Pyongyang's solemn assurances that our "sovereign airspace" north of the 49th parallel will, of course, be respected. 

Then he is to advise Washington, in light of these assurances, that Canada's participation in a North American missile shield has become quite unnecessary. This way, Mr. Martin can safely withdraw into the relative comfort of our peaceful Canadian values, secure in the knowledge that, in the event of Pyongyang reneging on its promises, Washington, of course, will have no choice but to "shield us from evil". Who says, we can't have our cake and eat it too? - After all, that's the "Canadian way"!


----------



## Bert

There is enough information available to strongly suggest many countries, friendly or not,
are developing capabilities and devices of stealth, intelligence gathering, and weaponry.
Such things never remain static but evolve, proliferate, as most other technology
does.

BMD is not necessarily only anti-missle but more a tiered process and response to various 
intrusions that has the ability to operate at some level globally (as per interest and
development with Japan and Australia).

Given the developing capabilities of other countries, the limited protection provided
to Canadian and US satellites, the increasing possibility of higher velocity 
intrusions (air or space), and redefining the overall response to a target, should
NORAD not be allowed to upgrade itself?  Its seems to me BMD, its concept
and the processes, are suitable for NORAD's continual evolution.


----------



## Brad Sallows

>but as it stands, there is no reason for Canada to deploy a system that might as well be a black hole of money

Perhaps you mean to suggest there is no reason for Canada to involve itself in R&D which might be a money sink.  Regardless, if R&D were foolproof, everyone would do it and would all be multimillionaires.  Maybe cancer really is uncurable and we're just throwing money into a black hole.


----------



## Baloo

Spending that kind of money on R&D is different than paying to deploy it before it has been properly tested, paying for the annual upkeep of such a system, paying for the training of operators on a system which has yet to occur a significant threat in training, and paying for the false sense of security that would be created. I would rather them pay for the R&D, than give her a couple of test runs every few years, and decide to invest taxpayer money into setting it up.


----------



## Bert

Having prior experience in a hi-tech manufacturing environment, there is nothing anywhere that is so fully
researched as to be 100% foolproof.  Cars still crap out after over a 100 years of engine research but
you still buy them and stake your life on it.  However, technological research is continuing, offense will
always try to defeat defense, and defense will always try to defeat an offense.  Looking at history
over the last hundred years and you feel Canada will remain safe and secure indefinitely, then BMD,
the military, or any system like it can be discarded.  However, if you look at history, note the areas
in which other countries are researching American defense designs (that we seem to put so
much confidence in and discard), then maybe another perspectives surface.  In my opinion, NORAD
must evolve and BMD runs a good parallel.


----------



## bossi

Geez - I sure wish I could vote for Lew ...



> *BMD doesn't deserve such a bumpy ride*
> 
> by Lewis MacKenzie
> 
> Never get behind me in a grocery store check-out line. You are guaranteed to be a silent observer as our cashier calls for a price, hands over to her replacement, chats with a relative who is entitled to 10% off most, but not all, of her items and is on her first day solo without someone showing her the ropes. I have equal luck on long commercial airline flights. No matter how I much I want to use the transit time to prepare for whatever awaits me at the other end, I am destined to be assigned a seat beside a gregarious talker. Last week's trip to Calgary was no exception.
> 
> Him â â€œ glancing up from his paper before I have my seat belt fastened: â Å“Can you believe this missile defence thing? Those Yanks and that Bush guy are steamrolling us into helping them fill space with nuclear weapons.â ?
> 
> Me - long pause - do I take the bait or not?  What the Hell: â Å“Well , not really, the only nuclear-tipped missiles out there would be the ones coming our way and those are the ones the U.S. wants to destroy before they get here.â ?
> 
> Him: â Å“But with all those nations like China, Russia, Israel, India, Pakistan and God knows how many others building nuclear missiles, this Star Wars system is going to need thousands of U.S. interceptors to handle the threat.â ?
> 
> Me: â Å“Absolutely not, and don't confuse this current system with Ronald Regan's Star Wars. The critics of Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) are intentionally calling it â Å“Star Warsâ ? to scare the public, particularly regarding the scope and cost of the system.  The number of interceptors planned for the current system will be so small - somewhere around 40 to 50 â â€œ that none of the potential enemy countries you mentioned would be encouraged to increase their number of offensive missiles, as it would be easy for them to overwhelm our defensive shield with a fraction of their current inventory. This system is designed to handle the tiny number of incoming missiles that countries like North Korea or Iran might throw in our direction, intentionally or otherwise, as well as any that might be launched by some wacko terrorist organization, when and if they take control of some state's nuclear capabilities.
> 
> Him: â Å“That's ridiculous!  None of those folks have the capability to launch a ballistic missile against us and if they did, they wouldn't risk being annihilated by the U.S. in retaliation.â ?
> 
> Me: â Å“You are right today â â€œ but what about tomorrow? We are dealing with groups who have as their number one stated priority the elimination of their Great Satan, the U.S. and her allies. Within the past few years some of these groups have sprayed children running away from school with machine gun fire, sent suicide bombers to blow up night clubs, and slowly, sometimes taking two to three minutes, have severed innocent victims heads from their bodies, keeping them alive as long as possible in the process. Do you really think they would be deterred by the thought of U.S. retaliation? Should we wait until they have the capability before we do anything about it?
> 
> Him: â Å“Well let the U.S. worry about that, it's not our problem. A little earlier you said, 'our defensive shield', it's not ours, it's the Americans'!â ?.
> 
> Me: â Å“It just so happens that we are already involved. We have hundreds of military cooperation agreements with the U.S. signed since the end of the Second World War. The North American Aerospace Command (NORAD) is the most important one, and we provide the deputy commander and many of the staff. Our Air Force responds to threats to North American, not just Canadian airspace. We are already involved with the system you seem to dislike, as NORAD will provide targeting data to the BMD's interceptor missiles regarding any incoming missile target. Frequently those will be Canadian officers at NORAD's headquarters passing on that critical information. My friend, if you aim the rifle at a deer and someone else pulls the trigger, you share the meat.â ?
> 
> Him: â Å“ I don't care what you say, the polls are showing the majority of Canadians are against us getting involved and this is a democracyâ ?.
> 
> Me: â Å“ Sure the polls show a close race and that result emerged from a question like, ' Are you in favour of joining the U.S. in its expensive and unproven ballistic missile defence program?' Result: 50/50. Think if the question was, 'The U.S., NATO, Japan, Britain, Australia, Russia, France, Israel, and Denmark are all cooperating with the implementation of a ballistic missile system that you won't see, won't pay for and won't be based on Canadian soil, but will make you and your family safer. Are you in favour of joining?' I would anticipate a dramatically different result.
> 
> Him: â Å“I still say we would be safer without a bunch of nuclear interceptors out there in spaceâ ?.
> 
> Me: â Å“Actually, nuclear weapons are banned in space and they aren't very effective out there anyway. It's space! The interceptors will not have explosive war heads. They will destroy incoming missiles with kinetic energy, like a head-on car collision. The interceptors will be launched from land or sea where they are obviously easier to service, upgrade and control.
> 
> Him: â Å“Yeah, but haven't all the tests failed?â ?
> 
> Me: â Å“That's why you test, to perfect the system. Do you really think that a nation which sent men to the moon in 1969 and can put a cruise missile through the bathroom window of a house 1,000 kilometres away will fail to perfect a system to track and hit an incoming warhead the size of a BMW?â ?
> 
> Aircraft Captain: â Å“Ladies and Gentlemen. We have Calgary in sight. Please place your seat backs in the upright position, fasten your seatbelt and until we have safely come to a full stop at the terminal, try to stop arguing with the person seated beside you, particularly the two of you in 13 A and B. After all, we are Canadiansâ ?.
> 
> 
> Maj-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie, now retired, commanded UN troops during the Bosnian civil war of 1992.
> 
> This article was presented on the Canadian Forces College "Spotlight on Military News" with the kind permission of the author. It also appears in the 29 Dec 04 issue of The Globe and Mail.


----------



## Edward Campbell

But, see this, from today's _National Post_:



> Senior Liberals warn PM on missile shield
> A decision without consulting party would be 'unwise'
> 
> Anne Dawson , with files from Mike Blanchfield
> CanWest News Service
> 
> December 30, 2004
> 
> OTTAWA - Prime Minister Paul Martin should hold off making a decision about joining the U.S. missile defence shield until after he has heard from the federal Liberal party's rank-and-file at its March policy convention, say prominent and senior Liberals.
> 
> Liberal MPs and senators say the controversial defence shield is a potential election "sleeper" issue. To move ahead without adequately consulting party faithful could pose problems when these people will be needed for campaign work.
> 
> Some even suggested Mr. Martin could be punished in the leadership review vote at the March convention if he were to support the shield before rank-and-file Liberals have had their say. They recommend he take the same cautious approach with the Americans on military issues as his predecessor.
> 
> "It would be unwise to take the risks that come with a debate in the House and a decision [on missile defence] before a leadership review or before, in fact, a convention discusses it," said B.C. MP David Anderson.
> 
> "If he made a decision and it turns out that people are frustrated and feel this was not an opportunity [to have their say on missile defence] ... that would affect negatively the leadership vote."
> 
> Meanwhile, Defence Minister Bill Graham is finding himself increasingly isolated as an advocate of negotiating with the Americans on the missile-shield project.
> 
> In a year-end interview, Mr Graham made it clear he was in favour of going ahead with the negotiations even though there is no imminent threat of a missile attack on North America.
> 
> "If you said to me today, what's the threat from an offshore ballistic missile, I'd have to say I don't see that threat today because North Korea, for example, which is the obvious example, can't get anywhere near us at the moment.
> 
> "But I'm assuming that 10 years from now when North Korea might be able, at that point, this system might well be perfected to deal with it."
> 
> Mr. Graham has consistently said he favours Canada joining the missile defence project: "I've never been naive about this," he said. "I've always said it's an unproven system. The question is do you want to get in on the ground floor and be part of the development of it so that your own territory will be protected and we can get the benefits out of it.
> 
> "My position has always been clear. Canada has a long tradition of working with the United States on continental defence. I would like us to see if we could get an agreement that is satisfactory to us."
> 
> Mr. Anderson, dumped from Cabinet by Mr. Martin last year, said there is little enthusiasm in Western Canada to join the shield and noted both federal Quebec Liberals and the women's Liberal caucus -- powerful forces in the Liberal party -- are adamantly opposed. He said there may be a case for joining, but Mr. Martin and his government have failed to make it.
> 
> Quebec Liberals recently voted overwhelmingly against participating in the controversial U.S. plan. The women's caucus has put forward a motion against joining to be debated at the Liberals' March 3-6 biennial convention, the party's first policy convention in four years.
> 
> Liberal Senator and Chretien ally Terry Mercer said both groups hold powerful sway within the Liberal party. He said the government's failure to structure the debate on missile defence on its own terms has allowed opposition parties to gain a foothold on the matter and has only served to confuse Canadians about what the government is up to.
> 
> It would be wise for the leader and the Cabinet to take the pulse of the party and to hear what they have to say. It might not be too long before we're back at the polls and these are the people who are going to be knocking on doors and putting up signs and making phone calls on behalf of candidates across the country. It's important that we listen to them," warned Mr. Mercer.
> 
> Although Mr. Martin insists his government has not made a decision -- despite leaning toward joining in recent months -- he did an about-turn during an end-of-year interview with Global TV when he said he is not convinced the program even works.
> 
> © National Post 2004



The more or less generically anti-American wing of the Liberal Party of Canada is in full howl because President Bush is such a polarizing leader - in the USA and around the world.   Missile defence cannot, in Canada, be separated from President Bush - he is profoundly unpopular, almost ÃƒÂ  la Mulroney.

If Martin does, indeed, 'listen' to the Liberal Party rank-and-file missile defence is, almost certainly, down the drain.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Behind the scenes, I think we're already committed....which I would add is a very good thing.

I would however be much happier if Martin had the stones to step up and educate Canadians on WHY we should participate, rather than doing it on the sly.

What a crapweasel.....



Matthew.


----------



## jmackenzie_15

If I didnt think it was so inneffective I would support it.

I heard it only had like a 20% effectiveness at best =/ considering it costs a heap of money, it isnt worth it when that money could be better spent on other things.


----------



## 48Highlander

For the last time, CANADA WOULDN'T BE PAYING *ANYTHING* FOR IT.


----------



## jmackenzie_15

I didnt mean just Canada, I also meant the US should spend its money on something else... like more  armor for humvees =/

But I was unaware that we would pay NOTHING.I didnt realize... in that case.. maybe we can get some people some work building silos? =p


----------



## Bograt

I would like the Quebec and Women's Liberal Cacus to say "In the unlikely event of a nuclear attack from a rogue nation like Iran or North Korea, we would prefer the total annialation of a Canadian city to the participation in a missle shield program. The likely cities are Vancouver, Victoria, Kamloops, Calgary, Edmonton. The residents of these communities, we believe are willing to sacrifice themselves for our ideals."


----------



## jmackenzie_15

LOL

do they not realize that just because north korea or whomever has targeted the US, that leaves us safe from being nuked? obviously theyre completely oblivious to the capabilities of the koreans.They could aim for los angelas and hit vancouver lol... or toronto...... fools.But you're right bograt, id rather just let the yankees do it than take the chance.Hell, theyre offerring to protect us for free. But at 'the risk of canadian sovereignty'.Whatever.


----------



## Andyboy

Just a quick thought...

I think as with most issues here in Canada we are getting a miniscule idea of waht is really at play. I don't think we give enough credit to our politicians in Ottawa, while they may play it up I doubt that they are as naive and starry eyed as they pretend. This isn't an issue of weaponization of space, nor is it an issue of whether it works or not. We aren't payin for it so who igves a shit if it works or not? I think the issue is taking a side and I think the problem has more to do with Martin's inability or unwillingness to choose a direction for Canada in terms of betting on Europe or the US. There is an economic showdown coming between the European economical model and the US economical model. Take a guess which way Canada has been pointed in the last decade+. Martin is a businessman and must know that there is no winning using the European model but knows it is almost too late to pull the ship around now. He is stuck between a rock and a hard place. We have been indoctrinated to believe that the European state is ideal while the American is not, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. It will take a monumental feat of leadership or brute strength to change it, neither of which is Martin capable of.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Andyboy, a good solid post. You raise an interesting issue here:



			
				Andyboy said:
			
		

> I think the issue is taking a side and I think the problem has more to do with Martin's inability or unwillingness to choose a direction for Canada in terms of betting on Europe or the US. There is an economic showdown coming between the European economical model and the US economical model. Take a guess which way Canada has been pointed in the last decade+.



This linkage between competing economic models and missile defence is an interesting observation which merits further exploration.



			
				Andyboy said:
			
		

> Martin is a businessman and must know that there is no winning using the European model but knows it is almost too late to pull the ship around now. He is stuck between a rock and a hard place. We have been indoctrinated to believe that the European state is ideal while the American is not, evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. It will take a monumental feat of leadership or brute strength to change it, neither of which is Martin capable of.



Agreed, in part. Neither model is perfect, so i agree with you that not only is Martin stuck, so are the rest of us. I personally don't care for the more inhumane aspects of the US system which form the emerging basis of our economic existence under NAFTA. I simply cannot accept that the vulnerable should be forced to sink or swim with the rest of the population,[and I would accept a suggestion this is not the case in every aspect of US policy, but the attitude seems to dominate.] That being said, there are many Spanish and Portuguese citizens who are being forced to surrender and destroy centuries old industries in order to comply with Franco-EU demands. [vineyards for example]. US bi national treaties and NAFTA type agreements are environmentally unsustainable, and do little to encourage a positive role model for the state in that regard. Alternatively, the EU model incorporates some environmental standards which our own country can only dream of.

Under both models, states are relegated to providing mechanisms for security [both domestic and international] and economic treaty compliance, which leaves next to no room for the state to make adequate provisions for citizens who require state assistance and protection.   I believe that Europeans see missile defence as an unnecessary diversion of economic resources that could be put to more beneficial use. However,the US feels vulnerable, and perhaps a bit isolated, therefore many of her citizens view their key to a secure future through "Fortress North America." 

I think that at the very least, the US and her citizens are entitled to feel secure at home before they turn their minds to the warm fuzzies that Europe and apparently most Canadians desire. Cheers.


----------



## 48Highlander

"economic showdown"?  I doubt it.  The US has nothing to gain by beating the European system into pulp.  Both "sides" (if you can even simplify the situation that much) would profit much more from balance than they would by destroying the economic systrem of their opponents.  Ofcourse, that doesn't mean that either side won't be trying to gain the upper hand all the time...they certainly will....but I doubt the americans would be willing to let the EU disintigrate.  They'd simply be creating more future threats.  I also doubt the EU would be willing to tear apart the US, even assuming they had the capability.  I think it's much more likely that we'll see both economic models closing the gab, and assimilating parts of eachother.  Both are workable, so neither has to fail entirely.


----------



## a_majoor

The US model has a proven track record, even with the so-called "Mistakes" of the Bush administration, American GDP is growing at almost 5% per year, and unemployment has dropped to about 5%. Most European countries have half the growth and twioce the unemployment, and Canada is much closer to European GDP and unemployment figures than American.

An interesting observation; my sister now lives and works in the United States, and constantly rails against paying directly for health care. She doesn't seem to apprieciate the fact she can actually GET a family doctor, be booked into an MRI in a reasonable time, get surgury quickly etc. etc. all flow from that one fact. The low tax and regulatory environment also allowed the four partners who hired her to actually build a business from scratch in less than a year, providing all kinds of perques and getting production equipment at a speed I entirely doubt would be possible here in Ontario.

Bottom line, in economic terms, the US has "what it takes" and is pulling us along, and only the US has the economic robustness to even contemplate a multi-year, multi billion dollar project like BMD.


----------



## Andyboy

Thanks for the replies everyone. 

Whiskey,

I think the choice has already been made for us as Arthur pointed out. Canada's model (economic, social, governmental, even military) is much closer to the Europeans than to the US thanks to so many years of Liberal social policy. As for people being left behind, I understand your fears however I am not convinced that we do any better job here in Canada at helping (real help, not band aid help) than our American cousins to the South. The bottom line is that of all the shitty systems there are, capitalism seems to work the best so far and pushing closer and closer to socialism isn't going to help us in any way. Gov't spending is inherently inefficient and the more money they get (take) the more gets wasted that could have gone to better things. 

48th
The EU led by France and Germany are clearly attempting to unite the rest of Europe under the EU in an attempt to raise their own power while diminishing that of the (economic, social, military) in the world. There are several books on the subject out right now, I'll take a look for links if you are interested. I didn't mean to suggest that there is some sort of trade war looming and I'm not really sure how you got that from the term "economic showdown". Think showdown like showcase showdown, from the price is right. One person wins the other loses but isn't "beaten to a pulp" or "destroyed economically". By system I meant Capitalism (US) vs Socialism (EU). I don't think the European way of doing business will yield the results they believe it will. Less work with more gov't control plus higher taxes, and small military spending doesn't typically equal economic success.

At any rate the purpose of my post was not to debate the merits of Socialism vs.Capitalism, it was to wonder aloud as to whether this is another case of "with us or against us" with the missile defence issue one test of who is on board (the Tsunami relief effort may be another case in my opinion) and our "leaders" know it full well. I think that the World is reshaping into new spheres of influence with the US at the center of one sphere (US , Australia, Japan, S.Korea...)  and the EU forming the center of another. There may be more spheres (China may be it's own, I don't know) and I don't know where all the rest of the world falls but I'm a little disturbed that Canada seems to be choosing the EU over the US, without any public debate on the matter I might add. Luckily the Liberals have had the CBC screeching anti-US tripe for about a generation or so which should make the decision they have made obvious to anyone looking at this with objective eyes.  

All of that being said, I have no doubt that if missile defence can work, and if they choose to, the US will make it happen. Why, other than not wanting to be associated with the US and it's allies would we opt out?


----------



## a_majoor

There are a lot of potential spheres of influence. Some are voluntary, such as the "Anglosphere", some may be co-opted, like a potential Chinese led "East Asia Co Prosperity League" (Deliberate choice of name BTW),  or the Russian "Near Abroad", and some may be particularist in nature. India has the potential size and economic power to become a "sphere" unto itself once it gets organized, and the people will be part of a united culture which already feels threatened by China and attracted to certain elements of Western culture.

Since Russia _already_ has a form of BMD, China is known to have purchased elements of Russian air defense which _may_ have BMD applications, and nations like India and France have the technical ability to build rocket interceptors, the "spheres" may well be outlined by the effective range of their BMD shields.

The logic of BMD and global defense will eventually pull the hardware into space, with orbiting sensors, command and control systems and "smart pebble" interceptors forming the main body of the system(s), and acting to strike at both boost and mid course stages of weapons deployment, and passing sensor information to the ground and air based terminal phase defenses, no matter what Paul Martin might think.

What Paul Martin does need to think about is how Canada will fit in. Will we share some responsibility with the North American Shield and have some input into deployment, or will we have to accept the fact that intercepts will happen over our airspace with or without any input from us. These are the very blunt choices facing us, and you readers are free to let your MP's know. Just say I told you.


----------



## a_majoor

For those people who still think steering a kinetic energy impactor into a missile at a closing speed of 10+ Km/sec is impossible...

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/deep_impact_010502.html

Of course nations like Russia use nuclear interceptors so the intercept solutions are easier.....


----------



## Ty

a_majoor said:
			
		

> For those people who still think steering a kinetic energy impactor into a missile at a closing speed of 10+ Km/sec is impossible...
> 
> http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/deep_impact_010502.html
> 
> Of course nations like Russia use nuclear interceptors so the intercept solutions are easier.....



Not impossible, just highly improbable  

In theory, an incoming missile with known acceleration, known trajectory, known mass, and known atmospheric reaction it is possible to provide a firing solution quite readily.  The "x" factors with proposed NMD are random turbulence (so-called "wobble"), unknown atmospheric conditions, and sufficient fuel.  The project described in your link- while very challenging- doesn't deal with atmospheric or fuel problems.  This is not to say that NMD will NEVER work- just not today.  But until, at the very least, the operational parameters of the system are changed to include real-world situations (recently, this has started to happen- still not quite there), it's really just payola to defence contractors.  

I don't know why anyone would object to a system that works- especially since the US already has ICBM capabilities and is just "re-working" them for defence.  My main beef is that it's being rushed towards deployment.


----------



## McG

I don't follow this argument that we should stop because the technology does not yet work.  Even more so, arguments that the technology will never work are wrong.

If we kill the project because the technology has not worked, then the engineers stop working on the problems.  If the engineers stop working on the problems, then we stop getting closer to solutions.  If we stop getting closer to solutions, then BMD will never work.  So, all the people arguing that we have technological problems to over come are really arguing that we should continue engineering a solution.  (Maybe they should focus more on the economy of research and not the fact that research is just incomplete).

We can do a lot of impressive things with technology today.  On board control systems could automatically make changes to the path of an interceptor missile if changes were detected in the trajectory of the target missile.  sub-munition systems could,at the last fraction of a second, saturate an area that the target missile is passing through with fletches or tiny air burst grenades (reducing accuracy concerns slightly).  I don't know how the engineers are trying to make BMD work, but you can imagine it is involving cutting edge technologies that many of us may be oblivious too.


----------



## Infanteer

Look at the requirements to put human beings on the Moon.  And this was down with vacuum tubed technology.  As McG said, technological rejections of the BMD are simply inane.

"If there's a will, there's a way."


----------



## Ty

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Look at the requirements to put human beings on the Moon.   And this was down with vacuum tubed technology.   As McG said, technological rejections of the BMD are simply inane.
> 
> "If there's a will, there's a way."



To be clear, I didn't state that it will never work- just that it won't today.  Both you and McG are correct in stating that technology is constantly evolving.  However, it isn't technology that's acting as the main obstacle.  The engineers working on the project have certain project goals- the operational parameters of the system.  It's the latter that I take issue with.  Initially the system was supposed to intercept a simple (no counter-measuer) attack in one stage of flight- this simply doesn't hold true in a practical attack.  It has since evolved to include all stages of flight and some counter-measures, which I believe is a step in the right direction.  However, this should have been done from the start.

All that being said, the technological argument isn't inane- it's being realistic (and not only my opinion, but that of many people far more qualified than I am)  Processes, systems, and materials are constantly evolving and could help clear some obstacles- but this will not happen if the designers of the sytem gloss over them because they are not part of the operational requirements.  Granted, there is a certain hush-hushness about this type of work and it can be argued that everything's been thought of and we're just not in the know- which I'm willing to accept but would offer a rebuttal that the polliticians should keep it to themselves until they can show a fully operational system (similar to the stealth bomber- another project that was dubbed impossible by many)

Just mu $0.02


----------



## a_majoor

The BMD system being openly tested is the terminal defense interceptor, which is designed to do the hardest job: striking an incoming warhead as it is reentering the atmosphere.

There are lots of other parts to BMD however. The US Navy is upgrading their fleet air defense system to allow intercepts, and the "Patriot Block III" and above missiles are much more effective than during the Persian Gulf War. More futuristic systems include the Airborn Laser System, which has the potential to attack missiles during launch, or to fire up into space during the mid course phase. The logic of global defense coverage means the system will evolve into something like G-PALS (Global Protection Against Limited Strikes), with small interceptors orbiting the Earth and able to carry out engagements from the time the missile leaves the atmosphere (post boost) until the re-entry phase. Any practical system will have to offer a layered defense which can attack enemy weapons during boost, mid course and re-entry.

The United States could have a fully effective BMD system in place today if they chose, simply by substituting nuclear warheads for Kinetic Energy interceptors. For reasons of their own, they choose not to. Since nations like Russia, China, India or France have the potential need for BMD but not the technical ability to create KE interceptors, we should probably expect to see nuclear armed BMD systems appearing there in the next few decades.


----------



## 48Highlander

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Since nations like Russia, China, India or France have the potential need for BMD but not the technical ability to create KE interceptors, we should probably expect to see nuclear armed BMD systems appearing there in the next few decades.



I ran a search on google before and found pictures of Russian nuclear interceptors from the 1960's.  Can't seem to find them any more though.  But anyway, nuclear interceptors have been around for a long time.


----------



## camochick

For those interested CBC released a story today about the missile defense program and how we almost signed. 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/13/missile-documents-050113.html


----------



## McG

> *Missile shield ok'd months ago*
> Canada 'committed' to controversial pact, documents show
> Mike Blanchfield
> CanWest News Service
> Friday, January 14, 2005
> 
> The federal government told senior U.S. officials nine months ago that Canada was committed to joining the Bush administration's controversial ballistic missile shield, Defence Department documents say.
> 
> Newly declassified military documents show Paul Martin's Liberal government has been privately telling the United States it wants to join the shield, even though they have been publicly dragging their heels on making a decision on the controversial issue.
> 
> Mr. Martin faces intense pressure from some opposition critics, as well as some Cabinet members, not to join the shield, which is intended to protect North America from a ballistic missile attack, but has been widely criticized by scientists as unworkable.
> 
> Other Cabinet ministers, such as Defence Minister Bill Graham, want Canada to sign on. But Mr. Martin has postponed making a final decision until the Liberals' policy convention in March.
> 
> Prior to last year's federal election -- and less than a week before the Prime Minister's first trip to Washington to meet President George W. Bush -- government officials told the ranking U.S. State Department official on Western Hemisphere relations that Canada would support the shield.
> 
> "Canada is committed to reaching an agreement on co-operation in the ballistic missile defence of North American during the coming months," says a March 23 briefing note by the Defence Department's policy branch in preparation for a call to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noreiga.
> 
> "Canada sees its participation in BMD [ballistic missile defence] as being anchored in NORAD, which has for almost 50 years been an integral part of our partnership in the defence of North America."
> 
> Five months later, the Liberals approved an amendment to the NORAD (North American Aerospace Command) treaty to allow the joint Canada-U.S. unit to serve as the command and control centre of the shield system.
> 
> On his two-day visit to Canada six weeks ago, President Bush urged Canada to join the shield.
> 
> But Mr. Martin continues to delay a decision, saying only that he will act in Canada's interests and only when the time is right.
> 
> However, some defence documents, among hundreds of pages of heavily censored material recently made public under Access to Information, show the government has been working toward joining the system.
> 
> A Feb. 6, 2004, briefing note for an informal meeting of NATO defence ministers said: "Over the past eight months, our officials have made considerable progress on exploring possible Canadian participation in ballistic missile defence of North America.
> 
> "The government of Canada wants to continue to work closely with the U.S., as we have done for over 60 years, in the defence of the continent. BMD will build on this co-operation."
> 
> Another memo says Canada's participation in the shield would not compromise national sovereignty. "Ensuring that Canada continues to take responsibility for the defence of Canadians would be an exercise in sovereignty, not a diminishment of it," the memorandum states. "Canada and the U.S. have for generations co-operated on the joint defence of the continent to our mutual benefit. Canadian participation in the missile defence of North America would enable Canada to continue to play a meaningful role ..."
> 
> The memo says the possible financial costs to Canada were not part of the discussions, adding it is "not yet clear whether the U.S. would be interested in Canadian territory for future phases of the system."
> 
> So far, the United States has not asked to deploy the shield's systems, now comprising ground-based interceptor rockets in Alaska and California, on Canadian soil.


Source


----------



## a_majoor

Ok, Mr Martin, it is time to s**t or get off the pot over this issue. Right now all you are doing is alienating the Canadian Left and the US Administration. 

The Americans will go ahead with or without Canada, our choice is do we get a voice in the operation of the system (and watch the fireworks shore as missile intercepts occur over the Pacific); or have no voice and dodge radioactivce debris from intercepts over Canadian territiory. 

<disgruntled>Wow, what a hard choice that must be </disgruntled>


----------



## Edward Campbell

Yet a bit more fuel for the fire, from today's _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050206.wdiplo0206a/BNStory/National/

Poor PM PM, if it's not missile defence it's a purported request for Canadian troops for Iraq and complaints from his newly minted CDS and the GG about government parsimony and the welfare and safety of Canadian soldiers ... things military seem to be conspiring to make earning a majority government more and more difficult.   Any wonder so many, many Liberals don't like defence/military issues?



> Waffling on missile defence plan hurts Canada, experts say
> 
> _By BETH GORHAM
> Canadian Press_
> 
> Harriman, N.Y. â â€ It's time for Canada to stop dithering and join the U.S. missile defence plan so it can move on to issues like co-ordinating maritime defence and transborder emergencies, a major conference on Canada-U.S. relations concluded Sunday.
> 
> A majority of government officials, academics, diplomats and others from both sides of the border said the missile project has been wrongly linked to â Å“science fiction scenariosâ ? of weapons in space and that there would be ample opportunity for Canada to get out if the U.S. ever moves in that direction.
> 
> â Å“A positive Canadian decision would get the issue off the table and end the debate which has unfortunately obscured more than it has enlightened,â ? said an initial draft report from the American Assembly at Columbia University.
> 
> â Å“Even though Canada does not share the U.S. assessments of external threats to the same degree, it has no alternative but to adjust to U.S. perceptions of what menaces North America,â ? said the draft, which will see a number of revisions.
> 
> The assembly's report wasn't unanimous. A handful of high-profile Canadians, including former prime minister Joe Clark, expressed reservations about the missile defence plan at the sessions.
> 
> But a wide spectrum endorsed it after debate sessions during the four-day gathering, where there were few top-level U.S. officials and more Canadians than Americans.
> 
> The elite assembly on cross-border issues last met two decades ago, when it played a major role in pushing the concept of free trade.
> 
> This time, the gathering rejected the notion that one â Å“big ideaâ ? can heal rifts in what has become a troubled relationship exacerbated by Canada's decision to stay out of the Iraq war and the unpopularity of U.S. President George W. Bush north of the border.
> 
> â Å“It is by now evident that Canada has lost influence in Washington,â ? said the group, which recommended several smaller initiatives. Among them:
> 
> â â€ A general increase in Canada's defence budget, in part to improve its ability to get to world hotspots quickly.
> 
> â â€ More money for an overwhelmed border with too few lanes, bridges and tunnels.
> 
> â â€ A public airing of little-known U.S. plans to require biometric identification for all cross-border travellers on Jan. 1, 2008.
> 
> â â€ Closer co-operation on product regulations and a mechanism for resolving trade disputes. Those issues are expected to be addressed this spring in a so-called three amigos summit between Canada, the United States and Mexico.
> â â€ More direct contact between Canadian officials and the U.S. Congress.
> The assembly rejected the notion that values are widely diverging between the U.S. and Canada, a notion reinforced with the re-election of Mr. Bush and an outcry from people in liberal Democratic states who pronounced their similarities with Canadians.
> 
> â Å“There are more differences within the two countries than between them,â ? said the assembly, but the idea of a values chasm is hurting relations and making it harder to resolve bilateral disputes.
> 
> â Å“We are witnessing something new in the relationship â â€ the emergence on the American right of a troubling anti-Canadianism, albeit confined to strident voices in the media,â ? said the draft report.
> 
> â Å“Nonetheless, this misguided impulse pales beside the disturbing and persistent currents of anti-Americanism in Canada,â ? it said.
> 
> The missile defence issue could crush the minority government of Prime Minister Paul Martin, who faces opposition within his party and among New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois.
> 
> Rudyard Griffiths, executive director of the Dominion Institute research group in Toronto, said in an interview outside the conference sessions that he had â Å“become a little more comfortable with the idea.â ?
> 
> â Å“It's not part of a hidden agenda to tie us into Fortress America. But it was the wrong messenger at the wrong time with the right message. Americans need to understand that opposition to this has to do with U.S. foreign policy.â ?
> 
> Robert Greenhill, a visiting executive at the International Development Research Centre in Ottawa, said Canadians have been too focused on missile defence as Mr. Bush's big project without considering that there is little risk in joining.
> 
> â Å“If you're in a marriage and your partner thinks it's important, why not?â ?
> 
> Pamela Wallin, Canada's consul general in New York, said she believes most Canadians support signing on, despite polls suggesting otherwise.
> 
> â Å“Being at the table is an important way of hearing what the Americans are saying. It's a way of exercising our sovereignty.â ?
> 
> The timing of the gathering was important, said Ms. Wallin, because Canada-U.S. relations have gone off course.
> 
> â Å“For the Americans, it's all about security and we use sovereignty as our lens on the relationship. Each side doesn't understand why the other side is so obsessed.â ?


----------



## a_majoor

Quick poll: how many people on this board would be upset if the Liberals were crushed in an election?

The only downside to this is the new Conservative government would find BMD has become so toxic that they would not be able to deal with the issue during their first mandate either. We might be able to slip under the radar with exotic R&D projects, upgraded C4I systems and maybe dual purpose space based sensors to support BMD (really all we could afford to contribute anyway, IMO), but I suspect that the anti-American, anti-defense crowd would look at EVERY proposed military expenditure with a view to derailing it if there is any possibility of it being linked to BMD (Why, Canadian service members could potentially be wearing those boots in Colorado Springs!).

Damned if we do, and Damned if we dont.


----------



## Infanteer

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> Poor PM PM, if it's not missile defence it's a purported request for Canadian troops for Iraq and complaints from his newly minted CDS and the GG about government parsimony and the welfare and safety of Canadian soldiers ... things military seem to be conspiring to make earning a majority government more and more difficult.   Any wonder so many, many Liberals don't like defence/military issues?



I guess this is the "reaping of the harvest" since successive Liberal candidates have regarded the Defence portfolio as (I think the word was "cesspool" or something to that effect) an annoyance - remember the stories that stated that Bill Graham must have ****ed up to earn the demotion from Finance.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The Defence Minister may, indeed, back missile defence but, cccording to very well connected _insider_ John Ibbitson, in today's _Globe and Mail_ (see: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050210.wibbitson10/BNStory/National/ ) Paul Martin *cannot* because he will surrender Canada to Carolyn Parrish _et a_l in a couple of weeks, at the Liberal Part of Canada convention in Ottawa.



> Why Ottawa likely won't join Bush's missile plan
> 
> By JOHN IBBITSON
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> 
> The time has come to face the truth: Missile defence is dead.
> 
> Barring an unforeseen reversal, the Liberal government will almost certainly not endorse the U.S. ballistic-missile defence program.
> 
> It is simply not possible to bring a motion before the House of Commons affirming Canadian participation in BMD. Opposition within the Liberal caucus is so strong that such a motion could not pass without the solid support of the Conservatives. And Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is unwilling, and possibly unable, to guarantee that support.
> 
> At the Liberal policy conference in the first week of March, delegates will vote on a motion opposing Canadian participation in the missile shield. Those watching the convention have concluded that the motion is likely to pass.
> 
> Any attempt by Prime Minister Paul Martin to sign on to the program despite the wishes of his own party could produce a massive rupture within the Liberal Party and caucus. Instead, citing the will of the grassroots, the Prime Minister is likely to accept that Canada can offer no further support for the initiative.
> 
> Only heavy and direct lobbying from President George W. Bush when the two leaders meet at a NATO summit later this month could force the Liberals to reconsider their options. But Washington has already concluded that odds no longer favour Canadian participation. There have been no substantive talks between the two countries on this subject in the past two months. The Americans are prepared for the eventuality of Canadian officers not participating in the system's command structure, which means it will have to be removed from NORAD and given to a separate agency.
> 
> A final declaration by Mr. Martin that missile defence is dead in Canada would certainly place a strain on Canada-U.S. relations in the realm of continental security. The Canadians, at least, hope that trade issues would be unaffected, but American expectations of a new era of relations between the two countries with the arrival of Mr. Martin as Prime Minister could be permanently soured.
> 
> As many as 30 Liberal MPs â â€ mostly from Quebec and from within the women's caucus â â€ are ready to vote against any pro-missile-defence motion brought before the House. Even though the Americans are asking for mostly symbolic support â â€ there would be no significant Canadian financial contribution, and neither missiles nor radar installations would be on Canadian soil â â€ the concept of an anti-ballistic-missile defence system is, for these MPs, so objectionable in principle that they do not believe Canada should lend it legitimacy.
> 
> With the Bloc Québécois and NDP caucuses also solidly opposed, the Liberals could count on only about 100 votes, which means the fate of the motion would rest with the 99 members of the Conservative caucus.
> 
> But Mr. Harper has refused to offer his support for the Liberal motion until he sees its exact wording. As well, although opinions differ, several Tory MPs from Ontario and Atlantic Canada, representing the party's Progressive Conservative wing, may well have trouble supporting the motion.
> 
> Mr. Harper knows that voting against missile defence â â€ even though he has repeatedly supported it in principle â â€ would lead to a humiliating Liberal defeat. Endorsing the motion, on the other hand, would not only rescue Mr. Martin, his political archenemy, from a predicament, but could exacerbate the Red Tory/Reform split inside his own party.
> 
> A motion opposing Canadian participation in missile defence will be on the floor of the Liberal policy convention, which is being held March 3-6 in Ottawa. Headcounters have concluded that the motion, which has been brought forward by the party's youth wing, is favoured to pass.
> 
> At that point, Mr. Martin will have few options but to inform the Americans that Canada will not be participating in the new system's command structure.
> 
> The only hope for BMD supporters is that the party leadership will persuade the convention to amend the motion, saying the party opposes missile defence but will respect the Prime Minister's final decision. But even with such a lukewarm endorsement, Mr. Martin would still face the challenge of getting House support.
> 
> For these reasons, those within the Liberal Party who support joining missile defence, and those who oppose it, believe Canada will not sign on.



Ho-hum ... so life in perennially Liberal Canada goes on, and on, and on, as we slide, ever so gracefully, into global irrelevance ... welcome to Puerto Rico with snow and lousy health care.


----------



## CDNBlackhawk

It may not work now!, But with more research and development, it may work and it may just save NA lives one day, 
I think Canada Should support and participate in this.


----------



## Buzz

It sounded hocky from the beginning. 
A) Why do we need this again...I don't remember any ballistics slamming into N.A. from foriegn countries. 
B) Other countries will see this as a slap in the face and wonder why N.A. is stepping up defences and just not the US.
C) The only country at risk is The United States..but did they make the same offer to Mexico? (they are apart of NA, as i had the map upside down) 
D) Deja vous w/ NORAD system.  What a waste that was. (Did any Russians come flying over the North Pole with santa and his little elves to deliver presents for all the boys and girls) no didn't think so. Just developed a trade route for flying in and out farming equipement and such.
Unless they dropped a Combine out the back door that would be an interesting to see as this thing tries to and shoot it down.
E) Could this thing mistaken a Jet for a missle and ooops we just shot down a 747. mind you a 15% hit ratio isn't bad I guess. Those people should feel safe.   
F) As a taxpayer in this country as everyone else as we going to have another Deifenbacher saga? 

They've had years to improve that percentage....it's a waste of money.  Look at the patriots they had...wasn't that the same thing in 1991 as they are proposing now but on a much much larger scale.  And what did patriots do?  You would think they had ample time to buff out the rough edges in 14 years ago with technology ever so slightly changing.  

These are questions that an average person like myself would ask someone in the "know".  I'm not really for it. And i don't think millions of canadians are for it either.  But if it happens it happens and there is nothing we could do about it anyway.

-Buzz


----------



## a_majoor

This is a bad case of Deja Vu. Could the moderators merge this with the BMD thread in the Politics section? Most of these points have been raised and debated in almost exactly the same form there.


----------



## Buzz

I apologize for this.....Sorry everyone.

-Buzz


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Missile defence shield will do nothing to prevent a more likely attack by a suitcase nuke.


----------



## Edward Campbell

CFL said:
			
		

> Missile defence shield will do nothing to prevent a more likely attack by a suitcase nuke.



Agreed, but in so far as Martin was concerned the utility or even feasibility of missile defence was never an issue.   He stood with missile defence's few proponents back when Chrétien was waffling, 18 months ago.   He wanted to do many things to improve Canada/US relations â â€œ agreeing to missile defence was one of them.

Chrétien, according to the rumours I hear, had already decided to join missile defence just before he was forced out but he knew it was a divisive issue and so he decided to leave it as another political _cow pie_ ... into which Martin might step.

Martin, unerringly, tromped on it ...

Martin wants (has wanted for months and months) to shore up relations with the USA because he understand that to do so is in Canada's mid- to long term best interests; missile defence is an important _litmus test_ for the Bush White House.   It was a 'slam dunk' a year ago, just the sort of thing that a brand new PM could do to start things off on a really good foot.   Many, many Liberals were opposed but in the first flush of Martin's _new regime_ those Liberals would have gone along with whatever he wanted ... he, habitually, wanted to dither; dither he did until the blush was off the rose, etc and the Carolyn Parrish wing had seized the political _high ground_ and, thanks to further dithering on the part of our nation's _â ?leaderâ ?_, she has won the day â â€œ even after being thrown out of the party!

Martin is getting desperate â â€œ he cannot lose any more support in Ontario or Québec; most Québecers and many Ontarians oppose missile defence, ergo the Liberal Party of Canada opposes missile defence.   Canada's best, even vital interests must take their proper place, well behind the immediate interests of the Liberal Party.   Good relations with our best friend and neighbour and only important trading partner (something like 40% of Canadian jobs depend upon US exports, I think) be damned: the only thing that matters is to re-elect at Liberal government.


----------



## 48Highlander

CFL said:
			
		

> Missile defence shield will do nothing to prevent a more likely attack by a suitcase nuke.



umm...

Body armour does nothing to stop knife wounds to the groin.
Helmets only cover the top of your head.
AFV armour won't stop anti-tank mines.

You getting the picture here?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I am but I think your missing mine.  The largest threat to the US is not by a State or Country but by a group of individuals with no solide ties to anything and are more likely to unleash a suitcase bomb on wallstreet then Daffy Duck is to launch ICBM's.

Besides the Missile shiled techno is largely unproven.


----------



## a_majoor

The current owners of nules are states. Even with the able assistence of A.Q. Khan, there are some states which would like the bomb, but still don't have it. Further down the food chain, there are groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and the late, unlamented Al Qaeda which would like the bomb, but have not convinced their state sponsors to hand one over.

BMD by itself is only one part of the defense plan, and I wish everyone would get that as point one. BMD reduces the attackers options by degrading ICBM strikes, and forces either resources be diverted to strengthening the ICBM fleet, or to alternative means of delivery, which lack the immediate threat factor of an ICBM, as well as the reliability of the delivery system ("What do you mean, the container ship sank in a storm?").

A close look at the US will show activity on many fronts, including strengthening the Coast Guard, the USA Patriot Act, new administrators in charge of the CIA and so on. Lots of potential attack avenues are being forclosed, and BMD is just the roof overhead.


----------



## Brad Sallows

Regardless whether Canada chooses to join in (and I think it a lost opportunity if we do not), BMD is a game the Americans can afford to play and they are setting the stakes.  Not everyone can afford the ante; some will have to fold and others will risk bankrupting themselves in the effort to keep up.  And, whether or not the war of economic attrition is intended, there is retention of technology overmatch to consider.


----------



## George Wallace

I suppose Canada could become involved with the Air Portable/Mounted systems.  That way we would be in on the research and have an excuse to purchase aircraft for the Air Force.  Granted they would be dedicated to NORAD, not Air Transport Command.  They may bring some Esprit de Corps to the Air Force and help their recruiting problems for pilots.  We should have more planes in the air.

GW


----------



## a_majoor

A far better investment would be space born sensors and the C4I support network, which would also support CF units at home and abroad. If possible, the next step would be to arm Navy vessels with an ABM version of the "Standard" missile (already part of the Aegis system), which would have far fewer political consequences, as well as being militarily more flexible.

*People need to realize that ABM is actually easy,* if you are willing to take the quick and dirty approach: put a nuclear warhead on your interceptor. India could establish an ABM shield in a few years (constrained only by the amount of resources available to build the missiles and nuclear warheads), as could France. Russia already has a nuclear ABM shield, with a non nuclear second tier, and China may also have the rudiments of such a system.

Hiding our heads in the sand and sprinkling pixie dist around the UN will not make these facts go away, if we are going to go, then go. If not, come out and say so, say why and enumerate the potential costs we are willing to incur to do so.


----------



## George Wallace

I was thinking of the Airborne Laser systems that they are testing.  A great research project.  Requires Aircraft, which are a little cheaper than rockets and satellites.  Would give us a little bit higher profile.

GW


----------



## a_majoor

ABL is a great concept, and I will be very interested to see how it works. Given the potential, I can see a lot of R&D heading this way.

In theory this is a multi tier system; if you are in theater, you can get a shot at missiles during launch, during mid-course, the plane turns the laser mirror towards space and fires at the warheads or "busses", and planes over the homeland can attempt terminal intercepts. When you are not busy with missiles, in theory you have a wonderful platform for zapping air and ground targets.

You can picture how this would fit into the bigger picture once the bugs are worked out; warships and laser armed planes are dispatched to the crisis area to prepare for boost phase intercepts; while a second wave of aircraft stand by in Hawaii prepared to scramble for mid course intercepts. At home, the rocket interceptors are backstopped by another wave of laser armed aircraft for terminal intercept.

Fully effective ABM defense will still require a layer of orbiting interceptors ("Smart pebbles") to thicken the mid course intercept layer.


----------



## Edward Campbell

This is interesting: http://nouvelles.gc.ca/cfmx/CCP/view/en/index.cfm?articleid=127259&

Robert Wright was appointed as National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister and Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet in April of 2003.

There are rumours that he is wearing the blame for the fact that George W. Bush did not sing from the Team Martin songbook when he visited Canada in December, especially when missile defence (unexpectedly) popped up.   He is also, according to the same rumours, blamed for the Charkaoui fiasco; many prominent Québec Liberals, including Alexandre â Å“Saschaâ ? Trudeau and Warran Allmand have lined up with Canadian celebrities, etc, to support and post bail for Charkaoui, defying Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan and Mr. Wright. Finally, Alex Himmelfarb, Clerk of the Privy Council and head of the Canadian public service and, arguably, the most powerman man in Ottawa, including Paul Martin, is rumoured  to be uncomfortable with the entire _national security_ apparatus â â€œ he is a leading light in the _leftish_/human rights community: a strong supporter of minority rights with a well shaped distrust of the military/national security/police forces.

Martin is facing a Liberal Party convention which will, very likely, vote to reject missile defence â â€œ there is near total opposition to missile defence (and a whole host of other military/security issues) in Québec, almost all of Québec, the Greater Toronto Area and the Greater Vancouver/urban British Columbia.   The Liberals understand that they cannot win without making substantial gains in Québec and holding on to everything they have in Ontario and BC; they also understand that they can be toppled if they start to lose seats in the GTA and BC to the NDP or Greens.   They have to shift left at their convention or risk losing power â â€œ and nothing, nothing at all, including Canada itself, matters more to Liberals than power.

There is much more than just missile defence at risk: everything from smart (open to/from the US) borders to immigration/refugee screening reform were on Mr. Wright's plate: all these things matter to the Americans and to the Liberal Party of Canada and they (the US and the Libs) are facing in opposite directions.


----------



## a_majoor

What a sad state of affairs that after serving the Crown for over 20 years, I must seriously contemplate using family connections to get the "Green Card" and move my family to the United States to ensure our saftey,  educational and economic opportunities.

Should a major terrorist event occur in Canada, or an incoming missile be shot down over Canadian territory with the resultant loss of life and property, the only response is to wish the entire weak, self serving Canadian "elites" who brought such catastrophies on our nation to *rot in h**l*.


----------



## Kurhaus

I am in agreement with many others who have the same opinion.  I don't believe the threat is from missiles slamming into North America from rival nations or rogue states.  The terrorist suitcase nuke or bio bomb is the real threat now-a-days.  

What do you think, Bruce?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Honestly,......... I think your pouting........


----------



## rw4th

This is going be way off topic, so mods feel free to branch it. 



> The terrorist suitcase nuke or bio bomb is the real threat now-a-days



Both of those threats are actually very improbable. Now, instead of repeating what has been said in other places, I will link to discussions and articles posted on another board, in this case the Lightfighter discussion board (I'm not sure what the policy for linking to other boards is here, so if I'm breaking any rules please let me know). 

For a discussion of the â Å“suitcase nukeâ ? threat, try reading this thread http://lightfighter.net/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/9776090573/m/506107947:

For the Bio/nerve/chemical weapon idea, I am quoting an article this from this thread  http://lightfighter.net/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/9776090573/m/950101018. The original article requires you to subscribe to the service so I can't link to it.



> Al Qaeda and the Threat of Chemical and Biological Weapons
> Dec 03, 2004 2009 GMT
> 
> A pamphlet published on the CIA's Web site says al Qaeda documents captured in Afghanistan indicate that the network possesses crude procedures for producing VX nerve agent, sarin and mustard gas. In light of this information, the mainstream media recently have focused on the possibility that al Qaeda will use chemical and/or biological weapons (CBWs) against the United States and U.S. interests abroad.
> 
> The American public has been besieged with warnings about al Qaeda and its CBW program since shortly after the United States launched a 1998 cruise missile attack against Sudan's Shifa pharmaceutical factory, which Washington said was a terrorist-related facility. Stratfor also has written about the danger posed by terrorists using chemical or biological weapons on more than one occasion. Although these warnings are not without foundation, Stratfor believes al Qaeda is neither capable of producing mass quantities of deadly agents nor does it have the means to effectively dispense them.
> 
> We know from the 2001 court testimony of Ahmed Ressam -- the Algerian national who plotted to blow up Los Angeles International Airport -- that al Qaeda members conducted experiments using cyanide and other toxins to kill dogs at the Deronta training camp in Afghanistan. Videos recovered by U.S. troops after the invasion of Afghanistan supported this testimony and, as noted by the CIA, seized al Qaeda training manuals have included recipes for making biological toxins and chemical agents. Recipes for producing toxins such as ricin are also readily available on the Internet.
> 
> The information about al Qaeda's experiments with chemical weapons should come as no surprise. In an interview aired on ABC News in December 1998, Osama bin Laden said, "If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then this is an obligation I carried out, and I thank God for enabling me to do so."
> 
> The evidence is clear: al Qaeda does possess the capability to make and use crude chemical and biological weapons. However, despite the fear that these substances engender, they often are quite ineffective as weapons. An examination of Japanese apocalyptic cult Aum Shinrikyo's CBW program provides some important insight into these weapons and the cost and limitations of such systems.
> 
> According to testimony in the trials of Aum Shinrikyo leaders, the group conducted 17 known CBW attacks or attempted attacks between 1990 and 1995, 10 of them using chemical agents (four with sarin, four with VX, one with phosgene and one with sodium cyanide), and seven using biological agents (four with anthrax and three with botulinum toxin). The Japanese government further suspects Aum Shinrikyo in another 13 attacks that remain unsolved. The group also reportedly killed several dissident members using VX nerve agent.
> 
> Included among Aum Shinrikyo's attacks were several large-scale operations. For example, in April of 1990, the group used a fleet of three trucks equipped with aerosol sprayers to release liquid botulinum toxin on the Imperial Palace, the Diet and the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, and two U.S. naval bases and the airport in Narita.
> 
> Between June and August of 1993, the group sprayed thousands of gallons of liquid anthrax in Tokyo. It used sprayers mounted on the roof of their headquarters on two occasions, and it also conducted two attacks with sprayer trucks, one against the Diet and the other against the Imperial Palace and the Tokyo Tower.
> 
> In June of 1994, Aum Shinrikyo used a van equipped with a sarin dispenser to attempt to kill three judges hearing a case against the group. The judges, who all lived in the same dormitory, survived the attack when the wind blew the sarin away from the building, but seven people in the neighborhood were killed.
> 
> Aum Shinrikyo's most successful attack was in March 1995, when members of the group punctured 11 sarin-filled plastic bags on five different subway trains, killing 12 people.
> 
> Aum Shinrikyo's team of highly trained scientists worked under ideal conditions in a first-world country with a virtually unlimited budget. The team worked in large, modern facilities to produce substantial quantities of chemical and biological weapons. Despite the millions of dollars the group spent on its CBW program, however, it still faced problems in creating virulent biological agents, and it also found it difficult to dispense those agents in an effective manner. Because of these problems, the militants succeeded in killing only a handful of people, and they did not cause the global Armageddon they endeavored to create.
> 
> Aum Shinrikyo's example shows us that creating and dispensing chemical and biological agents effectively on a large scale simply is not as easy as some would have us believe.
> 
> The March train bombings in Madrid provide an interesting comparison to the 1995 subway attacks. In many ways, the attacks were similar: both groups placed multiple devices in the commuter train system and intended to create maximum casualties. However, the conventional improvised explosive device used in Madrid is estimated to have cost only $10,000 to manufacture --only a small fraction of what it cost Aum Shinrikyo to develop its CBW program. Yet, despite the great disparity in cost, the Tokyo subway attack killed 12, and the Madrid bombings killed 191.
> 
> Al Qaeda has a history of attempting to commit spectacular terrorist attacks. Sometimes they have succeeded. As Stratfor has argued, al Qaeda is under tremendous pressure to commit another attack -- and a spectacular one at that. As the Aum Shinrikyo and the post-Sept. 11 anthrax-letter cases in the United States proved, chemical and biological weapons do cause a lot of panic, but when employed in limited quantities they will not create the number of casualties that al Qaeda is seeking.
> 
> Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States and its allies have actively pursued al Qaeda. The network has had millions of dollars of its assets seized in a number of countries, and it no longer has the safe haven of Afghanistan from which to operate. In other words, is in a very different place organizationally than was Aum Shinrikyo during the 1990s. Al Qaeda cannot easily build large modern factories capable of producing thousands of gallons of agents or toxins. It certainly can create small quantities of these compounds, but not enough to wreak the kind of damage it desires. Of course, we are discussing al Qaeda prime, and not the larger jihadist universe. Independent cells and lone wolves will almost certainly attempt to brew some of the recipes in the al Qaeda cookbook.
> 
> Stratfor believes that the al Qaeda network intends to conduct another terrorist spectacular -- and will do so if and when it can. We also believe that it is far more likely to utilize conventional explosives -- with or without a radiological kicker -- than the VX, sarin and mustard gas mentioned in the CIA pamphlet.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Things that make you go hmmmm, indeed ... from today's _Globe and Mail_ web site at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050222.wmiss0222_3/BNStory/National/


> Canada 'already part' of missile defence: McKenna
> 
> By OLIVER MOORE
> Tuesday, February 22, 2005 Updated at 4:05 PM EST
> Globe and Mail Update
> 
> The next ambassador to the United States raised the stakes in the debate over missile defence program by saying Tuesday that Canada is already a part of the controversial program.
> 
> Frank McKenna said that Canadian participation is such that he does not know what more could be asked by the United States, an argument that could remove the need for the minority Liberals to make a contentious decision on ballistic missile defence (BMD).
> 
> â Å“We're a part of it now,â ? he said, citing an amendment to NORAD, a continental defence pact, that has given the joint command responsibility for watching for incoming missiles.
> 
> â Å“There's no doubt, in looking back," he said, "that the NORAD amendment has given, has created part â â€œ in fact a great deal â â€œ of what the United States means in terms of being able to get the input for defensive weaponry.â ?
> 
> The Liberal caucus is split on participation in the thus-far unsuccessful program, and the government has not officially made up its mind whether to sign on.
> 
> Defence Minister Bill Graham insisted later Tuesday that nothing has changed in the federal position, leaving opposition parties to jump on the apparent disparity between the two men's statements.
> 
> â Å“Last summer, Canada agreed to NORAD's monitoring of incoming missiles,â ? deputy Conservative Leader Peter MacKay said.
> 
> â Å“Last August, this minister said that decision does not affect in any way or determine the ultimate decision of whether Canada will participate in missile defence. Mr. McKenna's statements today clearly contradict that position. ... Will the Parliament of Canada have a full debate with all the facts on missile defence, or is Canada's position already a done deal?
> 
> Mr. Graham insisted that no decision had been reached and that any debate would address the benefit to Canada.
> 
> In response to another round of Opposition attacks, he recalled previous Tory support for missile defence and queried why the party had changed its tune. Despite hoots from the opposition benches, he then insisted that his own party had not altered its position.
> 
> â Å“What the ambassador said today is we're helping with NORAD, which is what we've always done and which every member of the house knows,â ? Mr. Graham said. â Å“The Prime Minister has been clear, all of us have been very clear on it.â ?
> 
> The Conservative Party has traditionally supported the missile-defence program, while the New Democrats and Bloc Québécois are opposed.
> 
> The Grits have consistently denied that they have committed Canada to the program, but Mr. McKenna, speaking to reporters after appearing at the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, said bluntly that recent changes to NORAD mean that the country is already involved.
> 
> Mr. Graham said in the House that the NORAD amendment was a logical thing to do to â Å“helpâ ? the United States, but that further participation in BMD will come only after an all-party debate.
> 
> Mr. McKenna also questioned what more the United States could want, a reference to the public demand last year by U.S. President George W. Bush that Canada get off the fence and join the program.
> 
> â Å“We're part of it now and the question is what more do we need,â ? he asked.
> 
> The debate over missile defence has split both politicians and voters.
> 
> It has left the government weighing the need to maintain good relations with the United States â â€œ Canada's biggest trading partner and defence guarantor â â€œ against the counter-argument that missile defence is unworkable, prohibitively expensive and will lead to an arms race.
> 
> Development of the missile-defence program has been plagued with failures, the latest coming last week when an interceptor missile did not launch as expected. It was the second such failure in months.
> 
> Critics say that the program can only pass tests that have been designed to succeed while proponents counter that any complex technology will inevitably fail many times before it succeeds.



Sounds like McKenna stayed awake for his briefings in _Festung Pearson_ (DFAIT's bunker like HQ) and he has contradicted Martin, Graham and Pettigrew ... _Oh what a tangled web we weave ..._ and so on.

Beyond that, I think we need to see _Canada and Missile Defence_ from three distinct US perspectives:

1.	The Pentagon has 99.9% of what it _*wants*_ and *needs* from Canada through the updated/amended, renewed NORAD agreement.   As far as DoD is concerned, Canada is *IN*, already ... no problems, just as McKenna said;

2.	The State Department has most of what it wants and, maybe a third of what it needs.   Canada is IN, by any sensible _operational_ calculation but State cannot wave an agreement, signed by Canada, in the faces of skeptics; but

3.	The White House doesn't really need much of anything from Canada â â€œ we don't count for much down there, but it *wants* more, much more: a complete repudiation of the Chrétien policies â â€œ almost all of them â â€œ towards US security.   President Bush was offended â â€œ as a person and, especially, as the President of the United States â â€œ by the comments Chrétien made and also those which he excused or for which he (later) apologized; Bush is determined that Canada will repudiate those comments or pay ... and pay, and pay.

McKenna's remarks will smooth his way in Washington â â€œ even if he has to go on every talk show in Canada and says _â Å“I was misinterpreted.â ?_   The Americans will understand that *he* understands and that he too wants to get over the Chrétien era.


----------



## Bert

As mentioned in several posts from the past, NORAD must evolve.  Advances in military
hardware (air, land, sea, space), communications and information, tactics, and intelligence 
gathering by friendies and non-friendlies from a technical point of view forces NORAD to 
evolve and this includes the concept within "BMD".  The state of the world and possible
threats always changes.

The difference in perception between "BMD" and the challenges NORAD may be asked to
defend against becomes sticky in politics.  NORAD is a military organsization with a 
idea of "theres a multiude of possible threats, lets deal with it".  The politics of the situation 
may say "well, lets pick and choose what threats we wish to deal with" given the financial 
focus.  "BMD" falls into the crossfire of public opinion, politics, and practical/technical 
employment of continental defense.  

Though NORAD is a partnership, the US has approximately 10X Canada's population, provides
a vast majority of the force, and has it own unique point of view in defense.  It will get 
interesting as the debate rolls into maintstream public discussion.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The latest, from today's _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050222.wmiss0223/BNStory/National/ confirms what John Ibbitson suggested (see my contribution, above  « Reply #168 on: February 10, 2005, 08:33:41  ») and, I think, the 'why' of it: Martin cannot 'lead' his party on this issue - it will push him into a corner which is, for him, both uncomfortable and, maybe, dangerous.



> PM set to reject missile defence
> 
> By MICHAEL DEN TANDT AND DANIEL LEBLANC
> Wednesday, February 23, 2005 Updated at 1:21 AM EST
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> 
> Ottawa â â€ The federal government will announce this week that it will not participate in U.S. President George W. Bush's controversial planned missile defence shield, sources say.
> 
> Prime Minister Paul Martin will state Canada's position in the House of Commons tomorrow or Friday, the sources said last night.
> 
> "The PM will make the announcement in the coming days," said a senior government official who is familiar with the issue.
> 
> An official in Mr. Martin's office said the government would neither confirm nor deny that a final decision on the program is imminent.
> 
> "We'll announce when we have an announcement to make, and until that time there's no comment," the PMO official said.
> 
> In recent days, a number of senior government sources have suggested that Ottawa believes it is impossible to sign on to the plan because of its deep unpopularity.
> 
> The United States was told of Canada's plans at a NATO summit in Brussels attended by Mr. Martin and Mr. Bush, and the news was also conveyed yesterday through diplomats in Ottawa and Washington, the Canadian Press reported.
> 
> "[The Americans] were told we will not participate," the news agency quoted a federal official as saying. "It is a firm 'no.' I am not sure it is an indefinite 'no.' "
> 
> The news followed a dramatic day in which the issue dominated debate in the House of Commons after Canada's incoming ambassador to the United States, Frank McKenna, said Canada is already effectively a part of the ballistic missile defence system because of a seven-month-old expansion of information-sharing under NORAD.
> 
> After repeatedly declining in a hearing of the Commons foreign affairs committee to state whether he believes Canada should join the missile defence project, Mr. McKenna suggested to reporters that a formal deal may have become largely symbolic.
> 
> "We're part of it now," the former New Brunswick premier said.



CTV News (also owned by _Bell Globalmedia_ so same source?) reported the same thing last night.

Paul Martin has demonstrated sub-standard strategic, political and organizational leadership/management skills in his handling this issue.   It was an easy, no-brainer a mere 15 months ago, then he let it get away from him and he has lost because, we are told, here, by a fairly well connected rumour mill, that he personally, believes â â€œ for several good reasons â â€œ that Canada should, indeed must participate,   This is _dithering_ which will come home to haunt him, and us.

At the very least George W. Bush will scupper Martin's L20 initiative ... the centre-piece of his foreign policy review ... which will now be delayed even further while Jennifer Welch _et al_ do another revision.


----------



## Kurhaus

BMD will go forward regardless of wether Canada jumps on board or not.  But it will be interesting to see the political fallout if the PM unconditionally rejects the program.  I believe that the PM will try to find a "happy medium" to satisfy all parties involved.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Kurhaus is right about the fact that it will go ahead, on board or not, so no matter what side of this debate you are on [ I admit I'm for it] why not at least try and grab some of the economical benefits?
If the US wishes to spend  a lot of money, I can't think of anywhere better than here.


----------



## Edward Campbell

John Ibbitson, in today's _Globe and Mail_   (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050223.wibbitson23/BNStory/National/ ) does not have it quite right, especially re: the highlighted portion, below. 



> Rockets, red glares
> 
> By JOHN IBBITSON
> Wednesday, February 23, 2005 Updated at 1:47 AM EST
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> 
> How badly did Frank McKenna misspeak? So badly that he utterly twisted the Liberal government's message just days before it may be ready finally to pull the plug on missile defence.
> 
> As previously reported, acceptance has been growing within the federal government in recent weeks that Canada will not be able to sign on to a missile defence agreement.
> 
> Prime Minister Paul Martin believes in the program, on the simple grounds that if the Americans are firing rockets into our air space in an attempt to destroy an incoming missile, Canada should be in on the decision. Defence Minister Bill Graham thinks the same thing.
> 
> But within the women's and Quebec caucuses of the Liberal Party, opposition to missile defence is strong. Opponents see it as a dangerous escalation of the arms race. Equally, it speaks to the latent strain of anti-Americanism, or at least anti-Republican Americanism, within the Liberal Party.
> 
> With caucus divided, and the grass roots of the party set to vote against missile defence at next week's policy conference, the only question was when would be the best â â€ or least worst â â€ time to pull the plug. There is word that announcement could come as soon as the end of this week.
> 
> Into this painful situation lumbered Frank McKenna, former premier of New Brunswick and Canada's new ambassador-designate to the United States.
> 
> After testifying to the House foreign affairs committee, Mr. McKenna seemed to suggest that an agreement that Canada signed last August to have NORAD monitor incoming missiles was tantamount to signing on to the whole program.
> 
> This is nonsense.
> 
> The Americans wanted an open declaration that Canada supports missile defence as a joint effort. They wanted some form of Canadian participation, not only in the NORAD command structure, but in the actual decision making. In effect, they wanted a Canadian in the room, cheering them on, if they had to try to shoot down a missile.
> 
> Some observers on the Hill suspected that Mr. McKenna's remarks were deliberate â â€ part of a Machiavellian scheme to make it appear that Canada had lived up to Mr. Martin's earlier pledge to sign on to missile defence, even as the government pulled the plug on ratification. It is a theory worthy of Mackenzie King in its elegance and duplicity.
> 
> *However, there is reliable word that the truth is more prosaic. Mr. McKenna was either badly briefed or failed to master the briefing. Under the glare of the cameras, he placed greater emphasis on the NORAD agreement than he should have.*
> 
> Nothing is so attractive as a retired politician, which is why many observers are touting Mr. McKenna as a possible successor to Paul Martin. But retired politicians are often rusty when they return to public life. We all remember John Turner, and Jean Chrétien was no great shakes during his early days as an opposition leader.
> 
> Besides, this government isn't quite that devious (or maybe quite that smart) for such elaborate conspiracy theories.
> 
> The political cost of failing to support the United States on its missile defence program is bound to be high. For one thing, announcing it this week, to head off the revolt at the policy convention, would draw attention from today's budget, which is designed to be the Martin government's principal weapon to win the next election.
> 
> And the administration of President George W. Bush will know that Mr. Martin's word is not as good as his signature, and that he can be beaten into submission by the very elements in his own party most hostile to the U.S. administration.
> 
> The decision on missile defence will undermine everything that the Martin government has done to repair the strains in the Canada-U.S. relationship created over the past decade.
> 
> In the circumstances, a few flubs by the incoming ambassador to the United States are the least of this government's problems.



I believe that Mr. McKenna was well briefed, very, very well briefed â â€œ better briefed than are Paul Martin, Pierre Pettigrew and Bill Graham.     Mr. McKenna â â€œ like John Ibbiston â â€œ may have forgotten that he (McKenna) is now an _official_, a very, very senior official, and no longer a politician.   He was given the briefings which only the most senior officials get and he parroted some of the key points back.   Most of the most senior officials do not do that; they _waffle_ at committee hearings, lots and lots of words, little information ... they hold about 90% of the elected politicians, in all parties, in extreme contempt.

Basically, the Americans have all they need from Canada and they are, _operationally_ content â â€œ not happy, just content.   _Some_ Americans, most notably in the White House, do not have all they want from us and they will, without fail, make Paul Martin and Canada pay for that ...   Ibbitson is quite right when he says: _â ? The political cost of failing to support the United States on its missile defence program is bound to be high.â ?_ and _â ?... the administration of President George W. Bush will know that Mr. Martin's word is not as good as his signature, and that he can be beaten into submission by the very elements in his own party most hostile to the U.S. administration.

The decision on missile defence will undermine everything that the Martin government has done to repair the strains in the Canada-U.S. relationship created over the past decade.â ?_

Paul Martin is a failure as Prime Minister of Canada ... he, very clearly, cannot lead a two man pee parade at a convoy halt.


----------



## Sub_Guy

http://www.americanfreepress.net/03_17_03/North_Korean_Missile_/north_korean_missile_.html

Makes you think a little............


----------



## Edward Campbell

From the specific missile defence angle, Minister Goodale tabled a very, very smart budget.

This budget addresses the USA's most significant, long standing issue: Canada's disgracefully inadequate defence expenditures.   The money _may_ never materialize, much less be well (efficiently/effectively) spent, but Americans, beginning with Ambassador Paul Cellucci, must welcome, even applaud this budget, even as they may have to moan about Canada, for now at least, staying out of the missile defence programme, _per se_.

Rob Peter and pay Paul ...


----------



## Edward Campbell

You will not be surprised to know that I agree with Paul Koring's analysis in today's _Globe and Mail_ at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050224/MISSANALYSIS24/TPNational



> All that's off table is chance to have finger on trigger
> 
> By PAUL KORING
> Thursday, February 24, 2005 - Page A4
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The dithering, not the decision, may cause the most lasting damage.
> 
> Paul Martin's long-delayed decision to opt out of a continental missile defence shield won't leave Vancouver any more vulnerable to a nuclear-tipped missile from North Korea. The likely fallout will be in Washington, where the Prime Minister's efforts to repair relations and portray himself as a more reliable friend and partner than his predecessor, Jean Chrétien, just suffered a self-inflicted direct hit.
> 
> "Americans who watch Canada had higher hopes for Martin," said David Biette, director of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center. "Instead, he has really relegated Canada to an irrelevant position."
> 
> Official American reaction was muted, with the Bush administration stressing that Canada-U.S. defence co-operation remains strong and that the biggest potential stumbling block on missile defence had been sorted out last summer.
> 
> But Canada's position looks opportunistic, playing to domestic sentiment rather than principled opposition.
> 
> For a year, Mr. Martin has done nothing to make the case for missile defence and by allowing its opponents to dominate the debate he allowed the issue to grow, say political and defence analysts in Washington.
> 
> "Martin hasn't been able to control the agenda," Mr. Biette said. "He said he wanted better relations [with Washington] but he is just unreliable in a different way." While "Chrétien just turned his back" to the Bush administration, Mr. Martin has delayed and lost control of his choices, he said.
> 
> Dwight Mason, a retired U.S. diplomat and former co-chairman of the Canada-U.S. Permanent Joint Board of Defence, said "the problem is that delay has become very expensive politically in Canada because it makes the issue bigger than it otherwise might be."
> 
> At first glance, Mr. Martin's strategy might seem to offer a double win for Canadians. They remain protected against the remote (but catastrophic) possibility that Pyongyang's unpredictable regime might launch one of its handful of nuclear warheads across the Pacific. But they can also maintain the posture that they are unsullied by the militarization of space.
> 
> Except that Canada is up to its neck -- by choice -- in the shield's key detection, tracking and identification systems, the networks of radar that are watched every second of every day by joint North American Aerospace Defence Command teams of military personnel in Cheyenne Mountain, Colo. Last summer, the Martin government explicitly agreed to use NORAD, complete with its Canadian component, as the front half of continental missile defence.
> 
> Or, as Canada's next ambassador to Washington, Frank McKenna, put it quite accurately: "We're part of it now."
> 
> With the NORAD problem solved, there's no need to try to pry the Canadians out of the mountain or keep them away from missile defence data processing so, in Mr. McKenna's words, Ottawa "has already given a great deal of what the United States needs."
> 
> That doesn't sound like poking Uncle Sam in the eye, which may be good politics for a minority government prime minister. But if American outrage was hoped for, it wasn't evident yesterday. Rather, there was a resigned sense that Canada is a sometimes-reliable ally.
> 
> All Mr. Martin has opted out of, really, is joint responsibility for pushing the firing button. The interceptor missiles would still rise from their silos in Alaska and California to kill incoming warheads, whether they are bound for Vancouver or Seattle.
> 
> In practical terms, the officer peering at the radar screen may be a Canadian. The officer who determines that the incoming blip is a warhead may be a Canadian. But the decision to fire an interceptor would always be made by an American.
> 
> Canada won't have it own interceptors or radars, but then none were ever planned.
> Nor can Canada claim that it has opted out of the concept of missile defence, so long as its military personnel are watching for and tracking that possible threat.
> 
> As for taking a stand against the "militarization" of space: The current (and still not operational) missile defence system uses ground-based missiles. The satellites that form part of the detection and targeting system aren't weapons, although they are part of a weapons system. And so are the satellites that guide bombs dropped from Canadian warplanes.



Paul Martin failed, he screwed the pooch, etc ... he is a lousy leader.   His stupidity and timidity will do damage to his country.

The same edition of the same paper has it right, on the editorial page, at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050224/EMISSILE24/TPComment

It says, in part:



> On the issue of ballistic missile defence, as on so many others, Paul Martin has shown exceptionally poor leadership.
> 
> ...
> 
> A stronger prime minister would have faced down these critics. He would have said to his caucus: Look, you may not like the idea of joining a U.S. defence program, but our friendship with the Americans is crucial and they are not asking very much here. I'm signing us up, so get on board.
> 
> A stronger prime minister would have gone to the country to argue his case. He would have pointed out that Washington was not asking Canada to bear any of the cost of missile defence. He would have pointed out that no anti-missile weapons would be based on Canadian soil. He would have pointed out that under the North American Aerospace Defence Command, Canada had always worked with the Americans to defend our continent from foreign threats, including missile attack. He would have pointed out that joining the system would give us the right to influence the program's development rather than sit passively on the sidelines.
> 
> A stronger prime minister would have done all these things. This is not a strong prime minister. Canada will pay the price.


----------



## S McKee

Ahhh the predictable Mr Dithers strikes again! He doesn't make decisions based on what's good for the country in the long run.  He makes decisions based on short term political expediency. This shows where his true loyalty lies.  It's not with Canada but with the liberal party and their never ending quest to remain in power. This man's short-sightedness is truly disturbing.


----------



## Kirkhill

> This shows where his true loyalty lies.  It's not with Canada but with the liberal party and their never ending quest to remain in power. This man's short-sightedness is truly disturbing.



No Liberal fan I, but I think a good chunk of Liberals would argue his commitment to the Party.  From where I sit his fixation was on getting the job his Dad was denied - now that he has got it he is acting much like the proverbial dog that caught the car.  He doesn't know what to do with it.....


----------



## S McKee

Your right, I think that was the gist of the article in the Economist.


----------



## tomahawk6

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-683033.php

This isnt a good decision. By participating Canada gets a benefit without cost. Now if there is an attack but it is determined that the warhead will impact in Canada what will NORAD do, not fire on the inbound missile ? Looks more like a political decision rather than military.


----------



## tomahawk6

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-683033.php

I posted this originally in the military news section, so I posted the link here. This isnt a good decision by Mr Martin, but Canada will still be protected by the system  irregardless.


----------



## Redneck052

Canada has declined the offer to be apart of the US missle defence plan.  As a nation protecting their boarders, the US extend their airspace 200 miles past.  It is not that bad doing that over either ocean, but now the US is forced to protect their northern aiespace too.  So that would mean that they could fire at a target 200 miles in to Canada.

What a great idea!

Food for thought.


----------



## Kirkhill

Much as I hate to say this Tomahawk - you can't afford NOT to defend us.  Unfortunately that puts us in a particularly nice position when it comes to debating sovereignty and deciding what and who enters our territory.


----------



## big bad john

Take a look around, there is already a thread going on this subject.


----------



## Redneck052

Although this has been touched on already, it is always good to see a view from a different light.


----------



## big bad john

We try to keep the number of threads on the same subject down.  You can express your views there.


----------



## tomahawk6

I wonder what would happen if the US shut down NORAD ? This way Canada maintains complete control of her air space. NORAD's mission could be transferred to the Space Command. The threat to US air space is primarily from ICBM/IRBM's which can be handled by interceptors.


----------



## pbi

tomahawk6: You're right: this was a purely political decision, apparently based on domestic opinion concerns, particularly in Quebec (crucial to winning a Federal election ) It isn't completely clear what the Govt's actual position is: the minority Martin govt has made noises out of both sides of its face about missile defence. Unfortunately, they are caught between two icebergs: a very strong suspicion and dislike of missile defence amongst much of the the Canadian public on the one hand, and what must be considerable US political pressure (both overt and otherwise) on the other. The present govt is cautiously trying to mend fences with the US (gradual increase to Afghanistan committent 2005-2006, offer to support Iraqi training, increase to defence budget, etc,) but it can only go so far on a contentious issue like missile defence. Our govt probably also notes that there does not currently seem to be unanimity in the US (even in the defence community IIRC) about the feasibility and value of the missile defence program. Further complicating the situation is the ever-present US ability to cause severe economic dislocation in Canada (far more than we could cause in return...) as a means of "punishing" us if we do not support the US on this or other issues. This may not seem realistic or likely to you, but perception is reality and it worries many of us, including the govt. So, any decision on this will not be easy.

As far as I can make out, the success of the concept in no way depends on direct Canadian participation: all systems will be based in the US and funded unilaterally by your government. Our support would have been mainly moral and political: I would be surprised to hear that the US was planning to rely on us for anything critical. Thus, I doubt that the future of missile defence is actually at risk, and as we do not intend to leave NORAD, in the long run I don't see much changing in terms of uor contribution to the aerospace defence of North America.

Cheers


----------



## FastEddy

pbi said:
			
		

> tomahawk6: You're right: this was a purely political decision, apparently based on domestic opinion concerns, particularly in Quebec (crucial to winning a Federal election ) It isn't completely clear what the Govt's actual
> position is.




Once again your quote has hit the nail right in the head.

But it raises an uneasy feeling, just how many refusals and how much sniping the Americans will take before they BITE BACK.

I've usually found, you can piss people off only up to a certain point, then watchout. Do you think this applies to Governments ?.






.


----------



## Franko

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-683033.php
> 
> Looks more like a political decision rather than military.



You hit the nail on the head on this one.

IIRC....we are the ONLY country on the Al-quaida hit list that hasn't been struck yet. 

I'd hate to say it but perhapse we need a good wake up call....to get the granola eaters to realise what kind of a world it really is out there. I watched CTV News Net and everyone they interviewed said it was a good call by the PM....

Give your head a shake people!

Regards


----------



## DBA

The yes/no/maybe flipflop and waiting till the 11th hour to make a decision is not making us any friends or earning us any respect. Stalling till you can make what you consider the best choice politically doesn't come across too well.


----------



## a_majoor

Just like BMD only adresses one aspect of defense; the political fallout won't be felt through NORAD. We PO the Americans on the defense front, they do an asymmetrical attack on softwood lumber, beef, travel visas, tax harmonization...you get the idea.


----------



## a_majoor

Just to make it even more interesting, Paul Martin apparently said he still wants to be consulted should the BMD system have to launch. What part of "no" doesn't he understand (especially since he is the one who said it)?

Perhaps fortunately, the US Ambassador has already set him straight, and I believe he used the word sovereignty (as in "we are losing our"). Canadians better get used to watching our influence and standing flowing away even faster. We may claim to have "Global responsibility", but it is obvious the Liberals do not believe a word of it, since they make no actual hard provisions to carry out any of these wish lists. If China or the Sudan wishes to ignore us, what tools do we have left to compel them?

The waffling on BMD is symptomatic of greater problems with Canada's political class, and the general education and experience of the Canadian people. Once you go on tour or otherwise experience the darker byways of the greater world; then it becomes quite difficult to understand how the Canadian people can be so complacent. Magic pixie dust only works in the Globe and Mail, not in the real world.


----------



## Thirstyson

> IIRC....we are the ONLY country on the Al-quaida hit list that hasn't been struck yet.



So Al-quaeda has ICBMs now?

This BMD system DOES NOT WORK! It also costs about the same as our entire defense budget. It is only a feel good system for the US and it's certainly alright to say no to it when you know the facts than to say yes just to appease your friend.


----------



## DVessey

If it was a political decision to say no, then it would almost have to be a political decision to say yes. They've tested this system, and it doesn't work. 
What's the likelihood of anyone even managing to get their hands on a working ICBM, let alone program it and fire it?


----------



## S McKee

Good article, sums up everything we've been saying.

Fri, February 25, 2005 



Little time for dithering ally

By Greg WESTON

IF AVERAGE Americans had been following Paul Martin's stand on U.S. missile defence, they would surely be relieved by yesterday's announcement that Canada will not be part of it. An Armageddon warhead incoming at 4 km per second is no time to be sharing command and control of North American air defence with a dithering prime minister. 

But one thing worse than an ally who can't make decisions is an ally who makes them for all the wrong reasons. 

Martin's announcement had nothing to do with missiles or defence or even the U.S. It was a pre-emptive strike to head off an embarrassing uprising with his own Liberal ranks. 

Ten days from now, Liberals from across the country are gathering here in Ottawa for their first policy convention since the last election, and likely the only such Grit conflab before the next call to the polls. 

The hottest item on the agenda was Canada's participation in U.S. missile defence, an issue that was guaranteed to garner a mass thumbs-down from the Grit grassroots. 

At the same time, public opinion polls in the Liberal heartland of Quebec do not favour Canada's joining George Bush's missile defence program. 

If Martin were a stronger leader, he might have stared down his opponents within his party and elsewhere. 

Instead, the PM has opted for doing what seems popular, not what is right, justifying his actions with excuses that are pure bunk. 

"Ballistic missile defence is not where we will concentrate our efforts," Martin told reporters after a cabinet meeting yesterday. 

Instead, the prime minister said, Canada would focus "both alone and with our neighbours on (other) defence priorities" such as re-equipping the military and beefing up border security. 

All of which might make good sense, except for one small point. 

So far, the Americans haven't asked Canada to contribute "efforts" or anything else to the missile defence program -- not money, not technology, not manpower, not missile sites -- nothing that would detract from the Martin government's new-found military priorities. 

Canada's only commitment to missile defence so far was an exchange of diplomatic letters with the U.S. just after Martin's election last year. 

The two countries agreed to amend their bilateral NORAD agreement under which Canada and the U.S. have shared security of North American air defence for over 40 years. The change extended the functions of NORAD to the new U.S. ballistic missile defence command. 

Yesterday, less than 60 seconds after Martin said Canada "will not take part in the proposed ballistic missile system," he confirmed Canada will honour the NORAD deal. 

"Canada remains steadfast in its support of NORAD which is essential to continental security and our national sovereignty. 

"And that's why we agreed last summer to enhance our longstanding commitment to track missiles through NORAD. We stand by that commitment." 

So much gobbledygook from one prime minister on an issue so politically important to the Bush administration it is guaranteed not to sit well in Washington. 

But nothing has suffered more collateral damage in the past 24 hours than Paul Martin's own credibility. 

For the past two years, the prime minister has been arguing that whatever physical role Canada might -- or might not -- decide to play in missile defence, it is better to be "at the table" with the Americans than locked out of the process altogether. 

"I think our sovereignty depends on our being at the table when discussions are taking place about the defence of North America," Martin said not 18 months ago. 

"I don't think that for us to live in some silo away from that would make any sense." 

And finally, in another interview: "My position is that I don't want the Americans coming up here defending us." 

The feeling today is probably mutual.


----------



## a_majoor

Here we go again: 

China and North Korea are potentially hostile states with working ICBM technology. India and Pakistan have working IRBM technology. Iran is working on it, Saudi Arabia has purchased "Long March" ICBMs...the technology is spreading across the world, and to very unstable states, often with links to terrorist organizations. (BTW, the "Canadian Arrow" project is a team of engineers building a sub-orbital rocket with a 1000 kg payload outside of the aerospace industry right here in Canada).

BMD technology *will* work tomorrow morning at 1000hr should the Americans op to install nuclear warheads in the interceptors starting at midnight tonight. For reasons of their own, they have chosen an alternative approach. For the same reasons, China, India and France could rapidly create a BMD system.

The "provocative" nature of BMD is puzzling, since no one seems upset or provoked by the *EXISTING* Russian system (Galosh), or the ability of Russia to upgrade and supplement Galosh with existing long range AAMs. These systems have been sold to China, so the Chinese also have limited BMD....

Opposition to BMD is not based on a realistic appraisal of the situation or needs, but rather a deep seated desire to thwart the ability of the United States and the West to maintain their ability to respond to threats.


----------



## T.I.M.

With all due respect to Mr. Cellucci's comments about Canada surrendering its sovereignty, I don't for a moment believe that Canada would have had a real say in the employment of BMD, whether we were symbolically "in" or equally symbolically "out."   Anyone who thinks a symbolic "yes" by the PM would suddenly mean Americans would turn a measure of control over how they employ one of their strategic systems over to foreigners is in cloud cookoo land.

The Americans simply do not work that way.   It is their system, paid for by their dollars, deployed on their soil, and designed to protect their cities.   Unless Canada had significant materiel contributions we would never have been able to get more than a token word in, before the Americans went ahead and did whatever they planned to do anyway.

The only thing that would change that would be if we had a real and tangible (and thus expensive) contribution to the system, and even then there's no guarantee the Americans would pay much attention to our opinions (see the problems the Brits have been having in Iraq affecting American command decisions).

To wit, we effectively surrendered our sovereignty years ago.   This changes nothing save perceptions.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34



> Lockheed Martin-MDA-U.S. Navy Aegis BMD Weapon System Guides Missile to Target Intercept
> 
> 
> (Source: Lockheed Martin; issued Feb. 24, 2005)


 :rage:


----------



## Franko

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> So Al-quaeda has ICBMs now?



You missed the point entirely. A rouge state could launch an ICBM....

The Al-quaeda remark was to point out that the major countries have finally woke up and realised that there is a threat in the world...a credible one at that. The demise of the former USSR does not mean that the world can sleep soundly at night. I'm quite sure you can agree with that.

North Korea does have the capability to strike North America with (IIRC) the No Dong II missle and have been testing it for quite some time. China has also been testing balistic missles for a while. These reports have been in the papers and on CNN for quite some time.

These countries are not very friendly to the US or it's allies....that includes US.

What about the reported missing nukes out of Russia? Where are they now?

I think the PM and his minions have made a bad decision...to the Americans bewilderment. We are a part of NORAD....so why are we saying "no thanks" to the BMD?

Regards


----------



## Thirstyson

The reason I'm glad we're saying no thanks is because it doesn't work and it isn't likely to work in the near future. Even if it did have a mild success rate (it has a zero success rate), it could be very easily fooled with counter measures.

We can analyze threats all we want, but it won't change those facts.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Well I am disappointed that we are not participating in the BMD. It was a great opportunity to heal some festering wounds between us and the US and the Prime Minister blew them off. I am concerned though with all this talk of how disappointed Washington is in our non participation, our commitment to increase the Defence budget has all but been ignored. It should be seen as some sort of positive step by Washington. Sure they lost the BMD debate but the Liberals are finally adding more money to DND and that is something our allies have been asking for for years. I fear that if Paul Cellucci continues to comment as he has been then the Liberals may back away from increased defence spending as well. My suggestion would be for the US to accept it and work with what we will be offering in the future and move on. It was not a total victory but its a start.


----------



## tomahawk6

Thirstyson, if a rogue state launches a missile today what defense have you got ? At least the interceptor gives the US a chance to defend itself as opposed to no chance. Having a missile defense is a deterrant and it gives the US options. If we intercept inbound misiles that gives the President the option to respond with conventional weapons instead of a nuclear response. Right now we have 6 interceptors in place in Alaska and Vandenburg AFB is deploying additional interceptors. The sea based system using the SM-3 and Aegis is working fine.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/html/mdalink.html

Ground Based Midcourse (GMD)

Defends against long-range ballistic missile attacks. 
During a GMD intercept, a booster missile flies toward a target's predicted location and releases a â Å“kill vehicleâ ? on a path with the incoming target. 
The kill vehicle uses data from ground-based radars and its own on-board sensors to collide with the target, thus destroying both the target and the kill vehicle using only the force of the impact.


----------



## tomahawk6

The Aegis/SM-3 sea based system is 5-6 so far. Now if the bugs can be ironed out of the land based system then a limited shield will be in place.


----------



## mz589

I agree with T.I.M.

What real say would we have even if we did join?

The only reason the US gave two bits that we endorse BMD is so they could legitimize it to their population by pointing to our support of the project. The science behind it is wonky, and who knows what would happen if a rogue nation launched a couple dozen ICBMs at one time? Looking at the system it appears to be geared towards a single or only a few launched missiles.

Is that type of threat really valid? Would a rogue state launch only a couple of nukes or would they let all they have fly to do the most damage before the counterattack was launched and inevitably destroyed them?

It would seem the true nuclear threat would be from a nuke tipped cruise missile or even a terrorist controlled tanker carrying a couple dirty bombs or full blown nukes in its hold, BMD is useless in either case from what I have read.


----------



## T.I.M.

> North Korea does have the capability to strike North America with (IIRC) the No Dong II missle and have been testing it for quite some time.



The No Dong 2 only has the range to strike Japan.   You're probably thinking of the Taep'o Dong 2 which is _theorized_ to have the range to reach the western islands of Hawaii, and Alaska's Aleutian island chain.   The Taep'o Dong has never actually been tested, and has only been trucked out for triumphal military parades.   We don't actually know if it works or not.

The only way the DPRK could, at present, strike at Continental US with a missile would be to put No Dong B (a North Korean variant of a Russian sub-launched missile) on a freighter and fire it from a few thousand miles off the American coast.




> What about the reported missing nukes out of Russia? Where are they now?



Well, as far as has been reported, the weapons were administratively misplaced rather than physically lost.   That is, the paperwork to show they were transferred from one location to another was improperly filed, but the nukes were still actually where they were supposed to be.   The files were missing.   Not the weapons.

Also, it's not 100% certain, but one of the best arguments against one of those nukes being lost is that the Chechens (who have stated a desire to get one) haven't been able to snag one yet.   If anyone has the contacts to acquire a loose-nuke it's them, and if they had it, they'd probably have used it (Basayev's famous quote about incinerating Moscow).

So no one can say for _certain_ that the Russians haven't lost a nuclear weapon, but the chance of it is much lower than was previously thought.   In any event, such a missing warhead would not be delivered by ICBM, as being three or four stories tall those are rather harder to sneak off with.   


I don't have any philosophical opposition to BMD (I have practical concerns about over-hasty deployment) but I don't think we should buy into over-hyping threats as a justification for racing the system ahead either.   The issue is cloudy enough as it is.


----------



## Demophobia

With new technology there is always going to be teething problems, especially when the technology is this complex. This however doesn't mean that it is impossible to do. In my opinion we either support the ability to shoot down incoming missiles or we don't, developing the technology capable of doing it is just a matter of how dedicated we (or the Americans in this case) are to the cause. It's only a matter of time before a functioning system can be fielded. 
If we rebuff the Americans while they are developing the system and are asking for our help, only to turn around and ask to be included under their protection when the system is working (and perhaps actively protecting us from an attack) it would be the ultimate hypocrisy. You can't share in the benefits without helping to shoulder the burdens.
In my opinion there are some parallels between BMD and Canada's own program during the 1950's to develop the Avro Arrow interceptor. Both systems are designed to protect this continent from attack, both systems are exceedingly complex. The main difference is that the threat that we are facing has evolved from soviet bombers to rouge ICBMs. Canada failed to develop the Arrow and I believe it was a mistake, just as I believe that we are making a mistake saying no to BMD.


----------



## Blue Max

No matter what side of this issue you stand on what has really happened is the erosion of Canada as a trusted friend in our allies eyes. The Americans and possibly others watching this theater are saying, "CANADA CAN NOT BE TRUSTED OR DEPENDED ON"! :-[ 

That is the true sadness of this situation. Added money to our underfunded defense budget that will not be realized for 5years is seen as a political exercise that may not be realized.   At the end of the day, Canada over all has lost ground again in the global political arena. :rage:

Thanks Mr Dithers,

B M.


----------



## muskrat89

> The reason I'm glad we're saying no thanks is because it doesn't work and it isn't likely to work in the near future. Even if it did have a mild success rate (it has a zero success rate), it could be very easily fooled with counter measures.



Thirstyson - just curious as to what technical expertise you have, to make statements like that


----------



## Franko

T.I.M. said:
			
		

> The No Dong 2 only has the range to strike Japan.   You're probably thinking of the Taep'o Dong 2 which is _theorized_ to have the range to reach the western islands of Hawaii, and Alaska's Aleutian island chain......
> 
> The files were missing.   Not the weapons. So no one can say for _certain_ that the Russians haven't lost a nuclear weapon, but the chance of it is much lower than was previously thought.



Thanks for the clarification. It was the Taep'o Dong II....I got them mixed up...not enough coffee.    :

Regards


----------



## T.I.M.

> If we rebuff the Americans while they are developing the system and are asking for our help, only to turn around and ask to be included under their protection when the system is working (and perhaps actively protecting us from an attack) it would be the ultimate hypocrisy. You can't share in the benefits without helping to shoulder the burdens.



There's a number of misconceptions there that I see repeated a lot in BMD discussions.  This is why I think we've seriously dropped the ball in not holding frank and in-depth discussions about it.

The Americans are not going to decline to engage a missile headed to North America, just because it might hit Canadian soil.  From a practical standpoint how would they know if it was headed for Toronto or Detroit?  Vancouver or Seattle.  From a humanitarian standpoint, they aren't going to let a Canadian city burn just out of spite.

However, on the otherhand, unless Canada makes a tangible, material commitment - and a large one - we will have zero practical say in how the system operated, whether we were "in" or "out".

_I_ think the current smoke screen is to hide the fact that, in all but words, we abdicated effective sovereignty over such matters some time ago.  The defence of Canada has been ultimately hypocritical for _years_.  All this is doing is blowing away the smoke to reveal the ugly truth.


----------



## Shec

Blue Max said:
			
		

> No matter what side of this issue you stand on what has really happened is the erosion of Canada as a trusted friend in our allies eyes. The Americans and possibly others watching this theater are saying, "CANADA CAN NOT BE TRUSTED OR DEPENDED ON"! :-[



Well said BM for you have cut to the chase and focussed on the real issue.    In closing an earlier post T.I.M. wrote "nothing changes save perceptions."    In   politics perceptions are reality and our mixed  responses, "clarifications", and excuses will be interpreted as at worst an outright NO and at best ambiguous indecision, neither of which the Americans will respect.

President Bush has demonstrated that he was unequivocal on 9/11 when he said "you are either for us or against us".      Now the perception that we have rejected this particular overture slides us closer to the "against us" side of that equation.   And that means so much for joint continental security, so much for bringing down trade barriers, so much any credibility in the hemisphere if not the world.    We have just given the Americans carte blanche to play an even harder game of hard-ball with us.   And what have we got to respond to that?   Jack Layton & Gilles Duceppe?   Ha !


----------



## Blue Max

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050225.wmiss0225/BNStory/National/

It is now being reported in the Globe and Mail, that PM Martin is insisting that the US consult with Canada before any missiles be fired over Canadian airspace to intercept any perceived threats. :

Yeah, how likely is that, and what could Canada seriously do about it after word. Or as T.I.M. has pointed out; Oh sorry Canada we shot down an incoming missile that we thought was going to take out Detroit but would of hit Toronto, yes we destroyed it but didn't ask your permission, SORRY.

Now that is comedy. ;D


----------



## S McKee

Blue Max said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050225.wmiss0225/BNStory/National/
> 
> It is now being reported in the Globe and Mail, that PM Martin is insisting that the US consult with Canada before any missiles be fired over Canadian airspace to intercept any perceived threats. :
> 
> Yeah, how likely is that, and what could Canada seriously do about it after word. Or as T.I.M. has pointed out; Oh sorry Canada we shot down an incoming missile that we thought was going to take out Detroit but would of hit Toronto, yes we destroyed it but didn't ask your permission, SORRY.
> 
> Now that is comedy. ;D



Just heard it on the radio Mr Dithers wants and expects protocols put in place so Canada can be contacted in case of a missile launch...would you trust Martin to make a snap decision in a war crisis? This guy probably consults with cabinet before he decides what color underwear to put on in the morning.  Protocols? What colour is the sky on the planet he lives on?


----------



## dutchie

Couldn't that 'consultation' be accomplished by NORAD. More to the point, couldn't the Senior Canadian at NORAD authorize the launch over Canadain soil?

If not, then this is further proof that Martin is the ultimate flip-flopping, dithering, spineless, schizo Pm we've had in some time. How can you, on one hand, say, "When it comes to the Defence of North America, Canada HAS to be at the table." He then (wisely) announces a significant boost to Defence spending,but the next day declines to participate in BMD (a major part of N. American Defence)! He's stuck. He has to please the Conservatives (Defence boost), the US ("We will be at the table/defence boost), and the Left/Quebec (reject BMD). 

In the end he's pissed us all off.

He's either way over his head, uncertain, or mentally ill.......or all three.


----------



## Thirstyson

> Thirstyson - just curious as to what technical expertise you have, to make statements like that



I'm doing research for space systems at DRDC right now.

Here's a link that explains the current BMD's shortcomings in thourough detail.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=1&articleID=000A45A2-E044-115D-A04483414B7F0000
I'm posted at DRDC and it's pretty unanimous among the defence scientists here that Martin made the right decision.

I'm all for the sea based sub BMD solutions, as well as airborne lasers, but not this system.


----------



## Blue Max

Initially it was not clear that man could go to the moon and return unharmed, or even cancer treatment which to this day is not an exact science and yet if you where ill you would sign off on 25% chance of it working. 

You have to start somewhere. The alternative being you trusting the UN or a_majoor's â Å“pixie dustâ ? to protect you from some psychopaths wet dream. Either of which have equal chance of working (no disrespect intended a_majoor);D

B M


----------



## tomahawk6

You cannot expect the senior Canadian officer to authorize an intercept without consulting Ottawa. How much time do you have for an answer, not much. The purpose is to intercept the warhead while it is well up in the atmosphere so waiting on the PM to make a decision would be to lose valuable time - time that is measured in minutes.

There is increasing talk on US talk shows about how anti-american Canada has become. The timing of this decision comes on the heels of Bush's visit to Europe. I doubt that Mr Martin can expect an invite to the Texas ranch. The bigger issue is the future of NORAD I believe. You cannot draw a line and saw we will only be involved in stopping aircraft from entering north american air space but missile defense is out of bounds because we dont want to militarize space. Space is already militarized considering all the military satellites now in orbit. The other issue is that if you dont want your country attacked by an enemy then you may follow policies that will not antoganize potential enemies thus reducing your effectiveness as an ally. 

Increasingly I see socialism as the new threat to US interests. You see the leftist newspapers siding with terrorists against the US. Case in point. A US citizen was arrested for plotting to kill Bush. In the US newspapers he was referred as a "valdictorian from a Virginia high school". The reality is the high school was a saudi funded madrassa known for its radical teaching. The prisoners in Gitmo are another. They were caught on the field of battle not scooped up out of some market. Yet leftists in the US want to extend the same rights to them as US citizen's enjoy. Believe it or not some american's think our bill of rights apply to the whole world. Were the US civil war era military commisions were in place Gitmo wouldnt be needed - these terrorists would simply have been executed. But we are more enlightened today.


----------



## Mad Max

Hi, Troops! To be honest, I don't really care whether-right now- this system works, or has the potential of working at some time in the future. What I care about is our PM pandering-AGAIN,AND OF COURSE- to the Anti-American near sighted Socialist Ostriches who make up a significant plurality in this country. And not just in the chattering classes, but your neighbours and mine. Some guys, even on a site like this, just can't seem to understand the absolute requirement to make, keep, and maintain trusted friendships and/or alliances with our natural allies! We are not a neutral nation in fact, although the Trudeauites in Parliament who obviously have no knowledge of or interest in the REAL World would have us believe we are. Participation militarily, financially, and diplomatically in BMD ought to be an obvious requirement of a trusted ally doing its part to defend, or potentially defend, North America. But forget that. Don't even think about the defending part. Think about who we are attempting to impress with this blinkered, stupid decision. Is it the Chinese? The North Koreans? The rest of our NATO allies? The people of the Continent of Africa? Who? This decision, aimed at playing to the voting population in Quebec and Ontario, reinforces, yet again, Canada's role as the do-nothing, essentially useless, harmless, and helpless "friend" to everyone- and therefore no one. And don't even TALK about the supposed "big boost" in Defence spending in the budget! Probably smoke and mirrors again- remember Perrin Beatty...?


----------



## Kirkhill

Thirtstyson:

Kamloops to Ottawa is a heck of a commute for a 2Lt.


----------



## Kirkhill

And Mad Max - this decision isn't even targeted as broadly as you suggest.  Most Canadians wait to see which way the talking heads lead them.

This decision is targeted firmly at the "Activists" within the Liberal party and the NDP.  One knocks on doors to elect Liberals, the other knocks on doors to defeat Conservatives.  These people are the lifeblood of any Party machine.  For a party to get elected it needs these activists. That is why George Bush got elected and John Kerry didn't.   President Bush had millions of volunteer activists working for him.  John Kerry and the Democrats had to buy theirs.

This is the real underlying reason for this Anti-Americanism - it plays well to the Left Wing Activists in Canada and without them Paul's minority will shrink.  It already shrank because a good chunk of them sat out the last federal election because they were pissed off at him over Chretien and the Sponsorship.  If he doesn't get the women and youth on side, or at least keep them on side, his next showing won't be as good as the last one.

In Canada we don't yet seem to have spawned much in the way of Right Wing Activists in the way the US has.  All our Activists seem to be Social Activists constantly rebelling against the Straw Man of the Conservative Establishment.  Meanwhile the Liberals are the Establishment and conservative minded voters are desirous of maintaining the Establishment.  Liberals win......


----------



## Mad Max

For sure! I was half expecting (and secretly wishing for) some Canadian Communist from Toronto to attempt a cunning attack! It's good to know there are folks here who aren't afraid to throw out the bath water to save the baby. Come on, Commies, let's see what you've got!


----------



## Infantryman

One of the underlying themes on this post is whether BMD works or not.  Not signing on and investing in BMD on the basis that it does not work is equivalent to stopping cancer research because we don't have a working cure!


----------



## dutchie

BMD just took one step away from 'theory' and one step closer to 'reality'......

U.S. shoots down missile in test near Hawaii
Last Updated Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:36:44 EST 
CBC News
WASHINGTON - The American military has successfully shot down a missile in a test of its missile defence system conducted off Hawaii. 

"We had a successful hit-to-kill intercept," said Richard Lehner, a spokesperson for the U.S. Missile Defense Agency. 

This week's test marked the fifth success in a series of six similar tests conducted over oceans. 

Land-based ballistic missile defence tests have also been conducted, with five out of eight tests considered a success. 

In two of the ground-based tests, interceptors failed to launch from their silos. 


FROM FEB. 14, 2005: 2nd U.S. missile defence test failure

By 2007, the U.S. military wants to have 30 SM-3 interceptors based on its ships to shoot down short-range and medium-range ballistic weapons before they can reach North American targets. 

The military wants to be prepared should North Korea or another aggressor launch missiles tipped with nuclear, chemical or biological warheads. 

The Pentagon is asking for a 20-per-cent boost in funding for the ballistic missile defence program, from $7.7 billion US this year to more than $9 billion US next year. 


http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/02/25/missile-test050225.html


----------



## dutchie

Quote from thirstyson:

"The reason I'm glad we're saying no thanks is because it doesn't work and it isn't likely to work in the near future."

So I guess in his world, 'the near future' only extends about 5 minutes.....


----------



## Franko

Caesar said:
			
		

> Quote from thirstyson:
> 
> "The reason I'm glad we're saying no thanks is because it doesn't work and it isn't likely to work in the near future."
> 
> So I guess in his world, 'the near future' only extends about 5 minutes.....



ROTFLMAO     ;D

Well.....so much for .02 cents worth.







Regards


----------



## buzgo

What could we really contribute to the BMD programme anyway? I saw on the news that the Americans have budgeted SEVENTY BILLION dollars so far. Wasn't our entire Federal budget only 200 billion or so? 

So do they want us to sign up to give the system some credibility or what?


----------



## Mad Max

They want us to sign on because WE live in North America too! And because we are co-members of NORAD, which will effectively be nothing more than a paper tiger once BMD goes forward- and it IS going forward. And because the Yanks don't think that we should be getting a free defence ride. And because OUR AIRSPACE is the potential beaten zone for their warhead interceptors! Get the picture?


----------



## buzgo

Okay, sure, but what can we contribute?


----------



## Thirstyson

> Thirtstyson:
> 
> Kamloops to Ottawa is a heck of a commute for a 2Lt.



That's a cheap shot... a bit confusing when they ask you that right after you're birthdate.

Besides Kirkhill, we had a good discussion about this in the older BMD thread.

I don't see the need in repeating all that.


----------



## Kirkhill

You're right. It was a cheap shot. For that I apologize.

I see you have updated your profile.

Cheap shot or not, I still disagree with your position.   This project is doable.   I base that on the fact that it has been done.

Others have supplied the evidence.


----------



## FastEddy

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> That's a cheap shot... a bit confusing when they ask you that right after you're birthdate.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the need in repeating all that.




If you plan to make the Military a career, you better grow a thicker skin, I think you're going to need it.

Thank God your not involved in Cancer Research.

When the U.S. BMD is perfected and up and running, there's going to be a lot of people with pie on their face.


----------



## Thirstyson

> If you plan to make the Military a career, you better grow a thicker skin, I think you're going to need it.
> 
> Thank God your not involved in Cancer Research.



Stick to the topic at hand... what place does rank have in this argument? It's a 70B$ system that doesn't work but is being deployed anyways.


----------



## buzgo

Maybe this latest test was 'fixed' like some were in the past. For instance, the trajectory was known and the target missile had a homing beacon in it:

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s478712.htm#transcript

_*Narration: The military researchers have conducted tests were there is a single balloon decoy. Three out of five were a success, but Slakey says they aren't realistic.

Professor Francis Slakey: A global positioning system is placed on the warhead so that it follows the predetermined trajectory. The size and the shape of the decoy is known ahead of time and programmed into the interceptor. The infrared signature of the decoy and the warhead is known ahead of time and programmed into the interceptor and a homing beacon is put on the warhead and that information is transmitted back to the interceptor. And then finally the whole thing is happening at one third the speed that's needed for real combat situation. So does it work? Well if the enemy where to tell us when they are firing where they're firing how they're firing, what they're putting inside the missile, the nature of their decoys and for good measure they put a homing beacon in. then the system has a 60% chance of success.â ?*_

there is more:

http://www.shutdown-sizewell.org.uk/is_missile_defence_a_shot_in_the.htm
http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20040413102346702


----------



## P-Free

Rather than questioning if we will ever need this system, I think we should go ahead with it so it is there incase it is needed. The fact is there are weapons out there that can reach Canada and attack our cities, and our people if they fall into the wrong hands.

I'd rather having something and not need it than nothing and be in a world of hurt.


----------



## Thirstyson

The problem with the "I rather have one than not" argument is that there are better BMD systems than this one. This system is far too expensive and doesn't provides a false sense of security, read any of the links to the system tests, look at the cost of this system and then argue that it's a good idea.

And as for curing cancer FastEddy... that's research that is not _misguided_ and continued to due its own perpetual motion.


----------



## P-Free

> The problem with the "I rather have one than not" argument is that there are better BMD systems than this one. This system is far too expensive and doesn't provides a false sense of security, read any of the links to the system tests, look at the cost of this system and then argue that it's a good idea.



Expense isn't an argument against defense spending.

At the very least Canada should have taken a seat at the table, shown an interest in the idea, and waited till more research and tests were done before passing judgement. As it stands right now, we have no voice in any part of the program, it is still moving ahead and yet our politicians want it both ways when they say they want to be warned if/when a missile is to be shot down over our airspace since we're a sovereign nation. 

Sovereign yet another country is building a system to defend Canada..


----------



## oyaguy

In my bleeding liberal {small-l liberal I might add) heart, "Great, we didn't join because we shouldn't encourage nonsense". 

In my head though, its "Might as well have joined, we lose nothing by doing so and might get some better trade deals in the process, Whoohoo!"

A little conflicted I am. 

Ballistic Missile Defense, does not work. Lets not make no beefs about it, it does not work. Yet at least.
The recent test to the contrary, actually accomplished what people thought the Patriot missile could do ten years ago, namely shoot down a Scud missile. Probably a good thing for regional defense, but still useless for what we really worry about, i.e. Interncontinental Ballistic Missiles.

What really bothers me about BMD, is its premature. People talk about teething problems. Someone used the Moon landings as an example. The real example would have been something along the lines of sending Apollo 1 to the moon as its maiden flight.
Before the first man went to the moon, a probe went to the moon, and proved it could be done. Probes landed on the moon and proved it could be done. All the while this is happening they were doing manned missions in orbit to see how a man responds to the lack of gravity. There were practical problems, but they were dealt with. People still died, namely the crew of Apollo 1. But they learned, and went ahead. 
No one expected the Mercury Program, the Gemini Program, or the earlier marks of the Apollo program to land on the moon. But they kept at it and learned.
BMD though is somewhere in the Gemini Program to stick with the analogy. While they might be learning, its far too early to jump to a production model of an anti-ballistic missile, and planting them in silos. They don't do any good aside from further testing, and providing a false sense of security.

Make no mistakes people, if an accident happened in Russia or China, if North Korea pulled the trigger, the only recourse Canada, United States and the World in general, has is to get under the table and pray the missile misses, or something falls off. 

BMD is best left as the research project its been since Reagan started it, and the US should save some billlions of dollars and buy more armoured vehicles, or just save the money. 

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the theory of BMD {Actually there is a few spots on the theory of BMD, but I am not going to worry about those}, but the US shouldn't be jumping the gun on BMD, and being so pushy about it. They know it doesn't work {yet, fingers crossed}. We know it doesn't work. They're asking for no help whatsoever in the development of BMD, aside from the help we have already give, i.e. the use of NORAD. 

I'm sorry when you're asking for such a commitment, why bother? We're already doing for BMD, what we would have if we joined.

So to the States, stop being so pushy, do you really need Canada to hold your hand and tell you its alright?{Another plea for Sarcasm punctuation}.


----------



## FastEddy

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> The problem with the "I rather have one than not" argument is that there are better BMD systems than this one. This system is far too expensive and doesn't provides a false sense of security, read any of the links to the system tests, look at the cost of this system and then argue that it's a good idea.
> 
> And as for curing cancer FastEddy... that's research that is not _misguided_ and continued to due its own perpetual motion.




Firstly, I did not make any mention of Rank. Secondly, That was sarcasm with reference to Cancer, in that,
if you were in charge of it, you'd probably give up on it because of failures, cost of research and the slow or lack of development.

I'm not quiet sure what you mean by "and doesn't provides a false sense of security". As for the system being far too expensive, maybe it is or maybe not, but thats none of anyones business except the American Public and their Government. Certainly not yours.

As for not choosing a better system, presuming you are in possesion of such knowledge and the U.S. isn't,
I find that very selfish of you to have not imparted that information to them.

Throughout the Worlds Arms and Technolgy Race, the United States seems to have done pretty well and I would put my money on them anytime. And for one, I am damn glad they have.


----------



## big bad john

McKenna goes ballistic over decision
   
Don Martin 
National Post 


February 26, 2005


OTTAWA - He went, um, ballistic at hearing the news.

Frank McKenna is one angry Washington-bound Canadian ambassador after being left in the dark about the government's decision to deny its blessing to the U.S. ballistic missile defence system.

Put less diplomatically, "he is seriously pissed," according to a senior government source.

The anger is understandable, and explains why the former New Brunswick premier has gone underground and is not returning media calls.

McKenna appeared before a parliamentary committee on Tuesday to shine up his credentials before being formally dispatched for duty in the U.S. capital.

During and after the meeting, McKenna correctly observed that Canada, as a partner in the North American Aerospace Defence Command's sky-sweeping missile-seeking duties, was already a de facto participant in the ballistic missile defence shield.

What he didn't know, but should've been told, was that the Prime Minister had just informed the Americans that Canada would deny its political okey-dokey to the concept.

That big bang you heard was a Martin kill shot intercepting McKenna's political credibility before he could reach the Canadian Embassy in Washington.

There's a strange theory in circulation that Martin did a masterful job of fence-sitting the file; that he used McKenna to promote Canada's quiet participation in missile defence before officially washing his hands of any political culpability.

Sorry, no. It was a three-day convergence of extreme political ineptitude by a Prime Minister who had decided to follow the polls and flip-flop his opinion after more than a year of indecision. How bad was it? Let me count the ways.

- By denying McKenna advance notice about a done decision of obvious importance to his job, Martin embarrassed and infuriated a showcase ambassador he took a year to find, ensuring his welcome to Washington will be on the cool side of cordial.

- By leaking news of the decision the day before the budget and confirming it the day after, Martin turned his much-praised budget into a one-day news wonder. Particularly shortchanged is Defence Minister Bill Graham, who lost the chance to bask in afterglow of a huge military spending boost.

- The weird timing forced both Martin and Graham to fib in the Commons on Tuesday and Wednesday by suggesting the decision not to endorse missile defence had not been made when, in fact, it had.

- The Prime Minister irritated his Cabinet by using his ministers as false cover for allegedly making a decision on Thursday that had already been relayed to the Americans two days earlier.

- Martin has officially reneged an oft-stated promise to put the question to MPs for a debate.

The awkward way the decision was announced confirms this was not reflecting deep Liberal pride in the position.

When Jean Chretien announced Canada's refusal to join the U.S.-led coalition of the willing in the war against Iraq, he declared it defiantly in the Commons in the middle of Question Period to a thundering standing ovation from all parties but the Conservatives.

Martin, by contrast, dispatched Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew to the Commons on only an hour's notice, where he did a lacklustre reading of a text before an audience of just 10 Liberals. Martin surfaced briefly a few minutes later to read his own text, stammered through just four questions from reporters before bolting for cover in his office.

This was not a communications plan of strategic brilliance. It is the polar opposite, a reluctant decision forced on Martin because he was running out of dither time if he hoped to avoid the issue hijacking his policy convention next week.

Look, it's entirely possible the Americans are pouring billions into a concept that will never fire a shot in anger at an enemy. They are, after all, having trouble getting the test-fire phase off the ground.

But here's the cost of saying a symbolic 'yes': Zip. No cash. No land required for missile launch sites. No bureaucracy to supervise the erection of the shield.

And here are the consequences of saying 'no': The thawing of a troubled relationship is back in the deep freeze, confirming Canada's place in American minds as a northern wimp who won't even join a military umbrella to protect its own air space.

For ambassador Frank McKenna, that suddenly makes Canada a very tough country to represent to the United States. He has every right to be angry.

© National Post 2005


----------



## JBP

An update on how the BMD system is "working".... Just a little FYI for those who care!



*
U.S. missile shield fails another test
Associated Press*

WASHINGTON â â€ A test of the national missile defense system failed Monday when an interceptor missile did not launch from its island base in the Pacific Ocean, the military said. It was the second failure in months for the experimental program. 

A statement from the Missile Defense Agency said the cause of the failure was under investigation. 

A spokesman for the agency, Rick Lehner, said the early indications was that there was a malfunction with the ground support equipment at the test range on Kwajalein Island, not with the interceptor missile itself. 

If verified, that would be a relief for program officials because it would mean no new problems had been discovered with the missile. Previous failures of these high-profile, $85 million test launches have been regarded as significant setbacks by critics of the program. 

In Monday's test, the interceptor missile was to target a mock ICBM fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska. The target missile launched at 1:22 a.m. Monday EST without any problems, but the interceptor did not launch. 

The previous test, on Dec. 15, failed under almost identical circumstances. The target missile launched, but the interceptor did not. Military officials later blamed that failure on fault-tolerance software that was oversensitive to small errors in the flow of data between the missile and a flight computer. The software shut down the launch; officials said they would decrease the sensitivity in future launches. 

Before the Dec. 15 launch, it had been two years since a test. The program had gone five-for-eight in previous attempts to intercept a target. 

No date for the next test has been announced. It is unclear how continued test failures would affect two experimental interceptor bases in Alaska and California. 

Those two bases, Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., are positioned to oppose the threat of attack from North Korea. Both are still classified as experimental but, officials say, they could fire interceptors in an emergency. 

The Pentagon has not declared those bases "operational," but officials say they would work anyway once certain mechanical blocks are removed from the interceptors themselves. Six interceptors are at the Alaska site, with two more in California as a backup. Up to 10 more will go into silos in Alaska this year, officials say.


----------



## Buzz

P-Free said:
			
		

> Expense isn't an argument against defense spending.
> 
> At the very least Canada should have taken a seat at the table, shown an interest in the idea, and waited till more research and tests were done before passing judgement. As it stands right now, we have no voice in any part of the program, it is still moving ahead and yet our politicians want it both ways when they say they want to be warned if/when a missile is to be shot down over our airspace since we're a sovereign nation.
> 
> Sovereign yet another country is building a system to defend Canada..



I agree that Canada should have had a seat at the table and conducted further reaseach in maybe learning how it works and how to implement our own defense system.  I think we should be capable of developing our own with out needing another country holding our hand while in the washroom. 

You say "Sovereign yet another country is building a system to defend Canada.."  I thought it was to defend the USA..to defend NA was the selling feature (marketing ploy)  If this is the case, as I mentioned before, in a completely different thread, Mexico should be in on this as well no? But once again I've got the map upsidedown, ohh wait it's right side up!!    

Personally, if it really matters what I think.  Why not shoot it down anyway at a much earlier stage in flight than the US can get to it.   If they decide to shoot an ICBM down over Canada what does that say, though.  IN the words of Pres Bush "We don't need a permission slip...."  so they are going to let rockets fly anyway. only because we have early warning from NORAD we can utilize our position as an advantage for identifying any unknown in our airspace..(curious to know what the policy is on that). Wouldn't it still apply?    But where they strike the target is more concerning if anything.  This is something that should be negotiated more because the way it looks is we'll save american lives but if a missle is over Canada we'll shoot it down and who cares if it's over a major pop centre or not.   I think that this is what the PM is trying to portray, possibly but don't want to jump to conclusions.  But makes sense.  

5/8 is not that great of odds....passes but barely.  just those other 3 misses could be the big kahoona's.  Has to work 100% or nothing.  It's like this, do you go to a new car lot and buy a car with 3 new tires and the forth tire is down to the steal belting? It's a 4 banger and only had 3 spark plugs.  Not only that, no passenger seat either, but has a back seat. Hate to see if the brakes work.. See where I'm going? Why would you buy this you may ask.  Good Question.  

I'm all for Made in Canada!! 

-Buzz


----------



## Jungle

Buzz said:
			
		

> 5/8 is not that great of odds....passes but barely.   just those other 3 misses could be the big kahoona's.   Has to work 100% or nothing.   It's like this, do you go to a new car lot and buy a car with 3 new tires and the forth tire is down to the steal belting? It's a 4 banger and only had 3 spark plugs.   Not only that, no passenger seat either, but has a back seat. Hate to see if the brakes work.. See where I'm going? Why would you buy this you may ask.   Good Question.


So according to your logic, we may as well shut down all research and development centers, and wait for the perfect products ?!? If nobody had bought cars 100 years ago, would we have the product we have now ?? See where I'm going ?? 
Expecting any system to work 100% is unrealistic...
Finally, I like the analogy with the space program; without the benefit of previous projects, Apollo would never have been successful. A few years ago, the US was able to successfully send a robot to Mars in order to sniff rocks to find out if they were alive...  surely they will find a way to intercept a missile in flight.


----------



## muskrat89

> Finally, I like the analogy with the space program




Of course we didn't come up with Canadarm or Marc Garneau either, until NASA had worked all the bugs out of the space program...


----------



## mz589

oyaguy said:
			
		

> In my bleeding liberal {small-l liberal I might add) heart, "Great, we didn't join because we shouldn't encourage nonsense".
> 
> In my head though, its "Might as well have joined, we lose nothing by doing so and might get some better trade deals in the process, Whoohoo!"
> 
> A little conflicted I am.
> 
> Ballistic Missile Defense, does not work. Lets not make no beefs about it, it does not work. Yet at least.
> The recent test to the contrary, actually accomplished what people thought the Patriot missile could do ten years ago, namely shoot down a Scud missile. Probably a good thing for regional defense, but still useless for what we really worry about, i.e. Interncontinental Ballistic Missiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you on this one. And I've also at times been conflicted as to whether to sign on or not. Sometimes I thought, "It doesn't work so why sign on?" and "It doesn't work anyway so why not sign on?"
> 
> I think in the end the only reason the Americans wanted us to have anything to do with BMD was to legitimize the project to their countrymen and to the world. If we had signed on they could point to "Big, friendly, peace loving Canada even signing on to the programme, look they don't think it will start an arms race either."
> 
> As far as conceding soverignty goes, the US doesn't recognize the Northwest passage as Canadain territory and have reportedly been sending submarines through. Back in the 80's they did the same thing and that was when we had a Prime Minister that liked nothing better than to grovel to them (Mulroney). Our territorial soveriegnty means nothing to them, however if concede politically   by doing as they wish every time they ask then our sovereignty has truly been relinquished.
> 
> Then there's the fact of what signing on would do poilitcally to our country. The program is a non-starter in Quebec, if Martin had signed he might as well have conceded the entire province to the Bloc in the next election. This could very well mean the Bloc becoming the official opposition again, only in a minority government. How dangerous would that be to our country? Probably more so than some concievable rogue state wanting to shoot a nuke at us or the US and being willing to be nuked in return.
Click to expand...


----------



## Thirstyson

Thanks oyaguy for putting so elegantly the point of view I'm trying to get accross.


----------



## Buzz

Jungle said:
			
		

> ...... we may as well shut down all research and development centers, and wait for the perfect products ?!? If nobody had bought cars 100 years ago, would we have the product we have now ?? See where I'm going ?? Expecting any system to work 100% is unrealistic...
> Finally, I like the analogy with the space program; without the benefit of previous projects, Apollo would never have been successful. A few years ago, the US was able to successfully send a robot to Mars in order to sniff rocks to find out if they were alive...  surely they will find a way to intercept a missile in flight.



I believe I said I'm all for Made in Canada didn't I?   But we'll keep buying junk from other countries I guess, and take their word for it that "it works" with a smile.   Second I'm not talking about a 100 years from today before this should work, I think you and I will be long gone to worry about that. I'm taking about today. Right here, right now.   

Scenero --- Boom ICBM launch.   Counter launch.... the counter has a 62% hit ratio.   hahaha ....am I going to be crossing my fingers for a hit.   You bet i am!! and my toes!! Because the ICBM will have a much higher hit ratio? Of course it will! And a valiant effort with a knife in a gun fight.    

I was using the Car as a object of opening your mind to a comparison of something into simpler terms.   That if you went onto a car lot, would you buy that car.   Probably not.   Unfortunetly, no I don't see where your going. Other than listening to a consumer talk about how this should work and that should work and ohh I need air conditioning.   More money, more money, more money.   System upgrades add on packages....did you want air conditioning too? I got it and man, it feels great!    Expecting a piece of equipment to work is 100% realistic if it doesn't, then it is out of service until it is. And is properly maintained so I can expect it to run 100%.   It's a great idea (don't get me wrong), but a bit to early to pass off the selling features of something that could be so great.   In the mean time with our doors still open for reasearch (not sure where you gathered that) we are on our way to developing our own equipment based off of our own set standards.   I think we are able to do that, don't you?? 

You didn't ignored the fact of a possible ICBM being shot down over Canada did you?   

Yes I like the idea of the space program aswell....no disagreement there. 

Cheers!
-Buzz


----------



## Jungle

62% chance of survival, right here right now, or 100% chance of dying. When you are in the situation, the choice is easy. So if your car is 100% perfect, I guess you don't need that warranty, right ? Did you tell your salesman ?
You don't get it: we made miracles with the CANADARM; but on it's own, it is useless. Without the US shuttle, what good would it be ?
And I think you're a bit selfish; if we keep making decisions about "right here, right now" future generations will be faced with problems we should have taken action on at an early stage. I want my kids, and their kids, to be as safe as possible in the future, so we should put all chances on our side.
And where do you plan on finding the funds for a CDN version of BMD ??


----------



## Buzz

Jungle said:
			
		

> 62% chance of survival, right here right now, or 100% chance of dying. When you are in the situation, the choice is easy. So if your car is 100% perfect, I guess you don't need that warranty, right ? Did you tell your salesman ?
> You don't get it: we made miracles with the CANADARM; but on it's own, it is useless. Without the US shuttle, what good would it be ?
> And I think you're a bit selfish; if we keep making decisions about "right here, right now" future generations will be faced with problems we should have taken action on at an early stage. I want my kids, and their kids, to be as safe as possible in the future, so we should put all chances on our side.
> And where do you plan on finding the funds for a CDN version of BMD ??



I understand where your coming form, completely.  You need "A" to rely on "B" in order to work effectively.   But it was developed to serve it's purpose wasn't it?  no gas , car won't run. haha   

I agree that we need to have an impact to affect future generations. At the same time, though, would we be hindering or helping them with the implementation of this shield or "a" shield for that matter.  We are in a position where if we accept it...other countries that are Canada friendly to take a second look at why they are Canada friendly and what our motives are to sign up for somthing that could pose a threat and turn out to  be useless to us but useful to the States.  ei) losing our soverienty in a way.  History always repeates itself and if we are looking for peace then why would we enter into something that could potentially be looked upon as taking a defensive position..when right now it could be looked upon like an open door.  Just if you come in take your shoes/boots off at that door.  Why just Canada once again? Why not other countries that are US friendly that are in a closer positon to where these lauches may take place.  Somethings to think about.....why not everyone get on board for this defense shield??  Why should we be pushed into this and what are the ultimate motives other than selling features.  

ONce again I quote Bush "WE will not be asking for a permission slip from Mr. Martin...."  What does that say?   They don't care one way or another.  They don't respect Canada and from an earlier post, how much will Canada's involvement be if Martin said "Yes".  Probably none to Nil..and nothing more that maybe gaining a possible closer positon within Canada. To protect their air space.  Why don't they just set up a defence shield on smack on the north pole??   

Cheers!
-Buzz

Funding?  that is a completely different topic. But, Isn't Canada in such abundance of natural resourses??


----------



## Jungle

Buzz said:
			
		

> ONce again I quote Bush "WE will not be asking for a permission slip from Mr. Martin...."   What does that say?     They don't care one way or another.   They don't respect Canada and from an earlier post, how much will Canada's involvement be if Martin said "Yes".   Probably none to Nil..and nothing more that maybe gaining a possible closer positon within Canada. To protect their air space.   Why don't they just set up a defence shield on smack on the north pole??


Mr Bush is simply ensuring the security of his country and it's citizens; as mentionned in our own budget recently, this is the first duty of a Govt. No other countries are joining; how many have been offered ? How many are on the potential flight path of a missile aimed at the US from East Asia ? None.
Either way is fine with me; the Govt is mandated to make those decisions, and after dithering for far too long, the PM finally made it. I just hope that, SHOULD something happen in the future (5-10-20 years from now ?) we will be mature enough to accept the consequences of our decision, as it seems most Cdns agree with it, or will we try to blame everybody else for our misfortune ??


----------



## Buzz

Jungle said:
			
		

> Mr Bush is simply ensuring the security of his country and it's citizens; as mentionned in our own budget recently, this is the first duty of a Govt. No other countries are joining; how many have been offered ? How many are on the potential flight path of a missile aimed at the US from East Asia ? None.
> Either way is fine with me; the Govt is mandated to make those decisions, and after dithering for far too long, the PM finally made it. I just hope that, SHOULD something happen in the future (5-10-20 years from now ?) we will be mature enough to accept the consequences of our decision, as it seems most Cdns agree with it, or will we try to blame everybody else for our misfortune ??



Good question...but at least we now know how far the States is willing to go to protect it's citizens and for Martin to make a request is legitimate.  as in warn us that they are going to enter our air space because of an inbound and hopefully it's sooner than later. Because destroying the missle at a certain latitude will be a deciding factor whether Canadian Citizens will now be effected.  And who says that the Arctic is a perfect passage? Cargo isn't bolted down and can be shipped and launched anywhere in the world and who says that one may not come out of South America??   do we know....intelligence has been wrong before...shipping manifests and such has been fudged in the past and can easily be fudged to pass off as goods for trade.  "Yes sir, it's a box of cocoa nuts!"  

But if only we could look into the future.  Maybe it'll be the States trying to blame and point fingers for their misfortune, once again.  It's happened before.  Blame Canada!  Seems we have heavy shoulders lately until found otherwise...then it's all good.  So misfortunes and buck passing seems to be the normal and latest trend...if they can do it why can't we?  Because we are going to be more mature??  We are already view upon as being a friendly county...what else do we need?  Canada cannot do any wrong and Just saying "No" solidifies that and further protect it's citizens.  When we have tarnished the image of Canada around the world as much as the States has.  So why join up for something that can make us look guilty by assoc. and effect our trade with other countries. Ultimately...we need trade to provide revenue to provide funding....I still like the resources idea though.  >

-Buzz


----------



## Blue Max

Buzz said:
			
		

> We are in a position where if we accept it...other countries that are Canada friendly to take a second look at why they are Canada friendly and what our motives are to sign up for somthing that could pose a threat and turn out to   be useless to us but useful to the States.   ei) losing our soverienty in a way.
> 
> Why just Canada once again? Why not other countries that are US friendly that are in a closer positon to where these lauches may take place.   Somethings to think about.....why not everyone get on board for this defense shield??   Why should we be pushed into this and what are the ultimate motives other than selling features.



I hate to burst your bubble but Japan has already signed on and has contributed $300M US over 6yrs starting from 1998, where as previously stated, Canada could have been involved for $0.0 CND.

The Japanese investment pailes in comparison to the American $2.3 Billion budget, but obviously the Japanese are not shy to invest in R&D for something they think is important to their future, even if it does not work perfectly today. 

Does this mean that Canadian politics limits our global vision of what is good for our future to as far as our Provincial borders?   And we like to complain about the Americans only being concerned about LA to NY, lets take a good look at Canada's international attitudes!

B M.


----------



## Buzz

Blue Max said:
			
		

> I hate to burst your bubble but Japan has already signed on and has contributed $300M US over 6yrs starting from 1998
> 
> The Japanese investment pailes in comparison to the American $2.3 Billion budget, but obviously the Japanese are not shy to invest in R&D for something they think is important to their future, even if it does not work perfectly today.
> 
> Does this mean that Canadian politics limits our global vision of what is good for our future to as far as our Provincial borders?   And we like to complain about the Americans only being concerned about LA to NY, lets take a good look at Canada's international attitudes!
> 
> B M.



NO bubble bursted....But that is my point exactly, there are other countries involved in this but Japan has just as much a threat of being hit as the US. so why wouldn't Japan get involved again? Japan has reason to step up it's defense program as pointed out below. This is just out of army.ca

Small search on army.ca but should help as to why they are getting involved:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27109.0.html <--- not a bad read (canada isn't mentioned)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/3940.0.html <--- this one aswell (Canada isn't mentioned)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/2941.0.html <--- and this one (Canada is only mentioned once)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23739.0.html <-- all good reads (Canada once here aswell)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25092.0.html <--- keeps going (not mentioned)



			
				Blue Max said:
			
		

> Canada could have been involved for $0.0 CND.


Everything comes with a price tag attached. If it's too good to be true it usually is. 

Cheers!
-Buzz


----------



## old medic

Buzz said:
			
		

> "Canada could have been involved for $0.0 CND."
> 
> Everything comes with a price tag attached. If it's too good to be true it usually is.
> 
> Cheers!
> -Buzz



In reality, this is probably more about finding a defence for threats to Taiwan, South Korea and Japan than it is about North America. 
It's just politically correct to say it's defending North America because it won't start a conflict or an arms race with China or North Korea. 

Personally, Good for Mr. Dithers.
If there is very little public support, he did the right thing.  If he, and the Canadian Military were seen (even on here) to support
something unpopular with the public, then the CF will loose more public support.  Loosing more public support makes it politically
acceptable to CUT the DND budget down the road.


----------



## FastEddy

old medic said:
			
		

> In reality, this is probably more about finding a defence for threats to Taiwan, South Korea and Japan than it is about North America.
> It's just politically correct to say it's defending North America because it won't start a conflict or an arms race with China or North Korea.
> 
> Personally, Good for Mr. Dithers.
> If there is very little public support, he did the right thing.   If he, and the Canadian Military were seen (even on here) to support
> something unpopular with the public, then the CF will loose more public support.   Loosing more public support makes it politically
> acceptable to CUT the DND budget down the road.




So what you are basically saying is "IF I'M OKAY JACK - PISS ON YOU" ?.


----------



## Dare

First off, if you don't think Canada is a target right along side the US, you're sadly mistaken. As a NATO ally, any nation that wishes to strike the US knows full well that it will have to strike the US' allies as well. A hit to the US period does tremendous damage to *Canada* no matter where it hits. If the radioactive fallout doesn't hit us, *rest assured* the economic fallout *WILL*. Then considering the full out nuclear warfare that will happen after this strike, it is a pretty good idea that we do our best to make sure we win. The reason so many publications do not mention Canada, is simply because we're a speedbump on the way to America. We're almost factored out of the equation. If we had a larger military force or a heavily armed population, I'm sure we would be mentioned a lot more in strategic publications. 

It is in our best interests to make sure no one nukes us, and no one nukes the states. We should buck up and help out with this effort, instead of playing politics with this. It's simply ridiculous all the fear mongering about losing sovereignty. We are an American protectorate as far as they're concerned. The less we do to defend ourselves, the LESS sovereignty we have over our affairs, and especially our airspace. If we don't defend this vast expanse of land, air and sea, they will have to. Do you really think the Americans are pleased at having to defend the second largest country from attack without much help, and are just gleefully rubbing their paws together at the thought of taking our precious sovereignty? They don't *want* the responsibility but we're shirking our duties here. We know of a known threat. We know that nuclear and propultion technology is not as out of reach as it used to be, we know that well funded terrorist groups are making threats against us (yes, Canada). It's completely irresponsible to not make an effort to defend against these threats. 



			
				Buzz said:
			
		

> NO bubble bursted....But that is my point exactly, there are other countries involved in this but Japan has just as much a threat of being hit as the US. so why wouldn't Japan get involved again? Japan has reason to step up it's defense program as pointed out below. This is just out of army.ca
> 
> Small search on army.ca but should help as to why they are getting involved:
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27109.0.html <--- not a bad read (canada isn't mentioned)
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/3940.0.html <--- this one aswell (Canada isn't mentioned)
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/2941.0.html <--- and this one (Canada is only mentioned once)
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23739.0.html <-- all good reads (Canada once here aswell)
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25092.0.html <--- keeps going (not mentioned)
> Everything comes with a price tag attached. If it's too good to be true it usually is.
> 
> Cheers!
> -Buzz


----------



## old medic

FastEddy said:
			
		

> So what you are basically saying is "IF I'M OKAY JACK - PISS ON YOU" ?.




I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll paraphrase:

In reality, this probably isn't about Canada or the US, it's about finding strategic defence for strategic allies in Asia without
directly confronting possible Asian opponents.

The minority government can't make a politically unstable decision in Canada. The only answer possible was "No".
A "yes" answer could bring down the government, cancel the budget, probably cost DND a further budget cut, and installed
yet another minority government.


----------



## Kirkhill

I understand the PM not making a decision that he can't sell - on the principle "don't give an order you don't expect to be followed".

What I don't understand is his being so weak and indecisive that he couldn't bring himself to TRY to sell a position - ANY position.   He allowed the situation to drift far beyond his control.

The Iraq "decision" was similar.

In the run-up to the war Canadian opinion, even in the period between the withdrawl of the second UN resolution and Chretien's declaration in the Commons, were split with about half supporting or inclined to give benefit of the doubt to the Anglo-American position and about half supporting or inclined towards the Franco-European position.   A good chunk of Canadians were in the middle and waiting for the politicians to give some leadership.   Only after Chretien took a position - credit where its due, I don't like the decision and was slow coming and poorly executed but it was a decision - only afterwards did opinion swing against the US.   

Even now something like 30-35% of Canadians support the invasion of Iraq.   If the government had taken the Australian position then I am convinced that it would have carried the Canadian voter with it.   

The only question I have is which would sell better - liberating Iraq from a brutal dictatorship that violated human rights which, like the "responsibility to protect" line should appeal to our vanity of being moral leaders of the world, or preserving ourselves from Weapons of Mass Destruction which would seem to play a fearful, cowering audience only stirred to action when their personal safety is threatened.

This latest pronouncement I can't yet put my finger on what it says about us as a country - I am struggling to find anything positive.   To me it speaks to a disconcerting Anti-Americanism, a parsimonious desire not to spend on anything other than our own health and retirement and an overweaning an undeserved sense of moralizing self-worth.

Perhaps some of the rest of you can convince me to see this in a more positive light.   I would welcome it.


----------



## FastEddy

old medic said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll paraphrase:
> 
> In reality, this probably isn't about Canada or the US, it's about finding strategic defence for strategic allies in Asia without
> directly confronting possible Asian opponents.
> 
> The minority government can't make a politically unstable decision in Canada. The only answer possible was "No".
> A "yes" answer could bring down the government, cancel the budget, probably cost DND a further budget cut, and installed
> yet another minority government.
> 
> So I'll rephrase my reply, So our Government stays in Power by snubbing our closest Ally. thereby ensuring
> increased DND funding which trickles down to you. However if we endorse the U.S BMD, the Liberals   are voted out or fall. The Funding for the DND might not be forthcoming and you might not get a pay increase or new boots.
> 
> I imagine you find these arguments and rules for Political Decision Making acceptable.
> 
> Therefore, "The Liberals are Okay Jack - The Funding is Okay Jack - I'm Okay Jack - So Piss on you America"


----------



## old medic

FastEddy said:
			
		

> I imagine you find these arguments and rules for Political Decision Making acceptable.



This is how the world works. 



			
				FastEddy said:
			
		

> So our Government stays in Power by snubbing our closest Ally



As opposed to what?  Having another party in power that will vote "NO" on missle defence?

However, you missed the point.   This has nothing to do with us at all.   Getting Canada on side is only one way to legitimize the spending on the program for the US taxpayer, and the US Senate committees while not directly confronting the UN or the counties they theorize to use this system against. They are hiding it as homeland defence because they can sell that.  They wouldn't have support if they called it what it probably is: The Chinese Containment System, or the Sea of Japan Defence System. so they have to hide it politically as something else.

Any contribution Canada could make would be tiny, it could just as easy be done alone by the US defence budget. 

The only reason for asking us, was the very same politics your complaining about. It's all about international politics.


----------



## Dare

So you are saying that the spending for NMD in the US is only legitimate if Canada were to take part? I doubt it very much. They most certainly are not "hiding" this system anywhere. There is popular support for it there. It also certainly isn't just directed to Asia as you seem to think. Future threats are what the system is dedicated for. Thinking long term is thinking that somewhere along the line a terrorist organization may gain the capability to launch a ballistic missile at the US. It's not entirely directed at todays threats, as the system itself is not ready today. It's ready tomorrow when the threats of the future may pop up at any time. 

I'm not sure what US Senate you're talking about that is afraid of confronting the UN or it's enemies, but I don't know of such an entity. Unlike Canadian politicians, US politicians, for the most part, are far from concerned about the opinion of Kofi and his crew (unless it suits their political pursuits).

It's a very cynical view you have, that the only reason they would ask us is for the opinion of the rest of the world. I think it's much more likely that they asked us because they actually wanted to know our position, and even more likely wanted some help. I'm sure they considered the effects it would have on other nations perhaps pulling them into their umbrella, but what other major US ally is not already in the fold? And even more important, what nation would suddenly change it's mind after hearing Canada accepted BMD? 



			
				old medic said:
			
		

> This is how the world works.
> 
> As opposed to what?  Having another party in power that will vote "NO" on missle defence?
> 
> However, you missed the point.   This has nothing to do with us at all.   Getting Canada on side is only one way to legitimize the spending on the program for the US taxpayer, and the US Senate committees while not directly confronting the UN or the counties they theorize to use this system against. They are hiding it as homeland defence because they can sell that.  They wouldn't have support if they called it what it probably is: The Chinese Containment System, or the Sea of Japan Defence System. so they have to hide it politically as something else.
> 
> Any contribution Canada could make would be tiny, it could just as easy be done alone by the US defence budget.
> 
> The only reason for asking us, was the very same politics your complaining about. It's all about international politics.


----------



## Buzz

old medic said:
			
		

> In reality, this is probably more about finding a defence for threats to Taiwan, South Korea and Japan than it is about North America.
> It's just politically correct to say it's defending North America because it won't start a conflict or an arms race with China or North Korea.
> 
> Personally, Good for Mr. Dithers.
> If there is very little public support, he did the right thing.   If he, and the Canadian Military were seen (even on here) to support
> something unpopular with the public, then the CF will loose more public support.   Loosing more public support makes it politically
> acceptable to CUT the DND budget down the road.




Ok who does the US trade with in Asia?   Next who does Canada trade with in Asia?   How can Canada secure a trade advantage with countries that may see our country as being incompetant to defend our own country without the help of another country, especially in Asia where it would be look at being dishonorable being in a communist state they are in.   I'm sure that is the way it would be looked at even though we would know different if he said "yes".    So to say "no thanks" was a wise move, no errors in misconception.   In the public opinion, agreed, but because they think Martin is just taking a stand against the US all because of what we see in the media. EG)finger pointing and cross boarder closings to goods and tariffing of goods along with NAFTA and cr*p.   But down to a personal level where if we don't approve to someone's liking at the border we could be blacklisted and prohibited from entering the US for 5 years and at one point (we forget) they wanted to do biometrics.   How far is it going to go?    You know it's almost like they were taking advantage of us and hey, can you say "bad taste".   But really it's much bigger than that.   Trade, Trade, Trade.    

Do we agree we dont' need our hand held and we should be able to stand up on our own 2 feet without a crutch? Therefore, adding more money into the Military budget because of public support seeing that we have become independant upon the US. and vise versa.   I would like to see the statistics on how many Americans moved to Canada because of home land security and why they moved here instead of sticking it out.    

It usually seems, the ones that feel we don't need a military, or cut budgets are the ones that go and hug a tree every once and a while.   :-X I think it would look bad if the US started taking on defensive roles in Canada.   There is just something "not right" with that picture. How would that make you feel?      

I do agree that we need some sort of defence but in a completely different thread, a good point was brought up, that suit case bombs and nukes pose more of a threat. 


This is the pre-thread leading up until the announcement:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26593.165.html 

Alot of this is repetitive but at the same time a lot of good points were brought up aswell. Just my .02   

Cheers!
-Buzz


----------



## old medic

Dare said:
			
		

> So you are saying that the spending for NMD in the US is only legitimate if Canada were to take part?



I didn't say that at all. I didn't imply it either.  It has nothing to do with spending.  



			
				Dare said:
			
		

> It's not entirely directed at todays threats, as the system itself is not ready today



Correct, but future threats do not involve privately owned ICBMs.  They belong to the countires I mentioned.
Otherwise, you've just given us a blanket statement that could be talking about any weapon system.



			
				Dare said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what US Senate you're talking about that is afraid of confronting the UN or it's enemies, but I don't know of such an entity



You've missed the politics point as well. 
They risk having future security council resolutions at North Korea vetoed by China.  That would cause political problems for any administration. So once again, it's all about politics and confrontation down the road.  Everything is linked.



			
				Dare said:
			
		

> I think it's much more likely that they asked us because they actually wanted to know our position, and even more likely wanted some help



Once again, only for political appearance.   There is no money for such help, and if we said yes, it would come out of another DND budget line item somewhere else and mean one more cancelled piece of major kit, or another 20 years of the airforce flying antiques.



			
				Dare said:
			
		

> what nation would suddenly change it's mind after hearing Canada accepted BMD?



None at all.  I think you summed it all up right there


----------



## Buzz

old medic said:
			
		

> Correct, but future threats do not involve privately owned ICBMs.   They belong to the countires I mentioned.
> Otherwise, you've just given us a blanket statement that could be talking about any weapon system.
> 
> They risk having future security council resolutions at North Korea vetoed by China.   That would cause political problems for any administration. So once again, it's all about politics and confrontation down the road.   Everything is linked.
> 
> Once again, only for political appearance.     There is no money for such help, and if we said yes, it would come out of another DND budget line item somewhere else and mean one more cancelled piece of major kit, or another 20 years of the airforce flying antiques.



EXACTLY!!  

-Buzz


----------



## tomahawk6

All Mr Martin has to do is declare neutrality. Abrograte NATO and NAFTA. Then Canada will be like Switzerland.


----------



## Cloud Cover

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> All Mr Martin has to do is declare neutrality. Abrograte NATO and NAFTA. Then Canada will be like Switzerland.



Hello Jack Layton.


----------



## Dare

1) Explain to me how a suitcase bomb is more of a threat than a nuclear tipped ICBM? 
2) Explain to me how the US has not already taken up a defensive role for Canada?
3) Explain to me why it would be a Bad Thing that the US would step up to defend it's closest ally?
4) Explain to me why it would be a Bad Thing that Canada would step up to defend it's closest ally?

I'm not sure if you are aware, but a suitcase nuke just isn't going to make as big of a crater as your average ICBM. NMD is part of a larger strategy. Certainly they are working on port security and boarder security *as well*. Not instead of. And judging by your link to the previous thread, your posts there indicate you're simply going to use whatever excuse it takes to present BMD as a Bad Thing. What you seem to be suggesting is that we should focus exclusively on one delivery system for the weapon (a suitcase) and ignore the others. 

As for your segway into a rant about trade policies, I'm not too sure what that has to do with NMD, nor am I really sure what you're saying there. Canadians being mad because the Americans won't let them arbitrarily come into their country? Maybe we should be mad at the Jihadist who makes such policies required practice, or mad at the politicians who let such Jihadists reside in our country? 

Just a thought..



			
				Buzz said:
			
		

> Ok who does the US trade with in Asia?  Next who does Canada trade with in Asia?  How can Canada secure a trade advantage with countries that may see our country as being incompetant to defend our own country without the help of another country, especially in Asia where it would be look at being dishonorable being in a communist state they are in.  I'm sure that is the way it would be looked at even though we would know different if he said "yes".   So to say "no thanks" was a wise move, no errors in misconception.  In the public opinion, agreed, but because they think Martin is just taking a stand against the US all because of what we see in the media. EG)finger pointing and cross boarder closings to goods and tariffing of goods along with NAFTA and cr*p.  But down to a personal level where if we don't approve to someone's liking at the border we could be blacklisted and prohibited from entering the US for 5 years and at one point (we forget) they wanted to do biometrics.  How far is it going to go?   You know it's almost like they were taking advantage of us and hey, can you say "bad taste".  But really it's much bigger than that.  Trade, Trade, Trade.
> 
> Do we agree we dont' need our hand held and we should be able to stand up on our own 2 feet without a crutch? Therefore, adding more money into the Military budget because of public support seeing that we have become independant upon the US. and vise versa.  I would like to see the statistics on how many Americans moved to Canada because of home land security and why they moved here instead of sticking it out.
> 
> It usually seems, the ones that feel we don't need a military, or cut budgets are the ones that go and hug a tree every once and a while.  :-X I think it would look bad if the US started taking on defensive roles in Canada.  There is just something "not right" with that picture. How would that make you feel?
> 
> I do agree that we need some sort of defence but in a completely different thread, a good point was brought up, that suit case bombs and nukes pose more of a threat.
> 
> 
> This is the pre-thread leading up until the announcement:
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26593.165.html
> 
> Alot of this is repetitive but at the same time a lot of good points were brought up aswell. Just my .02
> 
> Cheers!
> -Buzz


----------



## old medic

Dare said:
			
		

> 1) Explain to me how a suitcase bomb is more of a threat than a nuclear tipped ICBM?




You can look at an ICBM with arial and space imagery.
You can see missle carriers the same way.
You can see silos the same way
You can see portable launchers the same way.
You can track ICBMs.

You can not do any of those things with dirty weapons or suitcases.

also,

There are missing Soviet suitcases.
Suitcases are easy to hide.
Suitcases require less man power.
Suitcases are very hard to account for.
Suitcases and dirty weapons are easier to carry down the sidewalk than a Titan or an SS18.


But this is now getting way off track.  Lets try and keep this on topic.


----------



## Dare

old medic said:
			
		

> I didn't say that at all. I didn't imply it either.  It has nothing to do with spending.


"Getting Canada on side is only one way to legitimize the spending on the program for the US taxpayer"
Sure looks like more than an implication to me.



> Correct, but future threats do not involve privately owned ICBMs.  They belong to the countires I mentioned.
> Otherwise, you've just given us a blanket statement that could be talking about any weapon system.


Ah, now I think it's you who's "missing the point". See future threats do indeed involve privately owned ICBMs, as well as cruise missiles. As the cost and technology filters down, as it will eventually, this will become more and more of a problem. How much money do you think it costs to buy an ICBM? You think that only states can manage that cost? You think that the ones that would be capable of supplying or producing such technology would only be willing to sell to a state? 


> You've missed the politics point as well.
> They risk having future security council resolutions at North Korea vetoed by China.  That would cause political problems for any administration. So once again, it's all about politics and confrontation down the road.  Everything is linked.


No, actually, I didn't miss any point. I dismissed the point. As we have seen in this US administration, they're perfectly content in going around the UN. While it's true most things are linked in some way, kind of like how I'm 7 degrees seperated from Kevin Bacon. Unfortunately, this isn't a very good measure of an actual connection. Asking Canada to join a NMD system is not some kind of elabourate public relations event.


> Once again, only for political appearance.   There is no money for such help, and if we said yes, it would come out of another DND budget line item somewhere else and mean one more cancelled piece of major kit, or another 20 years of the airforce flying antiques.


I'm sure they could cough up some money. Perhaps it would come from the DND's budget. So what? This sort of thing is far more important. We managed to cough up quite a bit in disaster relief for tsunami victims. It was important. How about managing that to avoid an even bigger disaster.


----------



## Dare

First off, this is very much on topic.

Secondly, isn't it lovely how you can see all those things. I notice you didn't put DEFEND AGAINST anywhere in amongst that list. It's interesting and wonderful we can see those ICBM's. It's also unfortunate we can't see those suitcase nukes, but when all is said and done. Once the ICBM is launched, it's flung into space and then hurtles down at Mach 23 and makes quite a big dent into a lot of peoples lives. A suitcase nuke would also make a pretty big dent. The ICBM's dent is orders of magnitude larger, but apparently, according to you, it's less of a threat because we saw it launch and tracked it in space.



			
				old medic said:
			
		

> You can look at an ICBM with arial and space imagery.
> You can see missle carriers the same way.
> You can see silos the same way
> You can see portable launchers the same way.
> You can track ICBMs.
> 
> You can not do any of those things with dirty weapons or suitcases.
> 
> also,
> 
> There are missing Soviet suitcases.
> Suitcases are easy to hide.
> Suitcases require less man power.
> Suitcases are very hard to account for.
> Suitcases and dirty weapons are easier to carry down the sidewalk than a Titan or an SS18.
> 
> 
> But this is now getting way off track.  Lets try and keep this on topic.


----------



## Buzz

Dare said:
			
		

> 1) Explain to me how a suitcase bomb is more of a threat than a nuclear tipped ICBM?


Not to sound blunt but both are dangerous to the public. One is on a much larger scale than the other. Obviously.


			
				Dare said:
			
		

> 2) Explain to me how the US has not already taken up a defensive role for Canada?


Good one..and point taken. But question to you is how does that make you feel then?


			
				Dare said:
			
		

> 3) Explain to me why it would be a Bad Thing that the US would step up to defend it's closest ally?


It wouldn't be a bad thing but depending on the severity or scale.   Not at the tip of hat. 


			
				Dare said:
			
		

> 4) Explain to me why it would be a Bad Thing that Canada would step up to defend it's closest ally?


If you read any of my earlier post in which i don't think you really did....I mentioned that if an unknown was in our airspace who says we wouldn't shoot it down anyway. and was wondering what the NORAD policy was concidering that should still be in effect no?


			
				Dare said:
			
		

> And judging by your link to the previous thread, your posts there indicate you're simply going to use whatever excuse it takes to present BMD as a Bad Thing. What you seem to be suggesting is that we should focus exclusively on one delivery system for the weapon (a suitcase) and ignore the others.


Not at all.   It seems you'll use any excuse to support it and I'm not suggesting anything in regards to a suitcase bomb being the only means of an attack against our homeland. But what I am suggesting is reading what others have to say and seeing the validity as to why Paul Martin said no.   I didn't say no! hahaha But as an average civvy this is what I see and read. Remember to keep that in mind. But if I saw a reason as to why Canada should have it...I might be in agreeance with you. Simple. Money plays a major role. How are we going to expand when we have no money.   Because now we have to jointly look after(maintain) our end of a piece of equipment for something that may or may not happen.   


			
				Dare said:
			
		

> As for your segway into a rant about trade policies, I'm not too sure what that has to do with NMD, nor am I really sure what you're saying there. Canadians being mad because the Americans won't let them arbitrarily come into their country? Maybe we should be mad at the Jihadist who makes such policies required practice, or mad at the politicians who let such Jihadists reside in our country?


let me put it this way....how are we going to get more money so we can expand our military? Is the US our only trade partner? 

Continued thought.......


----------



## Dare

1] I do not mind that the US is involved in defending Canada, I do not mind that any of our allies are involved. They are allies.
2] I don't quite understand your second question.
3] I do not know how we are going to get more money to expand our military, but I'm quite positive that theres more than enough fat that can be trimmed from government spending to cover it.
4] Obviously the US is not our only trading partner, but it's unarguably the most important trading partner. We would fall into anarchy if they shut the borders down for a significant chunk of time. We *are* dependant. It's time we faced up to that fact and planned with that in mind. Ignoring it does not make it change.



			
				Buzz said:
			
		

> Not to sound blunt but both are dangerous to the public. One is on a much larger scale than the other. Obviously.Good one..and point taken. But question to you is how does that make you feel then?It wouldn't be a bad thing but depending on the severity or scale.  Not at the tip of hat. If you read any of my earlier post in which i don't think you really did....I mentioned that if an unknown was in our airspace who says we wouldn't shoot it down anyway. and was wondering what the NORAD policy was concidering that should still be in effect no?Not at all.  It seems you'll use any excuse to support it and I'm not suggesting anything in regards to a suitcase bomb being the only means of an attack against our homeland. But what I am suggesting is reading what others have to say and seeing the validity as to why Paul Martin said no.  I didn't say no! hahaha But as an average civvy this is what I see and read. Remember to keep that in mind. But if I saw a reason as to why Canada should have it...I might be in agreeance with you. Simple. Money plays a major role. How are we going to expand when we have no money.  Because now we have to jointly look after(maintain) our end of a piece of equipment for something that may or may not happen.  let me put it this way....how are we going to get more money so we can expand our military? Is the US our only trade partner?
> 
> Continued thought.......


----------



## big_johnson1

Dare said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if you are aware, but a suitcase nuke just isn't going to make as big of a crater as your average ICBM. NMD is part of a larger strategy. Certainly they are working on port security and boarder security *as well*. Not instead of. And judging by your link to the previous thread, your posts there indicate you're simply going to use whatever excuse it takes to present BMD as a Bad Thing. What you seem to be suggesting is that we should focus exclusively on one delivery system for the weapon (a suitcase) and ignore the others.



A suitcase nuke could be just as bad as an ICBM because if it were taken up to the top floor of a buildling, even just 300 feet, that is more than enough to create the same effect as an airburst. An airbust just has to be above the ground to be effective. If the US DOE estimate of as little as 4kg of plutonium required for a nuke is correct, then you could be dealing with 1-5kilotons in a very small package. Doesn't sound like much until it's detonated in downtown New York, with a population density of about 70,000 per square mile in Manhattan. Suddenly that 1/4 mile crater seems to do a lot more damage doesn't it?


----------



## Buzz

Dare said:
			
		

> 2] I don't quite understand your second question.


I was wondering what the policy was for NORAD because if the early warning system was upgraded to recognize and track an ICBM for an early warning.   Would this in fact allow us to "go get" regardless if it's heading to the states or not.   And be much cheaper than installing an anti-missle program with the use of patriots or whatever they deem to be anti ICMB.


----------



## spenco

More government flip flopping.  

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/02/26/missile-defence050226.html

OTTAWA - Ottawa won't be taking part in the U.S. ballistic missile defence system, but Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew says that doesn't mean Canadian aerospace companies shouldn't get involved. 
  
Pettigrew says having the government join the program would have been inconsistent with Canada's defence priorities, and U.S. officials have given no assurances it wouldn't lead to placing weapons in space. 
But Pettigrew, in an interview with CBC' Radio's The House, sees no contradiction with Canadian companies bidding on contracts to build that same system. 

"I do not believe that we should control Canadian business. I would be very pleased if Canadian busines can contribute to the defence systems of the United States," says Pettigrew. 

While the government has no trouble endorsing the participation of Canadian firms in the controversial defence system, they may end up shut out of contracts. 


Natalie Bourque, vice-president of CAE, a Montreal-based company that produces weapons simulators, says she's not confident the company will get any missile defence work now. 
"We would have liked the government to move ahead because it would have meant good contracts for CAE and good contracts for our employees," she says. 

Instead, Canadian aerospace firms are hoping the Feb. 23 budget and the promised $13 billion in new defence spending will provide work oppportunities they no longer expect from south of the border.


----------



## Dare

I certainly do not dispute the lethality of a suitcase nuke. I only compare that an ICBM is considerably larger and more lethal.There are micronukes and such of various yields, but this goes around my point. Which is that, it's very important we be able to defend against an attack of this type and while we have a multitiered system to filter out and detect nuclear material being shipped here on boats and planes, we do not have any sort of system to filter out nuclear material being shipped on incoming missiles. 



			
				Feral said:
			
		

> A suitcase nuke could be just as bad as an ICBM because if it were taken up to the top floor of a buildling, even just 300 feet, that is more than enough to create the same effect as an airburst. An airbust just has to be above the ground to be effective. If the US DOE estimate of as little as 4kg of plutonium required for a nuke is correct, then you could be dealing with 1-5kilotons in a very small package. Doesn't sound like much until it's detonated in downtown New York, with a population density of about 70,000 per square mile in Manhattan. Suddenly that 1/4 mile crater seems to do a lot more damage doesn't it?


----------



## tomahawk6

Canada does 80% of its trade with the US which makes the relationship mutually beneficial.


----------



## a_majoor

signalsguy said:
			
		

> Okay, sure, but what can we contribute?



Canada has an active aerospace industry, which has produced (for example) a space telescope microsat which only cost $10 million CDN, for an essentially hand built product.( Look up the MOST satellite). A mass produced version could cost only a few million and act as the spaceborn "eyes" not only for BMD, but for ALL CF activities across the globe. Look up where Canadian troops are, and this will come into focus.

The sensor and C4I infrastructure would have the biggest boost for our entire armed forces, as well as auxilliary uses for other Government departments (like the Coast Guard, natural resources, agriculture, air traffic control, the list goes on and on). Oddly enough, this also lends itself to protection against conventional threats like cruise missiles and enemy ships, and can help guide people towards suitcase nukes in transit, when coupled to other assets like enhanced law enforcement and intelligence.

Since we don't wish to contribute; the microsats will be built by Lougheed or Boeing rather than SPAR or Bristol Aerospace, and the US Coast Guard and US Department of the Interior will have fantastic new tools to carry out their work.


----------



## a_majoor

Pte Joe, if the Americans removed the KE interceptors and replaced them with nuclear warheads, then they would have a fully functional BMD system, just like the 1970 era "Safeguard" (which was closed for political reasons) or the corresponding Russian "Galosh" system, *which is still operational* since it is not affected by "political" decisions in the same way the American system was.

Every army in history had systems which either did not work as planned, or only worked after periods of development (or sometimes when they were used for another purpose altogether). The US fascenation with KE interceptors is due to the associated problems with deploying and using nuclear weapons, and they certainly can afford the time and money spent to make them work, or build enough of them to fill the sky with interceptors so at least one will strike the target.

Given the reality of a "live" BMD system in Russia, why is it a bad idea for anyone else to have one?


----------



## old medic

Dare said:
			
		

> . See future threats do indeed involve privately owned ICBMs, as well as cruise missiles.



Once again Dare, your talking about something you have no idea about.  Provide some hard evidence to support your claim about privately owned ICBMs.



			
				Dare said:
			
		

> As we have seen in this US administration, they're perfectly content in going around the UN.



Then why are you arguing they need Canada? 



			
				Dare said:
			
		

> Perhaps it would come from the DND's budget. So what? This sort of thing is far more important.



Again, you show complete ignorance of the real world. There is no support for what you suggest, either from the public, 
or from the military to have its tiny and hard won budget money redirected to alternate government projects.


----------



## JBP

> Pte Joe, if the Americans removed the KE interceptors and replaced them with nuclear warheads, then they would have a fully functional BMD system, just like the 1970 era "Safeguard" (which was closed for political reasons) or the corresponding Russian "Galosh" system, which is still operational since it is not affected by "political" decisions in the same way the American system was.
> 
> Every army in history had systems which either did not work as planned, or only worked after periods of development (or sometimes when they were used for another purpose altogether). The US fascenation with KE interceptors is due to the associated problems with deploying and using nuclear weapons, and they certainly can afford the time and money spent to make them work, or build enough of them to fill the sky with interceptors so at least one will strike the target.
> 
> Given the reality of a "live" BMD system in Russia, why is it a bad idea for anyone else to have one?




It's not a bad idea, in fact, it's a great _idea_...

I was one of those people who were against BMD for aaallllooongggg time. I've done some homework kind of and with the testing so far, I think it would be an awesome defensive measure. It's taken out 5 out of 8 test missles so far. To me, that's pretty damn good odds SO FAR, even though it's not fully functional or nuclear. That would have been millions of people those interceptor missles saved. MILLIONS upon millions. 

Over the last month or so, I've changed my mind about BMD overall. I'd even go so far to suggest that maybe it'd be a good idea if they spread some interceptor bases across our gigantic northern front. That way we'd be protected at least abit from any "over the top" (artic/Russian) nuke attacks also and not just on one side of the coast! Only if those could be manned by Canadians, that way it'd open up some jobs for our friends here and create some co-operation between us and the USA. Have some liason officers from the USA at each missle base? 

I realize also, not only is BMD of crucial importance to Canada's overall well being, it's a very strong geo-political tool also. It would serve to stregthen the ties with our US friends and maybe help clear up some trade issues down the road and possibly send a message to the world the Canada doesn't want to be a defensless country. The proverbial "whuppy cushion" of war as it were...

Unfortunately, it would cost A LOT of money to fully implement BMD. In the range of what we've been allocated for new spending (12-13Billion)-(Like we'll see it all! LOL) and tax payers just don't want to bother it seems. Or so that's what Mr. Martin is thinking anyway....

ALL THAT SAID: Basically I think BMD will eventually be a fact of Canada's defense within the next 3-7 years at the longest! The US knows eventually they can have our government agree to it by waiting until we've change governmental parties or had a new vote. They'll just political tool it so I don't see what all the fuss is about that Martin said no. It won't change the fact it'll happen eventually...


----------



## Buzz

Dare said:
			
		

> I certainly do not dispute the lethality of a suitcase nuke. I only compare that an ICBM is considerably larger and more lethal.There are micronukes and such of various yields, but this goes around my point. Which is that, it's very important we be able to defend against an attack of this type and while we have a multitiered system to filter out and detect nuclear material being shipped here on boats and planes, we do not have any sort of system to filter out nuclear material being shipped on incoming missiles.


It's my understanding that anything that is a controlled substance has a UN number and has to be tracked and, not only that, it is traceable  under ISO standardization. Should be anyway.  Not all the time in countries that take it upon themselves to make and not keep track of or have logs of.   But your right to say there is no way of knowing if it is a nuke warhead on an inbound ICBM or...a biological one for that matter.  Both would be disastrous but if we could scramble and intercept it in time, via early warning by the upgraded NORAD, would it really matter so long as we take it out of commission.  I think that would be the ultimate goal versus waiting to see what we're dealing with.  Basically, does it really matter what payload it's carrying because it's going to have to be take out anyway. But as stated earlier where it's taken out plays a big role because the majority of the canadian pop. lives within 200 km of the US - CAN Border.  Something that would probably be a greater concern. no? So I'm not sure if your just agreeing to disagree.  Would that be a more probable assumption?   Personally, I know I would be pissed if a ICBM was taken down near the say 50th parallel and wiped out a town ..just because it was enroute to the US. what would you think about that?

It is also my understanding that even though you take the missle out of commision it won't necessarily explode or detonate? So this scenero based town might survive...but would this assumption be true?

I really like the idea of contracting out the work to Canadian companies to support our own defence system.  It's job creation and it's supporting our own.   

I'm done....

Cheers!!
-Buzz


----------



## FastEddy

Buzz said:
			
		

> the majority of the canadian pop. lives within 200 km of the US - CAN Border.
> 
> It is also my understanding that even though you take the missle out of commision it won't necessarily explode or detonate? So this scenero based town might survive...but would this assumption be true?




Just an inquiry, If the points of entry for an ICBM would be over the Arctic or the Northern Pacific, Where would NORAD pick it up. Where would it be over when our trusty interceptors engaged it (and if so with what?), of course without consulting Mr. Dithers as to intercept or not.

And my final point of interest is, would its destruction detonate its nuclear warhead (creating a Air Burst),
presuming it was Nuclear.


----------



## Dare

old medic said:
			
		

> Once again Dare, your talking about something you have no idea about.  Provide some hard evidence to support your claim about privately owned ICBMs.


"Hard evidence" of a future threat? Right. How about Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan the rogue scientist? He sure got around, that fellow. And that's just one guy we know. Again, as I'm trying to explain. This is about *future threats*. Not about *todays threats*. I'm not talking about ICBMs you can simply buy at Walmart here. I'm talking about terrorist groups aquiring this technology and some plutonium/uranium. Don't think it's any more than that, because they have the resources, money and will to operate an ICBM. Whatever delivery method they choose to use. Ie. "Mr President, we have an ICBM directed at your country, release our prisoners or we will blow up a major city." What do you do then? Hm? What makes you so sure you know where this ICBM is in the first place? Or cruise missile? Why would we willingly leave our country open to such a thing, simply because we're worried about funding? It seems as though everyone else is going to pay for it at the moment but it would definitely be nice of us to put in some millions and/or at least a contribution of diplomatic support for the concept.


> Then why are you arguing they need Canada?


Where did I say they "needed" Canada? They *want* Canada on board. They obviously don't Need Canada on board. And since when does the UN equate to Canada?


> Again, you show complete ignorance of the real world. There is no support for what you suggest, either from the public,
> or from the military to have its tiny and hard won budget money redirected to alternate government projects.


Framed in the proper context, our "leaders" could have easily put it through but instead they allowed the media to chew on it for years on end, without actually showing any leadership. Not only that, why do you think that NMD would not be run by the military? The US doesn't need large sums of money from us, they would like some support for our mutual defence. Being involved in this system, being at the table at something that *will* effect our airspace, even if we are not at the table, would seem to be a pretty good idea.


----------



## Dare

1,2,3] Of course we should be concerned about where these missiles are taken out. Which is a Major reason why would should be *involved* in it's planning and setup. So we have a say where and how things are operated. As of now we have abdicated that knowing full well the Americans are going to go ahead anyways.
4,5] Yes, it is possible and even likely that once you kill the missile the warhead may still be intact then fall and detonate on impact. This happened a lot to SCUD missiles during Desert Storm that were shot by Patriot missile batteries. It's also possible that it won't detonate. I would think it's more likely it would though. The plan though, is to have several layers of defence with the idea of keeping the missile from even getting to our continent, let alone over a population centre.




			
				Buzz said:
			
		

> It's my understanding that anything that is a controlled substance has a UN number and has to be tracked and, not only that, it is traceable  under ISO standardization. Should be anyway.  Not all the time in countries that take it upon themselves to make and not keep track of or have logs of.   But your right to say there is no way of knowing if it is a nuke warhead on an inbound ICBM or...a biological one for that matter.  Both would be disastrous but if we could scramble and intercept it in time, via early warning by the upgraded NORAD, would it really matter so long as we take it out of commission.  I think that would be the ultimate goal versus waiting to see what we're dealing with.  Basically, does it really matter what payload it's carrying because it's going to have to be take out anyway. But as stated earlier where it's taken out plays a big role because the majority of the canadian pop. lives within 200 km of the US - CAN Border.  Something that would probably be a greater concern. no? So I'm not sure if your just agreeing to disagree.  Would that be a more probable assumption?   Personally, I know I would be pissed if a ICBM was taken down near the say 50th parallel and wiped out a town ..just because it was enroute to the US. what would you think about that?
> 
> It is also my understanding that even though you take the missle out of commision it won't necessarily explode or detonate? So this scenero based town might survive...but would this assumption be true?
> 
> I really like the idea of contracting out the work to Canadian companies to support our own defence system.  It's job creation and it's supporting our own.
> 
> I'm done....
> 
> Cheers!!
> -Buzz


----------



## Edward Campbell

A litle more fuel, from today's _Ottawa Citizen_ at: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=c929c12e-611c-4003-8dcd-8f676dd2d7db 



> Space program could feed data to missile shield
> 
> U.S. told Canadian technology could play role in defence plan
> 
> *a journalist*
> The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> Sunday, February 27, 2005
> 
> The Canadian military's fledgling space program could provide the U.S. with backdoor support for its missile defence shield, according to a plan envisioned by the generals in Ottawa years ago and quietly promoted to the Americans.
> 
> But defence analysts question whether such space programs will be able to repair the damage to political and military relations created by Prime Minister Paul Martin's decision not to have Canada take part in the missile system.
> 
> At least two Canadian space surveillance sensors, to be launched over the next several years, are capable of feeding information to the U.S. for possible support to the missile defence system, or a smaller version of the shield being built for use on overseas missions.
> 
> And while Defence department representatives have officially said the programs are not linked to the Pentagon's anti-missile system, that did not stop officers from informing the U.S. years ago that the space program is designed, not only to provide the Canadian military with new capabilities, but to show the country's commitment to the U.S. and provide a roundabout contribution to the missile shield.
> 
> Defence analyst David Rudd said the space programs have the potential to develop into a situation similar to the controversy earlier this week over Frank McKenna's comments on missile defence.
> 
> Mr. McKenna, the country's new ambassador to Washington, said Canada was already taking part in the U.S. program since it approved changes last summer to allow Norad to track incoming missiles, an assessment Mr. Rudd agrees with.
> 
> "This is all so typically very Canadian," added Mr. Rudd, executive director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.
> 
> "We want to be in the tent, but at the same time stay virginal."
> 
> At the heart of the military's plan is the Joint Space Project, a mixture of space-based surveillance and intelligence-gathering systems. According to a memorandum detailing a series of meetings in 1998, U.S. Lt.-Gen. Lester Lyles, director of the Ballistic Missile Defence Organization, was included in high-level discussions outlining how Canada could participate in the shield.
> 
> "This should prove helpful in determining the best way through which to develop a Canadian defence space capability, through the Joint Space Project, that will provide an asymmetrical contribution," Canadian defence officials wrote.
> 
> The asymmetrical contribution would create a space program that could be seen as making a contribution to shield or, if the Canadian government decided against that, would still be of value in contributing to the overall security of North America.
> 
> Included in that program is Project Sapphire, a $75-million surveillance sensor to be launched in several years. Sapphire will gather information on the whereabouts of orbiting debris and defunct satellites that could pose a hazard to spacecraft, as well as provide data on such objects re-entering the Earth's atmosphere. That information would be very useful to the shield's warning systems since the data could be used to determine that such objects were not incoming ballistic missiles. At the same time, Sapphire will keep on eye on foreign satellites, feeding the information into the U.S. space surveillance network.
> 
> Disarmament analysts worry Sapphire could be used for targeting enemy satellites, but Canadian military officials stress the program's mission is benign.
> 
> But a June 1999 report prepared for Canada's then-top officer, Gen. Maurice Baril, noted Sapphire would not only provide a solid contribution to the military partnership with the Americans, but could "be accepted by the United States as a contribution offsetting benefits to Canada of a national missile defence system" should Canada agree to participate.
> 
> In December 2002, officials at Defence Research and Development Canada in Ottawa outlined several programs on the go that could be of use in a smaller version of the missile shield the U.S. is developing. Included among those is a new, high-frequency radar being installed on Canada's coastlines, as well as the next generation Radarsat satellite that the military will use for surveillance, primarily for the ocean approaches to Canada.
> 
> The portable version of the high-frequency radar could be used as a low-cost ballistic missile detection system, providing early warning and rough estimates of launch positions and impact points of enemy warheads, according to a report prepared by the Ottawa scientists. "Canada does have good industrial capability in systems that are peripheral to missile defence," their study concluded. "While Radarsat is not a missile surveillance system, future versions could help to understand what is happening on the ground."
> 
> That view is supported by a report from Foreign Affairs officials, who note Radarsat could be used to track portable missile launchers on the ground.
> 
> Defence analyst Jim Fergusson says while information gathered by Canadian space sensors will still be welcomed by the U.S., what the Bush administration really wanted was the Martin government's political support for the shield and an agreement to allow the Canadian Forces to directly take part in the system. "The idea of us being able to leverage small investments such as Radarsat and Sapphire into bigger access and bigger knowledge is pretty well dead in the water now," said Mr. Fergusson, director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies in Winnipeg. "I think they'll shut those doors on us."
> 
> Other portions of the Joint Space Project have branched off into secretive endeavours and little is known about their relationship to missile defence. Project Polar Ice, a Canadian surveillance space system that could be launched at the end of the decade, was started after the Defence department accepted an invitation from U.S. officials to contribute to an American spy system. Another program, dubbed Troodos, cost the Defence department $50 million and is believed to be a system designed to accept data from the Pentagon's spy satellites.



Editors and publishers are keeping the heat on PM PM (a.k.a. Mr. Dithers) because he and his cabinet and senior officials are trying to have it both ways; good on the editors and publishers (and writers, too, a journalist): hypocrisy smells.   It is also 'good news' for publishers and editors â â€œ something a bit controversial to fill the blanks between adverts.   That being said, and slightly off topic, I prefer the _Globe and Mail's_ solution ... last Friday I, like someone named Dan Gleason, was pleased to see, on the front page, above the fold, the picture of an attractive young lady.   Mr. Gleason summed up my reaction very well in a letter to the _Good Grey Globe_ which said:



> Bye-bye Boyd
> 
> By DAN GLEASON
> Saturday, February 26, 2005 - Page A18
> 
> Fredericton -- I had never heard of Suzanne Boyd or of her fashion magazine before I saw your story. However, any excuse to put a picture of a beautiful woman on your front page is okay by me. Keep up the good work.


----------



## tomahawk6

The US has had in place for a long time US officers who are shadows of Canadian officers in NORAD who can step in to replace their counterparts. This has been necessary with the increasingly unreliability of Canadian governments.

My guess is that a launch will be detected as soon as the rocket engines fire up. The MDA web site offers three opportunities to engage a missile. The boost phase - first 3-5 minutes of launch at altitudes of 300 miles or less. Mid course phase which is when the vehicles stops thrusting and this gives a 20 minute engagement window. Terminal phase is 30 seconds to a minute as the warhead begins its descent.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Ok hypothetical scenario...what if we did sign on to the BMD (as I think we should have). 2 missiles are launched from the Rogue nation of Iceland, one is targetted towards Washington and one is targetted towards Ottawa, for what ever reason only one interceptor is available, which city would be saved? I think you already know the answer. So whats the difference, we sign on or we don't sign on we would never have that much of a say irregardless.


----------



## big_johnson1

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Just an inquiry, If the points of entry for an ICBM would be over the Arctic or the Northern Pacific, Where would NORAD pick it up. Where would it be over when our trusty interceptors engaged it (and if so with what?), of course without consulting Mr. Dithers as to intercept or not.
> 
> And my final point of interest is, would its destruction detonate its nuclear warhead (creating a Air Burst),
> presuming it was Nuclear.



It's more the heat plume from ignition that initially gets attention, as any rocket requires quite the "explosion" (controlled) to get into orbit.

As for destroying an inbound missile, well, think about this. It took YEARS in the 40s to perfect the explosive symetry to properly compress the plutonium in the first implosion bomb (Fat Man), and everything is timed to the point where the explosives need to go off at EXACTLY the same time to produce a shock wave capable of compressing plutonium to a critical state. It wouldn't take much to disrupt that explosion to the point where it doesn't allow the nuclear material to chain react. Of course, you'd still have radioactive material scattered for hundreds of kilometers.


----------



## a_majoor

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Ok hypothetical scenario...what if we did sign on to the BMD (as I think we should have). 2 missiles are launched from the Rogue nation of Iceland, one is targetted towards Washington and one is targetted towards Ottawa, for what ever reason only one interceptor is available, which city would be saved? I think you already know the answer. So whats the difference, we sign on or we don't sign on we would never have that much of a say irregardless.



That only assumes we are a "trophy wife". If we make contributions in kind (space sensors, land for bases or radar systems etc.) there will be a few more interceptors available...


----------



## FastEddy

Feral said:
			
		

> It's more the heat plume from ignition that initially gets attention, as any rocket requires quite the "explosion" (controlled) to get into orbit.
> 
> As for destroying an inbound missile, well, think about this. It took YEARS in the 40s to perfect the explosive symetry to properly compress the plutonium in the first implosion bomb (Fat Man), and everything is timed to the point where the explosives need to go off at EXACTLY the same time to produce a shock wave capable of compressing plutonium to a critical state. It wouldn't take much to disrupt that explosion to the point where it doesn't allow the nuclear material to chain react. Of course, you'd still have radioactive material scattered for hundreds of kilometers.




Thank you Feral. then it would be advantageous to detonate a ICBM as close to the Launch Site as possible.
Is this possible with the U.S. BMD (when perfected), lets say some where in the Middle East ?.

Is there any detection difference between a ICBM and a Orbital Satellite Rocket ?.

Excluding the U.S. BMD, what method of effective Interception does Canada have and how close to North America would interception likely be ?.

If some of these questions are beyond your scope, don't worry, maybe one of our members might be able to fill us in, thanks again for any information contributed.

Is NORAD on its own capable of detecting these launches (heat plume etc.) ?.


----------



## Thirstyson

> then it would be advantageous to detonate a ICBM as close to the Launch Site as possible.



Yes... a more reliable BMD solution is sea and/or air based around current threats. ICBMs are much easier to track and take down when they are on the way up and an interceptor follows them instead of going head on.



> Is this possible with the U.S. BMD (when perfected), lets say some where in the Middle East ?.



Not the controversial system that is being deployed right now.



> Is there any detection difference between a ICBM and a Orbital Satellite Rocket ?.



Not really, many ICBM rocket models have been altered to launch satellites (and even vice versa). The main difference would be the launch location.


----------



## FastEddy

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> Yes... a more reliable BMD solution is sea and/or air based around current threats. ICBMs are much easier to track and take down when they are on the way up and an interceptor follows them instead of going head on.
> 
> Not the controversial system that is being deployed right now.
> 
> Not really, many ICBM rocket models have been altered to launch satellites (and even vice versa). The main difference would be the launch location.
> 
> Good job Thirstyson, I'd still be interested on NORAND and how we would cope with it, if it got to close or over us
> 
> Thanks, FastEddy.


----------



## Infanteer

Ever since Ogdensburg in 1941, Ottawa and Washington exist in the same "sphere" of "Homeland Defence", whether we Canadians like it or not.


----------



## big_johnson1

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Excluding the U.S. BMD, what method of effective Interception does Canada have and how close to North America would interception likely be ?.
> 
> If some of these questions are beyond your scope, don't worry, maybe one of our members might be able to fill us in, thanks again for any information contributed.
> 
> Is NORAD on its own capable of detecting these launches (heat plume etc.) ?.



I don't know what if any method of interception we have, although I kinda doubt we have one. Missile interception is a pretty exact science, sometimes refered to as "hitting a bullet with a bullet", although I suppose if we wanted to there would be no reason why a nuclear tipped anti-air missile like the old Bomarcs couldn't take out an inbound ICBM. The Bomarc would probably only have to get within half a mile to take out the missile. Of course there is always the fun of radiation from using nukes to take out nukes.

As for NORAD detecting those launches, the heat given off by a launching missile or satellite or whatever would be visible from space without a problem, even in warmer parts of the globe. Remember, it's essentially a controlled/focused explosion. If you believe what Tom Clancy writes the NRO could read the ID #s on the side of the ICBM


----------



## FastEddy

Feral said:
			
		

> I don't know what if any method of interception we have, although I kinda doubt we have one. Missile interception is a pretty exact science, sometimes refered to as "hitting a bullet with a bullet", although I suppose if we wanted to there would be no reason why a nuclear tipped anti-air missile like the old Bomarcs couldn't take out an inbound ICBM. The Bomarc would probably only have to get within half a mile to take out the missile. Of course there is always the fun of radiation from using nukes to take out nukes.
> 
> As for NORAD detecting those launches, the heat given off by a launching missile or satellite or whatever would be visible from space without a problem, even in warmer parts of the globe. Remember, it's essentially a controlled/focused explosion. If you believe what Tom Clancy writes the NRO could read the ID #s on the side of the ICBM


[/color


Thanks Feral,

So NORAD is on line and hooked up with satilites we or the U.S. have deployed ?.


----------



## tomahawk6

In doing some research I found this paper from the Canadian Forces College.

http://wps.cfc.dnd.ca/papers/csc29/exnh/smit.htm


----------



## old medic

Dare said:
			
		

> "Hard evidence" of a future threat? Right.



Yes. If your talking about it, you must have some proof Dare.  You must have some documents from 
some reputable strategic think tank that shows the threat of privately controlled ICBMs.   



			
				Dare said:
			
		

> Don't think it's any more than that, because they have the resources, money and will to operate an ICBM.



Once again Dare, show some proof for your claim of personally operated ICBMs. 



			
				Dare said:
			
		

> What makes you so sure you know where this ICBM is in the first place?



Dare, do you seriously think there are privately controlled ICBM's wandering around, and that you can
hide an ICBM launch?  I urge you to do some more reading on this.



			
				Dare said:
			
		

> Framed in the proper context, our "leaders" could have easily put it through but instead they allowed
> the media to chew on it for years on end, without actually showing any leadership. Not only that, why
> do you think that NMD would not be run by the military?



Absolutely not. There was no way to push this through.  It would be political suicide.
and who said anything about NMD not being run by a military?

As for your earlier claims that ICBMs a the biggest threat, I quote you Former Defence Minister Paul Hellyer from
The Globe and Mail (Saturday February 26th 2005):

" ...  Canada could also play a lead role in helping to orchestrate a massive search for the missing
Russian "suitcase" bombs, which pose a more imminent threat to the Unitied States than rogue 
missiles.  ..."


----------



## 48Highlander

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Ok hypothetical scenario...what if we did sign on to the BMD (as I think we should have). 2 missiles are launched from the Rogue nation of Iceland, one is targetted towards Washington and one is targetted towards Ottawa, for what ever reason only one interceptor is available, which city would be saved? I think you already know the answer. So whats the difference, we sign on or we don't sign on we would never have that much of a say irregardless.



A hypothetical 2 missiles are launched, hypothticaly targeting the two North American capital cities, and hypotheticaly only one missile is available?   Isn't that a lot of theorizing?   If only one missile were available, someone would have royaly screwed the pooch.   And, ofcourse, we'd end up blaming the Americans and their evil imperialistic policies.

What it comes down to is that it would cost us next to nothing to participate, and could potentialy be very beneficial.   You can make up all the hypothetical scenarios you want, but they don't change anything.


----------



## JBP

> What it comes down to is that it would cost us next to nothing to participate



You cannot say that, it will definately cost us A LOT. But, the US has also suggested they'd cover about half the cost, just so we'd do it!!! Your next statement is more then on the ball though... Even if you just counter in the wages of the soldiers/people manning those stations in Canadian borders it would be a lot of money. Let alone any other factors.



> and could potentialy be very beneficial



5 hits out of 8 while it's in it's test phase sounds DAMN beneficial to me!



> You can make up all the hypothetical scenarios you want, but they don't change anything.



HA! The whole idea of BMD is based off a "hypothetical" scenario in reality. That "hypothetically" we'll have a "rogue" missle(s) sent towards us... So basically it does change a lot. Regardless though, the scenario he suggested would never come to pass. I'm sure eventually the eastern coast will be protected also by BMD but the priority is obviously the other side at the moment and probably in the future also.

We will be apart of BMD in the next 3-7 years at most.


----------



## 48Highlander

Pte (R) Joe said:
			
		

> You cannot say that, it will definately cost us A LOT. But, the US has also suggested they'd cover about half the cost, just so we'd do it!!! Your next statement is more then on the ball though... Even if you just counter in the wages of the soldiers/people manning those stations in Canadian borders it would be a lot of money. Let alone any other factors.



uhhh....what?  half the....half of WHAT cost?  half of zero is zero last time I checked...I think you should double check your research.  They don't want to base any missiles on our soil.  What wages for what people on what stations are you refering to?  All we'd be responsible for providing is radar data from stations that already exist, and are manned on a regular basis.


----------



## FastEddy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> In doing some research I found this paper from the Canadian Forces College.
> 
> http://wps.cfc.dnd.ca/papers/csc29/exnh/smit.htm




Some Reading Tomahawk, every body who thinks he/she knows whats happened or going on should read this paper, it may not change their opinion, but definitely give them a lot more insight.


----------



## old medic

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> In doing some research I found this paper from the Canadian Forces College.
> 
> http://wps.cfc.dnd.ca/papers/csc29/exnh/smit.htm



An interesting read, but the conclusions are off base and unjustified.

I will quote a recent article from David Rudd, President of the Institute of Strategic Studies :

" Will U.S. relations be plunged into the deep freeze? Probably not.
Will they remain harmonious at all levels? Hard to say.
Anyone who claims to know precisely how this will affect Canada - U.S. 
relations over the long term is a fool, a charlatan, or both. "


----------



## Dare

old medic said:
			
		

> Yes. If your talking about it, you must have some proof Dare.  You must have some documents from
> some reputable strategic think tank that shows the threat of privately controlled ICBMs.
> 
> Once again Dare, show some proof for your claim of personally operated ICBMs.
> 
> Dare, do you seriously think there are privately controlled ICBM's wandering around, and that you can
> hide an ICBM launch?  I urge you to do some more reading on this.



Firstly, I don't need proof of any kind nor did I say there *are* privately controlled ICBM's. It's simple logic. If you can't follow simple logic and differentiate between future and present tenses, it's a waste ot time even talking to you. As more and more nations aquire nuclear weaponry and multistage rocketry, it's simply a matter of time. Supply and demand. The terrorists want them, there are many factions that want to sell to them. The only thing preventing it now is the eagle in the sky, and that has it's limits.


> Absolutely not. There was no way to push this through.  It would be political suicide.
> and who said anything about NMD not being run by a military?


Well you 'seem' to be worried of it cutting into the militaries budget. If it's run by the military and staffed by the military. I should think it to be a bonus to the military.


> As for your earlier claims that ICBMs a the biggest threat, I quote you Former Defence Minister Paul Hellyer from
> The Globe and Mail (Saturday February 26th 2005):
> 
> " ...  Canada could also play a lead role in helping to orchestrate a massive search for the missing
> Russian "suitcase" bombs, which pose a more imminent threat to the Unitied States than rogue
> missiles.  ..."



Yes, yes, yes. I'm getting awfully tired of the whole suitcase bomb strawman. We already have defence systems in place to screen and prevent entry of nuclear material via plane/boat/truck. We are upgrading these defence systems and screening procedures regularly. We do not have a defence system to prevent entry of nuclear material via a missile. We need one.

End of story.

P.S. I respect ret. Maj-General Lewis MacKenzie's opinion far more than what Paul Hellyer has to say.


----------



## Thirstyson

> The terrorists want them, there are many factions that want to sell to them


 ICBMs are a logistical nightmare to launch. Terrorists cannot control them. It takes about he level of sophistication to launch these things that only governments/militaries have, and they do not qualify as terrorists (well, maybe they do by someone's vernacular).

Bottom line, it takes a dedicated missile silo or permanent LARGE launch facility to launch these things. They don't shoot out of the back of a truck.


----------



## dutchie

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> It takes about he level of sophistication to launch these things that only governments/militaries have, and they do not qualify as terrorists.
> 
> Bottom line, it takes a dedicated missile silo or permanent LARGE launch facility to launch these things. They don't shoot out of the back of a truck.



Of course, we'll just have to trust you on that. No need to have safeguards.   

Wait a second.....if Mathew Broderick can launch one, anyone can!


----------



## Mad Max

Wow! This is amazing- PAUL HELLYER's name has been used to futher an argument in defence of a position which demands NO MISSILE DEFENCE! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! My God! Paul Hellyer is THE MOST disreputable MND in a LONG, LONG line of disreputable MND's! The real reason you people are opposed to BMD is because you don't like Bush,you didn't like Reagan, and you can't STAND the Americans telling us what we should be doing! Well, I'm no Yank, but if it comes to a choice between supporting the defence initiatives of a man with balls and a smart team around him (like Bush), and supporting the LACK of defence initiatives from someone WITHOUT balls and a team of Socialist, anti-American DUMMIES around him (like Martin), I'll choose W any day of the week!


----------



## badpup

Hello all, 
I just have to weigh in on this with * MY OPINION*
I do believe that we as a nation have made a mistake in not signing on with BMD. The program makes perfect sense for many reasons, not all of them Military in nature.
Economics: This political decision by the Liberal government will cost Canadian jobs, contracts for systems , engineering, and hardware will likely go to "friendly" countries, spin offs from this decision will also likely have an effect on other trade issues, such as softwood lumber, fishing, and energy.
Military: A greater and more influential presence in continental defence would come from BMD.Years of budget hacking, lack of material procurement, and under-staffing of the CF, has given this country a poor international image.

Current budget promises are light on detail, and most of the "New" cash will have to be spent on fixing old problems.( Iltis, CF-18 , SAR , Airlift)

I do think that people are a bit off base just talking about ICBM's, a greater threat of terrorist, or rogue nation use of a nuke exists from MRBM's, and Cruise missiles. Medium range missiles, can be fixed, or truck based systems, Cruise missiles can be launched from just about anywhere, and any platform. We already know that two potential "threat" nations have subs,LR Aircraft, Nuclear weapon and cruise missile technology. Other rogue states are also attempting their own nuclear, and MRBM programs.Terrorists have the cash to purchase these systems, from former Soviet arsenals, and rogue nations.
Nukes are also not the onlything to have concern for, BIo, and Chemical weapons may already be in the hands of those who dislike our cultures, and countries, as well any attack on our continent, or any of our other allies nations, will have a direct impact on us.

I salute our American allies for their learning a lesson from Pearl Harbor and 9-11, to prepare for the worst in hopes that the preparation is not required.  

Enough of my inane  and insane rambling 
TC all


----------



## old medic

Mad Max said:
			
		

> The real reason you people are opposed to BMD is because you don't like Bush,you didn't like Reagan, ...




Mad Max, I wouldn't make assumptions like that.  Nor should you presume to to tell people what they think.

Personally, I liked Nancy just fine


----------



## Mad Max

Well, you're turning in the RIGHT direction, anyway! Nancy has bigger balls than Martin OR Hellyer, without question!


----------



## Dare

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> ICBMs are a logistical nightmare to launch. Terrorists cannot control them. It takes about he level of sophistication to launch these things that only governments/militaries have, and they do not qualify as terrorists (well, maybe they do by someone's vernacular).
> 
> Bottom line, it takes a dedicated missile silo or permanent LARGE launch facility to launch these things. They don't shoot out of the back of a truck.


Terrorists are perfectly capable of controlling an ICBM. Do not underestimate your enemy! While the rabble fighting on the streets may be undereducated, there are many amongst their controlling ranks that are highly educated. As for your bottom line, they can, in fact, shoot out of the back of a truck. Here's a particularly nasty one I dug up. Russia's favourite sticks to threaten the west with.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-2pmu.htm

Intercontinental, MIRV and mobile.


----------



## a_majoor

The question is not: can terrorists get an ICBM; but rather, can they gain access to existing ICBMs? In strong states like Russia, China and the United States, the answer is "probably not".

What about North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia to name some less stable states which already have IRBM/ICBM capabilities? Terrorists might not even be the worst of it. What happens when the "Dear Leader" of North Korea or the House of Saud are about to be consumed by an internal revolution? What would stop them from doing a launch to take down their enemies as a final, vindictive gesture?

BMD will make it harder for nations like these to carry out their plans, and add more elements of uncertainty to the planning calculus for the agressor, which is reason enough.

Canada had the potential to join, and the technological ability to add greatly to the system with spaceborn sensors and C4I systems, capabilities which would greatly enhance a lot of other military and governmental work as well. Since Boeing and Lougheed Martin will be doing the work now, I suppose there will be another exodus of talented engineers from Canada to join in the work "over there"; net benifit to Canada=0.


----------



## The Bat

The Canadian Military is losing Equipment of all sorts by the day first the guns and then the tanks and soon planes and dont for get the ships that are falling along side. we need something to protect this fine and wonderful country we live in and if the Government will not let the Military do it, then stand down and let somebody do it, soon we will not have an army and we will be a bunch of hitch hikers and get a ride to the next world war or for that matters the next Peace making deployment.


----------



## big_johnson1

Dare said:
			
		

> Terrorists are perfectly capable of controlling an ICBM. Do not underestimate your enemy! While the rabble fighting on the streets may be undereducated, there are many amongst their controlling ranks that are highly educated. As for your bottom line, they can, in fact, shoot out of the back of a truck. Here's a particularly nasty one I dug up. Russia's favourite sticks to threaten the west with.
> 
> http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-2pmu.htm
> 
> Intercontinental, MIRV and mobile.



You see, this is what I would be worried about. Completely mobile, capable of firing from anywhere, inertial guidance (cannot be jammed and with a good computer can plot it's own course from anywhere to anywhere), solid fuel (low, low maintenance for the beginning of it's life), can use maneuverable warheads, low heat signature for detection.. All of this is what the US should be afraid of, as once the technology is there it's only a matter of time before it disseminates to other countries. I'm sure the Russians protect these things with their lives but if terrorists were to get ahold of one? BMD or not it's going to make a big crater out of a city somewhere.

Another thing that needs to be brought up though is that BMD is designed to protect the continental US (and Canada).. But what about US interests elsewhere? Israel, Taiwan, Iraq (now anyways)? Why hit the US at home where they are more protected? A strike against their allies or their assets overseas could be just as psychologically damaging as homeland assault, although not in exactly the same manner (I wonder if air flights are still down from 9/11, can anyone answer this?). The US has had close ties with Israel for years, and many terrorists consider Israel as much of a target as the US. A stolen nuke (suitcase or ICBM I don't think it matters much) would hurt both countries. And as I was reading in the newspapers this morning (something about unions being pissed about possible mandatory criminal record checks on dock workers), when you tighten one avenue of attack up, it just means that your enemy will probably try another route while you're sitting happy thinking you've cut them off.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## a_majoor

Feral said:
			
		

> Another thing that needs to be brought up though is that BMD is designed to protect the continental US (and Canada).. But what about US interests elsewhere? Israel, Taiwan, Iraq (now anyways)? Why hit the US at home where they are more protected? *A strike against their allies or their assets overseas could be just as psychologically damaging as homeland assault, although not in exactly the same manner* (I wonder if air flights are still down from 9/11, can anyone answer this?). The US has had close ties with Israel for years, and many terrorists consider Israel as much of a target as the US. A stolen nuke (suitcase or ICBM I don't think it matters much) would hurt both countries. And as I was reading in the newspapers this morning (something about unions being pissed about possible mandatory criminal record checks on dock workers), when you tighten one avenue of attack up, it just means that your enemy will probably try another route while you're sitting happy thinking you've cut them off.



BMD is only part of the puzzle, there are theater missile defense systems in the works or already deployed, for example the Standard "Block 3" for ships and the Patriot "Block 3" and above missiles on land. Isreal has demonstrated the "Arrow" BMD interceptor, so there are already some tools in the Western toolbox. Russia has deployed and sold the SA-10 and 12 systems, which are similar in some ways to late versions of the Patriot missile.

In the future, you can expect upgrades to existing platforms, as well as new kit like surface and airborn laser platforms. The logic of missile defense, both theater and strategic will demand the interceptors end up in space, along with the sensors and C4I systems, with the older systems acting as extra layers to improve the effectiveness of the shield.


----------



## big_johnson1

a_majoor said:
			
		

> BMD is only part of the puzzle, there are theater missile defense systems in the works or already deployed, for example the Standard "Block 3" for ships and the Patriot "Block 3" and above missiles on land. Isreal has demonstrated the "Arrow" BMD interceptor, so there are already some tools in the Western toolbox. Russia has deployed and sold the SA-10 and 12 systems, which are similar in some ways to late versions of the Patriot missile.
> 
> In the future, you can expect upgrades to existing platforms, as well as new kit like surface and airborn laser platforms. The logic of missile defense, both theater and strategic will demand the interceptors end up in space, along with the sensors and C4I systems, with the older systems acting as extra layers to improve the effectiveness of the shield.



Yeah there was another thread in equipment that mentioned surface laser platforms capable of taking out artillery shells. I doubt it would be much trouble for a system like that to eliminate tactical short range surface to surface missiles of the SCUDs and old Soviet SS- model surface to surface missiles, since they move at a much slower rate than ICBMs.

As the current ground based technology is not showing a lot of promise, it seems like we'd just be throwing money away that could be better used for health care and other social programs that have suffered around here recently. Even the US Armed Services Committee has it's doubts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A700-2004Dec15.html

I also just happen to believe that there is no need to weaponize space until ET comes knocking. Although it'd be hella cool to have the X302 and X303 from Stargate


----------



## McG

There is a lot of fixation on ICBMs.   However, the program is not called ICBMD for a reason.   It is intended to function against all sorts of ballistic missiles.   One threat that the US has deemed serious is the possibility of a stolen ocean freighter being used to launch a SCUD type missile (with a nuclear warhead) from just outside US coastal waters.   Such an attack could be launched by terrorists or even a "rouge state" that would hope to avoid US retribution by hiding its involvement.

Whatever technologies go into the homeland BMD will likely be found in deployable BMD systems as well.


----------



## a_majoor

Feral said:
			
		

> As the current ground based technology is not showing a lot of promise, it seems like we'd just be throwing money away that could be better used for health care and other social programs that have suffered around here recently. Even the US Armed Services Committee has it's doubts:
> 
> I also just happen to believe that there is no need to weaponize space until ET comes knocking. Although it'd be hella cool to have the X302 and X303 from Stargate



The current non nuclear system the Americans are working on has a track record of 5 for 8 successful tests, which is pretty good for "bleeding edge" technology. IF they can't get it to work, then health care and social programs (unless you are talking about blast and fallout shelters) might become the least of your worries.

Weaponizing space is another "boogieman" to frighten Liberal voters. *After all, there was a breath taking silence when the USSR deployed the worlds first operational anti-satellite system in the early 1980s*, and now I believe the Chinese are working towards the same capabilities. A space based BMD system would have small interceptor rockets in orbit (Brilliant pebbles) which could patrol the entire surface of the globe, protecting assets and allies fro launches from any place or type of platform. G-PALS (Global Protection Against Limited Strikes) would have required about 800 interceptors to cover the continental United States and the rest of the world 24/7.


----------



## buzgo

What about the potential of space-based weapons platforms to drastically increase the amount of space junk in orbit? 

http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/abramsprimack040102.html

That would take care of any space based C4I systems... and GPS, Telesat, IRIDIUM, Intelsat, Bell ExpressVu...


----------



## old medic

a_majoor said:
			
		

> The current non nuclear system the Americans are working on has a track record of 5 for 8 successful tests, which is pretty good for "bleeding edge" technology.




5 for 8 when hitting a slow moving target where all target data was pre-set into the system.  Which makes it a very impressive failure.


----------



## George Wallace

old medic said:
			
		

> 5 for 8 when hitting a slow moving target where all target data was pre-set into the system. Which makes it a very impressive failure.



I wonder.  What were the success rates with the first experiments with Black Powder?

GW


----------



## 48Highlander

signalsguy said:
			
		

> What about the potential of space-based weapons platforms to drastically increase the amount of space junk in orbit?
> 
> http://www.nyu.edu/globalbeat/syndicate/abramsprimack040102.html
> 
> That would take care of any space based C4I systems... and GPS, Telesat, IRIDIUM, Intelsat, Bell ExpressVu...



hah!  that's a wonderful argument.  we better not blow up those missiles in space then.  much better to let them wipe out a few million people and contaminate a large chunk of realestate for the next 50+ years.


----------



## buzgo

48Highlander said:
			
		

> hah! that's a wonderful argument. we better not blow up those missiles in space then. much better to let them wipe out a few million people and contaminate a large chunk of realestate for the next 50+ years.



The point is that this issue is so complex, that it could be debated forever (23 pages). 

Maybe the money being put towards missile defence would be better spent trying to get to the root of the problem.


----------



## 48Highlander

It's not complex at all.  People just insist on blowing things out of proportion.  Most arguments against BMD are ludicrous.  What have we had so far?

1)  It doesn't work propery
2)  When it does work, it only stops a few missiles.
3)  It's expensive.
3)  It's bad for the environment (space).

I think that's about it.  Now if you stop and think about it, the first 3 "reasons" could also be used as an argument against kevlar plates.  They only stop small arms, even the calibres they stop they can only take so many hits from, and they're pricey.  So we should get rid of kevlar plates?  Put the money into healthcare instead?  Or we should say that they're a "complex issue", and designate a comittee to study the idea for the next 20 years?  Let's not be silly.


----------



## Sub_Guy

The Missle defence program is a waste of money, the testing IMHO is setup to look good.  I mean I could shoot down an incoming missle with a .22 rifle, if I knew the exact flight path, does that make it successful, no it doesn't.

I feel that the U.S will not even bother with North Korea until this so called defence sheild is up and running.  As they have already found a missle from North Korea in Alaska, the news story on that is posted here some where. 

http://www.americanfreepress.net/03_17_03/North_Korean_Missile_/north_korean_missile_.html

Once the shield is up this will give the americans a false sense of security, and the end result will be nasty, as I feel that they will pursue Countries like North Korea.

I am glad we said no to the program, I don't live in fear, I don't drive to working thinking about a missle going off target and taking Victoria out.  The Naval Station Kitsap (Bangor) and the thought of an accident happening down there concerns me more.

Americans have to learn to live in the world, and not to attempt to control it.


I can't stand our government, our military is always on the short end of the stick, but I do agree with the Prime Minister for once, which is rare.


DBF  :skull:


----------



## Blue Max

Sub_Guy,
If I told you when a 747 was flying over you house at level flight, I doubt that you would be able to hit it, never mind a SCUD or ICBM.

I read that report and am dubious as to the veracity of it. The report itself say's 
"If the report is accurate, the warhead could be from a North Korean three-stage Taepo Dong 3 ICBM, which is, according to U.S. intelligence sources, capable of striking targets about 9,300 miles away."

Lots of "If's" there. And as pointed out in the article no-one else has picked up the story. Curious, some salt is needed here, me thinks.

B M.


----------



## Dare

Hey, if you can shoot missiles down with your rifle, we should mount you on a turret somewhere. You can be our homegrown Canadian BMD. Although, since the Americans are so busy trying to control the world, they might co-opt you for their own neferous survival related purposes. Wouldn't want North Korea to get a hold of our modern technological advances. 



			
				Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> The Missle defence program is a waste of money, the testing IMHO is setup to look good.  I mean I could shoot down an incoming missle with a .22 rifle, if I knew the exact flight path, does that make it successful, no it doesn't.
> 
> I feel that the U.S will not even bother with North Korea until this so called defence sheild is up and running.  As they have already found a missle from North Korea in Alaska, the news story on that is posted here some where.
> 
> http://www.americanfreepress.net/03_17_03/North_Korean_Missile_/north_korean_missile_.html
> 
> Once the shield is up this will give the americans a false sense of security, and the end result will be nasty, as I feel that they will pursue Countries like North Korea.
> 
> I am glad we said no to the program, I don't live in fear, I don't drive to working thinking about a missle going off target and taking Victoria out.  The Naval Station Kitsap (Bangor) and the thought of an accident happening down there concerns me more.
> 
> Americans have to learn to live in the world, and not to attempt to control it.
> 
> 
> I can't stand our government, our military is always on the short end of the stick, but I do agree with the Prime Minister for once, which is rare.
> 
> 
> DBF  :skull:


----------



## Sub_Guy

Brilliant!!  I think my point was that you should be scoring 100% on taking down missles if you knew the flight path not 5 out of 8.   How about some random testing....... where the targets are launched randomly..........and no one knows the flight path.........except a choosen few...........

I can always appreciate saracism!!!


----------



## 48Highlander

Sub_Guy said:
			
		

> Brilliant!!   I think my point was that you should be scoring 100% on taking down missles if you knew the flight path not 5 out of 8.



Reallly?  And you're making this assumption on the basis of....?  Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to steer at an object traveling with a closing speed of 11 kilometers per SECOND?  Especially one being sporadicaly moved about by random atmospheric phenomena?


----------



## Thirstyson

> Do you have ANY idea how hard it is to steer at an object traveling with a closing speed of 11 kilometers per SECOND?  Especially one being sporadicaly moved about by random atmospheric phenomena?



Yes... that's why I really don't like this system.


----------



## big_johnson1

Thirstyson said:
			
		

> Yes... that's why I really don't like this system.



Ditto. The fact is that it is very hard to hit a target moving at 11km/s.. The fact that in the test, they MISSED 3 out of 8 times on a target that they knew the trajectory and launch time to, means that it is not an effective system. Russia tested a maneuverable warhead in 1998, so essentially now the system is completely useless. That doesn't even take into account simple decoys that can be added to the warhead.

If you're going to give your opinion about BMD at least be informed about it
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000A45A2-E044-115D-A04483414B7F0000

You want to know what the most effective BMD system is??? Take a few tons of sand and seed Earth's orbit with it. Nothing would get through that


----------



## George Wallace

Gee some of you guys have logic that really escapes me!

If you don't have 100% accuracy for BMD, then you don't want it.  :  What is your opinion of our Infantry?  Most of them are not 100% accurate in their shooting skills.  Do we get rid of them too?  As I said earlier, "what percentage of accuracy did we have when we first developed 'Black Powder'?  We wouldn't have any modern weaponry today if we had your attitudes.  The CF would be issuing Clubs to its Soldiers, not rifles.

GW


----------



## buzgo

But the issue is that they are pushing a system that has not been effective, without serious constraints on the tests. Having the targets trajectory programmed into the interceptor invalidates the test right from the start. The real system won't work unless Delta Force or someone is sneaking around 'rogue nations' putting beacons on any ICBMs they happen to find...


----------



## Sub_Guy

Do you really think that the US Government would come out and say "Hey the North Koreans launched a test missile and it landed somewhere in Alaska!"   They are too busy dealing with Iraq, which had no weapons capable of reaching american soil.


Missile defence is a waste of time and money. It does nothing but provide the scared american people with a false sense of security.


----------



## old medic

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Gee some of you guys have logic that really escapes me!
> 
> If you don't have 100% accuracy for BMD, then you don't want it.  :  What is your opinion of our Infantry?  Most of them are not 100% accurate in their shooting skills.
> 
> GW



This is very faulty logic George. 
Infantry is cost effective and works. There is no comparison.


----------



## George Wallace

I was listening to Michael Harris Live on the radio today and he made a comment on "how unsightly the barricades across from his residence were.   How the road connecting Colonel By and Nicholas Street in Ottawa, was barricaded so no traffic could pass under NDHQ."   This from a reporter of some renown, an author of books on Canada's Prison System, and a radio host.   His naivete really struck home at that moment.   How safe he must feel here in Canada, so far away from war and terror tactics.   This kind of thinking will get us into a lot of trouble.   WE ARE at War.   It is very unconventional.   Random targets are found all around the globe.   No one knows who the enemy may be, or what he looks like.   Yet we have so many Canadians who think that the whole world is as safe as it is in their small little downtown neighbourhood in Ottawa or Toronto.   

I am sure that should we pack up these people and give them a free vacation in Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea, or some other 'Hell Hole', they would come back and have seen what a strong Defence is truly required to maintain their liberties.   They may then appreciate that 'new' systems must be developed and trialled to protect us.   

Those attitudes, of the Liberal Left, and Mr Dithers only lessen our credibility in the future.   Even now the American press is turning against us.

GW


----------



## Blue Max

Sub_Guy,
actually Yes, I think the US govt would go out of their way to fly reporters into some remote frozen region of Alaska and show any number of news outlets that would be climbing all over each other to get the pictures and write a story about the first enemy offensive weapon to hit N. America in over 50yrs.

If for no other reason than that the spin on this story would most certainly pull the rug out from any American tax payers/critics that were questioning the need for a BMD system.

So without any corraboration from other news sources, MHO is that the story is BS.

WADR,

B M.


----------



## George Wallace

old medic said:
			
		

> This is very faulty logic George.
> Infantry is cost effective and works. There is no comparison.



BULL

What is faulty about it?   How long did it take to make modern Infantry with 'Black Powder' effective? 
What is cost effective, if only one of.....let's say...fifty, can hit his mark.   Lots of wasted bullets....no?

What I am trying to get across to you is that: Every weapons system we have developed, has gone through serious growing pains in its development.   Why are you expecting this system to be any different?   Do you have some kind of inside information that we don't have?

GW


----------



## muskrat89

> Missile defence is a waste of time and money. It does nothing but provide the scared american people with a false sense of security.



That's a pretty interesting comment. How do you know that the American people are scared? I live with 2 million of them, right here in good ol Phoenix, and I haven't met anyone yet who is "scared"...


----------



## old medic

George Wallace said:
			
		

> BULL
> 
> What is faulty about it?
> GW



Not Bull,

You can't compare conventional low cost items (infantry) with high cost R&D maybes. Especially when the R&D budget is nearly five times bigger than Canada's whole defence budget.


----------



## old medic

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Gee some of you guys have logic that really escapes me!
> 
> GW



If we want to talk logic,  The public said no.
This is a democracy.....

Therefore, No BMD.

No number of postings on army.ca will ever change that.


----------



## George Wallace

Obviously my opinion of BMD is different from yours; my elegies don't make any sense to you; so I will stop pounding my head against the ole brick wall and carry on.  I think the BMD is actually a NON ISSUE.  We are members of NORAD.  It was created for Missile and Bomber detection, warning and interception.  As that is a fact, what is the big deal?  All of a sudden some Liberal Left Leaning Weenies found out what we do?  They are upset that we want to improve?  You get no pity from me if you want to go through life like that.  I believe in a strong Defence and the development of systems that will guarantee that.

Roll over if you want to.  I don't intend to.

GW


----------



## old medic

George Wallace said:
			
		

> .  I think the BMD is actually a NON ISSUE.  We are members of NORAD.  It was created for Missile and Bomber detection, warning and interception.  As that is a fact, what is the big deal?
> 
> GW



I'm not arguing that George. In fact, it seems to be some of the right wing conservatives who fail to grasp that point when
they talk about the U.S. phoning Mr. Dithers to ask about shooting down a missile.  It seems many people fail to grasp the fact
this consultation has been in place for the longest time.

Cheers


----------



## Sub_Guy

You haven't met any scared americans, just ask them about terrorism.... I met quite a few when I was in Seattle, they were afraid of the Ferries being targets, and suggested that boarding the ferry should be the same as a plane.....


I can't turn on any american news channel with out being told what the terror level is, sure they say they are not, but you know what, the bush government is thriving on the fear of the average american.


----------



## muskrat89

Got me - I can see where "meeting a few in Seattle" would  trump actually living here for 15 years.

The evening news is hardly representative of what most people think, either.

I disagree that the Bush Government is thriving on fear, also... if anything, Americans are indifferent. 

Anyway, it appears that your mind is made up, so I'll let you get back to the thread.

Cheers


----------



## 48Highlander

old medic said:
			
		

> You can't compare conventional low cost items (infantry) with high cost R&D maybes. Especially when the R&D budget is nearly five times bigger than Canada's whole defence budget.



High cost R&D maybes eh?  Like the research in atomic weapons?  Or maybe like the development of ground to air and air to air missiles?  Or how about the development of stealth aircraft?  Go look up the budgets for any of those technologies, and you'll see how much t cos to develop all the other "technological maybes" which we now take for granted.


----------



## dutchie

You haven't met any scared americans, just ask them about terrorism.... I met quite a few when I was in Seattle, they were afraid of the Ferries being targets, and suggested that boarding the ferry should be the same as a plane.....
I can't turn on any american news channel with out being told what the terror level is, sure they say they are not, but you know what, the bush government is thriving on the fear of the average american.    

:boring:
Why does every thread that has anything to do with the US, it's military, or it's policies turn into a debate on Bush, with plenty on Chomsky, Moore, Carlson, et al quotes and references? There is a TON we could discuss re:BMD that has nothing to do with Bush's policy in the middle east or the GWOT. The idea (BMD) has been around for decades, as has the controvesy over whether it works or not.

If you want to discus Bush, fear mongering, Iraq, WMD, GWOT, WW4, or how great/evil the US is, there are plenty of other threads, or you can start a new one.

THIS one is dedicated to BMD.


----------



## old medic

48Highlander said:
			
		

> High cost R&D maybes eh?  Like the research in atomic weapons?  Or maybe like the development of ground to air and air to air missiles?  Or how about the development of stealth aircraft?  Go look up the budgets for any of those technologies, and you'll see how much t cos to develop all the other "technological maybes" which we now take for granted.



_We_ take for granted ?
How many of those things did Canada develop ?
How many of those things does Canada have ?


----------



## old medic

Frankly,

We've already had several threads combined into this one, which has turned into a 25 page monster.
It's not likely we're all going to arrive at a happy consensus, so we're likely to have another 25 pages
worth of "yes" vs. "no".


----------



## 48Highlander

old medic said:
			
		

> _We_ take for granted ?
> How many of those things did Canada develop ?
> How many of those things does Canada have ?



Well we have and build our own nuclear reactors, and we have plenty of missiles of all sorts.  What the hell's the point of your queston anyway?  Are we being asked to build a BM shield?  No.  So what's your point?  The US will foot the bill, just like they did for every other pricey project.  And the world as a whole will make use of it just as we always have.


----------



## Jungle

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The US has had in place for a long time US officers who are shadows of Canadian officers in NORAD who can step in to replace their counterparts. This has been necessary with the increasingly unreliability of Canadian governments.


That phrase sums it up... So we have Officers serving there, who do not have the authority to carry out their duties. So they are "shadowed" by US Officers to ensure continuity in times of crisis... Is NORAD becoming a unilateral alliance ?? How much longer before we are told to leave ??
Apparently, our PM has been trying to reach Mr Bush for 5 days, but they are not answering the phone. Looks like they have caller ID...   Well, I don't blame them, when I have an annoying neighbour, I try to avoid him too.  
Agree with BMD or not, I hope we are ready to pay whatever price comes from our decision.

*"Together we stand, divided we fall"* and these days, the enemy is not south of the border...


----------



## Blue Max

old medic said:
			
		

> If we want to talk logic,   The public said no.
> This is a democracy.....
> 
> Therefore, No BMD.



Actually Old Medic, the public and our parliament were not consulted. The Liberal caucus probably, maybe on Mr Dithers, made a decision, mostly based on:
1. Minority govt status.
2. Losing votes in Quebec.
3. Liberal womens caucus threatening not to support Mr Dithers in upcoming Liberal convention.
4. God knows what else went through Mr Dithers head because he did not consult with Parliament.

So NO, this was not a democratic decision based on solid foreign policy that was well thought out as being GOOD for Canada. Only good for Liberals.

B M.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Which brings up a good point, wouldn't something like this be put to a vote in the commons?


----------



## Blue Max

Why is it that people are opposed to BMD, when no one is apposed to NORAD, with air to air and potentially grount to air intercepts. We pay for NORAD, but we were not asked to contribute one dime for BMD.

"The fact that slaughter is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms." 
~ Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1831)

Blue Max.


----------



## Blue Max

Bruce, I don't think that Canada is as democratic as we think or would like unfortunately.

Blue Max


----------



## LF(CMO)

Apparently, our PM has been trying to reach Mr Bush for 5 days, but they are not answering the phone. Looks like they have caller ID...    Well, I don't blame them, when I have an annoying neighbour, I try to avoid him too.   
Agree with BMD or not, I hope we are ready to pay whatever price comes from our decision.


   *The above pretty well sums it up for me!   *


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

_Here comes some of the economic costs already,_

Goose Bay Radar Project in jeopardy
NORAD surveillance aid: U.S. cancels meeting after PM refused to join missile defence
  
a journalist 
CanWest News Service 

Tuesday, March 01, 2005

U.S. officials cancelled an information briefing on a proposal to install a missile defence radar in Goose Bay, Labrador, shortly after Paul Martin announced Canada would not take part in the Pentagon's missile shield, federal officials say.
The federal government and aerospace industry representatives were pushing for the installation of the X-Band radar for NORAD surveillance and space monitoring roles, but the sophisticated sensor on the East Coast would also have been able to detect an incoming rocket fired from the Middle East.
The construction of the radar, which uses U.S. technology, was being promoted as a way to contribute to the North American Aerospace Defence Command's surveillance mission while enabling Canada to keep a strong military presence at Goose Bay. Several NATO nations who conduct flight training at the military base have told the federal government they intend to pull out, and the Defence Department has been scrambling to find new military customers or roles for the facility, one of the area's main employers.

The installation of the X-Band radar, built by aerospace giant Raytheon, would have created 340 short-term jobs in the area as well as 100 permanent positions. There was hope in some Liberal circles that the announcement of the construction of the radar would help the party's fortunes in an upcoming byelection to replace MP Lawrence O'Brien. Mr. O'Brien, the Liberal MP for Labrador, died of cancer in December at age 53.
Steve Jurgutis, a spokesman for Defence Minister Bill Graham, said the proposal was being pushed by industry representatives and did not have any endorsement from the Minister. "There are no plans whatsoever to install an X-Band radar at Goose Bay," he added.
Mr. Graham is in Goose Bay tomorrow to make an announcement on a contract for construction work at the base, sources said.
Officials say the X-Band proposal is not dead, but acknowledged the Prime Minister's decision to opt out of the missile shield has hindered the plan.

The X-Band radar was being promoted in government circles as more of a space surveillance system than a missile shield sensor. The high-powered radar can monitor positions of satellites and other spacecraft such as the space shuttle, allowing NORAD to do its job of cataloguing the whereabouts of objects in orbit.
But the radar's location in Goose Bay would also give it a valuable role in the monitoring of missile launches from countries such as Iran. According to a study obtained by the Ottawa Citizen, the installation of a missile-defence radar on Canada's East Coast would provide for the intercept of missiles headed for North America as much as three minutes faster than if the surveillance devices were based in the United States. That advantage would be particularly important if the missile was carrying nuclear or chemical weapons, according to the May, 2001, report.
"To properly address the Middle Eastern threat an East Coast system would have to be deployed," notes the Defence Department study. "Canada's value-added role would be to provide a place to deploy such a system."

The missile shield would use interceptor rockets to shoot down warheads aimed at North America.
Shooting down a missile quickly is essential to preventing debris from hitting Canada or the United States, according to the report released under the Access to Information Act.
The report concluded there would not be any advantage to having the missile interceptors themselves located on Canadian territory.

Rick Lehner, a spokesman for the U.S. Missile Defence Agency, said he hadn't heard about plans for a Goose Bay radar. But he added that if Canada was looking for an X-band radar for tracking space debris and spacecraft, then the missile agency would not be involved.
Mr. Lehner said X-Band radars for the missile shield would be installed in Alaska, with portable versions of the radar in locations throughout the Pacific region.
The missile defence system uses a ground-based interceptor rocket to destroy incoming warhead.

_Hope nobody in Goose Bay needed a job............_


----------



## S McKee

The "fallout" (no pun intended) from not participating in BMD begins. Does a Liberal MP represent Goose Bay?


----------



## George Wallace

I find this article a little odd.  Was it not the X Band Radars that were installed in the mid 70's and 80's that closed down most DEW sites and the Pine Tree and Mid Canada Lines?

GW


----------



## old medic

Blue Max said:
			
		

> Actually Old Medic, the public and our parliament were not consulted. The Liberal caucus probably, maybe on Mr Dithers, made a decision, mostly based on:
> 1. Minority govt status.
> 2. Losing votes in Quebec.
> 3. Liberal womens caucus threatening not to support Mr Dithers in upcoming Liberal convention.
> 4. God knows what else went through Mr Dithers head because he did not consult with Parliament.
> 
> So NO, this was not a democratic decision based on solid foreign policy that was well thought out as being GOOD for Canada. Only good for Liberals.
> 
> B M.



Actually Blue Max,

Every poll conducted shows between 54% to 60% of Canadians saying No.

Explain how a government following the will of the voters is not democratic.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://www.canairradio.com/acc.html

It would appear that way??????


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quote,
Every poll conducted shows between 54% to 60% of Canadians saying No.

Old Medic
Now come on, you must do better than that, lets just let the polling company's run the roost now will we?


----------



## buzgo

Other than on this board, I haven't heard too many people lamenting our non-participation, and that includes people in my unit.


----------



## jmacleod

The US unveiled a plan in September 2004 fostering international participation in the Missile Defence
Program (MDP) which calls for "significant partner cost-sharing as well as new agreements". The key
element in this strategy is the Northrop-Grumman led Kenetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) which is
being developed with a rocket booster from the Raytheon Corporation. The US is seeking a risk
reduction formula at the same time focusing on the next technical process in the evolution of the
KEI. These are private sector initiatives, contracted by government, and there is nothing to prevent
Canadian companies participating with international and US organizations in this phase of the MDP,
indeed, if Canadian companies are technically qualified and acceptable to US security requirements
they are motivated for one thing under the provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA). Canadian companies are already participating in the US F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program
(JSF) which has created over $400 million in direct participation contracts, which is driven primarily
by Lockheed-Martin. The political implications of direct Federal government support of the MDP will
eventually be resolved, but the loss of the proposed X-Band Radar (XBR) at Goose Bay Labrador
is a sad situation. The XBR is a large phased-array fire control sensor, featuring discrimination and
interceptor support. Readers who are familier with the Litton/Orelikon LLADS and the CP-140
acquisition will be familier with XBR, introduced in Canada about 1983. MacLeod


----------



## a_majoor

"Well, Mr X, thank you for your very interesting RFP. The BMDO is always interested in this sort of technology. Just one more question; your company headquarters is where? Montreal? Oh, (pause) well thank you once again for your RFP and we will certainly take it under advisement. Sorry? Oh , don't worry. someone will call back in due course (when hell freezes over)"


----------



## Kirkhill

I DO HEREBY RESOLVE AND DECLARE I WILL HAVE NO FURTHER PART IN DISCUSSIONS WHERE ANTI-AMERICANISM IS PARADED AS A SORRY EXCUSE FOR CANADIAN PATRIOTISM.

Patriotism was once described as the last refuge of the scoundrel.  At least it had the virtue of defining the nation in POSITIVE terms and required the patriot to consider things done.  All that most twits that adopt the Anti-American line seem to be able to is constantly mumble "Nya Nya Nya Nya Nya, what a bunch of Maroons...." echoing their favourite Canadian Icon "Bugs Bunny".


----------



## old medic

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> Every poll conducted shows between 54% to 60% of Canadians saying No.
> 
> Old Medic
> Now come on, you must do better than that, lets just let the polling company's run the roost now will we?



Well, until we have a referendum on it Bruce, I can't see to many other ways to gauge it.
But I find it interesting that a government in Canada, in a rare move, finally pays attention 
to public opinion, but gets blasted for it here.


----------



## jmacleod

There will be limited RFP (Requests For Proposals) associated with the MDP, prime contractors will
seek technology expertise and cost savings associated with their input into the Program, particularly
Northrop-Grumman and Raytheon, who will be focused on other international programs in which
Canada will seek expertise and investment: the Amphibious Support Vessels, and the new
ships for the Canadian Coast Guard etc.. This is not the world of political or media bullshit, the high
technology/aerospace/shipbuilding sector is profit driven, plus many US companies have decades
of association with Canada, and many former Canadian citizens as employees. Most of the senior
people we worked with on the NFAP (New Fighter Aircraft Program) from Northrop, Garrett,
Wilcox Electronics, etc. were former AVRO employees, veterans of the Arrow debacle. The PM 
made a political error, which he will correct. He has the right man to do it in Washington in the
presence of former NB Premier Frank McKenna - a smart guy. Regards, MacLeod


----------



## Acorn

old medic said:
			
		

> Well, until we have a referendum on it Bruce, I can't see to many other ways to gauge it.
> But I find it interesting that a government in Canada, in a rare move, finally pays attention
> to public opinion, but gets blasted for it here.



"Finally pays attention...??!"

The Liberals have always been a political weathervane, swinging to the winds of their pollsters (yes, Virginia, there are Liberal pollsters). That's just the problem - they don't lead or govern, they simply put all their energies into staying in power. Add the fact that intellect is inversly proportional to the size of the group, and one can easily conclude that, despite political platitudes, Canadians are an ignorant bunch. Most Canadians form their opinions and then look for facts to suit them (that applies to what I've seen of both sides of this discussion, by the way.)

Anyway, the decision is taken, though it may be reversed in the future. So be it. Those of you happy with that had better be able to accept the consequences.

jmacleod: I admire your optomism, but I have my doubts that this PM will be able to reverse any decision he takes. after all, he takes so few.

Acorn


----------



## Jungle

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/03/02/947638-cp.html


> Belinda Stronach, the Conservative international trade critic, said the ruling highlights the failure of the Liberals to establish better relations with Washington on a range of issues, including missile defence.
> 
> "When the prime minister should have been nurturing support throughout the American political system to keep the border open, he and his cabinet were skulking away from a proper discussion of missile defence with the U.S. government,' she said in a release.
> 
> "The border closure on BSE is a perfect example of the kind of real-world situation where Canadian interests would be looking for maximum help from the administration."


Is this related to BMD ? Who knows...
BUT, the USA is a sovereign country, they can make whatever decision they want, right ??


----------



## FastEddy

Jungle said:
			
		

> http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/03/02/947638-cp.htmlIs this related to BMD ? Who knows...
> BUT, the USA is a sovereign country, they can make whatever decision they want, right ??




Well like you say, maybe or maybe not. We didn't need a crystal ball to know something down the road was coming.

Like I've previously said, how much sniping at their heals before they BITE back?.


----------



## buzgo

*Russia working on 'defense-proof' nuclear missiles: minister
MOSCOW (AFP) Mar 01, 2005
Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Tuesday that Moscow was creating a nuclear weapon capable of thwarting any defense system in the world, Interfax news agency reported.

"There is not now and will not be any defense from such missiles," the news agency quoted Ivanov as saying.

It was not immediately clear what type of weapon Ivanov was referring to. He has however said in the past that Russia's future nuclear defenses will be based on the mobile, Topol-M rocket.

Ivanov said also that Russia was now focusing its attention on the Baluva, a sea-based strategic missile model that can be armed with a nuclear warhead.

Russia currently stores most of its heaviest, intercontinental ballistic Topol-M missiles in silos.

Ivanov has been charged with streamlining Russia's Soviet era nuclear defenses, relying more heavily on a small range of powerful weapons as thousands of old missiles become decommissioned.

"We will not be baking rockets like cakes as we did in the Soviet era," Ivanov was quoted as saying.

Russia has said on repeated occasions that it was developing missiles capable of penetrating the missile defense shield being developed by the United States, whose construction Moscow had furiously opposed.

Analysts have suggested that Russia is developing a missile which can "zigzag" while in flight and thereby dodge anti-missile defenses.*



http://www.spacewar.com/2005/050301170127.6njr94li.html


----------



## buzgo

And the latest from Ambassador McKenna:

*Missile trade war?: McKenna links shield refusal to wood, beef

Sheldon Alberts; with files from Aileen McCabe in Ottawa
CanWest News Service

Thursday, March 03, 2005

WASHINGTON - Frank McKenna, Canada's new ambassador to the United States, suggested Ottawa's decision to reject George W. Bush's missile defence shield was a "direct result" of Canadian outrage over lingering trade disputes with America over beef and softwood lumber.

On his first day at work in Washington yesterday, Mr. McKenna said public support for missile defence eroded in the face of frustration over the impact U.S. actions in the softwood and beef disputes have had on the Canadian economy.

"Let me say this, that this [missile defence] issue in some ways perhaps could be construed as the direct result of letting fester some of the transactional issues," he told reporters at the Canadian embassy. "From a Canadian perspective, you can understand how the atmosphere has not been conducive to creating a political environment where a different decision might have been achieved on the ballistic missile defence issue."

It was the first time a senior government official has linked Canadian pique over trade disputes to decision-making on an issue of national security.

It also appears to signal Mr. McKenna's willingness to adopt the same blunt-spoken tone toward Washington that Paul Cellucci, the outgoing U.S. ambassador to Canada, has used for years to pressure Ottawa on military spending.

The former New Brunswick premier was critical of the United States for refusing to lift import duties on Canadian softwood lumber -- which have already totalled in excess of $4-billion -- despite several NAFTA rulings in Canada's favour.

"Canadians are outraged about that. I think they are outraged, maybe outraged is too strong a term, but they are certainly disconcerted about this bread-and-butter industry for Canada being subjected to this process," he said.

The ban on live cattle shipments, meanwhile, has contributed to Canadian unhappiness with the United States because American decisions have caused "the destruction of some farms and ranches."

Asked specifically if resolutions of the softwood and beef disputes would have produced a different decision on missile defence, Mr. McKenna said: "One can't say definitively, [but] I think one can say we would have had a much lower temperature in Canada in which to operate.... It is my belief that the temperature in Canada has, in part, been at a pretty high level as a result of these ongoing irritants. So the logical extension of that is that if you could turn down the temperature, you would have a different political environment in which to operate."

Canadian officials later said Mr. McKenna was not suggesting the missile defence decision was taken in retaliation for trade problems, but was speaking about the overall public attitude toward U.S.-related issues.

Melanie Gruer, press secretary to Prime Minister Paul Martin, said in response to Mr. McKenna's comments that ''I don't see him drawing the linkage'' between the trade disputes and missile defence. ''There have certainly been some bumps along the way in our relationship but we are going to continue working in partnership with the United States.''

Mr. McKenna landed in the centre of the controversy over missile defence just a week ago. After an appearance before a House of Commons committee, he said Canada was already participating in the U.S. shield because it agreed to allow NORAD, the binational air defence command, to notify the American military of any incoming missiles.

A day later, however, Mr. Martin's government informed the Bush administration it would not offer its political support to the system. The conflicting messages added to White House discontent with Canada's decision.

Mr. Bush has signalled his displeasure with Mr. Martin by refusing to return a telephone call the Prime Minister placed last week to explain Canada's decision.

The two men last spoke on Feb. 3, when Mr. Bush called Mr. Martin to express his gratitude to Canada for training Iraqi election officials.

Ms. Gruer said the Prime Minister and Mr. Bush "probably won't talk until they get together face to face in Texas" at a summit this month to discuss trade issues.

As part of the diplomatic effort to ease U.S. anger, Mr. Martin hosted a private dinner on Tuesday night for Mr. Cellucci at 24 Sussex Drive, which Mr. McKenna attended.

"I think their disappointment is real and we have to acknowledge that," Mr. McKenna said.

While he was critical of U.S. trade policy, Mr. McKenna was just as blunt in saying that long-standing American complaints about Canada's military spending have been legitimate.

He said the challenge will be convincing the Bush administration that last week's federal budget -- which included $13-billion in new defence spending over five years -- signals Canada is ready to do its share on continental defence and international peacekeeping.

"I think, with some justification, the United States of America has looked at us and felt that we have not been carrying our full share of the load in terms of defence. In some ways, as Canadians, we have been sailing our ship in yesterday's wind," Mr. McKenna said.

"We have lived off our reputation as peacekeepers and we haven't put our resources where our mouth is."

It is clear Canada "has work to do" to repair its relations with the United States and that the missile defence controversy will make the job more difficult, he said.

"Somehow or another -- and I don't want to sound Pollyannish on this -- we need to reconnect or connect again on an emotional level," he said. "We need to define a relationship that's bigger than the instant dialogue of the day between the President and the Prime Minister.... I don't think we should end up being judgmental of the relationship based on a phone call, or a trip."

The Bush administration greeted Mr. McKenna's appointment with enthusiasm. He has a personal friendship with former president George H.W. Bush -- the men have golfed together in Canada -- and past business ties with Washington power brokers through the Carlyle Group.

"There is a lot of respect for him," said a senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "I don't think anybody would want to do anything to embarrass McKenna or make his job more difficult."
© National Post 2005
*

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=e049e880-097d-4f69-a083-03d5a1138553


----------



## Blue Max

What happens when you are not forthright and honest with your neighbors. They invite you over for a barbeque, but you refuse on principle because you are a recent convert as a Vegan.

Unfortunately the civility becomes much shorter next and mud pies start to get thrown back and forth. It takes one of the 2 parties to suck up their pride and clear the air so as to get back to a neighborly relationship, where each can trust the other to look after their house when they are out.

The US does not trust us to look after their house if they went out for a night.

B M.


----------



## Cloud Cover

While the principal subject matter of this article is BMD, it is interesting how Graham has clearly and openly identified who the primary antagonists to national defence issues are within the liberal caucas. Nothing new, other than the remarkable clarity and candidness. I also think it is interesting he is staying on board to protect the interests of DND, particularly the CAF, within cabinet. Does this mean that he feels support for renewing the CAF is weakly supported by cabinet, and that Mr. Dithers might pull a BMD like switcheroo on Hillier's program? 

_____________________________________________

From the Toronto Star on line: http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...out/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1109976610177Defence minister admits he `lost war' in cabinet

GRAHAM FRASER
NATIONAL AFFAIRS WRITER

OTTAWAâ â€Defence Minister Bill Graham acknowledged yesterday that he had lost the fight in cabinet on Canadian participation in the U.S. missile defence system.

"The question is, how do I feel?" Graham told Liberal delegate and peace activist Marsha Akman at a policy workshop at the Liberal convention. "I lost the war. What the heck, you can't win them all. You won the war."

It was an unusually candid admission, and a break from traditional cabinet secrecy, in which ministers maintain the fiction that they all came to agreement around the cabinet table.

According to a source, Graham thought "for about a nanosecond" about resigning over the decision not to participate in the ballistic missile defence system.

(In 1963, then-prime minister John Diefenbaker's defence minister, Douglas Harkness, resigned when Diefenbaker decided Canada would not accept nuclear warheads for BOMARC missiles on Canadian soil.)

But Graham concluded it would not be the right thing to do, particularly in light of the government's decision to dedicate almost $13 billion to defence over the next five years.

He talked to U.S. deputy secretary of defence Paul Wolfowitz, who told him that Canada had not been "a player" on ballistic missile defence anyway, and that Canada had a special military role to play in the world since Canadian troops could go to countries where U.S. troops could or would not.

Graham, who had been publicly defending Canadian participation in the U.S. ballistic missile system for months, was conceding defeat to a group of peace activists who had been working inside the Quebec wing of the Liberal party for several years on this issue.

After the policy workshop, which passed a resolution urging the government to reject any role for Canada in the missile system and all other systems that include space-based weapons, Graham talked to reporters.

"I lost the argument. I supported one side of the argument, and it was not accepted by the majority of cabinet and the Prime Minister. So you carry on."

He said Canada has a strong position on defence in collaboration with the United States. "I'm the defence minister, so I lost an argument," he said. "I'm not prepared to discuss who was on what position in cabinet; the point of the matter is there was a vigorous debate, both in cabinet, in Parliament, in our caucus, in the country about this issue. It was decided at the cabinet meeting last Thursday, we made the decision, we move on â â€ and as the Prime Minister says, we move on in the sense that we are great collaborators with the United States."

He said the decision was made on the basis of "political and strategic and other analyses." He told reporters he is comfortable with the decision, particularly since Martin has said Canada will continue to collaborate militarily with the Americans.


----------



## FastEddy

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> While the principal subject matter of this article is BMD, it is interesting how Graham has clearly and openly identified who the primary antagonists to national defence issues are within the liberal caucas. Nothing new, other than the remarkable clarity and candidness. I also think it is interesting he is staying on board to protect the interests of DND, particularly the CAF, within cabinet. Does this mean that he feels support for renewing the CAF is weakly supported by cabinet, and that Mr. Dithers might pull a BMD like switcheroo on Hillier's program?
> 
> I've supported the Liberals for a lifetime, even this Election, but I tell you Steven Harper is starting to look pretty good.
> 
> Min. Bill Graham has never been one of my favorites, let alone Min.of National Defense, but you have to give him credit in the BMD matter.
> 
> " as the Prime Minister says, we move on in the sense that we are great collaborators with the United States."
> 
> Yes we are, especially when we don't have to do anything or its free, or upset the Libral's apple cart.
> 
> Mr. Dither's doesn't have to many more Bridges to burn.
> 
> As for the Carrot he's holding out to the CAF, only time will tell.
> 
> He said the decision was made on the basis of "political and strategic and other analyses." He told reporters he is comfortable with the decision, particularly since Martin has said Canada will continue to collaborate militarily with the Americans.


----------



## pbi

> group of peace activists who had been working inside the Quebec wing of the Liberal party for several years on this issue.



Interesting, but not too surprising given the traditional results of any poll in PQ concerning defence issues. Has anybody ever actually gone behind the simple poll results to determine what is at the root of this attitude, considering that so many Quebecois serve so well in the CF, and many have reached high (or the highest...) positions? Is this still "Conquest" hangover?  ???

Cheers


----------



## FastEddy

pbi said:
			
		

> Interesting, but not too surprising given the traditional results of any poll in PQ concerning defence issues. Has anybody ever actually gone behind the simple poll results to determine what is at the root of this attitude, considering that so many Quebecois serve so well in the CF, and many have reached high (or the highest...) positions? Is this still "Conquest" hangover?   ???
> 
> Cheers




Again we bow to your wisdom. However I would like a clearer definition of "Conquest hangover".

Also, have you determined or have an opinion of the root of their attitude?.

As to the Achievements and Service of those fine members of the CAF's, they are perfect examples of
Canadian Citizenry. So are the rest of the CAF's.


----------



## Jungle

pbi said:
			
		

> Interesting, but not too surprising given the traditional results of any poll in PQ concerning defence issues. Has anybody ever actually gone behind the simple poll results to determine what is at the root of this attitude, considering that so many Quebecois serve so well in the CF, and many have reached high (or the highest...) positions? Is this still "Conquest" hangover?   ???
> 
> Cheers


Maybe you will find the answer(s) here: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/03/04/pf-950522.html

Here's an extract:


> Granatstein said his opinions are not a matter of anti-Quebec feeling but a clear reflection of poll results and a history that included a conscription crisis and an anglophone army that discriminated against French Canadians.
> 
> "Quebec also has a long history of anti-imperialism, first against the British, now against the United States," he said.


----------



## mdh

Jungle makes an interesting observation with the Granatstein column.   (There was another excellent take on this in the National Post by L. Ian Macdonald last week as well.)

In my view the current state of Quebec politics was absolutely decisive in driving Martin to refuse missile defence participation. 

 But remember it's not the PQ but the BQ that the Liberals are in competing against here (with the usual overlap between the provincial and federal sovereignist movements noted). 

With 54 Bloc seats in the federal parliament, the Martin Liberals are obsessed with regaining that lost ground. It remains a major embarassment to Martin that he failed so miserably to capture the high ground in Quebec - (after all Martin is ostensibly a Quebec politician himself -- or has at least tried to recast himself as one).   

However,(irrespective of the semi-regular pundit prognoses that the BQ is about the disappear that we are always assured of on the eve of every federal election) the fact is that it hasn't, and has become, if anything, an institutionalized force on the federal political scene in Quebec. 

That may guarantee a series of minority governments in the future - along with considerable BQ influence on our foreign policy.

cheers, mdh


----------



## Infanteer

So what you're saying is that if Martin had a Majority Government, we'd be on board with Missile Defence.

Gotta love politics....


----------



## mdh

I don't think it's a coincidence that Martin was favourably disposed to missile defence in 2003 when it looked like the LP was going to sweep the country with gargantuan majorities and reducing the opposition parties to eccentric splinter groups - (remember those predictions!). Suddenly Martin ends up with a minority and presto missile defence becomes a complicated issue. 

I thought it was interesting that Graham (a missile hawk? who would have thunk it?) fingered the "peace activist" wing of the Quebec Liberal Party for undermining support for BMD.

Under these circumstances I fear for the future of our defence budget despite the promised billions.


----------



## Infanteer

mdh said:
			
		

> (remember those predictions!).



Yeah, I remember those predictions - they are in the same place as the MacLeans issue with "Prime Minister Steven Harper" on the cover.

Gotta love politics.



> I thought it was interesting that Graham (a missile hawk? who would have thunk it?) fingered the "peace activist" wing of the Quebec Liberal Party for undermining support for BMD.
> 
> Under these circumstances I fear for the future of our defence budget despite the promised billions.



Wouldn't it be funny if the Liberal Party split and left behind the "activist/socialist" crowd and the Conservative Party split and left behind the "Religious Regressive/Western Seperatist" crowd and the two formed together to make a "Sensible Canadian Party"?

At least I could feel comfortable in casting a vote....


----------



## Cloud Cover

mdh said:
			
		

> Under these circumstances I fear for the future of our defence budget despite the promised billions.



I believe those are Grahams sentiments as well. While the saying "don't hold your breath" is not applicable here, I think the defence community can at least exhale, but be prepared to draw deep at the drop of a nickel. This government is far too volatile in a world that is craving stability. Dither better get his kit in order,or he is going to be kicking his lunch pail down the road.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is that if Martin had a Majority Government, we'd be on board with Missile Defence.
> 
> Gotta love politics....



I don't think so; even had he won a majority he would have been faced with a Québec caucus and an Ontario caucus and a _Women's Commission_ and, and, and ... each telling him that _â ?getting in bed with George Bushâ ?_ would cost them their seats in the next election and, possibly, would cost the Liberals the government.

I agree with those who say that Martin (probably through ignorance) did not understand the issue and, consequently, gave the issue to the NDP who screamed _â ?Star Wars!_ Run for lives! _The sky is falling!â ?_.

Martin could have done it almost as soon as he took power, before the election, but the dithering took hold, and ...

However, watch for us to join, through the back door, through the Navy, with ship based interceptors.


----------



## FastEddy

Jungle said:
			
		

> Maybe you will find the answer(s) here: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/03/04/pf-950522.html
> 
> Here's an extract:



Very good article, it just gets bleaker and bleaker.

Its worse than trying to fight City Hall.

As for the 13 Billion Dollars, mostly in the 4th. & 5th.years, Mr Dither's way of just buying time and votes.

The Young Liberal Party, I watched them on T.V. this evening, its probably a safe bet that they even begrudge the CAF's their salaries, it probably would mean more free needles for Junkies and Pot Rations for those who can't afford it.That would be their solution to stop Crimes related to Drug use.

 Its okay for people to drink them selves to death or ruin. That repeat Offenders of DUI resulting in Death get suspended sentences. That Murderers get Life but are out in ten. Our Justice System is sourly lacking.
But the Young Liberal Party is advocating the Legalization of MJ and Prostitution as a solultion for reduced crime. Lets not forget their stand for Gay Marriages.

I don't know about you, but I feel like we're going to Hell on a Fast Track.


----------



## mdh

> I don't think so; even had he won a majority he would have been faced with a Québec caucus and an Ontario caucus and a Women's Commission and, and, and ... each telling him that â ?getting in bed with George Bushâ ? would cost them their seats in the next election and, possibly, would cost the Liberals the government.



Yes but a sitting PM with a majority in the House can also withstand that kind of pressure - usually with some impunity.  

Don't forget that Martin was supposed to have represented a renewal of the LP from the dissipated Chretien era - better relations with the US was a priority, and BMD was an important part of that strategy. 

In a minority situation, Martin is on a constant political death watch. Suddenly every seat counts and every faction exercises considerable (in this case baleful) influence.  

Survival is the first order of business - not the consistency of one's political principles.

cheers, mdh


----------



## Cloud Cover

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> However, watch for us to join, through the back door, through the Navy, with ship based interceptors.



I thought so too with the SM-3 and the SHT version for the 280 replacement. I am not hopeful the SHT will actually materialize within the career of most people who view this site as of today. Not because of the cost, but because of the political utility of being able to forever seal the capability to build or acquire such a ship.      10 years from now, with no capacity to build one, could we be really expect to be trusted with the purchase of such a vessel and system after all that has been said and done by Mr. Dithers et al.?


----------



## Edward Campbell

This, from today's _Ottawa Citizen_ at: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=9682f706-43b1-409e-828b-ea82c5b57d01 shows the same old, same old part of the problem: still more dithering, but three dimensional dithering incorporating the much delayed foreign policy review, which, we are told, needs more _pizzazz_ (and, one supposes, as a corollary, fewer ideas).

The last two paragraphs purport to quote from the DRAFT foreign policy review.   I'm sure the Americans are grateful for the â Å“clear and earlyâ ? explanation of our differences.   I hope Prof. Welsh excises such nonsense from whichever version finally finds favour with PM PM.



> Minority jitters put Liberals off missile defence
> 
> Documents show pre-election intent was to join to ease relations with U.S.
> 
> Mike Blanchfield
> The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> Monday, March 07, 2005
> 
> Shortly before last year's federal election, the Liberal government was leaning toward joining the U.S. ballistic missile defence program, pledging to explain its views "clearly and early" to avoid any misunderstandings with Washington, says a draft government document.
> 
> Discussion of the contentious issue is contained in a May 13, 2004, draft copy of the government's as-yet-unreleased international policy statement, which has been obtained by the Citizen.
> 
> In a list of items that "Canada will do" to bolster relations with the United States, the draft states: "participate in the BMD program, and seek to ensure that Norad's existing missile warning and attack assessment role is fully incorporated into the BMD mission."
> 
> The statement is bracketed in the text, to reflect the government had yet to decide to join the program. The draft document does not discuss the scenario of Canada not joining the program.
> 
> The government opted out of the missile defence program last month, after a long period of indecision that frustrated Washington.
> 
> The document also says the Paul Martin Liberals intended to bring international treaties before the House of Commons for consultation in "a historic new role for Parliament," but that never materialized after they were reduced to a minority government in the June election.
> 
> In August, the government amended the Norad treaty -- without consulting Parliament -- to allow the joint Canada-U.S. aerospace command to serve as the early warning system for the shield, something the draft policy statement called for three months earlier.
> 
> While the government can sign and amend international treaties without consulting Parliament, the opposition accused the Liberals of reneging on a promise to bring missile defence before the Commons for a debate.
> 
> In the face of stiff opposition from the NDP, Bloc Quebecois and from within the Liberal party itself, the government formally said no to the controversial program on Feb. 24.
> 
> That decision, in the words of U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci, "perplexed" the administration of President George W. Bush because Canada had indicated to Washington it would sign on.
> 
> According to a leaked copy of the foreign policy review, titled Building Canada's Global Advantage, the government was determined to avoid a repeat of this type of confusion with its U.S. ally.
> 
> Canada-U.S. relations had been strained in 2003 because the government delayed its decision not to politically support the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Then-prime minister Jean Chretien announced the government's decision in Parliament without giving the White House a courtesy call.
> 
> "Canada must ensure that it clearly explains its goals and why we pursue them. There should be 'no surprises,' especially on issues where we differ. We will reinforce the perception that Canada is an innovative and reliable partner," says the draft policy statement.
> 
> "Where our views diverge, Canada will defend its views, explaining our position to our American partners clearly and early. In these cases, we will work with the U.S. in bridging the gap, including the management of our differences."


----------



## Blue Max

I wish our govt would explain our supposed position to parliament and the tax payers, Clearly and Early. But I doubt that is SOP for the Liberals. :-[

B M.


----------



## Edward Campbell

This is from today's _Globe and Mail_ at:   http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050309/NORAD09/TPInternational/?query=NORAD

Emphasis, at the end, added.



> Expand NORAD, defence experts urge
> 
> By PAUL KORING
> Wednesday, March 9, 2005 - Page A13
> 
> WASHINGTON -- Despite spurning U.S. President George W. Bush's offer of partnership in a protective continental missile shield, Ottawa should seek shared land and sea defence arrangements with Washington, Canadian and U.S. defence experts said yesterday.
> 
> Just over a week after Prime Minister Paul Martin snubbed Mr. Bush over missile defence, military and political analysts at a bi-national conference urged that the North American Aerospace Defence Command be expanded to include naval and land operations.
> 
> Some warned that the mood isn't right in either country to deepen military integration, but others suggested Ottawa needs to demonstrate that it can be a reliable defence partner.
> 
> "If space divides us, then maritime defence should unite us," said Colonel Douglas Murray, chair of the social-sciences division of the U.S. Air Force Academy.
> 
> Col. Douglas joined defence analysts and senior retired military personnel from both countries at the conference, sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington and the Centre for the Study of the United States at the Toronto-based Munk Centre.
> 
> The estrangement over missile defence seemed at odds with yesterday's visions of U.S. warships intercepting suspect freighters bound for Halifax, Canadian submarines shadowing terrorists seeking to land surreptitiously in Maine, and binational monitoring of the still-disputed Northwest Passage with a combination of spy satellites and unmanned aircraft, all reporting to a NORAD-like joint-command centre.
> 
> Adding land and sea operations when the NORAD pact is renegotiated next year could reinforce Canadian sovereignty, not weaken it, argued Dwight Mason, a former co-chair of the Permanent Joint Board of Defence, the highest-level defence arrangement between Canada and the United States.
> 
> Mr. Mason acknowledged a growing "lack of trust and confidence in Canada" among some top Bush administration officials in the wake of Ottawa's missile-defence rejection.
> 
> But he voiced hope that Washington will see closer integration of continental defence as being in its own self-interest.
> 
> Retired Canadian Air Force lieutenant-general George Macdonald, a former NORAD deputy commander and strong proponent of closer defence links, acknowledged that "some Americans are questioning how useful it is" to have Canadians involved in continental defence because of the missile-defence decision. He urged Canadians to "act accordingly" if their neighbours "see something as a threat," even if the same view isn't widely shared north of the border.
> 
> For instance, recent polls show that Americans regard terrorist attacks as their No. 1 threat. In Canada, infectious disease and global warming are both seen as more threatening.
> 
> Gen. Macdonald said he remains optimistic about Canadian defence participation, after a budget that promised billions in additional military spending.
> 
> Others, including James Fergusson, director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba, said they were sanguine. Recalling decades of broken spending promises by successive Canadian governments, Prof. Fergusson said he doubts that Mr. Martin's extra money "will translate into anything significant."


----------



## Edward Campbell

There is a very pertinent editorial in this morning's _National Post_ at: http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/comment/story.html?id=4251aba1-21a9-4b81-8bdc-f8214b1c2f7a



> Annoying our friend
> 
> National Post
> 
> Saturday, March 12, 2005
> 
> Earlier this week, a senior official in the Bush Administration was asked whether the Democrats' opposition to the appointment of hawkish John Bolton as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations made them appear closely aligned to France and Germany -- in other words, too committed to pie-in-the-sky multilateralism. "Worse," the official responded. "They look like Canadians."
> 
> This is what it's come to. Courtesy of Ottawa's hesitant approach to the war on terror, its perfidy on missile defence and the government's predilection for insulting the Americans -- and George W. Bush in particular -- at every turn, U.S. officials now apparently use "Canadian" as a sort of byword for pointless obstructionism and pettiness in foreign affairs. And if the situation is not already bad enough, some Liberals seem unable to stop themselves from making things worse.
> 
> Take Marlene Jennings -- the Montreal-area MP who this week proposed that Ottawa buy ads in foreign countries detailing Canada's troubles resolving trade disputes with the U.S. Her goal? To "embarrass the hell out of the Americans" and pressure them into settling mad cow and softwood lumber rows.
> 
> This might have seemed a clever idea to a group of merry-making Young Liberals whooping it up in an Ottawa pub during last weekend's Liberal convention. But the Americans would see it as a direct attempt to undermine their economy by interfering with their international trade. Far from prompting them to settle bilateral irritants with us, it would provoke at least the U.S. Congress -- and very possibly the Bush administration -- to look for ways to retaliate. And even the fact that it was raised at all will reinforce Washington's impression -- driven home previously by Carolyn Parrish and Francie Ducros, among others -- that anti-Americanism is routinely practiced and encouraged within our government.
> 
> What makes Ms. Jennings' childish suggestion doubly damaging is that she is not just another Grit backbencher; rather, she is the parliamentary secretary for Canada-U.S. relations. Her official position both within the government and on this file give her remark the appearance of being government policy.
> 
> Ms. Jennings is supposed to be responsible for improving our relations with our largest trading partner and nearest neighbour, not devising new semi-clever ways to annoy them further. Sure, she apologized in the House of Commons for her remarks, but she has not apologized to the Americans. And apology or not, yet more damage has been done to a relationship already on the rocks.
> 
> We wouldn't have imagined there would be a day in which the word "Canadian" would be tossed around derisively in Washington -- and everyone would immediately know what was meant by it. It's not too late to get Washington back to singing our praises, but it won't happen as long as the likes of Ms. Jennings are speaking on behalf of our country.
> 
> © National Post 2005




Let me repeat, for emphasis:

This is what it's come to. Courtesy of Ottawa's hesitant approach to the war on terror, its perfidy on missile defence and the government's predilection for insulting the Americans -- and George W. Bush in particular -- at every turn, U.S. officials now apparently use "Canadian" as a sort of byword for pointless obstructionism and pettiness in foreign affairs. And if the situation is not already bad enough, some Liberals seem unable to stop themselves from making things worse.

Our national government is a failure; its policies are, clearly, directed _against_ the vital interests of our country, they are, rather, designed to _appease_ vocal, active special interest groups within the Liberal Party of Canada.   The Prime Minister of Canada and his ministers are, obviously, negligent in their duties.


----------



## Blue Max

It is unfortunate that along with a failed govt foreign policy, the majority of our govt opposition (BQ & NDP) are goading on the Liberals to greater heights of irresponsibility. :

Blue Max


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Blue Max said:
			
		

> It is unfortunate that along with a failed govt foreign policy, the majority of our govt opposition (BQ & NDP) are goading on the Liberals to greater heights of irresponsibility. :Blue Max



And to be totally fair, the Conservatives are an absolute diasaster.  

Dave


----------



## Edward Campbell

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> And to be totally fair, the Conservatives are an absolute disaster.
> 
> Dave



Too true; someone (Rex Murphy?) said that anyone who could explain Stephen Harper's positions on major issues would be made an honorary Jesuit.

It's a shame, really, because Harper is, I think, an honest, intelligent and thoughtful man.   He is trying too hard to please everyone; or, maybe Jack Layton is right: maybe dithering is contagious.


----------



## Kirkhill

Launch of NATO's Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence (ALTBMD) Programme 
  
  
(Source: NATO; issued March 16, 2005)
  
  
 NATO's Theatre Missile Defence (TMD) Programme has reached a key milestone in Alliance efforts to field an Active Layered Theatre Ballistic Missile Defence (ALTBMD) capability by 2010.  

As a practical example of the ongoing transformation of NATO's military capabilities, on 11 March 2005 the North Atlantic Council approved the Charter for the ALTBMD Programme Management Organisation (PMO). This decision launched the Alliance's ALTBMD Programme, which will provide protection against the threat of ballistic missiles to our soldiers deployed on NATO missions.  

The importance of being able to defend deployed troops against theatre-range ballistic missiles, such as SCUD missiles, was made apparent during the 1990s. As a number of foreign nations continue working on ballistic missile programmes, as well as developing chemical, nuclear, and biological warheads for those missiles, the need for effective defences has increased.  

To counter this threat, NATO has, for the past several years, worked to design a battle management system for theatre missile defences. The system will be able to integrate different TMD systems (such as PATRIOT, the NATO MEADS system, SAMP-T) into a single coherent, deployable defensive network able to give layered protection against incoming ballistic missiles.  

The detailed specifications of the NATO system were agreed by Defence Ministers in Istanbul last June. With the approval of the Charter, the NAC has formally established the TMD Programme Office, paving the way for the financing and purchase of the NATO TMD system.  

The launch of the TMD program is the result of a decade of work by NATO in the theatre missile defence area, and provided to the Alliance a new collective capability for common defence.  

-ends- 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

We are still a member of NATO aren't we?


----------



## Kirkhill

Edward Campbell said:
			
		

> Too true; someone (Rex Murphy?) said that anyone who could explain Stephen Harper's positions on major issues would be made an honorary Jesuit.
> 
> It's a shame, really, because Harper is, I think, an honest, intelligent and thoughtful man.   He is trying too hard to please everyone; or, maybe Jack Layton is right: maybe dithering is contagious.



Interesting articles on the Tories in todays National Post.

Say that most Canadians agree with Tory policies - including on BMD, same sex marriage, abortion and the courts.

Only trouble is - NOBODY VOTES ON POLICY.

Also it is patently obvious that it is only fools like ourselves that worry about policy between elections, and it is only the media that worries about publicity between elections (the public having such a short attention span).

So from Harper's point of view, it is more important to clear up the party's finances, get as many of the Reds and Reformers as possible on side at the same time by satisfying their policy needs and get an organization in place for the next election.  Then start planning the election campaign now and figure out when to bring down the government at the most opportune time.

Then after that it is all about slick promotion - and friendly advertising agencies  ;D :blotto:


----------



## a_majoor

The Strategic Defence Initiative (AKA "Star Wars")has been dead for 20 years, but BMD technology develops apace. The United States has the elements to create a comprehensive  BMD system (one little noted factor is the very advanced and densly integrated C4I systems that already exist as part of NORAD; all we need to do is add the shooters), only lack of political will stops them:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4292227.html



> *How to Shoot Down a Rogue (North Korean) Ballistic Missile*
> North Korea's multi-stage rocket, launched on Sunday at 11:30 a.m., fell into the Pacific Ocean 790 miles east of Japan while firing its second stage. This was well short of North Korea's stated goal to put a satellite in space. Still, the rocket made a big splash around the world, with the Security Council expected to weigh in on the launch in coming weeks. From a security standpoint, however, the U.S. is prepared. Even if this missile could make it out of the atmosphere (thus able to reach the west coast of the United States), the U.S. is developing a layered system that can shoot down ballistic missiles in each stage of their flight. Here is how to shoot down a rogue ballistic missile.
> 
> By Erik Sofge
> Published in the December 2008 issue.
> 
> COVER STORY: New Defensive Missiles Protect U.S. Against Rogue Attacks
> 
> BOOST PHASE | 3 to 5 minutes
> 
> 1. Airborne Laser
> The Missile Defense Agency is outfitting a Boeing 747-400F with infrared sensors and a high-energy laser in the nose that destroys missiles within the first minutes of a launch. The first test against a flying target is planned for 2009.
> 
> 2. Kinetic Energy Interceptor
> The KEI fills the Pentagon’s need to field a land-based mobile interception system. A launcher on a vehicle will fire a 36-ft-long missile that is fast enough to destroy an ascending ballistic threat. Flight tests start in 2009 and end in 2011.
> 
> MID-COURSE PHASE | Up to 20 minutes
> 
> 3. Aegis Ballistic Defense
> During the early and late segments of its midcourse flight, a missile will be in range of four-stage, GPS-guided interceptors launched from Navy ships. The ships’ radars can also track ICBMs to guide ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California.
> 
> 4. Ground-Based Interceptor
> GBIs are the only operational defense system that can destroy an intercontinental ballistic missile in the midcourse phase. When the three-stage GBI escapes the atmosphere, it releases a small spacecraft that tracks and then slams into an incoming warhead.
> 
> TERMINAL PHASE | 30 seconds to 1 minute
> 
> 5. Patriot Advanced Capability-3
> Earlier versions of the Patriot system were used to destroy aircraft, but upgrades are designed to handle ballistic missiles. The PAC-3 system is deployed at U.S. bases and guards allied nations. Its missiles identify targets with radar but have a range of only 124 miles.
> 
> 6. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense
> The THAAD system will be the next-generation complement to the PAC-3. It will be a farther-reaching defense against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. An X-band radar will ensure the accuracy of THAAD’s 18-ft missiles.


----------



## tomahawk6

Obama isnt a believer in BMD,but recent events may change his perception. The proposed defense cuts pretty much shut down the airborne laser program,except as a test bed. The planned expansion of the Alaska missile site at Ft Greely wont happen. However there is money for more SM-3's and for THAAD so the various tiers of the system are intact,at least for now.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Post at _Unambiguously Ambidextrous_:

NATO close to missile defence agreement (including Canada?)
http://unambig.com/nato-close-to-missile-defence-agreement-including-canada/



> It stikes me as odd that a govenment that will not consider participating in North American ballistic missile defence may now agree to a European system (maybe it’s just that no-one in this country has bothered to notice)...
> 
> That Democratic Nobel Peace Prize winner in more gung ho on missile defence than our prime minister. Who’d a thunk that?



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## aesop081

> It stikes me as odd that a govenment that will not consider participating in North American ballistic missile defence may now agree to a European system



Realy ? This strikes you as odd ?

It stikes me as "ops normal". The decision on missile defence for North America was based on nothing more than opinion poll results. The only thing that the average Canadian could tell you about NA BMD is that it was just more american war-mongering, so do you think they honestly know/care enough to think about European BMD , or even that NA BMD was a good idea ?


----------



## MarkOttawa

CDN Aviator: Quite agree.  More:

Missile defence: Canada mans up–but only for Europe
http://unambig.com/missile-defence-canada-mans-up-but-only-for-europe/



> ...the government is actually giving its support–though still Eurocentric only–and the usual suspects have noticed and are howling...



That includes St. Steve, one waits for his pacifist web love-child to bawl.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Canada and missile defence: Only for Europe, Part 2
http://unambig.com/canada-and-missile-defence-only-for-europe-part-2/



> ...
> Now even the Bear is chilling:
> 
> *Russia to aid NATO on antimissile network in Europe...*



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CougarKing

An update to this old thread:

Canadian Press link



> *Canada could be considering request from U.S. to join missile shield*
> 
> By The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – 18 hours ago.
> OTTAWA - *How much of a role Canada should play in securing North American from missile attacks could be up for renewed debate.
> 
> The Conservative government is facing a request by the United States to join an anti-ballistic missile shield.*
> 
> The U.S. has been ramping up protection in recent months in response to increased tensions with both North Korea and Iran.
> 
> *Their plans include placing additional missile interceptors in Alaska, suggesting the U.S. believes a threat to their northern territory is a distinct possibility, thus raising the question of the potential risk for Canada.*
> 
> MacKay spokesman Jay Paxton says Canada has declined to take part in such measures in the past.
> 
> But he says the international security situation is constantly under review.


----------



## tomahawk6

Ft Greely's interceptors are well situated to defend Alaska and Canada. I am not sure what Canada's involvement would be. CF personnel are assigned to NORAD.Funding has been included to expand Ft Greely's launch sites [$1b] and another 14 interceptors by 2017.


----------



## a_majoor

An article on the Pro BMD side. The argument is simply that we should give recognition to a system that already exists and that we already participate in. Formal recognition would simply regularize what is already happening now, and unless Canada was determined to buy SM-3 "Standard" missiles and associated radars and software for our ships, there is not much more we would be able to contribute in the here and now to BMD anyway

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/22/matt-gurney-its-time-for-canada-to-openly-embrace-americas-missile-defence/



> *Matt Gurney: It’s time for Canada to openly embrace America’s missile defence*
> 
> Matt Gurney | 13/04/22 | Last Updated: 13/04/22 12:25 PM ET
> More from Matt Gurney | @mattgurney
> 
> In 2005, in the face of heavy pressure from Washington, then-prime minister Paul Martin decided that Canada would not join the American National Missile Defense program. The real reason was political — his Liberal party did not want to be seen as too close to controversial American president George W. Bush. The Martin government tried to dress up the decision, of course — they said they feared the weaponization of space and adding to international controversy (Russia and China were both worried that an American missile defence system would render their arsenals ineffective, and thus skew the balance of power in America’s favour).
> 
> Eight years later, the threat from ballistic missiles has only grown more acute, and the ostensible reasons for Mr. Martin’s hesitation have been proven groundless. Reports have emerged that the U.S. is considering asking us to join again. It’s time for us to do so, specifically, the component known as Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), which includes two bases of interceptor missiles, located in Alaska and California.
> 
> Join it officially, at any rate. Canada is already unofficially a part of it, and certainly benefits from it.
> 
> Related
> Canada may be considering request from U.S. to join missile shield
> U.S. sends in $900M anti-missile radar array as North Korea vows to fire up nuclear reactor
> Matt Gurney: Remind me again why Canada opted out of missile defence?
> 
> In 2004, the year before Mr. Martin surprised officials in both capitals by refusing to sign on, Canada agreed to let NORAD serve as the early warning component of America’s missile defence project. NORAD — the North American Aerospace Defense Command — is a jointly run bi-national military command. Canadian and U.S. officers work together at a central facility to track, classify and, if necessary, engage, any possible threat to the territory of both countries. NORAD has been watching for incoming intercontinental ballistic missiles since the Soviet Union built its first models in the late 1950s (and was watching for incoming manned bombers before that). It was the right tool to watch the skies.
> 
> Let’s not pretend that Canada isn’t involved in the process: NORAD is jointly funded, and day-to-day command of the facility is frequently left to Canadian officers. That Canada would agree to help locate and track an incoming ballistic missile, but then take a pass on the (obvious!) decision to attempt shooting it down, has always been bizarre.
> 
> And it cannot be denied that Canada benefits from the existing GMD system. In a revealing report published last year, the National Research Council (part of the United States National Academies) did a full analysis of the state of America’s missile defence projects. The report was highly detailed and focused mostly on the technical side of the program — where bases should be cited to intercept missiles, the optimum launching times for successful intercepts, and the like. But it accepted as a given that the U.S. GMD system must include the ability to defend not just America from attack, but Canada as well. To that end, it recommended constructing a third interceptor base in New England, to provide better coverage from missiles coming in from the Middle East — the better to protect the U.S. eastern seaboard and eastern Canada.
> 
> Clearly, Canada is already a part of the program, and benefits from its protection. But even more telling is how, in the years since 2005,  the publicly stated reasons for Canada’s absence have been shown to be nonsense.
> 
> America’s missile defences are scattered across land-based bases and naval warships. There is no discussion of weaponizing space, and if anything, the U.S. is showing less interest in space than ever (the current barely benign neglect of NASA is proof of that).
> 
> Canadian sovereignty isn’t enhanced by refusing to be part of the process that protects us from attack
> And rather than a source of international controversy, America’s ballistic missile programs are proving a source of international interest. A system being set up to defend Europe has been warmly embraced by all but the typically truculent Russians. America’s allies in Asia are also keen for a missile defence system, and South Korea and Japan recently welcomed the deployment of missile defence assets to the area in light of continued North Korea provocations. China and Russia responded with … silence.
> 
> The U.S.’s GMD system still doesn’t work 100% of the time. It’s an emerging technology, but it is improving. It is also already in place. Canada would not be on the hook for substantial costs. But by conferring our official political blessing, we’d be given a seat at the table where the defence of our territory is decided. Canadian sovereignty isn’t enhanced by refusing to be part of the process that protects us from attack.
> 
> We should have joined in 2005, but now that even the flimsy excuses offered then have been proven wrong, now would be better late than never.
> 
> National Post
> 
> Matt Gurney: • mgurney@nationalpost.com |


----------



## CougarKing

Related: the latest test...



> *US tests crucial anti-missile defense over Pacific - and fails...again*
> By: Agence France-Presse
> July 6, 2013 10:15 AM
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON - America's missile defense system failed on Friday in a test over the Pacific, with an interceptor *failing to hit an incoming ballistic missile,* the Pentagon said.
> 
> The miss represented yet *another setback for the costly ground-based interceptors, which have not had a successful test result since 2008.*
> 
> The test's objective was to have an interceptor, launched from Vandenberg air base in California, knock out a long-range ballistic missile fired from a US military test site at Kwajalein atoll in the Marshall Islands.
> 
> But* "an intercept was not achieved,"* US Missile Defense Agency spokesman Richard Lehner said in a brief statement.
> 
> "Program officials will conduct an extensive review to determine the cause or causes of any anomalies which may have prevented a successful intercept," it said.
> 
> The anti-missile weapon has run into repeated technical problems, with tests delayed after two failures in 2010.
> 
> The United States has 30 of the ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, at a cost of about $34 billion. They are supposed to counter the potential threat posed by North Korea, which has tried to develop long-range ballistic missiles.
> 
> The Pentagon wants *to deploy an additional 14 ground-based interceptors to bases in Alaska*, at a cost of about $1 billion, also in response to what Washington deems *a growing threat from North Korea.*
> 
> Some lawmakers also are pushing *to open a new missile defense site on the country's East Coast*, *in case Iran or other adversaries obtain long-range missiles.*
> 
> Critics of the missile defense program are sure to seize on the test result as further proof that the system faces insurmountable technical hurdles.


----------



## a_majoor

There is a very strong imperative to continue trying to succeed, and Americans do have a record in not only pulling off impossible tasks, but conveting lab grade equipment into assembly line products.

Looking at the global map, interceptor bases in Alaska will probably be joined by one on the US West Coast, one in the Indian Ocean (Diego Garcia, or possibly a radical upgrade to the shipborne Aegis system), a similar shipborn system in the Med and one on the US East Coast. One in the US SouthWest to deal with shots coming over the South Pole  or SLBMs in the southern oceans should also be considered.

For us this means *we* will operate under some sort of US anti missile sheild when deployed, and our cities will either be protected or under the intercept zones of the various continental US bases. This alone should have us concerned, and also focus the attention of our decision makers on this topic.


----------



## CougarKing

??? "Is there a need for this on North America's East Coast?" is the question that indeed needs to be asked. Especially with the US military's pivot to Asia and concurrent threats like North Korea. Unless they know more about the Iranians' delivery capability than they've let on...

Defense News link



> *Sites For Potential East Coast Missile Defense Plan Selected*
> Sep. 12, 2013 - 02:28PM   |
> By PAUL McLEARY
> 
> WASHINGTON — *The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is looking at five potential locations to house a controversial third domestic ground-based interceptor (GBI) site, which would guard the continental United States against ballistic missile attack.*
> 
> While a site hasn’t been chosen, whittling the potential locations down to a few sites will allow to Pentagon to begin environmental and other assessments if Congress provides the money to go ahead with the build.
> 
> In a statement on Sept. 12, MDA director Navy Vice Adm. James Syring said that “while the administration has not made a decision to build another missile defense facility in the U.S. for homeland defense, if a decision were to be made in the future to construct a new site, completing the required site study and environmental impact statement would shorten the timeline required to build such a site.”
> 
> All of the sites are already on federal land:
> 
> ■ Fort Drum, New York
> 
> ■ Camp Ethan Allen Training Site, Vermont
> 
> ■ Naval Air Station Portsmouth SERE Training Area, Maine
> 
> ■ Camp Ravenna Joint Training Center, Ohio
> 
> ■ Fort Custer Training Center, Michigan
> 
> Despite the fact that his state is being considered for the site, Sen. Patrick Leahy has said that he considers the program to be a waste of money, and he opposes placing it in his state.
> 
> John Isaacs, director of the Council for a Livable World, said in a statement that “the United States should not rush to deploy a missile defense site on the East Coast until a need for such a site is identified and the interceptors to be deployed at the site prove effective and suitable in operationally realistic tests.” The group is a non-partisan organization focused on nuclear weapons proliferation.
> 
> *The US already operates GBI sites at Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, with 30 GBIs on line, and another 14 to be added by 2017.*
> 
> The issue of an additional GBI site on the East Cost sparked controversy on Capitol Hill this summer, as Senate Democrats pushed back against Congressional Republicans, who included money in their 2013 defense budget markup for the site.
> 
> It was further complicated by the MDA launching yet another failed test of its existing interceptors, marking a third failed intercept test in the past five years.
> 
> *In a written reply to Sen. Carl Levin this past June, Syring, along with Lt. Gen. Richard Formica, commander of the Joint Functional Component Command for Integrated Missile Defense, admitted that there is “no validated military requirement” for a proposed East Coast missile defense site.*
> 
> The letter came in response to one Levin sent to the two officers asking if there was an urgent need to begin work on a third site. In its 2013 budget markup, the Republican-controlled House Armed Services Committee* voted to set aside $250 million for the construction of a missile defense system on the East Coast, making its second attempt to get the site into the budget after having a similar proposal shot down by the Senate Armed Services Committee last year.*
> 
> The proposal from the House comes at a time of increased worry about North Korean, Chinese, and Iranian ballistic missile threats against the mainland United States and its allies, even though many analysts say that neither the North Koreans nor the Iranians are close to having the ability to hit the United States.
> 
> *Nevertheless, in March Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel announced that he was earmarking about $1 billion to fund the emplacement of 14 additional missile interceptors in Alaska to guard against a missile attack from North Korea. The additional interceptors would bolster the 26 already deployed in Alaska and four in California, and give the United States 44 interceptor sites in all.*
> 
> But in July, Syring said that the government wants even more. “The 44 [is for] what we see with North Korea today,” he said, adding that there is the real potential “to go beyond 44 as we start to evaluate the threat from Iran and from other nations.”
> 
> The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that expanding the ground-based midcourse defense system to the East Coast would cost about approximately $3.5 billion over the next five years.


----------



## tomahawk6

Ft Drum would be my first choice. Latest intercept a success.Sept 10

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=120744


----------



## McG

Would Goosebay work?  That could satisfy the Conservative promise of a battalion without costing the CAF a single PY.


----------



## tomahawk6

If Ft Drum is selected it would be able to cover eastern Canada and half of the eastern US.USN warships operating out of Norfolk also have an intercept capability.


----------



## STJ_Kierstead

> The United States has 30 of the ground-based interceptors in Alaska and California, at a cost of about $34 billion. They are supposed to counter the potential threat posed by North Korea, which has tried to develop long-range ballistic missiles.
> 
> The Pentagon wants to deploy an additional 14 ground-based interceptors to bases in Alaska, at a cost of about $1 billion, also in response to what Washington deems a growing threat from North Korea.



math seems a little off.. 34 billion for 30 ground based interceptors, adding 14 more will only cost 1 billion?


----------



## tomahawk6

The initial outlay probably was initial cost of infrastructure plus missiles.Evidently included in the FY 2013 budget was for an In-Flight Interceptor Communication
System Data Terminal (IDT) Complex to be built at Ft Drum.Construction has begun with completion in fall of 2015.


----------



## CougarKing

An AEGIS cruiser conducts successful BMD test:

Defense News



> *Lake Erie Crew Hits Target in BMD Test*
> 
> The Aegis ballistic-missile defense system continued its string of successful tests Wednesday, when a missile launched from *the cruiser Lake Erie* hit and destroyed a Hawaii-launched target, according to a Defense Department news release.
> 
> *It was the fourth-straight successful BMD test for the Aegis program, according to Missile Defense Agency records, and the second in nine days: A missile launched from the destroyer Decatur hit a target in a Sept. 10 test near Kwajalein Atoll*, part of the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
> 
> On Wednesday, sailors aboard Lake Erie tracked a separating short-range ballistic target and launched two Standard Missile-3 missiles to intercept it — a first for the program, the release said. The first of the SM-3s scored a hit on what the release said was “the most difficult target engaged to date.”
> 
> *It’s the 27th successful intercept in 33 tries for the Aegis BMD program, which began testing in 2002. The program has hit 10 targets in 12 attempts since mid-2009*, with the most recent miss coming last October in a joint test with the Army’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system.


----------



## CougarKing

Defense News



> *First US BMD ship leaves for Rota
> 
> 3 More destroyers to follow*
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON — *The US destroyer Donald Cook* shoved off from Norfolk, Va., Jan. 31, bound for Rota, Spain, where the Arleigh Burke-class ship will become the first of four ballistic missile defense (BMD)-capable ships to be based in Europe.
> 
> *The move, in the works since the fall of 2011, is part of the Obama administration’s Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) plan to protect allies in the European region from ballistic missile threats, including missiles that could be launched from Iran. *The plan includes forward-basing the Aegis destroyers in Spain, and establishing two Aegis Ashore ground stations — one in Romania to be operational by 2015, and another in Poland, to be up and running in 2018.
> 
> US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, visiting Poland Jan. 30, highlighted the two countries’ BMD efforts.
> 
> (...)


----------



## CougarKing

_Related News..._





> *Russia may quit START III after US deploys destroyer in Europe*
> 
> (voiceofrussia.com)
> 
> 
> *Deployment of the Navy destroyer USS Donald Cook, equipped with the Aegis shipboard integrated combat weapons system, was announced by the US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel at the Munich Security Conference.*
> 
> "An important posture enhancement is European missile defense in response to ballistic missile threats from Iran,” Hagel said, adding that the US is committed “to deploying missile defense architecture there,” as a part of Phase 3 of the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA).
> <snipped>
> "We are concerned that the US is continuing to build up missile defense capability without considering the interests and concerns of Russia,” Ulyanov told Interfax. "Such a policy can undermine strategic stability and lead to a situation where Russia will be forced to exercise [its] right of withdrawal from the [START] treaty.”
> 
> Ulyanov said that the legal basis for Moscow scraping the START treaty is legislated for within the text of the agreement, which Russia says it has so far fully implemented. In certain exceptional cases, involving a known threat to national security, both Russia and the US have the option to quit the treaty.


----------



## a_majoor

Given the growing threat of AA/AD (anti-access/area denial) weapons in multiple theatres (mostly ballistic missile delivered), there is going to be much more emphasis on at least theatre BMD. As a potential coalition partner in these adventures, we will need to know and understand how to work under the "umbrella" and also may need to develop useful capabilities to either add to existing BMD systems or have our own to keep covered when the allied systems are not available (for example when steaming to or from the AO).

As a minimum, long range sensors and communications linkages to the existing systems to provide continuing coverage should be high on our list of things to do. Adding long range interceptors would be number two, and getting on board with future weapons developments like high energy lasers or rail guns to intercept incoming AA/AD weapons would be a distant number three.


----------



## CougarKing

An update from REUTERS:



> *Exclusive: Pentagon to boost missile defense spending by over $4 billion: sources*
> 
> WASHINGTON - The U.S. Defense Department plans to ask Congress for $4.5 billion in extra missile defense funding over the next five years as part of the fiscal 2015 budget request, say congressional sources and an expert.
> 
> *Nearly $1 billion of that sum will pay for a new homeland defense radar to be placed in Alaska, with an additional $560 million to fund work on a new interceptor after several failed flight tests, said Riki Ellison, founder of the nonprofit Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, and two of the congressional sources, who were not authorized to speak publicly.*
> 
> The Pentagon's request for added funding comes despite continued pressure on military spending and cuts in other arms programs, a sign of Washington's growing concern about missile development efforts by North Korea and Iran, the sources said.
> 
> 
> (...)- SNIPPED
> 
> The kill vehicle is part of the larger ground-based missile defense system managed by Boeing Co. Orbital Sciences Corp builds the rockets used by the system.
> 
> Michael Gilmore, the Defense Department's chief weapons tester, last week questioned the robustness of the Raytheon kill vehicle after a series of test failures, and said the Pentagon should consider a redesign.
> 
> "We need a new interceptor that actually works," said one of the congressional sources, adding that both of the existing kill vehicle models also needed to be fixed and tested since the replacement would need about five years to be made ready.
> 
> Ellison said the issue needed to be addressed quickly, given the Obama administration's push to buy 14 additional ground-based interceptors to beef up U.S. defenses against a potential missile strike from North Korea.
> 
> (...)
> 
> *Twenty of the existing 30 ground-based interceptors carry the CE-1 version* of the kill vehicle which failed to separate from the rest of the rocket in a flight test last July, said one of the congressional sources.
> 
> *The other ten interceptors are equipped with a newer CE-2 kill vehicle*, which has also suffered several problems and flight test failures, said the source.
> 
> *The Missile Defense Agency aims to test fixes developed for the CE-2 kill vehicle this summer*, after it wraps up its review of the July flight test failure, said agency spokesman Rick Lehner. That is months later than initially planned.
> 
> (...)


----------



## tomahawk6

Ok there are problems with the kill vehicle.If Iran were to launch say 5 ballistic missiles at the US multiple missiles would be launched at each target.We have the capability to defeat a limited missile attack.Russia would be able to overwhelm the defenses with sheer numbers.The PRC as yet doesnt have enough missiles to overwhelm the defenses IMO.The system will defend against rogue state attacks.Of course once such attack occured there would be retaliation.Now an EMP attack is a different animal entirely.


----------



## CougarKing

BMD being discussed on Parliament hill again?

Defense News



> *Official: Canada Revisiting Ballistic Missile Defense*
> May. 8, 2014 - 01:54PM   |   By AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE
> 
> OTTAWA — Canada is revisiting a decade-old decision not to join the US ballistic missile defense program, a top official in Ottawa said on Thursday.
> 
> James Bezan, parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defense,* told a defense summit in Ottawa that the issue has come up again before both Senate and House of Commons committees.*
> 
> 
> *“The government hasn’t made any decision”* on the matter, Bezan said, explaining that it is waiting for the parliamentary committees to report back.
> 
> *Bezan said there has been some concern about the “accuracy” of missiles being developed by some rogue countries that could target Canada’s neighbor, the United States, and end up striking Canada, he said.
> 
> He also expressed concern that Canadian officials would be “sidelined” in the decision-making responding to any missile threat incoming to North America.*
> 
> A change in policy would require political consensus, however, which appears elusive.
> 
> Without political agreement — or if the issue becomes a political hot potato — *Bezan predicted that the status quo would prevail*.
> 
> (...EDITED)


----------



## McG

US DoD would like to update the missile warning technology watching Canada's North.



> U.S. military to ask Canada for new missile sensors in the Arctic
> CTV News
> 07 Apr 2015
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The U.S. military is preparing to ask that new sensors be installed in the Canadian Arctic that would be able to track different types of incoming missiles.
> 
> A senior defence official said Tuesday the request is being made to U.S. policy leaders -- as well as the Canadian government. He said it's too early in the process to set a target date.
> 
> "I don't think we have a timetable just yet," said Admiral William Gortney, the head of the Canada-U.S. Norad program and of Northern Command -- the Colorado-based body with tracking responsibility for the U.S. missile-defence program.
> 
> "We're just now bringing it up through our policy leaders as well as with the Canadian government."
> 
> He told a news conference at the Pentagon that it's nearly time to replace the aging sensors in the Canada-U.S. North Warning System, along the old Arctic distant early warning line, the Cold-War era DEW Line.
> 
> He said he'd prefer to replace them with newer versions that could not only see farther, over the horizon, but also be able to track shorter-range cruise missiles.
> 
> "In a few years -- I'd say 10 years is the number -- (the current equipment is) going to reach a point of obsolescence and we're going to have to reinvest for that capability," Gortney said.
> 
> "The question is, what sort of technology do we want to use to reconstitute that capability? We don't want to put in the same sorts of sensors because they're not effective against the low-altitude, say, cruise missiles. They can't see over the horizon."
> 
> The U.S. military has in the past voiced a hope for more flexible sensors in the Arctic, but Gortney's remarks suggested that a more formal request is in the works.
> 
> Canada refused a decade ago to join the American ballistic missile defence, or BMD, although it does play a role in monitoring the airspace through Norad. The Arctic sensors would deliver tracking information to the missile-defence program.
> 
> Defence Minister Jason Kenney recently said the government would look at modernizing Norad's capacity to detect potential threats.
> 
> He also reiterated that it was examining the long-standing opposition to participation in ballistic missile defence and would await the findings of a study by the House of Commons defence committee.
> 
> "But up to now, we haven't seen information that has changed our opinion on BMD," Kenney told a news conference call last month.


http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/u-s-military-to-ask-canada-for-new-missile-sensors-in-the-arctic-1.2316106


----------



## tomahawk6

NORAD/NORTHCOM are moving communications equipment and servers back into Cheyenne Mountain,in a move to EMP proofcommand and control.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-aerospace-command-moving-comms-gear-back-cold-015320113.html


----------



## George Wallace

I still can't fathom why those systems were moved above ground in the first place.


----------



## McG

Complacency.


----------



## tomahawk6

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I still can't fathom why those systems were moved above ground in the first place.



I agree it was a dumb move.I am glad though that someone woke up to the threat.Hopefully the subordinate commands will also move to EMP proof their communications and power generation.In an EMP attack the US power grid would be destroyed as well as cell towers ect.Facing this possibility it would almost be smart to launch a pre-emptive strike - if you could identify the attacker.EMP is the perfect weapon for asymetrical warfare.


----------



## CougarKing

In the aftermath of the missile explosion recently above the _USS The Sullivans_, her sister ship does another test:

Military.com



> *US Military Tests Ballistic Missile Interceptor Off Hawaii*
> 
> HONOLULU — The U.S. military said Monday it successfully tested an interceptor that can shoot down ballistic missiles as well as airplanes.
> *The destroyer USS John Paul Jones tested the technology during a series of flight tests off the Hawaiian island of Kauai over the past wee*k, the Missile Defense Agency said in a statement.
> 
> The tests used a modified version of *the SM-6 missile *the Navy already uses, said Heather Uberuaga, a spokeswoman for military contractor Raytheon Missile Systems.
> 
> The existing version can shoot down airplanes, helicopters and cruise missiles. The newer model tested off Hawaii may also destroy ballistic missiles in their last few seconds of flight.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## CougarKing

Here's a notable update, plus a pitch further below for the US to focus more missile defense in the wake of North Korea's successful satellite launch last week:

Defense News



> *Maine Off List For Possible Ballistic Missile Defense Site on East Coast*
> Jen Judson, Defense News 5:07 p.m. EST January 15, 2016
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The Missile Defense Agency has determined, due to environmental and cost concerns, to take a site in Maine off its list of possible future East Coast ballistic missile defense sites, according to an agency statement.
> 
> The Center for Security Forces Detachment Kittery Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape Facility (SERE East) in Redington Township, Maine, was under consideration for a possible missile interceptor site, but after a survey conducted by the MDA and other federal and state agencies, it was determined that the site “presented irreversible environmental impacts, significant constructability concerns, and extensive costs associated with developing infrastructure in a remote area,” the statement reads.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)



Defense News



> *Commentary: Congress Must Prioritize Ballistic Missile Defense*
> By Kenneth Todorov 5:06 p.m. EST February 8, 2016
> 
> 
> As we turn the page to a New Year, members of Congress and their staffs will face a myriad of difficult questions regarding how best to protect our homeland from a growing number of threats to our national security. In this era of declining budgets, it is critical our top national priorities are sufficiently resourced to provide those at the “tip of the spear” with the tools to protect our homeland from existing and emerging threats.
> 
> One such threat emanates from the growing number of ballistic missiles being developed by rogue adversaries. Given that this threat is growing in both quantity and sophistication, funding for our nation’s ballistic missile defenses must remain at the top of America’s priority list.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Why Canada should join US BMD:



> Would the U.S. defend us from North Korean missiles? Don’t bet on it.
> ...
> Canada is not a part of the defence function which resides in U.S. Northern Command. The assumption that the U.S. would defend Canada against a deliberate or (more likely) an errant shot from North Korea is problematic because the U.S. has only a limited number of interceptor missiles to defend against an unknown number of North Korean ICBMs — and a sure kill might require several shots at an incoming ICBM, with some interceptors held in reserve against unknown contingencies. The defence functions according to pre-scripted algorithms, leaving no time for political consultations.
> 
> For Canada to be protected, participation in the defence is the only sure route. That would involve a negotiated set of parameters which would cover Canadian cities — not just the ones covered by default because of their proximity to the border...
> 
> Canada stands alone among major U.S. allies in shunning active participation in missile defence, except in European NATO territory. It’s time we got off the fence.
> 
> 
> What would it take? An earlier round of negotiations, aborted under Prime Minister Paul Martin, made it clear that Canada would have to make a contribution of some kind. The first contribution would be to allow Canadian personnel at NORAD to immediately staff missile defence billets. Following on could be some form of radar or communications nodes, both of which are key components of the system. It wouldn’t necessarily require deploying interceptors at Canadian bases.
> 
> Liberal politicians have, in the past, accepted that Canada should have said yes to missile defence under PM Martin. The time has come.
> 
> _Michael Dawson was the Canadian political advisor [from Foreign Affairs] to the commander of NORAD and U.S. Northern Command from 2010 to 2014._



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CougarKing

Related: why Canada needs to join the US BMD/THAAD program for protection against North Korea...

Canadian Global Affairs Institute/Mark Collins blog



> Defence, Diplomacy, International Affairs, NATO, Nuclear Weapons
> *Mark Collins – Canada Should Just Say “Yes” to Missile Defence, North Korea in Mind*
> February 14, 2016 Global Affairs StaffLeave a comment
> 
> A retired Canadian diplomat, most recently our government’s political adviser to NORAD’s (and US NORTHCOM’s) American commander, makes the case:
> 
> Would the U.S. defend us from North Korean missiles? Don’t bet on it.
> 
> North Korea may or may not have tested a thermonuclear weapon — but it’s clear that the regime intends to continue its quest for the most powerful of all weapons.
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## a_majoor

Actually, if you parse the "reasoning" the LPC gave for not buying F-35's, the thing that stood out was they see no need for offensive action but rather the ability to contribute to the air defense of North America (the NORAD mission).

By that line of reasoning, the RCAF should also need ballistic defense missile batteries on each coast and one near the geographical centre (to catch "leakers"). Backups like laser equipped heavy transport jets and RCN warships equipped with the AEGIS system will be needed as well, if we were actually to take the Liberals at their word.


----------



## MarkOttawa

CBC piece features prominent peaceniks Peggy Mason and Doug Roche towards end, balance one assumes:



> Analysis
> North Korea nuclear threat renews debate on Canada's participation in U.S. missile defence
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/north-korea-u-s-canada-missile-defence-1.4229904



Earlier:



> “Time to say ‘yes’ to a missile shield, Canada”
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/04/21/mark-collins-time-to-say-yes-to-a-missile-shield-canada/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

Not wanting to participate in missile defense was always a stupid policy, we have people and territory of our own to defend, not become an engagement zone for American ABM interceptors, especially as the threat continues to grow and proliferate.

Given the rapidly advancing technology, Canada might consider something along the line of "David's Sling", which is effective against cruise missiles, tactical and theatre ballistic missiles, and arming some ships with the SM-3 Standard missile, which allows you to shift your defensive shield to a limited extent and pre position things where you foresee trouble coming. American GBI (Ground Based Interceptors, the large ABMs based in Alaska) or Israeli Arrow-3 long range interceptors also exist, and could be placed in fixed sites in Canada where warranted.

It is crazy to continue to think in terms of the 1960's, either in policy or technology, when discussing missile defense.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Thucydides: As for RCN CSCs and missile defence:



> Technology and Politics – Canadian Ballistic Missile Defence
> ...
> Fast forward to 2015 and the RCN is in the design stages of the program that will see the construction of new Air Defence/Command and Control Destroyers. Work on those new ships will raise the questions of Ballistic Missile Defence once again. Should the ships be made capable of participating in the Anti-Ballistic Missile battle?
> 
> The real question should be “Can we responsibly prevent the ships from being capable in an ABM role?”..
> https://defencemuse.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/technology-and-politics-canadian-ballistic-missile-defence/



A friend with relevant knowledge noted some time ago that the US side of NORAD would very much welcome the CSCs' having a missile defence capability--against cruise missiles also.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## daftandbarmy

The most effective, and most difficult, form of ballistic missile defense is (of course) effective international diplomacy. 

Sadly, we seem to have lost that competency somewhere between to Berlin Wall coming down and Guantanamo Bay....


----------



## George Wallace

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The most effective, and most difficult, form of ballistic missile defense is (of course) effective international diplomacy.
> 
> Sadly, we seem to have lost that competency somewhere between to Berlin Wall coming down and Guantanamo Bay....



 [   :goodpost:


----------



## tomahawk6

George Wallace said:
			
		

> [   :goodpost:



Kim Jong Un is awaiting your diplomacy. President Clinton tried buying off the North Koreans by giving them billions to discard their nuclear program. Now 23 years later they have a very limited nuclear capability and remain a threat to their neighbors. Give them more money to advance their nuclear/ICBM program or risk war. No easy way forward.


----------



## daftandbarmy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Kim Jong Un is awaiting your diplomacy. President Clinton tried buying off the North Koreans by giving them billions to discard their nuclear program. Now 23 years later they have a very limited nuclear capability and remain a threat to their neighbors. Give them more money to advance their nuclear/ICBM program or risk war. No easy way forward.



For a start...

I'd ask for North Korean help to defeat ISIS.. or something like that.

We're not trying hard enough and leaning on pre-1914 diplomatic methofogies AFAIC. 

Where is our 21st century Metternich?


----------



## Kirkhill

Metternich?

He was dealing with a bunch of people worn out by 23 years of Napoleon, the RN and the Bank of England.

Stephenson?

Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo and the Atomic Bomb

Westphalia?

100 years of Huguenot wars 


Where's the incentive?


----------



## The Bread Guy

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Not wanting to participate in missile defense was always a stupid policy ...


So says a former Defence & Foreign Affairs Minister, in _hindsight_ - this from Russian-funded media ...


> A former Canadian defense minister says he "regrets" that Ottawa did not advance talks to join the US missile defense program years ago, citing the recent North Korean military and missile tests.
> 
> Peter MacKay, who served as Canadian defense minister from 2007 to 2013, says he wishes he had signed onto the program when he had the chance, emphasizing the increasing threats posed by North Korea.
> 
> "We share a great deal of intelligence with the United States and if they're alarmed, we should be alarmed," MacKay told CBC News, adding that not being part of the program is a "big problem."
> 
> (...)
> 
> MacKay went on to state that he doubts many people "grasp the gravity" of the threats posed by Pyongyang, or the recent technological advances that have been made by North Korea.
> 
> "Given the tone, the tenor of this threat, I really think it's time for Canada to move past this...allergic reaction that, I think for years, has existed to Canada entering into ballistic missile defense program with the United States," he said.
> 
> Conservatives said they were in favor of joining the missile defense program when they entered office in 2006. However, they made no attempt to pursue the program - which was the subject of serious debate under the government of former Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin - over the course of nearly a decade.
> 
> "There's no denying we did not move in that direction, although there were discussions, and I personally, as [former] defense minister, have regrets we weren't able to advance those discussions," MacKay, a Conservative, said ...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

It always disappoints me to see politicians admit that they are following the sheep, instead of leading them....   :facepalm:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think that PM Harper made the political calculation that joining the US Missile Defense would cause him more losses of voters than the then estimated risk that NK would develop intercontinental missiles, regardless of how much sense it made from a tactical point of view (single continental integrated system) or strategic point of view (integration within NORAD, so Canada would be at the decision table), regardless of low cost.

That time has passed and now, if Canada wants in (and personally I say that not only we should, but we must - I suggest people look at a globe: Any NK missile that could reach the US west coast, say down to San Francisco, can reach into Canada all the way to Manitoba) we will have to pay our way in. Acquiring CSC's fitted with ballistic missile detection radars and SM-3's would go along way toward raising our participation again and moving the whole thing back to NORAD. 

I know alleged experts say Canada is not likely to be a NK target. I believe this view to be not only incorrect, but also a very narrow North American centric view of things. In North America (and possibly Europe, I don't know), this whole Korean matter is currently seen as something between the two Korea's and the US as the South's defender. But in NK, they see the whole thing as the "cold" continuation of the Korean War of the 50's. To them, they are still at war -but held in place by the armistice - with their opponent of the day, which is the world as represented by the UN, and they probably consider all of the major participants of that time as legitimate combatants, and therefore targets. So if you are going to make a "demonstration" launch in such circumstances to prove how big your dick is, why would you lob it at the strongest opponent you try to impress when you can lob it at a much smaller power, incapable of retaliating in kind, that you perceive as a participant and a "lackey" of the big power you wish to dissuade. Much easier and less risky to launch at Victoria than Seattle might be the logic. We have to stop seeing things through our point of view and start considering theirs.


----------



## Rifleman62

Canada can't count on a NK ICBM hitting what it is aimed at. A drop short could possibly land somewhere in Canada. Additionally there is the radioactive fallout that may drift into Canada and depending on the size of the warhead, the effects of a regional nuclear winter. BC has forest fires now. Could we handle a massive forest fire started in the state of Washington spreading Northward? The Japanese in the Second World War wanted to start forest fires with their balloon bombs.

Is Canada prepared to react to assist the Canadian populous in the event of a nuclear attack? Assist possible US survivors who may cross the border?


----------



## Old Sweat

Deja Vu all over again for this geriatric soldier. In the early Cold War era - mid-50s and into the 60s the Canadian Army had a fairly sophisticated national survival organization to conduct re-entry operations in possible target areas across the country. You can still see the various bunkers in places like Shilo where the provincial governments would deploy skeleton staffs (and the feds into the Diefenbunker in Carp) to provide continuity of government.

The militia was restructured from a number of divisions and brigades into national survival columns and exchanged its weapons for "snakes and ladders." This pretty well destroyed the recruiting base for the reserves, and contributed to its downsizing after integration. And, yes, the regular force did practice re-entry operations as well.

I don't think we are going back to those days, but there should be a crap load of studies, plans, etc in LAC, if anybody is interested.

Add. Officer promotion exams included a three hour written one on national survival for both lieutenant to captain and captain to major.


----------



## Rifleman62

You remember the Ponderosa in Shilo: the village of several buildings simulating a hit, with various "collapses" V, pancake etc. built specifically for NS Trg. Trg was knots/lashings, removal of casualties from bldgs/trees. Always fun being the casualty tied in a stretcher being removed from the second story, especially when it frequently flipped upside down.

In Wpg the plan was to RV in Portage La Prairie (50 miles West) and re-enter Wpg to save the citizens. I have a copy of the plan somewhere. For me I had to take a _streetcar_ if it was on schedule, to Minto Armoury, start a frozen 3/4 ton, load stores, drive to the RV. That took how many hours? Flight time of an ICBM from Russia? You can see the government/Army plan was not realistic.


----------



## Old Sweat

Indeed. The initial planning was done in the manned bomber era with Soviet aircraft coming over the pole and/or from Siberia. Where do you think the airborne response to lodgements in the north came from? Early on, it was felt the Soviets might seize refuelling airfields in the north prior to launching nuclear strikes. 

The plans, while unrealistic by the mid-sixties, were better than northing, especially if there was strategic warning that would have convinced the federal and provincial governments to act before the strikes were launched.

Few of us had very many delusions about our chances of survival. During the Cuban Missile Crisis I was on a course at the RCSA in Shilo, and still remember my frustration and disappointment at the prospect of dying away from my troops in 1 RCHA in Gagetown.


----------



## MilEME09

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> You remember the Ponderosa in Shilo: the village of several buildings simulating a hit, with various "collapses" V, pancake etc. built specifically for NS Trg. Trg was knots/lashings, removal of casualties from bldgs/trees. Always fun being the casualty tied in a stretcher being removed from the second story, especially when it frequently flipped upside down.
> 
> In Wpg the plan was to RV in Portage La Prairie (50 miles West) and re-enter Wpg to save the citizens. I have a copy of the plan somewhere. For me I had to take a _streetcar_ if it was on schedule, to Minto Armoury, start a frozen 3/4 ton, load stores, drive to the RV. That took how many hours? Flight time of an ICBM from Russia? You can see the government/Army plan was not realistic.



Basically you better hope that first strike comes while your on EX far away from the city. Even if you were a lucky SOB and were outside a target, I doubt you would have CBRN gear, or be able to get access to any quickly enough to safely enter a contaminated zone to have any one left to save.


----------



## Old Sweat

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Basically you better hope that first strike comes while your on EX far away from the city. Even if you were a lucky SOB and were outside a target, I doubt you would have CBRN gear, or be able to get access to any quickly enough to safely enter a contaminated zone to have any one left to save.



There was no intention to enter "contaminated" zones, and there would have been more than enough rescue work in the areas damaged by blast and heat/flash. The actual highly-radioative area was limited, if the burst was detonated far enough above the ground to maximize damage from the other two effects I mentioned in the preceding sentence. Re-entry was also planned to be from upwind of the site to minimize exposure to fallout from particles sucked up into the cloud.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

The peaceniks are a truly silly group.

What they don't comprehend is that:
1.  The NK leadership are batshit crazy, do not see the world as we do and therefore negotiating with them based on our western values and ideals is hopeless.
2.  They give zero thought to the 10's of millions imprisoned under the NK Leadership, yet complain about the civil rights atrocities which occur in the USA under Trump. As they are seen to be living under a 'socialist banner, imprisonment, torture and even executions are all totally fine.
3. There is no recognition that although an NK Mike may be launched at Seattle or Los Angeles that they may miscalculated and it ends up hectoring towards Victoria or Vancouver.  

Bottom line is that with serious issues like this, you need more serious people than the Corwyn-ite crew influencing decisions that impact the security of our citizens.


----------



## MarkOttawa

And still the missiled defence syndrome:



> Freeland pledges support for U.S. as tensions escalate with North Korea
> ...
> Asked whether Canada should rethink its policy on the anti-ballistic missile program, Ms. Freeland did not directly answer the question. Rather, she said it is important to focus on the source of the problem at hand: North Korea...
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/freeland-pledges-support-for-us-as-tensions-escalate-with-north-korea/article35964914/



And its missiles, eh?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> The peaceniks are a truly silly group.
> 
> What they don't comprehend is that:
> 1.  The NK leadership are batshit crazy, do not see the world as we do and therefore negotiating with them based on our western values and ideals is hopeless.
> 2.  They give zero thought to the 10's of millions imprisoned under the NK Leadership, yet complain about the civil rights atrocities which occur in the USA under Trump. As they are seen to be living under a 'socialist banner, imprisonment, torture and even executions are all totally fine.
> 3. There is no recognition that although an NK Mike may be launched at Seattle or Los Angeles that they may miscalculated and it ends up hectoring towards Victoria or Vancouver.
> 
> Bottom line is that with serious issues like this, you need more serious people than the Corwyn-ite crew influencing decisions that impact the security of our citizens.



First you need to get the people who vote for the Corwyn-lite politicians, or support Corwyn lite talking heads to understand the true nature and gravity of the situation, otherwise the Corwyn-lites get on and dominate the stage, poisoning the environment for clear understanding and discussion, much less decision making.


----------



## daftandbarmy

“Dictators ride to and fro upon tigers which they dare not dismount. And the tigers are getting hungry.” ~ 

Winston Churchill

My guess is that the NK leadership is working hard to stay mounted...


----------



## The Bread Guy

A bit of the latest from NORAD's deputy boss ...


> Current U.S. policy directs the American military not to defend Canada if it is targeted in a ballistic missile attack, says the top Canadian officer at the North American Aerospace Defence Command.
> 
> "We're being told in Colorado Springs that the extant U.S. policy is not to defend Canada," said Lt.-Gen. Pierre St-Amand, deputy commander of Colorado-based Norad.
> 
> "That is the policy that's stated to us. So that's the fact that I can bring to the table."
> 
> St-Amand delivered that revelation Thursday during an appearance before the House of Commons defence committee, which is studying the extent to which Canada is ready for an attack by North Korea.
> 
> The study comes after several provocative nuclear and ballistic missile tests by North Korea, which have stoked fears Canada could end up in the middle of a confrontation between the U.S. and the so-called hermit kingdom.
> 
> Those tests have also resurrected questions over whether Canada should join the U.S. ballistic missile defence shield, which it famously opted out of in 2005 following a divisive national debate.
> 
> St-Amand said Canadian and U.S. military personnel at Norad headquarters in Colorado Springs, Colo., work side-by-side detecting potential airborne threats to North America.
> 
> But Canada would have no role in deciding what to do if North Korea or any other country fired a missile at North America, he said ...


*More @ link*


----------



## QV

"Revelation"...LOL

Why would another country commit its defence ordnance to protect a neighbouring country that won't participate in that defence program? Surprise surprise.


----------



## Rifleman62

IMHO, Canada's current policy clearly indicates that LPC policy is more important than the safety of Canada's citizens.

(Tony trigger)


----------



## The Bread Guy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> (Tony trigger)


 :rofl:  Touché!


----------



## Ostrozac

On the plus side, once that North Korean ordnance hits Canada, we can invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, and then we can get most of the gang back together from the 1950-53 war. So we'll have to take the hit, but we should have help on the counter attack.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> On the plus side, once that North Korean ordnance hits Canada, we can invoke Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, and then we can get most of the gang back together from the 1950-53 war. So we'll have to take the hit, but we should have help on the counter attack.



Except that the current Pink Fluffy Unicorn Government will probably just drop parkas on the evil doers, the poor things


----------



## Colin Parkinson

the one thing protecting Vancouver is the large number of rich Mainland Chinese here, Beijing would not be pleased.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> the one thing protecting Vancouver is the large number of rich Mainland Chinese here, Beijing would not be pleased.



That, and the wildly inaccurate North Korean missiles....


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> That, and the wildly inaccurate North Korean missiles....



They only have to get lucky once.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> That, and the wildly inaccurate North Korean missiles....



Unless they target Bemberton and miss.....


----------



## Old Sweat

Colin P said:
			
		

> Unless they target Bemberton and miss.....



and have compensated for inaccuracy by fitting a honking big warhead on the missile. Also weapons effects, and more so with nukes, observe no geographical and political boundaries. As someone who grew up in the age of atmospheric nuclear testing, believe me that people were concerned about fallout.


----------



## GAP

The Stronium 90 scare was real


----------



## Old Sweat

GAP said:
			
		

> The Stronium 90 scare was real



Indeed it was, and it seemed to accumulate in dairy products, or so I recall. Gap, what do you remember?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

All right, Colin, you got me confused: When you say Bemberton, do you mean Pemberton, B.C. or Bremerton, WA?


----------



## MarkOttawa

One thing that would likely prompt NORTHCOM to try to shoot down a missile tracking to Canada is fear of fall-out from warhead in US, depending on plot (NORAD?) for impact.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ostrozac

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> One thing that would likely prompt NORTHCOM to try to shoot down a missile tracking to Canada is fear of fall-out from warhead in US, depending on plot (NORAD?) for impact.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Ballistic missile defence of the US is actually a STRATCOM function, not a NORAD/NORTHCOM function. This makes sense as it means that missiles that cross geographic command boundaries (like a North Korean missile bound for North America) are handled by a single headquarters, and probably keeps shoot/no-shoot decisions out of Colorado Springs, with it's sizable Canadian presence that has, in effect, requested not to be involved in ballistic missile defence except as a target.

An armed attack on Canada still violates the North Atlantic Treaty, so in the sense that an attack on one NATO member is an attack on all, a US response would still be expected in the event of a strike on Canada, but a quick reading of Article 5 suggests that it wouldn't be triggered until after an attack actually occurs.


----------



## GR66

I'm wondering how accurately can they determine the EXACT target point for the warhead before they need to make the decision to intercept or not?  It looks like it's only around 150km or so from Ottawa to Fort Drum or 200km from Vancouver to Seatle/Bremerton.  Would they risk it?

Also, there is likely a difference between the stated policy of the US vs. what they would actually do if they saw a potentially nuclear armed missile headed for a North American target.  While they wouldn't be obliged in any way to defend Canada it would likely have political ramifications with all of their allies if they were seen to be able to prevent a humanitarian disaster and chose not to do anything about it.  

All the more reason then for Canada to do the right thing and help pay for that protection instead of taking a free ride.


----------



## Halifax Tar

GR66 said:
			
		

> All the more reason then for Canada to do the right thing and help pay for that protection instead of taking a free ride.



Don't say that in public.  Gerald Butts is listening and you will be scooped up and sent to a Laurentian re-education camp...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> All right, Colin, you got me confused: When you say Bemberton, do you mean Pemberton, B.C. or Bremerton, WA?




I wish they would hit Pemberton  >  I meant Bremerton, WA Naval Station


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> I wish they would hit Pemberton  >  I meant Bremerton, WA Naval Station



But what about the potatoes?


----------



## MarkOttawa

CGAI piece on Canada and missile defence, with good historical detail.  How about BMD capability for RCN Canadian Surface Combatants?  Conclusion on the article:



> The Train Long Departed: Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence
> ...
> While Canada has been blessed by the security afforded by its proximity to and friendship with the United States, ballistic missile proliferation has aptly reminded us that mere assumptions associated with geography, association and good will are simply insufficient. Longstanding limitations as a middle power, chronic military deficiencies and inescapable dependency upon its principal ally leave Ottawa with few choices in dealing with the significant and growing threat that ballistic missiles pose. With continental defence arrangements having long constituted a critical factor in achieving our security objectives, it only makes sense to invest further in suitable collaborative courses with the United States. In this respect, values and principles need to be put in their proper perspective and greater pragmatism applied in securing vital interests. The Canadian government can no longer afford to merely wait and hope for the best; rather, it needs to earnestly prepare for the worst.
> 
> Thirteen years following Canada’s decision to abstain from participation, the ballistic missile defence “train” has long departed the station. While the United States would almost certainly welcome involvement at this late stage, associated requirements will have changed with the maturation of ballistic missile defence architectures, technologies and operational dynamic. Accordingly, the price of admission will also have changed. Given this, the Canadian government needs to recover lost ground by not only signalling its desire to join, but also determining how to render itself a useful participant within a much-expanded international partnership. While there will invariably remain those who will decry it, participation would remain consistent with a precept long-embodied in NORAD; that is, the indivisibility of North American aerospace defence. It is, therefore, only reasonable to accept partnership in ballistic missile defence as a necessary graduation in securing Canada’s vital defence and security requirements.
> 
> *About the Author*
> 
> *David Higgins* served in the Canadian Forces Reserve before enrolling in the Regular Force in 1980. An Air Combat Systems Officer, he served as a tactical and long-range navigator and mission specialist on various Canadian Forces and allied nation aircraft. He was also employed in a variety of aircrew training capacities, including Tanker-Transport-Bomber Instructor and Chief of Standardization and Evaluation (United States Air Force Air Education and Training Command) and Advanced Flight Commander (Canadian Forces Aerospace and Navigation School).
> 
> His senior appointments have included Commander 9 Wing/CFB Gander; Director of Continental and Western Hemisphere Policy, National Defence Headquarters; Vice Director of Plans, North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) and Commander 8 Wing/Canadian Forces Base Trenton. He also served as Policy Advisor to the Canada-United States Permanent Joint Board on Defence, Policy Member of the Canada-United States Military Cooperation Committee, a Command Director of the NORAD-United States Space Command Operations Centre and Air Mobility Advisor to the Commander 1 Canadian Air Division. His final military appointment was as Director Arms Control Verification in the Strategic Joint Staff, responsible for the planning, coordination and implementation of Canada’s proliferation security and confidence- and security-building programme, as prescribed by the treaties, agreements and arrangements established within the framework of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations, including the Conference on Disarmament.
> 
> David is a graduate of the Canadian Forces Command and Staff Course and National Security Studies Course. He holds a Doctorate in War Studies from King’s College London, Masters degrees in Defence Studies (Royal Military College of Canada) and Diplomacy (Norwich University) and a Bachelor of Arts from the University of Toronto.
> https://www.cgai.ca/the_train_long_departed_canada_and_ballistic_missile_defence



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

From end of Preface (whole doc at link)--what's poor Justin to do, even though reference to allies is to their overall capabilities, not missile defence specifically?



> Pentagon 2019 Missile Defense Review
> ...
> The logic of the 2018 NDS [National Defense Strategy] is simple; a more lethal and agile Joint Force, _coupled with a more robust system of allied and partner capabilities that are designed to be interoperable with ours_ [emphasis added], will preserve an international order that is most conducive to peace and prosperity. The defense strategy stresses the readiness of today’s armed forces and prioritized development of future capabilities.
> https://news.usni.org/2019/01/17/pentagon-2019-missile-defense-review



Some references to NORAD, Canada:

P. 71 PDF: 



> NORAD and the U.S. Air Force are upgrading aircraft that monitor the U.S. airspace with new sensors capable of tracking and targeting challenging offensive air threats like advanced cruise missiles.



And what is RCAF doing with CF-18s and our airspace?

P. 102 PDF: US:



> will continue to work with Canada to modernize NORAD’s ability to detect, track, warn, and defend against air-breathing threats, including advanced cruise missiles [air-launched, sea-launched]. United States and Canada are conducting a joint examination of options to renew or replace the North Warning System, a bilateral integrated network, and adapt this capability to new threats.



How much are we willing/able to spend?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on NORAD and cruise missile defence (capabilities of CF-18, then new RCAF fighter?):



> Missile Defense Review Calls for Protecting US From Cruise Missiles
> ...
> The North American Aerospace Air Defense Command, NORAD, is “pursuing a three-phased plan to improve the defense against cruise missiles for the United States and Canada.” It talks about how the military is upgrading warplanes with new sensors that can track cruise missiles.
> 
> “Adapting existing capabilities to perform new missions for homeland and regional missile defense will also be necessary,” the report states.
> 
> _Radar and sensors on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter “can track and destroy adversary cruise missiles today,” the report states. In the future, the warplane “can be equipped with a new or modified interceptor capable of shooting down adversary ballistic missiles in their boost phase_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Karako said the cruise missile defense work by NORAD had already been under way.
> 
> “There’s a lot more than can be done,” he said.
> 
> Specifically, the report talks about plans to “bolster homeland defenses against cruise missile threats” to Washington, DC, which could be expanded to encompass the rest of North America. While it doesn’t go into details, the military officials have been sounding the alarm on threats to U.S. cities from cruise missiles.
> 
> “NORAD is expanding surveillance capabilities around the [Washington, DC, region],” the report states. It plans to “incorporate emerging technology and explore new options to expand surveillance and tracking of cruise missiles for the rest of North America.”
> 
> In a July interview, Raytheon CEO Thomas Kennedy touted the company’s NASAMS interceptors, which defend against low-flying objects, like cruise missiles and drones.
> 
> “We’re expanding that system because of the evolving threat,” Kennedy said. “We’re introducing something called AMRAAM-ER, it’s an extended-range AMRAAM that will significantly enhance the capabilities of our NASAMS systems.”
> 
> NASAMS interceptors are positioned around Washington, D.C., to defend against aircraft. Oman has purchased the interceptors as well.
> 
> In 2015, there was talk of using aerostats with radars to detect cruise missiles. The project gained widespread notoriety when a test blimp in Maryland broke free from a tether to the ground and floated north before deflating in Pennsylvania.
> 
> Now the Pentagon is focusing on using a new constellation of satellites to detect [really fast] missiles.
> 
> “Space-basing for sensors provides significant advantages,” the report states. “Such sensors take advantage of the large area viewable from space for improved tracking and potentially targeting of advanced threats, including [hypersonic glide vehicles] and hypersonic cruise missiles.”
> https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2019/01/missile-defense-review-calls-protecting-us-cruise-missiles/154266/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

What about RCN CSCs?



> Missile Defense Review Directs Numerous Studies
> ...
> Another six-month study will be conducted by the U.S. Navy and MDA to develop a plan for converting all Aegis destroyers to be fully missile defense capable, including against ballistic missiles, within 10 years. Separately, the Pentagon will study repurposing the Aegis Ashore Missile Defense Test Center in Hawaii to strengthen defense against North Korean missile capabilities. MDA and the Navy will evaluate the viability of this option and develop an emergency activation plan within 30 days of the defense secretary green lighting the decision, the report says...
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/missile-defense-review-directs-numerous-studies



Mark
Ottawa


----------

