Author Topic: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada  (Read 132229 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

the patriot

  • Guest
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

  • Guest
National Missile Defence
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2003, 13:43:00 »
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

  • Guest
Re: National Missile Defence
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2003, 14:42:00 »
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

  • Guest
Re: National Missile Defence
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2003, 19:23:00 »
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

  • Guest
Re: National Missile Defence
« Reply #4 on: May 07, 2003, 01:07:00 »
I agree.  I think you summed it up pretty well.

Offline Michael Dorosh

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -1,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,769
  • Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!
    • CANUCK
Re: National Missile Defence
« Reply #5 on: May 07, 2003, 02:31:00 »
At least the American ambassador is speaking to us again!   :D
"So, how's your sister?" -Brigadeführer Hermann Fegelein
 
http://www.canadiansoldiers.com
 http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com

Offline Bert

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 1,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 804
  • Military
Re: National Missile Defence
« Reply #6 on: May 07, 2003, 11:38:00 »
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.

Offline Canuck725

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13
Ballistic Missile Defence
« Reply #7 on: July 27, 2004, 14:57:57 »
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. :cdn:

dutchie

  • Guest
Re: Ballistic Missile Defence
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2004, 16:20:03 »
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).


Offline Ex-fusilier

  • Member
  • ****
  • -100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 149
Re: Ballistic Missile Defence
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2004, 16:34:48 »
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.

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: Ballistic Missile Defence
« Reply #10 on: July 27, 2004, 20:44:26 »
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
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline Canuck725

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13
Ballistic Missile Defence (Star Wars)
« Reply #11 on: July 28, 2004, 17:48:39 »
So, what is your Opinion?

Offline GregC

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 90
  • 3rd Batallion, PPCLI
Re: Ballistic Missile Defence
« Reply #12 on: July 28, 2004, 21:28:13 »
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.
1530-1630 is the most important hour of the day at 3VP, don't ask me why.

Offline Ex-fusilier

  • Member
  • ****
  • -100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 149
Re: Ballistic Missile Defence
« Reply #13 on: July 28, 2004, 22:55:17 »
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. 

Offline IT_Dude_Joeschmo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,091
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 799
  • Getting 1's and 0's to flow...
Re: Ballistic Missile Defence
« Reply #14 on: July 28, 2004, 23:09:09 »
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
"When I retire, I want to become a gay Hollywood actor, they always make more money!"... My old boss's plans ;)

ACISS-IST's, look here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/239432422884449

PS> It's not a trap!

Offline IT_Dude_Joeschmo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,091
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 799
  • Getting 1's and 0's to flow...
Re: Ballistic Missile Defence
« Reply #15 on: July 28, 2004, 23:55:35 »
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
"When I retire, I want to become a gay Hollywood actor, they always make more money!"... My old boss's plans ;)

ACISS-IST's, look here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/239432422884449

PS> It's not a trap!

Offline IT_Dude_Joeschmo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,091
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 799
  • Getting 1's and 0's to flow...
Re: Ballistic Missile Defence
« Reply #16 on: July 30, 2004, 10:30:35 »
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? :P That might work! We need new equipment/machines!
"When I retire, I want to become a gay Hollywood actor, they always make more money!"... My old boss's plans ;)

ACISS-IST's, look here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/239432422884449

PS> It's not a trap!

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,342
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,003
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: Ballistic Missile Defence
« Reply #17 on: July 30, 2004, 10:45:08 »
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.
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline Guardian

  • Member
  • ****
  • 100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 204
Re: Ballistic Missile Defence
« Reply #18 on: July 30, 2004, 12:06:14 »
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:

Offline Bert

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 1,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 804
  • Military
Re: Ballistic Missile Defence
« Reply #19 on: July 30, 2004, 21:28:23 »
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.

Offline Chimera

  • Guest
  • *
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6
Re: Ballistic Missile Defence
« Reply #20 on: July 31, 2004, 15:19:42 »
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.

Offline Guardian

  • Member
  • ****
  • 100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 204
Re: Ballistic Missile Defence
« Reply #21 on: August 02, 2004, 06:34:23 »
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.

Offline Sheep Dog AT

  • The Fly in Someone's Ointment - Giggity
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 58,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,218
Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #22 on: August 05, 2004, 12:39:28 »
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.
Apparently infamous for his one liners.
Oh Giggity Well...........Giggity

Offline Sheep Dog AT

  • The Fly in Someone's Ointment - Giggity
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 58,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,218
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #23 on: August 05, 2004, 21:06:04 »
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 *** 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.
Apparently infamous for his one liners.
Oh Giggity Well...........Giggity

Offline Spartan

  • Prairie Type
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 287
  • They're watching.
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #24 on: September 23, 2004, 16:49:49 »
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."

-------
 :o
BMQ MCpl:
"Being in the army is like being a mushroom - kept in the dark, fed crap and keep coming back for more."