Author Topic: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada  (Read 132208 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 29,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 695
Re: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #500 on: September 15, 2017, 14:15:54 »
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.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 212,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,317
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #501 on: September 15, 2017, 14:22:17 »
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 :)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,743
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #502 on: September 15, 2017, 15:43:29 »
the one thing protecting Vancouver is the large number of rich Mainland Chinese here, Beijing would not be pleased.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 212,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,317
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #503 on: September 15, 2017, 17:34:42 »
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....
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,407
Re: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #504 on: September 15, 2017, 18:04:21 »
That, and the wildly inaccurate North Korean missiles....

They only have to get lucky once.....
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,743
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #505 on: September 19, 2017, 12:40:17 »
That, and the wildly inaccurate North Korean missiles....

Unless they target Bemberton and miss.....

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 211,260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,614
Re: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #506 on: September 19, 2017, 13:13:59 »
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.

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 209,575
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,937
Re: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #507 on: September 19, 2017, 13:22:37 »
The Stronium 90 scare was real
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 211,260
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,614
Re: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #508 on: September 19, 2017, 13:35:57 »
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?

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 128,300
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,443
Re: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #509 on: September 19, 2017, 13:42:20 »
All right, Colin, you got me confused: When you say Bemberton, do you mean Pemberton, B.C. or Bremerton, WA?

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 63,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,091
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #510 on: September 19, 2017, 13:46:07 »
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 29,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 695
Re: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #511 on: September 19, 2017, 15:49:14 »
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.

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 52,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 596
Re: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #512 on: September 19, 2017, 16:01:27 »
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.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 43,493
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,755
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #513 on: September 20, 2017, 06:15:38 »
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...
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 122,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,743
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #514 on: November 01, 2017, 11:57:26 »
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  >:D  I meant Bremerton, WA Naval Station

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 212,355
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,317
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #515 on: November 01, 2017, 18:40:33 »

I wish they would hit Pemberton  >:D  I meant Bremerton, WA Naval Station

But what about the potatoes?
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 63,305
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,091
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
« Reply #516 on: May 03, 2018, 11:57:12 »
CGAI piece on Canada and missile defence, with good historical detail.  How about BMD capability for RCN Canadian Surface Combatants?  Conclusion on the article:

Quote
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.