Author Topic: Report of the SC on National Defence: "Canada and the Defence of North America"  (Read 11531 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 52,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,868
I wonder what it must feel like to suddenly  be 2IC of a fleet larger then the entire RCN?

Go ask the plethora of Canadian Army generals who have been 2IC of several US Army formations.

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 13,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 486
Larger than most navies in the whole world.  What an experience! Good luck!

Offline 211RadOp

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 26,653
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 898
  • Now is the tyme....damn missed again....Now is the
Looking through the CMP page, there are currently 8 General/Flag Officers serving in DComd roles with US Forces.  The page may not be 100% accurate as it still has RAdm Waddell serving in Ottawa (I have included him in my count though).
“Behind every great man is a woman rolling her eyes." Jim Carrey
"Do unto others, then run." Benny Hill
"There's no better feeling in the world than a warm pizza box on your lap." Kevin James

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 75,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,696
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
What might happen if Justin Trudeau's gov't fails to get serious about NORAD, at CGAI:

Quote
NORAD: Remaining Relevant
...
Executive Summary

Most Canadians probably understand that NORAD — the North American Aerospace Defense Command — is an operational military alliance between the U.S. and Canada that has been protecting the two countries from aerial attack and invasion since the Cold War. What few of them likely realize is that NORAD is just as much about protecting Canada from the United States. Given the massive imbalance in military power between the two countries, and the determination by the U.S. to defend its own soil at all costs, NORAD provides Canada with a means to have some control over its own territorial defence, neutralizing the threat that the U.S. will impose its own defence on Canada. Throughout its 60-year existence, NORAD has been Canada’s “defence against help.”

But that defence isn’t guaranteed. As NORAD evolves, Canada’s commitment to it must evolve, too. If there comes a point at which the United States believes that the alliance is no longer sufficiently securing its northern frontier, it may forge its own path and impose its own defence plans for Canada, on Canada.

There are already areas where the relationship may be starting to strain. One key policy inflection point occurred after 9/11 when Canada declined to participate in the U.S. missile-defence program. This has led to an awkward situation where Canadian officers and troops participate in missile-warning activities within NORAD’s structure, but cannot participate in missile-defence activities outside NORAD’s structure. So far, adept commanders have been able to manage this cumbersome state of affairs, but there is no guarantee that will last.

The state of modern military technology has meant the mission of NORAD has had to largely shift away from defending against aerial bombers to defending against cruise missile threats. There is also the risk of chemical attacks that do not respect borders. Those, combined with the rapid missile-program advance of a belligerent North Korea, the rise of China’s military ambitions and the determination of Russia to remain a formidable threat, all effect Canada’s place in NORAD, particularly in light of its northern geography.

Whether the Canadian government likes it or not, NORAD must adapt to a renewed emphasis on early warning and attack assessments. To date, Canada has, somewhat inexplicably, continued to refuse to participate with the U.S. in continental missile defence. It has also dithered at length over the procurement of badly needed new fighter jets that are key to enhancing North American security under NORAD. As the North Warning System (NWS) approaches obsolescence, a decision on its replacement must soon be made by the two governments.

The U.S. is watching Canada’s commitment closely. The alliance will not survive merely on the nostalgia for its Cold War record. Canada will be expected to do its part for NORAD in the current context, or the U.S. will do whatever it takes to ensure its own defence, regardless of Canada’s sovereignty. There may soon come a moment where Canada has no choice but to step up on continental missile defence and equipping its forces. Otherwise it may risk the end of an alliance that has not only protected North America, but has defended Canada against U.S. help...

About the Author

Michael Dawson received his Doctorate in European History from the University of Toronto and joined the Canadian Foreign Service in 1977.

After his first posting in New Delhi, he specialised in Cold War issues at the Canadian Embassy, Moscow and in Ottawa in the Policy Planning and Defence Relations Divisions. In 1991-1996 at the Canadian Embassy, Washington DC he was responsible for Political-Military Affairs including Strategic Nuclear Issues, Arms Control, NATO issues and Canada-US Defence Relations.

On return to Ottawa, from 1996-2001, he was Deputy Director in the Northern Europe Division for the UK, Ireland, and Northern Ireland peace process and from 2001-2010 Senior Policy Advisor for Canada-US Relations including participation in the abortive bilateral discussions on ballistic missile defence.

From 2010 to 2014, he was Canadian Political Advisor to the Commander of NORAD and United States Northern Command at NORAD Headquarters in Colorado Springs.
https://www.cgai.ca/norad_remaining_relevant

Mark
Ottawa

Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 44,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,275
NORAD and NATO are defence on the cheap. They won’t go so far as to jeopardize it, but the effort will straddle the line between absolute minimum and not showing up. And they will get away with it.
Living the lean life

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 75,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,696
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
NORAD and NATO are defence on the cheap. They won’t go so far as to jeopardize it, but the effort will straddle the line between absolute minimum and not showing up. And they will get away with it.

But the point of Michael Dawson's paper (disclosure: a personal friend) is how much longer will the US (not just Trump) let us "get away with it" in NORAD? Crunch may be coming with demands for USAF bases, radars etc on Canadian territory if they decide not to accept our "line between absolute minimum and not showing up".

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 569,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,299
What might happen if Justin Trudeau's gov't fails to get serious about NORAD....and Security/Defence writ large
I think that the MND remaining unchanged shows 4'ish more years of the same -- PMO doesn't care.
It should now be obvious that running a country is NOT an entry-level job.  [Yes, it applies to both sides of our border]