Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada

[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 “ 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 “ 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 “ 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 à 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:

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.

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]

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.