Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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.