Continental Missles Defence System

[Topaz]

We all remember the continental missile defense system that the US wanted Canada to be a part of and Martin cancelled it. Well, now that Harper has his majority and wants to please the US, it may be back on. Harper said back in 2007, that talks would be reopened but couldn't do much with a minority. Back in 2005, before Martin cancelled it the US ambassador in Cellucci accused opposition leader Harper of playing politics with the North American Security because of his dislike for the Liberals. Harper is trying to get rid of the Liberals and the US is trying to make a deal with the Liberals and nothing is happening because of Harper. I'm sure Harper will agree to this now but I wonder will Canadians back the Tories on this? http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/05/18/u-s-asked-weapons-firm-to-twist-canadian-arms-on-missile-defence-diplomatic-cables/

[Keepitsimple]

Guess it's a slow day for the Aboriginal Peoples TV Network. We've got more important things to deal with in Canada than the US Star Wars venture.

[bush_cheney2004]

...sounds like another winner for PM Harper and the CPC. Look at what happened after all the bitching about F-35 strike fighters.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm still trying to figure out why Canadians would oppose an anti-missile system that covers Canada, provided for free by the US.

Is it just too embarrassing for us that our big brother would protect us in this way ?

I marched for peace, but to me a shield is a peaceful and non-offensive weapon. I'm all for it.

[bloodyminded]

I'm still trying to figure out why Canadians would oppose an anti-missile system that covers Canada, provided for free by the US.

Is it just too embarrassing for us that our big brother would protect us in this way ?

I marched for peace, but to me a shield is a peaceful and non-offensive weapon. I'm all for it.

Much of the criticism centres on the fact that not everyone sees it as a non-offensive weapon. [bolding mine]

Moreover, [critics] argue that the technology for effective missile defense remains immature, that deployment can be provocative to allies, friends, and adversaries, and it is a budget-buster that reduces the availability of funds to modernize and operate U.S. conventional military forces. They argue especially that some major powers view U.S. missile defense as an

attempt at strategic domination and that others, such as China, will expand their missile capabilities in response.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL31111.pdf

And in a famous (or infamous, depending on whom you ask) Project for a New American Century document, the authors wrote:

DEVELOP AND DEPLOY GLOBAL MISSILE DEFENSES to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world.

Now, this doesn't inherently have to be viewed as sinister or unwanted, but it's certainly not surprising that some people take a dim view of such language.

"[P]rovid[ing] a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world" does not unambiguously connote "peaceful and non-offensive," I don't think.

Edited May 18, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Saipan]

We all remember the continental missile defense system that the US wanted Canada to be a part of and Martin cancelled it. Well, now that Harper has his majority and wants to please the US, it may be back on.

Imagine that. We could potentially destroy perfectly good enemy missiles!

We ought to put stop to that!

[Michael Hardner]

It's not like a missile defense system will change how countries work, i.e. always trying to gain a military advantage. Will they try to beat the missile shield ? Sure. But, without the shield we're vulnerable to attack so where is the logic ?

It seems like we're saying "We're vulnerable now, but if we have a shield, the other countries will engage in an arms race to beat it."

[Tilter]

It would be a really bad thing for Canada. Where would we find the thousands of workers to help (at the Ami's expense)build it and what would Canada do with all the income tax paid by the workers. Darn, Prosperity

Edited May 18, 2011 by Tilter

[bloodyminded]

It's not like a missile defense system will change how countries work, i.e. always trying to gain a military advantage. Will they try to beat the missile shield ? Sure. But, without the shield we're vulnerable to attack so where is the logic ?

It seems like we're saying "We're vulnerable now, but if we have a shield, the other countries will engage in an arms race to beat it."

I can see the logic here, but this isn't the only question. Some critics maintain that the apparent benignity of the shield is itself a type of metaphorical shield; that the plan isn't about defense, but about offense.

[Tilter]

It's not like a missile defense system will change how countries work, i.e. always trying to gain a military advantage. Will they try to beat the missile shield ? Sure. But, without the shield we're vulnerable to attack so where is the logic ?

It seems like we're saying "We're vulnerable now, but if we have a shield, the other countries will engage in an arms race to beat it."

Which would create jobs & military contracts in those countries too. Darn, Prosperity

[bush_cheney2004]

I can see the logic here, but this isn't the only question. Some critics maintain that the apparent benignity of the shield is itself a type of metaphorical shield; that the plan isn't about defense, but about offense.

Well, from an engineering perspective, the difference is purely political. The Americans have invested heavily into the R&D for threat detection, data processing, communications, and kill vehicle deployment.

The Americans learned this lesson well during the 1980's when Europe decried Reagan's Pershing II's and GLCMs. We know how that story ended.

[bloodyminded]

Well, from an engineering perspective, the difference is purely political.

Sure, and I'm agnostic anyway. I'm only responding to a "what's the problem?" question, by suggesting that some people have genuine concerns.

[Saipan]

Some critics maintain that the apparent benignity of the shield is itself a type of metaphorical shield; that the plan isn't about defense, but about offense.

How?

[bloodyminded]

How?

The infrastructure for a ballistic missile defense system is, in large measure, the same as that needed for an offensive anti-satellite system.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2423

Lawrence Kaplan (neoconservative intellectual, strategic analyst, self-desribed "hawk"):

Missile defense isn't really meant to protect America. It's a tool for global dominance.”

"missile defense is about preserving America's ability to wield power abroad. It's not about defense. It's about offense. And that's exactly why we need it."

If you prefer, you can go right to official documents:

Global Engagement (GE) is the combination of global surveillance of the Earth (see anything, anytime), worldwide missile defense, and the potential ability to apply force from space. GE addresses increasing ballistic and cruise missile threats, the need for force application, and the need for effective forward presence with reduced forward basing.

There's a lot more to "missile defense" than "missile defense."

Or you can browse the US Air Force factsheet. Missile Defense falls under the rubric of Space Command and "Full Spectrum Dominance":

The organization has five strategic priorities:

- Guarantee a safe, credible, ready nuclear deterrent force with perfection as the standard

- Deliver assured combat power to the joint fight

- Forge a battle-ready team by attracting, developing and retaining America's best

- Modernize and sustain AFSPC's enduring missions and mature emerging missions

- Re-engineer acquisitions to deliver capability at the speed of need

Of course, the US Air Force is a lefty organization trying to undermine America's credibility through wild conspiracy theories about the benign no-brainer, "missile defense."

Edited May 18, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Topaz]

Most of the countries that USA befriends ended up attacked down the road.

[DogOnPorch]

Most of the countries that USA befriends ended up attacked down the road.

Most, eh?

[scouterjim]

We all remember the continental missile defense system that the US wanted Canada to be a part of and Martin cancelled it. Well, now that Harper has his majority and wants to please the US, it may be back on. Harper said back in 2007, that talks would be reopened but couldn't do much with a minority. Back in 2005, before Martin cancelled it the US ambassador in Cellucci accused opposition leader Harper of playing politics with the North American Security because of his dislike for the Liberals. Harper is trying to get rid of the Liberals and the US is trying to make a deal with the Liberals and nothing is happening because of Harper. I'm sure Harper will agree to this now but I wonder will Canadians back the Tories on this? http://aptn.ca/pages/news/2011/05/18/u-s-asked-weapons-firm-to-twist-canadian-arms-on-missile-defence-diplomatic-cables/

The Liberals were against it because it was politically incorrect to say that another nation didn't have the right to send missles over our territory. I swear that if the Liberals or NDP were in power, and Canada was invaded, they would do nothing about it because "It would be politically incorrect to say they don't have the right to invade us!"

[bloodyminded]

The Liberals were against it because it was politically incorrect to say that another nation didn't have the right to send missles over our territory.

You've got to be kidding.

Has "political correctness" now become a codeword for "I'm paranoid"?

[Guest Derek L]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/05/18/russia.nuclear.missiles/

Nuclear combat, toe to toe with the Ruskies......

[RNG]

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=2423

Lawrence Kaplan (neoconservative intellectual, strategic analyst, self-desribed "hawk"):

If you prefer, you can go right to official documents:

There's a lot more to "missile defense" than "missile defense."

Or you can browse the US Air Force factsheet. Missile Defense falls under the rubric of Space Command and "Full Spectrum Dominance":

You are addressing things that go way past missile defense. You describe a great plan there, with many components, of which missile defense is just one small part.

Of course, the US Air Force is a lefty organization trying to undermine America's credibility through wild conspiracy theories about the benign no-brainer, "missile defense."

Don't you ever worry about N. Korea or Iran getting ICBM's and shooting them at the US? But given their technologies, probably Canada and Mexico are at greater risk.

Edited May 18, 2011 by RNG

[Tilter]

Most of the countries that USA befriends ended up attacked down the road.

Yes look at the war of 1812--- oh wait, we attacked them

[bloodyminded]

Don't you ever worry about N. Korea or Iran getting ICBM's and shooting them at the US? But given their technologies, probably Canada and Mexico are at greater risk.

I didn't say I was opposed; I stated I was an agnostic on the issue. Unlike the majority of people who speak on this subject, I'm upfront about how little of it I know, and how little I've researched the topic.

nNo, my response was to the implicit "no-brainer" thesis regarding what is actually a complex and controversial set of initiatives which reaches far beyond the scope of "defense," end stop. Essentially, it was asked, "What could anyone have to complain about it?" So I provided a partial answer.

[bloodyminded]

Yes look at the war of 1812--- oh wait, we attacked them

Great Britain did, actually.

[Guest Derek L]

Considering a large portion of the American nuclear deterrent is based in Bangor Washington (~200 km from Vancouver), and uncle Kim already has home grown missiles that can reach western Alaska, coupled with his small arsenal of nukes, I’m certain it’s not so far fetched that within a decade he’ll have ICBMs roughly equivalent to those of the Soviets in the 60s.

I personally don’t fancy glowing the dark, so I do hope we increase our involvement in ballistic missile defense.

[dre]

I'm still trying to figure out why Canadians would oppose an anti-missile system that covers Canada, provided for free by the US.

Is it just too embarrassing for us that our big brother would protect us in this way ?

I marched for peace, but to me a shield is a peaceful and non-offensive weapon. I'm all for it.

No a shield is hardly defensive weapon. It makes the use of nuclear weapons more likely, and will quite likely start an arms race.