Anti ballistic missile shield

[silver72]

The US asking Canada to join the US under the anti-ballistic missile shield because of North Korea and Iran. It wouldn't be surprising if most Canadians said no but I have a feeling Harper has already agreed to this under the Northern American Security, or the NAU. I like some of the comments at the end of the following article. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/canada-could-considering-request-u-join-missile-shield-221842628.html

[Michael Hardner]

I don't see why we wouldn't sign on to a 'shield' - especially given the stance North Korea has taken.

[Bonam]

Agreed with MH... why wouldn't we want to be included in an ABM shield? ICBMs are one of the few currently foreseeable ways that an enemy state could viably try to attack the US or Canada, so if we have any pretense at all being interested in defense, ABMs seem like a sensible choice.

[Michael Hardner]

The thing about defense is it's a misnomer. 'Defense' forces are used to invade other countries. But a missile shield is a true defense technology - it's a shield, it can't be used for offense. And it can render missiles pointless.

[Moonlight Graham]

The thing about defense is it's a misnomer. 'Defense' forces are used to invade other countries. But a missile shield is a true defense technology - it's a shield, it can't be used for offense. And it can render missiles pointless.

It's a defensive weapon, but it can be used to enhance your offensive military capabilities. If the US and Canada have shield, while every other country doesn't, it renders MAD not effective for/against Canada/US, meaning of course the US could launch nukes without much fear of retaliation (assuming their shield works). This could, as many say, create a security spiral/arms race with other countries.

It would be interesting to know what global security would be like (better or worse?) if all or even most powerful countries possessed ABM's.

[Michael Hardner]

It's a defensive weapon, but it can be used to enhance your offensive military capabilities. If the US and Canada have shield, while every other country doesn't, it renders MAD not effective for/against Canada/US, meaning of course the US could launch nukes without much fear of retaliation (assuming their shield works). This could, as many say, create a security spiral/arms race with other countries.

What would that look like ? Countries are trying to get missiles all the time now.

[Bonam]

It's a defensive weapon, but it can be used to enhance your offensive military capabilities. If the US and Canada have shield, while every other country doesn't, it renders MAD not effective for/against Canada/US, meaning of course the US could launch nukes without much fear of retaliation (assuming their shield works). This could, as many say, create a security spiral/arms race with other countries.

It would be interesting to know what global security would be like (better or worse?) if all or even most powerful countries possessed ABM's.

The only nation in the world besides the US that can implement the MAD doctrine effectively is Russia, and while the US and Russia may spar in rhetoric, neither has any interest in wiping the other out anymore. The same will apply to China if it ever amasses sufficient nuclear armament and delivery systems to pose a MAD threat to the US. By the time any nation reaches the kind of economic and technological prowess that is needed to amass world-destroying power, it can't help but be too integrated into the world economy to want to do anything but continue to work within the system.

Furthermore, an ABM shield that could defend against a massive ICBM attack with hundreds of MIRVs, countermeasures, etc, is far outside what the US has recently contemplated building. The systems needed to protect against such an attack have been investigated, and they would cost trillions to implement.

No, an ABM shield is to provide safety against a few missiles launched by a crazy regime like North Korea. And in doing that, it will only enhance safety and security, not endanger it.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

Remember the days when this was a question about Canadian sovereignty?

[The_Squid]

Not a good idea at all. It will instigate another arms race with other superpowers which no one in the world needs.

[Bonam]

Remember the days when this was a question about Canadian sovereignty?

Yeah, it didn't make any sense then for it be a question about Canadian sovereignty, and I'm glad people have smartened up. There is valid discussion to be had about whether an ABM shield is worth the cost, whether it might lead to a costly and unnecessary arms race, whether ABMs are effective against the types of threats we are likely to face. But sovereignty? Really? Like partnering with our ally to develop a particular kind of defense system affects our sovereignty.

[Guest Derek L]

Not a good idea at all. It will instigate another arms race with other superpowers which no one in the world needs.

How would formal Canadian involvement in United States ballistic missile defence, a program that they have been and will continue to develop and deploy without us, start a “arms race amongst superpowers”?

[Guest Derek L]

Yeah, it didn't make any sense then for it be a question about Canadian sovereignty, and I'm glad people have smartened up. There is valid discussion to be had about whether an ABM shield is worth the cost, whether it might lead to a costly and unnecessary arms race, whether ABMs are effective against the types of threats we are likely to face. But sovereignty? Really? Like partnering with our ally to develop a particular kind of defense system affects our sovereignty.

Exactly, if that's the case, we should also leave NORAD, then bear the full costs associated with the surveillance and defence of our sovereign territory.

[cybercoma]

I suppose it depends on whether or not that's an equal partnership.

[Bonam]

I suppose it depends on whether or not that's an equal partnership.

Why would it be equal? I'm sure Canada will contribute significantly less money, technical expertise, military personnel and equipment, etc, to the development and operation of an ABM shield.

Being realistic, we should look for proportional partnerships, not equal ones.

[Guest Derek L]

Why would it be equal? I'm sure Canada will contribute significantly less money, technical expertise, military personnel and equipment, etc, to the development and operation of an ABM shield.

Being realistic, we should look for proportional partnerships, not equal ones.

Exactly…….In essence, our involvement and commitment could vary well also not costing us anything too drastic……

For example, our involvement could include additional personal seconded to the Missile Defence Agency under similar arrangements as we do now with NORAD. We could contribute land in the North(East) for ground based radars and/or land based interceptors.

Also, now that our current Air Defence Regiment only operates our military’s unmanned battlefield UAVs and medium range battlefield radar (used to track things like enemy mortars, unguided rockets and artillery) leaving Canada without any form off air defence (excluding the Hornets and the ships systems) we could equip the air defence regiment (relatively cheaply) with several batteries each of mobile Patriot/MEADS and/or THAAD air defence weapons.

Thusly allowing Canada to have some form of air defence weaponry for missions home and abroad, well also contributing a unique(ish) defensive capability to both the American Missile Defence Agency and a very valuable contribution to NATO.

Another possible and valuable contribution would be to ensure our future surface combatants for the navy have an integral BMD capability centred around the Americans AEGIS systems and SM-3 missile. We are already building new ships, so adding a further capability during the early design phase wouldn’t add much in terms of both cost and manpower. In addition, once they are built, we could deploy the vessels in concert with the USN and NATO, just as we did during the Cold War. Such a capability is obviously flexible and mobile allowing us to deploy in times of heightened tensions (like the recent go around with North Korea) well not having a (expensive) asset for only one use

Edited April 23, 2013 by Derek L