US Missile Shield over Canada

[theloniusfleabag]

In the news today, US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci stated that he believed Canada would agree to the proposed 'missile defence shield'.

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pag...ticleID=1812698

There is some speculation, however, that it would be the PM PM's last signature given the minority gov't stature of the federal Liberals. Would signing on be the last nail in the coffin for the Liberals? I doubt very much that the majority of Canadians are in favour, and parties such as the BQ are adamantly opposed. If Martin signs the bill, (I don't know what cards he may be playing against the US, the BSE border closures to cattle, or trade tariffs) and receives a no-confidence vote, we could see another federal election this summer. Ghastly prospect, considering that there was a dearth of viable alternatives to the Liberals last time around. Could the BQ of PQ form the next minority gov't? Of will it be the NDP? Or will Martin say to the US, "Sorry, boys, the will of the majority is against."??

[Black Dog]

And your assumption that the majority of Canadians aren't in favor is flawed also, I think.

Thelonius is bang on.

A recent Angus Reid poll had opposition to Canadian participation in the missile defence scheme at 58 per cent.

Acording to a Time-Ekos public opinion poll in the November 1st edition of Time magazine, 53 per centof Canadians oppose joining the American missile shield with 24 per cent strongly opposed to joining.

This is backed by a poll by the Council for Canadian Unity which showed half of half of the 3,200 Canadians surveyed strongly opposed the missile shield.

[Newfie Canadian]

BD is right on with the polls.

All the polls I've heard have had the majority against the idea of joining the missle shield.

I also would suggest that the CPC wouldn't necessarily "aye-aye" joining the missle shield, especially in a limited way or conditional way that the Liberals would most likely proceed.

Like all other political parties, the Conservative

Party of Canada is opposed to the weaponization of space. However, unless Canada is a full partner in the Ballistic Missile Program, our voice in this matter will not be heard.

From a CPC policy statement from Sept of 2004.

I cannot see the Liberals becoming "full partners" in a program that the majority of Canadians oppose.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Newfie Canadian,

I am guessing that the polls indicate what a lot of canadians feel, the US is making their own enemies, and we don't want the fallout raining down on us. If we don't need missile defence, why should we risk Canadians in 'Operation Human Shield"? Besides, if 'the lights go out and the balloon goes up" the whole world is pretty much screwed.

[caesar]

Not only do we not need it; many experts do not have much faith in it being effective. It would be just a waste of taxpayers dollars. I thought Paul Martin said something to that effect, himself. Recent tests were a fizzle.

[Newfie Canadian]

Besides, if 'the lights go out and the balloon goes up" the whole world is pretty much screwed.

Well said Fleabag.

If we don't need missile defence, why should we risk Canadians in 'Operation Human Shield"?

I agree.

I share the concerns and reservations of the majority of Canadians in the above mentioned polls.

The system now sucks, as the most recent test of a few weeks ago prove, and if we're talking tactical nuclear weapons, a missle shield wouldn't stop fallout from intercepted missles from falling right over our heads.

I was just pointing out the position of the CPC.

I see PM PM's position right now, and it appears to have been echoed in some of his statements and the statements of Bill Graham, as an effort to keep NORAD effective and in the loop.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear caesar,

Recent tests were a fizzle.

I don't think this our most serious concern. Any new product on the market must go through testing, including failures. Until it is up and running, they won't be able to sell it to any other foreign nation, either.

The biggest concern is where the missiles would be coming from and why. Canada has the largest (reasonably) untainted collection of natural resources in the world, and if someone were bent on world domination, they shouldn't poison their own future breadbasket. If it is a terrorist missile threat, any 'terrorist' would probably find it easier to smuggle in a WMD into the continental US that to harbour expectations that one or two could be launched from Europe or Asia with any degree of success.

So, the US seems to want to rely on the 'NATO gambit', guilting Canada into the 'all for one and one for all' spirit of NATO. Yet their own actions seem to wilfully exclude them from the protection of comraderie.

[caesar]

I don't think this our most serious concern. Any new product on the market must go through testing, including failures. Until it is up and running, they won't be able to sell it to any other foreign nation, either.

Previous test were failures , too. I don't want it up in our northern country where Canada would end up with all the collateral damage. You can't do a lot of testing with these types of products without endangering lives and habitat. I admit, I am not too up on this system but understand it has questionable viability.

[Pateris]

I think the US Missile Defense System is very questionable. The tests have all been failures and a lot of physicists are questioning whether it is even possible.

However, whether Canada gets involved or not is irrelevent to whether the US fires these missiles over us in the event of an attack from Korea or other countries.

And since it won't cost Canada a cent to get involved, why not? At least we'll have some inside track on knowing what the American's are doing...

[caesar]

And since it won't cost Canada a cent to get involved, why not?

Because Canada territory could be the the one receiving collateral damage. Plus, we should not give moral support to a project that could have detrimental effects.

It would not be "free" even though we do not need to contribute directly to the program. It would still cost Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars for a questionable program; it will cost us money whether we join or not protecting our land from possible fallout.

[Pateris]

But Caesar,

If we don't join, the stuff will STILL fall on us - we can't stop the American's from doing it so your argument is fallacious.

[Shakeyhands]

I'll vote for the CPC if PM PM ever agrees to this..... no better yet the PQ! no the CPC!!!

[caesar]

If we don't join, the stuff will STILL fall on us - we can't stop the American's from doing it so your argument is fallacious.

But that would mean we have a self destruct wish and contribute to our own problems from such fallout. Legally and morally not a good idea. Just because others may drink and drive would not mean we might as well do the same because we could be killed by a drunken driver. Sort of the same idea.

[Pateris]

caesar,

Oh, the moral high ground... and what do we get from that other than a smug feeling of superiority? NOTHING

You'd have us stick our heads in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. I think joining up (which will cost us little - the American's aren't asking for financial help) at least lets us know what they are doing and perhaps gives us some influence into how it is used... If we stay out we have NO influence at all.

And if used, the junk will STILL fall on us... Think your moral high ground will protect you?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Pateris,

I think joining up (which will cost us little - the American's aren't asking for financial help) at least lets us know what they are doing and perhaps gives us some influence into how it is used... If we stay out we have NO influence at all.

You may be possibly correct, but the US has a history of not taking advice from anyone. Further, the US claims the concerns of Canadians (and others) that the missile shield development is a firm step toward the 'weaponization of space' is 'unfounded and baseless'.

These two terms, in legal parlance, often mean that the accuser has no court-worthy proof. The use of these terms, all too often, has meant "The accusations are unfounded because we haven't announced it yet".

Further, joining up with something we don't agree with legitimizes the course of action, and like the Pogroms against the Jews by the Nazis pre-WWII, escalation is harder to oppose if you just agreed to the previous step taken.

This is in no way meant to compare the natures of the two programs, merely the method. It is called the 'slice of bologna technique'. If the slices are made thin enough, there becomes less reason to complain with each slice taken, and the 'slicer' can contend that, "I'm not after the whole thing, just another small slice, and after all, you didn't complain that much after the last slice, because it was small."

[PocketRocket]

PATERIS has made a good point.

If the interceptor missiles are launched from the USA at an incoming missile flying in over Canada, then it will intercept over our soil, possibly over inhabited areas.

If the interceptor is launched from the far north, odds are it will intercept the incoming bogey either before it reaches our soil, or at least over some barren, uninhabited region.

This is all assuming that the USA EVER gets the silly things to work.

But there is another factor to consider; during the cold war, the main antagonist was the USSR. They would be likely to launch missiles over the pole to attack North America.

The current "threats", as Bush likes to call them, are located farther south than the USSR was.

When launching a ballistic missile, the established practice is to employ a targetting resolution that employs shortest distance to target.

From the USSR, this would be over the polar ice cap.

From Korea, that may not be the shortest point from A to B.

From Iran, it definitely would not be.

So the question becomes "Who is likely to fire a missile over the pole, and hence over our soil, to get at the USA"?

I can't think of any offhand.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It doesn't work. It will be brutally expensive to develop and deploy. It defends against a very low chance, but very high consequence attack. The way it is deployed can serve to decrease or increase risk to Canada. We share an important alliance with the world's superpower respecting shared defense.

Based on these considerations, in my opinion, Canada should agree to the idea with some provisos: our contribution will be to assist in operations (including providing stations on Canadian territory) beginning at the time of deployment. And, the system should deploy no weapons in space, and there should be a covenant that it never will, nor will it ever be made interoperational with space weapons systems.

[Shakeyhands]

kids, kids... ANd who is that will launch an ICBM again? Spend the time and effort on Briefcase bombs... No one is going to use an ICBM.. thats why this is such a stupid thing to get involved with.. maybe 20 years ago it would have made sense... but now?

[Stoker]

kids, kids... ANd who is that will launch an ICBM again? Spend the time and effort on Briefcase bombs... No one is going to use an ICBM.. thats why this is such a stupid thing to get involved with.. maybe 20 years ago it would have made sense... but now?

Of the current nuclear powers, which ones are not developing ICBMs?

What do you propose to stop these Suitcase bombs with?

[caesar]

It doesn't work. It will be brutally expensive to develop and deploy. It defends against a very low chance, but very high consequence attack. The way it is deployed can serve to decrease or increase risk to Canada. We share an important alliance with the world's superpower respecting shared defense.

Based on these considerations, in my opinion, Canada should agree to the idea with some provisos: our contribution will be to assist in operations (including providing stations on Canadian territory) beginning at the time of deployment

HUH doesn't work, too expensive, and possilby endangers Canada then you conclude we should join and provide Canadian soil???????

We may have to join some way but mainly so we have information on the system and some input or control. Sad

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Terrible Sweal,

If an ICBM were launched from another continent, save S. America, space based weapons would be the safest way, with minimum fallout, to counter such a threat.

We've already 'weaponized' Earth to the nth degree, we have made personal greed the 'foremost right' in the world, what is going to have to change before we can stop exporting 'human nature' to space?

[PocketRocket]

What do you propose to stop these Suitcase bombs with?

Bigger suitcases, of course

[I Miss Trudeau]

But Caesar,

If we don't join, the stuff will STILL fall on us - we can't stop the American's from doing it so your argument is fallacious.

Sure we can. We upgrade our own detection abilities in the north, and we build installations which would fire hundreds of relatively benign decoys into the air when we detect a missile passing over Canada for the US, thereby reducing the damage of radioactive waste raining down on our own nation. Fully justified as self-defence if the US decides to rain down death upon us in order to protect itself.

[Black Dog]

Of the current nuclear powers, which ones are not developing ICBMs?

All but five: as of 2003 India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and North Korea were the only non-NPT nations with intermediate-range or long-range ballistic missile development programs.

[Black Dog]

Deterrence and rogues: a realist's perspective

No matter how often the Bush administration people say "containment and deterrence do not work," it works as well as it ever did for the purposes that we always thought it was designed to accomplish. That is, it deters other countries from using their weapons in ways that would endanger the manifestly vital interests of the United States or those it supports. So the question reduces to: Might they give these things away? Well, I don't think we have to worry about Saddam Hussein doing that, because if any terrorist ever got weaponry that they could not well get from sources other than Iraq, we would say, "Saddam Hussein did it," and we'd slam him. He knows that.

It's a funny thing, that over and over again, people say -- and we hear it every day -- that these rogues are undeterrable. "Do you want to rely on the sanity of Saddam Hussein?" George Bush has said, "I do not want to rely on the sanity of Saddam Hussein." I do! This guy is a survivor. He's been in power for thirty years. People who are insane do not maintain themselves in power against a host of enemies, internally as well as externally. I mean, they have been able -- this is true of Kadaffy in the old days, who we used to think of as being very roguish (we don't think of him being so roguish anymore). It's true of Kim Song Il. It was true of his father. I mean, these rogues, these guys we call rogues, are survivors. How can you at once be foolhardy to the point of insanity and be a survivor in a very difficult world? It's much more difficult than winning a second term for President of the United States.

These guys are pressed from all sides, as I say, internally and externally as well, and they survive. They're crafty. They're ugly, they're nasty; I believe all those things. But they're also crafty. You've got to carry them out in a box. They've got power and they want to hold it and they want to continue to hold it. They want to pass it on to their progeny, as a matter of fact. They have proved themselves able to calculate where that line is. Crossing that line means you're going to be put out of business. To be a ruler, you have to have a country to rule. If you invite intense retaliation upon yourself, you're dead, and your country is destroyed as a going political entity. Nobody's going that far. These rogues are self-limiting.

...

It's almost impossible to believe that Saddam Hussein -- and these states do act as units; you could say "Saddam Hussein," you don't always have to say "Iraq," and the same for North Korea [and Kim Song Il] -- that he would go to such tremendous lengths to acquire nuclear military capability [and then be willing to share it]. Remember the Israelis destroyed their nuclear facilities at Osirak in June of 1981. I mean, this goes back a long time. There has been a persistent sustained effort on the part of Saddam Hussein to acquire this military capability. Now, if he ever were to achieve it, he certainly would not want to share it with anybody. He would guard it. He would have only a small capability.

...

If we declare a country to be a part of an "axis of evil," and if that country is anyway in a perilously weak position, as obviously North Korea is, then we'd have to ask ourselves, if we were the ruler -- no matter how nasty that ruler is -- if we were Kim Jong Il, wouldn't we conclude that, "My God, we're likely to be attacked, and since we are weak, we'll lose unless we have nuclear weapons, which have proved to be the greatest and, indeed, the only reliable deterrent the world has ever known"? Conventional deterrence has not worked very well. We can figure out why that is, but nuclear weapons have been a great deterrent. Now, if one were Kim Jong Il, it's impossible to imagine that he would not want to do everything he can do, so you could make this less likely by making him feel less insecure. The more insecure you make him feel ...

See, any fool can see that the only way you can deter the United States is with weapons of mass destruction. You cannot compete on conventional grounds. That's absolutely impossible. Russia can't do it. China can't do it. Obviously, these rogue states -- it's just a fantasy. They could not even begin to, right? So if they believe that their security is directly in danger and even, indeed, specifically from the United States, the United States acting in conjunction with other countries in the area, they are going to do everything they can to acquire deterrent weapons -- again, the best one being nuclear military means.