Canada and Missile Defence

scribblet · January 15, 2007

I agree with McKenna on this one. Denmark and Japan have joined the US in the ballistic missile defense program, and now NATO is discussing a missile shield to protect continental Europe .

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...7f-d3add1a4b3f9

McKenna urges missile defence Liberals entreated to drop opposition

OTTAWA - The Liberal party should reconsider its opposition to ballistic missile defence in the wake of North Korea's nuclear bomb test, according to prominent Liberal Frank McKenna, Canada's former ambassador to Washington.

In a submission to the party's renewal commission, obtained by the National Post and CanWest News Service, Mr. McKenna "strongly urges" a reopened debate on participating in the U.S. ballistic missile defence plan, partly on the grounds that Canada must not be seen as "a free rider" on the United States.

geoffrey · January 15, 2007

Why build a shield to protect Europe, they have proven they wouldn't help us out anyways? Let them deal with their own security, they refuse to live up to their treaty obligations.

I think we should share a shield with the US... the fact of the matter is that we're going to be covered by this shield regardless. I think we should at least have a seat at the table.

B. Max · January 15, 2007

Why build a shield to protect Europe, they have proven they wouldn't help us out anyways? Let them deal with their own security, they refuse to live up to their treaty obligations.

I would go further than that. The US and Canada should both get out of nato.

geoffrey · January 15, 2007

Why build a shield to protect Europe, they have proven they wouldn't help us out anyways? Let them deal with their own security, they refuse to live up to their treaty obligations.

I would go further than that. The US and Canada should both get out of nato.

Or just have France, Germany and the other fairweather friends depart from a decent treaty otherwise. Some minor European powers have stepped up, the Netherlands comes to mind.

M.Dancer · January 15, 2007

It's a boondoggle.

It won't work any time in the near to distant future as the Russian have already introduced a missile that can alter it's course coupled with a stealthier design, and if it does work sometime in the next generation, it won't be a missile that we will worry about but a cargo ship.

As side from that, as long as the US wants our non-monetary support, lets discuss.

Black Dog · January 15, 2007

See here for a list of missile defense threads.

madmax · January 16, 2007

See here for a list of missile defense threads.

I am curious, how did you link the missile defence threads, and create a Link here? Private Mail me if need be.

Thanks.

HoratioCaine · January 16, 2007

If McKenna wanted a say on this he should have ran for leader. Canada already got fooled in to this magic space shield once back when Diefenbaker was PM.

Wilber · January 16, 2007

If McKenna wanted a say on this he should have ran for leader. Canada already got fooled in to this magic space shield once back when Diefenbaker was PM.

We did?

HoratioCaine · January 16, 2007

If McKenna wanted a say on this he should have ran for leader. Canada already got fooled in to this magic space shield once back when Diefenbaker was PM.

We did?

Yup, the Americans conned us in to buying their Beaumark missiles instead of developing the Avro Arrow.

http://canadianconservative.townhall.com/g...db-2da7ff265509

Wilber · January 16, 2007

If McKenna wanted a say on this he should have ran for leader. Canada already got fooled in to this magic space shield once back when Diefenbaker was PM.

We did?

Yup, the Americans conned us in to buying their Beaumark missiles instead of developing the Avro Arrow.

http://canadianconservative.townhall.com/g...db-2da7ff265509

The Arrow and the Bomarc were designed for the same purpose, to intercept manned bombers. When the ICBM and submarine launched missiles made manned bombers obsolete, so were the Bomarc and the Arrow. The Arrow was also far too expensive a project for a country like Canada without having a huge number of export orders. Everything about it was being developed from scratch, from its engines to its weapons systems. Like the Concorde, the Arrow was a technical tour de force but not viable.

By the way, the author of your link should know that Beaumark is a Hudson Bay Co. trade name. Bomarc is the name of the missile.

HoratioCaine · January 16, 2007

Don't matter me to me, from the title of his blog I doubt I'd agree with much he has to say so let him get it wrong.

Anyway, I see what you're saying. I just thought it was funny they convinced Deif to get rid of interceptors and then kept making ones of their own. Bet they wouldn't mind some Arrows flying over Afghanistan right about now.

Wilber · January 17, 2007

Don't matter me to me, from the title of his blog I doubt I'd agree with much he has to say so let him get it wrong.
Anyway, I see what you're saying. I just thought it was funny they convinced Deif to get rid of interceptors and then kept making ones of their own. Bet they wouldn't mind some Arrows flying over Afghanistan right about now.

I doubt it, the day of the pure interceptor is long gone. Although the Arrow could still match or exceed todays fighters when it comes to shear speed, they would eat it alive in a fight and be far more capable against ground targets. The Americans already had the Century series aircraft and the F4 was being developed at the same time. They didn't need the Arrow.

Catchme · January 17, 2007

It's a boondoggle.
It won't work any time in the near to distant future as the Russian have already introduced a missile that can alter it's course coupled with a stealthier design, and if it does work sometime in the next generation, it won't be a missile that we will worry about but a cargo ship.

As side from that, as long as the US wants our non-monetary support, lets discuss.

That's all they want is our money. Which is also why they want a an Amero dollar, they need someone to pay all their NSF cheques floating around plus their trillions in war debt..

Wilber · January 17, 2007

It's a boondoggle.

It won't work any time in the near to distant future as the Russian have already introduced a missile that can alter it's course coupled with a stealthier design, and if it does work sometime in the next generation, it won't be a missile that we will worry about but a cargo ship.

As side from that, as long as the US wants our non-monetary support, lets discuss.

That's all they want is our money. Which is also why they want a an Amero dollar, they need someone to pay all their NSF cheques floating around plus their trillions in war debt..

I've heard talk of an Amero dollar from different Canadian sources, but not from Americans.

fellowtraveller · January 17, 2007

Why build a shield to protect Europe, they have proven they wouldn't help us out anyways? Let them deal with their own security, they refuse to live up to their treaty obligations.
I think we should share a shield with the US... the fact of the matter is that we're going to be covered by this shield regardless. I think we should at least have a seat at the table.

I think the Euros are worried less about missiles from Russia, North Korea or China. They are likely more concerned about Iran, as they should be.

Black Dog · January 17, 2007

Geoffery:

I think we should share a shield with the US... the fact of the matter is that we're going to be covered by this shield regardless. I think we should at least have a seat at the table.

You've used that line before: what does it mean?

geoffrey · January 18, 2007

Geoffery:
I think we should share a shield with the US... the fact of the matter is that we're going to be covered by this shield regardless. I think we should at least have a seat at the table.

You've used that line before: what does it mean?

Basically BD, I think the missile defense shield is a load of crap. No one is firing ballastic missiles at us, never will. Our money needs to be spent on coastal defense to prevent the people smugglers and drugs from entering Canada, real issues, not the return of the Soviet Union. I doubt it even would work and if it did these things are likely getting shot down over Canada.

But, if the US is going to build it anyways, and it's going to cover North America anyways, we should support it in principle and have our massive defense contracting establishment get a cut of the pie. Why not? As well, we'd be able to direct some of the ideas more towards Canadian interest.

It's happening no matter what, I'd like Canadians to have a say in the matter. It's the best way to protect our sovereignty.

Saturn · January 18, 2007

Why build a shield to protect Europe, they have proven they wouldn't help us out anyways? Let them deal with their own security, they refuse to live up to their treaty obligations.

That's ok, we refuse to live up to our obligations too.

I think we should share a shield with the US... the fact of the matter is that we're going to be covered by this shield regardless. I think we should at least have a seat at the table.

Ok, let's spend tens of billions on worthless junk to keep Lockheed and Boeing happy. What do you think a shield that may but more likely won't intercept a missile that may or more likely won't target us is worth? $20, $50, $100 billion?

weaponeer · January 18, 2007

Just wanted to say hello to everyone, I am new to this site. This missile defence topic is something I am involved in. I am in the Canadian Airforce at NORAD.

The entire missile defence system, and it is a system, is designed to intercept a missile, or a few missiles fired from a so call rouge nation. Not designed to stop the cold war style massed missile attack.

The US has asked for nothing from us but support. All the missile interceptors will be based in Alaska, Calif, and on US Navy ships at sea. The US wants to intergrate the missile defence system into the current NORAD air defence system. For that, they need our approval, as we are partners in NORAD. No support from Canada, and the US will go ahead anyway with missile defence. Eventually they will go thier own way with continental air defence, leaving us behind.... We really don't want that.

geoffrey · January 18, 2007

That's ok, we refuse to live up to our obligations too.

Where/when? Kyoto? Sure. I agree, blame Mr. Dion for his failure in that regard. He left the country in an unrecoverable position, because of his disasterous leadership on the issue, we've embarassed ourselves worldwide.

Ok, let's spend tens of billions on worthless junk to keep Lockheed and Boeing happy. What do you think a shield that may but more likely won't intercept a missile that may or more likely won't target us is worth? $20, $50, $100 billion?

The US will foot the bill in exchange for some moral support from us. Looks good internationally for them. They've already expressed the willingness to fund much of the development, if not all.

weaponeer · January 18, 2007

People miss the overall point about missile defence. We are in an alliance with the USA for air defence. We have a say in how the system is run. Anytime we Canadians add, delete or change something we contribute to NORAD the US has a say. Same for them, if theywish to add a capability, redce or delete one, they need Canada's approval.

All the US wants is our approval to include missile defence in NORAD, simple. No $, nothing else.

geoffrey · January 18, 2007

Exactly.

How is it in North Bay these days? I have family there, I miss the snowmobiling.

weaponeer · January 18, 2007

North Bay is doing great. Lots of snow (finally). Lake have not froz yet, but soon.

Black Dog · January 18, 2007

But, if the US is going to build it anyways, and it's going to cover North America anyways, we should support it in principle and have our massive defense contracting establishment get a cut of the pie. Why not? As well, we'd be able to direct some of the ideas more towards Canadian interest.

So basically, you think Canadian firms should be queing up at the trough for public money?