Canada and Missile Defence

[Wilber]

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?

You think Canadian companies shouldn't sell to foreign governments?

[geoffrey]

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?

Why not? It's not even Canadian money, let's make some moooola. It's going to be given to us, or someone else. It might as well be us.

[Black Dog]

You think Canadian companies shouldn't sell to foreign governments?

Sure they can. I'm just questioning the idea that Canadian or American private companies should recieve taxpayer dollars for projects that are admittedly of zero use (corporate welfare).

[weaponeer]

Zero use, are you an expert in air defence matters???

Ever single system the military uses now started off as being scorned. The airplane, the tank, the aircraft carrier, repeater rifle, submarine, "usless diversion" was one qutoe by a so-called expert in regards to airpower in the 1930's. Glad we listened to him!!

Missile defence is a system in it's infancy, but it will be the air defence system of the future. More & more countries are developing missile technology. It will only be a matter of time before nations like Iran, N. Korea, India, Pakistan develop missiles that can reach N. America. We need to be a few steps ahead of them, thank God we are.

Missile threats come in various forms, ICBM's launched from other countries, submarine launched ICBM & cruise missiles, aircraft launched cruise missiles. Counties like China & Russia now operate modern aircraft carriers like the US, Iran has ocean going submarines......

[madmax]

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

The US already got from us what it needed for NORAD.

Other than that, the US can waste all the money it wants, and this turkey will keep coming back to haunt us, from all those Defense Contractors whom grew up with the Atari Game Missile Command.

[weaponeer]

NO, actually thet have not got approval from Canada to include missilie defence in NORAD.....

[madmax]

Zero use, are you an expert in air defence matters???

Yeah, it's a turkey that doesn't work, is of enormous cost, and is a pet project for defense contractors, that will continue to sell the idea that it works, that it will work, and that there is a "threat" of a single missile attack.

Missile defence is a system in it's infancy, but it will be the air defence system of the future.

This infant appears to have an enormous hunger and a long gestation period. It will always be promoted as the defence of the future. But like lots of things, technology will leave it behind as a costly boondoggle. Much like the technology of NORAD, which is being dismantled or obsoleted, missile defence is obsolete as a platform of defence.

On top of that, the threat that it is to protect us from, is fantasy.

More & more countries are developing missile technology. It will only be a matter of time before nations like Iran, N. Korea, India, Pakistan develop missiles that can reach N. America. We need to be a few steps ahead of them, thank God we are.

Why is it that I am not scared?

Missile threats come in various forms, ICBM's launched from other countries, submarine launched ICBM & cruise missiles, aircraft launched cruise missiles. Counties like China & Russia now operate modern aircraft carriers like the US, Iran has ocean going submarines......

And the Missile Defence System couldn't stop one Damn Missile from hitting its target. Why create a false sense of security.

The missile defence in Iraq did a great job of shooting down allied aircraft.

[madmax]

NO, actually thet have not got approval from Canada to include missilie defence in NORAD.....

I never said it did. I said the US got what it needed for Norad. What it needed from us, for its current endeavors.

DND/CF : News Room : Archives"This amendment safeguards and sustains NORAD regardless of what decision the Government of Canada eventually takes on ballistic missile defence. ...

www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1422 - 14k

[weaponeer]

Actually NORAD has recieved a new state of the at air defence system BCS-F. I am sitting in front of it right now. It is leaps & bounds ahead of what we had.

Unfortunatly I have to disagree with you (nothing personel). There are threats out there. Missile technology is spreading, and it will be a concern of the future. Military planners & thinkers have to look ahead to the next war, not the one just finished. No, Russian bombers will not come over the north pole & bomb Toronto, I agree. There's no need, their cruise missiles can be launched from 500 miles out to see and destroy it, we'd never see them.

Cruise misslies are the current threat, launched from aircraft & submarines. They can be launched will little or no warning. Countries around the world have seen the success the US has had with them, and are developing & aquiring them. Add them to long range bombers, aircraft flown from aircaft carriers, submarines, you have a real global capability, a potential threat.

In order for one nation to attack another they need two things, CAPABILITY & INTENT!! We (DND/NORAD) look at capability, NOT intent. If a country has a capability to attack then you must have solutions to defend against, because some day they may add intent. That does not mean they will add it, it means they MAY. We do not know who will be running Russia in 15 years.

NMD is coming like it or not. We need to get onboard. Right now we, Canada , are not allowed to participate in NMD meetings, exercises, planning conferences etc... We have no say. We are in NORAD together, we need some say here.

As for NORADs role, it has actually expanded within US NORCOMM & Canada's CF CANADACOM. Air defence, joint sea defence, search & rescue ops, we are expanding.....

[Black Dog]

Zero use, are you an expert in air defence matters???

Ever single system the military uses now started off as being scorned. The airplane, the tank, the aircraft carrier, repeater rifle, submarine, "usless diversion" was one qutoe by a so-called expert in regards to airpower in the 1930's. Glad we listened to him!!

So what? History is also filled with countless examples of failed technologies as well. Missile defense is a 21st Century Maginot Line.

Missile defence is a system in it's infancy, but it will be the air defence system of the future. More & more countries are developing missile technology.

Proof?

Another view

Thus, the most accurate way to summarize existing global ballistic missile threat is:

(1) There is a widespread capability to launch short-range missiles.

(2) There is a slowly growing, but still limited, capability to launch medium-range missiles.

(3) Most importantly, there is a decreasing number of long-range missiles from the levels of the Cold War and this number will continue to decline dramatically over the next fifteen years.

(4) There is some possibility that one or two new nations could acquire a very limited capability to launch long-range missiles over the next two decades.

(5) The likelihood of any nation attacking the United States or Europe with a ballistic missile is exceptionally low.

In short, the ballistic missile threat today is confined, limited and changing relatively slowly. There is every reason to believe that it can be addressed through diplomacy and measured military preparedness. Officials during any year of the Cold War would have gladly traded today's threat for the dangers they confronted.

It will only be a matter of time before nations like Iran, N. Korea, India, Pakistan develop missiles that can reach N. America. We need to be a few steps ahead of them, thank God we are.

That doesn't mean they will use them. Any arsenal these states could develop would be quite small and using them against the U.S. would be suicide.

Missile threats come in various forms, ICBM's launched from other countries, submarine launched ICBM & cruise missiles, aircraft launched cruise missiles. Counties like China & Russia now operate modern aircraft carriers like the US, Iran has ocean going submarines......

Of all of those, missile defense is designed to counter only the threat of long range ICBMs. And of those, ICBMs are probably the least probable one we'd face.

Cruise misslies are the current threat, launched from aircraft & submarines. They can be launched will little or no warning. Countries around the world have seen the success the US has had with them, and are developing & aquiring them. Add them to long range bombers, aircraft flown from aircaft carriers, submarines, you have a real global capability, a potential threat.

Again: NMD is of no use against low level cruise missiles.

It's worth repeating: BMD is dersigned to counter a very specific threat: a small-scale nuclear launch froma "rougue state." It would not be effective against a large-scale attack nor woukld it counter threats from short range (such as SLBMs or SLCMs).

[Wilber]

I have mixed feelings about this thing. I have no doubt that it will be some kind of a threat or that a system to intercept limited attacks is doable, but is it worth it? I don't see any downside to getting involved as long as doesn't mean our spending a bunch of money. After all, we were not consulted as to whether there would be a system, we were just told there will be one. If there is to be one, it can't hurt to have some sort of input.

[scribblet]

This sounds like a good reason for missile defense.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...19/wchina19.xml

Chinese missile destroys satellite in space

[geoffrey]

This sounds like a good reason for missile defense.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...19/wchina19.xml

Chinese missile destroys satellite in space

What is missile defense going to do about that?

[PolyNewbie]

Any missile defence system can always be overloaded withy tin cans. It would cost more to knock out the tin cans than it would to build them.

Missile defence is a fantasy, and an offensive weapon. Its a way to put offensive weapons into space while people think they are defensive.

Is Osama Bin Laden after us again and going to build an ICBM is one of his caves or have you figured out that he is dead and those confession tapes wrt 911 didn't even look like him ?

[madmax]

have you figured out that he is dead and those confession tapes wrt 911 didn't even look like him ?

You buy into every conspiracy theory out there.

[madmax]

Chinese missile destroys satellite in space

IIRC the US and the USSR both did similar tests back in the 80s. Hardly a need for missile defence.

Beijing has declined to confirm the test but has said it supports the peaceful use of space. U.S. officials said no country should conduct tests that advance the potential for wars in space or result in explosions that create large areas of debris hazardous to other satellites.

"We know the Chinese have conducted this test," said Tom Casey, a State Department spokesman. "We certainly want to hear from them in a more detailed way exactly what their intentions are…. We don't want to see a situation where there is any militarization of space."

Here is the peace answer, it is Jaw Jaw not missile defence.

The U.S. has conducted similar tests to shoot down satellites, but the last was in 1985. America and the Soviet Union abandoned the tests over concerns about the debris they generated.

"Countries throughout the world are dependent on space-based technologies — you know, weather satellites, communication satellites and other devices," Casey said.

The Chinese missile test was unsurprising given the U.S. position on the militarization of space and this country's military capabilities, said Michael Swaine, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.

"There needs to be a sustained discussion between the U.S., China and other space-faring nations about how space can be used," Swaine said.

and those that don't advocate talk.

Other skeptics, such as John J. Tkacik Jr. of the Heritage Foundation's Asian Studies Center, have argued that China has rebuffed U.S. attempts to negotiate over space. The U.S., Tkacik said, should tell China there will be consequences for missile launches. The leverage America has, he said, is bilateral trade.

Choose trade as the better leverage, not missile defence.

[tml12]

Canada should join U.S. missile defense for the sole reason that whether or not Canada joins the U.S. will still be discussing how to defend Canada with U.S. missiles.

Again, how ironic that the Liberals who pretend to "protect" Canada's sovereignty are the ones selling this country out and letting our military down which ultimately encourages the Americans to take a more forceful role in defending Canada. Some days I truly do wonder about how much of a sovereign country Canada truly is.

[madmax]

Again, how ironic that the Liberals who pretend to "protect" Canada's sovereignty are the ones selling this country out and letting our military down which ultimately encourages the Americans to take a more forceful role in defending Canada. Some days I truly do wonder about how much of a sovereign country Canada truly is.

Newsflash! The CONSERVATIVES are the governing party and have made some overtures towards missile defence Norad/Nato etc.

But lets look at the recent past.

OTTAWA -- George W. Bush scolded Conservative Leader Stephen Harper for his silence on missile defence and asked him to help secure Canadian involvement in the U.S. plan, The Canadian Press has learned.

The U.S. president used his trip to Canada late last year to bluntly voice irritation with Harper's enigmatic position on missile defence, sources on both sides of the border say.

One U.S. official described Bush's reproach to Harper as: "Please don't play partisan politics with this.''

"I would hope you're looking at this in Canada's national interest and not in terms of partisan politics,'' Bush reportedly told Harper.

Recent polls have shown a majority of Canadians oppose Canada's participation in missile defence.

That opposition has mounted in the vacuum of any vocal support for the program from anyone in the Liberal government apart from Defence Minister Bill Graham and Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan.

Prime Minister Paul Martin supported Canadian involvement in the initiative when he was a leadership candidate, but has avoided moving forward without Conservative support.

While I am not impressed with the Liberal role towards the Canadian Military, I don't think it can be fairly said with regards to the BMD that Paul Martin Supported.

[Canadian Blue]

I don't see the point of joining a missile defense system. It's basically a 21st century Maginot line as Black Dog has put it, and I think it's simply resulting in a massive waste of money. Besides, if some asshole fires a missile at us or the US, then they will be destroyed as well, it's mutually assured destruction.

[tml12]

Again, how ironic that the Liberals who pretend to "protect" Canada's sovereignty are the ones selling this country out and letting our military down which ultimately encourages the Americans to take a more forceful role in defending Canada. Some days I truly do wonder about how much of a sovereign country Canada truly is.

Newsflash! The CONSERVATIVES are the governing party and have made some overtures towards missile defence Norad/Nato etc.

But lets look at the recent past.

OTTAWA -- George W. Bush scolded Conservative Leader Stephen Harper for his silence on missile defence and asked him to help secure Canadian involvement in the U.S. plan, The Canadian Press has learned.

The U.S. president used his trip to Canada late last year to bluntly voice irritation with Harper's enigmatic position on missile defence, sources on both sides of the border say.

One U.S. official described Bush's reproach to Harper as: "Please don't play partisan politics with this.''

"I would hope you're looking at this in Canada's national interest and not in terms of partisan politics,'' Bush reportedly told Harper.

Recent polls have shown a majority of Canadians oppose Canada's participation in missile defence.

That opposition has mounted in the vacuum of any vocal support for the program from anyone in the Liberal government apart from Defence Minister Bill Graham and Public Safety Minister Anne McLellan.

Prime Minister Paul Martin supported Canadian involvement in the initiative when he was a leadership candidate, but has avoided moving forward without Conservative support.

While I am not impressed with the Liberal role towards the Canadian Military, I don't think it can be fairly said with regards to the BMD that Paul Martin Supported.

I don't know why Harper hasn't been more supportive of missile defense as PM with the exception of the fact that he is worried that he is in a minority situtation. A majority of Canadians may oppose missile defense but they are just Liberal brainwashed idiots...the reality is that Canada is in missile defense whether we like it or not.

[geoffrey]

No move will be made on missile defense by Harper, likely ever. Quebec is too touchy on it, God forbid a Quebecois would ever want anything around that could be military related.

Remember what Trudeau said about bleeding hearts... ya, applies to this too. People don't like the sound of it, the image of it... but hell it's happening no matter what.

Let's have i) a say, and ii) a cut of the defense contracts.

[Wilber]

I don't see the point of joining a missile defense system. It's basically a 21st century Maginot line as Black Dog has put it, and I think it's simply resulting in a massive waste of money. Besides, if some asshole fires a missile at us or the US, then they will be destroyed as well, it's mutually assured destruction.

One thing we know for sure, even if a missile is fired at us, we will have to depend on the Americans to do something about it. Canada has always benefited from MAD but it has always been the Americans who paid for it.

[tml12]

No move will be made on missile defense by Harper, likely ever. Quebec is too touchy on it, God forbid a Quebecois would ever want anything around that could be military related.

Remember what Trudeau said about bleeding hearts... ya, applies to this too. People don't like the sound of it, the image of it... but hell it's happening no matter what.

Let's have i) a say, and ii) a cut of the defense contracts.

I completely agree. I loved how the Liberals and NDP friends of mine were so happy when Canada had "class" to stay out of the Iraq war because we are a "kindler nation" that brings "peace to the world."

They didn't say much when the Liberal government was BEGGING for a piece of the Iraqi pie after Bush declared "mission accomplished." As usual, Canada barks like a poodle and bites like a pit bull.

[PolyNewbie]

Why would someone use a nuclear missile on the USA when all they would have to do is load a pickup truck with a nuke in Mexico and just drive it across the unguarded border and blow it up wherever they want. I think the idea of a missile defence system is just plain stupid for this obvious reason.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Why would someone use a nuclear missile on the USA when all they would have to do is load a pickup truck with a nuke in Mexico and just drive it across the unguarded border and blow it up wherever they want.

After making that statement, you say ...

I think the idea of a missile defence system is just plain stupid for this obvious reason.

The lack of logic in your first statment is pretty obvious.