What were the reasons for Canada to join the missile defence plan, anyways?

I am doing a formal report on this topic. It would be great if any of you could provide links that state why canada rejected the plan and what were the reasons that could be used to approve the plan. Thanks, I would be grateful for any info.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Have you tried Google?

The reason seems obvious. The plan is a boondoggle and Canada doesn't benefit. The missile defense shield is not intended to work for defense so much as work to line the pockets of the Republican elite. There is no viable missile threat that the system thwarts. Russia sells missiles that would easily circumvent the shield, even if it worked perfectly. The shield is simply a worthless product that the Republicans sell to their brainwashed pawns, using fear as marketing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Canadian point of view here.

Why some people agree with the plan:
- The US will lanch missles in defence over our soil anyway - we might as well have some say it it.
- If a rogue nation threatened us (we like to think the possibility is remote - up for debate) we'd need the support.
- Let's face it, Canada isnt' about to create a defence network by itself.

Why some people disagree:
- Do we want US interceptors on our soil?
- Do we want to be seen as US pawns?
- Wouldn't US military personnal on Canadian soil make us a target?
- Is the price tag really worth it?
- Who's going to attack Canada anyway?
- Haven't all three tests on the system failed anyway?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are laughably partisan.

Also, you should probably learn a little about the MDA before clicking the reply button. Facts speak louder than frothy platitudes.

As for the question, here is my input: It was an issue of diplomacy rather than necessity. Canada and the US have a long and distinguished history of working together with NORAD and the joint Space Command venture. We have already been close allies for the better part of a century. The US would like to continue this, and because NMD falls under the auspices of NORAD, Canadian cooperation would be greatly appreciated, but not required.

Well, we're not going to get it. While I'm not really sure about what diplomatic ramifications Canadian rejection of it will cause (nor do I particularly care about them, I'm an engineer), Canadian cooperation is unnecessary for the system itself to function as intended. None of the interceptors will be placed on Canadian soil. Neither will the ground based radar(s). All the new equipment is being installed in Alaska and California, or in outer space.

Asking for Canadian cooperation was as I said a relatively meaningless diplomatic gesture that I would guess was more of a courtesy we would offer to any of our close allies. If I were a Canadian leader I would be rather insulted if the US hadn't asked me to come onboard.

 

It was more about diplomacy than actual practicality. I don't think there has been one successful testing of the MDS, as the latest one a few weeks ago failed miserably. Paul Martin has now officially refused to take part in it, I believe.

 

Actually, Paul Martin didn't personally and that's part of the diplomatic fiasco. In a speech about the budget, Pierre Pettigrew (foregin relations) broke the news. Martin had promised (two years ago) a quick and forward answer. So there's part of the problem - Canadian officials blundered on the message and then Martin said that he'd expected to be consulted if a missile was launched through Canadain airspace. This all honestly would have been far less of an issue if Martin had said 'no' outright and outlined his reasoning.

This all being said, if a new government is formed anytime soon the issue might get another look.

 

Notably, the liberal party was in support of joining missile defense prior to the election, but reversed their position because they have only achieved a minority government (ie if the opposition votes against their bill they will lose power). From what I know, a lot of people are against missile defense because they fear it will escalate into another arms race and the weaponization of space.

 

That's exactly it.

 

Given no bona fide threat that the system thwarts, this is good enough reason alone. Now Russia will have to have its own defense shield since a defensive shield by the US can be used for offense. And Russia will have to have new missiles that circumvent the US shield. Republicans love arms races and other huge pork projects that let them build ever bigger mansions on the taxpayers' dime.

 

Topol-M .. there goes your NMD .. , Moscow AMD, there is your deffence , if you were thinking of an entire country deffence... its too expensive given russia's financial situation.

 

This bears some clarification: The past two test interceptors have failed to launch due to a minor software error. Prior to this we conducted ten tests, seven of which were successful and three of which failed to achieve the objective. Bear in mind that NMD is a revolutionary system and none of its component parts have been used before - ever - which implies that there will be an exceptional degree of trouble in the RDT&E process. The X-band radar alone is a bigger research project than the development of the Joint Strike Fighter has been, if that is a helpful example.

Weaponization of space is neither here nor there, as none of the weaponized assets will be placed in orbit. The orbital assets will consist of sensor satellites, much like the DSP birds we've had up since the early 1970s. None of this infringes upon the 1967 Outer Space Treaty.

NMD was kicked off in 1993 under the Clinton administration and approved by a Congress with a Democratic majority. The 1998 Rumsfeld commission was also a bipartisan venture that assessed the possible threat of ICBM attack by a rogue state as being quite plausible within a decade from 1998. Your sophomoric shillery is both uninformed and incorrect.

That's one thing I don't get about the Russians. NMD is going to be a very limited system, able to intercept only a handful ICBMs, even at its eventual capacity. Russia has nothing to fear from it, as their existing arsenal could already saturate it by several orders of magnitude. They know this.

The SS-27 is being developed as a unitary payload vehicle to replace the MIRVed SS-18, as that one is going away to comply with START II alert stockpile quotas. They aren't building it because of NMD, and their alleged-yet-not-confirmed pursuit of a MARV is entitely coincidental. If they blame it on NMD they're just being disingenuous, possibly looking for an excuse to spend money on a weapon system they don't need.

Also, the Galosh is 30 years old and very primitive, in no way comparable to NMD as it is not a HTK system. It also protects a relatively small area (Moscow and metro area) rather than a wide area like the North American continent that NMD is intended to. Galosh uses low yield nuclear warheads to make up for its lack of accuracy. Same thing we did with the Sprint/Spartan missiles under Safeguard in 1974 - Galosh is from the same era. Not that I have a problem with that, it's actually pretty cool if you ask me. It's just not anywhere close to being in the same playing field as NMD.

 

Stokes Pennwalt - (nuke them from orbit? i love it!) It's not that the program will weaponize space, it's that Canadians are worried about the possibility.

As to the Russians (or more importantly, i think, the world's rising powers) and unneeded weapons systems, I think it's a case of national pride. The Johnsons down the street just got a new big screen TV, so we need one that's better.

FYI The National Institute of Public Policy (http://www.nipp.org/) has a great deal of papers about nuclear policy. Check 'em out.

 

Its a bit more usefull than a big tv.

 

That was then. Now it is known that the shield will be useless even if it works perfectly. It has become a pork project.

 

Odin'Izm - Possibly, but you see what I'm getting at?

 

Ah, gotcha.

BTW - my title is a line from the movie Aliens.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What are you talking about? In 1993 it was being pursued under a "this might be good to have someday" motive. If anything, the threat of ballistic missile proliferation is greater now than it was then.

 

What matters is whether the shield will thwart the threat. It won't. Today's missile technology circumvents the shield.

 

Again, that isn't the sort of threat it is intended to mitigate.

 

What threat will remain by the time the shield is up & running? Any country will be able to buy the shield-piercing missiles for enough money. And the odds of NK or anybody else launching anything against the US (thus assuring their destruction, even if the US started it) is nil.

 

Screw this joke of a missle system, build the @#%@#% Star Wars already. Clone Reagan if you have to, shit.