Canada (Now, "Canuckistan") Refuses to Be in Missile Defense Scheme

Quite frankly I think that’s a red herring. I think Bush wants the weaponisaion of space for his own first strike and intimidation tactics. The “missile defence” angle is kind of like saying Iraq had WMD. It’s a lot like it in fact. If Kim Jong ever became a real thread China would deal with him.

 

Don't forget that Bush didn't start SDI. Reagan did and it was never, ever stopped under any administration since. Research on it continued under Clinton, although he didn't talk about it as it wasn't politically wise for him to do so. Your logic would assume that Reagan, Bush, Sr, Clinton and Bush, Jr. all want(ed) SDI for intimidation tactics.

Because it's endured so long and under Republican and Democratic administrations you have to wonder what's up with it. Neither Gore nor Kerry mentioned killing it in their campaigns did they? I know Gore talked about a "limited" missile defence but he still was for missile defence.)

Personally I think a missile defence system is already up and running or, at least the one they are working on is NOTHING like what the press sees. I think it's a cover for spending large sums of mony on something else. Do you guys really think a program like that would be open to the public? Stealth wasn't until it was used. The SR-71 wasn't public until it was used. Why is SDI public? Why tell your enemies (or anyone) how it works or how well it works (or doesn't work)? People on this board (in other discussions) have already pointed out that ways to get around SDI are well known. Maybe SDI is a distraction so that enemies work out solutions to the "wrong" defence system.

I think the government is spending large amounts of money on some defense project, so much that you can't hide it in the budget and they need a good cover. SDI is that cover.

 

That makes sense. They are looking for approval from Canada so they want us to lend legitimacy to something they want to do that has a public face. I tend to think that with this administration everything revolves around domestic political considerations so following that it would be something they want to sell to the American public and want to be able to say their allies support.

 

I don't mean to sound clinical about it,and I have a healthy respect for Democracy.You guys are definitely our brothers.We've fought many wars sided by side,share a giant border,conduct major trade,and have many common ideals.On this issue though,there can be no middle ground.We must protect North America at all costs, and we will deploy defenses to ensure the safety of all.It would be nice if we could be on the same page publicly,but unfortunately the same attitude that has been so prevalent in France and some European countries, not surprisingly has increased in Canada.
We live in an age where high tech,nuclear,and biowarfare advances have reached the point that there is no doubt of us living in the most dangerous time in history.Throw in the fact that there are many countries out there that would like nothing better than to wipe both of us off the face of the Earth,and it leaves us and you w/no choice.

 

I was basing that on actual polls, not your opinion. Feel free to disagree though.

 

Pardon me while I laugh out loud. If Kim ever became a real thread the Yao only Fans would deal with him. The threat posed by ballistic missles is not just some figment of Bush's imagination, nor some conspiracy. Check out some of the literature about proliferation and it should be obvious why BMD is desirable. Ever wonder why the EU (not, as you've probably noticed, under Bush's thumb) doesn't want Iran to have nukes?

 

Did the pole allow the respondents to pick more than one answer, or what it a “choose the one that fits best” type of pole? Anyway, what I gave you was my opinion, which as far as I can tell is not in disagreement with the pole.

 

Go ahead and laugh. There are plenty laughing back. Kim is whack job, but when was the last time he tested a missile that could traverse the Pacific Ocean? I believe their current range wouldn’t get them much past Japan, which is a little short of North America. And who other than a whack job would bother with missiles anyway? What would be the point? If you want to hit the US put a nuclear bomb on a ship. Sail it into the harbour of a major US city and detonate it. Maybe you could even detonate it off shore and create a tsunami. If you want to get tricky you could try to disguise it and have it shipped inland, and since only a small fraction of containers are searched you may well get away with that. Why would you bother with all the high tech missile apparatus?

Whether he’s sincere or not almost nobody believes Bush anymore anyway, but no, I don’t believe that there is a significant threat to North American from ICBMs now or in the foreseeable future. And what threat their may be is more than offset by the threat posed by NMD and its other potential covert uses and their consequences.

Bush is good at using a rhetoric that will scare and bring on side a significant percentage of the American electorate, though. We saw that with the WMD claims about Iraq, and lo and behold we’re seeing it again here, which brings to mind an old saying. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. (cue the chorus, “We won’t be fooled again!”).

 

Grizzled, search for the last BMD thread. I posted a very long detailed analysis of this very issue and there are more threats than just NK. In addition, as proliferation spreads there are issues such as accidental launches, miscalculation etc that are increasing the risk every year. The threat from these issues is greater than putting a bomb on a boat and sailing it into a harbor (which you seem to think would be easy but is not) and the potential damage much greater (a bomb exploding in the air does MUCH more damage than one would on the ground/in the harbor).

 

Unfortunately I’m not search empowered. IMO the biggest security issue these days, and there has been much talk about this, is posed by the amount of trade that takes place globally now. There are so many containers coming and going from North American ports that only about 5% of them are checked. This is a major pipeline for all sorts of contraband, and bombs could very well be added to that list. Of course my scenario doesn’t even involve the ship docking. If a terrorist can get a nuclear bomb onto a ship anywhere in the world that is headed for the US, then he could practically wipe out that city. Yes, detonation at ground level is not ideal, but it doesn’t have to be. It’s so easy this way that the efficiencies of delivery would more than outweigh the inefficiencies of the detonation point, I’m sure. A harbour is typically a reasonably good amphitheatre, however, and bombs going of in harbours do do a lot of damage. This explosion had about 1/5 the power of the Hiroshima blast.
http://www.cbc.ca/halifaxexplosion/


On the attitude of Canadians in general, I disagree with much of this piece but it’s written by a university president and former Canadian Foreign Minister, so I thought I’d add it to this discussion.
------
Missile Counter-Attack
Axworthy fires back at U.S. -- and Canadian -- critics of our BMD decision in An Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
Thu Mar 3 2005
By LLOYD AXWORTHY


Dear Condi, I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.
I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.
But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.
As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.
Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.
Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a prevailing mood of manifest destiny.
Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such a missile defence can be made openly.
You might also notice that it's a system in which the governing party's caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don't want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada's continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations.
Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected audience.
Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire.
If you want to have us consider your proposals and positions, present them in a proper way, through serious discussion across the table in our cabinet room, as your previous president did when he visited Ottawa. And don't embarrass our prime minister by lobbing a verbal missile at him while he sits on a public stage, with no chance to respond.
Now, I understand that there may have been some miscalculations in Washington based on faulty advice from your resident governor of the "northern territories," Ambassador Cellucci. But you should know by now that he hasn't really won the hearts and minds of most Canadians through his attempts to browbeat and command our allegiance to U.S. policies.
Sadly, Mr. Cellucci has been far too closeted with exclusive groups of 'experts' from Calgary think-tanks and neo-con lobbyists at cross-border conferences to remotely grasp a cross-section of Canadian attitudes (nor American ones, for that matter).
I invite you to expand the narrow perspective that seems to inform your opinions of Canada by ranging far wider in your reach of contacts and discussions. You would find that what is rising in Canada is not so much anti-Americanism, as claimed by your and our right-wing commentators, but fundamental disagreements with certain policies of your government. You would see that rather than just reacting to events by drawing on old conventional wisdoms, many Canadians are trying to think our way through to some ideas that can be helpful in building a more secure world.
These Canadians believe that security can be achieved through well-modulated efforts to protect the rights of people, not just nation-states.
To encourage and advance international co-operation on managing the risk of climate change, they believe that we need agreements like Kyoto.
To protect people against international crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, they support new institutions like the International Criminal Court -- which, by the way, you might strongly consider using to hold accountable those committing atrocities today in Darfur, Sudan.
And these Canadians believe that the United Nations should indeed be reformed -- beginning with an agreement to get rid of the veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stop violence and predatory practices.
On this score, you might want to explore the concept of the 'Responsibility to Protect' while you're in Ottawa. It's a Canadian idea born out of the recent experience of Kosovo and informed by the many horrific examples of inhumanity over the last half-century. Many Canadians feel it has a lot more relevance to providing real human security in the world than missile defence ever will.
This is not just some quirky notion concocted in our long winter nights, by the way. It seems to have appeal for many in your own country, if not the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal or Rush Limbaugh. As I discovered recently while giving a series of lectures in southern California, there is keen interest in how the U.S. can offer real leadership in managing global challenges of disease, natural calamities and conflict, other than by military means.
There is also a very strong awareness on both sides of the border of how vital Canada is to the U.S. as a partner in North America. We supply copious amounts of oil and natural gas to your country, our respective trade is the world's largest in volume, and we are increasingly bound together by common concerns over depletion of resources, especially very scarce fresh water.
Why not discuss these issues with Canadians who understand them, and seek out ways to better cooperate in areas where we agree -- and agree to respect each other's views when we disagree.
Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power.
In friendship,
Lloyd Axworthy
Lloyd Axworthy is president of the
University of Winnipeg and a former Canadian foreign minister.
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/story/2610442p-3026695c.html

 

Raytheon has delivered five STANDARD Missile-3 rounds to the Missile Defense Agency for deployment as a key element of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System.

The rounds are available for deployment on Aegis cruisers and destroyers to defend against short- to intermediate-range ballistic missile threats in the midcourse phase of flight or for flight testing.

Raytheon marked the first SM-3 delivery with a ceremony in Tucson on Oct. 22.

"Raytheon's deliveries of these STANDARD Missile-3s will help provide the United States with the first sea-based line of defense against a limited ballistic missile attack," said Ed Miyashiro, Raytheon's vice president for Naval Weapon Systems. "Our team is very proud of developing and delivering this needed capability."

As the prime contractor, Raytheon is responsible for the development and integration of the SM-3 "all up round," including the SM-3 kinetic warhead. Other SM-3 team members include Aerojet, Alliant Techsystems and The Boeing Company.

Since January 2002, the Aegis BMD system has successfully intercepted targets in space four times with SM-3. In all the flight tests, the SM-3 was launched from a U.S. Navy cruiser under very realistic, operational conditions.

There is already international interest in Aegis BMD and SM-3. Japan made the decision earlier this year to procure Aegis BMD and SM-3 missiles for its Kongo-class Aegis destroyers.

Raytheon is also responsible for the manufacture and deployment of the Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicle for the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) program and is the interceptor lead for the Kinetic Energy Interceptor program.

Raytheon is also providing the Sea-Based X-band radar and Upgraded Early Warning Radar for the GMD segment, the Space Tracking and Surveillance System payload, the Ballistic Missile Defense System radar, and THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) radar and battle management software.

--- these missiles can be deployed by the Japanese (Kongo class Destroyers) eventually
I have more faith in the Airborn Laser program, personally, but it's 5-8 years away I think



Grizzled- http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/td-2.htm

 

Given that we can't even get the interceptors out of their silos I can't imagine the Canadians are counting on us to defend them from an ICBM even if they went along with the missile shield plan.

The neighborly thing to do is let the world know that we would nuke anyone if they nuked Canada. Anyway if Seattle or Vancouver got nuked there would like be lots of fallout from one landing on the other.

 

Note: limited ballistic missile attack

There have been battlefield missile defenses for decades but as far as a strategic missile defense attack, the kind that SDI and the current missile shield is supposed to defend, there hasn't even been a successful test that wasn't highly rigged. Even in most of those highly rigged have failed.

In regards to the specific defense system mentioned I would be highly suspect of Raytheon since they are the maker of the Patriot anti-missile systme whose rate of success was greatly exagerated.

 

.

 

Gulf War I, the Patriot was tasked in intercepting a terror weapon, whose sole purpose was to scare the bejesus out of the Israelis and have them break up the coalition which had many Arab nations participating

While the Patriot was pretty unsuccessful in actually intercepting Scuds the lie that they were successful had the effect in countering the terror of the Scuds, which I would argue made it successful as an anti-terror weapon


"limited ballistic missile attack" These new missiles are specifically designed to hit Taep'o-dong 1, Shahab-6, Nodong-B, etc...
the new Pac 3 Patriots are designed to intercept Scud-A, Frog 5,7's etc

The Arrow missile, an offshoot of the Patriot Pac 3, is currently deployed by Israel, I wonder if it were so inneffective at what it's designed to do, would they continue to spend so much of their limited resources on it

BMD is a targeting challenge... it's all in the software that guides these missiles... meaning that even if they aren't great at what they are supposed to do, they are a software upgrade away from doing so... no reason to quit now as the threats from more and more advanced Ballistic missiles in the hands of wakko third world leaders continues to grow

Does anyone think that if the US cancles BMD that NK and Iran will stop their ballistic missile programs?

Also, "Even in most of those highly rigged have failed."
the current score is 5 out of 9, and 3 of those the missile launches were cancled due to software glitches
I wonder, if you are trying to perfect a system, if it makes sense to throw 4 new variables into a test... It seems to me it makes sense to have "highly rigged" tests when trying to find and eliminate errors
one variable at a time seems logical to me

 

Probably not but it doesn't seem to be encouraging them to cancel them either.

As I've said in other missile defense debates I have nothing against it in principle but am more bothered by the costs, the lack of success, the relative ease with which most proposed ballistic missile defense systems could be defeated, the other threats for delivery of WMD which are more likely and the opportunity costs incurred by putting resources into SDI rather than shoring up our ports, and finally why do it if it even alienates our closest allies.

So yes if it can be proven to work at a reasonable costs lets do it. In the meantime all we're doing is throwing good money away for bad when we still need to shore up our ports, develop better intelligence and deployment capabilities to deal with threats before the missile is even launched. Those are already technologically capable and will costs our enemies alot more than attaching mylar decoys to their missiles.

 

Missile Counter-Attack
Axworthy fires back at U.S. -- and Canadian -- critics of our BMD decision in An Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Thu Mar 3 2005

By LLOYD AXWORTHY

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/story/2610442p-3026695c.html

Dear Condi,

I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.

I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.

As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.

Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.
Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a prevailing mood of manifest destiny.

Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such as missile defence can be made openly.

You might also notice that it's a system in which the governing party's caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don't want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada's continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations.

Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected audience.

Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire.

If you want to have us consider your proposals and positions, present them in a proper way, through serious discussion across the table in our cabinet room, as your previous president did when he visited Ottawa. And don't embarrass our prime minister by lobbing a verbal missile at him while he sits on a public stage, with no chance to respond.
Now, I understand that there may have been some miscalculations in Washington based on faulty advice from your resident governor of the "northern territories," Ambassador Cellucci. But you should know by now that he hasn't really won the hearts and minds of most Canadians through his attempts to browbeat and command our allegiance to U.S. policies.

Sadly, Mr. Cellucci has been far too closeted with exclusive groups of 'experts' from Calgary think-tanks and neo-con lobbyists at cross-border conferences to remotely grasp a cross-section of Canadian attitudes (nor American ones, for that matter).

I invite you to expand the narrow perspective that seems to inform your opinions of Canada by ranging far wider in your reach of contacts and discussions. You would find that what is rising in Canada is not so much anti-Americanism, as claimed by your and our right-wing commentators, but fundamental disagreements with certain policies of your government. You would see that rather than just reacting to events by drawing on old conventional wisdoms, many Canadians are trying to think our way through to some ideas that can be helpful in building a more secure world.

These Canadians believe that security can be achieved through well-modulated efforts to protect the rights of people, not just nation-states.

To encourage and advance international co-operation on managing the risk of climate change, they believe that we need agreements like Kyoto.

To protect people against international crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, they support new institutions like the International Criminal Court -- which, by the way, you might strongly consider using to hold accountable those committing atrocities today in Darfur, Sudan.

And these Canadians believe that the United Nations should indeed be reformed -- beginning with an agreement to get rid of the veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stop violence and predatory practices.

On this score, you might want to explore the concept of the 'Responsibility to Protect' while you're in Ottawa. It's a Canadian idea born out of the recent experience of Kosovo and informed by the many horrific examples of inhumanity over the last half-century. Many Canadians feel it has a lot more relevance to providing real human security in the world than missile defence ever will.

This is not just some quirky notion concocted in our long winter nights, by the way. It seems to have appeal for many in your own country, if not the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal or Rush Limbaugh. As I discovered recently while giving a series of lectures in southern California, there is keen interest in how the U.S. can offer real leadership in managing global challenges of disease, natural calamities and conflict, other than by military means.
There is also a very strong awareness on both sides of the border of how vital Canada is to the U.S. as a partner in North America. We supply copious amounts of oil and natural gas to your country, our respective trade is the world's largest in volume, and we are increasingly bound together by common concerns over depletion of resources, especially very scarce fresh water.

Why not discuss these issues with Canadians who understand them, and seek out ways to better cooperate in areas where we agree -- and agree to respect each other's views when we disagree.

Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power.

In friendship,
Lloyd Axworthy

Lloyd Axworthy is president of the University of Winnipeg and a former Canadian foreign minister.