Thursday, February 24, 2005

Oh Canada

Good

Prime Minister Paul Martin said Thursday that Canada would not join the contentious U.S. missile defense program, a decision that will further strain brittle relations between the neighbors but please Canadians who fear it could lead to an international arms race.

More missiles for us.

(6) Comments
Posted by Owen at 2326 hrs
Foreign Affairs + Military

  1. Brittle relations?  Further strain? 

    Let’s see now.  We are the largest trading partner with the US.  The US is our largest trading partner.  The US slaps tarrifs on our softwood lumber.  The US went into a war that our country didn’t believe was necessary.  Of course we have our differences.  But I don’t think this missle defense issue will have any long-term impact on how either side of the border does business.

    This missile defense program seems to most Canadians to be an over-reaction to the state of unrest throughout the muslim world.  While I have no doubt that the US will be attacked again, I think it’d be crazy for Canada to dump money into a what-if scenario when our military is in dire need of new equipment (ie. replacing the 50 year Sikorsky SeaKing helicopters, communications equipment, etc). 

    Is the USA a target for international terrorists?  Yes.  Is Canada a target for international targets? Not likely, what would be the point in attacking the second biggest country in the world with a whopping population of 30 million?  Our LARGEST centers have 1-3 million people.  It would make much more sense for a terrorist to target someplace with an extremely dense population (Ummm, New York comes to mind…).  The impact on the world stage of an attack on Canadian soil would be but a fizzle in the news.  Move that threat to the likelihood of a terrorist nation (or as GW calls it the “Axis of Evil”) using an ICBM on Canada is pretty remote at best.  Anyone launching an ICMB would likely target a coastal city like New York, Washington D.C., Los Angeles, etc for one simple reason: ease of access.

    Here’s a case in point to prove what I’m saying.  Do you honestly think there’d be an attack on Washington State, Idaho (wait that might damage the potato crop), or Utah?

    The billions of dollars to be spent on this missile defense program would be much better spent on finishing the mess you’ve left in Afghanistan (we have troops there cleaning up) and getting out of Iraq (another mess that peace-keeper nations like us will end up cleaning up).

    My final word to the USA and GW: Finish what you started before dragging us into a program with no real payback.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2005 at 1336 hrs


  2. I agree with Canada’s decision not to join the missle defense program.  They’re rather neutral so a chance of getting shot at by anybody is extremely slim.  It would be a waste for them to purchase a program that won’t be used for them.  Of course, it would have been nice for the program to have a second financial partner. 

    When the time comes, I’m sure there will be nations who want our program and scramble, not to buy, but to steal it’s secrets.  I guess that’s how the drug companies feel.  They spend tons of money to develop a drug, just to see other nations make a quick generic of it and sell it for a massive amount under initial costs.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2005 at 1433 hrs


  3. I don’t have a problem with them not wanting to be a part of the missile defense system.  I just hope that they don’t expect us to plan their deployments in a way to defend Canada.

    On another note, the easiest time and place to hit a launched missile is shortly after takeoff.  That’s why missile interceptors are being deployed and tested on Navy ships.  These ships can loiter off the coast of hostile nuclear nations and be ready to hit anything they launch.  Hopefully, the much more difficult task of hitting a missile at full height and speed will be a last resort measure.

    Posted by Owen on February 25, 2005 at 1439 hrs


  4. Mollo:
    While Canada, if it joined the program, would likely have very little funding in relation to the dollars Washington is able to spend.  We’re not stupid - we know the primary agenda behing our participation in the program is for the weaponization of lands to the north.  Without Canadian participation, the possibilty of a missile being shot down coming over the north pole destined for a US target will be much more difficult to defend against, as Owen pointed out.  The closer you are, the more effective countermeasures are.

    Owen:
    Having ships loiter off the coast of rogue nations isn’t a sustainable tactic.  The amount of resources that would put on the military’s capabilities would be significant, and foremost expensive.  While it may be an effective counteractive measure, it still does not address the issue that led to 9/11 - terrorists exist not only in rogue nations, but also in (y)our own back yards. The actions of the US on a global stage has been the source of animosity by many nations towards the US.  Canadian approval means nothing, but our participation validates the program in the eyes of other nations.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2005 at 1551 hrs


  5. Devin,

    The missile shield isn’t meant to thwart a terrorist attack.  Terrorists are unlikely to obtain a nuclear ballistic missile.  The missile shield is intended to prevent, or deter, a nation from attacking with ballistic missiles.  It is an effort to move away from the MAD foreign policy of the Cold War.

    Posted by Owen on February 25, 2005 at 1719 hrs


  6. Owen, I’m not sure how you come to that conclusion about moving away from the foreign policies of years gone by.  The cold war saw more and more and more weapons being deployed - enough to destroy any other country a million times over.  The idea that these ICBMs - most of which would be relics of the 1960s and 70’s - are as significant a risk as other forms of destruction seems far fetched. 

    Yes, I realize it only takes one to cause a problem.  But in the same breath, the more likely threat is a biological weapon, a “dirty” bomb, or the release of a highly contagious virus.  None of which would be protected against by amassing what boils down to more missiles. 

    I have not seen the actual numbers, maybe you can fill that blank in: The billions of dollars spent on a missile defence system - would it not be more wisely invested in methods to scan and detect possible threats? The SARS infections are a prime example of virtually every nation in the world being unprepared for a biological threat.  I think it is more likely for someone to infect themselves before getting on an airplane with smallpox or similar, fly into the US virtually indetectable and then simply fly from city to city to eventually martyr themself for Allah, or as retribution for what is percieved as wrong-doing by current and past US policy.

    These terrorists are not scared to die to further their cause - we as a global community learned that the hard way with 9/11.  Again, the billions and billions of dollars to be spent on this missile defense plan would protect more US citizens if it was spent on counter-intelligence, technology to scan for threats coming into our borders (Canada is already working on deploying permanent scanning at all ports of entry), and preparing better systems to contain another problem like SARS.  SARS was a wake-up call to the whole world that unless we are prepared for such outbreaks (“naturally occuring” or terrorist related), there will likely be large scale casualties.

    I guess what it comes down to is that more battles are won with the tongue than the sword.  Preparing for a miniscule threat when other, much easier forms of attack are likely seems like the old saying: Penny wise and pound foolish.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 25, 2005 at 1947 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.