• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada

  • Thread starter Thread starter the patriot
  • Start date Start date
The current owners of nules are states. Even with the able assistence of A.Q. Khan, there are some states which would like the bomb, but still don't have it. Further down the food chain, there are groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and the late, unlamented Al Qaeda which would like the bomb, but have not convinced their state sponsors to hand one over.

BMD by itself is only one part of the defense plan, and I wish everyone would get that as point one. BMD reduces the attackers options by degrading ICBM strikes, and forces either resources be diverted to strengthening the ICBM fleet, or to alternative means of delivery, which lack the immediate threat factor of an ICBM, as well as the reliability of the delivery system ("What do you mean, the container ship sank in a storm?").

A close look at the US will show activity on many fronts, including strengthening the Coast Guard, the USA Patriot Act, new administrators in charge of the CIA and so on. Lots of potential attack avenues are being forclosed, and BMD is just the roof overhead.
 
Regardless whether Canada chooses to join in (and I think it a lost opportunity if we do not), BMD is a game the Americans can afford to play and they are setting the stakes.  Not everyone can afford the ante; some will have to fold and others will risk bankrupting themselves in the effort to keep up.  And, whether or not the war of economic attrition is intended, there is retention of technology overmatch to consider.
 
I suppose Canada could become involved with the Air Portable/Mounted systems.  That way we would be in on the research and have an excuse to purchase aircraft for the Air Force.  Granted they would be dedicated to NORAD, not Air Transport Command.  They may bring some Esprit de Corps to the Air Force and help their recruiting problems for pilots.  We should have more planes in the air.

GW
 
A far better investment would be space born sensors and the C4I support network, which would also support CF units at home and abroad. If possible, the next step would be to arm Navy vessels with an ABM version of the "Standard" missile (already part of the Aegis system), which would have far fewer political consequences, as well as being militarily more flexible.

People need to realize that ABM is actually easy, if you are willing to take the quick and dirty approach: put a nuclear warhead on your interceptor. India could establish an ABM shield in a few years (constrained only by the amount of resources available to build the missiles and nuclear warheads), as could France. Russia already has a nuclear ABM shield, with a non nuclear second tier, and China may also have the rudiments of such a system.

Hiding our heads in the sand and sprinkling pixie dist around the UN will not make these facts go away, if we are going to go, then go. If not, come out and say so, say why and enumerate the potential costs we are willing to incur to do so.
 
I was thinking of the Airborne Laser systems that they are testing.  A great research project.  Requires Aircraft, which are a little cheaper than rockets and satellites.  Would give us a little bit higher profile.

GW
 
ABL is a great concept, and I will be very interested to see how it works. Given the potential, I can see a lot of R&D heading this way.

In theory this is a multi tier system; if you are in theater, you can get a shot at missiles during launch, during mid-course, the plane turns the laser mirror towards space and fires at the warheads or "busses", and planes over the homeland can attempt terminal intercepts. When you are not busy with missiles, in theory you have a wonderful platform for zapping air and ground targets.

You can picture how this would fit into the bigger picture once the bugs are worked out; warships and laser armed planes are dispatched to the crisis area to prepare for boost phase intercepts; while a second wave of aircraft stand by in Hawaii prepared to scramble for mid course intercepts. At home, the rocket interceptors are backstopped by another wave of laser armed aircraft for terminal intercept.

Fully effective ABM defense will still require a layer of orbiting interceptors ("Smart pebbles") to thicken the mid course intercept layer.
 
This is interesting: http://nouvelles.gc.ca/cfmx/CCP/view/en/index.cfm?articleid=127259&

Robert Wright was appointed as National Security Advisor to the Prime Minister and Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet in April of 2003.

There are rumours that he is wearing the blame for the fact that George W. Bush did not sing from the Team Martin songbook when he visited Canada in December, especially when missile defence (unexpectedly) popped up.   He is also, according to the same rumours, blamed for the Charkaoui fiasco; many prominent Québec Liberals, including Alexandre â Å“Saschaâ ? Trudeau and Warran Allmand have lined up with Canadian celebrities, etc, to support and post bail for Charkaoui, defying Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan and Mr. Wright. Finally, Alex Himmelfarb, Clerk of the Privy Council and head of the Canadian public service and, arguably, the most powerman man in Ottawa, including Paul Martin, is rumoured to be uncomfortable with the entire national security apparatus â “ he is a leading light in the leftish/human rights community: a strong supporter of minority rights with a well shaped distrust of the military/national security/police forces.

Martin is facing a Liberal Party convention which will, very likely, vote to reject missile defence â “ there is near total opposition to missile defence (and a whole host of other military/security issues) in Québec, almost all of Québec, the Greater Toronto Area and the Greater Vancouver/urban British Columbia.   The Liberals understand that they cannot win without making substantial gains in Québec and holding on to everything they have in Ontario and BC; they also understand that they can be toppled if they start to lose seats in the GTA and BC to the NDP or Greens.   They have to shift left at their convention or risk losing power â “ and nothing, nothing at all, including Canada itself, matters more to Liberals than power.

There is much more than just missile defence at risk: everything from smart (open to/from the US) borders to immigration/refugee screening reform were on Mr. Wright's plate: all these things matter to the Americans and to the Liberal Party of Canada and they (the US and the Libs) are facing in opposite directions.

 
What a sad state of affairs that after serving the Crown for over 20 years, I must seriously contemplate using family connections to get the "Green Card" and move my family to the United States to ensure our saftey,  educational and economic opportunities.

Should a major terrorist event occur in Canada, or an incoming missile be shot down over Canadian territory with the resultant loss of life and property, the only response is to wish the entire weak, self serving Canadian "elites" who brought such catastrophies on our nation to rot in h**l.
 
I am in agreement with many others who have the same opinion.  I don't believe the threat is from missiles slamming into North America from rival nations or rogue states.  The terrorist suitcase nuke or bio bomb is the real threat now-a-days. 

What do you think, Bruce?
 
This is going be way off topic, so mods feel free to branch it.

The terrorist suitcase nuke or bio bomb is the real threat now-a-days

Both of those threats are actually very improbable. Now, instead of repeating what has been said in other places, I will link to discussions and articles posted on another board, in this case the Lightfighter discussion board (I'm not sure what the policy for linking to other boards is here, so if I'm breaking any rules please let me know).

For a discussion of the â Å“suitcase nukeâ ? threat, try reading this thread http://lightfighter.net/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/9776090573/m/506107947:

For the Bio/nerve/chemical weapon idea, I am quoting an article this from this thread http://lightfighter.net/eve/ubb.x/a/tpc/f/9776090573/m/950101018. The original article requires you to subscribe to the service so I can't link to it.

Al Qaeda and the Threat of Chemical and Biological Weapons
Dec 03, 2004 2009 GMT

A pamphlet published on the CIA's Web site says al Qaeda documents captured in Afghanistan indicate that the network possesses crude procedures for producing VX nerve agent, sarin and mustard gas. In light of this information, the mainstream media recently have focused on the possibility that al Qaeda will use chemical and/or biological weapons (CBWs) against the United States and U.S. interests abroad.

The American public has been besieged with warnings about al Qaeda and its CBW program since shortly after the United States launched a 1998 cruise missile attack against Sudan's Shifa pharmaceutical factory, which Washington said was a terrorist-related facility. Stratfor also has written about the danger posed by terrorists using chemical or biological weapons on more than one occasion. Although these warnings are not without foundation, Stratfor believes al Qaeda is neither capable of producing mass quantities of deadly agents nor does it have the means to effectively dispense them.

We know from the 2001 court testimony of Ahmed Ressam -- the Algerian national who plotted to blow up Los Angeles International Airport -- that al Qaeda members conducted experiments using cyanide and other toxins to kill dogs at the Deronta training camp in Afghanistan. Videos recovered by U.S. troops after the invasion of Afghanistan supported this testimony and, as noted by the CIA, seized al Qaeda training manuals have included recipes for making biological toxins and chemical agents. Recipes for producing toxins such as ricin are also readily available on the Internet.

The information about al Qaeda's experiments with chemical weapons should come as no surprise. In an interview aired on ABC News in December 1998, Osama bin Laden said, "If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then this is an obligation I carried out, and I thank God for enabling me to do so."

The evidence is clear: al Qaeda does possess the capability to make and use crude chemical and biological weapons. However, despite the fear that these substances engender, they often are quite ineffective as weapons. An examination of Japanese apocalyptic cult Aum Shinrikyo's CBW program provides some important insight into these weapons and the cost and limitations of such systems.

According to testimony in the trials of Aum Shinrikyo leaders, the group conducted 17 known CBW attacks or attempted attacks between 1990 and 1995, 10 of them using chemical agents (four with sarin, four with VX, one with phosgene and one with sodium cyanide), and seven using biological agents (four with anthrax and three with botulinum toxin). The Japanese government further suspects Aum Shinrikyo in another 13 attacks that remain unsolved. The group also reportedly killed several dissident members using VX nerve agent.

Included among Aum Shinrikyo's attacks were several large-scale operations. For example, in April of 1990, the group used a fleet of three trucks equipped with aerosol sprayers to release liquid botulinum toxin on the Imperial Palace, the Diet and the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, and two U.S. naval bases and the airport in Narita.

Between June and August of 1993, the group sprayed thousands of gallons of liquid anthrax in Tokyo. It used sprayers mounted on the roof of their headquarters on two occasions, and it also conducted two attacks with sprayer trucks, one against the Diet and the other against the Imperial Palace and the Tokyo Tower.

In June of 1994, Aum Shinrikyo used a van equipped with a sarin dispenser to attempt to kill three judges hearing a case against the group. The judges, who all lived in the same dormitory, survived the attack when the wind blew the sarin away from the building, but seven people in the neighborhood were killed.

Aum Shinrikyo's most successful attack was in March 1995, when members of the group punctured 11 sarin-filled plastic bags on five different subway trains, killing 12 people.

Aum Shinrikyo's team of highly trained scientists worked under ideal conditions in a first-world country with a virtually unlimited budget. The team worked in large, modern facilities to produce substantial quantities of chemical and biological weapons. Despite the millions of dollars the group spent on its CBW program, however, it still faced problems in creating virulent biological agents, and it also found it difficult to dispense those agents in an effective manner. Because of these problems, the militants succeeded in killing only a handful of people, and they did not cause the global Armageddon they endeavored to create.

Aum Shinrikyo's example shows us that creating and dispensing chemical and biological agents effectively on a large scale simply is not as easy as some would have us believe.

The March train bombings in Madrid provide an interesting comparison to the 1995 subway attacks. In many ways, the attacks were similar: both groups placed multiple devices in the commuter train system and intended to create maximum casualties. However, the conventional improvised explosive device used in Madrid is estimated to have cost only $10,000 to manufacture --only a small fraction of what it cost Aum Shinrikyo to develop its CBW program. Yet, despite the great disparity in cost, the Tokyo subway attack killed 12, and the Madrid bombings killed 191.

Al Qaeda has a history of attempting to commit spectacular terrorist attacks. Sometimes they have succeeded. As Stratfor has argued, al Qaeda is under tremendous pressure to commit another attack -- and a spectacular one at that. As the Aum Shinrikyo and the post-Sept. 11 anthrax-letter cases in the United States proved, chemical and biological weapons do cause a lot of panic, but when employed in limited quantities they will not create the number of casualties that al Qaeda is seeking.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the United States and its allies have actively pursued al Qaeda. The network has had millions of dollars of its assets seized in a number of countries, and it no longer has the safe haven of Afghanistan from which to operate. In other words, is in a very different place organizationally than was Aum Shinrikyo during the 1990s. Al Qaeda cannot easily build large modern factories capable of producing thousands of gallons of agents or toxins. It certainly can create small quantities of these compounds, but not enough to wreak the kind of damage it desires. Of course, we are discussing al Qaeda prime, and not the larger jihadist universe. Independent cells and lone wolves will almost certainly attempt to brew some of the recipes in the al Qaeda cookbook.

Stratfor believes that the al Qaeda network intends to conduct another terrorist spectacular -- and will do so if and when it can. We also believe that it is far more likely to utilize conventional explosives -- with or without a radiological kicker -- than the VX, sarin and mustard gas mentioned in the CIA pamphlet.
 
Things that make you go hmmmm, indeed ... from today's Globe and Mail web site at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050222.wmiss0222_3/BNStory/National/
Canada 'already part' of missile defence: McKenna

By OLIVER MOORE
Tuesday, February 22, 2005 Updated at 4:05 PM EST
Globe and Mail Update

The next ambassador to the United States raised the stakes in the debate over missile defence program by saying Tuesday that Canada is already a part of the controversial program.

Frank McKenna said that Canadian participation is such that he does not know what more could be asked by the United States, an argument that could remove the need for the minority Liberals to make a contentious decision on ballistic missile defence (BMD).

â Å“We're a part of it now,â ? he said, citing an amendment to NORAD, a continental defence pact, that has given the joint command responsibility for watching for incoming missiles.

â Å“There's no doubt, in looking back," he said, "that the NORAD amendment has given, has created part â “ in fact a great deal â “ of what the United States means in terms of being able to get the input for defensive weaponry.â ?

The Liberal caucus is split on participation in the thus-far unsuccessful program, and the government has not officially made up its mind whether to sign on.

Defence Minister Bill Graham insisted later Tuesday that nothing has changed in the federal position, leaving opposition parties to jump on the apparent disparity between the two men's statements.

â Å“Last summer, Canada agreed to NORAD's monitoring of incoming missiles,â ? deputy Conservative Leader Peter MacKay said.

â Å“Last August, this minister said that decision does not affect in any way or determine the ultimate decision of whether Canada will participate in missile defence. Mr. McKenna's statements today clearly contradict that position. ... Will the Parliament of Canada have a full debate with all the facts on missile defence, or is Canada's position already a done deal?

Mr. Graham insisted that no decision had been reached and that any debate would address the benefit to Canada.

In response to another round of Opposition attacks, he recalled previous Tory support for missile defence and queried why the party had changed its tune. Despite hoots from the opposition benches, he then insisted that his own party had not altered its position.

â Å“What the ambassador said today is we're helping with NORAD, which is what we've always done and which every member of the house knows,â ? Mr. Graham said. â Å“The Prime Minister has been clear, all of us have been very clear on it.â ?

The Conservative Party has traditionally supported the missile-defence program, while the New Democrats and Bloc Québécois are opposed.

The Grits have consistently denied that they have committed Canada to the program, but Mr. McKenna, speaking to reporters after appearing at the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, said bluntly that recent changes to NORAD mean that the country is already involved.

Mr. Graham said in the House that the NORAD amendment was a logical thing to do to â Å“helpâ ? the United States, but that further participation in BMD will come only after an all-party debate.

Mr. McKenna also questioned what more the United States could want, a reference to the public demand last year by U.S. President George W. Bush that Canada get off the fence and join the program.

â Å“We're part of it now and the question is what more do we need,â ? he asked.

The debate over missile defence has split both politicians and voters.

It has left the government weighing the need to maintain good relations with the United States â “ Canada's biggest trading partner and defence guarantor â “ against the counter-argument that missile defence is unworkable, prohibitively expensive and will lead to an arms race.

Development of the missile-defence program has been plagued with failures, the latest coming last week when an interceptor missile did not launch as expected. It was the second such failure in months.

Critics say that the program can only pass tests that have been designed to succeed while proponents counter that any complex technology will inevitably fail many times before it succeeds.

Sounds like McKenna stayed awake for his briefings in Festung Pearson (DFAIT's bunker like HQ) and he has contradicted Martin, Graham and Pettigrew ... Oh what a tangled web we weave ... and so on.

Beyond that, I think we need to see Canada and Missile Defence from three distinct US perspectives:

1. The Pentagon has 99.9% of what it wants and needs from Canada through the updated/amended, renewed NORAD agreement.   As far as DoD is concerned, Canada is IN, already ... no problems, just as McKenna said;

2. The State Department has most of what it wants and, maybe a third of what it needs.   Canada is IN, by any sensible operational calculation but State cannot wave an agreement, signed by Canada, in the faces of skeptics; but

3. The White House doesn't really need much of anything from Canada â “ we don't count for much down there, but it wants more, much more: a complete repudiation of the Chrétien policies â “ almost all of them â “ towards US security.   President Bush was offended â “ as a person and, especially, as the President of the United States â “ by the comments Chrétien made and also those which he excused or for which he (later) apologized; Bush is determined that Canada will repudiate those comments or pay ... and pay, and pay.

McKenna's remarks will smooth his way in Washington â “ even if he has to go on every talk show in Canada and says â Å“I was misinterpreted.â ?   The Americans will understand that he understands and that he too wants to get over the Chrétien era.
 
As mentioned in several posts from the past, NORAD must evolve.  Advances in military
hardware (air, land, sea, space), communications and information, tactics, and intelligence
gathering by friendies and non-friendlies from a technical point of view forces NORAD to
evolve and this includes the concept within "BMD".  The state of the world and possible
threats always changes.

The difference in perception between "BMD" and the challenges NORAD may be asked to
defend against becomes sticky in politics.  NORAD is a military organsization with a
idea of "theres a multiude of possible threats, lets deal with it".  The politics of the situation
may say "well, lets pick and choose what threats we wish to deal with" given the financial
focus.  "BMD" falls into the crossfire of public opinion, politics, and practical/technical
employment of continental defense. 

Though NORAD is a partnership, the US has approximately 10X Canada's population, provides
a vast majority of the force, and has it own unique point of view in defense.  It will get
interesting as the debate rolls into maintstream public discussion.
 
The latest, from today's Globe and Mail at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050222.wmiss0223/BNStory/National/ confirms what John Ibbitson suggested (see my contribution, above « Reply #168 on: February 10, 2005, 08:33:41 ») and, I think, the 'why' of it: Martin cannot 'lead' his party on this issue - it will push him into a corner which is, for him, both uncomfortable and, maybe, dangerous.

PM set to reject missile defence

By MICHAEL DEN TANDT AND DANIEL LEBLANC
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 Updated at 1:21 AM EST
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

Ottawa â ” The federal government will announce this week that it will not participate in U.S. President George W. Bush's controversial planned missile defence shield, sources say.

Prime Minister Paul Martin will state Canada's position in the House of Commons tomorrow or Friday, the sources said last night.

"The PM will make the announcement in the coming days," said a senior government official who is familiar with the issue.

An official in Mr. Martin's office said the government would neither confirm nor deny that a final decision on the program is imminent.

"We'll announce when we have an announcement to make, and until that time there's no comment," the PMO official said.

In recent days, a number of senior government sources have suggested that Ottawa believes it is impossible to sign on to the plan because of its deep unpopularity.

The United States was told of Canada's plans at a NATO summit in Brussels attended by Mr. Martin and Mr. Bush, and the news was also conveyed yesterday through diplomats in Ottawa and Washington, the Canadian Press reported.

"[The Americans] were told we will not participate," the news agency quoted a federal official as saying. "It is a firm 'no.' I am not sure it is an indefinite 'no.' "

The news followed a dramatic day in which the issue dominated debate in the House of Commons after Canada's incoming ambassador to the United States, Frank McKenna, said Canada is already effectively a part of the ballistic missile defence system because of a seven-month-old expansion of information-sharing under NORAD.

After repeatedly declining in a hearing of the Commons foreign affairs committee to state whether he believes Canada should join the missile defence project, Mr. McKenna suggested to reporters that a formal deal may have become largely symbolic.

"We're part of it now," the former New Brunswick premier said.

CTV News (also owned by Bell Globalmedia so same source?) reported the same thing last night.

Paul Martin has demonstrated sub-standard strategic, political and organizational leadership/management skills in his handling this issue.   It was an easy, no-brainer a mere 15 months ago, then he let it get away from him and he has lost because, we are told, here, by a fairly well connected rumour mill, that he personally, believes â “ for several good reasons â “ that Canada should, indeed must participate,   This is dithering which will come home to haunt him, and us.

At the very least George W. Bush will scupper Martin's L20 initiative ... the centre-piece of his foreign policy review ... which will now be delayed even further while Jennifer Welch et al do another revision.
 
BMD will go forward regardless of wether Canada jumps on board or not.  But it will be interesting to see the political fallout if the PM unconditionally rejects the program.  I believe that the PM will try to find a "happy medium" to satisfy all parties involved.
 
Kurhaus is right about the fact that it will go ahead, on board or not, so no matter what side of this debate you are on [ I admit I'm for it] why not at least try and grab some of the economical benefits?
If the US wishes to spend  a lot of money, I can't think of anywhere better than here.
 
John Ibbitson, in today's Globe and Mail   (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050223.wibbitson23/BNStory/National/ ) does not have it quite right, especially re: the highlighted portion, below.

Rockets, red glares

By JOHN IBBITSON
Wednesday, February 23, 2005 Updated at 1:47 AM EST
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

How badly did Frank McKenna misspeak? So badly that he utterly twisted the Liberal government's message just days before it may be ready finally to pull the plug on missile defence.

As previously reported, acceptance has been growing within the federal government in recent weeks that Canada will not be able to sign on to a missile defence agreement.

Prime Minister Paul Martin believes in the program, on the simple grounds that if the Americans are firing rockets into our air space in an attempt to destroy an incoming missile, Canada should be in on the decision. Defence Minister Bill Graham thinks the same thing.

But within the women's and Quebec caucuses of the Liberal Party, opposition to missile defence is strong. Opponents see it as a dangerous escalation of the arms race. Equally, it speaks to the latent strain of anti-Americanism, or at least anti-Republican Americanism, within the Liberal Party.

With caucus divided, and the grass roots of the party set to vote against missile defence at next week's policy conference, the only question was when would be the best â ” or least worst â ” time to pull the plug. There is word that announcement could come as soon as the end of this week.

Into this painful situation lumbered Frank McKenna, former premier of New Brunswick and Canada's new ambassador-designate to the United States.

After testifying to the House foreign affairs committee, Mr. McKenna seemed to suggest that an agreement that Canada signed last August to have NORAD monitor incoming missiles was tantamount to signing on to the whole program.

This is nonsense.

The Americans wanted an open declaration that Canada supports missile defence as a joint effort. They wanted some form of Canadian participation, not only in the NORAD command structure, but in the actual decision making. In effect, they wanted a Canadian in the room, cheering them on, if they had to try to shoot down a missile.

Some observers on the Hill suspected that Mr. McKenna's remarks were deliberate â ” part of a Machiavellian scheme to make it appear that Canada had lived up to Mr. Martin's earlier pledge to sign on to missile defence, even as the government pulled the plug on ratification. It is a theory worthy of Mackenzie King in its elegance and duplicity.

However, there is reliable word that the truth is more prosaic. Mr. McKenna was either badly briefed or failed to master the briefing. Under the glare of the cameras, he placed greater emphasis on the NORAD agreement than he should have.

Nothing is so attractive as a retired politician, which is why many observers are touting Mr. McKenna as a possible successor to Paul Martin. But retired politicians are often rusty when they return to public life. We all remember John Turner, and Jean Chrétien was no great shakes during his early days as an opposition leader.

Besides, this government isn't quite that devious (or maybe quite that smart) for such elaborate conspiracy theories.

The political cost of failing to support the United States on its missile defence program is bound to be high. For one thing, announcing it this week, to head off the revolt at the policy convention, would draw attention from today's budget, which is designed to be the Martin government's principal weapon to win the next election.

And the administration of President George W. Bush will know that Mr. Martin's word is not as good as his signature, and that he can be beaten into submission by the very elements in his own party most hostile to the U.S. administration.

The decision on missile defence will undermine everything that the Martin government has done to repair the strains in the Canada-U.S. relationship created over the past decade.

In the circumstances, a few flubs by the incoming ambassador to the United States are the least of this government's problems.

I believe that Mr. McKenna was well briefed, very, very well briefed â “ better briefed than are Paul Martin, Pierre Pettigrew and Bill Graham.    Mr. McKenna â “ like John Ibbiston â “ may have forgotten that he (McKenna) is now an official, a very, very senior official, and no longer a politician.   He was given the briefings which only the most senior officials get and he parroted some of the key points back.   Most of the most senior officials do not do that; they waffle at committee hearings, lots and lots of words, little information ... they hold about 90% of the elected politicians, in all parties, in extreme contempt.

Basically, the Americans have all they need from Canada and they are, operationally content â “ not happy, just content.   Some Americans, most notably in the White House, do not have all they want from us and they will, without fail, make Paul Martin and Canada pay for that ...   Ibbitson is quite right when he says: â ? The political cost of failing to support the United States on its missile defence program is bound to be high.â ? and â ?... the administration of President George W. Bush will know that Mr. Martin's word is not as good as his signature, and that he can be beaten into submission by the very elements in his own party most hostile to the U.S. administration.

The decision on missile defence will undermine everything that the Martin government has done to repair the strains in the Canada-U.S. relationship created over the past decade.â ?


Paul Martin is a failure as Prime Minister of Canada ... he, very clearly, cannot lead a two man pee parade at a convoy halt.



 
http://www.americanfreepress.net/03_17_03/North_Korean_Missile_/north_korean_missile_.html

Makes you think a little............
 
From the specific missile defence angle, Minister Goodale tabled a very, very smart budget.

This budget addresses the USA's most significant, long standing issue: Canada's disgracefully inadequate defence expenditures.   The money may never materialize, much less be well (efficiently/effectively) spent, but Americans, beginning with Ambassador Paul Cellucci, must welcome, even applaud this budget, even as they may have to moan about Canada, for now at least, staying out of the missile defence programme, per se.

Rob Peter and pay Paul ...
 
You will not be surprised to know that I agree with Paul Koring's analysis in today's Globe and Mail at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050224/MISSANALYSIS24/TPNational

All that's off table is chance to have finger on trigger

By PAUL KORING
Thursday, February 24, 2005 - Page A4

WASHINGTON -- The dithering, not the decision, may cause the most lasting damage.

Paul Martin's long-delayed decision to opt out of a continental missile defence shield won't leave Vancouver any more vulnerable to a nuclear-tipped missile from North Korea. The likely fallout will be in Washington, where the Prime Minister's efforts to repair relations and portray himself as a more reliable friend and partner than his predecessor, Jean Chrétien, just suffered a self-inflicted direct hit.

"Americans who watch Canada had higher hopes for Martin," said David Biette, director of the Canada Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center. "Instead, he has really relegated Canada to an irrelevant position."

Official American reaction was muted, with the Bush administration stressing that Canada-U.S. defence co-operation remains strong and that the biggest potential stumbling block on missile defence had been sorted out last summer.

But Canada's position looks opportunistic, playing to domestic sentiment rather than principled opposition.

For a year, Mr. Martin has done nothing to make the case for missile defence and by allowing its opponents to dominate the debate he allowed the issue to grow, say political and defence analysts in Washington.

"Martin hasn't been able to control the agenda," Mr. Biette said. "He said he wanted better relations [with Washington] but he is just unreliable in a different way." While "Chrétien just turned his back" to the Bush administration, Mr. Martin has delayed and lost control of his choices, he said.

Dwight Mason, a retired U.S. diplomat and former co-chairman of the Canada-U.S. Permanent Joint Board of Defence, said "the problem is that delay has become very expensive politically in Canada because it makes the issue bigger than it otherwise might be."

At first glance, Mr. Martin's strategy might seem to offer a double win for Canadians. They remain protected against the remote (but catastrophic) possibility that Pyongyang's unpredictable regime might launch one of its handful of nuclear warheads across the Pacific. But they can also maintain the posture that they are unsullied by the militarization of space.

Except that Canada is up to its neck -- by choice -- in the shield's key detection, tracking and identification systems, the networks of radar that are watched every second of every day by joint North American Aerospace Defence Command teams of military personnel in Cheyenne Mountain, Colo. Last summer, the Martin government explicitly agreed to use NORAD, complete with its Canadian component, as the front half of continental missile defence.

Or, as Canada's next ambassador to Washington, Frank McKenna, put it quite accurately: "We're part of it now."

With the NORAD problem solved, there's no need to try to pry the Canadians out of the mountain or keep them away from missile defence data processing so, in Mr. McKenna's words, Ottawa "has already given a great deal of what the United States needs."

That doesn't sound like poking Uncle Sam in the eye, which may be good politics for a minority government prime minister. But if American outrage was hoped for, it wasn't evident yesterday. Rather, there was a resigned sense that Canada is a sometimes-reliable ally.

All Mr. Martin has opted out of, really, is joint responsibility for pushing the firing button. The interceptor missiles would still rise from their silos in Alaska and California to kill incoming warheads, whether they are bound for Vancouver or Seattle.

In practical terms, the officer peering at the radar screen may be a Canadian. The officer who determines that the incoming blip is a warhead may be a Canadian. But the decision to fire an interceptor would always be made by an American.

Canada won't have it own interceptors or radars, but then none were ever planned.
Nor can Canada claim that it has opted out of the concept of missile defence, so long as its military personnel are watching for and tracking that possible threat.

As for taking a stand against the "militarization" of space: The current (and still not operational) missile defence system uses ground-based missiles. The satellites that form part of the detection and targeting system aren't weapons, although they are part of a weapons system. And so are the satellites that guide bombs dropped from Canadian warplanes.

Paul Martin failed, he screwed the pooch, etc ... he is a lousy leader.   His stupidity and timidity will do damage to his country.

The same edition of the same paper has it right, on the editorial page, at: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050224/EMISSILE24/TPComment

It says, in part:

On the issue of ballistic missile defence, as on so many others, Paul Martin has shown exceptionally poor leadership.

...

A stronger prime minister would have faced down these critics. He would have said to his caucus: Look, you may not like the idea of joining a U.S. defence program, but our friendship with the Americans is crucial and they are not asking very much here. I'm signing us up, so get on board.

A stronger prime minister would have gone to the country to argue his case. He would have pointed out that Washington was not asking Canada to bear any of the cost of missile defence. He would have pointed out that no anti-missile weapons would be based on Canadian soil. He would have pointed out that under the North American Aerospace Defence Command, Canada had always worked with the Americans to defend our continent from foreign threats, including missile attack. He would have pointed out that joining the system would give us the right to influence the program's development rather than sit passively on the sidelines.

A stronger prime minister would have done all these things. This is not a strong prime minister. Canada will pay the price.
 
Back
Top