Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada

[tomahawk6]

Canada does 80% of its trade with the US which makes the relationship mutually beneficial.

 

[a_majoor]

Okay, sure, but what can we contribute?

Canada has an active aerospace industry, which has produced (for example) a space telescope microsat which only cost $10 million CDN, for an essentially hand built product.( Look up the MOST satellite). A mass produced version could cost only a few million and act as the spaceborn "eyes" not only for BMD, but for ALL CF activities across the globe. Look up where Canadian troops are, and this will come into focus.

The sensor and C4I infrastructure would have the biggest boost for our entire armed forces, as well as auxilliary uses for other Government departments (like the Coast Guard, natural resources, agriculture, air traffic control, the list goes on and on). Oddly enough, this also lends itself to protection against conventional threats like cruise missiles and enemy ships, and can help guide people towards suitcase nukes in transit, when coupled to other assets like enhanced law enforcement and intelligence.

Since we don't wish to contribute; the microsats will be built by Lougheed or Boeing rather than SPAR or Bristol Aerospace, and the US Coast Guard and US Department of the Interior will have fantastic new tools to carry out their work.

 

[a_majoor]

Pte Joe, if the Americans removed the KE interceptors and replaced them with nuclear warheads, then they would have a fully functional BMD system, just like the 1970 era "Safeguard" (which was closed for political reasons) or the corresponding Russian "Galosh" system, which is still operational since it is not affected by "political" decisions in the same way the American system was.

Every army in history had systems which either did not work as planned, or only worked after periods of development (or sometimes when they were used for another purpose altogether). The US fascenation with KE interceptors is due to the associated problems with deploying and using nuclear weapons, and they certainly can afford the time and money spent to make them work, or build enough of them to fill the sky with interceptors so at least one will strike the target.

Given the reality of a "live" BMD system in Russia, why is it a bad idea for anyone else to have one?

 

[old medic]

. See future threats do indeed involve privately owned ICBMs, as well as cruise missiles.

Once again Dare, your talking about something you have no idea about.  Provide some hard evidence to support your claim about privately owned ICBMs.

As we have seen in this US administration, they're perfectly content in going around the UN.

Then why are you arguing they need Canada?

Perhaps it would come from the DND's budget. So what? This sort of thing is far more important.

Again, you show complete ignorance of the real world. There is no support for what you suggest, either from the public,
or from the military to have its tiny and hard won budget money redirected to alternate government projects.

 

[JBP]

Pte Joe, if the Americans removed the KE interceptors and replaced them with nuclear warheads, then they would have a fully functional BMD system, just like the 1970 era "Safeguard" (which was closed for political reasons) or the corresponding Russian "Galosh" system, which is still operational since it is not affected by "political" decisions in the same way the American system was.

Every army in history had systems which either did not work as planned, or only worked after periods of development (or sometimes when they were used for another purpose altogether). The US fascenation with KE interceptors is due to the associated problems with deploying and using nuclear weapons, and they certainly can afford the time and money spent to make them work, or build enough of them to fill the sky with interceptors so at least one will strike the target.

Given the reality of a "live" BMD system in Russia, why is it a bad idea for anyone else to have one?

It's not a bad idea, in fact, it's a great idea...

I was one of those people who were against BMD for aaallllooongggg time. I've done some homework kind of and with the testing so far, I think it would be an awesome defensive measure. It's taken out 5 out of 8 test missles so far. To me, that's pretty damn good odds SO FAR, even though it's not fully functional or nuclear. That would have been millions of people those interceptor missles saved. MILLIONS upon millions.

Over the last month or so, I've changed my mind about BMD overall. I'd even go so far to suggest that maybe it'd be a good idea if they spread some interceptor bases across our gigantic northern front. That way we'd be protected at least abit from any "over the top" (artic/Russian) nuke attacks also and not just on one side of the coast! Only if those could be manned by Canadians, that way it'd open up some jobs for our friends here and create some co-operation between us and the USA. Have some liason officers from the USA at each missle base?

I realize also, not only is BMD of crucial importance to Canada's overall well being, it's a very strong geo-political tool also. It would serve to stregthen the ties with our US friends and maybe help clear up some trade issues down the road and possibly send a message to the world the Canada doesn't want to be a defensless country. The proverbial "whuppy cushion" of war as it were...

Unfortunately, it would cost A LOT of money to fully implement BMD. In the range of what we've been allocated for new spending (12-13Billion)-(Like we'll see it all! LOL) and tax payers just don't want to bother it seems. Or so that's what Mr. Martin is thinking anyway....

ALL THAT SAID: Basically I think BMD will eventually be a fact of Canada's defense within the next 3-7 years at the longest! The US knows eventually they can have our government agree to it by waiting until we've change governmental parties or had a new vote. They'll just political tool it so I don't see what all the fuss is about that Martin said no. It won't change the fact it'll happen eventually...

 

[Buzz]

I certainly do not dispute the lethality of a suitcase nuke. I only compare that an ICBM is considerably larger and more lethal.There are micronukes and such of various yields, but this goes around my point. Which is that, it's very important we be able to defend against an attack of this type and while we have a multitiered system to filter out and detect nuclear material being shipped here on boats and planes, we do not have any sort of system to filter out nuclear material being shipped on incoming missiles.

It's my understanding that anything that is a controlled substance has a UN number and has to be tracked and, not only that, it is traceable  under ISO standardization. Should be anyway.  Not all the time in countries that take it upon themselves to make and not keep track of or have logs of.  But your right to say there is no way of knowing if it is a nuke warhead on an inbound ICBM or...a biological one for that matter.  Both would be disastrous but if we could scramble and intercept it in time, via early warning by the upgraded NORAD, would it really matter so long as we take it out of commission.  I think that would be the ultimate goal versus waiting to see what we're dealing with.  Basically, does it really matter what payload it's carrying because it's going to have to be take out anyway. But as stated earlier where it's taken out plays a big role because the majority of the canadian pop. lives within 200 km of the US - CAN Border.  Something that would probably be a greater concern. no? So I'm not sure if your just agreeing to disagree.  Would that be a more probable assumption?  Personally, I know I would be pissed if a ICBM was taken down near the say 50th parallel and wiped out a town ..just because it was enroute to the US. what would you think about that?

It is also my understanding that even though you take the missle out of commision it won't necessarily explode or detonate? So this scenero based town might survive...but would this assumption be true?

I really like the idea of contracting out the work to Canadian companies to support our own defence system.  It's job creation and it's supporting our own. 

I'm done....

Cheers!!
-Buzz 

 

[FastEddy]

the majority of the canadian pop. lives within 200 km of the US - CAN Border.  

It is also my understanding that even though you take the missle out of commision it won't necessarily explode or detonate? So this scenero based town might survive...but would this assumption be true?  

Just an inquiry, If the points of entry for an ICBM would be over the Arctic or the Northern Pacific, Where would NORAD pick it up. Where would it be over when our trusty interceptors engaged it (and if so with what?), of course without consulting Mr. Dithers as to intercept or not.

And my final point of interest is, would its destruction detonate its nuclear warhead (creating a Air Burst),
presuming it was Nuclear.

 

[Dare]

Once again Dare, your talking about something you have no idea about.  Provide some hard evidence to support your claim about privately owned ICBMs.

"Hard evidence" of a future threat? Right. How about Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan the rogue scientist? He sure got around, that fellow. And that's just one guy we know. Again, as I'm trying to explain. This is about *future threats*. Not about *todays threats*. I'm not talking about ICBMs you can simply buy at Walmart here. I'm talking about terrorist groups aquiring this technology and some plutonium/uranium. Don't think it's any more than that, because they have the resources, money and will to operate an ICBM. Whatever delivery method they choose to use. Ie. "Mr President, we have an ICBM directed at your country, release our prisoners or we will blow up a major city." What do you do then? Hm? What makes you so sure you know where this ICBM is in the first place? Or cruise missile? Why would we willingly leave our country open to such a thing, simply because we're worried about funding? It seems as though everyone else is going to pay for it at the moment but it would definitely be nice of us to put in some millions and/or at least a contribution of diplomatic support for the concept.

Then why are you arguing they need Canada?

Where did I say they "needed" Canada? They *want* Canada on board. They obviously don't Need Canada on board. And since when does the UN equate to Canada?

Again, you show complete ignorance of the real world. There is no support for what you suggest, either from the public,
or from the military to have its tiny and hard won budget money redirected to alternate government projects.

Framed in the proper context, our "leaders" could have easily put it through but instead they allowed the media to chew on it for years on end, without actually showing any leadership. Not only that, why do you think that NMD would not be run by the military? The US doesn't need large sums of money from us, they would like some support for our mutual defence. Being involved in this system, being at the table at something that *will* effect our airspace, even if we are not at the table, would seem to be a pretty good idea.

 

[Dare]

1,2,3] Of course we should be concerned about where these missiles are taken out. Which is a Major reason why would should be *involved* in it's planning and setup. So we have a say where and how things are operated. As of now we have abdicated that knowing full well the Americans are going to go ahead anyways.
4,5] Yes, it is possible and even likely that once you kill the missile the warhead may still be intact then fall and detonate on impact. This happened a lot to SCUD missiles during Desert Storm that were shot by Patriot missile batteries. It's also possible that it won't detonate. I would think it's more likely it would though. The plan though, is to have several layers of defence with the idea of keeping the missile from even getting to our continent, let alone over a population centre.

It's my understanding that anything that is a controlled substance has a UN number and has to be tracked and, not only that, it is traceable  under ISO standardization. Should be anyway.  Not all the time in countries that take it upon themselves to make and not keep track of or have logs of.  But your right to say there is no way of knowing if it is a nuke warhead on an inbound ICBM or...a biological one for that matter.  Both would be disastrous but if we could scramble and intercept it in time, via early warning by the upgraded NORAD, would it really matter so long as we take it out of commission.  I think that would be the ultimate goal versus waiting to see what we're dealing with.  Basically, does it really matter what payload it's carrying because it's going to have to be take out anyway. But as stated earlier where it's taken out plays a big role because the majority of the canadian pop. lives within 200 km of the US - CAN Border.  Something that would probably be a greater concern. no? So I'm not sure if your just agreeing to disagree.  Would that be a more probable assumption?  Personally, I know I would be pissed if a ICBM was taken down near the say 50th parallel and wiped out a town ..just because it was enroute to the US. what would you think about that?

It is also my understanding that even though you take the missle out of commision it won't necessarily explode or detonate? So this scenero based town might survive...but would this assumption be true?

I really like the idea of contracting out the work to Canadian companies to support our own defence system.  It's job creation and it's supporting our own. 

I'm done....

Cheers!!
-Buzz 

 

[Edward Campbell]

A litle more fuel, from today's Ottawa Citizen at: http://www.canada.com/ottawa/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=c929c12e-611c-4003-8dcd-8f676dd2d7db

Space program could feed data to missile shield

U.S. told Canadian technology could play role in defence plan

a journalist
The Ottawa Citizen

Sunday, February 27, 2005

The Canadian military's fledgling space program could provide the U.S. with backdoor support for its missile defence shield, according to a plan envisioned by the generals in Ottawa years ago and quietly promoted to the Americans.

But defence analysts question whether such space programs will be able to repair the damage to political and military relations created by Prime Minister Paul Martin's decision not to have Canada take part in the missile system.

At least two Canadian space surveillance sensors, to be launched over the next several years, are capable of feeding information to the U.S. for possible support to the missile defence system, or a smaller version of the shield being built for use on overseas missions.

And while Defence department representatives have officially said the programs are not linked to the Pentagon's anti-missile system, that did not stop officers from informing the U.S. years ago that the space program is designed, not only to provide the Canadian military with new capabilities, but to show the country's commitment to the U.S. and provide a roundabout contribution to the missile shield.

Defence analyst David Rudd said the space programs have the potential to develop into a situation similar to the controversy earlier this week over Frank McKenna's comments on missile defence.

Mr. McKenna, the country's new ambassador to Washington, said Canada was already taking part in the U.S. program since it approved changes last summer to allow Norad to track incoming missiles, an assessment Mr. Rudd agrees with.

"This is all so typically very Canadian," added Mr. Rudd, executive director of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.

"We want to be in the tent, but at the same time stay virginal."

At the heart of the military's plan is the Joint Space Project, a mixture of space-based surveillance and intelligence-gathering systems. According to a memorandum detailing a series of meetings in 1998, U.S. Lt.-Gen. Lester Lyles, director of the Ballistic Missile Defence Organization, was included in high-level discussions outlining how Canada could participate in the shield.

"This should prove helpful in determining the best way through which to develop a Canadian defence space capability, through the Joint Space Project, that will provide an asymmetrical contribution," Canadian defence officials wrote.

The asymmetrical contribution would create a space program that could be seen as making a contribution to shield or, if the Canadian government decided against that, would still be of value in contributing to the overall security of North America.

Included in that program is Project Sapphire, a $75-million surveillance sensor to be launched in several years. Sapphire will gather information on the whereabouts of orbiting debris and defunct satellites that could pose a hazard to spacecraft, as well as provide data on such objects re-entering the Earth's atmosphere. That information would be very useful to the shield's warning systems since the data could be used to determine that such objects were not incoming ballistic missiles. At the same time, Sapphire will keep on eye on foreign satellites, feeding the information into the U.S. space surveillance network.

Disarmament analysts worry Sapphire could be used for targeting enemy satellites, but Canadian military officials stress the program's mission is benign.

But a June 1999 report prepared for Canada's then-top officer, Gen. Maurice Baril, noted Sapphire would not only provide a solid contribution to the military partnership with the Americans, but could "be accepted by the United States as a contribution offsetting benefits to Canada of a national missile defence system" should Canada agree to participate.

In December 2002, officials at Defence Research and Development Canada in Ottawa outlined several programs on the go that could be of use in a smaller version of the missile shield the U.S. is developing. Included among those is a new, high-frequency radar being installed on Canada's coastlines, as well as the next generation Radarsat satellite that the military will use for surveillance, primarily for the ocean approaches to Canada.

The portable version of the high-frequency radar could be used as a low-cost ballistic missile detection system, providing early warning and rough estimates of launch positions and impact points of enemy warheads, according to a report prepared by the Ottawa scientists. "Canada does have good industrial capability in systems that are peripheral to missile defence," their study concluded. "While Radarsat is not a missile surveillance system, future versions could help to understand what is happening on the ground."

That view is supported by a report from Foreign Affairs officials, who note Radarsat could be used to track portable missile launchers on the ground.

Defence analyst Jim Fergusson says while information gathered by Canadian space sensors will still be welcomed by the U.S., what the Bush administration really wanted was the Martin government's political support for the shield and an agreement to allow the Canadian Forces to directly take part in the system. "The idea of us being able to leverage small investments such as Radarsat and Sapphire into bigger access and bigger knowledge is pretty well dead in the water now," said Mr. Fergusson, director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies in Winnipeg. "I think they'll shut those doors on us."

Other portions of the Joint Space Project have branched off into secretive endeavours and little is known about their relationship to missile defence. Project Polar Ice, a Canadian surveillance space system that could be launched at the end of the decade, was started after the Defence department accepted an invitation from U.S. officials to contribute to an American spy system. Another program, dubbed Troodos, cost the Defence department $50 million and is believed to be a system designed to accept data from the Pentagon's spy satellites.

Editors and publishers are keeping the heat on PM PM (a.k.a. Mr. Dithers) because he and his cabinet and senior officials are trying to have it both ways; good on the editors and publishers (and writers, too, a journalist): hypocrisy smells.   It is also 'good news' for publishers and editors â “ something a bit controversial to fill the blanks between adverts.   That being said, and slightly off topic, I prefer the Globe and Mail's solution ... last Friday I, like someone named Dan Gleason, was pleased to see, on the front page, above the fold, the picture of an attractive young lady.   Mr. Gleason summed up my reaction very well in a letter to the Good Grey Globe which said:

Bye-bye Boyd

By DAN GLEASON
Saturday, February 26, 2005 - Page A18

Fredericton -- I had never heard of Suzanne Boyd or of her fashion magazine before I saw your story. However, any excuse to put a picture of a beautiful woman on your front page is okay by me. Keep up the good work.

 

[tomahawk6]

The US has had in place for a long time US officers who are shadows of Canadian officers in NORAD who can step in to replace their counterparts. This has been necessary with the increasingly unreliability of Canadian governments.

My guess is that a launch will be detected as soon as the rocket engines fire up. The MDA web site offers three opportunities to engage a missile. The boost phase - first 3-5 minutes of launch at altitudes of 300 miles or less. Mid course phase which is when the vehicles stops thrusting and this gives a 20 minute engagement window. Terminal phase is 30 seconds to a minute as the warhead begins its descent.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Ok hypothetical scenario...what if we did sign on to the BMD (as I think we should have). 2 missiles are launched from the Rogue nation of Iceland, one is targetted towards Washington and one is targetted towards Ottawa, for what ever reason only one interceptor is available, which city would be saved? I think you already know the answer. So whats the difference, we sign on or we don't sign on we would never have that much of a say irregardless.

 

[big_johnson1]

Just an inquiry, If the points of entry for an ICBM would be over the Arctic or the Northern Pacific, Where would NORAD pick it up. Where would it be over when our trusty interceptors engaged it (and if so with what?), of course without consulting Mr. Dithers as to intercept or not.

And my final point of interest is, would its destruction detonate its nuclear warhead (creating a Air Burst),
presuming it was Nuclear.

It's more the heat plume from ignition that initially gets attention, as any rocket requires quite the "explosion" (controlled) to get into orbit.

As for destroying an inbound missile, well, think about this. It took YEARS in the 40s to perfect the explosive symetry to properly compress the plutonium in the first implosion bomb (Fat Man), and everything is timed to the point where the explosives need to go off at EXACTLY the same time to produce a shock wave capable of compressing plutonium to a critical state. It wouldn't take much to disrupt that explosion to the point where it doesn't allow the nuclear material to chain react. Of course, you'd still have radioactive material scattered for hundreds of kilometers.

 

[a_majoor]

Ok hypothetical scenario...what if we did sign on to the BMD (as I think we should have). 2 missiles are launched from the Rogue nation of Iceland, one is targetted towards Washington and one is targetted towards Ottawa, for what ever reason only one interceptor is available, which city would be saved? I think you already know the answer. So whats the difference, we sign on or we don't sign on we would never have that much of a say irregardless.

That only assumes we are a "trophy wife". If we make contributions in kind (space sensors, land for bases or radar systems etc.) there will be a few more interceptors available...

 

[FastEddy]

It's more the heat plume from ignition that initially gets attention, as any rocket requires quite the "explosion" (controlled) to get into orbit.

As for destroying an inbound missile, well, think about this. It took YEARS in the 40s to perfect the explosive symetry to properly compress the plutonium in the first implosion bomb (Fat Man), and everything is timed to the point where the explosives need to go off at EXACTLY the same time to produce a shock wave capable of compressing plutonium to a critical state. It wouldn't take much to disrupt that explosion to the point where it doesn't allow the nuclear material to chain react. Of course, you'd still have radioactive material scattered for hundreds of kilometers.

Thank you Feral. then it would be advantageous to detonate a ICBM as close to the Launch Site as possible.
Is this possible with the U.S. BMD (when perfected), lets say some where in the Middle East ?.

Is there any detection difference between a ICBM and a Orbital Satellite Rocket ?.

Excluding the U.S. BMD, what method of effective Interception does Canada have and how close to North America would interception likely be ?.

If some of these questions are beyond your scope, don't worry, maybe one of our members might be able to fill us in, thanks again for any information contributed.

Is NORAD on its own capable of detecting these launches (heat plume etc.) ?.

 

[Thirstyson]

then it would be advantageous to detonate a ICBM as close to the Launch Site as possible.

Yes... a more reliable BMD solution is sea and/or air based around current threats. ICBMs are much easier to track and take down when they are on the way up and an interceptor follows them instead of going head on.

Is this possible with the U.S. BMD (when perfected), lets say some where in the Middle East ?.

Not the controversial system that is being deployed right now.

Is there any detection difference between a ICBM and a Orbital Satellite Rocket ?.

Not really, many ICBM rocket models have been altered to launch satellites (and even vice versa). The main difference would be the launch location.

 

[FastEddy]

Yes... a more reliable BMD solution is sea and/or air based around current threats. ICBMs are much easier to track and take down when they are on the way up and an interceptor follows them instead of going head on.

Not the controversial system that is being deployed right now.

Not really, many ICBM rocket models have been altered to launch satellites (and even vice versa). The main difference would be the launch location.

Good job Thirstyson, I'd still be interested on NORAND and how we would cope with it, if it got to close or over us

Thanks, FastEddy.

 

[Infanteer]

Ever since Ogdensburg in 1941, Ottawa and Washington exist in the same "sphere" of "Homeland Defence", whether we Canadians like it or not.

 

[big_johnson1]

Excluding the U.S. BMD, what method of effective Interception does Canada have and how close to North America would interception likely be ?.

If some of these questions are beyond your scope, don't worry, maybe one of our members might be able to fill us in, thanks again for any information contributed.

Is NORAD on its own capable of detecting these launches (heat plume etc.) ?.

I don't know what if any method of interception we have, although I kinda doubt we have one. Missile interception is a pretty exact science, sometimes refered to as "hitting a bullet with a bullet", although I suppose if we wanted to there would be no reason why a nuclear tipped anti-air missile like the old Bomarcs couldn't take out an inbound ICBM. The Bomarc would probably only have to get within half a mile to take out the missile. Of course there is always the fun of radiation from using nukes to take out nukes.

As for NORAD detecting those launches, the heat given off by a launching missile or satellite or whatever would be visible from space without a problem, even in warmer parts of the globe. Remember, it's essentially a controlled/focused explosion. If you believe what Tom Clancy writes the NRO could read the ID #s on the side of the ICBM

 

[FastEddy]

I don't know what if any method of interception we have, although I kinda doubt we have one. Missile interception is a pretty exact science, sometimes refered to as "hitting a bullet with a bullet", although I suppose if we wanted to there would be no reason why a nuclear tipped anti-air missile like the old Bomarcs couldn't take out an inbound ICBM. The Bomarc would probably only have to get within half a mile to take out the missile. Of course there is always the fun of radiation from using nukes to take out nukes.

As for NORAD detecting those launches, the heat given off by a launching missile or satellite or whatever would be visible from space without a problem, even in warmer parts of the globe. Remember, it's essentially a controlled/focused explosion. If you believe what Tom Clancy writes the NRO could read the ID #s on the side of the ICBM

[/color


Thanks Feral,

So NORAD is on line and hooked up with satilites we or the U.S. have deployed ?.