A number of people have commented on Norad being our main commitment to BMD - but an overlooked possibility is integrating BMD capability into a future class of air defense destroyers (CADRE). These vessels would be extremly useful for say protecting Japan from North Korea or Taiwan from China, not to mention filling the need for area air defence for our fleet.
Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
The CADRE project is up in the air right now - I don't even think it's funded... Any AD vessel we get is more likely to be a Halifax-class frigate that has the capability added during the mid-life refit.
Besides, imagine the hue and cry when Canada decised to buy / build an Aegis-type vessel class for a billion bucks apiece, and some bleeding heart reporter finds out that they can launch cruise missiles...
That said, they are talking about integrating maritime forces in a NORAD-like structure, or so I've heard. Having naval vessels under a unified command is only a logical extension of our present attachment of frigates to US carrier battle groups.
Besides, imagine the hue and cry when Canada decised to buy / build an Aegis-type vessel class for a billion bucks apiece, and some bleeding heart reporter finds out that they can launch cruise missiles...
That said, they are talking about integrating maritime forces in a NORAD-like structure, or so I've heard. Having naval vessels under a unified command is only a logical extension of our present attachment of frigates to US carrier battle groups.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
included in the American Missle Defence system through NORAD. He also added that this doesn't mean that Canada will participate in the missile shield as of now.
When I link pops up I will post it. This was just announced on CBC.
When I link pops up I will post it. This was just announced on CBC.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1091724252082_87133452/?hub=TopStories
Norad pact amended to reflect U.S. missile plan
CTV.ca News Staff
Ottawa has agreed to amend its agreement in Norad to allow the U.S to use the missile warning system for its controversial plan for a ballistic missile defence system.
The amendment authorizes Norad -- North American Aerospace Defence Command -- to make its missile warning function available to the U.S. commands conducting ballistic missile defence.
Defence Minister Bill Graham insists the move doesn't commit Canada to the controversial U.S. weapons program. Instead, he says the decision had to be made to protect Norad because the U.S. was prepared to construct a parallel warning system if they couldn't use Norad.
"[The decision] had to be made and it had to be made now, or the United States would have commenced constructing that system and that would have ... eventually rendered Norad obsolete," Graham told a news conference Thursday.
"What this does is preserve Norad and give us the option to participate or not to participate. If we didn't to this today, we would have foreclosed our options."
He insisted that the amendment does not assure Canada's participation in the U.S. missile defence plan.
"This decision does not affect or in any way determine the ultimate decision as to whether Canada will participate in missile defence," Graham told reporters.
He also points to a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell from Michael Kergin, the Canadian ambassador to the U.S., informing him of the parameters of the amendment.
"This decision is independent of any discussion on possible cooperation on missile defence," Kergin writes in the letter.
Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew said a decision on joining the American missile defence plan will come after bilateral negotiations with the U.S., and with the input of Parliament.
NDP foreign affairs critic Alex McDonough didn't mince words in her anger with the amendment. She says the federal government and Prime Minister Paul Martin have betrayed Canadians.
"This is (U.S President George) Bush's plan for the weaponization of space, and frankly, Martin is making an ass out of himself in the international arena," she says.
Even the Conservatives, who initially backed the shield, are leaving their options open on their position.
"This is going to change the strategic balance. It is going to change defence policy," Conservative Defence critic Gordon O'Connor told reporters. "And again, we are neither for it nor against it until we get the details."
Martin has said a decision on missile defence would be coming in the fall. That is the same time the U.S. is scheduled to deploy the first handful of interceptor missiles.
The interceptors are designed to knock down missiles fired by accident, or by a so-called "rogue" state. The U.S. is already in the process of installing interceptors in silos in Alaska.
Norad was established in 1958. Among its responsibilities are detecting and warning Canada and the U.S. of attacks by aircraft or missiles.
Norad pact amended to reflect U.S. missile plan
CTV.ca News Staff
Ottawa has agreed to amend its agreement in Norad to allow the U.S to use the missile warning system for its controversial plan for a ballistic missile defence system.
The amendment authorizes Norad -- North American Aerospace Defence Command -- to make its missile warning function available to the U.S. commands conducting ballistic missile defence.
Defence Minister Bill Graham insists the move doesn't commit Canada to the controversial U.S. weapons program. Instead, he says the decision had to be made to protect Norad because the U.S. was prepared to construct a parallel warning system if they couldn't use Norad.
"[The decision] had to be made and it had to be made now, or the United States would have commenced constructing that system and that would have ... eventually rendered Norad obsolete," Graham told a news conference Thursday.
"What this does is preserve Norad and give us the option to participate or not to participate. If we didn't to this today, we would have foreclosed our options."
He insisted that the amendment does not assure Canada's participation in the U.S. missile defence plan.
"This decision does not affect or in any way determine the ultimate decision as to whether Canada will participate in missile defence," Graham told reporters.
He also points to a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell from Michael Kergin, the Canadian ambassador to the U.S., informing him of the parameters of the amendment.
"This decision is independent of any discussion on possible cooperation on missile defence," Kergin writes in the letter.
Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew said a decision on joining the American missile defence plan will come after bilateral negotiations with the U.S., and with the input of Parliament.
NDP foreign affairs critic Alex McDonough didn't mince words in her anger with the amendment. She says the federal government and Prime Minister Paul Martin have betrayed Canadians.
"This is (U.S President George) Bush's plan for the weaponization of space, and frankly, Martin is making an ass out of himself in the international arena," she says.
Even the Conservatives, who initially backed the shield, are leaving their options open on their position.
"This is going to change the strategic balance. It is going to change defence policy," Conservative Defence critic Gordon O'Connor told reporters. "And again, we are neither for it nor against it until we get the details."
Martin has said a decision on missile defence would be coming in the fall. That is the same time the U.S. is scheduled to deploy the first handful of interceptor missiles.
The interceptors are designed to knock down missiles fired by accident, or by a so-called "rogue" state. The U.S. is already in the process of installing interceptors in silos in Alaska.
Norad was established in 1958. Among its responsibilities are detecting and warning Canada and the U.S. of attacks by aircraft or missiles.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=5c0e7be7-e431-45cf-9f4a-e7bfe657c085
-----
We risk 'diminishing our sovereignty' if we don't join controversial program, Graham declares
Mike Blanchfield
The Ottawa Citizen
September 23, 2004
TORONTO - Canada should sign on to the U.S. government's ballistic missile defence shield for North America, Defence Minister Bill Graham said yesterday in the strongest indication to date that the Liberal government will support President George W. Bush's controversial plan.
"This is not Iraq, this is not an engagement somewhere else. This is about North America. I think it's very important for us to be associated in any program that deals with the defence of North America," Mr. Graham told the Citizen in an exclusive interview at his Toronto constituency office yesterday. "I think Canada will regret it if we don't participate."
Mr. Graham said it makes no difference whether Mr. Bush is re-elected or his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry, wins the Nov. 2 presidential election.
"Whether it's Republican or Democrat down there, we want them to look us in the eye and say, 'we're your partner'," Mr. Graham said. "In my view, it diminishes our sovereignty significantly by not being a participant."
Mr. Graham acknowledged the widespread scientific criticism that the system lacks the technology to do what it is supposed to do: shoot down incoming nuclear or biological missiles aimed at North America with land-based interceptor rockets.
He said the technology will be improved in time.
"While there is a significant debate among experts as to how successful or effective the program might be, the Americans intend to do it. And, in my view, when it comes to continental defence, we should be associated with the Americans when they choose to do something. We should work with them on it," Mr. Graham said. "You can make an argument it isn't working today. But we don't know where it's going to go 10 years from now."
Mr. Graham said the government hasn't made a final decision and that negotiations continue with the U.S.
Canada wants assurances from the U.S. that the system will not lead to weapons in outer space, a condition that Mr. Graham said the government is not wavering on.
Mr. Graham acknowledged the decision might be unpopular with many Canadians who don't like Mr. Bush personally. But he said it is his job as defence minister to make the case to Canadians that the country should support the program.
"It's not about American domestic politics. It's about North American security," Mr. Graham said. "We can't afford to draw a border between Canada and the United States when it comes to defence of the continent of North America. We're seamlessly connected and we have to reinforce that."
Mr. Graham said he looks forward to a parliamentary debate on the issue "fairly soon." Despite the Liberals' minority status, supporting missile defence is not as politically dangerous as it might appear. The Bloc Quebecois and NDP oppose Canada's participation, evoking comparisons with a 20-year-old plan by former U.S. president Ronald Reagan -- known as Star Wars -- that envisioned weapons in outer space, but the Conservatives support Canada's joining the program.
It is also unlikely that the government would need to bring the matter to a vote in Parliament. In August, the government amended the Norad treaty to allow the joint Canada-U.S. aerospace command to be used as a monitoring system for the new missile shield.
Although Mr. Graham downplayed it at the time, that move was widely seen as precursor to Canada supporting missile defence.
In a speech last night to the Royal Canadian Military Institute, Mr. Graham dropped some public hints that Canada might be willing to sign on to the missile defence program.
"We have a fundamental responsibility to protect Canadians. We also have a fundamental responsibility to contribute to the defence of our continent. Ballistic missile defence might assist us in doing this," Mr. Graham told a gathering at the institute that also included the Atlantic Council of Canada and the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.
"One thing is certain: our American colleagues are determined to pursue it and it will become a part of the defence architecture of North America whether we participate or not. And so, we are exploring it -- as a responsible government, conscious both of the need to protect Canada and maintain a close working relationship with our American neighbours, should."
Mr. Graham said his three top priorities as defence minister are completing the government's much-anticipated defence review, studying new equipment purchases and finding ways to improve the well-being of troops.
Mr. Graham also told his military audience that the 5,000 new full-time troops and 3,000 reservists promised by Prime Minister Paul Martin during June's election campaign would not be paid for out of the current defence budget.
"Expanding the size of the Canadian Forces will not be done at the expense of our existing capabilities. This will not be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul," Mr. Graham said. "The additional troops will be funded through new investments by the government. And I'm working to have these new resources feature in the next federal budget."
-------
-----
We risk 'diminishing our sovereignty' if we don't join controversial program, Graham declares
Mike Blanchfield
The Ottawa Citizen
September 23, 2004
TORONTO - Canada should sign on to the U.S. government's ballistic missile defence shield for North America, Defence Minister Bill Graham said yesterday in the strongest indication to date that the Liberal government will support President George W. Bush's controversial plan.
"This is not Iraq, this is not an engagement somewhere else. This is about North America. I think it's very important for us to be associated in any program that deals with the defence of North America," Mr. Graham told the Citizen in an exclusive interview at his Toronto constituency office yesterday. "I think Canada will regret it if we don't participate."
Mr. Graham said it makes no difference whether Mr. Bush is re-elected or his Democratic challenger, Senator John Kerry, wins the Nov. 2 presidential election.
"Whether it's Republican or Democrat down there, we want them to look us in the eye and say, 'we're your partner'," Mr. Graham said. "In my view, it diminishes our sovereignty significantly by not being a participant."
Mr. Graham acknowledged the widespread scientific criticism that the system lacks the technology to do what it is supposed to do: shoot down incoming nuclear or biological missiles aimed at North America with land-based interceptor rockets.
He said the technology will be improved in time.
"While there is a significant debate among experts as to how successful or effective the program might be, the Americans intend to do it. And, in my view, when it comes to continental defence, we should be associated with the Americans when they choose to do something. We should work with them on it," Mr. Graham said. "You can make an argument it isn't working today. But we don't know where it's going to go 10 years from now."
Mr. Graham said the government hasn't made a final decision and that negotiations continue with the U.S.
Canada wants assurances from the U.S. that the system will not lead to weapons in outer space, a condition that Mr. Graham said the government is not wavering on.
Mr. Graham acknowledged the decision might be unpopular with many Canadians who don't like Mr. Bush personally. But he said it is his job as defence minister to make the case to Canadians that the country should support the program.
"It's not about American domestic politics. It's about North American security," Mr. Graham said. "We can't afford to draw a border between Canada and the United States when it comes to defence of the continent of North America. We're seamlessly connected and we have to reinforce that."
Mr. Graham said he looks forward to a parliamentary debate on the issue "fairly soon." Despite the Liberals' minority status, supporting missile defence is not as politically dangerous as it might appear. The Bloc Quebecois and NDP oppose Canada's participation, evoking comparisons with a 20-year-old plan by former U.S. president Ronald Reagan -- known as Star Wars -- that envisioned weapons in outer space, but the Conservatives support Canada's joining the program.
It is also unlikely that the government would need to bring the matter to a vote in Parliament. In August, the government amended the Norad treaty to allow the joint Canada-U.S. aerospace command to be used as a monitoring system for the new missile shield.
Although Mr. Graham downplayed it at the time, that move was widely seen as precursor to Canada supporting missile defence.
In a speech last night to the Royal Canadian Military Institute, Mr. Graham dropped some public hints that Canada might be willing to sign on to the missile defence program.
"We have a fundamental responsibility to protect Canadians. We also have a fundamental responsibility to contribute to the defence of our continent. Ballistic missile defence might assist us in doing this," Mr. Graham told a gathering at the institute that also included the Atlantic Council of Canada and the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.
"One thing is certain: our American colleagues are determined to pursue it and it will become a part of the defence architecture of North America whether we participate or not. And so, we are exploring it -- as a responsible government, conscious both of the need to protect Canada and maintain a close working relationship with our American neighbours, should."
Mr. Graham said his three top priorities as defence minister are completing the government's much-anticipated defence review, studying new equipment purchases and finding ways to improve the well-being of troops.
Mr. Graham also told his military audience that the 5,000 new full-time troops and 3,000 reservists promised by Prime Minister Paul Martin during June's election campaign would not be paid for out of the current defence budget.
"Expanding the size of the Canadian Forces will not be done at the expense of our existing capabilities. This will not be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul," Mr. Graham said. "The additional troops will be funded through new investments by the government. And I'm working to have these new resources feature in the next federal budget."
-------
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
"Expanding the size of the Canadian Forces will not be done at the expense of our existing capabilities. This will not be a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul," Mr. Graham said. "The additional troops will be funded through new investments by the government. And I'm working to have these new resources feature in the next federal budget."
This is what got my attention.
This is what got my attention.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
A new article posted today.. Headline "We're undecided on defence shield"
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/09/24/641563.html
"SUN OTTAWA BUREAU
OTTAWA -- Stepping back from strong hints dropped a day earlier, Defence Minister Bill Graham says Canada's participation in a North American missile defence shield is not a done deal. The former foreign affairs minister said negotiations are important for Canada-U.S. relations, but insisted the fate of ongoing talks is still not known. Parliament will have all the facts for an informed debate on the issue, he said.
"It's in this perspective of partnership that we continue our discussions. We will protect Canada's sovereignty, but we're also partners in North America. It's very important to keep that in mind," he said.
Skirting the question of whether the U.S. would guarantee there would be no space weapons, Graham said President George Bush has been advised of Canada's firm position.
"I cannot tell you what the Americans will do over the next 50 years, but this program has nothing to do with putting weapons in space," he said. "It's a program that is ground-based, land-based and possibly sea-based."
North Korea, "rogue states" and terrorist organizations are the biggest threats to North America, he said. A ballistic missile defence shield would protect the continent from new dangers that rise in the future. "
But to me it still seems like they will go ahead with it.
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/EdmontonSun/News/2004/09/24/641563.html
"SUN OTTAWA BUREAU
OTTAWA -- Stepping back from strong hints dropped a day earlier, Defence Minister Bill Graham says Canada's participation in a North American missile defence shield is not a done deal. The former foreign affairs minister said negotiations are important for Canada-U.S. relations, but insisted the fate of ongoing talks is still not known. Parliament will have all the facts for an informed debate on the issue, he said.
"It's in this perspective of partnership that we continue our discussions. We will protect Canada's sovereignty, but we're also partners in North America. It's very important to keep that in mind," he said.
Skirting the question of whether the U.S. would guarantee there would be no space weapons, Graham said President George Bush has been advised of Canada's firm position.
"I cannot tell you what the Americans will do over the next 50 years, but this program has nothing to do with putting weapons in space," he said. "It's a program that is ground-based, land-based and possibly sea-based."
North Korea, "rogue states" and terrorist organizations are the biggest threats to North America, he said. A ballistic missile defence shield would protect the continent from new dangers that rise in the future. "
But to me it still seems like they will go ahead with it.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The missile defence shield does not work, even in extremely well scripted test cases where they knew launch postion, velocity, tragectory, they failed to get more than a 15% hit ratio, so the US Government really should keep it in R&D instead of putting it operational.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Agreed.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
North Korea, "rogue states" and terrorist organizations are the biggest threats to North America, he said. A ballistic missile defence shield would protect the continent from new dangers that rise in the future. "
Nuclear Retaliation for North Korea along with rogue states, should be enough of a deterent, as crazy as the theory of Nuclear Retaliation Deterent is, it has worked. The only benefit of a Missile Shield would be, it may allow the US another option besides a Counter Nuclear Strike. If Canada is in on the Shield, just maybe we may have a say in command decision at NORAD. But we circle back to the fact the Missile Shield doesn't work that well.
And it may lead to another arms race, Russia has begun the development of Manueverable Vehicle Missile, which would overcome the Missile Shield that doesn't work that well.
Nuclear Retaliation for North Korea along with rogue states, should be enough of a deterent, as crazy as the theory of Nuclear Retaliation Deterent is, it has worked. The only benefit of a Missile Shield would be, it may allow the US another option besides a Counter Nuclear Strike. If Canada is in on the Shield, just maybe we may have a say in command decision at NORAD. But we circle back to the fact the Missile Shield doesn't work that well.
And it may lead to another arms race, Russia has begun the development of Manueverable Vehicle Missile, which would overcome the Missile Shield that doesn't work that well.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
However a missile shield is useless against a briefcase nuke.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
True but I doubt terrorists will launch an ICBM when they can leave a briefcase in New Yorks subway.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,739
- Points
- 1,040
If it works once, it pays for itself.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Well you hit upon another problem. Does it actually work like the Patriot did so well (sarcasm).
- Reaction score
- 4,291
- Points
- 1,260
2FtOnion said:
I am fairly certain that no one hin Ottawa believes htta it works. Having said that, "joining" gets us a seat at the table, and may well parlay into a say in the development of Northern Command - which is why I am a supporter.
Similar threads
