A decade after opting out of NORAD's defensive missile shield system, Canada is getting cold feet.

[Arkain2K]

Liberals reopen debate 11 years after Martin government opted not to join U.S. ballistic missile defence

In this Saturday, Oct. 10, 2015, file photo, what is believed to be an improved version of the KN-08 intercontinental ballistic missile is paraded in Pyongyang, North Korea, during the 70th anniversary celebrations of its ruling party's creation. ​

OTTAWA — The Liberal government has signalled its willingness to reopen one of the most contentious debates in recent Canadian military history: whether the country should participate in ballistic missile defence. And the results could be very different this time around.

The question of whether Canada should reconsider its decision not to join the United States in building a shield to protect North America from foreign-launched missiles has been raised as part of the government’s comprehensive defence review.

Earlier this month, Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan released a document asking for public feedback on what the military should — and should not — be doing. One section focuses specifically on ballistic missile defence, noting that the issue “has not been considered by Canada for over a decade.

“Given the increase in the number of countries with access to ballistic missile technology and their potential to reach North America, this threat is expected to endure and grow more sophisticated in the coming decades,” reads the document.

It goes on to note that many of Canada’s partners and allies are working together on ballistic missile defence while Canada remains outside such efforts. This is a reference to not just the U.S., but also European NATO members, as well as Australia and South Korea.

“Should this decision be revisited given changing technologies and threats?” it asks. “Would a shift in policy in this area enhance Canadian national security and offer an avenue for greater continental co-operation? Or are there more effective areas in which to invest to better protect the North American continent?”

Missile defence has been largely off the public and political radar since then-prime minister Paul Martin famously opted not to join the U.S. program following a heated and extremely divisive national debate in 2005.

Martin’s decision was seen by many as an attempt to bolster his minority Liberal government. The NDP, and many Canadians, opposed missile defence, in part because of its links to the Bush administration. But there were also questions about whether such a system was even technically feasible — or needed.

The U.S. has since pressed ahead with missile defence, spending about $100 billion over the last decade to develop land- and sea-based systems that would stop a limited ballistic missile attack from a rogue state like North Korea or Iran.

In this Saturday, May 9, 2015, file photo, a South Korean man watches a TV news program showing an image published in North Korea's Rodong Sinmun newspaper of North Korea's ballistic missile believed to have been launched from underwater, at Seoul Railway station in Seoul, South Korea.​

Two years ago, Conservative and Liberal members of the Senate defence committee, including retired general Romeo Dallaire, unanimously called for Canada to join the U.S. in building a ballistic missile defence.

The committee largely accepted the warnings from defence officials about the risks to Canada from Iranian and North Korean ballistic missiles, the importance of being at the table when the Americans are discussing missile defence, and even the potential industrial benefits to Canadian companies.

“I think it’s overdue, and I think that debate should ensue,” the committee’s chairman, Conservative Sen. Daniel Lang, said in an interview. “Times have changed, and there’s not a lot of reason not to join.”

Briefing notes obtained by the Citizen show defence officials have also quietly set the stage by warning successive defence ministers, including Rob Nicholson, Jason Kenney and, most recently, Sajjan about the threat posed by ballistic missiles from rogue states and other actors.

Officials have also noted that many of Canada’s allies and partners — “including all of NATO — are now engaged in missile defence activities.” And they called the program “much more effective,” even though the system is still in heavy development and testing.

Thomas Karako, a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, believes the U.S. would welcome Canada’s involvement. He also says there are several ways that Canada could contribute, such as hosting interceptors or even providing command-and-control capabilities.

But any move to reopen the issue is sure to prompt many of the same questions and arguments against Canadian participation as a decade ago.

Eugene Lang, an adjunct professor at Queen’s University who served as chief of staff to Liberal defence minister Bill Graham when the Martin government was dealing with missile defence 10 years ago, and later to defence minister John McCallum, said the question of whether Canadian participation is necessary remains front and centre.

“The Americans are going to build this,” he said. “And they may be right about North Korea. But why do we need to be part of it? That was never a question we got a good substantive answer to. And I still don’t think they have a good substantive answer.”

Arms control groups have also long warned that missile defence actually hurts international security by undermining nuclear deterrence. This is among the reasons that Russians have strongly opposed the positioning of U.S. anti-missile defence systems in Eastern Europe.

There is also the question of cost and whether Canada would be required pay into the multi-billion-dollar project.


http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...ted-not-to-join-u-s-ballistic-missile-defence

 

[Arkain2K]

Time to say ‘yes’ to a missile shield, Canada
Michael Dawson
April 20, 2016

As Defence Minister Harjit Singh Sajjan kicks off a review of Canadian defence policy, all Canadians can take great pride in the accomplishments of the Canadian Armed Forces over the past fifteen years — accomplishments won at considerable cost.

During these years, much of our focus has been on the fight against Islamicist extremism. But the current review needs to take into account a much wider spectrum of threats. One of the most serious of these is the proliferation of long-range ballistic missiles tipped with nuclear warheads — a combination which North Korea continues to pursue as a national priority and which the regime has taken to brandishing against its neighbour to the south and the United States.

North Korea may or may not have tested a thermonuclear weapon, but it’s clear that the regime intends to continue its quest for one. For both neighbouring states and those further afield, it is North Korea’s ballistic missile program which operationalizes the threat. Beginning with copies of the old Soviet Scud short-range ballistic missile, the North Korean missile-makers have steadily advanced to an intermediate-range missile (the Musudan), are developing an ICBM and seem to be aspiring to a submarine-launched ballistic missile.

How good are North Korean missiles? North Korea is dependent upon old Soviet designs from the 1960s and 1970s. These may seem archaic compared to those deployed by the Permanent Five nuclear powers, but they’re based on systems that worked just fine in their day. To dismiss them as a threat seems like a foolish echo of American and British mockery of Japanese military capabilities in the 1930s.

North Korea already may have a crude ICBM in a version of its Taepo Dong space launch vehicle, an unwieldy rocket which requires several days to assemble and fuel. The KN-08, in an advanced stage of development, will be the more serious threat since it relies on storable liquid propellants, allowing the missiles to be held ready for use over extended periods. The KN-08 has not yet been flight-tested but key technologies have been tested in ground facilities and possibly on the Taepo Dong vehicle. Given North Korea’s track record, the KN-08 probably will turn out to be a reasonably reliable system.

North Korea has made the correct strategic choice in developing the KN-08 as a road-mobile system on a Transporter-Erector-Launcher vehicle (TEL), reportedly based on a Chinese design. These ICBMs could be housed in shelters carved from solid rock and deployed covertly to hidden launch sites.

Finding mobile ballistic missiles has proven difficult. The KN-08 missiles could be launched with very little prior warning from concealed sites. Iran’s ICBM program — which it refuses to even discuss with outsiders — appears to be following a similar path, in part because of that nation’s cooperation with North Korea.

The United States’ ground-based missile defence system is built to defend the homeland against a rudimentary, small-scale ICBM attack. It is a non-nuclear system which uses the interceptor’s kinetic energy to destroy the target. It relies on NORAD for aerospace warning and Canadian Forces personnel have for many years been part of the NORAD warning function.

Canada is not a part of the defence function, which resides with U.S. Northern Command. The assumption that the United States would defend Canada against a deliberate or (more likely) an errant shot from North Korea is problematic because the U.S. has only a limited number of interceptor missiles to defend against an unknown number of North Korean ICBMs. A sure kill might require several shots at an incoming ICBM, with some interceptors held in reserve against unknown contingencies. The defence functions according to pre-scripted algorithms, leaving no time for political consultations.

So the only way to make certain Canada is covered by the missile shield is to participate in it. That would involve a negotiated set of parameters which would cover Canadian cities — not just the ones covered by default because of their proximity to the border.

This is not a rehash of Ronald Reagan’s old ‘Star Wars’ concept but a pragmatic, minimalist defence against evolving ICBM threats from unpredictable regimes. It’s impossible to know whether North Korea or Iran would subscribe to the understanding of deterrence shared by the United States and Russia. While neither regime is “crazy” as such, it’s very difficult to be sure about how they would behave in a crisis — regime collapse in North Korea, to choose just one example.


Canada stands alone among major U.S. allies in shunning active participation in missile defence (except in European NATO territory, so long as Canada is not defended, which is a rather eccentric policy position). Time to get off the fence.

What would it take? During an earlier round of negotiations, aborted under Prime Minister Paul Martin, the Americans made it clear that Canada would have to make a contribution of some kind. The most straightforward approach would be to allow Canadian personnel at NORAD to immediately staff missile defence billets and then add a few additional Canadian Armed Forces personnel for the mission. Canada also could install some form of radar or communications nodes, both of which are key components of the system. That wouldn’t necessarily require locating interceptors at Canadian bases.

While a decision on missile defence should be made on its merits (which include strengthening our decades-long alliance with the United States), there’s an economic argument to consider as well: Participation under a negotiated agreement is a prerequisite for Canadian companies seeking contracts in advanced areas of technology.

In the past, Liberal politicians have acknowledged that Canada should have joined missile defence when the offer was last made. It’s encouraging that the current government may revisit the decision to stay out. The time has come.


Michael Dawson is a retired Canadian Foreign Service Officer who served as Canada's political advisor to the commander of NORAD and United States Northern Command in Colorado Springs from 2010 to 2014.

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/04/20/time-to-say-yes-to-a-missile-shield-canada/

 

[Rex Kwon Do]

North Korea is likely an exceedingly minor worry for Canada, though given how pathetic the DPRK is I guess it's not absurd to imagine if they tried to hit LA their missile would stray wildly off course and hit Yellowknife or something. Lol.

But unless Canada is ready to welcome their new Chinese overlords in a few decades, they'd best show they're serious about protecting their land.

 

[Canuck]

Waste of money.

 

[Gluteus Swag]

Canada are absolute bums. They refuse to meet their NATO 2% spending obligations and won't even participate in missile defense.

If their big bro wasn't there to protect them Canada could literally get conquered by almost any country on Earth.

Freeloading hippies. The US should take over Canada it would only take 3-4 minutes

 

[Kalmah]

Canada are absolute bums. They refuse to meet their NATO 2% spending obligations and won't even participate in missile defense.

If their big bro wasn't there to protect them Canada could literally get conquered by almost any country on Earth.

Freeloading hippies. The US should take over Canada it would only take 3-4 minutes

Lmao, you warmongering goofs can pay to protect Canada's borders out of your own taxpayer money if you're so concerned about it, because we ain't wasting our own.

 

[Arkain2K]

I chuckled at the absurdity of this very-Canadian concern about whether they would be required to pay if they want to be a part of NORAD's missile shield system:

The question of whether Canada should reconsider its decision not to join the United States in building a shield to protect North America from foreign-launched missiles has been raised as part of the government’s comprehensive defence review.

Two years ago, Conservative and Liberal members of the Senate defence committee, including retired general Romeo Dallaire, unanimously called for Canada to join the U.S. in building a ballistic missile defence.

Briefing notes obtained by the Citizen show defence officials have also quietly set the stage by warning successive defence ministers, including Rob Nicholson, Jason Kenney and, most recently, Sajjan about the threat posed by ballistic missiles from rogue states and other actors.

There is also the question of cost and whether Canada would be required pay into the multi-billion-dollar project.

There's Freeloading, and then there's Canadian Freeloading.

 

[Gluteus Swag]

Why pay for your own defense when you can just be next door to the US and freeload off the fact that your proximity makes it too risky for them to let you be attacked?

 

[Kalmah]

Why pay for your own defense when you can just be next door to the US and freeload off the fact that your proximity makes it too risky for them to let you be attacked?

Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

Time to say ‘yes’ to a missile shield, Canada
Michael Dawson
April 20, 2016

As Defence Minister Harjit Singh Sajjan kicks off a review of Canadian defence policy, all Canadians can take great pride in the accomplishments of the Canadian Armed Forces over the past fifteen years — accomplishments won at considerable cost.

During these years, much of our focus has been on the fight against Islamicist extremism. But the current review needs to take into account a much wider spectrum of threats. One of the most serious of these is the proliferation of long-range ballistic missiles tipped with nuclear warheads — a combination which North Korea continues to pursue as a national priority and which the regime has taken to brandishing against its neighbour to the south and the United States.

North Korea may or may not have tested a thermonuclear weapon, but it’s clear that the regime intends to continue its quest for one. For both neighbouring states and those further afield, it is North Korea’s ballistic missile program which operationalizes the threat. Beginning with copies of the old Soviet Scud short-range ballistic missile, the North Korean missile-makers have steadily advanced to an intermediate-range missile (the Musudan), are developing an ICBM and seem to be aspiring to a submarine-launched ballistic missile.

How good are North Korean missiles? North Korea is dependent upon old Soviet designs from the 1960s and 1970s. These may seem archaic compared to those deployed by the Permanent Five nuclear powers, but they’re based on systems that worked just fine in their day. To dismiss them as a threat seems like a foolish echo of American and British mockery of Japanese military capabilities in the 1930s.

North Korea already may have a crude ICBM in a version of its Taepo Dong space launch vehicle, an unwieldy rocket which requires several days to assemble and fuel. The KN-08, in an advanced stage of development, will be the more serious threat since it relies on storable liquid propellants, allowing the missiles to be held ready for use over extended periods. The KN-08 has not yet been flight-tested but key technologies have been tested in ground facilities and possibly on the Taepo Dong vehicle. Given North Korea’s track record, the KN-08 probably will turn out to be a reasonably reliable system.

North Korea has made the correct strategic choice in developing the KN-08 as a road-mobile system on a Transporter-Erector-Launcher vehicle (TEL), reportedly based on a Chinese design. These ICBMs could be housed in shelters carved from solid rock and deployed covertly to hidden launch sites.

Finding mobile ballistic missiles has proven difficult. The KN-08 missiles could be launched with very little prior warning from concealed sites. Iran’s ICBM program — which it refuses to even discuss with outsiders — appears to be following a similar path, in part because of that nation’s cooperation with North Korea.

The United States’ ground-based missile defence system is built to defend the homeland against a rudimentary, small-scale ICBM attack. It is a non-nuclear system which uses the interceptor’s kinetic energy to destroy the target. It relies on NORAD for aerospace warning and Canadian Forces personnel have for many years been part of the NORAD warning function.

Canada is not a part of the defence function, which resides with U.S. Northern Command. The assumption that the United States would defend Canada against a deliberate or (more likely) an errant shot from North Korea is problematic because the U.S. has only a limited number of interceptor missiles to defend against an unknown number of North Korean ICBMs. A sure kill might require several shots at an incoming ICBM, with some interceptors held in reserve against unknown contingencies. The defence functions according to pre-scripted algorithms, leaving no time for political consultations.

So the only way to make certain Canada is covered by the missile shield is to participate in it. That would involve a negotiated set of parameters which would cover Canadian cities — not just the ones covered by default because of their proximity to the border.

This is not a rehash of Ronald Reagan’s old ‘Star Wars’ concept but a pragmatic, minimalist defence against evolving ICBM threats from unpredictable regimes. It’s impossible to know whether North Korea or Iran would subscribe to the understanding of deterrence shared by the United States and Russia. While neither regime is “crazy” as such, it’s very difficult to be sure about how they would behave in a crisis — regime collapse in North Korea, to choose just one example.


Canada stands alone among major U.S. allies in shunning active participation in missile defence (except in European NATO territory, so long as Canada is not defended, which is a rather eccentric policy position). Time to get off the fence.

What would it take? During an earlier round of negotiations, aborted under Prime Minister Paul Martin, the Americans made it clear that Canada would have to make a contribution of some kind. The most straightforward approach would be to allow Canadian personnel at NORAD to immediately staff missile defence billets and then add a few additional Canadian Armed Forces personnel for the mission. Canada also could install some form of radar or communications nodes, both of which are key components of the system. That wouldn’t necessarily require locating interceptors at Canadian bases.

While a decision on missile defence should be made on its merits (which include strengthening our decades-long alliance with the United States), there’s an economic argument to consider as well: Participation under a negotiated agreement is a prerequisite for Canadian companies seeking contracts in advanced areas of technology.

In the past, Liberal politicians have acknowledged that Canada should have joined missile defence when the offer was last made. It’s encouraging that the current government may revisit the decision to stay out. The time has come.


Michael Dawson is a retired Canadian Foreign Service Officer who served as Canada's political advisor to the commander of NORAD and United States Northern Command in Colorado Springs from 2010 to 2014.

http://ipolitics.ca/2016/04/20/time-to-say-yes-to-a-missile-shield-canada/

Best part of this terrible article you copy and pasted was the comments section.

The US spends so much money on its military it has been cutting back on food stamps. About the same level of insane behaviour that has some twit with a mad 'n crazy haircut developing rockets in North Korea and not feeding his own people properly. And the US isn't facing any sanctions, so why they need to waste money on the military to the extent they do is a kind of logic that only people with damaged brains can say "Yeah, what a great idea!"

And then out of the bushes in Canada steps one bedraggled survivor from the Cold War and US run NORAD circa 1984, writing an article on spending money on a missile defence shield. Hey, maybe we should spend the money, and we too could send millions more of our own people to the Food Bank. That way we could each and every one of us feel safe and hungry all at the same time just like the US and North Korea.

The North Koreans don't have a pot to pee in and even less to eat. And we're supposed to spend billions on defending ourselves from these people? Give me a break. Talk about a strawman argument from a blinkered mind. Exactly how does North Korea affect Canadian lives?

Here's my cheap solution. Send North Korea some food aid, lift some sanctions and for about 1% of the cost of keeping the military equipment nuts in smart uniforms, dreaming up crazy ideas and attending lavish conferences on taxpayer money while rattling the fear cages and looking forward to cost-plus contracts forever, and nobody would have to think about North Korea again. And while they're at it, the US could stop running naval exercises annually in the Sea of Japan to make sure North Korea always has the wind up and feels threatened by being so constantly provoked. We never hear about the US horse manure policies, do we?

Put this author out to pasture.

 

[Orgasmo]

Nope, waste of money. The Muricans can keep their shitty shield and fear mongering down south.

 

[Orgasmo]

Canada are absolute bums. They refuse to meet their NATO 2% spending obligations and won't even participate in missile defense.

If their big bro wasn't there to protect them Canada could literally get conquered by almost any country on Earth.

Freeloading hippies. The US should take over Canada it would only take 3-4 minutes

Yes because North Koreans are about to swim across the Pacific to attack Canada. Next you're going to tell me Russians will march across the North Pole to invade us? The only threat of invasion seems to be coming south of the border, advocated by dumbfucks like you.

 

[Gluteus Swag]

Yes because North Koreans are about to swim across the Pacific to attack Canada. Next you're going to tell me Russians will march across the North Pole to invade us? The only threat of invasion seems to be coming south of the border, advocated by dumbfucks like you.

The reason Canada has no threat of invasion is because of the US. Period.

Canadians don't even respect their big brother enough to carry a little bit of their own weight though. Freeloading hippies spending 1.2% of GDP on defense and letting down all their NATO allies

I hope the Russians drop Satan 2 on all of you

 

[Orgasmo]

The reason Canada has no threat of invasion is because of the US. Period.

Canadians don't even respect their big brother enough to carry a little bit of their own weight though. Freeloading hippies spending 1.2% of GDP on defense and letting down all their NATO allies

I hope the Russians drop Satan 2 on all of you

Yes I'm sure the logistics of trying to carry out an amphibious invasion over the Pacific and the Atlantic have nothing to do with it. The only things Russians will be dropping off here are their mail order brides, rude tourists and export vodka. Take that missile shield and kindly shove it up your ass.

 

[Gluteus Swag]

Yes I'm sure the logistics of trying to carry out an amphibious invasion over the Pacific and the Atlantic have nothing to do with it. The only things Russians will be dropping off here are their mail order brides, rude tourists and export vodka. Take that missile shield and kindly shove it up your ass.

No, its literally just the protection of the US.

If the US vanished, Canada would be under new ownership within seconds. Canadian men? Dead. Canadian women? Comforting their new men with their mouths, anuses, and vaginas.

Believe it buddy boy

 

[Kalmah]

The reason Canada has no threat of invasion is because of the US. Period.

So why do we need to waste money on a missile shield then?

 

[Orgasmo]

No, its literally just the protection of the US.

If the US vanished, Canada would be under new ownership within seconds. Canadian men? Dead. Canadian women? Comforting their new men with their mouths, anuses, and vaginas.

Believe it buddy boy

You have an over-inflated sense of self-importance, like typical hick retards. Who has the amphibious capability to mount a full scale invasion of Canada across two large oceans? None, that's who. Not even the British or Russian navy could mount such an invasion this day and age.

Are you the special retard child of your family, or is this a family trait thing?

 

[Gluteus Swag]

You have an over-inflated sense of self-importance, like typical hick retards. Who has the amphibious capability to mount a full scale invasion of Canada across two large oceans? None, that's who. Not even the British or Russian navy could mount such an invasion this day and age.

Are you the special retard child of your family, or is this a family trait thing?

There are at least 50 countries who could take over Canada within an hour
3-5 Who could take it over in 5-10 minutes

 

[Orgasmo]

There are at least 50 countries who could take over Canada within an hour
3-5 Who could take it over in 5-10 minutes

Cool story bro

 

[bref]

Waste of money.

Canada are absolute bums. They refuse to meet their NATO 2% spending obligations and won't even participate in missile defense.

Last time I checked, only 4-5 countries out the 30 or so in NATO met their 2% GDP spending obligations.

 

[EL CORINTHIAN]

Canada should try to arm itself enough to be able to hold it's own. Canada and the US need to be strong together, none of this parasitic big brother defense shit.