Ballistic Missile Defence And Canada

Discussion in 'Canada' started by wotan, Feb 25, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. At long last, Mr. Dithers aka Prime Minister Paul Martin has announced that Canada will not participate in BMD with the US. In response the US has announced that is "disappointed" but regardless it will defend the skies over North America. Translation: who cares what Canada thinks, we will shoot down any perceived threat and we ain't gonna call first.

    This announcement of unilateral action on the part of the US seems to have taken our tree-hugging brigade by surprise. What exactly did they think that the US response would be? That they wouldn't shoot down missiles until they crossed the border? And, even if we "strenuously object" with what exactly are we to oppose the US?

    Anyone with a US/UK/other perspective on this?
     
  2. Canada is certainly entitled to not participate in the missile defense program. I think this puts NORAD in jeapordy. Canada will allow defense against bombers but not ballistic missiles ? I think it is time to shut down NORAD. The US Space Command can handle the NORAD mission as it already runs the Space Defense Operations Center, Space Surveillance Center, Missile Warning Center and the Joint Space Intelligence Center. The Space Command operates the satellite system as well.

    As wotan pointed out the US will intercept [or try to] all inbound ballistic missiles. Canada will still be protected by this system. Inbound warheads will be engaged at high enough altitude to limit any damage to the ground.
    Right now there have been software glitches in the interceptor, but the USN
    sea based system has had 5-6 kills. The most recent successful test was yesterday. This is good news for forward deployed US forces and our allies.

    http://www.acq.osd.mil/mda/mdalink/html/mdalink.html
     
  3. It seems that Mr. Dithers has "insisted" that the US ask permission to shoot down missiles in Canadian airspace (http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/02/25/942405-cp.html). However, there is no word if he has contacted countries like North Korea or organizations like Al Qaeda to "insist" that they ask persmission to have their missiles traverse through Canadian airspace en route to US targets.

    That aside, I'm not sure what Mr. Dithers will do if the US doesn't comply. Cut off their sole source of maple syrup? Invade with our proposed but unmanned Peacekeeping Brigade? Perhaps we will menace them with our Armoured Corps that lacks tanks?

    Earth to Paul, Earth to Paul: You are a moron.
     
  4. Gotta love it.....asking for permission to shoot down ICBMs in canadian airspace??

    I am....CANADIAN


    brings to mind the film Canadian Bacon
     
  5. Which has right of way? Inbound missiles headed to the US, outbound anti-missile missiles or outbound retaliatory strike missiles? Hmm, we should form a Senate Committee and study the issue......
     
  6. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    Good for the Canucks :) When it comes to nuclear issues, diplomatically they are more akin to a protest group than a Nation! They lean further to the disarmament camp than any other NATO member, even the Dutch :D

    They know that they will still be under the MD umbrella, and can spout their nonsense, and get third-world Kudos, without risking their safety. Pathetic.
     
  7. It's about not spending money. Canada knows the US will still carry on and defend NA. (this isn't a new concept for Canada, really)

    The rest of the rhetoric from Mr Dithers is smoke and mirrors, as he thinks it's what Canadians want to hear.

    When you rely, almost completely, on the Armed Forces of another nation to defend your sovergn territory, are you still a nation?
     
  8. Well, it's like the old saying goes: "Every country will have an army. It is simply a question of whether it is yours or someone else's". Canadians have made a choice, although they would strongly object should it be pointed out to them.
     
  9. What exactly is your Governemt scared of?
     
  10. The tree-hugging brigade.

    Decisions of any type.

    Small children.

    Petty dictators.

    Finding a backbone.

    Water pistols.

    The truth.

    Other than that, not much.
     
  11. I wasn't aware that we were at war. Who is it that the Americans are protecting us from?
     
  12. Out of interest and a lack of scientific knowledge... could someone tell me wether the contents of a missile loaded with something other than nuclear material, along the lines of bio/chem, would be destroyed along with the missile?

    Or would the destroyed missile spew it's contents over wherever it was on intercept?
     
  13. I believe that RCS was just pointing out that if a foreign power tried to invade Canada then the USA would intervene to maintain the safety buffer on land it holds now.

    Can't really blame them, every country must have a strategy on the element of invasion. Rather like the french investments in the white dye industry.
     
  14. I think its a good chance that chemical weapons would be destroyed in the upper atmosphere.
     
  15. It's OK Ruez, you can go back to sleep now.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.