February 24, 2006
OH CANADA, THEY STAND ON GUARD FOR THEE
O'Connor willing to re-open missile defence debate (John Ward, National Post, February 24th, 2006)
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says he's willing to re-open the controversial debate on ballistic missile defence.However, the minority Conservative government would eventually put the question before the Commons and since all three opposition parties have opposed the idea in the past, the concept is likely dead before it starts.
''It would really, ultimately, be up to a vote in Parliament,'' the minister told reporters Thursday.
The previous Liberal government seemed to favour participation in missile defence, which was a key policy for the Bush administration. The Liberals eventually made a U-turn and said no. [...]
Opponents of the missile plan say it won't work and risks kicking off a new international arms race.
Supporters say it could offer some protection against a terror strike, it would improve Canada-U.S. relations and since the Americans have asked for neither territory nor money, it would be cheap.
We’re holding out for a free toy.
Posted by Peter Burnet at February 24, 2006 7:16 AMIn what possible way - besides providing a couple of acres of land - could Canada participate meaningfully in missile defense?
And why should we care, subject to prevailing winds? North Korea ain't going to launch a missle at the oils sands in Alberta, the softwood forests or Banff.
Posted by: Rick T. at February 24, 2006 9:17 AMSounds like is a good idea to put it up to a vote in the House of Commons.
If it's a foregone conclusion that it would lose, it would give Canadians who want to re-enter the Community of Democracies a way to show their solidarity.
Posted by: John J. Coupal at February 24, 2006 9:49 AMAre we asking permission to destroy incoming missiles over their territory? Not that they could stop us...
Posted by: David Cohen at February 24, 2006 9:59 AMRick T.;
That's one of the more bizarre facets of the original rejection. Basically the USA said "Hey, free missile defense system!" and Canada said "no".
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at February 24, 2006 1:53 PMThe Cold-War Distant Early Warning (DEW) radars were spread across 2000+ miles of Alaska, the northern Canadian shield, and Greenland. They protected all of North America from circa 1952 through circa 1994 against Soviet nuclear attack.
When 1000 nukes were poised to be lobbed over the North Pole from Russia, nobody in Canada objected to establishing radars to detect them.
Today, when a handful of nukes from North Korea threaten the US, which might incidentally cross Canadian airspace to reach northern US targets, the Candadian government balks at allowing our anti-missile-missles to merely cross Canadian airspace to simply intercept the NK missles before they cause megadeaths in the US.
How exactly should the US interpret that position?
Posted by: Gideon at February 24, 2006 5:47 PMGideon:
Don't take this as in any way exculpatory or a plea for undeserved patience, but the triumph of the American left and MSM is one answer.
Posted by: Peter B at February 24, 2006 6:22 PMThe US position should be:
1. If a US missile needs to cross Canadian airspace to intercept a nuke inbound to the United States, we will fire the missile.
2. If Canada objects to #1 above, then if an inbound nuke is projected to impact in Canada, we will fully respect Canadian airspace.
Posted by: Mike Morley at February 24, 2006 7:24 PM