Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
onedomino said:An August 2004 amendment expanded NORADs mission, allowing Canadians at NORAD headquarters to interpret and transfer U.S. satellite and radar data about incoming missiles to officials at the missile defense system, the United States Northern Command.
The two commands, located side-by-side at Cheyenne Mountain, Col., issued a two-sentence, joint statement Thursday saying Canada's NORAD role has not been "diminished."
"U.S. Northern Command will have operational control of the GMD system once the president and the U.S. secretary of defense declare a limited operational capability," said the statement.
The current system employs no ground-based stations on Canadian soil, nor would it necessarily if Canada had signed on, said MacDonald.The current system employs no ground-based stations on Canadian soil, nor would it necessarily if Canada had signed on, said MacDonald. (Get that, Brock?)
Where are you getting this opinion from? It is not about money. Please re-read the above posts by the Canadian press. The lack of required Canadian investment is repeatedly confirmed. The Canadian rejection of BMD is about pandering to Martin's leftist political coalition. Please site a source that outlines the required Canadian expenditure for BMD. Also, unlike the Brock misinformation posted above, BMD need not be based on Canadian soil. That was confirmed by Canadas own Lt. Gen. posted above. It seems that BMD disinformation in Canada has been quite effective. Further, Brock said that comparing American and Canadian defense expenditure was like comparing apples and oranges. Since his boast of increased Canadian military spending was put in context by showing that Americans shoulder 350 percent more defense spending per capita than Canadians (see above post), I am not surprised that he descended to fruit analogies.Said1 said:Seems like it's all about money and investing in the development of the program
Canada's Historic Missile Snub Will Have Unpredictable Consequences: Analysts
Alexander Panetta
Canadian Press
February 25, 2005
OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's rejection of missile defense is a historic shift in its relationship with the United States and could have deep unforeseen consequences, analysts warn.
This week's announcement is more significant than Canada's refusal to join fighting in Iraq or Vietnam because, some say, this time the country has rejected a domestic defense plan. One military analyst in Washington says Canada has turned its back on a 67-year-old agreement signed by then-prime minister Mackenzie King and president Franklin Roosevelt to jointly defend North America.
"This is a significant policy change, and it will clearly have consequences," says a briefing paper released Friday by Dwight Mason.
He served for eight years as chairman of the American section of the Canada-U.S. Permanent Joint Board on Defense and was a diplomat in Ottawa.
The first impact, he suggested, will come next year when the Norad agreement comes up for renewal, but it could also have economic consequences as yet unknown.
"The decision to opt out of missile defence is an abandonment of some Canadian sovereignty," he writes.
"This brings the basic partnership policy underlying the U.S.-Canadian defence relationship into question. These developments will have long-term consequences that will take time to be revealed fully."
One immediate consequence could affect Prime Minister Paul Martin's role on the international stage.
If he had any hope the United States would help him create his cherished G-20 group of world leaders, those hopes may have been extinguished permanently.
One U.S. official emitted a deep, extended laugh when asked for an assessment of the prime minister and said Canada no longer qualifies as a trusted ally.
While wary of speaking on the record, the Americans are particularly annoyed with Martin over what they perceive as weak leadership.
They say he expressed support for missile defence, then did nothing to refute misconceptions about it, and finally pulled out when public opinion mushroomed against it.
Most analysts believe the Canada-U.S. trade relationship will continue unhindered because the countries rely heavily on each other's goods and services.
But Canada's refusal to sign on to the missile plan could further marginalize its concerns and interests when trade-related issues like softwood lumber appear before U.S. Congress, said one Calgary observer.
"This is one more issue that goes into the balance scale, one more reason to say, 'Screw Canada,' " said David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.
"There's a lot of precedent for us not participating (in military operations) overseas.
"To my knowledge, this is the first time we've said no to the United States on what the Americans consider a crucial matter of continental defence."
He said the missile-defence snub was more significant even than the debate over whether to store nuclear-tipped Bomarc missiles on Canadian soil.
Thursday's announcement already has both countries debating some of the consequences.
A defiant Martin declared again Friday that the United States must seek permission before firing any missile over Canadian airspace.
He was responding to warnings that Canada has abdicated sovereignty by refusing to take part in the U.S. project.
The top U.S. envoy to Canada - Ambassador Paul Cellucci - says Canada would be "outside of the room" when his country decides whether to fire at incoming missiles.
But Martin said Friday: "We would expect to be consulted.
"This is our airspace, we're a sovereign nation and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission."
Martin repeated Friday that Canada reaffirmed its sovereignty this week with a $12.8-billion investment over five years to help rebuild the military.
But critics said the prime minister is deluding himself if he expects a heads-up. Bercuson said only military officials involved in missile defence would be in on any strike.
"Somebody has obviously not explained to the prime minister how these arrangements work," Bercuson said.
"The reason you put these arrangements in place beforehand . . . is that you don't have to run back to your respective government every time you have to make a decision.
"The White House would be informed that there was a missile launch against North America. It would not be asked for its permission to shoot the missile down."
One Conservative critic openly mocked the idea that Martin would get a phone call.
"What, are (the Americans) phoning a 1-800 number on missile consultation?" said Conservative foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day.
"These missiles are coming in at, you know, four kilometres a second." But the leader of the NDP said the only delusion is in the minds of people imagining scare scenarios of some potential missile attack.
"These are the kind of hypothetical questions that (George) Bush has tried to create in the minds of people to elevate a sense of fear," said Jack Layton.
"The fact is that if Canada is a part of a program like this, then we become a target."
onedomino said:Where are you getting this opinion from? It is not about money. Please re-read the above posts by the Canadian press. The lack of required Canadian investment is repeatedly confirmed. The Canadian rejection of BMD is about pandering to Martin's leftist political coalition. Please site a source that outlines the required Canadian expenditure for BMD. Also, unlike the Brock misinformation posted above, BMD need not be based on Canadian soil. That was confirmed by Canadas own Lt. Gen. posted above. It seems that BMD disinformation in Canada has been quite effective. Further, Brock said that comparing American and Canadian defense expenditure was like comparing apples and oranges. Since his boast of increased Canadian military spending was put in context by showing that Americans shoulder 350 percent more defense spending per capita than Canadians (see above post), I am not surprised that he descended to fruit analogies.
I misinterpreted the following sentence? You state that "it's all about money and investment." I assumed, due to the context of the discussion, "it's" referred to the Canadian rejection of BMD.Said1 said:Did you think about what I wrote, or simply react to it? Show me where I'm condredicting anything you just said. Chill out. :chillpill
-Said1 said:Seems like it's all about moneyand investing in the development of the program, without Canada having a bigger role within the system itself.
onedomino said:I misinterpreted the following sentence? You state that "it's all about money and investment." I assumed, due to the context of the discussion, "it's" referred to the Canadian rejection of BMD.-
McKenna Goes Ballistic Over Decision
Don Martin
National Post
Saturday, February 26, 2005
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=f417cf00-52ac-4ea9-854e-6072841d6e68
OTTAWA - He went, um, ballistic at hearing the news.
Frank McKenna is one angry Washington-bound Canadian ambassador after being left in the dark about the government's decision to deny its blessing to the U.S. ballistic missile defence system.
Put less diplomatically, "he is seriously pissed," according to a senior government source.
The anger is understandable, and explains why the former New Brunswick premier has gone underground and is not returning media calls.
McKenna appeared before a parliamentary committee on Tuesday to shine up his credentials before being formally dispatched for duty in the U.S. capital.
During and after the meeting, McKenna correctly observed that Canada, as a partner in the North American Aerospace Defence Command's sky-sweeping missile-seeking duties, was already a de facto participant in the ballistic missile defence shield.
What he didn't know, but should've been told, was that the Prime Minister had just informed the Americans that Canada would deny its political okey-dokey to the concept.
That big bang you heard was a Martin kill shot intercepting McKenna's political credibility before he could reach the Canadian Embassy in Washington.
There's a strange theory in circulation that Martin did a masterful job of fence-sitting the file; that he used McKenna to promote Canada's quiet participation in missile defence before officially washing his hands of any political culpability.
Sorry, no. It was a three-day convergence of extreme political ineptitude by a Prime Minister who had decided to follow the polls and flip-flop his opinion after more than a year of indecision. How bad was it? Let me count the ways.
- By denying McKenna advance notice about a done decision of obvious importance to his job, Martin embarrassed and infuriated a showcase ambassador he took a year to find, ensuring his welcome to Washington will be on the cool side of cordial.
- By leaking news of the decision the day before the budget and confirming it the day after, Martin turned his much-praised budget into a one-day news wonder. Particularly shortchanged is Defence Minister Bill Graham, who lost the chance to bask in afterglow of a huge military spending boost.
- The weird timing forced both Martin and Graham to fib in the Commons on Tuesday and Wednesday by suggesting the decision not to endorse missile defence had not been made when, in fact, it had.
- The Prime Minister irritated his Cabinet by using his ministers as false cover for allegedly making a decision on Thursday that had already been relayed to the Americans two days earlier.
- Martin has officially reneged an oft-stated promise to put the question to MPs for a debate.
The awkward way the decision was announced confirms this was not reflecting deep Liberal pride in the position.
When Jean Chretien announced Canada's refusal to join the U.S.-led coalition of the willing in the war against Iraq, he declared it defiantly in the Commons in the middle of Question Period to a thundering standing ovation from all parties but the Conservatives.
Martin, by contrast, dispatched Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew to the Commons on only an hour's notice, where he did a lacklustre reading of a text before an audience of just 10 Liberals. Martin surfaced briefly a few minutes later to read his own text, stammered through just four questions from reporters before bolting for cover in his office.
This was not a communications plan of strategic brilliance. It is the polar opposite, a reluctant decision forced on Martin because he was running out of dither time if he hoped to avoid the issue hijacking his policy convention next week.
Look, it's entirely possible the Americans are pouring billions into a concept that will never fire a shot in anger at an enemy. They are, after all, having trouble getting the test-fire phase off the ground.
But here's the cost of saying a symbolic 'yes': Zip. No cash. No land required for missile launch sites. No bureaucracy to supervise the erection of the shield.
And here are the consequences of saying 'no': The thawing of a troubled relationship is back in the deep freeze, confirming Canada's place in American minds as a northern wimp who won't even join a military umbrella to protect its own air space.
For ambassador Frank McKenna, that suddenly makes Canada a very tough country to represent to the United States. He has every right to be angry.
-U.S. Shoots Down Missile in Test Near Hawaii
Last Updated Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:36:44 EST
CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2005/02/25/missile-test050225.html
WASHINGTON - The American military has successfully shot down a missile in a test of its missile defence system conducted off Hawaii.
The USS Lake Erie launched its Standard Missile SM-3 interceptor to knock down a mock warhead fired from a missile range on the island of Kauai, 160 kilometres away, the Pentagon said Thursday.
"We had a successful hit-to-kill intercept," said Richard Lehner, a spokesperson for the U.S. Missile Defense Agency.
This week's test marked the fifth success in a series of six similar tests conducted over oceans.
Land-based ballistic missile defence tests have also been conducted, with five out of eight tests considered a success.
In two of the ground-based tests, interceptors failed to launch from their silos.
-U.S. Secretary of State Delays Trip to Ottawa
CTV.ca News Staff
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1109644964763_26/?hub=TopStories
The ripple effect created when Canada said 'no' to signing on to U.S. missile defence seems to have penetrated deeper south of the border than first believed.
CTV News has learned that U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was so displeased by Canada's decision to opt out of the program that she's postponed a planned visit to Ottawa in mid-April.
This contradicts Ottawa's official line that U.S.-Canada relations are proceeding smoothly (what?!) after Prime Minister Paul Martin announced last week that Canada won't be a part of the controversial ballistic missile defence (BMD) program.
A senior U.S. State Department official, who was on board a London-bound flight with Rice, confirmed to CTV News that the cancellation of the Canadian visit was a direct consequence of Martin's decision.
Washington State Department spokesman Adam Ereli took a softer line, saying there's still discussion going on about the timing of the meeting, and that "it'll happen when the stars are all aligned in the right way."
That could take a very long time, reports Clark. He adds that it wasn't just that Martin opted out of the American plan but the way in which he did it.
Martin has sent signals in the past that he was in favour of Washington's missile defence program.
"I think our sovereignty depends on our being at the table when discussions are taking place about the defence of North America," he said about a year-and-a-half ago.
And last fall, Defence Minister Bill Graham made statements indicating it would be a serious mistake for the government not to be at the table with the Americans on the issue of missile defence.
But on Thursday, Martin announced: "BMD is not where we will concentrate our efforts. Instead, we will act both alone and with our neighbours on defence priorities outlined in (the) budget."
Chris Sands of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies says that the result of Martin's backtracking on the issue could have negative consequences for Canada-U.S. relations.
"The one thing with Bush, the one thing you don't do with him is double-talk him. You tell him what you think," he tells CTV News.
Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada, says American anger and astonishment at Canada's decision runs deep.
"As I said last week, I don't understand why Canada would give up its seat at the table, given our history of working together in the defence of North America, particularly at NORAD. But that was a decision for Canada," he tells CTV News.
Rice is currently in London at a conference of Palestinian reforms, as is Canada's Foreign Minister, Pierre Pettigrew.
An official in Pettigrew's office told CTV News that the minister will try to have a private word with Rice and perhaps even extend another invitation to Ottawa.
The secretary of state's planned visit to Canada's capital was supposed to actually be a follow-up trip to another meeting.
The White House has confirmed with CTV News that there will be a summit between Martin, Bush and Mexican President Vincente Fox in Mexico City on March 23.
But with no follow-up, says Clark, "it begs the question: how seriously are Canada's concerns going to be taken at that summit?
"Bush is very frustrated with Canada and the way Canadians are making their decisions, about everything from Iraq to missile defence," says Clark, adding that consequences of Martin's decision could impact trade areas such as softwood lumber. (Maybe Canada can sell its softwood lumber to the EU.)
One analyst in Washington says Canada's rejection of missile defence is a historic shift in its relationship with the U.S. and could have deep, unforeseen results.
Dwight Mason, former chairman of the American section of the Canada-U.S. Permanent Joint Board on Defense, said one impact will come next year when the Norad agreement comes up for renewal.
"The decision to opt out of missile defence is an abandonment of some Canadian sovereignty," he writes.
This wasn't the first time that Canada has angered the U.S. in recent years.
Two years ago, then prime minister Jean Chretien decided Canada would not join the American-led coalition to invade Iraq.
Bush promptly reacted by cancelling a visit to Ottawa, saying he was too busy with the war in Iraq to address a planned joint session of parliament in May, 2003.
But here's the cost of saying a symbolic 'yes': Zip. No cash. No land required for missile launch sites. No bureaucracy to supervise the erection of the shield.
And here are the consequences of saying 'no': The thawing of a troubled relationship is back in the deep freeze, confirming Canada's place in American minds as a northern wimp who won't even join a military umbrella to protect its own air space.
I wondered how long it would take you to make some personal remark. Because I have objected to Canada's abrogation of a tradition of agreements for the common protection of North America that go back 67 years, I have an obvious hatred for Canada? To apply your logic, since Dr. Rice objects to the Canadian BMD decision and canceled a trip to Ottawa, she must have an obvious hatred of Canada. Absurd. This is what I object to: Martin knows that regardless of his decision not to protect Canadian cities against missile attack, America will nevertheless provide that protection. Thus he freeloads on American defense systems while simultaneously pandering to his leftist political coalition. Do you imagine that if a missile is ever fired at a Canadian city that America would simply let it impact? Not pulling their weight in the defense of North America is something that Canadians have gotten away with because it is known that the US will defend North America regardless of their behavior. This is the attitude that has pertained during decades of Canadian military neglect. Canada is the 2nd largest country on the planet and it spends the pathetically small amount of $14.5 billion on defense (that is with the proposed 20 percent increase!). Why? Because Canada knows the US will defend North America regardless of what it spends. Americans shoulder 350 percent more defense spending per capita than do Canadians. Part of the reason for this disparity is that Canadians do not perform their fair share in the defense of North America. Martins cancellation of Canadian participation in continental BMD is cynical and disingenuous because he knows that the US will defend North America regardless of his sniveling with Canadian leftists.Said1 said:Your obvious hatred towards Canada is very apparent. But let me ask you this, why do you care do much? This affects you how?
onedomino said:I wondered how long it would take you to make some personal remark. Because I have objected to Canada's abrogation of a tradition of agreements for the common protection of North America that go back 67 years, I have an obvious hatred for Canada?
To apply your logic, since Dr. Rice objects to the Canadian BMD decision and canceled a trip to Ottawa, she must have an obvious hatred of Canada. Absurd.
onedomino said:Thank you for the specious apology. Your interpretation of my "overall tone" is inaccurate and unjustified, unless you think criticism equals "obvious hatred." Most of the remarks in this thread are from the Canadian press.
Merlin1047 said:This decision by the Canadian government is a puzzler indeed. I could understand it if the PM believed the missile shield to be an expensive and ineffective waste of resources. I could understand it if he felt that it would somehow endanger Canada. But since the US will bear the burden of the price tag and there appears to be no hostile fallout from foreign governments, I can only assume that the PM's recalcitrance on this issue is motivated simply by his desire to thumb his nose at the US.
And that's ok too. We also have our share of stupid politicians down here. Okay - so maybe we have more than our share.
But what really puzzles me is that the PM asserts that even though Canada refuses to participate, the US is still obliged to ask Canadian permission prior to launching an interceptor missile through Canadian airspace. Is this guy on drugs or is he honing his stand-up comedy act?
I'm glad you brought up Canada's size because it is actually one thing that COSTS us an incredible amount of money. We have a tiny population trying to support a huge land mass, 70% of which is barely inhabitable but still needs roads, mail service, and government offices. If you said we didn't spend enough on defense, I would agree with you but to suggest that we should spend an amount that is proportional to our geographic size is simply not realistic.onedomino said:Canada is the 2nd largest country on the planet and it spends the pathetically small amount of $14.5 billion on defense (that is with the proposed 20 percent increase!).
Said1 said:He obviously sold out, I think the opposition was just too extreme. Harper's conservatives don't appear to care that much one way or another, but the bloc and NDP were adamant, and so was most of Canada.....which would include his own party.
I don't know enough about the legalities of it, but I'm pretty sure the missile shield violates certain UN resolutions or something (but I would have to look it up, and I don't feel like it right now). If this is the case, we all know Canada won't be going against the UN anytime soon.
HorhayAtAMD said:I'm glad you brought up Canada's size because it is actually one thing that COSTS us an incredible amount of money. We have a tiny population trying to support a huge land mass, 70% of which is barely inhabitable but still needs roads, mail service, and government offices. If you said we didn't spend enough on defense, I would agree with you but to suggest that we should spend an amount that is proportional to our geographic size is simply not realistic.
