Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada

[P-Free]

The problem with the "I rather have one than not" argument is that there are better BMD systems than this one. This system is far too expensive and doesn't provides a false sense of security, read any of the links to the system tests, look at the cost of this system and then argue that it's a good idea.

Expense isn't an argument against defense spending.

At the very least Canada should have taken a seat at the table, shown an interest in the idea, and waited till more research and tests were done before passing judgement. As it stands right now, we have no voice in any part of the program, it is still moving ahead and yet our politicians want it both ways when they say they want to be warned if/when a missile is to be shot down over our airspace since we're a sovereign nation.

Sovereign yet another country is building a system to defend Canada..

 

[oyaguy]

In my bleeding liberal {small-l liberal I might add) heart, "Great, we didn't join because we shouldn't encourage nonsense".

In my head though, its "Might as well have joined, we lose nothing by doing so and might get some better trade deals in the process, Whoohoo!"

A little conflicted I am.

Ballistic Missile Defense, does not work. Lets not make no beefs about it, it does not work. Yet at least.
The recent test to the contrary, actually accomplished what people thought the Patriot missile could do ten years ago, namely shoot down a Scud missile. Probably a good thing for regional defense, but still useless for what we really worry about, i.e. Interncontinental Ballistic Missiles.

What really bothers me about BMD, is its premature. People talk about teething problems. Someone used the Moon landings as an example. The real example would have been something along the lines of sending Apollo 1 to the moon as its maiden flight.
Before the first man went to the moon, a probe went to the moon, and proved it could be done. Probes landed on the moon and proved it could be done. All the while this is happening they were doing manned missions in orbit to see how a man responds to the lack of gravity. There were practical problems, but they were dealt with. People still died, namely the crew of Apollo 1. But they learned, and went ahead.
No one expected the Mercury Program, the Gemini Program, or the earlier marks of the Apollo program to land on the moon. But they kept at it and learned.
BMD though is somewhere in the Gemini Program to stick with the analogy. While they might be learning, its far too early to jump to a production model of an anti-ballistic missile, and planting them in silos. They don't do any good aside from further testing, and providing a false sense of security.

Make no mistakes people, if an accident happened in Russia or China, if North Korea pulled the trigger, the only recourse Canada, United States and the World in general, has is to get under the table and pray the missile misses, or something falls off.

BMD is best left as the research project its been since Reagan started it, and the US should save some billlions of dollars and buy more armoured vehicles, or just save the money.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the theory of BMD {Actually there is a few spots on the theory of BMD, but I am not going to worry about those}, but the US shouldn't be jumping the gun on BMD, and being so pushy about it. They know it doesn't work {yet, fingers crossed}. We know it doesn't work. They're asking for no help whatsoever in the development of BMD, aside from the help we have already give, i.e. the use of NORAD.

I'm sorry when you're asking for such a commitment, why bother? We're already doing for BMD, what we would have if we joined.

So to the States, stop being so pushy, do you really need Canada to hold your hand and tell you its alright?{Another plea for Sarcasm punctuation}.

 

[FastEddy]

The problem with the "I rather have one than not" argument is that there are better BMD systems than this one. This system is far too expensive and doesn't provides a false sense of security, read any of the links to the system tests, look at the cost of this system and then argue that it's a good idea.

And as for curing cancer FastEddy... that's research that is not misguided and continued to due its own perpetual motion.

Firstly, I did not make any mention of Rank. Secondly, That was sarcasm with reference to Cancer, in that,
if you were in charge of it, you'd probably give up on it because of failures, cost of research and the slow or lack of development.

I'm not quiet sure what you mean by "and doesn't provides a false sense of security". As for the system being far too expensive, maybe it is or maybe not, but thats none of anyones business except the American Public and their Government. Certainly not yours.

As for not choosing a better system, presuming you are in possesion of such knowledge and the U.S. isn't,
I find that very selfish of you to have not imparted that information to them.

Throughout the Worlds Arms and Technolgy Race, the United States seems to have done pretty well and I would put my money on them anytime. And for one, I am damn glad they have.

 

[big bad john]

McKenna goes ballistic over decision
 
Don Martin
National Post


February 26, 2005


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.

© National Post 2005

 

[JBP]

An update on how the BMD system is "working".... Just a little FYI for those who care!




U.S. missile shield fails another test
Associated Press

WASHINGTON â ” A test of the national missile defense system failed Monday when an interceptor missile did not launch from its island base in the Pacific Ocean, the military said. It was the second failure in months for the experimental program.

A statement from the Missile Defense Agency said the cause of the failure was under investigation.

A spokesman for the agency, Rick Lehner, said the early indications was that there was a malfunction with the ground support equipment at the test range on Kwajalein Island, not with the interceptor missile itself.

If verified, that would be a relief for program officials because it would mean no new problems had been discovered with the missile. Previous failures of these high-profile, $85 million test launches have been regarded as significant setbacks by critics of the program.

In Monday's test, the interceptor missile was to target a mock ICBM fired from Kodiak Island, Alaska. The target missile launched at 1:22 a.m. Monday EST without any problems, but the interceptor did not launch.

The previous test, on Dec. 15, failed under almost identical circumstances. The target missile launched, but the interceptor did not. Military officials later blamed that failure on fault-tolerance software that was oversensitive to small errors in the flow of data between the missile and a flight computer. The software shut down the launch; officials said they would decrease the sensitivity in future launches.

Before the Dec. 15 launch, it had been two years since a test. The program had gone five-for-eight in previous attempts to intercept a target.

No date for the next test has been announced. It is unclear how continued test failures would affect two experimental interceptor bases in Alaska and California.

Those two bases, Fort Greely, Alaska, and Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., are positioned to oppose the threat of attack from North Korea. Both are still classified as experimental but, officials say, they could fire interceptors in an emergency.

The Pentagon has not declared those bases "operational," but officials say they would work anyway once certain mechanical blocks are removed from the interceptors themselves. Six interceptors are at the Alaska site, with two more in California as a backup. Up to 10 more will go into silos in Alaska this year, officials say.

 

[Buzz]

Expense isn't an argument against defense spending.

At the very least Canada should have taken a seat at the table, shown an interest in the idea, and waited till more research and tests were done before passing judgement. As it stands right now, we have no voice in any part of the program, it is still moving ahead and yet our politicians want it both ways when they say they want to be warned if/when a missile is to be shot down over our airspace since we're a sovereign nation.

Sovereign yet another country is building a system to defend Canada..

I agree that Canada should have had a seat at the table and conducted further reaseach in maybe learning how it works and how to implement our own defense system.  I think we should be capable of developing our own with out needing another country holding our hand while in the washroom.

You say "Sovereign yet another country is building a system to defend Canada.."  I thought it was to defend the USA..to defend NA was the selling feature (marketing ploy)  If this is the case, as I mentioned before, in a completely different thread, Mexico should be in on this as well no? But once again I've got the map upsidedown, ohh wait it's right side up!!  

Personally, if it really matters what I think.  Why not shoot it down anyway at a much earlier stage in flight than the US can get to it.  If they decide to shoot an ICBM down over Canada what does that say, though.  IN the words of Pres Bush "We don't need a permission slip...."  so they are going to let rockets fly anyway. only because we have early warning from NORAD we can utilize our position as an advantage for identifying any unknown in our airspace..(curious to know what the policy is on that). Wouldn't it still apply?    But where they strike the target is more concerning if anything.  This is something that should be negotiated more because the way it looks is we'll save american lives but if a missle is over Canada we'll shoot it down and who cares if it's over a major pop centre or not.  I think that this is what the PM is trying to portray, possibly but don't want to jump to conclusions.  But makes sense. 

5/8 is not that great of odds....passes but barely.  just those other 3 misses could be the big kahoona's.  Has to work 100% or nothing.  It's like this, do you go to a new car lot and buy a car with 3 new tires and the forth tire is down to the steal belting? It's a 4 banger and only had 3 spark plugs.  Not only that, no passenger seat either, but has a back seat. Hate to see if the brakes work.. See where I'm going? Why would you buy this you may ask.  Good Question. 

I'm all for Made in Canada!!

-Buzz

 

[Jungle]

5/8 is not that great of odds....passes but barely.   just those other 3 misses could be the big kahoona's.   Has to work 100% or nothing.   It's like this, do you go to a new car lot and buy a car with 3 new tires and the forth tire is down to the steal belting? It's a 4 banger and only had 3 spark plugs.   Not only that, no passenger seat either, but has a back seat. Hate to see if the brakes work.. See where I'm going? Why would you buy this you may ask.   Good Question.  

So according to your logic, we may as well shut down all research and development centers, and wait for the perfect products ?!? If nobody had bought cars 100 years ago, would we have the product we have now ?? See where I'm going ??
Expecting any system to work 100% is unrealistic...
Finally, I like the analogy with the space program; without the benefit of previous projects, Apollo would never have been successful. A few years ago, the US was able to successfully send a robot to Mars in order to sniff rocks to find out if they were alive... surely they will find a way to intercept a missile in flight. 

 

[muskrat89]

Finally, I like the analogy with the space program

Of course we didn't come up with Canadarm or Marc Garneau either, until NASA had worked all the bugs out of the space program... 

 

[mz589]

In my bleeding liberal {small-l liberal I might add) heart, "Great, we didn't join because we shouldn't encourage nonsense".

In my head though, its "Might as well have joined, we lose nothing by doing so and might get some better trade deals in the process, Whoohoo!"

A little conflicted I am.

Ballistic Missile Defense, does not work. Lets not make no beefs about it, it does not work. Yet at least.
The recent test to the contrary, actually accomplished what people thought the Patriot missile could do ten years ago, namely shoot down a Scud missile. Probably a good thing for regional defense, but still useless for what we really worry about, i.e. Interncontinental Ballistic Missiles.

I agree with you on this one. And I've also at times been conflicted as to whether to sign on or not. Sometimes I thought, "It doesn't work so why sign on?" and "It doesn't work anyway so why not sign on?"

I think in the end the only reason the Americans wanted us to have anything to do with BMD was to legitimize the project to their countrymen and to the world. If we had signed on they could point to "Big, friendly, peace loving Canada even signing on to the programme, look they don't think it will start an arms race either."

As far as conceding soverignty goes, the US doesn't recognize the Northwest passage as Canadain territory and have reportedly been sending submarines through. Back in the 80's they did the same thing and that was when we had a Prime Minister that liked nothing better than to grovel to them (Mulroney). Our territorial soveriegnty means nothing to them, however if concede politically  by doing as they wish every time they ask then our sovereignty has truly been relinquished.

Then there's the fact of what signing on would do poilitcally to our country. The program is a non-starter in Quebec, if Martin had signed he might as well have conceded the entire province to the Bloc in the next election. This could very well mean the Bloc becoming the official opposition again, only in a minority government. How dangerous would that be to our country? Probably more so than some concievable rogue state wanting to shoot a nuke at us or the US and being willing to be nuked in return.

 

[Thirstyson]

Thanks oyaguy for putting so elegantly the point of view I'm trying to get accross.

 

[Buzz]

...... we may as well shut down all research and development centers, and wait for the perfect products ?!? If nobody had bought cars 100 years ago, would we have the product we have now ?? See where I'm going ?? Expecting any system to work 100% is unrealistic...
Finally, I like the analogy with the space program; without the benefit of previous projects, Apollo would never have been successful. A few years ago, the US was able to successfully send a robot to Mars in order to sniff rocks to find out if they were alive... surely they will find a way to intercept a missile in flight.

I believe I said I'm all for Made in Canada didn't I?  But we'll keep buying junk from other countries I guess, and take their word for it that "it works" with a smile.  Second I'm not talking about a 100 years from today before this should work, I think you and I will be long gone to worry about that. I'm taking about today. Right here, right now.  

Scenero --- Boom ICBM launch.  Counter launch.... the counter has a 62% hit ratio.  hahaha ....am I going to be crossing my fingers for a hit.  You bet i am!! and my toes!! Because the ICBM will have a much higher hit ratio? Of course it will! And a valiant effort with a knife in a gun fight.  

I was using the Car as a object of opening your mind to a comparison of something into simpler terms.  That if you went onto a car lot, would you buy that car.  Probably not.  Unfortunetly, no I don't see where your going. Other than listening to a consumer talk about how this should work and that should work and ohh I need air conditioning.  More money, more money, more money.  System upgrades add on packages....did you want air conditioning too? I got it and man, it feels great!  Expecting a piece of equipment to work is 100% realistic if it doesn't, then it is out of service until it is. And is properly maintained so I can expect it to run 100%.  It's a great idea (don't get me wrong), but a bit to early to pass off the selling features of something that could be so great.  In the mean time with our doors still open for reasearch (not sure where you gathered that) we are on our way to developing our own equipment based off of our own set standards.  I think we are able to do that, don't you??

You didn't ignored the fact of a possible ICBM being shot down over Canada did you?  

Yes I like the idea of the space program aswell....no disagreement there.

Cheers!
-Buzz

 

[Jungle]

62% chance of survival, right here right now, or 100% chance of dying. When you are in the situation, the choice is easy. So if your car is 100% perfect, I guess you don't need that warranty, right ? Did you tell your salesman ?
You don't get it: we made miracles with the CANADARM; but on it's own, it is useless. Without the US shuttle, what good would it be ?
And I think you're a bit selfish; if we keep making decisions about "right here, right now" future generations will be faced with problems we should have taken action on at an early stage. I want my kids, and their kids, to be as safe as possible in the future, so we should put all chances on our side.
And where do you plan on finding the funds for a CDN version of BMD ??

 

[Buzz]

62% chance of survival, right here right now, or 100% chance of dying. When you are in the situation, the choice is easy. So if your car is 100% perfect, I guess you don't need that warranty, right ? Did you tell your salesman ?
You don't get it: we made miracles with the CANADARM; but on it's own, it is useless. Without the US shuttle, what good would it be ?
And I think you're a bit selfish; if we keep making decisions about "right here, right now" future generations will be faced with problems we should have taken action on at an early stage. I want my kids, and their kids, to be as safe as possible in the future, so we should put all chances on our side.
And where do you plan on finding the funds for a CDN version of BMD ??

I understand where your coming form, completely.  You need "A" to rely on "B" in order to work effectively.  But it was developed to serve it's purpose wasn't it?  no gas , car won't run. haha 

I agree that we need to have an impact to affect future generations. At the same time, though, would we be hindering or helping them with the implementation of this shield or "a" shield for that matter.  We are in a position where if we accept it...other countries that are Canada friendly to take a second look at why they are Canada friendly and what our motives are to sign up for somthing that could pose a threat and turn out to  be useless to us but useful to the States.  ei) losing our soverienty in a way.  History always repeates itself and if we are looking for peace then why would we enter into something that could potentially be looked upon as taking a defensive position..when right now it could be looked upon like an open door.  Just if you come in take your shoes/boots off at that door.  Why just Canada once again? Why not other countries that are US friendly that are in a closer positon to where these lauches may take place.  Somethings to think about.....why not everyone get on board for this defense shield??  Why should we be pushed into this and what are the ultimate motives other than selling features. 

ONce again I quote Bush "WE will not be asking for a permission slip from Mr. Martin...."  What does that say?  They don't care one way or another.  They don't respect Canada and from an earlier post, how much will Canada's involvement be if Martin said "Yes".  Probably none to Nil..and nothing more that maybe gaining a possible closer positon within Canada. To protect their air space.  Why don't they just set up a defence shield on smack on the north pole?? 

Cheers!
-Buzz

Funding?  that is a completely different topic. But, Isn't Canada in such abundance of natural resourses??

 

[Jungle]

ONce again I quote Bush "WE will not be asking for a permission slip from Mr. Martin...."   What does that say?    They don't care one way or another.   They don't respect Canada and from an earlier post, how much will Canada's involvement be if Martin said "Yes".   Probably none to Nil..and nothing more that maybe gaining a possible closer positon within Canada. To protect their air space.   Why don't they just set up a defence shield on smack on the north pole??

Mr Bush is simply ensuring the security of his country and it's citizens; as mentionned in our own budget recently, this is the first duty of a Govt. No other countries are joining; how many have been offered ? How many are on the potential flight path of a missile aimed at the US from East Asia ? None.
Either way is fine with me; the Govt is mandated to make those decisions, and after dithering for far too long, the PM finally made it. I just hope that, SHOULD something happen in the future (5-10-20 years from now ?) we will be mature enough to accept the consequences of our decision, as it seems most Cdns agree with it, or will we try to blame everybody else for our misfortune ??

 

[Buzz]

Mr Bush is simply ensuring the security of his country and it's citizens; as mentionned in our own budget recently, this is the first duty of a Govt. No other countries are joining; how many have been offered ? How many are on the potential flight path of a missile aimed at the US from East Asia ? None.
Either way is fine with me; the Govt is mandated to make those decisions, and after dithering for far too long, the PM finally made it. I just hope that, SHOULD something happen in the future (5-10-20 years from now ?) we will be mature enough to accept the consequences of our decision, as it seems most Cdns agree with it, or will we try to blame everybody else for our misfortune ??

Good question...but at least we now know how far the States is willing to go to protect it's citizens and for Martin to make a request is legitimate.  as in warn us that they are going to enter our air space because of an inbound and hopefully it's sooner than later. Because destroying the missle at a certain latitude will be a deciding factor whether Canadian Citizens will now be effected.  And who says that the Arctic is a perfect passage? Cargo isn't bolted down and can be shipped and launched anywhere in the world and who says that one may not come out of South America??  do we know....intelligence has been wrong before...shipping manifests and such has been fudged in the past and can easily be fudged to pass off as goods for trade.  "Yes sir, it's a box of cocoa nuts!" 

But if only we could look into the future.  Maybe it'll be the States trying to blame and point fingers for their misfortune, once again.  It's happened before.  Blame Canada!  Seems we have heavy shoulders lately until found otherwise...then it's all good.  So misfortunes and buck passing seems to be the normal and latest trend...if they can do it why can't we?  Because we are going to be more mature??  We are already view upon as being a friendly county...what else do we need?  Canada cannot do any wrong and Just saying "No" solidifies that and further protect it's citizens.  When we have tarnished the image of Canada around the world as much as the States has.  So why join up for something that can make us look guilty by assoc. and effect our trade with other countries. Ultimately...we need trade to provide revenue to provide funding....I still like the resources idea though.  >

-Buzz

 

[Blue Max]

We are in a position where if we accept it...other countries that are Canada friendly to take a second look at why they are Canada friendly and what our motives are to sign up for somthing that could pose a threat and turn out to   be useless to us but useful to the States.   ei) losing our soverienty in a way.  

Why just Canada once again? Why not other countries that are US friendly that are in a closer positon to where these lauches may take place.   Somethings to think about.....why not everyone get on board for this defense shield??   Why should we be pushed into this and what are the ultimate motives other than selling features.  

I hate to burst your bubble but Japan has already signed on and has contributed $300M US over 6yrs starting from 1998, where as previously stated, Canada could have been involved for $0.0 CND.

The Japanese investment pailes in comparison to the American $2.3 Billion budget, but obviously the Japanese are not shy to invest in R&D for something they think is important to their future, even if it does not work perfectly today.

Does this mean that Canadian politics limits our global vision of what is good for our future to as far as our Provincial borders?   And we like to complain about the Americans only being concerned about LA to NY, lets take a good look at Canada's international attitudes!

B M.

 

[Buzz]

I hate to burst your bubble but Japan has already signed on and has contributed $300M US over 6yrs starting from 1998

The Japanese investment pailes in comparison to the American $2.3 Billion budget, but obviously the Japanese are not shy to invest in R&D for something they think is important to their future, even if it does not work perfectly today.

Does this mean that Canadian politics limits our global vision of what is good for our future to as far as our Provincial borders?   And we like to complain about the Americans only being concerned about LA to NY, lets take a good look at Canada's international attitudes!

B M.

NO bubble bursted....But that is my point exactly, there are other countries involved in this but Japan has just as much a threat of being hit as the US. so why wouldn't Japan get involved again? Japan has reason to step up it's defense program as pointed out below. This is just out of army.ca

Small search on army.ca but should help as to why they are getting involved:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27109.0.html <--- not a bad read (canada isn't mentioned)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/3940.0.html <--- this one aswell (Canada isn't mentioned)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/2941.0.html <--- and this one (Canada is only mentioned once)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23739.0.html <-- all good reads (Canada once here aswell)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25092.0.html <--- keeps going (not mentioned)

Canada could have been involved for $0.0 CND.

Everything comes with a price tag attached. If it's too good to be true it usually is.

Cheers!
-Buzz

 

[old medic]

"Canada could have been involved for $0.0 CND."

Everything comes with a price tag attached. If it's too good to be true it usually is.

Cheers!
-Buzz

In reality, this is probably more about finding a defence for threats to Taiwan, South Korea and Japan than it is about North America.
It's just politically correct to say it's defending North America because it won't start a conflict or an arms race with China or North Korea.

Personally, Good for Mr. Dithers.
If there is very little public support, he did the right thing.  If he, and the Canadian Military were seen (even on here) to support
something unpopular with the public, then the CF will loose more public support.  Loosing more public support makes it politically
acceptable to CUT the DND budget down the road.

 

[FastEddy]

In reality, this is probably more about finding a defence for threats to Taiwan, South Korea and Japan than it is about North America.
It's just politically correct to say it's defending North America because it won't start a conflict or an arms race with China or North Korea.

Personally, Good for Mr. Dithers.
If there is very little public support, he did the right thing.   If he, and the Canadian Military were seen (even on here) to support
something unpopular with the public, then the CF will loose more public support.   Loosing more public support makes it politically
acceptable to CUT the DND budget down the road.

So what you are basically saying is "IF I'M OKAY JACK - PISS ON YOU" ?.

 

[Dare]

First off, if you don't think Canada is a target right along side the US, you're sadly mistaken. As a NATO ally, any nation that wishes to strike the US knows full well that it will have to strike the US' allies as well. A hit to the US period does tremendous damage to *Canada* no matter where it hits. If the radioactive fallout doesn't hit us, *rest assured* the economic fallout *WILL*. Then considering the full out nuclear warfare that will happen after this strike, it is a pretty good idea that we do our best to make sure we win. The reason so many publications do not mention Canada, is simply because we're a speedbump on the way to America. We're almost factored out of the equation. If we had a larger military force or a heavily armed population, I'm sure we would be mentioned a lot more in strategic publications.

It is in our best interests to make sure no one nukes us, and no one nukes the states. We should buck up and help out with this effort, instead of playing politics with this. It's simply ridiculous all the fear mongering about losing sovereignty. We are an American protectorate as far as they're concerned. The less we do to defend ourselves, the LESS sovereignty we have over our affairs, and especially our airspace. If we don't defend this vast expanse of land, air and sea, they will have to. Do you really think the Americans are pleased at having to defend the second largest country from attack without much help, and are just gleefully rubbing their paws together at the thought of taking our precious sovereignty? They don't *want* the responsibility but we're shirking our duties here. We know of a known threat. We know that nuclear and propultion technology is not as out of reach as it used to be, we know that well funded terrorist groups are making threats against us (yes, Canada). It's completely irresponsible to not make an effort to defend against these threats.

NO bubble bursted....But that is my point exactly, there are other countries involved in this but Japan has just as much a threat of being hit as the US. so why wouldn't Japan get involved again? Japan has reason to step up it's defense program as pointed out below. This is just out of army.ca

Small search on army.ca but should help as to why they are getting involved:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27109.0.html <--- not a bad read (canada isn't mentioned)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/3940.0.html <--- this one aswell (Canada isn't mentioned)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/2941.0.html <--- and this one (Canada is only mentioned once)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/23739.0.html <-- all good reads (Canada once here aswell)
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25092.0.html <--- keeps going (not mentioned)
Everything comes with a price tag attached. If it's too good to be true it usually is.

Cheers!
-Buzz