Canada Must Keep Its Seat At The Missile Defence Table?

That kindergarten argument is; if all my friends do it, so should I. Just because Australia, India, and England are signing on to variations of national missile defence does not mean we must acquiesce our morals and jump aboard. Remember what your mother always said in trying times - "if your friends jump over a bridge does that mean you will too?" This situation is no different, yet here we see CanWest Global saying we should do just that!

There are many, many reasons why Canada should again avoid the folly of the Bush doctrine, just as we did when we saw through the thinly stretched truth of the Iraq invasion. The editorial states that Canada may not be asked to contribute money or territory. That fellow Canadians is the least of our worries.

National missile defence is not a creation of the Bush government. This is a new, reworked incarnation of the infamous Ronald Reagan Star Wars program. Supporters of NMD in Canada will say that this system as proposed for the next couple years is strictly ground based, and for that, they are telling the truth. But what they are not telling you is that the system will be continually built upon over the years. Its only ground based right now because the technology is not yet adequate in overall ability, but plans for weapons in space are most certainly on the table. The most recent US budget contained funding for the space components of the system. The US Air Force has been given command of the heavens and they are very clear in their end goal of putting weapons in space. They are not hiding that bit of information one iota; they are in truth advertising that fact already to intimidate potential adversaries.

Those potential adversaries are indeed taking notice as well. Russia just wrapped up its first full-scale nuclear exercises conducted in many years. Not so coincidently, they are releasing some details of their new generation nuclear warheads and missiles, which they are boasting will get around any and all missile defence shields. And that fellow Canadians is what should keep us out of this. George Bush abrogated the United States of all responsibility under the non-proliferation pursuits like the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, so they could forge ahead with their "defensive shield". In Russia we can already see their response to these moves, a new arms race.

The Canadian mainstream media has so far done a lackluster job of explaining just what national missile defence is, how it will work, or more precisely how it will not work. There is much more to this entire issue than cost, placement, NORAD and keeping the George Bush government placated and happy.

Examining closely the anticipated missile shield there are some very glaring problems and issues. These problems and issues must be included in all discussions regarding any Canadian involvement in the US plan. So far to date, the mainstream media outlets have not disseminated this very important part of the NMD design.

At this junction there is little point in Canada proceeding into binding agreements with the United States and other like-minded nations regarding NMD systems. This contention arises from the obvious shortcomings of the system itself, and the secondary problems it will create.

From the get go, the NMD scheme will only be capable of intercepting a very small number of either aimed or wayward missiles. In fact less than one percent of existing nuclear weapons will be able to be addressed by the NMD systems. There will be no capacity to intercept and destroy both short-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles. The NMD system also ignores the reality that today's terrorists do not possess inter-continental ballistic missiles, nor are they going to anytime soon. They are far more likely to find other avenues to deliver any weapons of mass destruction onto American or their allies' soil.

Any discussions taking place between the interested parties should include openly that NMD is based upon unproven and in most circumstances, rarely tested technology. For NMD depends on a layered approach to destroying missiles. Many of those layers or strategies are wholly dependent on the technology working perfectly the first time, every time.

For a successful intercept to take place, one or more of three interception technologies and strategies must be deployed:

A.) Ground based, mid-course interception. This interception outcome is dependant on technology that as of just a couple months ago was far from being operationally ready for field deployment. This interception scenario requires 10 key technologies as outlined by the US General Accounting Office. The GAO has expressed concern that not one of the 10 outlined needed technologies is even at production level readiness.

B.) Boost Phase Interception. This interception outcome is intensely dependant on the ability of the interceptors to be placed in extreme close proximity to the initial launch point, or set constantly aloft via aircraft or placed in space. Placing the interceptors in close proximity to the launch point is neither always practicable (ex. mobile launchers), or possible. Aircraft deployment is prohibitively costly and with the space based platforms, just not ready for deployment. The space proponent also flies directly in the face of the majority of Canadians wishes in regards to space based weapons systems no matter the end need.

C.) Terminal Phase Interception. This interception outcome at this time is completely not feasible under just about any rationale. Interception would take place as the missiles or their warheads enter their final descent towards their target. Thusly, the interceptors need to be placed in extreme close proximity to the intended target as the warheads in the terminal phase are traveling at tremendous speeds. Technology for this outcome is not even in a reasonable position to be deployed as a field station. On top of that, political leaders would need to ascertain just which cities or regions are protected and which are not as interceptors would need to be spread over the entire continent mass.

There is only one way to ensure that no nukes hit America or any of our allies, and that is to push for nuclear disarmament, and not proliferation. As perplexing it may be to some, NMD depends on the success of non-proliferation. For if the ballistic missile threat itself is not sufficiently limited, any NMD system would be easily foiled with even today's technology and countermeasures. Therefore we should be focusing our attention more intently towards real world practical solutions such as non-proliferation through arms control and disarmament, ongoing diplomatic conversations and most importantly the de-alerting or standing down of existing missile stocks.

Sources: Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence - Simons Centre for Peace and Disarmament
www.ligi.ubc.ca

United States Air Force
www.af.mil

Project Ploughshares
www.ploughshares.ca



Note: www.ligi.ubc.ca www.af.mil www.ploughshares.ca