What Canadians Need To Know About Missile Defence

And finally, joining the U.S. missile defence program will probably harm Canadian sovereignty more than it will protect it. Rather than developing a Canadian strategy to deal with the threat of a missile attack, we would just be signing on to an American plan, which is still generally referred to in the U.S. as "national missile defence." This would lend legitimacy to a largely unilateral U.S. effort, and detract from or even end other Canadian actions for maintaining stability such as pressing for multilateral and peaceful disarmament.

It's unfortunate that this decision will be made before Canadians have been given much time and information to make an informed decision. Let's do our best to contact our representatives and pass this information on, before it's too late to have a say.

FEATURED LINK:
Former Canadian foreign affairs minister Lloyd Axworthy offers an eloquent and compelling argument for saying no to missile defence. According to Axworthy, "Joining in missile defence would take us dramatically away from a course chartered by generations of Canadian governments — a foreign policy based on the belief that a predictable rule of law, and not the arbitrary rule of men, is the best way of ensuring both national and global security."
Say no to missile defence

BACKGROUND
For a great overview of the main points from both sides of the debate on missile defence in Canada, check out this link.
The National Missile Defence Debate

In March 2000, the Los Angeles Times reported that the CIA was putting together a report describing why missile defence could backfire and actually diminish global security and stability. Well worth reading today.
Secret U.S. Report Says Missile Defense Plan Poses Global Peril

The rest of the information in this section is quoted from MoveOn.org's peace bulletin 17, which I edited. MoveOn is unfortunately no longer maintaining an archive of those bulletins however.

First, an excellent brief history of missiles and ballistic missile defense (up to and including the Clinton administration).

Bush recently pulled out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty, and began to call for an "national missile defence" (NMD). Bush's proposed shield is even more ambitious (and expensive) than the one proposed by President Clinton, since Bush has promised that it will protect not only America but American allies such as Israel. Sen. Tom Daschle has said, "We fear that the president may be buying a lemon here."

The NMD, which is often compared to "hitting a bullet with a bullet", is extremely complex technologically, which means that it is both expensive and vulnerable to malfunction. The proposed missile defense system would be comprised of six separate systems that all must work perfectly if the NMD is to be successful. Testing so far has had mixed to poor results.

The main problem with investing in the NMD is that it won't work. A scientific study completed during the Clinton administration has shown that there are several countermeasures that an attacking country could take to render the planned defense system ineffective, all of which require less technology than the missile defense system itself. Three of these countermeasures are specifically discussed.

The Federation of American Scientists, which includes 50 Nobel Laureates, has sent a letter asking Congress not to pursue the NMD.
An Open Letter

This Q and A with a member of the Federation of American Scientists helps explain why the group opposes the NMD. Did you know, for example, that this is the eighth proposed NMD, and that all previous attempts have failed?
Here We Go Again

Incomprehensible amounts of money have already been spent on the NMD since the Reagan era. Get the details.
The Costs of Ballistic Missile Defence

CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY
The Toronto Star reports that Ottawa could be poised to sign on to missile defence.
Ottawa Eyes US Missile Defence Plan

Although it was written in 1999, this article by Project Ploughshares is an excellent discussion of Canada's options in regard to ballistic missile defence and what the repercussions could be for Canadian sovereignty. According to the article "There is no question that Canadian influence and sovereignty would seriously suffer, indeed, that we would truly be a "kept" state, if it was Canada’s assessment that ballistic missile defence was essential to Canadian security, and if Canada then relied entirely on the Americans to provide that defence and made no effort on its own behalf. In such a situation of total reliance on the Americans for the defence of Canada, we Canadians would effectively have no control over crucial military decisions related to the defence of our territory – with independence and sovereignty both unacceptably compromised." It goes on to note that "On the other hand, if we in Canada conclude that BMD is not essential, indeed is not helpful and is likely to be detrimental, to Canadian security and international peace and security, then there is an obligation on Canada to decline participation in BMD and to take other responsible measures for our own and the international community’s security in the face of the ballistic missile threat. In such a situation Canadian sovereignty would not be in the least compromised, and it would be a toss-up whether our influence would be hurt or strengthened."
Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence

WHAT YOU CAN DO
Pass this information on to others. Write and call the PM, your MP, and other decision-makers. Visit the "Action Items" section of Vive le Canada for information on how to contact your representatives.

Note: Say no to missile defence The National Missile De... Secret U.S. Report Says... http://www.cdi.org/hots... http://www.washingtonpo... http://www.cdi.org/hots... http://www.commondreams... An Open Letter Here We Go Again The Costs of Ballistic ... Ottawa Eyes US Missile ... Canada and Ballistic Mi... Vive le Canada