Canada may support US NMD...

[MKSheppard]

Linka

Canada appears set to support U.S. missile defence program
By ALEXANDER PANETTA
Commons accepts throne speech amendment

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's painfully slow missile-defence courtship with the United States finally appears headed for the altar.

The government agreed Monday to hold a Commons vote on whether Canada should be involved in the controversial missile-shield program and it looks sure to pass.

The highly symbolic, but non-binding vote was agreed to by all federal parties as part of a deal to amend the government's throne speech.

Liberals who oppose the plan lamented the vote as a done deal in favour of missile defence - but not before a bruising debate within the ranks of the governing party.

"I'm a pacifist," said Montreal Liberal MP Eleni Bakopanos.

"I believe in promoting whatever is necessary in order to have peace in the world. So if this resolution . . . does not promote my values and principles then, yes, I will speak against it."

The Liberals' most outspoken critic of missile defence - Mississauga MP Carolyn Parrish - estimated the project will receive the backing of two-thirds of the Commons.

The NDP and the Bloc Quebecois oppose missile defence, but the Conservatives and most Liberals back the plan.

The stage for the vote was set after months of mixed signals from Ottawa about whether it would join the project.

For more than a year Prime Minister Paul Martin spoke in favour of joining, arguing that Canada should be "at the table" if there was ever a decision to fire missiles over Canadian soil.

He toned down his endorsement during the June federal election while he actively courted left-wing votes during the tense campaign.

In a major step, Ottawa then agreed to modify the Canada-U.S. Norad program this summer to put it in charge of monitoring U.S. missile interceptor sites.

Even in the face of that initial military involvement the government tried arguing it wouldn't necessarily support the missile defence project.

Ottawa still says it's negotiating the conditions of Canadian participation, though Defence Minister Bill Graham sounds increasingly warm to it.

Poised on their familiar perch at the centre of the political spectrum, only the Liberals are at all conflicted over whether to support the missile shield.

All 99 Conservatives are expected to support the project, while it will likely be opposed by all 19 members of the NDP and 54 members of the Bloc Quebecois.

The Liberals will likely have about double the votes needed - 56 - to join the Conservatives and send a symbolic message internationally that the Canadian Parliament supports missile defence.

Parrish estimated the vote will end up about 200 to 100 in the 308-seat Parliament. But she said that's only because many Liberals fear breaking rank.

"The game and the rules are stacked against my position," said Parrish, who called for a national referendum on the issue.

"If the prime minister wants it, cabinet solidarity would indicate the whole cabinet votes for it. Parliamentary secretaries vote the way the cabinet does.

"A lot of the new guys are finding their way around the Hill; they'll vote the way the prime minister suggests."

The Liberals had a much larger caucus before the election and even then only mustered 38 votes against a similar motion last year. The Commons voted 156-73 to expand Norad to include missile defence.

Sources on both sides of the border have suggested Canada's further approval now is strictly symbolic.

The Americans haven't requested Canadian soil or any financial contribution to the multibillion-dollar project.

In the first phase of the project, missile interceptor sites will be erected in Alaska and California. The later stages call for missiles to be placed on ships and other continents.

But Canada should refuse to endorse the plan whether or not it gets stuck with a fraction of the bill, said another Liberal MP.

"The Americans want us to agree, not so much because we have money to provide. They don't need us in that sense, I suppose," said Toronto MP Maria Minna.

"But they want our credibility. And we do have a lot of credibility in the world, as a nation that has a fairly balanced approach to things."

NDP Leader Jack Layton and other opponents have dubbed missile defence "Star Wars" and argue it will lead to the weaponization of space. Critics also wonder why such a high-tech system is necessary in an era when militaries should be focusing on the ground battle against terrorism.

Its supporters say there are no current plans to place weapons in space.

The Commons vote could be held as early as next week.

[Maraxus]

Well, yes. It would be obvious that they support it. If Armageddon ever came between the US and USSR (or China?) the fastest way would be across the north poles from the russian missile bases. If they should miss, for whatever reason, they'll crash over Canada.

And NORAD came out of a joint US/Canadian effort. Yay for continental cooperation.

[Montcalm]

How effective would this missile defense be?
And is it reliable?

[Stark]

I have no idea; back when they were publicising tests, 'not very'. But hey, it'll make the Americans even MORE belligerant

[Ma Deuce]

I have no idea; back when they were publicising tests, 'not very'.

Four interceptors fired at each incoming missile (which is the current plan) should still be effective...

[Beowulf]

I have no idea; back when they were publicising tests, 'not very'.

Four interceptors fired at each incoming missile (which is the current plan) should still be effective...

Remember, the cost of an interceptor is nothing compared to the cost of rebuilding a city.

[brianeyci]

I remember one of the U.S. Generals talking about the "interception". When he was asked about what the word "intercept" meant, he said it was like a ship meeting another ship at sea. Aka the "interceptor" didn't hit.

Is it even possible for one missile to hit another missile? I think it would make more sense for the missile to explode at close proximity, or even throw out a shitload of shrapnel or something, so that the missile detonates. What about a nuclear missile? If the interceptor hits an ICBM, would the ICBM go boom, or would it go big boom?

Brian

[The Duchess of Zeon]

More to the point, the cost of an interceptor is only about 1/3rd the cost of the incoming, meaning that you'd only have to pay 133% of the enemy's offensive costs to have an excellent change of intercepting the vast majority of incoming (some will always get through, one must admit). Obviously, say, being hit by ten nuclear devices instead of a hundred is a preferable outcome, and worth it if the largest economy in the world is only required to outmatch an aggressor state by a third.

[Chris OFarrell]

I remember one of the U.S. Generals talking about the "interception". When he was asked about what the word "intercept" meant, he said it was like a ship meeting another ship at sea. Aka the "interceptor" didn't hit.

Is it even possible for one missile to hit another missile? I think it would make more sense for the missile to explode at close proximity, or even throw out a shitload of shrapnel or something, so that the missile detonates. What about a nuclear missile? If the interceptor hits an ICBM, would the ICBM go boom, or would it go big boom?

Brian

Errr no. The NMD missile is a Kinetic kill system, missiles making skin skin contacts not proximity kill detonations.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Is it even possible for one missile to hit another missile?

Yes. As early as 1961 both HAWK and Nike-Hercules had demonstrated an ability to kinetic kill other missiles, albeit HAWK only intercepted an IRBM and Nike-Hercules only killed another Nike-Hercules (Though that intercept was actually more realistic of ICBM intercept conditions than the HAWK kill of an IRBM because the Herc that was intercepted was command-guided at full thrust towards the ground, simulating the speed of an ICBM on terminal descent). I note that Nike-Hercules was capable of that, but was in fact designed to use a nuclear device as a warhead for proximity kill.

I think it would make more sense for the missile to explode at close proximity, or even throw out a shitload of shrapnel or something, so that the missile detonates.

The goal with the kinetic-kill system is to provide limited intercept against small missile threats or an accidental launch by a major power. It is merely one component of what will eventually be a multilayer system. One could argue that the old Spartan/Sprint combination of the 1970s, appropriately updated, would be preferable (note that 100 Spartan and Sprint missiles were active for nearly a year in the mid-70s, the last time we had any ability to defend ourselves against missiles until now)--but that would require people to support the installation of nuclear-armed defensive missiles.

What about a nuclear missile? If the interceptor hits an ICBM, would the ICBM go boom, or would it go big boom?

Brian

A nuclear interceptor would increase kill probability; but under no circumstances could either a nuclear interceptor nor a conventional intercept cause the descending warhead's device to initiate; the only danger is from the spread of radioactive material on the breakup of the device, and a nuclear event could not be trigged in this fashion.

[phongn]

Nike Zeus made a kinetic kill in the early 1960s as well (its in Shield of Faith, Marina), made all the more impressive since all Nike-series missiles were command-guided without any sort of terminal guidance

Safeguard probably would be a more effective system, but the penalty of high-altitude nuclear events (aka EMP and dead satellites) is considered too great to be deployed nowadays.