Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Mr Wall goes to Calgary | Main | This makes too much sense to pass »

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Missile defence goes live

The Missile Defence Agency has installed the fifth interceptor missile at Ft. Greely, Alaska. The command and control systems will be brought into operation in the next few weeks. Notice the precise language they use to describe its capabilities:

The interceptors are part of an integrated system of sensors, ground and sea-based radars and an advanced
command and control, battle management and communication system designed to detect, track and launch an interceptor to destroy a target warhead before it can reach its intended target in any of our 50 states. Although the system will initially have a limited capability when it becomes operational later this year, it will mark the first time the United States has a capability to defend the entire country against a limited attack by a long-range ballistic missile.
They only claim to be able to defend our fifty states, not North America.

If they can track the trajectory of an incoming missile closely enough to be confident that it will land in Canada rather than the U.S. they presumably can allow it to continue on its way in accordance with the wishes of the Carolyn Parrish wing of the Liberal Party and their NDP fellow travellers. Until we send them the memo that we will gracefully allow them to defend us, too, that is.

Yes, there are still questions about how effective this technology is. An attempt to take out an incoming missile may very well fail. But it's being installed and will be continuously improved over the years whether we like it or not. It's hard to see what sane objection Canada could have to being covered as well.

Posted by Kevin Jaeger on September 28, 2004 in International Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83421823e53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Missile defence goes live:

» OUTDATED SECURITY MODELS from Peaktalk
Last week I wrote about Kerry’s stated commitment to refrain from developing bunker busting nuclear weapons: “It was an inexplicable moment, Bush is not be able at all to allay fears over Iran and North Korea getting nukes and then [Read More]

Tracked on 2004-10-03 8:29:25 PM

Comments

I thought Bill Graham said the Liberals supported missile defence...?

(according to http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/09/23/640899-cp.html )

Do the Liberals have a position on missile defence?

Are they betting on John Kerry to win the presidential election? (well, duh)

If so, are they molding their position on Kerry's flipfloppery?

Posted by: Jonathan | 2004-09-28 11:49:14 AM

I thought Bill Graham said the Liberals supported missile defence...?

(according to http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/09/23/640899-cp.html )

Do the Liberals have a position on missile defence?

Are they betting on John Kerry to win the presidential election? (well, duh)

If so, are they molding their position on Kerry's flipfloppery?

Posted by: Jonathan | 2004-09-28 11:49:37 AM

I thought Bill Graham said the Liberals supported missile defence...?

(according to cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/09/23/640899-cp.html )

Do the Liberals have a position on missile defence?

Are they betting on John Kerry to win the presidential election? (well, duh)

If so, are they molding their position on Kerry's flipfloppery?

Posted by: Jonathan | 2004-09-28 11:53:56 AM

At least they're sufficiently disinterested in annexing us that they wouldn't protect us! Yay!

Posted by: Kelvin | 2004-09-29 10:48:04 AM

Please explain “Weaponization of Space”

A couple of Liberals have hinted that they might, possibly, deign to allow the US to protect Canada as long as it doesn’t cost us anything and the US is sufficiently grateful for our generosity.

Any who do, however, are quick to emphasize that they are emphatically, unambiguously, vigorously opposed to the “weaponization of space.” What I have never heard is a reason. What is wrong with “weaponization of space?” Is it pure ideology (ie. we must not disgrace the last pure frontier with something dirty like war)? Can anyone give me the argument against “weaponization of space?”

(BTW, if there is a link between “weaponization of space” and Canada’s participation in missile defense, it is this. If the US has trouble getting access to strategic sites on the earth’s surface, it will have an incentive to base its missile defense in space.)

Posted by: Pete E | 2004-09-29 1:37:03 PM

"Can anyone give me the argument against 'weaponization of space?'"

Gary Seven and Isis opposed it; therefore it must be evil:
http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/GuidePageServlet/showid-633/epid-24938/

More seriously, in most instances it seems to be an ideological position, e.g.:

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2004/so04/so04evans.html

(Sorry to cite obscene material such as the Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists).

Occasionally, someone attempts a more rigorous look at the issues (PDF warning):

http://www.stimson.org/pubs.cfm?ID=81

Just for fun, a historical look at the weaponization of space from Eisenhower on:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj00/spr00/belote.htm

Posted by: Charles MacDonald | 2004-09-29 3:04:58 PM


The comments to this entry are closed.