Recently there has been a lot of discussion here in Canada about the BMD that the U.S. is building, mainly because during President Bush's visit he brought it up a few times looking for Canadian support of the plan. I've been of two minds on the issue.
On one hand, I am against it:
1) It has not been proven to work. The proof of concept tests they performed had homing beacons in the target missiles so that the intercept missiles could home in on them. The only thing that proves is that we can engineer a mid-air collision when both target and weapon are working together. Those that would hold up the Patriot systems from Desert Storm as proof of a working model should read this. My point is, they should be able to demonstrate without questionable assistance that they can hit a ballistic missile in a realistic situation with considerable accuracy.
2) The threat is minimal. This system will work well to dissuade a rogue nation from launching a ballistic missile attack. Ok, how many nations have ballistic missiles capable of reaching continental United States? How many of said nations are rogue? What the hell is a rogue nation? As far as I can tell, this "rogue nation" stuff is a code word for North Korea or its a false leader to avoid pointing out the the U.S. military is preparing for another arms race against Russia. Or both. But the fact of the matter is that I think the threat from a ballistic missile attack on the U.S. directly is very low considering what would happen to the "rogue nation" that launched such an attack.
If a terrorist group had access to a ballistic missile, they are more likely to aim it at Tel Aviv instead of Washington, and if they are so intent on attacking the U.S., putting the nuclear device on a boat and driving into range of a coastal city seems far more certain and likely.
3) It a hell of a lot of money that could be used elsewhere, such as port security and intelligence gathering. As I mentioned above, I think the real threat is from ships and ports, not missiles.
On the other hand, I can see some reasons for joining the U.S. on this project:
1) They are going to do it with or without our cooperation. Its just not a question for the American government and military.
2) It would benefit Canadian/U.S. relations. They want our cooperation, not our money. They have the money (or at least they think they do). I think it is a reasonable extension of the NORAD agreement, and it would warm President Bush and his administration towards us for relatively no cost.
3) Its a defensive system, not offensive. These wingnuts going off about star wars and weaponization of space need to get a grip on reality. The BMD is for protection. Yes, it may someday be the basis of an offensive platform but that is not the issue on the table right now. These people should be protesting the nuclear arsenal the U.S. has, not the defensive system it is building.
* * * * * *
In the end, I think our government should support the BMD program so long as it does not cost any of our money. In my opinion its a bad idea but at least its a defensive instead of an offensive bad idea (*cough*Iraq*cough*), and the upside for Canada is significant at this time.
No comments:
Post a Comment