Canada warned of 'untested' defence system
A former senior Pentagon official has offered a blunt warning to the Canadian government: It is considering signing on to a missile defence system that's untested, over budget and likely to fuel the global arms race.When Jack Layton raises concerns like this, our defense minister accuses him of fear mongering. Coyle may well be a partisan Democrat, but former assistant defense secretaries generally take issues of defense seriously.Philip Coyle, an assistant defence secretary in the Clinton administration, also said there's no doubt the defence system President George W. Bush wants to begin deploying by the end of this year will lead to the militarization of space.
And anyone who feels Canadian participation will lead to better protection for Canada misunderstands the system, he said.
"I've heard some people in the government of Canada seem to think they will be left behind if they don't sign on," Coyle said in an interview.Translation: the damn thing doesn't work."They needn't worry about that. This is going to take so long that those who are worried about being left behind aren't going to be in office when the technology matures anyway."
...
"I think there is a misunderstanding in Canada that somehow the United States is going to defend it with missile defences," Coyle said. "That's not in the cards, at least not today, and it may never be."
Darren Gibb, a spokesperson for Defence Minister David Pratt, said the minister is looking for calm and reasoned debate in Canada, absent a number of myths that have sprung up surrounding the system.Horse hockey. Pratt's response to these concerns has amounted to: don't worry, be happy, we know what we're doing.
He said politicians in Canada who believe the system will be the first step toward weaponization of space are correct, and one published study shows it would take 1,600 satellites to defend against one intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).The ball's in your court, Mr. Pratt. Let's have some calm and reasoned debate."Once you have those satellites up in space, you can use them to attack other satellites," he said.
"You will automatically have war-in-space capability as soon as the space platforms for weapons defence are established."
The Liberal support for this particular boondoggle has very little to do with any belief that it might actually, you know, work. In fact I think they're more or less counting on it not working.
They're pretty obviously doing it because it's a perennial hobbyhorse for the Republicans and they want to try and get back into Bush's good graces.
I agree. I also think it's a poor reason for proceeding and don't see any way to smoke them out except to keep hammering on the fact that it won't work but in the process is liable to ratchet up the arms race.
I think y'all better just get over the idea that Canada could ever be in Bush's good graces, unless you want to be a client state.
This program is a turkey. It has been kicking around since the Reagan administration, and the science won't be there for another couple of decades. And, we can't afford it. Other than that, if Ottawa wants to play footsy with the Pentagon, fine.
The only motivation I can see for trying to be in Bush's good graces is to get more cooperation on trade issues. And that won't happen. Bush expects loyalty but he doesn't return it unless you're a campaign contributor.
Unfortunately there are some Canadians who seem to want Canada to be a client state, if we aren't already. But I don't think even that would help at this point.
Agreed re: Bush. On the other hand, the Bush administration is sufficiently vindictive and petty that I can understand the desire to go along quietly, if we can do so at no cost to ourselves.
Not that that makes this a good idea...