Missile Defence Acceptable : Defense Minister

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
New defence minister willing to re-open missile defence debate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

at 13:09 on February 23, 2006, EST.
By JOHN WARD

OTTAWA (CP) - Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor says he's willing to re-open the controversial debate on ballistic missile defence.

However, the minority Conservative government would eventually put the question before the Commons and since all three opposition parties have opposed the idea in the past, the concept is likely dead before it starts.

"It would really, ultimately, be up to a vote in Parliament," the minister told reporters Thursday.

The previous Liberal government seemed to favour participation in missile defence, which was a key policy for the Bush administration. The Liberals eventually made a U-turn and said no.

But O'Connor has a different view.

"In principle, I don't have difficulty, personally, with ballistic missile defence."

The plan involves a limited number of missiles intended to knock down a small strike by terrorists or a rogue state. It isn't designed to foil a mass attack by a major power.

The Americans would have to re-open the issue by again inviting Canadian participation, the minister said.

"Our policy is the fact that the Americans would have to approach us to participate in ballistic missile defence, then we would enter into negotiation."

Opponents of the missile plan say it won't work and risks kicking off a new international arms race.

Supporters say it could offer some protection against a terror strike, it would improve Canada-U.S. relations and since the Americans have asked for neither territory nor money, it would be cheap.

The Liberals, the Bloc Quebecois and the NDP oppose the idea and could easily out-vote the minority Conservative government on the question.

O'Connor made the missile defence comments after delivering his first major speech as minister.

He told a conference of defence groups that the Tories plan to carry through with their ambitious election promises, including 13,000 new regular soldiers, new icebreakers and a northern port, new transport planes and infrastructure.

"We made a number of commitments in that platform and we intend to implement every one of them," he said.

He said the policy is simple: "It's about having a three-ocean navy, a robust army and a revitalized air force."

The Tories promised more money for defence and O'Connor said that will start soon.

"The Conservative government will provide new funding for National Defence in the upcoming federal budget."

He wouldn't say how much will be in the first budget, but added he's sure the cash will be there.

"The prime minister has assured me that over the next few years we will get the money necessary build the armed forces the way we planned."

O'Connor, a retired armoured general, got a warm welcome from the audience of serving and former officers, defence contractors, analysts and academics at the annual meeting of the Conference of Defence Associations.

They seemed especially pleased when he said he will tackle the Byzantine procurement system at Defence, which can take a decade or more to deliver new gear.

"Our armed forces can no longer afford to take years and years to obtain major pieces of equipment," he said.

O'Connor's promises were welcomed at the conference, but got short shrift from Bill Graham, leader of the Liberal opposition.

Graham, himself a former defence minister, said the Tory promises are too expensive and will run afoul of fiscal realities.

"The cost factor will be very substantial, far in excess of anything that they talked about," he said.

"I think we'll see there's a difference between their rhetoric and what the finance minister will have them achieve."

http://start.shaw.ca/start/enCA/News/NationalNewsArticle.htm?src=n022325A.xml

Now the thing I heard about Missile defence is that all Canada gets is a guy in the room to say its okay to fire missiles over Canadian space.

So it doesn't matter if we are in or not. And since the last few tests have proved it is pretty crappy, I don't see any point in it.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Let's see the NDP are against it and the bloq, that leads to a few conservative minded Liberals to support missel defeance. It mightpass because of the lack of liberal party diciplan and if the party whip is can't get the liberal party to support the liberal platform.

This is one of the problems with the Liberal party, it has conservative opritunists in it and they will vote on conservative policy if the party diciplan is not upheld.
 

DasFX

Electoral Member
Dec 6, 2004
859
1
18
Whitby, Ontario
I don't think Harper really wants it, cause he is smart enough to know that the concept won't work. Yet, he is smart. Just like gay marriage, he only promised to re-open the debate and bring it back into the commons for a vote. He knows both things will fail, yet he can still keep his word.
 

lmnop

New Member
Feb 23, 2006
2
0
1
Fact 1) The chance of a ballistic missile attack on Canada is very, very, very low. It's very low for an attack on the USA too, btw.

Fact 2) The Americans haven't asked for any funding from us to be involved with this system

Fact 3) If a missile was coming over Canadian airspace then the Americans would just shoot it down and tell the Canadians "Hey we did what we had to do." .. which would be a decent argument.

Solution: Don't waste Parliament's time on this issue. Let the Americans do what they're gonna do with the system.
 

Hank C

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2006
953
0
16
Calgary, AB
I got no problem with missile defense except in the area of costs.....the US has spent billions to develop this so I would think they want Canada to spend some too. Other than that, missile defense is a good idea in this day and age.


This is one of the problems with the Liberal party, it has conservative opritunists in it and they will vote on conservative policy if the party diciplan is not upheld
so what...I hate when any party whips a caucus to vote a certain way. The MPs are elected in their riding, so let them choose which way to best serve their constituents. Not every liberal should be forced to vote for homosexual marriage or for the gunregistry, as not all of their constituents feel the same way.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Re: RE: Missile Defence Acceptable : Defense Minister

lmnop said:
Fact 1) The chance of a ballistic missile attack on Canada is very, very, very low. It's very low for an attack on the USA too, btw.

Fact 2) The Americans haven't asked for any funding from us to be involved with this system

Fact 3) If a missile was coming over Canadian airspace then the Americans would just shoot it down and tell the Canadians "Hey we did what we had to do." .. which would be a decent argument.

Solution: Don't waste Parliament's time on this issue. Let the Americans do what they're gonna do with the system.

Might as well leave NORAD.
 

DasFX

Electoral Member
Dec 6, 2004
859
1
18
Whitby, Ontario
Hank C said:
Other than that, missile defense is a good idea in this day and age.

Sure it is a good idea in theory, but two important points:

1) It doesn't work. It won't work. It is technically way beyond what we are capable of.

2) The threats the US face in this "day and age" aren't going to be sending ICBM over the pole. So having a great defense system is great and all, but if there is no one to use it against, then what is the point.
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: Missile Defence Acceptable : Defense Minister

I think not said:
lmnop said:
Fact 1) The chance of a ballistic missile attack on Canada is very, very, very low. It's very low for an attack on the USA too, btw.

Fact 2) The Americans haven't asked for any funding from us to be involved with this system

Fact 3) If a missile was coming over Canadian airspace then the Americans would just shoot it down and tell the Canadians "Hey we did what we had to do." .. which would be a decent argument.

Solution: Don't waste Parliament's time on this issue. Let the Americans do what they're gonna do with the system.

Might as well leave NORAD.


Hey we agree, I think we should too. I'll quote you on that! (mwahahahahahaha) :twisted:
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Re: RE: Missile Defence Acceptable : Defense Minister

I think not said:
Might as well leave NORAD.

People on the left seem to want to lead us into isolationism on this issue. We NEED to be sitting at this table...there shouldn't be any debate...it is just good policy.
 

DasFX

Electoral Member
Dec 6, 2004
859
1
18
Whitby, Ontario
Re: RE: Missile Defence Acceptable : Defense Minister

Jay said:
I think not said:
Might as well leave NORAD.

People on the left seem to want to lead us into isolationism on this issue. We NEED to be sitting at this table...there shouldn't be any debate...it is just good policy.

We don't need to be at the table for something that doesn't work and serves no purpose. How will we be isolated if we decided to decline?
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Because this issue affects both parties here. If we don't sit at the table we don't have any say.

I'm not convinced that the system will not work....it won't work if we don't try though, that's for sure.
 

Hank C

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2006
953
0
16
Calgary, AB
any issue that involves missiles being fired over Canadian soil requires canadian representation at the table..........even if the system has a low probability of actually hitting its target, its worth being at the table. like i said before the only problem I and many other canadians have with this issue is the cost
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
Re: RE: Missile Defence Acceptable : Defense Minister

Hank C said:
any issue that involves missiles being fired over Canadian soil requires canadian representation at the table..........even if the system has a low probability of actually hitting its target, its worth being at the table. like i said before the only problem I and many other canadians have with this issue is the cost

Ok like most of you I'm not a rocket scientist, but isn't there a chance with the missle shield that Nukes aimed for the USA coming over Canada, if shoot down over Canada carries a chance that we may have a nuke reation in Canadian terrority because of the shield? Naaa I think I'll just watch the nukes fly over Canada into the states, thank you. =-D
 

Hank C

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2006
953
0
16
Calgary, AB
Re: RE: Missile Defence Acceptable : Defense Minister

Finder said:
Ok like most of you I'm not a rocket scientist, but isn't there a chance with the missle shield that Nukes aimed for the USA coming over Canada, if shoot down over Canada carries a chance that we may have a nuke reation in Canadian terrority because of the shield? Naaa I think I'll just watch the nukes fly over Canada into the states, thank you. =-D

you think by canada not joining they US will wait till the nuke is over America before they shoot it down :lol:

....wishful thinking never hurt i guess
 

Finder

House Member
Dec 18, 2005
3,786
0
36
Toronto
www.mytimenow.net
True thats how they presured us into buying the usless bomark (spelling).

Yeah we are screwed either way. But I'm pretty sure the USSR nations were the artic root. Would Iran send missles that way too? I know NK wouldn't as it would make little sence.
 

Alberta'sfinest

Electoral Member
Dec 9, 2005
217
0
16
RE: Missile Defence Accep

I think it's bad idea, and says a lot about our future foreign policiy. Considering the only countries that have the technology available to launch such an attack that could be potentially hostile are Russia and China, it sends a message that we are starting to see them as a resurging threat to North America. By building such a program, it will make these countries feel uneasy, that we're planning against them, and that this missle program is to prevent retaliation. This would encourage the Chinese and Russians to either build their own program, or more evasive missles, and would result in a arms race for this superiority.
However, considering that China has the fastest growing modern navy, the largest army, and a growing thirst for precious resources to modernize their nation, we should be considering them a serious threat to our security. I suggest spending the money more wisely and investing more into technology to thwart a naval invasion, as they aren't likely to nuke the land they need to expand their empire, and ships are the best transportation for such a large armed force.
The world is so messed up and information not readily available that it's hard to tell whether we're pre-empting a buildup or responding to one.