Quantcast

Canada Opts Out of U.S. Defense Shield

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
In other words, they opted out of paying for it. They are going to get coverage just the same..... take off eh...hosers!

:nuts:



Canada Opts Out of U.S. Defense Shield
AP-YahooNews | Feb. 24, 2005

TORONTO - Prime Minister Paul Martin said Thursday that Canada would opt out of the contentious U.S. missile defense program, a move that will further strain brittle relations between the neighbors but please Canadians who fear it could lead to an international arms race.

Martin, ending nearly two years of debate over whether Canada should participate in the development or operation of the multibillion-dollar program, said Ottawa would remain a close ally of Washington in the fight against global terrorism and continental security.

He said he intended to talk to President Bush (news - web sites) later Thursday and that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) had been informed of the decision earlier this week.

A State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the United States had been informed beforehand of the decision, adding that Washington expects that cooperation with Canada will continue on a wide variety of issues.

Talking to reporters several minutes after his foreign minister first announced the move in the House of Commons, Martin said Canada would instead focus on strengthening its own military and defense in proposals laid out Wednesday in the federal budget.

"Canada recognizes the enormous burden that the United States shoulders, when it comes to international peace and security," Martin said. "The substantial increases made yesterday to our defense budget are a tangible indication that Canada intends to carry its full share of that responsibility."

The federal budget presented to the House of Commons calls for $10.5 billion in the next five years to increase the country's beleaguered armed forces — including an additional 5,000 soldiers and 3,000 reservists — the largest commitment to defense in two decades. It also called for another $807,950 to improve Canada's anti-terrorism efforts and security along the unarmed, 4,000-mile border with the United States.

When Bush visited Canada in December, he surprised Ottawa by making several unsolicited pitches for support of the defense shield, which is in the midst of testing interceptors capable of destroying incoming missiles targeted at North America.

Martin, who leads a tenuous minority government, has said Ottawa would not support what he called the "weaponization of space." Though he initially supported joining the program when he was a candidate for the Liberal leadership, Martin has retreated, since polls indicate that a majority of Canadians oppose it. Many believe that the umbrella, when fully implemented, could lead to an international arms race.

The Bush administration has tried to make a public show of understanding that Martin heads up a minority government that could fall over such a contentious debate.

But U.S. Ambassador Paul Cellucci told reporters Wednesday that he was perplexed over Canada's apparent decision to allow Washington to make the decision if a missile was headed toward its territory.

"Why would you want to give up sovereignty?" he said. "We don't get it. We think Canada would want to be in the room deciding what to do about an incoming missile that might be heading toward Canada."
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
Wow! We got control of the Canadian airspace without even having to shot down their air forces's one plane nor wasting any ink on some surrender agreement....

:p


Canada Has Given Up Control of its Airspace: U.S. Ambassador
The Canadian Press | February 24, 2005 | Alexander Panetta

Ottawa – Canada's announcement that it won't join the U.S. missile shield provoked an immediate warning that it has relinquished sovereignty over its airspace.

From now on, the U.S. government will control any decision to fire at incoming missiles over Canadian territory, declared the top U.S. envoy to Canada.

"We will deploy. We will defend North America," said Paul Cellucci, the U.S. ambassador to Canada.

"We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty — its seat at the table — to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada."

The response came just moments after Prime Minister Paul Martin ended months of ambiguity Thursday by announcing that he would not sign on to the controversial missile-defence program.

The warning was no slip of the tongue: Cellucci repeated several times that Canada's decision had in effect handed over some of its sovereignty to the United States.

"I personally don't think it's in Canada's sovereign interest to be outside of the room when a decision is made about a missile that might be incoming towards Canada."

Cellucci said he understood the political "challenge" that made it difficult for Martin's minority government to accept missile defence — and agreed it was Canada's right to make a decision.

The formal announcement completed a lengthy retreat for Martin, who expressed support for the project last year in his early days in office, then qualified his support, and finally fell almost silent on the issue.

Still, even the final announcement was not without confusion.

Martin said he would expect to be consulted on what to do about any missile passing over Canada.

-snip-

(Excerpt) Read more at canada.com ...
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Imagine that. Not wanting to pay for something that doesn't work anyways...

Now can we stop with the bull**** about who the biggest threat to Canada's sovereignty is, at least...it ain't North Korea.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
N8 said:
Canada Has Given Up Control of its Airspace: U.S. Ambassador
The Canadian Press | February 24, 2005 | Alexander Panetta

Martin said he would expect to be consulted on what to do about any missile passing over Canada.


BBBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
Silver said:
Imagine that. Not wanting to pay for something that doesn't work anyways...

Now can we stop with the bull**** about who the biggest threat to Canada's sovereignty is, at least...it ain't North Korea.
Exactly.... it's been well known for quite some time that the system doesn't work
 

JMAC

Turbo Monkey
Feb 18, 2002
1,531
0
Glad to hear we opted out of that crap, and thats all I have to say about this topic on here :rolleyes: .......
 

Silver

find me a tampon
Jul 20, 2002
10,840
1
Orange County, CA
Westy said:
Even if it did work it wouldn't protect the most likely threat, the nuke in a cargo ship.
Ah, but searching cargo containers doesn't keep billions of dollars flowing into defense companies.

We're going to look awful stupid when a nuke takes out Long Beach or San Francisco...
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
PonySoldier said:
Wrong system..this is a ship based system primarily designed for over water interceptions, the Big Dollar Anti Ballistic missle system designed to "protect" North America hasn't worked yet.

It is a leg of the Missile Shield... there is a sea-based leg and a land based leg from what I understand.

The land based system has some development problems.
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
MMike said:
Yes. And the REASON that they are opponents, is that the system is unproven, costly, technologically flawed and based on outdated assumptions about air attacks.

Missile attacks are 'outdated'?

Is this why Iran, China, N Korea et al are working hard to develop such systems? Did they not get the Mmemo?
 

MMike

A fowl peckerwood.
Sep 5, 2001
18,207
105
just sittin' here drinkin' scotch
N8 said:
Missile attacks are 'outdated'?

Is this why Iran, China, N Korea et al are working hard to develop such systems? Did they not get the Mmemo?
And I'd be willing to wager that their system will be better than this system....

(I base this statement on nothing but my gut feeling)
 

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
MMike said:
And I'd be willing to wager that their system will be better than this system....

(I base this statement on nothing but my gut feeling)

Well, it's the US based LORAL's system (thank you SlickWillie)....
 

JMAC

Turbo Monkey
Feb 18, 2002
1,531
0
N8 said:
Missile attacks are 'outdated'?

Is this why Iran, China, N Korea et al are working hard to develop such systems? Did they not get the Mmemo?
I can;t take it, you really are caught up in Bushes hype talk.
1. It still hasn;t been proven that Iran has missiles, yes it has been developing reactors for power. :rolleyes:
2. China isn;t an enemy of the US seeing as much of the US's debt goes to China. China has such a huge population they don;t need nukes to run over the US in a day. They won;t though....
3. N Korea is more than likelly just saying they have weaponized nukes, having the world believe they do gives them much more power when it comes to bargaining.
4. Russia has already developed nukes specifically to avoid detection from any system the US can come up with. They have already started production on them....
5. If the US did more to make the world actaully like them, or at a bare minimum not hate them. Than like Canada you wouldn'y have to worry about people flying planes into building and nuclear attack from small far off countries.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
N8 said:
Great artcile, thanks for the quote:

" Interceptor missiles failed to launch from their silos in the last two ground-based tests because of hardware and software glitches."

You may like this link too:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200502/s1303034.htm

"The Pentagon's Missile Defence Agency says it is unable to complete the planned $US85 million repeat of a failed December test after the interceptor missile, built by Raytheon, failed to launch from the Ronald Reagan test site located on the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean.

The interceptor missile also failed to launch during a December 15 test, which officials later blamed on a "very minor software glitch.

Last month the head of the agency, Lieutenant General Henry Obering, said the system could offer some limited capability to protect against a ballistic missile attack, despite failures in four of its nine major tests."


HEy so 1 outta about 9 aint bad! This also includes super controlled tests with stationary targets.

Yup, I trust that to protect me.

Also note, no rogue nations currently exist that can hit the USA with an ICBM. (wait does mexico have nukes?). The explosives coming into the usa will be by terrorists, inc ars, boats and suitcases. Your shield won't protect you. You may want to talk to the father of modern realism, kenneth waltz, about this. He did a great lecture on it.
 
B

bigkonarider

Guest
JMAC said:
I can;t take it, you really are caught up in Bushes hype talk.
4. Russia has already developed nukes specifically to avoid detection from any system the US can come up with. They have already started production on them....
-------------

This doesn't suprise me ! My wife always say's " I don't trust Russia," They are too quiet-probably developing something ! :sneaky: :sneaky:
--
I like Canada ! They have good rules about POT & drinking .aye !! Best Freeriders in the world too.. Oh yeah WHISTLER ..Canada rocks :cool:
 

fluff

Monkey Turbo
Sep 8, 2001
5,673
2
Feeling the lag
You can't really blame the Canadians:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/20/patriot_missile/

Quote:
___________________________________________
In less than an hour, the Patriot missiles were set up, and it was the moment of truth for the computers and the radar. Everything worked and everyone was relieved. Maybe Patriot systems were made for this, after all.

Not so. On the same day a Patriot battery downed an RAF Tornado returning from a mission over Iraq, killing Flt Lt Kevin Main and Flt Lt David Williams.

Two days later, a US Air Force pilot in an F-16 fighter was alerted to the fact that he had been targeted by radar. Assuming it to be enemy in origin, he counter-attacked and fired a missile at a Patriot battery, an event witnessed by embedded reporter Robert Riggs from the Dallas station KTVT: "Suddenly, my whole field of vision is just-becomes white light. We all thought we were under Iraqi mortar attack. We had no idea this is the good guys shooting at us."

________________________________________________