Would the U.S shield Canada from a missile strike? Maybe not

Late last month I posted a link to the new Vimy Paper by David McDonough on the pospects of Canadian participation in the US Ballistic Missile Defense system. McDonough recently wrote an op-ed based on his paper, which then appeared on the CDA Institute's Blog.

Here is his op-ed.

CDA Institute Research Manager and Senior Editor David McDonough wrote an op-​ed in iPolitics exploring the prospect for Canadian participation in missile defence, based on his recently released Vimy Paper. This was originally re-published on their Blog: The Forum. 

As part of its long-​promised defence policy review, the federal government is reviewing Canada’s 2005 decision to opt out of continental ballistic missile defence. Change of heart? Or red herring?

Either way, it’s a good time to revisit the debate about Canada’s potential role in missile defence. First, let’s start by putting an end to one scare tactic — the notion that the future of the North American Aerospace Defence command (NORAD) would be somehow jeopardized without BMD. Given the importance of airspace warning and control after 9/​11,NORAD is here to stay.

But that doesn’t mean NORAD’s current mission (aerospace warning, airspace control and maritime warning) is necessarily secure. In 2004, Canada’s agreement to allow NORAD’s early warning functions to be used in BMD helped to safeguard its role in ballistic missile warning. NORAD is no longer alone here, however; a number of new fixed and mobile X-​band radar assets provide tracking and cueing capabilities for a range of BMD systems, not all of which are linked to NORAD. If Washington ever chose another conduit for early warning, one of the binational command’s key missions would come to a halt.

Canada’s refusal to participate in missile defence also has created a curious anomaly, given that key allies in NATO, the Asia-​Pacific and elsewhere have moved quickly to develop and deploy BMD alongside the United States. This is especially true in NATO, which is planning to deploy an operational system capable of defending both deployed military forces and European cities.

In effect, Canada accepted the logic of BMD for its allies in Europe — but not for North America. That makes Canada’s position anomalous, to say the least. It also raises the question of whether Ottawa should seek some sort of protection from ballistic missile attack.

Many people assume — falsely — that Canada would be protected from a missile attack by America’s BMD system. That system, however, can now better identify a missile’s trajectory and determine if its target is Canadian or American before it hits.

Simply offering the use of current Canadian personnel at NORAD might offer a fig leaf of involvement in BMD, but it probably won’t be enough to ensure Canadian cities are actually being protected. Interception opportunities are limited, as are the bullets in the BMD gun; the number of U.S. interceptors is only expected to hit 44 by 2017. As its warhead tracking capabilities improve, the Americans increasingly may face a choice between protecting a Canadian city and an American one. No points for guessing which one they’d choose.

But it may be difficult for Canada to secure participation and protection in a BMD system now — without a quid pro quo, at least. The U.S. always has been reluctant to give Canada either a guarantee of BMD protection or a say in the intercept planning process that decides which cities get protection. In 2004 and 2005, for example, U.S. negotiators showed little interest in giving Canada a voice in drafting the interception algorithm.

In other words, simply offering the use of current Canadian personnel at NORAD might offer a fig leaf of involvement inBMD, but it probably won’t be enough to ensure Canadian cities are actually being protected. Canada will need to do more — to provide an ‘asymmetrical’ or ‘in-​kind’ contribution.

One idea making the rounds is to volunteer a site at Goose Bay, Newfoundland for X-​band tracking and cueing radar. That would fill an important gap in radar coverage for tracking something launched out of Iran; continental BMD is designed to shoot down a North Korean missile. It would be particularly useful if the United States chooses to build a third interceptor site on its east coast.

Another proposal is to establish continental surveillance radar in the Canadian Arctic capable of tracking aircraft, maritime vessels and cruise/​ballistic missiles. American military officials have shown interest in having multi-​purpose sensors in the Arctic, and such assets would have the advantage of replacing the aging North Warning System (NWS) radar line.

A third idea is to skip the land-​based proposals altogether and make our contribution in space. By deploying a satellite that could be linked to U.S. space-​based BMD sensors, Canada could support missile defence interceptions beyond North America and be in a better position to pursue cooperation with the Americans on military space.

None of these proposals would come cheap. Any Canadian contribution to BMD also could entail opportunity costs. Money spent on a Goose Bay radar site, for example, reduces the already limited funds for recapitalizing the Canadian Forces. Still, the benefits of participation could outweigh the costs and trade-​offs.

Much depends on what the U.S. expects of a Canadian in-​kind contribution to BMD. The only way to find out is for Canada to start talking with the Americans. The United States has indicated it wants to see proof of definite interest on Ottawa’s part before releasing such information — while Canada has been loathe to send any premature signals that it intends to sign up.

Still, it’s time to assess our options and start the discussions with Washington on missile defence — at least to see where such a dance may ultimately lead.

This article is based on the author’s new Vimy Paper that explores in detail Canada’s participation in ballistic missile defence.

Dr. David S. McDonough is Research Manager and Senior Editor at the CDA Institute, and a research fellow at Dalhousie University’s Centre for Foreign Policy Studies.

CDA Instutute Releases Vimy Paper on BMD

Originally published by Frontline Defence 

The Conference of Defence Associations Institute (CDA Institute) has released Vimy Paper 31: "Canada, NORAD, and Missile Defence: Prospects for Canadian Participation in BMD" by David McDonough.

The Canadian government recently launched its Defence Policy Review, expected to be completed by early 2017. The Department of National Defence also released a consultation paper that offered an overview of the issues facing the Canadian Armed Forces and key questions meant to guide public consultations as part of this review process. Of note, the document raised the previous government's 2005 decision to refuse participation in the US ballistic missile defence (BMD) system, and asked whether it was time to revisit this decision "given changing technologies and threats?"

This Vimy Paper explores the debate about Canada's possible participation in US missile defence plans, and assesses the advantages and possible disadvantages of such a commitment. The paper begins by examining the Canadian role in the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD), particularly the implications if NORAD fails to be directly involved in BMD. It then looks at the possibility of Canada receiving some protection in a BMD system, possible scenarios in which such protection would be required, and the likely contributions necessary if Canada wants to participate in missile defence and receive a modicum of protection. Lastly, the paper disentangles and assesses some of the key arguments used by critics against BMD.

By directly participating in BMD, Canada would reinforce the status of NORAD, strengthen the Canada-US defence relationship, and potentially ensure an important element of protection against ballistic missile threats. Canada will likely have to offer an "asymmetrical" or "in-kind contribution" if it hopes to receive protection afforded by the BMD system, so the question of cost needs to be further assessed. Lastly, criticism of BMD have often been either overstated or hampered by a degree of logical inconsistency or dissonance. As the Vimy Paper concludes, for these reasons, Canada should begin discussions with the United States on this issue - to better ascertain the costs Canada may be expected to shoulder for participation and ultimately to become an official participant in BMD.

The paper is available at the following link:
http://www.cdainstitute.ca/images/Vimy_Papers/Vimy_Paper_31.pdf

Think LAVs are thorny? Wait for the missile debate

By: KONRAD YAKABUSKI, The Globe and Mail

If you think the decision to sell arms to Saudi Arabia has inflamed old animosities between Liberal hawks and doves, realists and idealists, continentalists and anti-Americans, just wait until the debate about Canada joining the U.S. ballistic missile defence system gets fired up.

It is a debate Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would prefer to do without. But a lot has changed since the last Liberal government said “no” to signing on to BMD in 2005. Now Canada is increasingly out of sync with its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies, seen as a free-riding non-participant in its own defence.

Harjit Sajjan can’t avoid this elephant in the room as he launches a review of Canadian defence policy. On Monday, the Defence Minister acknowledged that any consultation that omitted reopening the discussion on missile defence could not be considered an “open” defence review.

As his own department’s discussion paper unpinning the review explains: “Given the increase in the number of countries with access to ballistic missile technology and their potential to reach North America, this threat is expected to endure and grow more sophisticated in coming decades. In response to this change in the security environment, many of Canada’s partners and allies are working closely [on BMD] capabilities.”

But just how “open” is Mr. Trudeau to reconsidering a policy that tore apart his party the last time it crept onto the agenda? Not participating in BMD dovetails with the peace-seeker image he likes to project.

One of former prime minister Paul Martin’s first moves after taking over from Jean Chrétien was to ask the Americans, miffed about Canada’s decision to stay out of the war in Iraq, about joining then-U.S. president George W. Bush’s nascent BMD program. Mr. Martin’s defence minister David Pratt wrote in an early 2004 letter to his U.S. counterpart: “We believe this should provide a mutually beneficial framework to ensure the closest possible involvement and insight for Canada, both industry and government, in the U.S. missile defence program.”

Both Mr. Pratt and his successor at National Defence, Bill Graham, supported joining the U.S. initiative. But much of the Liberal brain trust was outraged.Lloyd Axworthy lashed out against Martin government ministers seeking to “appease Washington power brokers by signing on to an unnecessary missile defence system.” A who’s who of Canadian celebrities, including Alexandre Trudeau (then the activist Trudeau scion considered most likely to succeed in politics), formed “Stars Against Star Wars” to campaign against Canada joining BMD.

The issue became moot after Mr. Martin was reduced to a minority government in a mid-2004 election and was forced to rely on New Democratic Party votes in the House of Commons. (BMD was and remains a non-starter for the New Democrats.) Mr. Martin’s early 2005 decision to officially reject Canada’s participation in BMD was denounced as “delusional” by the Conservative opposition. But during his almost 10 years in power, former prime minister Stephen Harper never reversed the policy.

Whether it was public opinion or a shrinking (in real terms) defence budget that led to Mr. Harper’s non-action, it ran counter to NATO’s move to make BMD part of its “core task of collective defence.” As Mr. Pratt told a 2014 Senate committee: “We have 28 NATO nations saying that they endorse the need to protect their populations against rogue missiles, and Canada has been saying all the right things at NATO but not doing anything when it comes to our own situation here in North America.”

Since 2005, Iran and North Korea have continued to perfect their missiles – “to the point a threat has become a practical reality,” as the Senate defence committee’s final report put it two years ago. Russia and China are developing new weapons capable of striking North America, partly in reaction to a $1-trillion plan to modernize America’s nuclear arsenal that is championed by Barack Obama, the same U.S. president who won a Nobel Peace Prize for promoting nuclear non-proliferation.

The four-member panel appointed by Mr. Sajjan to review Canada’s defence policy includes Mr. Graham and former chief of the defence staff Ray Henault, both of whom are believed to have pressed Mr. Martin to join the U.S. program in 2005. Margaret Purdy, a former associate deputy minister of defence, may be similarly inclined. The same cannot be said for former Supreme Court justice Louise Arbour.

Ultimately, it will be Mr. Trudeau’s call. Either way, it will divide his part

BMD Debate: NO ‘SPECIFIC’ MISSILE THREAT TO CANADA - Says General

By: Lee Berthiaume, National Post (National Edition)

WE ARE IN A SPHERE WHERE WE COULD BE TARGETED.

ADRIAN WYLD / THE CANADIAN PRESS There has been a “proliferation” of ballistic missiles since former prime minister Paul Martin opted not to join the U.S. missile defence program in 2005, says Lt.-Gen. Pierre St. Amand, left, a deputy commander with NORAD.

A Canadian senior military commander responsible for protecting against airborne threats to North America says Canada would not be shielded from a ballistic missile attack.

But he also admitted he did not know of any direct ballistic missile threat to Canada.

Lt.-Gen. Pierre St. Amand, deputy commander of the joint U.S.-Canadian aerospace defence system, NORAD, made the comments Tuesday when he appeared before the House of Commons defence committee where ballistic missile defence was front and centre.

The Ottawa Citizen revealed this week the Liberal government’s defence review includes questions about whether Canada should join the U.S. in building a shield against foreign-launched missiles.

While the New Democratic Party opposes Canada’s participation, several Conservative MPs, including former defence minister Jason Kenney, favour reopening the debate.


St. Amand listed ballistic missiles as one threat among the many NORAD watches for every day. The difference between it and other threats is it is the only one in which Canada would not have a say in how to respond, he said.

“Canada will be advised (of an attack),” he said. “With respect to the defence itself, we’ll know that there is going to be an action taken because we’re sitting in the room … We’re kind of a silent observer, if you want.”

There has been a “proliferation” of such weapons since then-prime minister Paul Martin opted not to join the U.S. missile defence program in 2005, St. Amand said, before referring to recent developments by North Korea and Iran.

The U.S. spent about $100 billion over the last decade to develop land- and sea-based systems that would stop a limited ballistic missile attack from rogue states, like North Korea or Iran. (They would not protect against an all-out attack by Russia or China.)

St. Amand agreed with an opposition assessment that if there were an attack, the Americans’ ballistic missile defence system would only be used to protect the U.S.

But he added he did not know of any direct ballistic missile threat to Canada from North Korea or elsewhere. Rather, it could be targeted during a war because of its alliances with the U.S. and NATO.

“There’s nothing specific that I can talk about,” he said when asked about direct threats. “The fact that we have signed up to certain alliances, NATO, for example, and we are closely aligned with the United States, means we are in a sphere where we could be targeted.”

NDP defence critic Randall Garrison said the comment was proof Canada does not need to join ballistic missile defence.

“If there’s no credible or realistic threat from a state actor to Canada, then why would we enter into (missile defence)?” he asked.

But Conservative defence critic James Bezan said with North Korea and Iran continuing to develop ballistic missile technology, Canada needs to be prepared.

“They may be aiming for the United States, but (Iranian or North Korean missiles) could fall into Canadian territory,” he said. On a visit to Washington, Kenney also spoke in favour of Canada reexamining the issue.

Upgrade to the North Warning System in the Works

A report was quietly released back at the bigging of April that the U.S Military is looking at its options when it comes to upgrading the missile sensors in the North Warning System, along the old Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line from the Cold War Era.

The current sensors will be obsolete within the next decade the U.S. Military fears, and are currently only capable of tracking high flying aircraft or ballistic missiles. They currently cannot track low-flying objects - including Cruise missiles, as they cannot see beyond the horizon.

Photo of part of the Hall Beach, Nunavut North Warning System Station (2003) Tropo Dish and Radar Dome Visible. 

U.S. officials say they have approached Canadian officials to begin discussions as to possible upgrade options, for greater visibility in the Arctic. Many feel this is a pressing issue, with the increase in Russian sorties in the Arctic. Russian bombers, tankers, and fighter jets approached North American airspace 17 times last year.

Defence Minister Jason Kenny, recently said the Government is looking at options for the modernizing of the North Warning System, but is still strictly opposed to being part of the US Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) System, which the government opted out of nearly a decade ago.

The issue is currently still with the House Defence committee under study.