Signing on to Missile Defence

by John Thompson

11/17/03

The Americans are brandishing an interesting deal in front of us, and we would be fools not to sign on the dotted line. Do you want to know more?

Here is the background: Since Mackenzie King and Roosevelt signed the 1940 Ogdensburg Agreement, Canada and the US have been close partners in continental defence. It has been a good arrangement for both countries. We get the benefit of American military technology and strength should we need them, economic opportunities by sharing in the US arms industry, and the Americans respect our sovereignty. The Americans got a firm ally, a safe frontier, and the benefit of the strategic depth Canada offers for air and maritime defence.

In the 63 years of the life of the agreement, hundreds of lesser agreements have been successfully concluded between Washington and Ottawa, and a number of other organizations were created — including NORAD (North American Air Defence) back in the 1950s. NORAD was intended to create an integrated American-Canadian air defence network against bombers and cruise missiles; but the organization soon took on other roles.

From their main command centre deep within Cheyenne Mountain at Colorado Springs, NORAD receives the ‘take’ from radar stations on the periphery of the US and Canada; but also receives instant imagery from infrared eyes floating in geosynchronous orbit that see the launch of any ballistic missile anywhere on the Earth. (On the author’s first visit to Cheyenne Mountain in 1988, they were observing the Iraqis and Iranians firing short-range missiles at each other). Thus, NORAD provides early warning of nuclear attack to both Canada and the US. In the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks, the group also tracks some 7,000 flights inside North America every day and has been keeping its electronic eyes peeled for airborne drug smugglers.

The group also guides the space program by keeping track of over 20,000 objects floating in orbit around the world — and thus providing a safe corridor for manned flights and the International Space Station. In the Mountain, Canadian officers work alongside their US counterparts, the Commander of NORAD is always an American with a Canadian deputy, and we have filled all the other key roles there at various times. Relations between the two militaries are (as they are elsewhere) very relaxed and cordial.

The NORAD agreement is coming up for renewal again, but this time the US wants to make a critical change. The US government has formally (and legally) withdrawn from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and will bring anti-missile defences for North America on-line in the summer of 2004. NORAD’s existing radars and satellites will be used as part of the anti-missile defence system and long-range ABM missiles are being deployed at this very moment in Alaska. Short range systems adapted from existing air-defence missiles are also being deployed overseas, but these may have little to do with North American defence.

Canada will get coverage from this system anyway, and none of the critical radars are sited in our country. Nor do the Americans expect to intercept missiles over Canada — as they much prefer to target incoming missiles while they are over the ocean (or better yet, still over the country that launched them in the first place). The R&D is largely paid for and Washington isn’t looking for contributions here — though Canadian companies would be welcome to participate once we sign on.

What the US really wants to do is to tie in the command and control centre for ballistic missile defence with NORAD. It makes enormous sense, being a convenient and practical measure, and would not require the creation of an expensive new command centre. The hitch is that, unless Canada agrees to participate, until a new centre created an absurd situation would ensue as Canadian duty officers continue to perform their duties watching for a hostile missile launch, then plug their ears, close their eyes and leave the room once the US acts against it.

Besides avoiding embarrassment to both our own Air Force officers and those of the United States, signing on to missile defence would save the US some money (digging out the guts of a mountain for a command centre is expensive). It would also be a easy gesture of affirmation and support for Washington, and Paul Martin has some spadework to do to make up for the damage wrought by his predecessor’s contempt for President Bush.

So we don’t have much to lose, a few benefits to gain, and some easy credit to achieve with a close friend. Let us sign on the dotted line.

John Thompson is President of the Mackenzie Institute which studies political instability and terrorism. He can be reached at: mackenzieinstitute@bellnet.ca