NORAD, ICMB, and Missile Defence - Dont Count on the Americans to save us...

[killer_carlson]

Quite the startling news out of Ottawa


http://nationalpost.com/opinion/john...-defend-canada

Politicians approach most subjects with open mouths, but they are rarely at a loss for words.

That’s why the testimony at a House of Commons defence committee, specially convened to consider the thorny problem that is North Korea, was so memorable.

Honourable members were stumped by the testimony of Lt. Gen. Pierre St-Amand, the Canadian who serves as deputy commander of North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) in Colorado Springs.

Conservative MP James Bezan asked St-Amand whether he agreed with the common Canadian perception that the Americans would shoot down an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile heading for a Canadian city, even though Canada is not a participant in the U.S.’s ballistic missile defence program. His response jolted the committee members from their late-summer stupor.

“I’m being told in Colorado Springs that U.S. policy is not to defend Canada. That’s fact I can bring to the table,” he said.

St-Amand conceded that in the “heat of the moment,” American commanders might act contrary to their stated policy, “but that would be entirely a U.S. decision.”

The news was greeted with stunned silence.

In light of Justin Trudeau’s refusal to commit to participation in BMD Canada is, and looks destined to remain, defenceless from ballistic missile attack.

[Hockeyguy15]

It's not that startling, generally if you refuse to participate in something you don't get to participate.

[Northendzone]

I have to admit I just assumed the US would help us in this case.

it seems like krazy kim is really determine to test the west in some fashion and i guess I wonder what the west does if he launches something? if the US would not help, then what about other countries? if they were to launch something at us - what could/would/should we do?

I'd like to think that krazy kim realizes that once something is launched at a country everything becomes a real hot mess with no real winner.

[Ozy_Flame]

Would not be impossible for crazy Kim to fire a missile closer to Canadian shores to A) test longer-range missiles, B) not risk having a missile shot down, and C) antagonize the US without hitting the US.

My guess is in the unlikely event that Canada was targeted, it would be aimed to a remote section of the North.

Of course, I would think that any missile that could make it that close would be shot down anyways by the US, as they would assume it was enough of a threat to themselves.

[You Need a Thneed]

It's a lot cheaper for the US to shoot down a missile heading for Canada then to completely wipe out North Korea.

Shooting down a missile heading for Canada is by far the best option for American interests.

[_Q_]

Why is Canada not involved in BMD? And doesn't the NATO charter require all members to defend in the event of an attack on one of its members?

[MacDaddy77]

would it not be a pretty small window for a missile to hit Canada and not cross Alaska

Would the USA really let e NK missile cross over Alaska airspace without shooting it down

[dissentowner]

The key part of that article states that NK see's Canada as a peaceful country and they like us. As long as Trudeau stays the course we should be able to stay out of this mess.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Why is Canada not involved in BMD? And doesn't the NATO charter require all members to defend in the event of an attack on one of its members?

The NATO charter and Norad agreement are separate as is the BMD.

The American's are well within their rights to tell us to go pound sand, then use a nuclear strike on Canada to launch an attack on North Korea under the NATO charters.

In the event of a single missile strike, I can see the American's shooting the missile down, over Canadian territory, if they had the technology and assets in place to do it, they don't that's the bubble of the BMD shield, you have to actually have systems in place in Canada to protect Canada. The only thing that we have in place are the Northern Radar stations which are in need of major upgrades.

As well because the American's have limited defense assets in place protecting their cities and key spots, they're well within their rights if they had an asset that could possibly protect a Canadian city to tell us that they can't afford to waste missile one on a non participating country

Maybe some clarification here. There's this misnomer that the BMD is this hardened shield that would be able to destroy missiles coming in no matter what the city.

The missile defense system is made up of linked radar systems to track the missiles coming in, then the use of interceptor missiles like the Thaad high altitude kinetic weapon, its effective range is 200km so basically they would have one parked by every major city and strategic site. The Thaad is designed to intercept missiles in the upper or outer atmosphere.

The next component is the Patriat Pac-3 - Its designed to knock down a missile in the atmosphere basically in its terminal phase. Its range is less then the Thaad.

The third component are Aegis equip naval vessels these are located off shore on destroyers and are designed to shoot down missiles in mid flight.

Someone in the Canadian Government if they made the assumption that the Americans would be able to shoot down a ballistic missile over Canada didn't understand how this system works, unless we get extremely lucky and the missile flys over a Aegis equipped ship or within 200 KM's of a American city there's no assets in place to protect us.

Look, this isn't star wars with laser equipped satellites with unlimited range, the BMD system is more like a series of bubbles over important American Cities and strategic sites interlinked with a radar system and a centralized command and control.

If a nuke headed to Ottawa, or Toronto, or Calgary or Edmonton or even Vancouver there's nothing there to intercept the missile, the American's can watch the flight of the missile and the terminal phase and the explosion, and send a sorry about your luck but you didn't want patriots or thaads or having a US naval vessel patrolling off of your shore.

How are these idiots surprised that this is the results? Didn't they read the briefing papers before they said no?

[Wormius]

So, they would likely go to war because of a missile hitting Canada, but they wouldn't try to stop said missile?

[troutman]

We have Alpha Flight.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Wormius

So, they would likely go to war because of a missile hitting Canada, but they wouldn't try to stop said missile?

They can't stop said missile, we have no BMD defensive technology near any Canadian city and don't have Aegis equip destroyers off out shore line.


Its not a matter of won't, its a matter of can't.

The interceptors have a range of 200 KM and less around the deployment site. The Aegis has to be pretty much in a position under the missile.

this isn't Trump and the American's being A-holes, this is about the government not under standing how this works. Or people in the military understanding how it works and not being able to explain it to the government

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by _Q_

Why is Canada not involved in BMD? And doesn't the NATO charter require all members to defend in the event of an attack on one of its members?

Paul Martin in all his wisdom refused to join it because it would have meant the optics looked like he was supporting Bush II at the time.

The decision means this...

“Through NORAD, we currently share information in early warning and attack assessment with the USA,” former diplomat Colin Robertson said in a testimony to a Senate committee in 2014, urging us to think more about BMD. “But when it comes time to make the critical launch decisions, our officials literally have to leave the room.”

This means there’s no one there whose sole job is to protect the Canadian homeland. Sure, the U.S. has our back. But they’ll be understandably thinking about their own needs first and foremost in an emergency. Signing on to BMD changes that, giving us a place at the table.

[DoubleF]

Would not a missile from North Korea/Asia be shot down anyways? I mean, most trajectories would be over Japan, close to Alaska, close to Hawaii or relatively close to the border by Vancouver/US. Vancouver Island maybe is the only place that the US may not protect.

I'm also pretty sure that China/Russia would not be welcome towards a missile fired over their territory when attempting to hit Canada.

[CaptainCrunch]

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Would not a missile from North Korea/Asia be shot down anyways? I mean, most trajectories would be over Japan, close to Alaska, close to Hawaii or relatively close to the border by Vancouver/US. Vancouver Island maybe is the only place that the US may not protect.

I'm also pretty sure that China/Russia would not be welcome towards a missile fired over their territory when attempting to hit Canada.

Possibly

Except the risk is the North Korean's fire a missile, its not targeted for Japan but to fly over Japan, the only system in place is with their Aegis Destroyers, so Japan now has to make a decision of a non threatening missile being shot down and having the missile crash into Japan.

China doesn't have anything but some ABMs designed to shoot down a missile in upper atmosphere or terminal stage, they don't have anything that would hit a mid flight missile.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

Would not a missile from North Korea/Asia be shot down anyways? I mean, most trajectories would be over Japan, close to Alaska, close to Hawaii or relatively close to the border by Vancouver/US. Vancouver Island maybe is the only place that the US may not protect.

I'm also pretty sure that China/Russia would not be welcome towards a missile fired over their territory when attempting to hit Canada.

NK has fired 2 of hem over Japan in the last month...niether was shot down though I believe that was because they knew the trajectory would just see it landing in the ocean.

Something heading for mainland NA would pose a different reaction Im sure, but again there has to be the equipment in place to make a difference.

[CaptainCrunch]

The Japanese wouldn't take the risk, right now their missile shield is a two stage, they have the Aegis ships and the Pac-3. If they hit the missile in mid flight with a path over Japan there's a good chance that it will crash on the Japanese mainland and they have to hope that the Pac-3's that they deployed can intercept the debris. They don't have the Thaad system in place, but will probably get that now.

But I doubt that Japan bothers to shoot down a missile that's heading over their territory heading somewhere else.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

The key part of that article states that NK see's Canada as a peaceful country and they like us. As long as Trudeau stays the course we should be able to stay out of this mess.

Not sure I agree.

I think a scenario where NK is invaded and they launch everything they have is not out of the realm of possibility.

I'd feel a lot safer having some infrastructure in place providing more security than Trudeau's brand.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Not sure I agree.

I think a scenario where NK is invaded and they launch everything they have is not out of the realm of possibility.

I'd feel a lot safer having some infrastructure in place providing more security than Trudeau's brand.

What?

You mean "social license" doesn't get us all the protection we will ever need?