Canadian Senate Report Endorses U.S. Missile Defense
October 5, 2006 :: CBC News :: News
The Canadian Senate’s Standing Committee on National Security and Defense stated in a major report released Thursday that Canada should become a partner in U.S. ballistic missile defense. The report, entitled Managing Turmoil: The Need to Upgrade Canadian Foreign Aid and Military Strength to Deal with Massive Change, responded directly to the allegations of the Canadian anti-missile defense lobby, which has thus far blocked Canada from joining the U.S. program. “The Committee believes that the lobby against BMD in Canada is based more on emotions than a rational analysis of BMD’s potential benefits to Canada,” the report stated. “An effective BMD system could save hundreds of thousands of Canadian lives. This Government should not make the mistake that the last Government made, by refusing to support the United States in this project.” The report went on to list eleven reasons why Canada should partner with the U.S. in missile defense:
- BMD is designed to enhance the security of North America as a whole—not just the United States—and the defence of the continent is clearly in Canada’s interests.
- The defence of North America—in partnership with the United States—is a Canadian responsibility.
- BMD is designed to respond to an attack by deflecting the attack, rather than by retaliating. Unlike the existing Russian defensive system, BMD will not produce nuclear fallout, because BMD missiles do not have nuclear warheads.
- Canada has not been asked to contribute funds or even offer bases to locate missiles—all we have been asked to do is support the idea and enter into discussions as to how we might best be protected.
- Recent tests against complex targets have proven successful.
- Non-nuclear technology that can shoot down costly weaponry is a deterrent, not an offensive weapon that will cause an arms race.
- Weapons in space are inevitable. Better we prepare for it now than be caught unawares.
- The Americans are going ahead with the program. Participation will ensure our sovereignty by giving us a seat at the table. If we do not participate, Americans alone will decide if and how Canada is protected.
- Canada has been the recipient of information on potential ballistic missile warning threats to North America for more than 30 years. The US is considering moving that function from NORAD to their US-only Strategic Command. Should that move occur, Canada would no longer be assured of receiving such warnings.
- Even if BMD does not work, why should Canada be concerned about something that is being paid for by America to defend the continent?
- Washington is going ahead with BMD and it might end up saving Canadian lives. If there is the tiniest chance that it could, why would we turn up our noses at the opportunity to be a partner in this project?
(Article, Link)
» Read the full report by the Canadian Senate Committee
» More stories on: Resources, Canada, Allies
Independent Working Group Issues Major Report on Ballistic Missile Defense
July 21, 2006 :: Analysis
Five years after withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, the United States has so far failed to take advantage of the withdrawal and revive development of specific technologies necessary to make the nation and its allies safe from missile attack. On July 10, The Independent Working Group (IWG) issued a major report outlining the need for more ambitious efforts in ballistic missile defense policy. The report, entitled Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century, advocates the development and deployment of robust missile defense capabilities well beyond the limited ground-based system currently being deployed in Alaska and California. The Claremont Institute is one of eight public policy organizations from around the country co-sponsoring the report.
The report recommends that the Pentagon build on the legacy of technologies developed under the Strategic Defense Initiative of the Reagan and first Bush administrations. Sea- and space-based assets should constitute the backbone of a robust, layered U.S. missile defense shield, which ground-based systems should support. Such a shield would be capable of protecting the U.S., its allies, and troops abroad against the threat of a hostile missile attacks from any quarter. The missile threat has only increased in recent years as rogue nations and transnational terrorist organizations attempt to acquire ballistic missile technology and weapons of mass destruction. The report praises the Bush Administration for withdrawing from the 1972 ABM Treaty and beginning modest and limited deployments, but also criticizes the failure to use existing technologies to deploy a more robust system actually capable of defending the United States, our troops, and our allies.
Changes to sea-based missile defense development programs could be made for approximately $350 million, in three specific areas. The U.S. could demonstrate a space-based missile defense system for some $3-5 billion, and field some 1000 space-based interceptors for an anticipated cost of $16.4 billion. Current expenditures for missile defense total approximately $8 billion per year.
The Independent Working Group is co-chaired by Dr. Robert Pfaltzgraff, President of the Institute of Foreign Policy Analysis (IFPA) at Tufts University, and by Dr. William R. Van Cleave, Professor Emeritus of the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies at Missouri State University, and a member of the original U.S. delegation which drafted the 1972 ABM Treaty. Ambassador Henry F. Cooper, who in former roles oversaw both development of missile defense for the U.S. and was chief negotiator to the Geneva Defense and Space Talks, Dr. Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and Dr. Lowell Wood, a Physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Commissioner on the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) were among the numerous missile defense, space, and security experts from the scientific, technical, and national security policy communities around the country who are members of the Independent Working Group.
Members of the Working Group also include Brian T. Kennedy, president of the Claremont Institute, and Thomas Karako, Director of Programs at the Claremont Institute and editor of Missilethreat.com. Sponsors and authors of the IWG report include eight think-tanks headquartered in Washington D.C., California, Alaska, Missouri, Massachusetts, and around the country.
Further, the experts called on the U.S. to recreate and sustain the scientific and technology base—including the workforce needed—to assure U.S. primacy in space and missile defense. That job would be accomplished by revamping organizational leadership of sea and space based missile defense in the U.S., and directing the National Science Foundation and other government agencies to further emphasize research in space technologies.
The report was released July 10 in Washington D.C., and will be followed by a series of briefings to the public and governmental officials during 2006 and 2007.
“We cannot be complacent about the missile defense program we have with the new threats the U.S. is facing,” said Dr. Robert Pfaltzgraff, co-chair of the Independent Working Group. “We promised ourselves an effective, layered defense with our withdrawal from the ABM treaty. It is now time to put politics aside and use the most effective technologies to make that happen.” (Article, Link)
» Read the 2007 Report: The Independent Working Group on Missile Defense, the Space Relationship, and the Twenty-First Century (8 MB)
» More stories on: Resources, Space-Based Systems
» Missile system details for: Brilliant Pebbles, Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD), Patriot Advanced Capability-3 (PAC-3)
DSB Report: Missile Scientists in Short Supply
March 24, 2006 :: USA Today :: News
The Pentagon risks running out of scientists and engineers to operate and upgrade long-range missile technology, according to a report released this week by the Defense Science Board. A task force of five outside missile experts spent two years preparing the report. According to their results, approximately 20,000 research and development scientists and engineers work in the aerospace industry as a whole, down from over 140,000 in the mid-1980s. The decline reflects the fact that veteran engineers and scientists are retiring at a high rate, and fewer young engineers and scientists are choosing to work on missile technology. Each year about 70,000 Americans receive undergraduate and graduate science and engineering degrees that are defense related, compared to a combined 200,000 in China and India. The report recommends that the Pentagon pay higher salaries and offer incentives to attract more experts into the strategic missile field, or risk losing much of its expertise in long-range missile technology. (Article, Link)
» Defense Science Board Report on Future Strategic Strike Skills
» More stories on: Policy, Resources
