Ballistic Missile Defence

Col (Ret) William C. Weston

The issue of Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) is a controversial one. The recent announcement by Prime Minister Martin not to support BMD has certainly heightened the controversy. BMD clearly has its supporters and detractors, both technical and philosophical. For those interested in strategic defence, here are a few facts about ballistic missile defence.

Missile defence is not new. The quest for protection against missiles stems from World War II and the German V2 rockets fired at England. Since then world leaders, especially every US President, have been faced with the problem of seeking protection against such weapons. Currently, the Russians and the Israelis have a form of BMD to protect their populations. The United States had a limited system in the 70’s (Sentinel/Safeguard), but decommissioned it because it was cost-ineffective and the technology was found wanting.

The BMD system being deployed by the US is a test bed of 40 to 100 missiles: test bed being the operative word. Like any complex technical system there will be successes and failures of components during various phases of testing before it is declared operationally ready.

BMD is a ground-based system designed to intercept attacking missiles in mid-course flight. Unlike the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) technology development during President Reagan’s era, the BMD system envisioned has no space based weapon component. The system will be located primarily in Alaska and California. It has no function other than defence and cannot be used offensively against any nation. Without a BMD system, the US would have no option, but to rely on its strategic offensive ICBMs as it did under its Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) policy of the Cold War.

The US BMD system will employ non-explosive warheads to destroy a missile attacking North America resulting from intentional or accidental launch. As such, the intercepting missile relies on kinetic energy to destroy the incoming missile.

While development of a missile defence system is extraordinarily expensive, if it had to be used to save a major North American city, it would be a cheap investment in the long term: recall the tremendous destruction and economic disruption caused by the attack on the World Trade Centre. However, the cost for the BMD system is American, not Canadian.

The U.S. does not need Canada to deploy BMD – no Canadian radar station, nor Canadian territory on which to station interceptors

Canada has not been asked, nor will it be asked to participate in the development of space based weapons and participation in BMD does not affect its stance on the militarization of space, nor its policy of pursuing arms control.

ICBMs fired at North America, will go through space.

In North America, there is no protection against ICBMs.

Here are a few comments on the strategic context and implications for Canada.

It would be useful for readers to ask themselves a few simple questions. Why for example, is it all right for the Russians and Israelis to provide ICBM protection for its citizens, but not the US and Canada? Why, for example, do we think it is right to provide Theatre Ballistic Missile defence for our troops in the field (which we should), but not for citizens at home? What do you think would protect citizens of Victoria or Vancouver should a missile aimed at the concentration of military and industrial assets in the Seattle/Bremerton, Washington area go astray and hit Victoria or Vancouver?

Some opponents of BMD would argue that Canada has no enemies and that participation in BMD would expose us to risk. Clearly, there is enough evidence to show that not everyone is our friend and that it is just a question of time before terrorist extremists strike. We have been lucky so far, but lucky for how long? Other opponents would argue that BMD would start a new arms race. This is hardly the case. A few interceptor missiles for limited protection does not threaten Russian or Chinese strategic capability enough for them to greatly increase their strike capability, nor is it worth the expense to do so.

Others would argue that we should take the moral high ground (whatever that is when one is trying to defend oneself) and not participate in a system, which might ultimately lead to "weapons in space". Weapons in space are a long way away from today. Efforts have been made since World War II to provide BMD protection and it is still in the test bed stage. How long do such moralists think it will take to produce an effective, comprehensive space based weapon system?

Canada has been on a strategic vacation for over two decades. Our military capability and budget have eroded continuously since the mid-1970s. Notwithstanding recent budget announcements of increased military funding, the Prime Minister’s decision on BMD has not improved this situation and is certainly counter to the 1938 Franklin Roosevelt – Mackenzie King understanding that Canada and the US would work together to defend the North American continent.

Non-participation in BMD has relegated Canada to the sidelines in planning for the strategic defence of North America. While our participation would have cost us little more than moral support and been consistent with a long established agreement, we have chosen to ignore a critical aspect of our defence. Notwithstanding comment that we will continue to work with the US on defence issues, which we will in other areas, Canada will not be invited to sit in on strategic planning which involves BMD.

While one can empathize with the difficult position of the Prime Minister with a minority government, Canada’s broader strategic relationship with the US must surely take priority. Now, we are faced with the US not only closing the door on strategic issues, but also taking the doorknob with them.

One can only hope that the decision not to participate in BMD will be revisited and that the government will lead in a genuine effort to inform all Canadians of the implications to our strategic interests; and not be swayed by the doom and gloom naysayers who are prepared to gamble with Canadian lives for their own political ends.

For a succinct and informed discussion of this subject, see the presentation by Dr. James Fergusson, Director of the Center for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, entitled "Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence: What we know, don’t know and can’t know" that he presented as part of the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences, Breakfast on the Hill series 4 November 2004. It can be found at www.fedcan.ca/english/advocacy/hill/

Top

Index