The Canadians believe that they have no enemies who may attack them against whom military force would be an effective response. They may be right.

There's another dimension to Canadian disarmament (and that, I believe, is the greater context here). You can't be called upon to provide resources you don't have. Intervention needed in Africa? Sorry we don't have the troops. Problems in Kosovo? No can do.

It's a prudent rational strategy. And it's one we'll have to get used to since it appears to be the strategy that Europe is using as well.

My Catholic upbringing tells me that shame is the proper approach to encouraging change.

The Canadians believe that they have no enemies who may attack them against whom military force would be an effective response. They may be right.

There's another dimension to Canadian disarmament (and that, I believe, is the greater context here). You can't be called upon to provide resources you don't have.

Both points are certainly true, although it's worth noting that the Canadians were not being asked to contribute anything except participation in BMD.

Dave,

The defense effect of Canada's decision will be to remove Canadian companies from the research contracts etc. currently being pursued as part of missile defense. Which is to say, not much. Canada wasn't really being asked to do much, it isn't necessary to have D.E.W. line style radars here, and the USA will happily fire into or over Canada without asking if it believes this will neutralize any missile threat that would directly harm Americans.

Because Canada has 80% of its population within 200 miles of the U.S. border, most of Canada qualifies. So the USA's message re: not defending Canada is mostly hot air. If a nuke is launched at Toronto, the US will not let Buffalo turn into an uninhabitable fallout zone (even if it would put the Bills franchise out of their misery).

Of course, there will be more reprecussions re: the overall Canada-US relationship. PM Martin's gamble is that he can use this as a sop to the Canadian left, while providing more useful cooperation with the USA on other issues. Anticipated cuts in the USA's missile defense budget certainly sent a clear signal re: priorities. I can fault Martin for poor leadership here, but not for political ignorance. He definitely picked his spot.

The only wild card in all this is the perception of Canada within the US political class. It isn't good for either party in the USA to begin to see Canada as an ally of their partisan opponents, because it creates incentives for non-cooperation and retaliation when convenient. Unfortunately, that's what's beginning to happen. Given the trade volumes and other mutual issues involved, it's a result that will cost both countries if the perception grows. In proportinal terms, however, it will cost Canada far more.

There's another dimension to this, namely negotiations with North Korea (and with the Chinese military buildup in the background).

Had Martin followed through as he originally signalled - in public - to the Bush administration, it would send a signal that would put pressure on NORK and China to work towards a reasonable resolution of the impasse w/ Pyongyang.

Had Martin openly stated he would not participate, from the beginning, then negotiations would have taken that into account.

To signal he would and then say no was destructive. Probably not hugely to the negotiations but certainly to relations between our two countries.

Martin is indeed playing politics. But he is a lousy statesman IMO. My husband has worked with Canadian military officers and we've generally had a good and respectful relationship. But the deep ties (including most especially financial) between Canada's governing party and e.g. France have been quietly poisonous to that relationship I think.

So the USA's message re: not defending Canada is mostly hot air

Not quite, Joe. It means we won't respond to Canadian requests or concerns on this. Now if you're suggesting that Canada sees no potential threats to itself, okay ..... But it does mean your country has opted out of the decision process, Martin's claims notwithstanding.

Systems like BMD do not get deployed in a vacuum. Strategic systems are deployed in the context of signficant military doctrine and training. Lack of Canadian participation in the program means lack of any consideration for Canadian decisions or requests in the doctrine, in training and in use.

I understand Canadian frustration at being the smaller of the two countries. But in this case, it is Canada who is opting out of taking an adult role in the process, not the US throwing its weight around.

Oh, and re: technology - Bell Northern Research was a signficant addition to Canada's research and technology community and at least part of its work came from the defense side IIRC. Ditto with the Stryker manufacturing. While not as immediate as, say, soft lumber, the effects of BNR on places like McGill Univ's computer science department and indirectly on the Canadian economy should not be discounted, I suspect.

While not as immediate as, say, soft lumber, the effects of BNR on places like McGill Univ's computer science department and indirectly on the Canadian economy should not be discounted, I suspect.

Yep. Secondary effects.

I've been thinking a lot about the secondary effects of demilitarization lately while preparing a post on arms exports. U. S. arms exports comprise a greater-than-I'm-happy-with proportion of total U. S. exports. But our arms exports are slowing while Russia's are rising rapidly.

And, much as I dislike arms exports, reduced participation by Canada will result in reduced arms exports by them and (presumably) reduced exports overall. Probably not an unalloyed blessing. And too much reliance on exporting raw materials (like oil and timber) is probably no better for Canada than it is for Saudi Arabia. Or the United States or Russia.

re: Toronto

Don't forget salvage fusing, the Iranian ICBM might choose to detonate early to avoid failure. Canada would prefer we intercept over the Pole, but that may require interceptors in Canada.

Great observation, Ripper!

That never even crossed my mind until you mentioned it...maybe because I was forgoing an American intercept in my mind.

Awesome observation.

Well put Robin

Sometimes it makes sense to pay attention to The Little Red Hen

Does anyone here wonder why Canadians aren't more concerned about not being in missile defence?

BMD is an illusionary solution to a fictional problem. I knew public eduation was getting pretty bad doewn south, but I had no idea.

What decision process? We were asked if we wanted to watch the Bush administration tinker with its latest bit of fantasy. We'd have about as much say in it as the Brits have -- who are in. They Brits have no say.

It's a stupid idea. It's always been a stupid idea and it will continue to be a stupid idea.

Both China and Russia can best any concievable missile defence system. So to rely on missile defence against the countries that actually pose a threat to the United States is to rely on something that doesn't work. These are nuclear bombs remember. If even one gets through it's catostrophic. The Bushies are endangering everyone. Missile Defence cannot defend against multiple war head rockets. In existence since the 70s. So who is BMD intened to defend against? North Korea. A country that would be vapourized if it looked at even Howard Dean sideways. Iran. Same. Both countries are more of a threat to their own people than others.

And people wonder why the Bush Administration isn't liked. How about they've got terrible ideas, that they don't even try to sell. Like BMD.

Just because (most) Americans have convinced themselves they need a BMD system doesn't mean its a good idea or that anyone else is convinced. If you bully people as the Bushies try then they're going to be even less likely to go along.

wsam

Robin's points are correct. Including the point about the NK negotiations, an angle I hadn't considered but one that raises the damage level to the relationship substantially.

As for "not responding to Canadian requests or concerns," and not considering Canadian needs, that is also correct. Expect Canada to whine about it nonetheless. "Tant pis," as they say in Quebec.

I'll also add this, from Her Majesty's Official Opposition in Canada. The situation may be even more muddled than it appears at first glance:

"February 24, 2005

Paul Martin is playing a dishonest game on Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) to appease his own party

Paul Martin couldn’t get himself off the fence on missile defence yesterday, but reports indicate that today might finally be the day that he caves in and says no. But the truth is Canada is already a part of Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD), but with no influence and no benefits. By pretending now to say “no,” Martin is poking a stick in the eye of our American allies, and playing a dishonest game to appease his own party.

When agreement was reached to amend NORAD to allow it to detect incoming missiles last summer, it put Canada directly in the system. Paul Martin knows it; his defence minister Bill Graham knows it; his new ambassador to Washington Frank McKenna stated it plainly.

The truth is that BMD was always on Martin’s agenda, and he entered Canada into the system behind the scenes through the NORAD amendment. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister chose to hide all of these discussions and negotiations from Canadians. Parliament was never given the opportunity to see a proposal, to have a full debate, and to vote, and now it’s too late.

By acting so dishonestly on this matter, Martin has marginalized Canada in BMD. We are involved, but the leader of the country is saying we aren’t. So we have no basis from which to take advantage of any of the system’s potential benefits, and our influence in the system is significantly diminished.

Conservatives have always been open to the principle of missile defence, but we wanted to see concrete proposals first. It is unfortunate that Paul Martin has reneged on his commitments to make them public for a full debate. However, now that Canada is involved in BMD under the auspices of the amended NORAD agreement, Conservatives would not reverse it."

Wsam -- BMD against say Russia or China NOW is illusory. So was heavier than air flight in 1902. The VERY best minds thought it simply couldn't be done. Too difficult they said.

Russia and/or China are unlikely to attack us. Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, Egypt, or Saudi Arabia are different matters. Even a few ballistic missiles armed with nukes could be used to incinerate several cities. BMD can deter these attacks by stopping them from reaching the outer edges of the atmosphere; in the so-called "boost phase." Considering we now have real-time streaming digital video over the internet, something that was impossible twenty years ago, this isn't far-fetched.

Canada made a strategic decision to disarm, and hope/pray that the US will protect it anyway. What this is likely to mean is that the US Navy will simply step in to neutralize threats against the US even in Canadian waters. With no Navy to speak of, and officially "neutral" the Canadians have no say. The same thing holds true for Canadian Airspace. They can lodge official protests, but so what? They are free-riding on our nickel, so don't have a say.

Incidentally, this also allows any nation really that wants to gill net the Canadian waters to do what they want. What will Canada do without a Navy to enforce it's territorial waters? Send a protesting letter to China or Taiwan or Japan? Even small and remote countries can be strip mined by larger, aggressive countries when they have no military to enforce their laws. I somehow doubt the US Navy will enforce Canadian fishery laws.

wsam,
I am assuming that those nice Russian nuclear-tipped ABM systems that are arrayed around Moscow are a bad idea, too? If I'm not mistaken, there are 64 Gorgon ABM-4 (A-135) rockets with 1 megaton warheads clustered around Moscow - and this system has been operational (and upgraded) since the early 1970s. At least the United States is going for the "hit to kill" non-nuclear option rather than the Russian's "detonate a barrage of nukes" option. Is this an illusionary solution to a fictional problem? I doubt that. This is a rational solution to a real problem. Seems like the Russians have been quite happy to spend quite a bit on illusionary solutions to fictional problems - and they CONTINUE to do so. The Russians have voted that BMD is possible and it will work by their actions - at the probable expense of nuking down-range Russia. We've done the same thing, just not requiring the nuking of Canada to defend the US. At least have the insight to say thank you for the battlefield courtesy.

Usually I hear a bipolar anti-BMD argument. First, that BMD is destabilizing, ergo, it will really work, and the bad guys “will have to build more missiles to properly try to coerce us.” The second is that BMD won't work because it is technologically impossible, so it is a waste of money. Which is it? If we don’t build it, that still does not solve the problem of authoritarian, unaccountable dictators from trying to punch above their weight and terrorize their opponents. Are you sure that they won't drop short and hit Canada? Quite frankly, the US and Canada have much more to lose than the North Koreans do - so that is not a deterrent relationship. The NKs, and regimes like them have one goal – the brutal pursuit and holding of power by any means. R.J. Rummel estimates that communist regimes murdered nearly 138 million of their own people from 1900-1987 – and the NKs keep right on killing. It is imperative that we are defended against such wonton violence.

The Canadians of today might want to ask the Quebec separatists what message they got when they tried to break away. The separatists thought that they would be able to maintain the same relationship with the US that Canada had. The US said – NO, period. Quite a bit of support evaporated after that, and Canada remained whole. No thanks necessary. For a country that has 80% of its exports going to its southern neighbor, who’s unemployment is 2 points higher and GDP growth is expected this coming year to be half of what the US’s is expected to be, the Canadian government really should start thinking pretty hard about what it really cares about. Eight years is a long time to stay in the cold.

Jim:

Why would NK attack Canada?

Canada made a strategic decision to disarm because they have only there is in the near future only one possible (but unlikely) enemy. Hope/pray is the only thing they could do against that enemy as its army is so much stronger.

ps. Iceland protected its fishing-rights and Canada has a worldclass navy compared with Iceland

Americans keep whining about Martin not showing "leadership" because he sided with his citizens instead of the Republicans. The right wing is as inconsistent as the left when it comes to what is good at home and what is good for other countries. If you want democracy in other countries you have to be prepared for them to not always act like client states.

Whether Americans like it or not this magic missile scam is very unpopular in Canada and to be honest so is America. Even those some of us who support the Iraq war and are not anti-American or anti-Bush by nature are not impressed with the current relationship the U.S. has with our country which seems to consist of decades of official level ridicule, vague threats, failed trade actions and disrespect. Have you ever thought that maybe the reason that Canada is moving away from your interests is because the U.S.A. is a an English speaking version of France? (Arrogant and disinterested in anything other than itself, willing to turn on its friends in a split second etc.)

I don't have a problem with Martin saying no to BMD if he believes that's the right thing to do. I might disagree with his judgement but I would respect that.

What he did, in contrast, is to say one thing and then, a good while later, do the other. And that I don't respect much at all.

Cold fusion was also impossible twenty years ago, and if we had pinned our energy policy to it, we'd be in trouble because it is still impossible.

Last time i checked cold fushion was still impossible.