This Is Not Good

The USMD has apparently become a political issue again.

Why?

First, against whom will this cumbersome assemblage of nearly-workable technology be used? The "Axis of Evil" countries? North Korea may have a couple of nukes, but no long-range delivery system. Iran is proceeding with nuclear research, but seems to be a couple of years from a bomb (and besides, no-one wants to ask how they came by their plans, or at least not while Pervez Musharref is still a loyal ally). And Iraq? Well I suppose it's just possible that those WMD will turn up, although certain agencies don't seem to think so.

Russia? Unlikely. Though Vlad "The Impaler" Putin is the most backward premier, um, president, for decades, he seems to have confined his most base depradations to his own countrymen, and generally seems engaged with the international community.

India and Pakistan? Both nuclear-capable, but it's hard to think of them developing the sort of problem that would cause them to nuke Canada, although they may take a shot or two at each other one day over Kashmir.

China? You mean the nation that's holding onto a continually-redefined communism while buying up the natural resources of the entire globe? Again, what possible advantage would they gain from importing radioactive coal? Far more likely that they'd attempt some sort of economic coup (PDF file).

England?

Of course there's one other nuclear-capable nation whose behaviour of late is of some concern, whose leader is known for believing God told him it was okay to go to war. But the atomic umbrella won't protect us from that particular nation. And normally they're damn fine neighbours, on the whole.

Of course, Al-Qaeda may have an intercontinental ballistic missile facility cunningly concealed somewhere, fully stocked with long-range missiles as well as several atomic warheads with which to tip them. Sure.

Secondly, what exactly does Canada get out of the idea? Apparently the notion is that we put in money until it works, THEN we'll be protected from possible emerging imminent developing potential threats.

Thirdly and most importantly, as noted in reasons one and two IT DOESN'T WORK! The last test proved yet again that this is so. But remember, in the first few tests, faced with a target containing a locator beacon that screamed "come and get me", the system hit the target less than 50% of the time. That's "hit the target", not "eliminated the threat". There seems little evidence that IF the target gets hit, and IF this stops the missile carrying it, that this will stop an atomic warhead from going off.

By the way, a quote from the CBC News Indepth article says:

"Just as Canadian military leaders were left out of the planning for the 2003 Iraq war, Canada could find its position in Norad severely reduced."

Um. Yeah. We're really busted up about being "left out" of Iraq. I hope Dubya checks this site every night before bed. Sleep well, George.

I'm an ex-soldier, and my sympathies lie not with the inventors of the "threat", or their mean-spirited, demagogic, and short-sighted policies, but with the poor bloody Tommies and Joes who have to have to enforce them.

There's no reason not to co-operate with the US on a viable continental defence grid. That's what the DEW line was all about. But there are serious reasons to think twice about getting into bed with this particular administration on anything, and especially on this. It's akin to buying a cure for the rarest disease on earth which works only 20% of the time; and there are better uses for our tax dollars.

Late-breaking news: Prince Harry following in his father's embarrasing footsteps.