Quote:
I'm a bit confused by that article. One of the big reasons it says they bowed out of it was due to "effectively allows Washington to decide what to do if a missile was headed toward Canada"
Here's my interpretation, based on this and other articles I've read about the missile defense shield:
1. No matter what official approval, participation, financial contribution Canada might give the system, the system will theoretically be capable of defending the US and Canada from a missile attack.
2. Despite the posturing and thinly veiled threats from our outgoing ambassador to Canada, I don't think the US would ever watch a missile headed toward Canada and not (a) tell them about it and (b) attempt to intercept it. We've already got image problems among our allies these days, watching a missle drop into the middle of Toronto or something would be just plain evil, not to mention the possibility that it would affect America directly, anyway, depending on the payload.
3. There are serious questions about the shield's efficacy, so even if it was a good political move, it might be a waste of defense dollars that they can spend on modern 21st century threats like terrorism.
You are right in that the decision was largely political, but it makes a lot of strategic sense, too.
Previous Topic
Index
