Canadian rejection of missile defence historic, unpredictable shift

http://www.canada.com/maritimes/news/story.html?id=06ac788d-7f20-4f1e-9699-d7778e25ca6a

Canadian rejection of missile defence historic, unpredictable shift: analysts

Alexander Panetta
Canadian Press

February 25, 2005

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's rejection of missile defence is a historic shift in its relationship with the United States and could have deep unforeseen consequences, analysts warn.

This week's announcement is more significant than Canada's refusal to join fighting in Iraq or Vietnam because, some say, this time the country has rejected a domestic defence plan.

One military analyst in Washington says Canada has turned its back on a 67-year-old agreement signed by then-prime minister Mackenzie King and president Franklin Roosevelt to jointly defend North America.

(snip)

"This brings the basic partnership policy underlying the U.S.-Canadian defence relationship into question. These developments will have long-term consequences that will take time to be revealed fully."

complete story:
http://www.canada.com/maritimes/news/story.html?id=06ac788d-7f20-4f1e-9699-d7778e25ca6a

stupid as a good chunk of the population in this country, that's for damn sure).

for good reason!!!

We've pursued our own foreign policy all the time. How far back do you want to go? WWI? We went with Great Britain while the US was in full isolationist mode.
WWII? Same story. Vietnam? We didn't participate at all. Central America? South America? Sorry, we didn't agree with the US there, either.
No participation in Iraq, either.

We didn't cooperate on building the nuclear bomb, disagreed on Napalm and Agent Orange and even cancelled cruise missile tests on our soil because of public and vocal disapproval.

So, how is this a massive shift, hmmm?
:wtf:

think of Canada as a mini me

it is not

That was during WWII, though, and we washed our hands of military use of the bomb after that (at least by ourselves).

"Atomic weapon development originated with scientists. Because of fear that Nazi Germany might develop an atomic bomb -- later proven unfounded -- Leo Szilard persuaded Albert Einstein to write a letter to U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in which Einstein suggested that the fission of uranium could be used to produce an atomic explosion. This letter resulted in the establishment of the largest single enterprise in the history of science up to that time. The operation, later known as the Manhattan Project, comprised 37 installations in 19 states and Canada, and employed 43,000 people. It ran on a budget of $2.2 billion. A large number of physicists, among them the best European scientists who had fled the Nazis, joined the project. Physicists were recruited from college campuses all over the United States as well."

http://www.answers.com/topic/manhattan-project

I presume the site is reliable on this point.

"The Manhattan Project, or more formally, the Manhattan Engineering District, was an effort during World War II to develop the first nuclear weapons by the United States with assistance from the United Kingdom and Canada. Its research was directed by American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer, and overall by General Leslie R. Groves after it became clear that success was possible and that Germany was also investigating that possibility." - from wickipedia

I recall now that uranium from Eliot Lake, ON was used in the bomb.
But that was without the full knowledge of the Canadian public.
I think once the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, we backed away from any kind of development or proliferation.

Then basically chose to forgo nuclear arms development, whether alone or in partnership. One of our atomic plants actually produced about 18 pounds (or kg, can't quite recall) of plutonium, as a sort of proof of concept, but we didn't go on to weaponize (that would have been enough for a bomb or two). I think we wanted to be able to say "we can do this, but we choose not to."

We did supply much of the uranium for the U.S. stockpile until the 1960's, though.

After Britain and Canada helped the U.S. in the Manhattan project, the Americans basically wanted the nuclear monopoly for themselves. So, we didn't get into atomic bomb making at the time, but that may have been as much because the U.S. didn't want anyone else in the club as the fact we didn't want to join.

But we have mostly been very leery of nuclear weaponry. At any rate, the the population has, although governments have sometimes played along with the U.S.(e.g. Bomarc in the 60's).

As you pointed out, though, Canada has often taken a different foreign policy and military policy line than the U.S. Personally, I think accepting U.S. Viet Nam draft resisters was much more of a challenge to U.S. administrations than this Ballistic Missile Defense nonsense.

Shove the stuff from this right wing rag where the sun don't shine.

Canadians woke up this morning to find that they had given up control over their airspace by not signing on to the U.S. missile defence corporate welfare program.

U.S. ambassador to Canada Paul Celucci informed us that the Americans will shoot down anything they want over Canadian airspace, and that we had "given up sovereignty" by refusing to sign on to missile defence.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050225.wxmissile0225/BNStory/Front/

watch out for the "Canada harbors terrists" coming up next. Maybe a little "Canada hates us for our freedoms" along with a side of "Canada may have WMD"
Plus we have oil.
:scared:

Really, though, to hell with the US and its bully-crap! Yea for Canada - for being a free country!

I guarantee you that it wouldn't take more than 24 hours to whip up anti-Canadian martial spirits into a frenzy.

They'd start out by pointing out how many of you speak French.

I am dead serious. Canada is not safe from U.S. military designs. We've already seen that civil protests do not good at all. They're "focus groups."

I could see Canada at some point needing to go under a Chinese nuclear umbrella.

Which is still applicable IF a missile comes rushing in from.....where ever.

The reality is that the US seeks to undo old treaties in favor of new bilateral agreements - but this one reeks. It reeks because simply stated - the concept of missile defense does not work. It is just a big fat pork project for the military industrial complex - and Canada wants no part in it.

Joining the US missile defense strategy would implicitly risk increased nuclear proliferation and a new arms race. Canada is not interested. We can and have all the capabilities of "going nuclear" if we want to, but Canadians have no such wish. And for that, I thank our Prime Minister for stating that we would not be participating.

Now is the time for Canadians to stand firm with their leaders and not buckle to southern bullying. Even IF we were at the table, so to speak, we would have no more influence than if we were not, and that is the simple truth. Because the US will do what it wants to do, when it wants to, and whomever it chooses, regardless of popular opinion or dissenting points of view.

My take is that Canada should increase its own domestic military defense, on its own terms, pay for it with its own money, and be upholding to itself first and foremost. The days of ki$$ing Washington's backside in the hopes that Washington will smile favorably to us is over. It is abundantly clear that Washington smiles on whatever nation benefits Washington the most. There is no give and take - not with the Bushco.

building a NEW european military, eh rummy?


http://images.globalfreepress.com

peace

What does this look like.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:B3VEZgQdLhoJ:www.network54.com/Forum/thread%3Fforumid%3D243030%26messageid%3D1107967905%26lp%3D1108356480++%22dwight+mason%22&hl=en

Oh, but Canada is indeed defending North America...

FROM IT'S OWN MADNESS !!!

...The fact is, it was a joint agreement. Not a 'do as we say' agreement.

Canada been considered a target for attack? We're the folks who have had the bullseye on us since the beginning of the Cold War.

Mexico and Canada would be victims of contamination from whatever landed on us.

has strong ties to Stephen Harper. Be wary of any analysis that comes out of the University of Calgary, they're most likely tied to Harper.

btw...Canada.com = National Post.

Conventions, the Law of the United States, Internatioanl law, and several ratified treaties.

Dear America;

Take your stupid shield that doesn't work, and shove it.

And no, I don't mean missiles - I mean Bush himself!

I send my love to Sheila Rogers (Sounds like Canada) whom I listen to every morning.
And Anthony Germaine doing "The House"

And the Vinyl Cafe...

Bless you, Canada, for helping me maintain my sanity....

...it's really "Militarization of Space". So, not signing on = not wanting to escalate the arms race in a new portion of this our world.

Not signing on does NOT = not wanting to stand with the US in domestic defense.

But also it is about 'first strike ability'...Canada is not bailing out of defending North America , but stopping bush's war on the world.

I say fine. We'll take our chances. We know where those imaginary terrorist missiles will be pointing. And it ain't at us.

:kick:

On the topic.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/fourth_dimension/2002/feb02/05_fd_e.htm

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-75-521-2573-11/that_was_then/science_technology/diefenbaker_arrow

Maybe it is time that we should reconsider decisions that were made over 40 years ago.

"Geography has made us neighbours; history has made us friends."

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-676-3868/politics_economy/presidents/clip4