Joining U.S. missile-defence plan could be foolish
Re Missile defence worth the effort, Editorial, Sept. 6 Rarely have I read such an ill-advised set of suggestions as appeared in this editorial, in which the Star naively endorses Canada camping on to Uncle Sam’s destructive schemes to deploy anti-ballistic missiles to shoot down nuclear warheads.
Does the Star not know that anti-ballistic missiles (ABM) are offensive weapons, not defensive ones? The long-term goal of the U.S. ABM program is not to protect us against a “rogue” North Korean missile, but rather to degrade the quality of the Russian and Chinese nuclear-deterrent forces, so the U.S. could attack Russia or China first. This is why China is so opposed to the deployment of U.S. ABMs in South Korea. The Chinese suspect the ABMs are not aimed at North Korean missiles but are, in fact, meant to negate Chinese ones.
There would thus be several consequences of Canada’s participation in U.S. anti-missile schemes:
Canada would become an unavoidable nuclear target for Russia and China. It would be militarily necessary for them to drop H-bombs on any location in Canada that was a component of the U.S. ABM system.
Russia and China would dramatically increase the number of deliverable warheads they have at the ready, to overwhelm the U.S. ABM system. This would lead to a runaway nuclear arms race.
Canada would be directly involved in, and would therefore be complicit in, American nuclear war plans. This would be an open betrayal of decades of Canadian government policies supporting non-proliferation and the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons.
Canada is not involved in the Korean standoff and is almost certainly not a target of Kim Jong Un’s missiles. Canadian participation in U.S. ABM schemes would not only make us a target of North Korea but also of Russia and China.
Marcus Shields, Bancroft, Ont.
“American GMD offers an utterly false sense of security, encourages recklessness and distracts from the hard work of diplomacy that is the only feasible way forward.”
PEGGY MASON OTTAWA
Please consider the report by leading scientists from the Union of Concerned Scientists, released in July 2016. One quote might suffice: “Today, with a price tag of $40 billion and counting, and nearly 15 years of effort, the GMD missile defence system is now recognized by both supporters and critics as being in serious disarray. It has no proven capability to defend the U.S. public from missile attack; moreover, it is not even on a credible path to achieving such capability.”
American GMD offers an utterly false sense of security, encourages recklessness and distracts from the hard work of diplomacy that is the only feasible way forward. Canada should immediately get behind U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein’s call for a high-level dialogue with North Korea without preconditions.
Peggy Mason, Rideau Institute, Ottawa
As a Liberal who opposed Paul Martin’s expedient decision not to join the proposed North American anti-ballisticmissile shield, I applaud the Star for urging Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to reverse this decision in the light of the escalating nuclear threat from North Korea. The Star’s position is very wellargued, but I think two footnotes may be of interest.
First, if Canada does not have its hand on the trigger, the Americans could bring down an enemy nuclear missile over heavily populated areas of Canada, killing tens of thousands of Canadians.
Second, working with the U.S. as their partners in a purely defensive partnership might encourage the impulsive U.S. President Donald Trump to offer Canada a better NAFTA deal. He is, after all, the ultimate dealmaker.
Raymond Heard, Toronto