Canada

10290 readers

647 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 Sports

Hockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Toronto Blue Jays

Basketball

Toronto Raptors

Soccer

Main: /c/CanadaSoccer
Toronto FC

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

General:
- Canada Politics
- FairVote Canada
Federal Parties (alphabetical):
- Animal Protection Party of Canada
- NDP
By Province (alphabetical):
- BC Greens

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

Path cleared for Canada to take part in Trump’s 'Golden Dome' missile shield (ottawacitizen.com)

submitted 6 days ago by patatas@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

23 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"Defence Minister David McGuinty visited the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) headquarters in Colorado on July 15 when he met with U.S. Gen. Gregory Guillot. McGuinty noted the government “removed all restrictions on air and missile defence of Canada” but specific details were not provided at the time.

"Defence sources, however, confirmed to the Ottawa Citizen that American officials were told that the February 2005 decision by then-prime minister Paul Martin not to join an existing U.S. missile defence system was no longer valid. At that time, the U.S. wanted Canada to join a largely unproven multi-billion dollar system which was to use ground-based interceptors to destroy incoming missiles aimed at North America."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] assaultpotato@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Well NORAD is more than just missiles, same with this proposed "Golden Dome" thing. NORAD is radars, missiles, interceptors, and protocols. I'm not sure it would be prudent for us to bail on NORAD at this time - it costs us very little, doesn't materially impact our readiness against US pressure or invasion, and ultimately does provide at least security theater against non-continental aggressors such as Russia.

Golden Dome is a new thing, involving satellites, space-based missiles, kinetic interceptors, etc. By all accounts it appears to be a boondoggle in the making.

NORAD modernization could be anything from updating protocols or hardware for drone interception, updated training, modernization packages for existing hardware, software updates, etc. - NORAD modernization is probably a good cost/benefit ratio for us in aggregate for our defense, depending on details. If we're relaxing some form of restrictions around missile defense, this could also plausibly mean the Canadian military stepping up and running more of our own hardware. This would be a good thing.

Golden Dome would be a net-new level of integration for us, and would likely represent closer ties with Americans for a number of different agencies.

I think they're quite different, at least from a technical standpoint. Political interpretations may vary.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

depending on details

true, we don't know what has been discussed or agreed to.

Here's the thing. There is no downside to us as Canadians if we say to our leaders "what the heck is this, we don't want to be part of the Golden Dome". Either the govt says "lol we were never actually thinking about joining it" (even though Carney has publicly stated he is open to the idea!), or, they hear the pushback and decide that it's not worth going ahead with discussions because it's too unpopular.

Also, it's one thing to question a news source, that's fine and is something we should be doing with literally every source of reporting. In this case, I think it's also worth asking this: is there any benefit to PostMedia's US owners from this piece being taken seriously? I don't see how this piece benefits the US whatsoever, quite frankly. In fact I'd argue that it benefits the US if we don't take this report seriously.

That's why I'm gently pushing back on the fact that doubt is being cast on this reporting, but no doubt whatsoever is being cast on our elected leaders who, so far, haven't really lived up to the "elbows up" promises made during the election campaign.