Say NO to Ballistic Missile Defence An Educational Resource for Concerned Canadians Researched & Prepared by Janet M Eaton, PhD, email@example.com
Say NO to Ballistic Missile Defence Outline What is missile defence ? What is the Canadian Government position? Why say NO !! What are some alternatives? Why get involved? and how !
Say NO to Ballistic Missile Defence Nuclear Age Peace Foundation http://www.wagingpeace.org/.
1) Missile Defence – Historical Context The fifty-year history of America's multi-billion dollar missile defense obsession began after World War II, and intensified after the Soviets developed Sputnik and missiles. Beginning with Eisenhower's 1958 commitment to missile defense against the Soviet Union, through President Reagan's obsession with Star Wars, to President Clinton’s National Missile Defense to George W. Bush's 2002 decision to go it alone with his announcement of the imminent deployment of Ballistic Missile defence - the United States has had an almost religious, political and ideological obsession with Star Wars. _________________________________________ Reference: Star Wars Dreams http://www.filmakers.com/indivs/StarWarsDreams.htm
Missile Defence – A Chronology 1943 - Pearl Harbour - America’s first defining assault 1940s - The dawn of the Nuclear Age brings new fears of the threat of nuclear penetration. US begins testing missiles for use against possible attack by Soviet bombers. Ballistic missile defence low priority 1949 - Soviet Union gets the bomb and missile defense intensifies and nuclear standoff between superpowers defines rest of century 1957 - Sputnik launch fuels US fears of missile attack from space; and for first time a missile shield declared a national priority. 1958 - President Eisenhower announces missile defence undergoing intense R&D with Department of Defence 1960 - US first attempt to build Missile Defence – The Nike Zeus
Missile Defence – A Chronology 1968 - Nixon refocuses US missile defence deployment so system would protect US deterrent forces and renamed it “Safeguard” - problematic because its missiles had to carry nuclear warheads 1969 - first round of Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT) 1971 - SALT talks lead to Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty limiting Russia and US to 2 missile defence sites with limit of 100 interceptors 1976 - early 80’s – principle objective of the Army’s Missile Defence Program was to develop interceptors without nuclear warheads 1984 - Army demonstrated non-nuclear defensive missile which destroyed by physically colliding.
Missile Defence – A Chronology 1983 - Reagan’s Strategic Defence Initiative alias “Star Wars” 1991 – George Bush Sr. space based “Brilliant Pebbles” interceptors added to plan/ goal scaled back to defend vs 200 or so warheads 1993- Clinton’s National Missile Defence ( NMD) System scaled back to protect vs 5 to 20 ‘simple’ warheads from hostile developing country that might acquire capacity in future 2000- Clinton pulls out citing technical problems, test failures, vulnerability to countermeasures. 2002 - George Bush Jr.announces limited version of missile defence referred to as Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) ______________________________________________ * Ballistic Missile Defence : A Brief History by Donald Baucom, MDA Historia Missile Defence Agency http://www. Acq.osd.mil/bmdolink/html/briefhis.html * Star Wars Dreams Film by Leslie Woodhead. Filmakers Library. Phone 212-808-4980 e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Twenty Years of "Star Wars:" Big Budgets But Little Progress . Union of Concerned Scientists http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=1140
Missile Defence ( MD ) • Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI) / Star Wars • National Missile Defence ( NMD ) • Ballistic Missile Defence ( BMD ) 1. Missile Defence - By any Other Name !
MDMissile Defence – generic term for a uniquely American stance to defending against the threat of nuclear penetration of its airspace by ballistic missiles - a preferred national defence strategy that began in the Post War Nuclear Era. • “The real issue is how you fundamentally think America’s national security can be preserved. Can it be preserved through treaties that reduce and prevent the threat or are these treaties an illusion of security or is the only true defence to rely on America's military might, its own technology and in this case a missile defence system that could shoot down whatever anyone else in the world throws at us- that’s always been the debate.” -- Joe Circincione, Carnegie Peace Foundation • __________________________________________________________ • Joe Circincione as quoted in Star War Dreams. 2003. See References Missile Defence – What is it?
Star Wars - • The original goal, laid out in Reagan's March 23 speech, is to render nuclear weapons "impotent and obsolete" and to protect the US population from a large-scale attack by thousands of Soviet nuclear warheads. Proponents foresaw space-based battlestations, as well as an extensive ground-based system,leading to the "Star Wars" name  • Senator Edward Kennedy first attached the ‘Star Wars’ label to Reagan’s vision of missile defense in comments made in the Senate the day after his speech. The Star Wars designation was so evocative that it was embraced by some of Reagan’s supporters , and henceforth the program which began as the ‘Strategic Defense Imitative ‘ became known as ‘Star Wars”.  • __________________________________________________________ • 1 Twenty Years of "Star Wars:" Big Budgets But Little Progress . Union of Concerned Scientists • http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/page.cfm?pageID=1140 • 2 Star Wars: Influence of motion picture on Reagan’s SDI History Today, March 1999 by Peter Kramer http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls.ml1373/3_49/54175536/p2/article Missile Defence - By any Other Name !
Star Wars - • “Ever since scientists designed missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons through space, the next imperative became an anti-missile system. Ronald Reagan’s version became known as Star Wars.. And many people, myself included, now use the term ‘Star Wars’ for all comprehensive missile defense plans, despite each successive administration's renaming efforts.” • -- -- Dr.Helen Caldicott. 2002. The New Nuclear Danger –George W Bush’s Military –Industrial Complex. New York: The New Press Missile Defence - By any Other Name !
NMD-National Missile Defence • Under former President Clinton, the US government sought a defensive shield for the continental United States – National Missile Defence (NMD).  • National Missile Defense System– Term now Obsolete - A ground based anti-ballistic missile system designed to protect the US vs limited ballistic missile threats. Four elements –ground –based interceptors ; a ground –based radar ; a battle management command, control, communications, system; a constellation of Space & Missile Tracking System.  • _________________________________________________________ •  Canadian Peace Alliance. http://www.acp-cpa.ca/NMDFAQ.htm •  Missile Defense Agency Glossaryhttp://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/glossary.pdf k Missile Defence - By any Other Name !
BMD –Ballistic Missile Defence • The latest U.S. scheme to detect, intercept and destroy enemy missiles plans to operate from land, sea, and space platforms. This plan is designed to give the U.S. worldwide reach before the decade is over, making the system much more than ‘national’ defence; instead it is part of the U.S. policy for total domination of space described in the U.S. Space Command’s document Vision 2020.  • BMD refers to all active and passive measures designed to detect, identify, track and defeat attacking ballistic missiles, in both strategic and theater tactical roles, during any portion of their flight trajectory or to nullify or reduce the effectiveness of such attack.  • BMD has also been referred to as “Son of Star Wars”  __________________________________________________________  Voice of Women Nova Scotia BMD Brochure http:www.nsvow.chebucto.org  Missile Defense Agency Glossaryhttp://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/bmdolink/pdf/glossary.pdf •  Reference: BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/696028.stm Missile Defence - By any Other Name !
BMD –Ballistic Missile Defence • In December 2002, President Bush announced that the U.S. would deploy a missile defence system by the fall of 2004. President Bush dropped the "national" and now speaks of a shield that would protect key US allies in an attempt to secure the support of other members of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).  • Despite talk about BMD being a means to build a continental shield around northern America, its deployment will not be limited to America. BMD is in fact being designed as global system and its impact may be felt most acutely in East Asia. One of BMD’s best kept secrets is that Japan’s conservative Liberal Democratic Party has supported BMD since 1999.  • __________________________________________________________ •  Canadian Peace Alliance - http://www.acp-cpa.ca/NMDFAQ.htm •  Korea : The Next Iraq by Mary-Anne Ashford, John Price, Sung Suh http://www.flora.org/mai/forum/47044 Missile Defence - By any Other Name !
Missile Defence – How it works ! ! Reference: BBC News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/696028.stm
2) Position of Canadian Government? 1994 Defence White Paper initiated regular consultations on BMD between Canada & US & allies both bilaterally and through NATO. 2000 Canada & US established a BMD Bilateral Information Sharing Working Group that has met twice a year since December 17, 2002 George W Bush announced US would deploy initial BMD system for defence of North America by year 2004. May 29, 2003 Canada announced entry into discussions with US on possible participation in missile defence of North America. January 15, 2004 the Cdn Minister of National Defence & US Secretary of Defense exchanged non-binding Letters of Intent, stating the interest of both nations in negotiating an agreement on cooperation in the ballistic missile defence of North America. __________________________________________________________ Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Discussions with the United States on possible Canadian participation in the Ballistic Missile Defence of North America. http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/focus/bmd-en.asp
What is the Position of the Cdn Govt? The primary aim of these discussions has been to establish whether or not participation in BMD could enhance Canadian security  The Government is committed to ensuring and enhancing the security of Canada and Canadians. Examining possible Canadian participation in the Ballistic Missile Defence of North America is one aspect of meeting this commitment. The Prime Minister has stated categorically that Canada is opposed to the weaponization of space  When the discussions have concluded, the Government will assess if Canadian interests have been met and will take a decision on Canadian participation in BMD. Due to the complexities of the issues at stake, these talks are expected to take a number of months. _____________________________________________________________  News Release: Canada-U.S. Exchange Letters On Missile DefenceNR–04.001 - January 15, 2004http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=1289  CBC The National Town Hall Meeting Conference Centre Ottawa  Ibid http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/department/focus/bmd-en.asp
What is the Position of the Cdn Govt? Any decision by the Government on Canada's role in BMD would be determined only after a comprehensive review of possible implications. …. Canadian involvement would have to be cost-effective, make an unambiguous contribution to Canadian defence requirements and build upon missions already performed by the Canadian Forces, such as surveillance and communications …. would be predicated on the proposed system being compliant with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or an updated treaty negotiated with Russia, as well as other arms control and disarmament agreements, protocols and arrangements. – Canada Department of Defence, October 2003 _____________________________________________________________ Canada's Policy on Ballistic Missile Defence. Canada Department of National Defence ; issued Oct.5 http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-in/client/modele.pl?session=dae.3070478.1076275195&prod=830&modele=jdc_1
What is the Position of the Cdn Govt? It is our intent to negotiate in the coming months a Missile Defence Framework Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the United States with the objective of including Canada as a participant in the current US missile defence program and expanding and enhancing information exchange. We believe this should provide a mutually beneficial framework to ensure the closest possible involvement and insight for Canada, both government and industry, in the US missile defence program. Such an MOU could also help pave the way for increased government-to-government and industry-to-industry co-operation on missile defence that we should seek to foster between our countries. -- Minister Pratt to Secretary Rumsfeld, January 15, 2004 __________________________________________________________ Letters Exchanged on Missile Defence - Letter from Minister Pratt to Secretary Rumsfeld, 01-15-2004 http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Focus/Canada-us/letter_e.asp
What is the Position of the Cdn Govt? The technical extent of protection afforded by the US ballistic missile defence system will evolve over time, and our bilateral co-operation in this area should also evolve. We should continue to explore appropriate technical, political and financial arrangements related to the potential defence of Canada and the United States against missile attack, within the framework of our laws. Our staffs should discuss ways in which Canada could contribute to this effort. -- Minister Pratt to Secretary Rumsfeld, January 15, 2004 __________________________________________________________ Letters Exchanged on Missile Defence - Letter from Minister Pratt to Secretary Rumsfeld, 01-15-2004 http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Focus/Canada-us/letter_e.asp
What is the Position of the Cdn Govt? Ernie Regehr, Executive Director and analyst with Project Ploughshares, suggests that two key principles perhaps most incline Ottawa toward support for BMD: i) ‘the responsibility to protect’ i.e if there is a serious claim that it is possible to provide Canadians protection against nuclear attack, responsibility requires we have a look at it. ii) Second is Mackenzie King’s WWII undertaking to Roosevelt that Canada would take measures necessary to give credible assurances to our American neighbours that threats to their security would not emerge from Canadian territory. Others include : industrial benefits access to intelligence and technology seeking favour with the US in order to aid the pursuit of other interests in the bilateral relationship _____________________________________________________________- Ernie Regehr. BMD –Pragmatic Issues which Canada must Address. August 26-27 2003
3. Why Say NO to BMD ? Technological & Scientific reasons Economic reasons Political reasons Environmental reasons
Why Say NO to BMD ? 1. Technologically Unproven/Scientifically Uncertain “One year ago the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade advised the Government not to make any decision on BMD because ‘the technology has not been proven and details of deployment are not known . Events since then reinforce this advice. During 2003 four US General Accounting Office Investigations confirmed that none of 10 essential technologies has been tested in operational conditions and 8 of 10 have not even reached the product stage of development. The X-band radar designed to track incoming warheads and distinguish them from decoys , the interceptor rockets, the command and control communications links, and the kinetic kill vehicle to name just a few , essential components , all await proven technologies.” -- Ernie Regehr, Director Project Ploughshares __________________________________________________________ - Ernie Regehr, Project Plowshares, letter to Paul Martin, Jan 2, 2004
Why Say NO to BMD ? Technologically Unproven/Scientifically Uncertain “The kinds of test they are doing now are referred to in the testing community as ‘strapped down chicken tests’ . where you are setting up an easy to hit target and then blowing its head off and saying see I can do it but it has no relation to real world experience where the chicken is running, is hiding, and puts up decoy chickens and you can’t tell which is the chicken you’re really supposed to be hitting.” - Joe Ciccincione, Carnegie Peace Foundation __________________________________________________________ Joe Ciccincione quoted in Star Wars Dreams film interview
Why Say NO to BMD ? Technologically Unproven/Scientifically Uncertain “I think the problem is not solvable. Science says it can’t be proven – it’s not a matter of improving technology. The fact is they have no way of telling the difference between war head, simplest of decoys an enemy would deploy…. There is no science they can exploit and no technology they can exploit so all they do is make claims. It’s like saying – I’ll jump off this building and maybe I’ll find a way not to hit the concrete too hard. This is not the way you do your planning for your national security.” --Theodore Postol, MIT Professor__________________________________________________________ Theodore Postol quoted in Star Wars Dreams Film
Why Say NO to BMD ? Technologically Unproven/Scientifically Uncertain For extensive documentation of Ted Postol’s writing: See Halifax Peace Coalition BMD Reader Webpage http://hfxpeace.chebucto.org/bmdreader.htmlWhat’s Wrong with Missile Defense -(Boston Review, Sept 2001 Why National Missile Defense Won’t Work-Sci. American, Aug 1999 Postol vs The Pentagon - Technology Review April 2002 MIT Physicist Knocks Anti-Missile System SF Chronicle, March 3, 200 Assembled News Articles on Cover-Up of Anti-Missile System Flaws from NYT/The Times/Boston Globe from July 2000- March 2003 ___________________________________________________________________________ http://hfxpeace.chebucto.org/bmdreader.html
Why Say NO to BMD ? Technologically Unproven/Scientifically Uncertain The Pentagon has taken some steps toward more realistic testing of the antimissile system that it plans to deploy this year to protect the United States, but many aspects of the system remain to be tested, according to a congressional report. The report, prepared by the General Accounting Office, expressed concern about a lack of test data showing whether the system can work using all its final parts instead of prototypes, and whether it can adequately identify warheads in a field of decoys. Also still to be demonstrated, the report said, are such actions as multiple launches of interceptors, nighttime intercepts and operations under adverse weather conditions. - Bradley Graham, Washington Post, March 11 ___________________________________________________________ GAO Urges Better Tests of Missile Defense System By Bradley GrahamWashington Post , March 11, 2004; Page A08 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47993-2004Mar10.html
Why Say NO to BMD ? 2 . Economically wasteful For over 50 years America has poured more than $120 billion into the search for a defence against the threat of enemy missiles. Since 1983 alone the US has spent $100 billion on missile defence and still has nothing that works  The Congressional Budget Office puts the price tag at another $230 billion over next two decades  _______________________________________________________________  Ernie Regehr. Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Ploughshares Monitor Summer 2003 http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/ABOLISH%20NUCS/BMD%20Page/BMD.update.htm  Star Wars Dreams [ Ibid ]
Why Say NO to BMD ? Economically wasteful Speaking at the April 15th, 2000 –“Keep Space for Peace Conference” on the militarization of space and the rapid movement toward the deployment by the US of a Ballistic Missile Defence system – Bill Hartung of the World Policy Institute said: Billions of dollars of contracts will be given to Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon, and TRW to construct the system which will provide no greater security to the US and will jeopardize international peace and Russian relations. _________________________________________________________________ Notes on World Bank/IMF protests and BMD conference http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/apnotes.htm
Why Say NO to BMD ? Economically wasteful “We’re spending millions of dollars per year on this right now for a little bit of political and ideological symbolism. I don’t know an issues in public policy in this country over the past 50 years surrounded by so much wishful thinking, fiction and down right lying.” - Francis Fitzgerald,Star Wars historian and author __________________________________________________________________ Francis Fitzgerald, Star Wars historian and author quoted in the film ‘Star Wars Dreams”.
Why Say NO to BMD ? 3. Political Reasons a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global insecurity b. Contrary to Canadian Policy Values & International Law c. Will lead to weaponization of space d. Jeopardizes Canada’s sovereignty e. Reflects corporate influence f. There is no imperatives to be at the table
Why Say NO to BMD ? a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global insecurity Project Ploughshares report “Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence” questions claims of the government that BMD will protect Canadians, and says that BMD will instead exacerbate proliferation pressures that have put the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in jeopardy and the report challenges the importance being attached to BMD in the Canada- US Bilateral relationship.  __________________________________________________________________  Project Ploughshares media release on their authoritative 58 page report “Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence” http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/ABOLISH%20NUCS/BMLiupressrelease.pdf
Why Say NO to BMD ? a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global insecurity Even after the ground based mid-course interceptor system graduates from test-bed to an operational defence system, sometime in an uncertain future it will address only a tiny fraction (never more than 1%) of of nuclear warheads capable of hitting targets in North America with ballistic missiles. It will have no capacity against short range ballistic or cruise missiles that could be fired from ships off the North American coasts. The political prominence given the proposed system ignores the myriad of other ways in which weapons of mass destruction could be delivered to North American targets. ________________________________________________________  Project Ploughshares media release on their authoritative 58 page report “Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence” http://www.ploughshares.ca/CONTENT/ABOLISH%20NUCS/BMLiupressrelease.pdf
Why Say NO to BMD ? a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global insecurity BMD or Star Wars will not protect North Americans from terrorism. Terrorists acts such as the attack on the World Trade towers, exposure to biological and chemical weapons, and dirty bombs hidden in container ships show that Cold war defence strategies don’t work. Adherence to US foreign policies threaten Canada. . BMD will be a destabilizing force as countries such as China seek to strengthen their missile and nuclear capability to overwhelm the system. Progress in non-proliferation is achieved by multi-lateral diplomacy and disarmament efforts, not unilateral actions by an over-armed super-power. _____________________________________________  Canadian Peace Alliance Website http://www.acp-cpa.ca/CPAmainEnglish.htm  B.M.D. A destabilizing force while benefiting Canadian defence industryfor immediate release Physicians for Global Survival. January 19, 2004 http://www.pgs.ca/
Why Say NO to BMD ? a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global insecurity BMD strategic impact is not likely to be as benign as hoped when the ABM Treaty was abrogated. Russia and China are now actively preparing counter measures and strategies.  Jan 2, 2004 Russia has successfully tested a hypersonic anti-Star Wars weapon capable of penetrating any prospective missile shield, a senior general said Thursday. The prototype weapon proved it could maneuver so quickly as to make "any missile defense useless," Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the first deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, told a news conference.  -- February 19th 2004 ____________________________________________________________________  Ernie Regehr, Project Plowshares, letter to Paul Martin, Jan 2, 2004  Russia: Star Wars useless against new weapon Thu, February 19, 2004 http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2004/02/19/353516-ap.html
Why Say NO to BMD ? a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global insecurity Presidential Decision Directive 62, issued in 1998, says, "America's unrivaled military superiority means that potential enemies (whether nations or terrorist groups) that choose to attack us will be more likely to resort to terror instead of conventional military assault.“ The Bush administration's response, involving a tremendous new wave of militarism, new weapons systems, and a newly aggressive posture in the world could not have done more to exacerbate the threat of terrorist attacks if it had been planned that way. Military means will not work. The beginning of a solution is the end of the twin occupations in the Middle East _____________________________________________________ "War on Terrorism" Makes Us All Less Safe by Rahul Mahajan ( author of "Full Spectrum Dominance: U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond" ) in ZNET March 12, 2004 http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=5142
Why Say NO to BMD ? a. Fails to protect Canadians and promotes global insecurity The bombings in Madrid attributed to al Qaeda  are further indication that supporting the US led –approach to terrorism created vulnerability for citizens of those countries who chose to support the US. Opinion polls for the the Spanish election showed as many as 90 per cent of Spaniards opposed the war against Iraq and Spain's continuing role in military activities there. Angry Spanish voters, traumatized by Thursday's terrorist attacks in Madrid, threw out the governing party of Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar in the national election yesterday, dealing a new blow to the U.S.-led coalition occupying Iraq.  ______________________________________________________________  Canadian officials vigilant following Madrid attacks: Martin. CBC News 15 Mar 2004 8:08:44 http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/03/14/canada/martin_security040314  ] Spaniards oust ruling party in wake of terrorist attacks Widespread belief of lying by government prompts angry voters to turn to Socialists. Globe & Mail, Mar15 http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040315/SPAINV15/TPInternational/TopStories _____________________________________________________
Why Say NO to BMD ? b.Contrary to Canadian Policy Values & International Law "Participation in missile defence would entail a significant change in Canada's policy on the non-proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction, by undermining Canada's long-promoted model of multilateral regulation and cooperation in favor of the counter- proliferation, confrontational model currently adopted by the United States, based on pre-emption, and the threat and use of high-tech,overwhelming military force."-- The Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, in his presentation to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs http://www.nowis.org/
Why Say NO to BMD ? b. Contrary to Canadian Policy values and international law Washington’s offer is not an invitation to join in safe retreat under a protective BMD shield but an invitation to support and cheer America as it confronts a complex and dangerous global security environment on the basis of a global security doctrine that violates Canadian values and approaches on multiple levels: 1.Relying on pre-emption & military superiority over a rules based international order 2. Favoring counter-proliferation over nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament 3. Insisting on the weaponization of space 4. Undermining Canada’s capacity for independent role in international peace and security efforts through multilateral disarmament ________________________________________________________________________  Ernie Regehr. Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Ploughshares Monitor Summer 2003
Why Say NO to BMD ? b. Contrary to Canadian Policy values & International Law In other words deeper military integration with US is contrary to Canada’s: Adherence to the rule of law guides our domestic and international policy choices Co-operation through the UN (Multilateralism) and the use of “peaceful means” to settle international disputes (UN Article 2.3) Reliance of Diplomacy and Not War Promotion of Disarmament and Nuclear Non-Proliferation Opposition to the Weaponization of Space
Why Say NO to BMD ? b. Contrary to Canadian Policy Values & International Law The use of nuclear weapons is explicitly contemplated in the policies of the Bush Administration. These policies have been promulgated in a number of statements, most of them made during the last year. The following documents are of particular importance: Nuclear Posture Review. January, 2002 The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. September, 2002 National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. December 2002 National Policy on Ballistic Missile Defense. May 2003 ___________________________________________________________________________ Sir Joseph Rotblat The Nuclear Issue: Pugwash & the Bush Policies [Halifax July 18, Pugwash Conf]http://www.flora.org/mai/forum/43948
Why Say NO to BMD ? b. Contrary to Canada’s International Treaty Obligations Deeper military integration with US could lead to violation of Canada’s international obligations: Outer Space Treaty 1967 (WMD) Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects 1972 Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space 1975 Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 19 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban 1996 Hague Code of Conduct Against Ballistic Missile Proliferation 2002 (Voluntary agreement
Why Say NO to BMD ? b. Contrary to Canadian Values Deeper military integration with US goes vs Canadian Values 74 % of Canadians support Canada's decision not to send troops to Iraq -up three points from the last poll on the subject, December 2003. 63 % of Canadians believe the United States made a mistake in going to war in Iraq a jump of 16 points since December. 67 % agree that U.S. President George Bush knowingly lied to the world in order to justify his war with Iraq. 61 % agree "true democracy will never come to the region," despite all the U.S. efforts. 69 % agree that because of what has happened, the U.S. "will learn a valuable lesson" that it is better for them to work with countries around the world rather than to act on their own in issues of world crisis. ______________________________________________ CTV/Globe & Mail Ipsos Reid Poll- March 15th
Why Say NO to BMD ? b. Contrary to Canadian Values & Global Attitudes towards US Deeper military integration with US goes vs Global Values A new survey of global attitudes, Pew Research Center finds the world more in tune with José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, the new leader of Spain, than with George W. Bush: Across Europe and in key Muslim countries allied with the US, publics continue to hold negative views of the US, its handling of its leadership position in the world, and the war in Iraq. The divide between the US and Europe is only getting wider," says Carroll Doherty, editor of the Pew Research Center. "It's beyond a question of America's image, it's now to the point where people want action based on their opposition to the US." ______________________________________________ The world's view of US. USA Foreign Policy from the March 17, 2004 edition http://csmonitor.com/2004/0317/p04s01-usfp.html
Why Say NO to BMD ? b. Contrary Canadian Values Paul Heinbecker, former Canadian Ambassador to the UN director of the Laurier Centre for Global Relations, Governance and Policy at Wilfrid Laurier University writing in the Globe and Mail, March 19th offered five lessons Canada should learn from the Iraq experience among them: First and foremost, that values matter in foreign policy.... Second, going along to get along has never made good public policy, or good politics, either..... And finally, we should not shrink from disagreeing with U.S. administrations when they are wrong any more than we should shrink from agreeing with them when they are right. We should call them as we see them. We did so on Iraq, and we have been vindicated. _______________________________________________________________ Canada got it right on Iraq by Paul Heinbecker, Globe & Mail, March 19, 2004 http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040319/C OHEIN19/TPComment/TopStories ---
Why Say NO to BMD ? c. Will lead to Weaponization of Space The Canadian government continues to admonish critics for calling missile defence Star Wars and insists that weaponization of space will not be a part of ballistic missile defence for many years if at all. This position was tirelessly adhered to in the all evening Parliamentary debate on BMD held February 18. The Minister of Defence chided members opposing the plan even when presented with well - researched knowledge which evidenced that BMD is only a way station on the road to weaponization of space. The Minister’s response, in defending his government’s position and when challenged on this discrepancy, was to deny it saying: "as far as we know... my guess is... who knowswhat the future holds". ___________________________________________________ Parliamentary Debate on Ballistic Missile Defense, Feb 18, 2004 CHECK OUT URL IN KOREA ARTICLE
Why Say NO to BMD ? c. Will lead to Weaponization of Space And yet: “The U.S. plan to build a missile defence shield poses a significant risk bypaving theway for putting weapons into orbit, warns a Department of National Defencereport. Yet last year, Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Graham reassured Canadians that suggestions the U.S. planned to put weapons into orbit was pure speculation ….But the defence study, obtained by the [Ottawa] Citizen under the Access to Information law, notes: A significant risk associated with BMD from the non-proliferation and disarmament perspective is its reinforcement of trends towards the weaponization of outer space.“ __________________________________________________________________ Missile shield risks militarizing space: DND: Report says U.S. defence plana step toward putting weapons in orbit by David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen9 Jan 2004 http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/Opinions_interviews/january_9_2004.htm Missile shield risks militarizing space: DND: Report says U.S. defence plana step toward putting weapons in orbit by David Pugiese, The Ottawa Citizen9 Jan 2004http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/Opinions_interviews/january_9_2004.htm
Why Say NO to BMD ? c. Will lead to Weaponization of Space And - The US Space Command, a joint air force, army, navy and marines operation, that ccoordinates existing military operations in space, states in its Vision for 2020 report that: “The emerging synergy of space superiority with land, sea and air superiority, will lead to Full Spectrum Dominance.” “The medium of space is the fourth medium of warfare.” “ National missile defence will evolve into a mix of ground and space based sensors and weapons” “ Development of ballistic missile defences using space systems and planning for precision strike from space offers a counter to worldwide proliferation of WMD.” __________________________________________________________________ United States Space Command Vision for 2020 http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/visbook.pdf
Why Say NO to BMD ? c. Will lead to Weaponization of Space And further budget monies have been allocated for space based weapon research: President George W. Bush is planning to put the first weapons in space despite broad international opposition, budget papers sent to Congress on Monday showed. Bush's spending plans for the fiscal year starting Oct. 1 include an unspecified sum for developing and testing "advanced, lightweight, space-based (missile) interceptor components," the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said. In its budget overview, the agency said it was seeking $47 million to start "technology development" of such weapons and others that could be phased into a multi-layered U.S. missile shield starting in January 2012. In the two years thereafter, the Pentagon aims to base a handful of missile interceptors in orbit for testing, the agency said. __________________________________________________________________ Bush Moves Toward 'Star Wars' Missile Defense by Jim Wolf Reuters February 2, 2004 http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/0202missdefense.htm
Why Say NO to BMD ? d. Jeopardizes Canada’s Sovereignty The recently formed Canadian Coalition to Oppose Ballistic Missile Defence, a grass-roots campaign network with links across the country, criticizes the American-sponsored system as being technologically unsound, expensive, unnecessary and a betrayal of Canada’s commitment to work towards a ban of weapons in space. The coalition warns that the outcome of this debate may determine whether Canada can maintain a semblance of an independent foreign policy.  Joining Washington’s missile defence would undermine Canada’s capacity for an independent role in international peace and security efforts through multilateral disarmament  ________________________________________________________________________  Korea : The Next Iraq by Mary-Anne Ashford, John Price, Sung Suh http://www.flora.org/mai/forum/47044  Ernie Regehr. Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence. Ploughshares Monitor Summer 2003