Let’s not get too excited about the dome talk. Regardless of the particular metal assigned to this dome, we are years away from any feasible concept. Some of the technologies exist only in PowerPoint. The total costs of such a system are even a bigger question.
Of course the US has talked with Canada about these ideas. And Canada has likely politely listened. But that is miles away from actual interest. Of course that does not matter to Trump.
Having said that, there is an important element that is in Canada’s favour. Without Canada, any type of dome system will be a lot harder to realize. The US will need Canada’s land mass to place sensors and communication systems. We actually have some serious cards to play here and we should not underestimate the leverage.
We claim to be a nation of law. We claim to support the "international rules-based order", and furthermore, "Canadian values". Well guess what, as signatories to the ICJ and ICC we are OBLIGATED BY LAW THAT WE SIGNED to do everything in our power to stop what has been ruled a genocide. The ONLY nation on earth actually doing so is Yemen..how pathetic is that.
I think the inability to get the “why” on things stems from a muddled idea of what the Canadian national interest is. What are the guiding principles and objectives to defend Canadian security, prosperity and wellbeing? That is an IR 101 component that should be abundantly clear for any modern state. We have been on autopilot for decades because we effectively outsourced most of this stuff to the Americans, and are only just beginning to clarify what the 21st century, post “Pax Americana”Canadian interests are.
One often overlooked factor in Canada’s participation in the so-called “Golden Dome” project (yes, I said it, and I agree it is still a terrible name, though it does pair oddly well with the golden bowl in the White House…) is the advanced, integrated manufacturing effort it will require.
So not only is this a diplomatic and/or financial exercise, it’s also a massive high-tech build.
The space industry offers a useful precedent: Canada’s longstanding integration with the U.S. in space infrastructure, most notably through the Canadarm, shows how shared investment can unlock shared industrial opportunity.
And that, more than anything, may be why Carney is going along with it—for now anyway. The more he can point to tangible examples of cross-border industrial integration, the more leverage Canada will have when USMCA renegotiations come around. Participation today means bargaining power tomorrow.
Right now, I trust the Chinese more than the Americans, which isn't saying much in that I don't trust ether but a few talks with China would show the US that we do have options however disagreeable. China with all its faults has done what it had to do to get to where it is bringing 4 billion people out of starvation in a relatively short amount of time...
No missile.defence system is ever going to stop a full nuclear strike on North America of well.over a thousand warheads, plus decoys. It's yet another bottomless money pit. The EXISTING tech doesn't even work reliably ,don't expect any improvement while the goalpost keeps moving. Idiocy.
Okay, VC, I get it that you are not a fan of missile defense systems. You are very clear.
Now, please enlighten us as to what are we to do? Should we do nothing to defend against hostile country missiles? Should we try to shoot them down with rifles? Should we wave flowers at hostile countries? Just what should we do?
In asking these questions, I accept your assertion that "No missile defence system is ever going to stop a full nuclear strike on North America ...." but what I don't know is if you are dismissing a proposed defense system where lack of perfection is the enemy of good [which is, I grant you, a stretch]. Again, please enlighten us with your vison of what SHOULD be done.
We should invest in good relations, firstly. China is not our enemy. Russia is not our enemy. Following US foreign policy is utter madness, because it lurches from crisis to crisis like an infant with ADD and a loaded handgun. Nobody has a need, or want to attack Canada. We should invest in the arctic, bases, nuclear icebreakers, portable nuclear plants, and assert our sovereignty. We are fortunate in our geography that we cannot realistically be invaded (except by USA, which has done so on numerous occasions), and should play to our strengths.
Both USA and Russia have a "use it or lose it" philosophy as regards ground-based ICBMs, meaning they will launch them ALL to prevent a counter strike that eliminates them. Not counting Russia's air force and navy, that's 1000 warheads on tap. Another 500+ on submarines and with the air force for a survivable "second strike". The math is the math..and we have to realise that ANY primarily US system will be used to defend USA, first and foremost. What they propose simply isn't feasible, the tech doesn't even exist, and Trump is talking out of his ass, just like on the "F47" and "F55".
Thanks for stating that we need a set of principles that guide what our nation should be and aspire to. This is classic systems architecture and no system (whether using technology or using politics) can ever hope to succeed without principles that are durable (remain the same across time and regimes), not in conflict with each other, simple and clear, and no action or decision may be taken that does not directly relate to the principles.
What would your set of Canadian principles include?
Let’s not get too excited about the dome talk. Regardless of the particular metal assigned to this dome, we are years away from any feasible concept. Some of the technologies exist only in PowerPoint. The total costs of such a system are even a bigger question.
Of course the US has talked with Canada about these ideas. And Canada has likely politely listened. But that is miles away from actual interest. Of course that does not matter to Trump.
Having said that, there is an important element that is in Canada’s favour. Without Canada, any type of dome system will be a lot harder to realize. The US will need Canada’s land mass to place sensors and communication systems. We actually have some serious cards to play here and we should not underestimate the leverage.
We claim to be a nation of law. We claim to support the "international rules-based order", and furthermore, "Canadian values". Well guess what, as signatories to the ICJ and ICC we are OBLIGATED BY LAW THAT WE SIGNED to do everything in our power to stop what has been ruled a genocide. The ONLY nation on earth actually doing so is Yemen..how pathetic is that.
I think the inability to get the “why” on things stems from a muddled idea of what the Canadian national interest is. What are the guiding principles and objectives to defend Canadian security, prosperity and wellbeing? That is an IR 101 component that should be abundantly clear for any modern state. We have been on autopilot for decades because we effectively outsourced most of this stuff to the Americans, and are only just beginning to clarify what the 21st century, post “Pax Americana”Canadian interests are.
One often overlooked factor in Canada’s participation in the so-called “Golden Dome” project (yes, I said it, and I agree it is still a terrible name, though it does pair oddly well with the golden bowl in the White House…) is the advanced, integrated manufacturing effort it will require.
So not only is this a diplomatic and/or financial exercise, it’s also a massive high-tech build.
The space industry offers a useful precedent: Canada’s longstanding integration with the U.S. in space infrastructure, most notably through the Canadarm, shows how shared investment can unlock shared industrial opportunity.
And that, more than anything, may be why Carney is going along with it—for now anyway. The more he can point to tangible examples of cross-border industrial integration, the more leverage Canada will have when USMCA renegotiations come around. Participation today means bargaining power tomorrow.
Right now, I trust the Chinese more than the Americans, which isn't saying much in that I don't trust ether but a few talks with China would show the US that we do have options however disagreeable. China with all its faults has done what it had to do to get to where it is bringing 4 billion people out of starvation in a relatively short amount of time...
No missile.defence system is ever going to stop a full nuclear strike on North America of well.over a thousand warheads, plus decoys. It's yet another bottomless money pit. The EXISTING tech doesn't even work reliably ,don't expect any improvement while the goalpost keeps moving. Idiocy.
Okay, VC, I get it that you are not a fan of missile defense systems. You are very clear.
Now, please enlighten us as to what are we to do? Should we do nothing to defend against hostile country missiles? Should we try to shoot them down with rifles? Should we wave flowers at hostile countries? Just what should we do?
In asking these questions, I accept your assertion that "No missile defence system is ever going to stop a full nuclear strike on North America ...." but what I don't know is if you are dismissing a proposed defense system where lack of perfection is the enemy of good [which is, I grant you, a stretch]. Again, please enlighten us with your vison of what SHOULD be done.
We should invest in good relations, firstly. China is not our enemy. Russia is not our enemy. Following US foreign policy is utter madness, because it lurches from crisis to crisis like an infant with ADD and a loaded handgun. Nobody has a need, or want to attack Canada. We should invest in the arctic, bases, nuclear icebreakers, portable nuclear plants, and assert our sovereignty. We are fortunate in our geography that we cannot realistically be invaded (except by USA, which has done so on numerous occasions), and should play to our strengths.
Both USA and Russia have a "use it or lose it" philosophy as regards ground-based ICBMs, meaning they will launch them ALL to prevent a counter strike that eliminates them. Not counting Russia's air force and navy, that's 1000 warheads on tap. Another 500+ on submarines and with the air force for a survivable "second strike". The math is the math..and we have to realise that ANY primarily US system will be used to defend USA, first and foremost. What they propose simply isn't feasible, the tech doesn't even exist, and Trump is talking out of his ass, just like on the "F47" and "F55".
Thanks for stating that we need a set of principles that guide what our nation should be and aspire to. This is classic systems architecture and no system (whether using technology or using politics) can ever hope to succeed without principles that are durable (remain the same across time and regimes), not in conflict with each other, simple and clear, and no action or decision may be taken that does not directly relate to the principles.
What would your set of Canadian principles include?