This Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2017, image provided by the North Korean government on Thursday, Nov. 30, 2017, shows what the North Korean government calls the Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missile, at an undisclosed location in North Korea.

This Wednesday, Nov. 29, 2017, image provided by the North Korean government on Thursday, Nov. 30, 2017, shows what the North Korean government calls the Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missile, at an undisclosed location in North Korea.
Photo Credit: Korean Central News Agency/Korea News Service via AP

Joining U.S. missile defence would come with little initial costs: former top soldier

The North Korean Hwasang-15 missile launched on Wednesday flew higher and further than any previous attempt, demonstrating that the Hermit Kingdom may now be capable of hitting Washington D.C. or Ottawa (if it comes to that) with a nuclear warhead.

It also rekindled the debate on whether Canada should cash in its rain cheque and ask Washington for a space under its ballistic missile defence umbrella.

The initiative would have to come from Ottawa, which suddenly felt the chill of Cold War-era anxieties over nuclear war return into the national discourse, said retired Gen. Tom Lawson, who served as Canada’s chief of defence staff under former prime minister Stephen Harper.

The ball is in Ottawa’s court
Retired general Tom Lawson, former chief of the defence staff, says there’s no guarantee the U.S. would help Canada if North Korea fired a missile.
Retired general Tom Lawson, former chief of the defence staff, says there’s no guarantee the U.S. would help Canada if North Korea fired a missile. © PC/Adrian Wyld

It’s important to realize that the United States has invited Canada to join its ballistic missile program but for its own reasons Ottawa has turned down the offer, Lawson said.

“My recommendation five years ago, when I was deputy commander of NORAD (North American Aerospace Defence Command), to the government at the time was that we should belong to the missile defence program that we had been invited to join,” Lawson said. “I think it’s generally been the recommendation from every Air Force officer who has been at NORAD.”

(click to listen to the interview with Gen. (Ret.) Tom Lawson)

Listen
Modest investment

The initial price tag of joining the U.S. missile defence umbrella shouldn’t be very steep, Lawson said.

“I think that first and foremost the Americans would like to simplify the processes around missile defence and make them very much like all of the processes at NORAD regarding aerospace defence,” Lawson said.

Whenever anything unidentified and airborne approaches the North American airspace, NORAD is used, he said.

“It doesn’t matter if that’s an American jet or a Canadian jet, or one or the other have to cross the border, it’s all very-very simple,” Lawson said. “Unfortunately, because Canada has refused to become part of the missile defence, this is not even held within NORAD, it’s held by the U.S. Northern Command.”

A pilot positions a CF-18 Hornet at the CFB Cold Lake, in Cold Lake, Alberta on Tuesday, October 21, 2014.
A pilot positions a CF-18 Hornet at the CFB Cold Lake, in Cold Lake, Alberta on Tuesday, October 21, 2014. © PC/JASON FRANSON

If Canada decided to be part of the missile defence, Ottawa would not only be part of the decision-making but Canadian military personnel would also man some of the alert desks at NORAD headquarters that deal with missile defence, Lawson said.

“First and foremost it would be manpower that we would provide but then I think there are discussions the Americans would certainly be interested in sharing some of the costs of the systems but it may actually be a very small amount,” Lawson said.

“To be fair the Americans pay 90 per cent of all the costs associated with the North Warning System, all of the radar systems that are arrayed across northern Canada, and they would likely take the bulk of any costs associated with missile defence.”

Positioning systems in Canada

Placing some of the missile defence infrastructure in Canada would make sense militarily but might be unpalatable for political reasons because of the opposition in certain segments of Canadian population and some political circles to the very idea of missile defence, Lawson said.

“I think we all recognize in the military that militarization of space happened long ago, but I think there are sectors of the Canadian populace who believe that has not occurred and Canada shouldn’t be a part of that,” Lawson said.

“I think the United States would recognize Canada’s reluctance to move too far too fast.”

Eventually, if Canada were to join the BMD, the idea of positioning part of the system or at least a defence radar on Canadian soil –  something that has been discussed in the past – could become more palatable, Lawson said.

Reserving interceptor missiles for Canada
A medium-range ballistic missile target is launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, before being successfully intercepted by Standard Missile-6 missiles fired from the guided-missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones, in Kauai, Hawaii, U.S. August 29, 2017 in this handout image.
A medium-range ballistic missile target is launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility, before being successfully intercepted by Standard Missile-6 missiles fired from the guided-missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones, in Kauai, Hawaii, U.S. August 29, 2017 in this handout image. © Handout .

Furthermore, Lawson also agrees with Rob Huebert, a professor of political science at University of Calgary, who has argued that it would make sense for Canada to place some of the interceptors on its soil to make sure that in case of a multiple-missile attack Ottawa has interceptor missiles in its arsenal that are designated for the protection of Canada.

“It’s a very good point and I think it highlights why the Americans are hesitant to make it a policy to protect Canada and to provide a missile shield for Canada when Canada has explicitly denied and refused any invitations to take part,” Lawson said.

“If there is a salvo incoming into the United States, do they want to be using the limited number of the missile defence missiles that they’ve got for Canada when in fact they may not even have enough to protect the United States.”

A Standard Missile Three (SM-3) is launched from the guided missile cruiser USS Shiloh (CG 67) during a joint U.S. Missile Defense Agency, U.S. Navy ballistic missile flight test in the Pacific Ocean, June 22, 2006.
A Standard Missile Three (SM-3) is launched from the guided missile cruiser USS Shiloh (CG 67) during a joint U.S. Missile Defense Agency, U.S. Navy ballistic missile flight test in the Pacific Ocean, June 22, 2006. © Handout .

The government may also want to think seriously about arming its future warships, the 15 or so Canadian Surface Combatants the government plans to build to replace the current fleet of Halifax-class frigates, with the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defence System, a U.S.-developed platform to provide missile defence against short to intermediate-range ballistic missiles, Lawson said.

“As Canada moves ahead on whatever surface combatants would replace our current frigates, I think it’s absolutely the case that at least the portion of the number of ships we get be equipped with a very good missile radar system, not only to protect the whatever fleet they are with in operations around the world, but also to protect Canadian air space and approaches to Canada and North America,” Lawson said.

“And I think that the Canadian military and the Canadian government recognizes that these systems will be able to be tied network-style into NORAD, NORTHCOM and Canadian Joint Operations Command here in Canada to provide a networked protection against missiles for North America.”

Moving beyond military response
This Nov. 29, 2017, image provided by the North Korean government on Thursday, Nov. 30, 2017, shows North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, third from left, and what the North Korean government calls the Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missile, in North Korea.
This Nov. 29, 2017, image provided by the North Korean government on Thursday, Nov. 30, 2017, shows North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, third from left, and what the North Korean government calls the Hwasong-15 intercontinental ballistic missile, in North Korea. © Korean Central News Agency/Korea News Service via AP

In the meantime, Canada and the rest of the world might want to get used to the idea that North Korea is latest nation to join the exclusive club of nuclear-armed powers along with the U.S., Russia, the U.K., France, China, Israel, India and Pakistan, Lawson said.

“Kim Jong-un is in a position where he has got not only these ballistic missiles but he also got artillery some of which could be nuclear and many of these things are just dozens of kilometres from the border between North and South Korea,” Lawson said. “It’s almost certain that if they tried a decapitation maneuver, using military power, that at least some damage and potentially catastrophic damage can be brought to bear on South Korea.”

column-banner-LEVON

Tagged with: , , , ,
Posted in International, Military, Politics

Do you want to report an error or a typo? Click here!

@*@ Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 characters available

Note: By submitting your comments, you acknowledge that Radio Canada International has the right to reproduce, broadcast and publicize those comments or any part thereof in any manner whatsoever. Radio Canada International does not endorse any of the views posted. Your comments will be pre-moderated and published if they meet netiquette guidelines.

Netiquette »

When you express your personal opinion in an online forum, you must be as courteous as if you were speaking with someone face-to-face. Insults and personal attacks will not be tolerated. To disagree with an opinion, an idea or an event is one thing, but to show disrespect for other people is quite another. Great minds don’t always think alike—and that’s precisely what makes online dialogue so interesting and valuable.

Netiquette is the set of rules of conduct governing how you should behave when communicating via the Internet. Before you post a message to a blog or forum, it’s important to read and understand these rules. Otherwise, you may be banned from posting.

  1. RCInet.ca’s online forums are not anonymous. Users must register, and give their full name and place of residence, which are displayed alongside each of their comments. RCInet.ca reserves the right not to publish comments if there is any doubt as to the identity of their author.
  2. Assuming the identity of another person with intent to mislead or cause harm is a serious infraction that may result in the offender being banned.
  3. RCInet.ca’s online forums are open to everyone, without regard to age, ethnic origin, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
  4. Comments that are defamatory, hateful, racist, xenophobic, sexist, or that disparage an ethnic origin, religious affiliation or age group will not be published.
  5. In online speak, writing in ALL CAPS is considered yelling, and may be interpreted as aggressive behaviour, which is unpleasant for the people reading. Any message containing one or more words in all caps (except for initialisms and acronyms) will be rejected, as will any message containing one or more words in bold, italic or underlined characters.
  6. Use of vulgar, obscene or objectionable language is prohibited. Forums are public places and your comments could offend some users. People who use inappropriate language will be banned.
  7. Mutual respect is essential among users. Insulting, threatening or harassing another user is prohibited. You can express your disagreement with an idea without attacking anyone.
  8. Exchanging arguments and opposing views is a key component of healthy debate, but it should not turn into a dialogue or private discussion between two users who address each other without regard for the other participants. Messages of this type will not be posted.
  9. Radio Canada International publishes contents in five languages. The language used in the forums has to be the same as the contents we publish. The usage of other languages, with the exception of some words, is forbidden. Messages that are off-topic will not be published.
  10. Making repetitive posts disrupts the flow of discussions and will not be tolerated.
  11. Adding images or any other type of file to comments is forbidden. Including hyperlinks to other websites is allowed, as long as they comply with netiquette. Radio Canada International  is in no way responsible for the content of such sites, however.
  12. Copying and pasting text written by someone else, even if you credit the author, is unacceptable if that text makes up the majority of your comment.
  13. Posting any type of advertising or call to action, in any form, to Radio Canada International  forums is prohibited.
  14. All comments and other types of content are moderated before publication. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to refuse any comment for publication.
  15. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to close a forum at any time, without notice.
  16. Radio Canada International  reserves the right to amend this code of conduct (netiquette) at any time, without notice.
  17. By participating in its online forums, you allow Radio Canada International to publish your comments on the web for an indefinite time. This also implies that these messages will be indexed by Internet search engines.
  18. Radio Canada International has no obligation to remove your messages from the web if one day you request it. We invite you to carefully consider your comments and the consequences of their posting.

*