1. The U.S. will build it with or without us
2. It may or may not work, probably not.
3. They want our involvement? supposedly

So how should we approach an inviation?
Simple, what’s in it for us?

If all we have to do is supply the land for early warning and triaglation radars, so what, we’ve got land.
If they pay the shot and supplying land will get us at the control table for the device we should go for it. We’ll get a say about trying to shoot something down if it’s heading for us and it will buy us some much needed good will in Washington. If it works we get saved if it does not all we’ve invested is some radar sites. Maybe we could make a backroom deal linking participation to softwood, better defining water rights or U.S. support for our Artic claims.

There are things we could get out of this if we bargain hard. We won’t get anything if we don’t at least attempt to bargain. Let’s find out how badly they want our involvement.

Andrew, I did a little googling. The highest support poll I found should 34% support, 53% against, and the balance undecided. Do you have a different poll to look at? When was it?

kubera, do a bit of Googling on

If they pay the shot and supplying land will get us at the control table for the device we should go for it.

We will have absolutely zero, -0-, squat, nada, bup-kis, no, say over use of the system. Hell, we may or may not even be in the top thress for notification that there has been a launch.

Add to that the absolutely dismal reputation the US military has in cleaning up after itself when it abandons its’ toys and we have another reason to just say no.

….. and it will buy us some much needed good will in Washington.

We need their good will? Flip that over and you’ll be closer to the truth kubera, we have so friggen much that they need a hell of a lot more than we need a little presidential pat on the head. Hydro-electric, oil, natural gas, water… it’s a long list, you really should check into it one day.

IrC, do some checking with Comrade Google, the missiles they wanted to put on our soil have inter-continental reach, that makes them ICBMs regardless of what other spin-tag the Americans choose to label them with.

>IrC, do some checking with Comrade Google, the missiles they wanted to put on our soil have inter-continental reach, that makes them ICBMs regardless of what other spin-tag the Americans choose to label them with.

“ICBM” and “ABM” have particular meanings. The modifiers aren’t merely adjectives like “red” or “fast”.

>Unless I missed it, no one’s figured out how to reliably shoot down a missile with another missile yet.

Back in the ’80s, Seawolf trials were successful.

“VL SEAWOLF (VL = Vertical Launch) is accurate enough to intercept 4.5 inch (114 mm) shells.”

(http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=96)

You can mull over the difficulties in downing shells not much larger than a loaf of french bread. The physics of intercepting ballistic missiles are different - in some respects harder, and in some, easier.

Arwen: I went through the Ipsos-Reid archive to look for their old survetys; I found one from November 2004 when the debate was ongoing (n=1000; 95% ci=+/- 3.1%). 44% agreed strongly or somewhat the Canada should participate. 52% disagreed. The statement that respondents were asked to agree or disagree with was, “Canada should join the US missile defense program that would protect all of North America from potential missile attacks.” Hmmm. Interesting phrasing, that.

Volunteer writers needed.