Defence isn't immoral No wisdom in failing to protect our country

www.canoe.ca ^ | Mon, December 6, 2004 | EZRA LEVANT

[Ginifer]

President George W. Bush asked for only one thing during his visit: That Canada participate in continental defence.

It is no secret North Korea is developing inter-continental ballistic missiles, and has sold them to other rogue states like Iran. Combine that with North Korea's professed arsenal of nuclear warheads, and the world has a new and unique risk: A nuclear threat from an unstable, erratic regime.

Those adjectives did not apply to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Paranoid it was; but stable, at least in so far as its nuclear options were kept in check by America's nuclear options. It was called Mutually Assured Destruction -- neither side would nuke the other, because both would be wiped out.

But MAD doesn't work when you're dealing with suicide bombers.

How likely is it that North Korea will lash out with a nuclear missile? How likely is it that Iran would, if it had the chance?

The only certainty is that should such a missile be fired, America would be completely vulnerable -- as would Canadian cities.

Obviously, the bulk of the funding for an anti-missile defence would come from the U.S. The bulk of the technology would, too. Even the deployment and manning of the weapons would be overwhelmingly American.

What Bush is looking for is moral support, and Canadian approval to deploy the system over our airspace.

Martin's reply: "We are a sovereign nation and will make the decisions about our air space and second we are fundamentally opposed to the weaponization of space."

We are a sovereign nation; but we have signed treaties of mutual defence. We have "permitted" American defence of our skies and space using fighter jets and missiles -- as if we were doing them a favour by it.

But why would an anti-missile violate our sovereignty when those other weapons wouldn't?

What is the moral difference between a missile fired from an aircraft five miles up, and a missile fired from a launch pad that flies 100 miles up? What is the moral difference between a defensive weapon that is fired from a fighter jet or ship or a satellite?

There is none, of course. And if Martin was truly opposed to the weaponization of space, he would object as loudly -- or do something about -- North Korea's weaponization of space.

It is their ICBMs that turn space into a battleground; Bush's anti-ballistic missiles don't weaponize space, it's already weaponized -- they simply defend our homeland from a new threat.

Is there something moral about declining to shield oneself from being stabbed from the back -- or from above? Isn't it immoral to condemn the victim -- or in the case of the U.S., a potential victim who refuses to be victimized -- rather than the aggressor or potential aggressor?

And, given the fact the U.S. is going to proceed with or without us, doesn't it make sense to at least make sounds a friend might make, that an ally might make? And, since we are a potential victim, too, should we not be involved so as to buy protective "insurance" for our cities, too?

Don't be fooled by George W. Bush's smiles during his recent visit. He has come for our moral support in his war on terror, a war in which we have been an idle, amoral bystander.

If we do not grant him our allegiance, Martin will be no less an anti-American than Carolyn Parrish, except that he will be more polite about it. More importantly, he will have abandoned our NORAD obligations, and exposed our own country to an inevitable threat.

[Army Air Corps]

I am reassured that some folks in Canada "get it." I cn only hope that more people in the Great White North awaken to the dangers of roogue states before it is too late to do so. We need more fighting Canuks like the ones who helped defend Britain and shed blood with us a Normandy.

[NorthOf45]

Yes, I agree. Our soldiers are formidable, but few. Many here in Canada DO get it.