Martin will reject missile defence

  • News
  • Thread starter fourier jr
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Missile
In summary, the prime minister of Canada will announce that the country will not participate fully in the U.S. missile defence program.
  • #1
fourier jr
765
13
Martin will reject missile defence: report
Last Updated Tue, 22 Feb 2005 22:53:34 EST
CBC News
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Paul Martin will reject Canadian participation in the U.S. missile defence program, CBC News has learned.

Martin plans to announce in the House of Commons as early as Thursday that the country will not partake fully in the controversial program, the CBC's French-language network reported Tuesday.

The news comes hours after Canada's next ambassador to the United States, Frank McKenna, set off a storm by saying Canada is already taking part in the program because it has agreed Norad can monitor the skies for incoming missiles.

Martin's planned announcement will mark an abrupt change from his position 16 months ago during the Liberal leadership race, when he signaled that Canada should partake in missile defence. Since then, Martin has insisted that he hasn't reached a decision on whether Canada should be a full partner.

And just two months ago, U.S. President George W. Bush pressed Martin publicly to sign on, saying on a visit to Halifax that he hoped the two countries would soon move forward to co-operate on ballistic missile defence.

But federal officials, who wished to remain anonymous, told the CBC's Radio-Canada that domestic considerations may have outweighed pressure from Washington.

etc

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/02/22/mckenna-missile050222.html

& from canwest:
Martin will say No to U.S. missile shield in surprise announcement

50 minutes ago

ALEXANDER PANETTA

OTTAWA (CP) - Prime Minister Paul Martin will deliver a firm No to Canadian participation in the U.S. missile defence plan and break a lengthy silence that fomented confusion on both sides of the border.

The announcement, first reported by a radio station and confirmed by federal officials Tuesday night, will come Thursday and end a streak of obfuscation where Martin refused to state Canada's position.

News of the announcement follows a day of confusion on Parliament Hill after Frank McKenna, Martin's choice to be the next ambassador to the U.S., sparked a political firestorm by saying participation in the controversial continental missile defence system is a done deal.

The end of Martin's silence will come as an about-face for a prime minister who had repeatedly stated his support for missile defence when he was a Liberal leadership candidate barely a year ago.

Martin had promised a new era of Canada-U.S. relations after bitter divisions over the war in Iraq (news - web sites). But American officials had warned it would be an inauspicious start to any new era if Canada refused to join the missile plan.

etc

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=1845&e=1&u=/cpress/20050223/ca_pr_on_na/missile_defence_no
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Canada being involved in this in the first place sounds like brown nozing, could think for themselves rather than merrily going along.
 
  • #3
Hey, maybe Martin isn't completely useless after all.
 
  • #4
it's official!

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/02/24/missile-canada050224.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #5
The U.S. ambassador to Canada reacted swiftly, saying the decision to defend North America now rests with Washington.

"We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty – its seat at the table – to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards Canada," said Paul Cellucci.

You Canadians out there just lost your sovereignty ... LOL and what a .
 
  • #6
Did anyone read the artical on "Holes In The Missile shield" in Scientific American (nov 2004) by Richard L. Garwin. Well he gave lecture at my school last friday. I don't know why we are even have this program. Yet another reason to hate "dubba".
 
  • #7
Good for them. Missile defense is a technological failure and has repeatedly been shown to be a waste of time and money. One way or another, if they had accepted the defense, they'd have paid for it.

At least they have the intelectual and political honesty to say no. If only we did.
 

Related to Martin will reject missile defence

1. Will Martin's rejection of missile defence negatively impact national security?

There is no clear answer to this question as it depends on various factors such as the current state of national security, the effectiveness of other defence strategies, and the specific reasons for Martin's rejection of missile defence. It is important to carefully evaluate the potential consequences and make informed decisions.

2. How will other countries react to Martin's rejection of missile defence?

This also depends on the specific reasons for Martin's rejection and the relationships between countries. Some countries may see it as a sign of weakness, while others may view it as a positive move towards international cooperation. It is difficult to predict the reactions of all countries, but it is important to consider potential impacts on diplomatic relations.

3. Can Martin's decision be reversed in the future?

It is possible for any decision to be reversed, but it would require significant changes in circumstances or leadership. If Martin's rejection of missile defence is based on strong evidence and reasoning, it may be difficult to reverse the decision without new information or developments.

4. What alternatives to missile defence does Martin propose?

Without knowing the specific reasons for Martin's rejection of missile defence, it is difficult to say what alternatives may be proposed. However, it is likely that Martin would suggest other defence strategies that align with their beliefs and priorities. It may be important to carefully evaluate and compare these alternatives to make an informed decision.

5. How will Martin's rejection of missile defence affect defence spending?

Again, this depends on the specific reasons for Martin's rejection and their overall defence strategy. If they are reallocating funds to other defence strategies, it may not have a significant impact on overall spending. However, if there are cuts to defence spending, it could have consequences for the military and national security. It is important to consider the potential budgetary impacts of any decision.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
2
Replies
64
Views
8K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
65
Views
8K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
13
Views
2K
Back
Top