On the news the other night I saw a clip of US Ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci commenting on the Missile Defense Shield in reference to Canada's involvement. He noted that Canada's involvement in the program is worthwhile in what he called a "new and dangerous world that we now live in."
I want to ask Mr Cellucci what is so new and dangerous about our world now? The same perils of terrorism and alleged weapons of mass destruction existed before 9/11. Our world right now is by no means significantly more dangerous than it was the day before September 11th. Terrorists even struck the World Trade Center before! And North Korea has been building up real weapons for years before this "New and Dangerous World" policy came into effect.
The only difference between now and pre-9/11 is an attack managed to work. The threat and danger was still there before. Just because an attack happened does not mean that the threat is increased. In fact, logic would tell you that since an attack occurred, governments are more likely to stop further acts. Hence the threat is actually less than it was when governments weren't paying as much attention. Globally, terrorism has been declining for years. I guess nobody bothered to tell Cellucci that the world was actually getting safer. (Perhaps by the word "world" he really means "The United States.")
The same dangers existed before that exist now and anyone who claims that this is some new development is fear mongering.
Besides the fact, the Missile Defense Shield is not an effective means to counter terrorism. This is even assuming that the technology behind the Shield would actually work.
There is no "new and dangerous world;" it is the same damn world as before.
Good post. I am in agreement. However, I do think Canada should involve themselves in missle defense talks. Reason being is that despite this being an effective and expensive strategy, the U.S. will do this anyway. If Canada wants their interests protected, they need to be at the table, giving their input. If we're not even there asking them, "please don't destroy missles over Canadian soil", they'll likely make it policy.
Oh, I have no problem with talks. They can sit down and talk about it all they want. But if they decide to endorse the plan then I would be upset. Not only is it a grand waste of money since it probably wouldn't even work and isn't effective in defending against the current enemies, it is also a move in the wrong direction in terms of disarment.