It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by centurion1211
A missile (may be nuclear) launched from a rogue state is detected heading towards Canada (guidance was faulty). What should the U.S. do?
Originally posted by centurion1211
A missile (may be nuclear) launched from a rogue state is detected heading towards Canada (guidance was faulty). What should the U.S. do?
as mentioned by Intrepid
That's a pretty long shot, it would be more accurate if a missle was intended for the States and happened to find it's way to Canada.
Originally posted by Seekerof
If I am not mistaken, the reference could imply a/an ICBM/missile that is traveling or has to travel (flight path) through Canadian airspace to strike the US.
seekerof
as posted by Intrepid
Yup, you're right. And this relates to another soveriegn countries policy? How?
Starting to sound like the USSR.
as posted by seekerof
Does Canada or Mr. Martin wish notification/consultation before it is intercepted over Canadian territory or after a US intercept is in progress?
Originally posted by Seekerof
Umm, NORAD is an American venture with Canadian assistance. Also, NORAD is a early warning radar detection system, not a ICBM/missile shield. NORAD uses fighters to intercept other nations bombers and fighters, as indicated in the link when it mentions "enforcing control of the skies over the United States and Canada", not ICBM/missiles.
Originally posted by AlexofSkye
Our Prime Minister's position - if one could even call it that - is ridiculous. He stated over a year ago that he was in favour of participating.
April 27, 2003: "I certainly don't want to see Canada isolated from any moves that the United States might take to protect the continent. If there are going to be missiles that are going off over Canadian airspace ... I think that we want to be at the table" before that happens. — Paul Martin, CTV News
May 10, 2003: "I think our sovereignty depends on us being at the table when discussions are taking place about the defence of North America. I don't think that for us to live in some silo away from that would make sense. ...But that also doesn't mean there shouldn't be a national debate on the issue." — Martin, after a leadership debate in Whitehorse
May 10, 2003: "This is not Star Wars nor is it Star Trek. This is in fact a land-based missile system. And it's important that Canada be at the table when it fact the examination is being done. But ... I do not believe that important policy such as this should be taken unless there is the full input of Canadians from every part of the country and that all points of view are felt." — Martin in Whitehorse
May 12, 2003: "This is a land-based or sea-based missile system that the Americans are talking about. Our sovereignty as a nation means we've got to be at the table. We've got to make sure nobody is sending missiles over Canadian airspace to protect land somewhere else." — Martin, Vancouver town hall