urbanriot This is a moot point, Canada must be involved in protecting North America.
It really isn’t. While we do have obligations toward collective defence, and, especially, our own defence, we are under no obligation to take part in this project, nor specifically choose U.S. solutions to that end. As it is, we are investing in our northern detection systems. It is in the interests of our southern neighbours to learn how to play nice, because if the relationship continues to deteriorate and we withhold those data from them, it would significantly compromise the effectiveness of their “Golden Dome”, even if it were to be mostly built within three years, at whatever cost.
Part of the point of that video was to indicate that, ultimately, they do benefit significantly from a positive relationship with us, for their own defence included, and the current games are not helping anyone; least of all them.
Hypothetically, let’s say we give the system our honest consideration, and let’s also say that the current president gets the necessary approvals to begin his pet project. Now what?
For the sake of argument, let’s say that 2029 sees a massive Democratic win. What are the chances that the incoming president decides to continue spending money on the project? Does it get scaled back, scrapped altogether? Where would that leave our participation and investment in such an eventuality? If you look into it, you will find that that was exactly the humiliating situation in which we found ourselves after Eisenhower twisted our collective arms to adopt Bomarc.
Even in the case of another Republican majority down there, what if the new president is a more traditional Republican sort, rather than the current perversion of the party? Would the new President Small-government-cut-costs keep pouring money into his predecessor’s monumentally expensive pet project, or scrap it? Again, where would that leave us?
The whole thing is borderline infeasible, defence-by-press-conference style thinking. Although it might increase the percentage of G.D.P. that we spend on “defence”, it is exceptionally unlikely to provide a return on investment that is anywhere near reasonable, nor any actual defence. Maybe we will want to help them along, when the spending represents something we needed anyway, but history should have taught us that jumping into this head-first would be a bad idea, even more so now than when Diefenbaker gave in to the relentless arm-twisting tactics of the day. Never has one of these projects delivered on its promises, and this one is even more unrealistic than any of its predecessors.
