Norad - Page 2

[QUOTE]Because I feel NORAD presents a few problems, a little benefit. 1 - NORAD is a cold-war era creation, when Canada was less interested in an independent foreign policy. NATO was what we followed, and now we may not necessarily agree with the U.S. or NATO. 2. NORAD is on American soil--I just don't believe that we have can have the same control, whether our leaders say so or not. The USA has ultimate say on matters involving their terriotry. 3. NORAD won't have any ability to stop a nuclear weapon from hitting, if it could even war anyone, and the systems are less than reliable. 4. Canada is not under the same nuclear threat as the United States, and I feel we'll be safer if we become less integrated with them. 5. Finally, although we ahve a ways to go, it is hard IMO to call yourselves independent when you have a defence base under joint command in a foreign command. I HATE the symbolism, and can you imagine Russia doing what we do? 6. Who says that we'll never be official enemies again? If we ever decide to take control of our water and oil resources, and build a military, we'll pretty well have oppose them in the process. Their ultimate goals is self-interest, so we shouldn't be close to a country that wants us, basically. Takes a breath. [/QUOTE] 1. NORAD is not BMD. As much as American politicians might want you to think so, it is not. They can't really threaten pulling out of NORAD to get their way because it benefits them as much as us. They really have no ability to use NORAD to hinder our independence. 2. Actually there are plenty of radar stations situated in Canada. Also we have our own command where we look after our own airspace. As I mentioned before, NORAD is split into three regions: Alaska, Canada and the Continental U.S. Hollywood likes to pretend that NORAD is run mostly by Americans, but Canada plays an integral part. NORAD headquarters is stationed in the U.S. but it staffed by both Americans and Canadians, and the Commander-and-chief of NORAD is appointed and responsible to both the Prime Minister and the President. In other words, we have an equal share in the decision making. 3. NORAD's purpose is to warn of an air attack, not to stop it. We have our own air defense forces to deploy in case of a threat in our airspace, and our own NORAD command centers to help coordinate our defense strategy. 4. I don't think conventional nuclear warheads pose a big threat anymore either, but NORAD is also responsible for detecting attack from aircraft. This is pretty helpful when it comes to terrorists crashing planes into buildings. 5. NORAD has to do with continental defense, and like I said before, Canada has equal say in how it is run. Overall it benefits our national defense because it is able to detect threats before they enter our airspace. 6. Actually because we are America's biggest trading partner, it is in their self-interest that we are able to protect ourselves and our resources. The only reason their military continues to interfere is that they see that we are incapable of taking care of our own security. If Canada were somehow comprimised, America would lose their biggest partner. They do not want this to happen. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'> In the area of national defense, the only thing that can lead us down the road to independence is a better military. Mind you, this is not to mean that we will need a military to defend our soil from Americans, it is because we need Americans to stop defending our soil for us.

[QUOTE BY= z_whalen] [QUOTE]Because I feel NORAD presents a few problems, a little benefit. 1 - NORAD is a cold-war era creation, when Canada was less interested in an independent foreign policy. NATO was what we followed, and now we may not necessarily agree with the U.S. or NATO. 2. NORAD is on American soil--I just don't believe that we have can have the same control, whether our leaders say so or not. The USA has ultimate say on matters involving their terriotry. 3. NORAD won't have any ability to stop a nuclear weapon from hitting, if it could even war anyone, and the systems are less than reliable. 4. Canada is not under the same nuclear threat as the United States, and I feel we'll be safer if we become less integrated with them. 5. Finally, although we ahve a ways to go, it is hard IMO to call yourselves independent when you have a defence base under joint command in a foreign command. I HATE the symbolism, and can you imagine Russia doing what we do? 6. Who says that we'll never be official enemies again? If we ever decide to take control of our water and oil resources, and build a military, we'll pretty well have oppose them in the process. Their ultimate goals is self-interest, so we shouldn't be close to a country that wants us, basically. Takes a breath. [/QUOTE] 1. NORAD is not BMD. As much as American politicians might want you to think so, it is not. They can't really threaten pulling out of NORAD to get their way because it benefits them as much as us. They really have no ability to use NORAD to hinder our independence. 2. Actually there are plenty of radar stations situated in Canada. Also we have our own command where we look after our own airspace. As I mentioned before, NORAD is split into three regions: Alaska, Canada and the Continental U.S. Hollywood likes to pretend that NORAD is run mostly by Americans, but Canada plays an integral part. NORAD headquarters is stationed in the U.S. but it staffed by both Americans and Canadians, and the Commander-and-chief of NORAD is appointed and responsible to both the Prime Minister and the President. In other words, we have an equal share in the decision making. 3. NORAD's purpose is to warn of an air attack, not to stop it. We have our own air defense forces to deploy in case of a threat in our airspace, and our own NORAD command centers to help coordinate our defense strategy. 4. I don't think conventional nuclear warheads pose a big threat anymore either, but NORAD is also responsible for detecting attack from aircraft. This is pretty helpful when it comes to terrorists crashing planes into buildings. 5. NORAD has to do with continental defense, and like I said before, Canada has equal say in how it is run. Overall it benefits our national defense because it is able to detect threats before they enter our airspace. 6. Actually because we are America's biggest trading partner, it is in their self-interest that we are able to protect ourselves and our resources. The only reason their military continues to interfere is that they see that we are incapable of taking care of our own security. If Canada were somehow comprimised, America would lose their biggest partner. They do not want this to happen. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'> In the area of national defense, the only thing that can lead us down the road to independence is a better military. Mind you, this is not to mean that we will need a military to defend our soil from Americans, it is because we need Americans to stop defending our soil for us.[/QUOTE] You did a nice job ignoring what I said, but I didn't expect anything else. It's shouldn't be about what America wants--we should do our own thing. Of course they're our number one trading partner--because NAFTA is a colonial agreement. As for "Safeguarding north america," that's not our job...Continents aren't attacked, coutnries are. To conlcude with a response by York University professor James Laxer to your assertion (false) that the U.S. poses no threat to us: "An empire will guarantee you protection against everyone except themsleves." Never assume that the most cold-blooded country in the world will not set it sights north if and when we try to become more independent.

That's some nice rhetoric Perturbed. I agree with what you say, we should not be some sort of servant to America. However I would like to extend that we can cooperate with them when it is in our interest. The defense of North America is mutually important to Canada and the United States. You have this idea that we can just shun the whole world and you are wrong. We should work towards independence, but independence doesn't mean isolation. We shouldn't have our defense dependent on the United States, but it doesn't mean that we can't accept their help. Everyone keeps throwing around this idea that America is intent on invading Canada. I can tell you right now that this is not going to happen. #1 Controlling a country the size of Canada would be impossible. Invading Canada would be a military planner's nightmare. Think of the invasion of Iraq, a country with a land area roughly 1/20 of ours. Can you see the complications in invading Canada? Our military is much better trained the Iraq's, so could you imagine the casualties we would lay into them? Also, the U.S. would have a significant disadvantage when fighting against in the frigid Northern temperatures. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> #2 America can't just go to war on a whim, as much as you may think they can. The American public would never support an invasion of Canada. The American people are not the war mongering animals Canadians like to make them out to be. There would be radical dissent amongst the population. It would be a political disaster. Even if they somehow tried to invade, how long could the effort be sustained? They can hardly stomach the losses in Iraq, think about the casualties that would be inflicted over here! You are basing your speculation on a pre-World War II document outlining a strategy that most American strategists knew could never work. You are forgetting that the defense alliance between our two countries was really forged during and after World War II. You can't say NAFTA is the reason they are our number one trading partner. In fact NAFTA only exists because our trading ties are so strong. Our trade with the United States has been growing steadily since confederation. Perturbed you are creating for yourself a version of history that ignores the facts and the truth, only so you can feel better about Canada by blaming all our problems on the U.S. This is not to call you uninformed, only ignorant.

[QUOTE BY= z_whalen] That's some nice rhetoric Perturbed. I agree with what you say, we should not be some sort of servant to America. However I would like to extend that we can cooperate with them when it is in our interest. The defense of North America is mutually important to Canada and the United States. You have this idea that we can just shun the whole world and you are wrong. We should work towards independence, but independence doesn't mean isolation. We shouldn't have our defense dependent on the United States, but it doesn't mean that we can't accept their help. Everyone keeps throwing around this idea that America is intent on invading Canada. I can tell you right now that this is not going to happen. #1 Controlling a country the size of Canada would be impossible. Invading Canada would be a military planner's nightmare. Think of the invasion of Iraq, a country with a land area roughly 1/20 of ours. Can you see the complications in invading Canada? Our military is much better trained the Iraq's, so could you imagine the casualties we would lay into them? Also, the U.S. would have a significant disadvantage when fighting against in the frigid Northern temperatures. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> #2 America can't just go to war on a whim, as much as you may think they can. The American public would never support an invasion of Canada. The American people are not the war mongering animals Canadians like to make them out to be. There would be radical dissent amongst the population. It would be a political disaster. Even if they somehow tried to invade, how long could the effort be sustained? They can hardly stomach the losses in Iraq, think about the casualties that would be inflicted over here! You are basing your speculation on a pre-World War II document outlining a strategy that most American strategists knew could never work. You are forgetting that the defense alliance between our two countries was really forged during and after World War II. You can't say NAFTA is the reason they are our number one trading partner. In fact NAFTA only exists because our trading ties are so strong. Our trade with the United States has been growing steadily since confederation. Perturbed you are creating for yourself a version of history that ignores the facts and the truth, only so you can feel better about Canada by blaming all our problems on the U.S. This is not to call you uninformed, only ignorant.[/QUOTE] I would argue that you're the one who is ignorant about the REAL reasons behind NAFTA--that is to prop up a declining superpower designed to serve elitist interests, but that's a long discussion. I'm not uninformed. I've made the same argument you make--that Canada would be impossible to hold--given the fact our military would probably resort to defensive guerrila warfare, because we're sop understaffed, and guerrila warfare works. I wrote a long post or two a while back--you might like to read them...look them up. That being said, please don't tell me NORAD is an "offering of help." Why can't we build our own bunker in our mountains? We could still share info if necessary, but the problem is it is centred in the United States....we have to think nationally, not continentally.

[QUOTE BY= Kory Yamashita] Perturbed, I've missed your clear and concise posts in these last few days/weeks/however long you've been gone for. (At least, I THINK you were gone). Anyways, way to get right to the point.[/QUOTE] Thanks Kory, you're too kind. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/redface.gif' alt='Oops!'> I have been around a bit, just haven't posted quite as much....sometimes I just read for quite a while but don't post anything (or forget to log in)...and some days are slow news days....I would it if we got to the point where people like the Vive crowd could MAKE things happen, but right now we are mostly responding to things we hear. Nothing wrong with that.

[QUOTE]I would argue that you're the one who is ignorant about the REAL reasons behind NAFTA--that is to prop up a declining superpower designed to serve elitist interests, but that's a long discussion. I'm not uninformed. I've made the same argument you make--that Canada would be impossible to hold--given the fact our military would probably resort to defensive guerrila warfare, because we're sop understaffed, and guerrila warfare works. I wrote a long post or two a while back--you might like to read them...look them up. That being said, please don't tell me NORAD is an "offering of help." Why can't we build our own bunker in our mountains? We could still share info if necessary, but the problem is it is centred in the United States....we have to think nationally, not continentally.[/QUOTE] Hey I didn't say anything about NAFTA being an offering of help or an overall good thing. I assure you, NAFTA peeves me as much as it peeves you. I was just pointing out that geography and history are the reasons that the U.S. is our biggest trading partner, not NAFTA. Anyway, like you said that's a long discussion. Back to NORAD. We do have an underground bunker located at CFB North Bay, Ontario. All data from sensors and radar in Canada are processed at this bunker and forwarded to Canadian Region NORAD Headquarters at CFB Winnipeg, then forwarded to NORAD command and control in Colorado if necessary. So you see NORAD command is dependent on us, not the other way around. This gives us a certain degree of clout when dealing with Americans on matters of air defense. I half agree with what you say. I believe you mean that we should have a command center that can receive continental radar information, like the one in Colorado. This would be nice, but I don't see it as being an urgent need. Even though command and control is based in the U.S. we still have joint authority over its operation and the Commander-in-Chief of NORAD is equally responsible to the Canadian government. So I don't see how NORAD infringes at all on our national defense, nor do I see a reason why it should not continue to be operated jointly by Canadian and American staff. If you want to read more about NORAD just to put your mind at ease, here are some links for starters: <a href="http://www.norad.mil">http://www.norad.mil</a> <a href="http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/canada-us/bg00.010_e.asp">http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/focus/canada-us/bg00.010_e.asp</a> <a href="http://www.airforce.forces.ca/22wing/aircraft/aircraft_e.asp">http://www.airforce.forces.ca/22wing/aircraft/aircraft_e.asp</a>

[QUOTE BY= z_whalen] We do have an underground bunker located at CFB North Bay, Ontario. All data from sensors and radar in Canada are processed at this bunker and forwarded to Canadian Region NORAD Headquarters at CFB Winnipeg, then forwarded to NORAD command and control in Colorado if necessary. [/QUOTE] Close, real close. There is an underground 'Cheyenne Mountain' style bunker under the Canadian Shield, but not at CFB North Bay. Also, all the old DEW line radar are remotely controlled at CFB Kingston, along with all the old Cold War era SIGINT antenna. At least, last time I heard it was.

"1. NORAD is not BMD. As much as American politicians might want you to think so, it is not. They can't really threaten pulling out of NORAD to get their way because it benefits them as much as us. They really have no ability to use NORAD to hinder our independence. " The issue is: do we want to participate if the US decides to use Norad for the tracking and interception information that could used in BMD? If they decide to use the information provided by Norad in this way, we will end-up being a participant in BMD... and THAT is the problem. Canadians unanamously agree that Canada should not participate and that INCLUDES providing targeting information for missile defense. Of course, there is little in the way of the US if they do decide to use Norad for BMD, so the only way we can protect ourselves from being dragged along into this hazardous venture is by not being integrated with the US in airspace defense. "2. ... NORAD headquarters is stationed in the U.S. but it staffed by both Americans and Canadians, and the Commander-and-chief of NORAD is appointed and responsible to both the Prime Minister and the President. In other words, we have an equal share in the decision making." - So, as you say, the US has equal (or greater) authority over the defense of Canadian airspace... and you don't think this is a forfeiture of our sovereignty? - Why should we be concerned about the role we might play in the defense of US airspace when it clearly isn't within our jurisdiction? - Why does Canada need to be integrated with the US if Canadians could still monitor Canada's airspace from within Canada?

Hmm not sure if the bunker is physically located at North Bay, but both Canadian sector command centers are. That is where all radar data is going before it ends up at Region headquarters. Anyway, the point still stands: NORAD does not hinder our defense, it is actually a benefit.

"NORAD does not hinder our defense, it is actually a benefit." When you say this, do you refer to the treaty or the actual infrastructure? While the latter is still of much benefit to us, the former was borne under circumstances that no longer exist.

Alright Canuck I have already presented my argument clearly if you would care to actually read my previous posts. The NORAD treaty is still an integral part of our air defense. Pull out and we will lose one more bargaining chip when it comes to dealing with the U.S. It seems like the only reason you are opposed to this is because it involves helping out America.

"Pull out and we will lose one more bargaining chip when it comes to dealing with the U.S. It seems like the only reason you are opposed to this is because it involves helping out America." So, how does the Norad treaty help us "deal" with the US and why should we make the internal affairs of the US our business? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/confused.gif' alt='Confused'> Being an "equal" partner under Norad has neither stopped the US from using unlawful trade practices against Canada, nor has it given Canada ANY influence against the destructive conduct of American foreign policy. I have no problem with Canada "helping" the US, to a certain extent (depending on the issue), if they ask for assistance. However, I do not understand your reasoning that we would suddenly stop "helping" the US in air defense by doing the same thing, fully under Canadian command and solely on Canadian soil, that Canada already does by being integrated under Norad. Speaking as a Canadian service member, I have absolutely no urge to defend American territory.

What I'm trying to say is that we can be independent and still be a good ally. Pulling out of NORAD would just lead to more American babysitting. Like I said before, NORAD does nothing to infringe on our national air defense, the problem is that we need a better force to back it up. Wouldn't want to leave our defense to the trigger-happy American gun nuts! <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/mrgreen.gif' alt='Mr. Green'>

[QUOTE BY= z_whalen] Pulling out of NORAD would just lead to more American babysitting.[/QUOTE] ...but that is exactly what increasing US integration has done to Canada. That not only includes Defense, but Trade as well. Norad has affected Canada's military as Nafta has affected Canada's economy. Both have resulted in increased US dependence.

No, it's not the same thing, NORAD doesn't mean we are dependent on America for defense. Like I stated before we are currently able to monitor our own airspace without the help of Americans. The reason that we are dependent on the U.S. is that our military is so poorly funded and mismanaged. We may be able to monitor our airspace, but it is questionable whether we could actually defend it if there was an attack. See what I'm getting at? The solution is not pulling out of NORAD, the solution is a well-funded, capable military at home.