quote:

---

Contrary to popular misconception, Canada is actually very actively involved in the creation, design, research, development, testing, deployment, maintenance, and operation of numerous essential missile defense systems. And American missile defense proponents are very grateful to Canada because our government has literally spent billions in taxpayers’ dollars to subsidize a variety of important military initiatives and technologies that are of tremendous value to America’s controversial weapons development program.

---

Some may try to downplay the significance of such Canadian corporate/government participation in US BMD efforts by arguing, for example, that Canadian companies' software contributions to BMD don't really matter all that much, since the 'information solutions' offered by these Canadian hi-tech companies can't really be counted as militarily offensive.

Such arguments, however, ignore the realities of modern-day warfare, according to which bandwidth is as important as bullets.

Finally--and I know some will see this as off-topic--we should all understand that, despite Paul Martin's February decision on BMD, 'Canada' continues to play a serious role in the militarization of space, whether we're considering bill C-25 (the Remote Sensing Space Systems Act), the military applications of RADARSAT-2, the Canadian Forces' Joint Space Support Project, or MacDonald Dettwiler & Associates' cooperation with the Pentagon's military space program.

Sanders is out to expose our country's 'below-the-radar' participation in Bush's BMD efforts. He's right to do so.

In my view, we should all also be aware that the Canadian government actively supports the further militarization of space, and is perhaps even now laying the groundwork for an eventual policy volte-face on its official opposition to the full 'weaponization' of space.

quote:

---

Originally posted by looney:
This topic is vital, and embedded in a larger discussion - how do we back out of our considerable, if just short of total defence integration with the US. As long as we are actively collabora... sorry, co-operating with the US defence department, it would seem indirect support for ballistic missile defence type projects is inevitable. And btw, not all radar sat technology and systems are bad. To the degree that they provide realtime information which defuses crises and allays suspicions, they can be vital too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
It appears Paul Martin was dishonest with Canadians in February:

---

You could turn over trillions of dollars to arms merchants to make titanium-alloy magic wands or micro-processor controlled composite radar-absorbing sorcerer hats to ward off evil-doers, but even Americans aren't that stupid yet. But they are easily frightened by boogeymen and scary stories.

the reasons that Canada should be in missile defense have little to do with threatening posture...lasers have a future in "drilling", medicine, communications, energy transfer and yes....defense/offense

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gir Draxon:
Hey CGQ, what about a missile defence system powered by wet sand that intercepts missiles with swarms of genetically engineering metal-eating insects?

---

They're called nanites, and believe it or not, they actually work. Nanites can either build, or deconstruct, matter at the atomic level.

from what i know of your posts...you're a member of the CF...a couple of questions...does the CF not even have enough body armour for our troops actively engaged?....i mean...there's only a few thousand troops on the front line...do we not have enough vests for the small few of troops in the feild?....and also...do we not have enough desert uniforms?...again...is there not enough for the 60 000+ CF...or is there not enough for the few thousand CF deployed overseases?... (and can't a civilian go to Walmart or Zellers and buy desert uniforms off the shelf for $20-30?)

quote:

---

looney wrote:And btw, not all radar sat technology and systems are bad. To the degree that they provide realtime information which defuses crises and allays suspicions, they can be vital too.

---

My mention of RADARSAT wasn't meant to imply it had only bad uses. Not at all.

Obviously, there are many peaceful uses to which this synthetic aperture radar technology can be put. At the same time, we should remember that a serious portion of RADARSAT-1's tasking is defence-related: about 35% according to testimony from John Hornsby (RADARSAT International President). Moreover, RADARSAT-2 is being touted for its enhanced ability to detect 'vehicles/pieces of equipment at a SAM [Surface to Air Missile], SSM [Surface to Surface Missile], ABM [Anti-Ballistic Missile] fixed missile site.'

Perhaps, as you suggest, such an ability could be used to defuse crises and allay suspicions, looney. Alternatively, however, it could be used to support pre-emptive strikes against such sites, following the doctrine of 'anticipatory self-defence' espoused by our principal ally.

American peace-in-space activist Loring Wirbel has pointed out that for a long time the USA's National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) was viewed as the 'quiet friend' of arms control traditionalists because its remote-sensing imagery helped to disprove the 'bomber gaps' and 'missile gaps' claimed by Pentagon hawks. At one time, then, the NRO's satellites could be seen as defusing crises and allaying suspicions.

More recently, Wirbel has argued, there has been a marked shift towards exploiting these national technical capabilities to 'serve the warfighter': an aggressive turn in satellite use.

The 'degree' you mention is truly the nub of the matter, looney: under current circumstances, to what degree are space capabilities like those of RADARSAT likely to be exploited for peaceful and/or stabilizing purposes, and to what degree are they likely to be exploited for pre-emptive, aggressive and/or destabilizing purposes? That's the question.

For my own part, I fear we're drifting towards the latter likelihood.

[ 01 November 2005: Message edited by: sgm ]

basically we (Canadian taxpayers) have bought a technological platform/system capable of monitoring only a bit of the world (but from up high).....for that price we could have bought/procurred the equipment and manpower needed to monitor most of the world most of the time....

Could you explain how these PPULs would work in a bit more detail?

the point is that the CF use the most expensive and short-sighted idea to achieve as little as they can.....you are right in that UAV's are the future (what about labour???).....but PPUL's (unmanned or otherwise) are a heck of alot cheaper then standard UAV's.....there are so many modern solution availible today i hope the CF are researching all ideas regardless of unemploying regular CF troops.....(btw....i still can't believe that the 4 Canadian troops were killed where they were....using teathered modern blimp monitoring capabilities it should be possible to watch a 100km by 100km perimeter....)

There was a news article the last week in the papers about mini-UAVs being used by Canada troops next year in Kandahar.

A wide number of troops (infantry, armour, artillery) are going to be issued these small UAVs for tactic recces. I forget what these mini-UAVs are called however they seem to be practical for some types of missions.

Satellites are need because they are provided a better picture than what a UAV can provide. UAVs are good for a tactical level situation however satellites can a provide a national level detail of a situation.

I do not think that fancy electronic equipment is not always the best bet; sometimes it is better to have a set of human eyes on a target. Technology is there to assist the soldier on the ground not to replace them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
There was a news article the last week in the papers about mini-UAVs being used by Canada troops next year in Kandahar.

A wide number of troops (infantry, armour, artillery) are going to be issued these small UAVs for tactic recces. I forget what these mini-UAVs are called however they seem to be practical for some types of missions.

Satellites are need because they are provided a better picture than what a UAV can provide. UAVs are good for a tactical level situation however satellites can a provide a national level detail of a situation.

---

The Toronto Star carried the story:

quote:

---

OTTAWA — Canada's military is buying miniature spy planes that soldiers can carry on their backs and launch anywhere to collect pictures from over the hill or around the corner in battle zones.

Reconnaissance, artillery or other troops should be packing the new units around southern Afghanistan by next August, says Maj. Keith Laughton, director of operational requirements for unmanned aerial vehicles.

The units will supplement the work of larger unmanned aircraft scheduled to be deployed with the next contingent of troops headed for Kandahar in February or March.

"We are pushing this through," Laughton said in an interview. ``It has been identified as an operational requirement for Op Archer Roto 2 in August."

U.S. troops already use similar systems, called Ravens, in the area.

---

One thing to note about many UAVs is that, even where they are providing imagery instead of imaging satellites, they often still rely on communications satellites to link them to their pilots, to those receiving the imagery, etc. I don't know exactly how things are going to work in Afghanistan, but the Canadian Forces have certainly experimented with UAV/satellite links in the past.

The more these technologies develop and proliferate, the blurrier the line between 'militarized' and 'weaponized' outer space becomes.

[ 02 November 2005: Message edited by: sgm ]

Thanks for linking the article for me.

I think imaging and communications satellites are the one piece of equipment we are missing in the CF. Imagery is one of the greatest items a soldier can have on any mission whether it is peacekeeping or war fighting, have a recent picture of the target area can save lives and prevent accidental death by showing you the complete picture.

Some problems with UAVs

a. Imagery from a UAV is limited in its quality and area covered compare to a satellite,

b. UAVs can be shot down,crashes can occure because of weather and terrain.

c. Limited range and altitude of mission coverage (this problem was found out the hard way in Kabul, when UAVs hit crashed into mountains because the UAVs have limited altitude.)

d. Most UAVs only have limited number of flights before they wear out. (Again found out the hard way in Kabul, do not buy a UAV that is only meant of one or two missions and accept to fly them 100 times.)

Interesting article showing basically that though the entire US BMD project is not yet complete, it is already obsolete.