Trump's Golden Dome missile-defence push on Canada leaves Ottawa with few good options

Edmonton Journal

6 days ago

Article content
This would improve U.S. missile defence beyond just dealing with potential ballistic missiles coming from rogue nations such as North Korea or Iran, said Patrycja Bazylczyk, a research associate with the Missile Defense Project at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies CSIS.
Article content
'Now we're thinking about our great power competitors, such as Russia and China, and they don't have just ballistic (missiles),' she says. 'They have hypersonic weapons, cruise missiles, etc., a whole host of different weapons that have unique trajectories and characteristics that create challenges for sensing and interception.'
Article content
A potential arms race
Article content
While much of the technology for the sea- and land-based systems is sound, some of the space-based components remain theoretical.
Article content
Space-based interceptors or lasers have improved through proliferation and become more resilient, said Michael O'Hanlon, director of foreign policy research at the Brookings Institution think tank. But 'the space-based weapons have not gotten much better … and are nowhere near a really practical deployment.'
Article content
Article content
'It's very difficult to shoot down intercontinental ballistic missiles,' said Benjamin Giltner, a researcher at the think tank CATO Institute's Defense and Foreign Policy Department. He explains that the warheads are travelling at speeds north of 1,900 mph during the terminal phase, when they've detached from the missile and reentered the atmosphere.
Article content
On top of that, the system would have to deal with multiple warheads at once, decoys, and efforts by the enemy to jam its frequencies. It's essentially trying to use a bullet to hit a bullet — amid a maelstrom of chaos.
Article content
Managing a battlefield with data inputs in a rapidly changing environment, potentially with thousands of objects in the sky, also requires a lot of computing power. 'That would be a piece where artificial intelligence is now making certain things more possible than before,' O'Hanlon said.
Article content
Article content
Bids are being prepared now by several defence contractors, and costs could go sky high. The Trump administration has estimated a cost of US$175 billion, but the Congressional Budget Office says it could cost between US$161 billion and as much as US$542 billion over the next two decades for the whole system.
Article content
Article content
Much of that will depend on the depth of system and the space-based weaponry. Giltner said he's seen 'estimates of (needing) up to tens of thousands of missile defence systems to have a chance at defending most U.S. territory.'
Article content
It will also depend upon retaining the support of subsequent White House administrations from either party.
Article content
Beyond cost and efficacy, building a shield over North America is likely to upset the enemy.
Article content
The secured second-strike capability of nuclear nations — meaning a country can hit back hard even after it's been hit by a nuclear attack — 'has so far proven to be the most stable and best form of nuclear deterrent we have,' said Giltner. A missile defence system like Golden Dome would upend that, creating a more 'vulnerable strategic environment' and 'invite an arms race,' he added.Bazylczyk sees that another way. 'If we look at Chinese and Russian investment in hypersonic and cruise missiles, I think that not having defences to adequately intercept those next-generation threats is kind of concerning for deterrence.'
Article content
'If they don't believe that we are able to counter those threats, then they'll be more emboldened to embark on escalatory actions.'
Article content
Robert Peters, senior research fellow for strategic deterrence at the Heritage Foundation's Allison Center for National Security, agrees. He says he's 'increasingly concerned' that U.S. adversaries 'could pursue a low escalation pathway attack or limited coercive attack … because they keep building systems that could execute such an attack.'
Article content
He means that China and Russia keep discussing development of systems for limited escalation scenarios in which they might launch an attack with just one or a couple of advanced or nuclear missiles, to hit the U.S. without triggering an all-out nuclear war.
Article content
So, for Giltner and many other critics, Golden Dome is likely to start a new arms race. Others, like Peters, say that a race is already underway, and that Golden Dome, 'at a minimum, gives us a fighting chance to give the adversaries pause before they decide to go down a limited coercive pathway attack.'
Article content
Article content
Article content
Washington and Ottawa have been involved in volatile trade talks in recent weeks, with Trump stating on Friday that there is no deal likely with Canada and that more tariffs are likely coming on Aug. 1. So how is Carney likely to respond to the Golden Dome invite?
Article content
Article content
Giltner doesn't see how participating in Golden Dome would strategically benefit Canada, because, in addition to the high cost, it would mean being party to a 'more fraught strategic environment.'
Article content
But Peters said it is in Canada's national interest because inbound threats would likely fly over Canadian territory and may not only be directed at the U.S. He believes most Canadians would feel better knowing a defence system could thwart any such attack.
Article content
O'Hanlon, however, sees the need for a balancing act. 'It would make sense to be involved in this enough that we can do joint planning and that Canada would get some enhanced consideration as we think about options for protection,' he said. At the same time, the high cost, given Canada's military budget, means Ottawa 'wouldn't want to get so caught up in this that (they) missed out on the opportunities to improve (their) ground forces.'
Article content