Occasionally, politicians surprise me

I had honestly expected Paul Martin to sign on to the American "Missile Defense" plan. Today, his government announced that (for now) Canada would stand aside from the Missile Defense system.

Why would I have expected Martin to sign on - first, he had in the past expressed interest in working with the Americans on this program. (Certainly prior to last fall's election that resulted in a minority government, he had made noises that suggested a willingness to cooperate with the Americans.

It makes a certain amount of logical sense actually. It's a fairly easy "gimme" to hand the Bush administration, without really committing Canada to anything that is terribly significant. (Let's face it, at most, missile defense is a collection of really cool academic engineering exercises - but realistically, Canada won't be overly involved in creating the system anyhow)

Symbolically, it would have given Martin a degree of credibility in Bush's testosterone driven world . (Let's face it, GWB figures persuasion is best done with a six-shooter in hand...) Of course, the delicate position of the Liberal minority government makes it very difficult for Martin to be seen as "toadying" to Bush.

Oddly, I find myself half applauding the decision. As best as I can tell, the technologies required to make an effective missile defense system are a long ways off (at best). The reality is that few countries really have real ICBM capability (and certainly no "terrorist" organization has an appropriate launch facility at its disposal) Of course, the other side of the diplomatic coin is that we do have to recognize that our neighbor to the south is still an important partner for trade and diplomatic purposes.

So far, what few tests have been done appear to be largely a farce - when the targetting system can't even find it's goal when the goal is broadcasting its position, I find it somewhat laughable to think that the current model of using missiles to 'shoot down' other missiles would actually work in the next decade or so.

The justifications for missile defense have focused almost exclusively on the notion that there are all sorts of countries just itching to lob missiles with biological/chemical or nuclear warheads. All I can say is more or less what I had been saying all along where Iraq was concerned - show me the evidence of a real threat in development. ( I don't expect you to show me an existing threat, but rather the intention to become a threat )

I think the realistic outcome of this missile defense will simply be warhead combinations that include "aerosol" delivery of toxins mixed with the usual assortment of high explosive devices. (Eg. Deliver some nasty nerve agent in the high atmosphere) Then when the missile is "shot down" by Bush's lovely little defense system, something nasty gets delivered from the high atmosphere. (of course, where the toxin would land is story to be considered later - based on the winds etc.)

Right now, the Americans are busy whining that they "don't understand" our reluctance. Unlike the Americans, Canada doesn't need to measure itself in terms of imagined threats. Of course, a wahr president has to have a threat to rage against, or he soon looks like an ineffectual fool. With Saddam out of the way, Bush is busily trying to manufacture the next threat to the American Way...