NationStates Jolt Archive

This letter was written by Lloyd Axworthy, a former Canadian foreign minister (roughly equivalent to the U.S. Secretary of State) and published in a prominent Canadian newspaper. Axworthy is the dean of the University of Winnipeg, and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the anti-land mine treaty.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/story/2610442p-3026695c.html (http://)

I personally, as a Canadian, find the tone of the letter a trifle adversarial, but I was wondering what Americans think of it.

This letter was written by Lloyd Axworthy, a former Canadian foreign minister (roughly equivalent to the U.S. Secretary of State) and published in a prominent Canadian newspaper. Axworthy is the dean of the University of Winnipeg, and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his work on the anti-land mine treaty.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/story/2610442p-3026695c.html (http://)

I personally, as a Canadian, find the tone of the letter a trifle adversarial, but I was wondering what Americans think of it.

We've already been up and down this issue here before.

I could even sum up my position from last time.

1. Canada doesn't need any missile defense system, even if it works.
2. Canada doesn't need any army or air force, either.
3. The US has two operational missile defense systems - the PAC-3 (tested in combat and proven capable of defeating multiple incoming ballistic missiles during Operation Iraqi Freedom), and the SM-3 (tested against live ballistic missiles in the Pacific). Both are deployed near North Korea RIGHT NOW - the PAC-3 in South Korea and the SM-3 aboard ship.
4. The missile with the problem is the GBI - but it's not a problem with the missiles - which work - but a problem with the battle management software which causes the missile not to launch at the appropriate time. It's a software problem - and if the other two systems - which work on the same combat proven technical concepts - are any indication, this system will work as well.
5. That being the case - that there are two systems which are proven to work (one in combat), and another well on the way to being ready, it still remains my position that Canada doesn't need any armed forces outside of some maritime patrol and rescue service. No submarines, no nothing.

Thank you for your position.

It's only my second day at NationStates, so I didn't realize it had been thoroughly covered already. My apologies.