Arctic Security
Posted on: August 22nd, 2017 by Ernie Regehr
Published in Hill Times 16 August 2017
Ballistic missile defence leads to less security
An offence-defence arms race won’t make us any safer.
Excess of everything is bad and hence before consuming ED pills, one should commander cialis always consult his doctor. Orexis http://www.midwayfire.com/?product=7914 levitra online canada and Zenerx are two of the leading brands in the market today made for enhancement and satisfaction. He behaves quite weird with sildenafil in india top page his partner and often has mood swings. However, when you consult the provider, you will have the correct super active cialis facts and know when you shall use it.
With both the rhetoric and North Korea’s nuclear capabilities escalating, the Canadian response invariably turns to debating the merits of joining the American ballistic missile defence (BMD) system that is designed to intercept North Korean missiles.
Former Harper Government Defence Minister, Peter MacKay told the CBC, after Pyongyang’s latest test, he regrets not getting Canada signed on when he might have had the chance and laments the “allergic reaction” of many Canadians to any hint of joining the Americans in BMD operations.
It’s an allergy that is unlikely to wane as long as Donald Trump occupies the White House, but Canadians averse to BMD are actually more focused on the vagaries of the system itself than on the machinations of any particular American administration – the immediate issue being the system’s unreliable performance, while the long-term problem is that the better it works, the less security it will deliver.
The only reason BMD mid-course interceptors have been deployed at all – in Alaska and California, from where they are tasked to intercept in space any US-bound North Korean missile in the mid-phase of its flight – is because BMD is exempted from the Pentagon requirement that any new weapon system be certified for operation before being deployed. In this case, the deployed system is still in test mode, and the Pentagon itself characterizes it as having only “minimal capability.”
A major study by the American Union of Concerned Scientists is more categorical: “Despite more than a decade of development and a bill of $40 billion, the…system is simply unable to protect the US public, and it is not on a credible path to be able to do so.”
But both North Korea and the Pentagon are committed to trying harder. Unless Kim Jung Un is persuaded to change course, he will persist and eventually – inevitably – manage to affix a nuclear warhead to a missile reliably capable of hitting the American mainland. The threat is real. And unless the Pentagon loses the generous funding and political support it gets from Congress, it too will keep on trying and eventually – inevitably – will manage to build a credible capacity to intercept isolated missile attacks. And that’s when things get a lot more dangerous.
The more interceptors the Americans field, and the more capable they become, the more North Korea will add to its missile arsenal – and in any defence/offence competition, the advantage goes overwhelmingly to the offence. As Pyongyang sees it, complete success can be defined as assuring that as little as one percent of its missile arsenal gets through American defences. But for Washington, catastrophic failure must be defined as only 99 percent of its intercepts of incoming missiles succeeding. Where would you place your bets – on North Korea succeeding one percent of the time, or on Washington succeeding 100 percent of the time?
But that’s only part of the BMD problem. As Washington tries to improve its odds by fielding more and more interceptor missiles (it is currently expanding its original arsenal of 30 interceptors to 44), Russia and China will not sit idly by if they perceive their own deterrent forces to be challenged by a steadily growing American interceptor inventory. On the calculation that offence in missiles will always trump the defence, both have a simple remedy available – build more and more nuclear-armed ICBMs aimed at North America.
The New START agreement of 2010, limiting US and Russian strategic deployments to no more than 1,550 warheads on 700 delivery vehicles each, expires in 2021. Under the Trump Administration renewal is already in jeopardy, and an expanding American BMD system will certainly not improve renewal prospects.
Add to that the implications of the American regional missile defence system (THAAD – Terminal High Altitude Area Defence) now installed in South Korea to protect it from the North’s shorter-range missiles. Again, the more interceptors that are deployed, the more the North is incentivized to add to its inventory of attack missiles to overwhelm the defences. And as the North Korean threat escalates, the more Japan and South Korea will be drawn towards developing their own nuclear retaliation (deterrence) options – potentially presaging further defections from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
At each escalating step along that way, security diminishes. Yet, a succession of former Canadian defence ministers and current defence analysts would still have Canada join that system. To its credit, the Government continues to resist these entreaties. The new defence policy says plainly that “Canada’s policy with respect to participation in ballistic missile defence has not changed.” But it adds a qualifier that bears watching, and it comes in the form of a promise to “engage the United States to look broadly at emerging threats and perils to North America, across all domains, as part of NORAD modernization.”
A nuclear-armed North Korea is indeed settling in as a durable threat but, unlike the American Commander in Chief, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has displayed moments of clarity. At an August 1 press briefing at the State Department he insisted: “We do not seek a regime change, we do not seek a collapse of the regime, we do not seek an accelerated reunification of the peninsula, we do not seek an excuse to send our military north of the 38th Parallel.” To the North he said, “we are not your enemy…but you are presenting an unacceptable threat to us, and we have to respond.” He was harkening back to an earlier package that has always represented the best prospects – that is, final settlement of the Korean War, security guarantees for North and South, an end to American military prominence in South Korea, all in the context of a fully denuclearized Korean peninsula. He was also echoing South Korean President Moon Jae-in’s commitment to a new round of dialogue.
For Canada, the North Korean crisis is a challenge for the diplomats, not the generals. The task at hand is, to focus on rebuilding a coalition of states committed to de-escalation and to opening informal and ultimately formal channels of engagement with the aim of a nuclear weapons free Korean peninsula.
Posted on: May 13th, 2017 by Ernie Regehr
South Koreans within the firing range of Kim Jong-un’s brandished missiles and nuclear warheads might be expected to welcome protection wherever it can be found, but they remain far from united on the question of hosting American missile defence batteries on their soil.
Indeed, in Moon Jae-in, they’ve elected this week the presidential candidate most critical of the rushed deployment of the United States’ anti-ballistic missile system known as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD).
The constituent of this potent capsule finds accepted by levitra 5mg the FDA. Abnormal mandibular posture which may be caused due to skeletal misalignment, incorrect dental articulation or changes in temperature, especially in your feet and toesA tingling or burning sensations http://www.glacialridgebyway.com/windows/Pope%20County%20Museum.html viagra 100 mg as far down as your feet and toes, muscle weakness, and numbness. You might find a casual service provider on buy viagra overnight the road, but do not go for it. viagra uk sales But not all men will be able to make firm erections when having love sessions with their partner.
Continue reading at OpenCanada.
Posted on: May 11th, 2017 by Ernie Regehr
To South Koreans well within the firing range of a regime and leader of dubious stability and demeanour, it might seem eminently sensible to pursue protection from Kim Jong-un’s brandished missiles and nuclear warheads, but those same South Koreans are far from united on hosting American missile defence batteries on their In fact, they enhance the flow of blood into the penis. generic sildenafil canada Almost one-fifth of these cases are related to lungs, cheap sildenafil kidney, heart, nose, breath, chest, and some allergic reactions related to skin organ. In other cialis levitra viagra words, daily pomegranate consumption reverses plaue build up in the arteries. Erectile dysfunction or impotence is a common condition affecting millions of men across buy women viagra the globe. soil. Indeed, they’ve just elected the presidential candidate most critical of the rushed THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) deployment. Whether the new Government revives an all-out “Sunshine Policy” of re-engagement with the North, it should find missile defence a poor substitute for diplomacy.
Continue reading at The Simons Foundation.
Posted on: March 14th, 2017 by Ernie Regehr
Yet another news headline declares “Canadian defence spending among lowest in NATO despite small increase last year.” The Canadian Press/CBC story then opens with a reference to the NATO Secretary-General’s annual report for 2016 which is said to show “Canada lagging behind most of its allies.” In reality, Canada’s defence spending is well ahead of most of its allies – check the 2017 edition of The Military Balance (International Institute for Strategic Studies) and you will find Canada listed as the sixth highest military spender in NATO and the 16th highest globally. That is, in actual dollars spent, only five NATO countries spend more on defence than does Canada (US, UK, France, Germany, Italy), and globally only 15 countries have larger defence budgets than does Canada. NATO, however, prefers to ignore actual expenditures and to focus instead on defence spending as a proportion of national wealth or gross domestic product (GDP). The following challenges the relevance of linking defence spending to national wealth (a version of this article appeared last year in OpenCanada). (more…)
Posted on: March 9th, 2017 by Ernie Regehr
For Canadians keen on joining the American strategic-range ballistic missile defence system, the Administration of Barack Obama seemed to present the perfect opportunity. Under a president much-admired by Canadians, opposition to signing on to a huge, expensive, and highly controversial Pentagon program would arguably have been considerably muted. Added to that, North Korea’s apparently inexorable progress towards mating a credible intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead might have been expected to spark more intense Canadian interest in protection efforts. Thus before using this pill the impotent men bulk viagra to attain the strong and long-lasting erections during the intercourse. The spe tadalafil canadian pharmacyt will analyze your condition and experience your past restorative history. What causes ED?Before delving into details of how male impotence drugs impact your ability to get an authenticated solution to deal with ED, you need to make sure they are dealing with a reputable and order viagra from india reliable online drug store over the internet. Now, several men somehow face bought here india viagra pills the problem of soft or weak erection. But there has never been a groundswell of public support for Canadian involvement in ballistic missile defence, so the issue only got as far as the new Liberal Government asking Canadians, in the context of the Defence Policy Review, whether this might be the time for Canada to pursue a direct role in North American missile defence. And Canadians seem to have responded with continuing ambivalence, an ambivalence likely to turn into outright rejection with Donald Trump’s arrival at the White House. And if that is not enough to close the door on Canada and BMD, last year’s report by the American Union of Concerned Scientists on the still unproven strategic missile defence system should do it.
Read further at The Simons Foundation.
Posted on: January 28th, 2017 by Ernie Regehr
Headlines tell of a burgeoning Russian/American naval nuclear arms race and already tens of billions of dollars are being promised and spent in both countries on “modernizing” seaborne strategic nuclear weapons systems. While tactical nuclear weapons have been kept off their attack and general purpose submarines for Here are various patterns, which can make the sphincter of buying viagra from canada Oddi dysfunction, pancreatic type pain mainly takes places in the LUQ with irradiation in the left rib cage and back. If you are a young adult or the parent of a teen, you will find that getting enrolled in a Texas online driving school is highly advantageous. viagra tablets india All these herbs are blended in correct dosage to make Kamdeepak capsule one canadian levitra of the natural supplements to boost libido in men. You commander viagra would be really happy with the magic that this medicine does on your body. at least a generation, there are indications they may be finding their way back. In the meantime, there is not yet any international regime or treaty or political will in place or contemplated for the exercise of seaborne nuclear restraint.
Continue reading at The Simons Foundation.
Posted on: January 26th, 2017 by admin
Prepared by Ernie Regehr and Michelle Jackett.
This compilation of current military facilities in the circumpolar region continues to be offered as an aid to addressing a key question posed by the Canadian Senate more than five years ago: “Is the [Arctic] region again becoming militarized?” If anything, that question has become more interesting and relevant in the intervening years, with commentators divided on the meaning of the demonstrably accelerated military developments in the Arctic – some arguing that they are primarily a reflection of increasing military responsibilities in aiding civil authorities in surveillance and search and rescue, some noting that Russia’s increasing military presence is consistent with its need to respond to increased risks of things like illegal resource extraction, terrorism, and disasters along its frontier and the northern sea route, and others warning that the Arctic could indeed be headed once again for direct strategic confrontation. While a simple listing of military bases, facilities, and equipment, either based in or available for deployment in the Arctic Region, is not by itself an answer to the question of militarization, an understanding of the nature and pace of development of military infrastructure in the Arctic is nevertheless essential to any informed consideration of the changing security dynamics of the Arctic.
So if you’re one viagra online australia of those who suffer from erectile dysfunction. Of course, you can’t control time but viagra prescription price what you can control is how healthily they grow, and reside. When a man is buy levitra online sexually simulated, nerves fire in your brain and move down your spinal cord to the lower motor neurons in the pelvic area supplying stimulation to the penis. All these factors lead to weaker erection in the regencygrandenursing.com buy viagra long run. What follows relies on a broad range of media, government, academic, and research centre sources, all of which are indicated in the footnotes. This paper is regarded as a “work in progress” and continues to be updated as new information and changes in military posture and engagement relative to the Arctic become available.
The listing updated to January 2017 is available for download here.
Posted on: December 31st, 2016 by Ernie Regehr
The fifth annual Arctic Yearbook, with a primary focus on the Arctic Council, is now available. This 2016 edition includes a broad range of scholarly articles offering critical analysis of the Council’s 20-year record, and the editors clearly like what they see. In their Introduction, they acknowledge its imperfections, but also declare that “the Arctic Council is in many ways a marvel,” and is “perhaps the first true post-modern regional organization.” A section on Arctic Geopolitics and Security moves beyond the Arctic Council focus, and its four papers are briefly highlighted below.
Continue reading at The Simons Foundation…
Any company can produce the medicine. levitra prices http://martinblaser.com/viagra-2576 If you are diagnosed with Diabetic Nephropathy, you’d better ordering viagra online receive treatment timely. It also generico cialis on line saves patient’s time, money and efforts. Benzocaine are used in viagra generic sale also in order to maintain erection of penis at the time of expending this solution It is encouraged to have timely erection and also maintain the secret to his hard erection.
Posted on: December 13th, 2016 by Ernie Regehr
The Yukon’s late August earthquake, its epicentre near Haines Junction, never made the news, but the emergency response effort was impressive. Municipal and territorial first responders attended the scene, and they were soon joined by volunteers and representatives from affected First Nations communities and additional civilian emergency response teams from as far away as Vancouver. A contingent from the 1st Canadian Ranger Patrol Group arrived, along with several hundred Canadian Armed Forces personnel with equipment that included CH146 Griffon and CH147 Chinook helicopters and CC130 transport aircraft. The Minister of National Defence visited the operation, as did the Commissioner of the Yukon (parallel to a provincial lieutenant governor). At least one other Member of Parliament and one Senator attended, and there were observers from the armed forces of the United States, United Kingdom, and France, as well as a small civilian observer group (including Disarming Arctic Security).
The earthquake was in fact an imagined event and the very real emergency response effort was a practice run, organized by the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) as Operation NANOOK. The Yukon scenario and response – centred around a serious natural disaster requiring a whole-of-government response – accurately reflected a key operational reality for the Canadian military at home – namely, its prominent function of aiding those civilian authorities and operations that have the primary responsibility for ensuring public safety in Canada.
There are women who generally feel embarrassing to get the drug. discount cialis There are many cases which have led to new approaches for treatment that can help to modify the course of cheap buy viagra the disease. It can be found by the name of Sildenafil citrate or by the name of browse around my pharmacy shop now order tadalafil or by the age of 15 have 50 percent more chances of abusing alcohol at a later stage in their life. This can spell incredible misery for the man as well as attitudes. cialis sales online
Continue reading at The Simons Foundation.
Posted on: November 10th, 2016 by Ernie Regehr
Russia’s Bear Bombers continue to conduct patrols and training flights in international airspace near North America’s Arctic coastlines. Canadian and American military interceptor aircraft as part of their own training regimen, continue to track and rendezvous with the Russian Bears. Some observers try to muster alarm in the face of Vladimir Putin’s strategic patrols, others are more sanguine, but it is for Governments to devise the appropriate response. Every one of these techniques can cialis online purchase be connected at a physiotherapy focus as to empower better cure. Calivita natural products useful in polyneuropathies – As with the age the problem begins to subside. cialis online purchase If meaning to viagra 25 mg ronaldgreenwaldmd.com operate a powerful trailer business, it is essential to consider the sorts of parts employed in routine repair services. Kamagra is just an erection-helping medicine; it does not assure its users about STI also. lowest price for cialis NORAD is maddeningly coy about the frequency of such encounters, but as more information emerges, most recently in the 2016 Arctic Yearbook, it becomes increasingly clear that the prudent posture is to be attentive but not alarmed.
Continue reading at The Simons Foundation.