"Defence Minister David McGuinty visited the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) headquarters in Colorado on July 15 when he met with U.S. Gen. Gregory Guillot. McGuinty noted the government “removed all restrictions on air and missile defence of Canada” but specific details were not provided at the time.
“Defence sources, however, confirmed to the Ottawa Citizen that American officials were told that the February 2005 decision by then-prime minister Paul Martin not to join an existing U.S. missile defence system was no longer valid. At that time, the U.S. wanted Canada to join a largely unproven multi-billion dollar system which was to use ground-based interceptors to destroy incoming missiles aimed at North America.”
Oh, an alliance with the united states, known for screwing over and extorting their allies? I wonder how that will go.
It’s kind of pointless. Reagan blew billions in this crap in the 80s and the laws of physics haven’t changed since then. The kinds of missiles that can reach North America from overseas simply can’t be reliably intercepted using terminal stage defences.
It’s not hard to take out drones, cruise missiles, short range rockets etc. Those are going Mach 1 or less. Hypersonic glide missiles hit Mach 5. ICBMs come down at Mach 25.
It’s the difference between hitting a home run and shooting down a bullet with another bullet while blindfolded.
We’d be way better off spending our time and money on diplomacy and peace so that nobody feels the need to nuke us. There’s no winning in that situation.
For those of you who couldn’t relate to Mach 25 etc. please find below some numbers from Wikipedia. A weapon flying with ~8km / 5mi per second is really insane to me.
Boost phase, which can last from 3 to 5 minutes. It is shorter for a solid-fuel rocket than for a liquid-propellant rocket. Depending on the trajectory chosen, typical burnout speed is 4 km/s (2.5 mi/s), up to 7.8 km/s (4.8 mi/s). The altitude of the missile at the end of this phase is typically 150 to 400 km (93 to 249 mi).
Midcourse phase, which lasts approx. 25 minutes, is sub-orbital spaceflight with the flightpath being a part of an ellipse with a vertical major axis. The apogee (halfway through the midcourse phase) is at an altitude of approximately 1,200 km (750 mi). The semi-major axis is between 3,186 and 6,372 km (1,980 and 3,959 mi) and the projection of the flightpath on the Earth’s surface is close to a great circle, though slightly displaced due to earth rotation during the time of flight. In this phase, the missile may release several independent warheads and penetration aids, such as metallic-coated balloons, aluminum chaff, and full-scale warhead decoys.
Reentry/Terminal phase, which lasts two minutes starting at an altitude of 100 km; 62 mi. At the end of this phase, the missile’s payload will impact the target, with impact at a speed of up to 7 km/s (4.3 mi/s) (for early ICBMs less than 1 km/s (0.62 mi/s)); see also maneuverable reentry vehicle.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_ballistic_missile
Ottawa Citizen is a Poat Media outlet owned by the US - read and trust with caution!
Trust with … never.
The journalist who reported this, however, is Canadian and is really good at what he does.
I make no judgement on this particular article or any claims within - that may be true. Just trying to ensure everyone has their critical thinking cap on around the American billionaires :)
That’s fine, it’s your right to do so! However I feel I need to ask:
Does the actual content of the article worry you at all? By which I mean, the fact that our government is signalling that we’re willing to continue to integrate our defence with the U.S. - in other words, something that represents a threat to our sovereignty not too dissimilar from the very real problem of U.S. ownership of Canadian media?
This particular article is not super worrying in my opinion, but it’s not stellar. It’s kind of scant on details and relies heavily on interpreting the defense minister’s response about missile defense to mean they’re seriously contemplating joining this Golden Dome initiative. I wish they had included the exact question posed. If you remove the context provided by the article, the response itself is relatively sensible:
“The threat environment has drastically changed and Canada needs to be prepared,” McGuinty explained in an email to the Ottawa Citizen. “By removing outdated restrictions on our air and missile defence policies, Canada is taking another necessary step to strengthen the safety and security of Canadians, and the sovereignty of Canada.”
I’m guessing the question posed was something along the lines of “what’s going on with the removal of restrictions on missile defense?”, but we’ll never know unless they publish the email itself. Also, the article heavily implies the original statement,
McGuinty noted the government “removed all restrictions on air and missile defence of Canada” but specific details were not provided at the time.
is with respect to Golden Dome, but I don’t think it is. See https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2025/07/minister-mcguinty-visits-norad.html, wherein the context of the statement is said to be about NORAD and Canadian missile defense in general, which is again, quite sane even in the context of a potentially hostile neighbor.
Minister McGuinty reiterated Canada’s commitment to NORAD modernization, Arctic security, and initiatives such as Arctic Over the Horizon Radar (A-OTHR) and Integrated Air and Missile Defence. Consistent with the Prime Minister’s commitments to supporting NORAD and strengthening Canada’s air and missile defences, Minister McGuinty also confirmed that the Government has removed all restrictions on air and missile defence of Canada. This will enable Canada to strengthen its defence capabilities and better deter and defend against threats to our country’s sovereignty, population, and critical infrastructure.
Overall I don’t know that I find this specific article hugely problematic but it relies heavily on structural implications about Canada’s intent to join the Golden Dome, but reading the primary sources I don’t believe that is the correct interpretation. I wish they included the full question asked, and response, and I wish they didn’t put McGuinty’s statement at NORAD along with Golden Dome stuff when that doesn’t appear to be what he’s discussing.
I’m not willing to take these allusions at face value, especially not when they’re suffixed with “but we have no details at this time”. There may be something here, but as long as the only source saying this is this article (and its children across the internet), I’m not sold on the fear.
That’s my personal read of this.
What, in your estimation, is the difference between “NORAD modernization” (NORAD, of course, being a joint US-Canada missile defence system) and Golden Dome, a name that Trump made up, but which would be a modernized missile defence system?
Well NORAD is more than just missiles, same with this proposed “Golden Dome” thing. NORAD is radars, missiles, interceptors, and protocols. I’m not sure it would be prudent for us to bail on NORAD at this time - it costs us very little, doesn’t materially impact our readiness against US pressure or invasion, and ultimately does provide at least security theater against non-continental aggressors such as Russia.
Golden Dome is a new thing, involving satellites, space-based missiles, kinetic interceptors, etc. By all accounts it appears to be a boondoggle in the making.
NORAD modernization could be anything from updating protocols or hardware for drone interception, updated training, modernization packages for existing hardware, software updates, etc. - NORAD modernization is probably a good cost/benefit ratio for us in aggregate for our defense, depending on details. If we’re relaxing some form of restrictions around missile defense, this could also plausibly mean the Canadian military stepping up and running more of our own hardware. This would be a good thing.
Golden Dome would be a net-new level of integration for us, and would likely represent closer ties with Americans for a number of different agencies.
I think they’re quite different, at least from a technical standpoint. Political interpretations may vary.
depending on details
true, we don’t know what has been discussed or agreed to.
Here’s the thing. There is no downside to us as Canadians if we say to our leaders “what the heck is this, we don’t want to be part of the Golden Dome”. Either the govt says “lol we were never actually thinking about joining it” (even though Carney has publicly stated he is open to the idea!), or, they hear the pushback and decide that it’s not worth going ahead with discussions because it’s too unpopular.
Also, it’s one thing to question a news source, that’s fine and is something we should be doing with literally every source of reporting. In this case, I think it’s also worth asking this: is there any benefit to PostMedia’s US owners from this piece being taken seriously? I don’t see how this piece benefits the US whatsoever, quite frankly. In fact I’d argue that it benefits the US if we don’t take this report seriously.
That’s why I’m gently pushing back on the fact that doubt is being cast on this reporting, but no doubt whatsoever is being cast on our elected leaders who, so far, haven’t really lived up to the “elbows up” promises made during the election campaign.
Fuck off we don’t want some cheap ass shit from you. The states suck at everything now. Just go away.
So we ARE handing our sovereignty over…
We? No.
