North American missile defense continues to be a hotly debated topic and many, including myself, have pointed out that wayward nukes from North Korea can end up anywhere in North America which is why it is important that Canada works closely together with the US in developing such a defense shield. Canadian opponents point out that the technology is years away from being implemented, if ever, and of course vent their standard objections along the lines of “we do not want to militarize space”, whatever that means. I interpret the latter objection as: (a) it is an American thing let them figure it out, we do things our way; (b) even if we would participate we do not necessarily want to pay for it, it is preferable to spend our money on other things. There’s an English word for this and Lou Cuppens, a Canadian retired lieutenant-general and former deputy commander for the North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) used it this week to express his anger over Canada’s position:

"As a retired military member, I know Canada can't stand around and be a defense freeloader forever … some countries view us as that. We don't do our share."

It is Canada’s interest as well as its moral obligation to review its position and come up with a comprehensive plan that will see to it that joint US-Canadian preparations for a missile defense shield start as early as possible. The ill-defined objections really do not cut it; I mean are technological barriers not there to be overcome? Even if any breakthroughs are years or decades away, does that mean we should just abandon the quest and forget about it? There lies the opportunity; Canada could help foster a process of innovation by supporting the research and development that will be required to build well-functioning missile defense shields. The country has a huge talent base to tap into and there are many government programs ranging from direct grants to tax-breaks to spur innovation. In doing so it would encourage phenomenal technological advances with likely various spin-offs that in turn can accelerate economic growth and further development in other areas. The payback in terms of job creation, exports and tax revenues could be substantial. At the same time it will have contributed in a significant way to a missile defense shield and be rightfully able to claim that it is no longer a freeloader, but a partner and contributor. Would that be good for the feeling of national pride or would the opponents rather continue on the journey to irrelevance with the inherent economic consequences? And last but not least, Canada will have contributed to the end of this situation:

Cuppens said that all Canadian and U.S. military leaders could do now in the event of a first strike would be to call the president and prime minister and tell them the missiles have been launched, what the likely targets are, and the time of impact. "That's all that can be done," he said. "What's defending North America? Nothing."

Time to get to work, on both sides of the border.