|
Actually Canada's involment would be considered minimal at best. They would not have to pay for any it. I just saw an interview on the CBC with the US ambassador to Canada stating that all they wanted is canadian input on how it should be handled. They wanted a canadian in on the decision making process. I have heard repeatedly that the US is not asking for money. We would never give it to them anyway. I've found it hard to get any facts on what they really want from us.
As for me I think the whole process is absolutly ridiculous. Any professional interview i've seen says that either it will never work or that the highest sucess rate possible would 50%, so attackers would just need to fire twice as many missles. The cost will be ridiculously high, to high to make it worthwhile. There is alot of argument that the risk of airborne missles is minimal at best. Most of the threat would be through bombs being snuck in on the ground or by water and not by air, or through creative threats like 9/11.
Also do we want this technology perfected? once we have it other countries will feel they have to get it or create weapons to beat it and the arms race takes off. If we never invented nukes iran or north korea wouldn't have them now. Are we safer now that we have nukes to "protect us"?
I think many Canadians and myself included beleive that we should not be putting so much money and effort into more weaponization and put effort in other places where it is has more need and would be better utilized.
We just don't get the American love affair with weapons, we don't share it and we don't support it. We like to solve our problems in a more peaceful manner and not with big new expensive weapons
__________________
"Love is a perky elf dancing a merry little jig and then suddenly he turns on you with a miniature machine gun" -Matt Groening
|