Revolutionary Moderation

Right on the money



Dru at DDW is exactly right in his evaluation of the NDP's critique of the "missile defense shield" the Bushites are spending a zillion dollars on. Why shouldn't Canada sign up? The NDP says it's because it's too expensive, won't work, and won't make us safer. Perhaps in response to Dru's post, a fourth point has been added - more on that further down. First up, Dru's critique:

If Star Wars was not expensive, did make Canada safer, and worked, would it be a good thing? No.



The reason is that, despite its name, NMD is an offensive weapon.

Or would be, if they could make the thing work, which it doesn't. The NDP criticisms aren't wrong, but Dru is right - they don't focus the debate to the right question. Missile defense was banned in the ABM treaty for a reason, and Dru hit it on the nose. Being able to flawlessly defend against nuclear retaliation would allow a country to push its weight around the world in ways that no country has a right to do. The NDP is almost getting there with their fourth point (not mentioned in Dru's post):

Star Wars is destabilizing. It's the start of the next arms race, as countries build more or new weapons to beat the so-called missile shield.

Not quite the same thing, but headed in the right direction. I think Dru's criticism stands, but if this is a later add-on, it's still a vast improvement.



But the question isn't "should Bush be developing these weapons?" (which I think is a clear and simple "no"), it's "given that Bush is trying to build these weapons, should Canada be involved?" I think that's a tougher question.



I'm starting to think that we should, for two reasons. Number one, we need to give the American government something right now. We've been smacking them around some lately, and they've been smacking back harder. It's no fun to have our border closed to beef, to have our softwood lumber carry absurd duties, and to have the American government ignore or dismiss our advice on international issues. The last we can't change until January 2005 (if the American voting public is smart) or January 2009 (if not). But we may be able to fix a number of little border annoyances if the current administration was more favourably disposed toward us.



My number two reason to be involved is the NDP's number one reason not to: the damn thing won't work. It will NEVER work. So where's the harm, if we aren't asked to pony up the dough?



I'm not convinced of this. I could easily be convinced otherwise. But right now, this feels like the easiest bone to throw at this administration, until the American public figures out their criminal incompetance, and sends Bush back to Crawford for good.