“The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.” — Darth Vader.
That line came from Star Wars, the first instalment of George Lucas’ classic trilogy of movies from “a long time ago in a galaxy far far away.”
And just as the Star Wars trilogy came to a close in the late-1980s, another man, formerly of the film industry himself, proposed his own brand of Star Wars. Unlike its predecessor, this story would not be set in a galaxy far far away, or take place a long time ago.
Then-U.S. president and former Hollywood actor Ronald Reagan suggested the Americans establish a sophisticated missile defence system which could be used to shoot down any incoming Soviet missiles in the event of a nuclear war.
But then the Berlin Wall fell, communism collapsed and the threat of this planet being destroyed was put on the shelf. Sorry, Darth Vader.
Unfortunately, no one told U.S. deputy secretary of state, Strobe Talbott, the Cold War ended in 1991.
Talbott was in Ottawa last month to meet with Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axworthy. The subject of their little get-together: a U.S. proposal to establish a continental ballistic-missile defence system, similar to the one Reagan had proposed in the 1980s.
Odd. George Lucas said the new edition of Star Wars comes out this May.
It seems strange that, in a world where East-West relations have softened to the point that a Canada/Russia hockey game no longer inspires the hatred it once did, our government is seriously entertaining thoughts of establishing a continental ballistic-missile defence system.
As envisioned by the Americans, the defence system would intercept missiles “accidentally launched from Russia” or from “rogue states” such as North Korea (or Belarus, perhaps?)
But the real question for Canada is whether this program is viable. It looks as though the Americans won’t entertain the thought of setting it up without Canadian support – read: the Americans won’t front all the cash for such a risky endeavour. But the more money Canada chips in, the more viable the idea, politically.
Is the idea feasible? Some say the threat of nuclear assault from North Korea or from any other “rogue state” is genuine and that the West has to do something soon. Others argue that such a system is plain silly.
More likely than the threat of a nuclear attack is the possibility that a rogue state would attack North America through terrorist campaigns. Suitcase bombs and chemical weapons, while less effective perhaps, are far easier to introduce than nuclear missiles. (The anthrax virus, for example, need only be added to a town’s water supply to be effective.) Thus, such a missile defence system would be about as much use as the Maginot Line was to France in the Second World War — it looked impressive and was more or less impervious to any direct assault. Its one failing was that no one thought the Germans might go around it.
Thanks, Mr. Axworthy, but George Lucas said there will be no new instalments of the Star Wars saga after 2001. Let’s keep it that way.