Canada’s physicists seldom step far from scientific matters for discussion and debate, but they have made an exception for the U.S. government’s proposed ballistic missile defence system. In a letter sent to Prime Minister Paul Martin earlier this year, the Canadian Association of Physicists (CAP) pointed out a number of serious technical limitations and outright flaws in the system, in which Canada has been asked to play a role.
In March Martin responded formally to the letter, which was signed by CAP president Bela Joos, a professor in the University’s Department of Physics. The Prime Minister made it clear that Canada’s formal exchanges with the United States on this subject were still very preliminary stages. Canada is not yet committed to the program.
Joos states that CAP was not necessarily trying to elicit a particular response from the government, only to ensure that the people who are considering this massive undertaking have a full appreciation of its complexities.
“We don’t get involved in politics ordinarily, but as scientists we felt a responsibility to inform the government about the situation,” he says. “Now the information is out there and people can assess it for themselves.”
In particular, Joos and his colleagues pointed the Canadian government at a major technical review of missile defence technology that was published on the Web site of the American Physical Society (see “Related Links”). This comprehensive report examines a number of significant shortcomings in the type of missile defence system that is being discussed, such as the need for interceptors to be launched within 30 seconds of the missiles to be intercepted.
The CAP’s letter also pointed to other problems, including the possibility that partially disabled missiles might crash and explode in Canada if they are intercepted in this country’s skies. In an observation that reveals just how ambitious the entire project would be, Joos’ letter observes that deploying the missile defence system would require a five to 10-fold increase in the launch capability of the United States.
Nor might even this substantial increase in the Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) technology be worthwhile. According to the American Physical Society’s report, “none of the boost-phase defense concepts studied would be viable for the foreseeable future to defend the nation against even first-generation solid-propellant ICBMs.”
