Golden Dome (a laughably Trumpy name) is a boondoggle of the first order. It is significantly underfunded, relies on technology that doesn’t exist and must be invented, and has no concept of employment. Current ABM systems are 50% effective on a good day.
As one example, GD seeks to intercept missiles at the launch phase, rather than mid-course (where MIRVs and decoys take effect), an idea that appears technically impossible.
Just watch. Our participation in GD will turn into our already scheduled NORAD improvements. And NORAD concerns itself with *warning and identification only*. Combat remains a national responsibility.
“And where they do not, we will stand ready to take focused decisive action that concretely advances U.S. interests.” - so it’s clearly an “our way, or our way.” situation; that’s not ominous. That’s the sort of language that could be used to justify seizing land in the Arctic to “concretely advance US interests” because they (us) “did not make enough effort”. Outlandish? Maybe. Maybe not anymore. that’s what’s scary about it…
“They don’t care what we do, they care we align with their interests “ sums up a lot of the article. And a very good analysis. Especially after Davos and his uninformed insults hurled at our Afghan veterans and allies, we should be prepared for any eventuality. I hope our future surveillance, OTH and other sensor systems share with the Americans what we must per NORAD and nothing else.
As much as I detest how the U.S. treats us, the solution isn’t storming out and flipping the table. It’s starting Adult Nations Support Group. Step one: de-risk your codependent relationships. Step two: avoid unnecessary drama. Step three: align your defence interests with other like-minded middle powers. Be useful to the U.S. when it serves Canada. Be politely unavailable when it doesn’t. That’s not anti-American. That’s just healthy geopolitical boundaries.
How do you align with "American interests" when those change at the whim of a president who is clearly unwell? We can exhaust, bankrupt ourselves trying to keep up with their ever-changing interests or we can chart our own course. It's a difficult choice we face as we must negotiate the death throes of the US hegemony but we must make in our own best interests, however they align with those of other nations.
Aligning ourselves with the Americans is anti-National Defence. Not only from a point of Canadian sovereignty, but the fact that the US MIC is about creating value for shareholders through military Keynesianism.
Since when is a policy focus on the entire Western Hemisphere “domestic”?
Last time I checked, the U.S. is just one country in the Western Hemisphere. U.S. policies governing how they think other countries in the hemisphere should behave, and what they will do if they don’t, are anything but domestic…
The the Donroe Doctrine approach that the current administration has adopted. In that lense it makes sense that the whole of the Western Hemisphere is domestic.
I would urge your readers to look at both No. 3 and especially no.4 with a critical eye: what does this mean, or could this mean, for the Canadian defence industry? At best, there will be fierce competition for talent and intellectual property (look at the patents situation); realistically, there will be pressure for preferred access to critical minerals and facilities (ICE PACT, anyone?); at worst, there will be sole source scenarios where "burden-sharing partners' will not be allowed to build their own sovereign capabilities, nor to shop elsewhere. I have posted documents on the War Acquisitions Reforms of November 10, 2025. Also see the Executive Order "Prioritizing the Warfighter in Defence Contracting" of January 7, 2026.
In the November 10 reforms, there has, among other things, been a significant structural realignment of the foreign weapons sales process. Foreign sales are seen as an extension of the U.S. industrial base, not a tool of alliance-building. There are some potential tensions between the "War Department" and the State Department (which still has legal control over foreign sales- a reminder that the Trump administration is not entirely monolithic).
I'm concerned or Government isn't taking Trump or our security needs seriously enough yet. Whether it be within the Golden Dome network or not, without our own SAMS to intercept the threats over our territory we are half @$$ing our defense leaving it handicapped in the face of large airborne threats. Having Radars to detect the threats but not the capability to actually respond to them is kinda like trying to speed skate with only one leg. It doesn't work. Expecting the US to spend multiples of millions per missle to defend our Country, because we don't want to purchase nor field our own in our soil only adds to Trumps argument about our Defense.
Not said is that based on physics and trajectories, interceptors intercept in a small window at apogee of incoming ballistic weapon, which results in a debris field over Northern Canada. Same sort of philosophy for cruise missiles (hypersonics), once in flight the Canadian North becomes the intercept zone and debris field if destroyed, and doing this is still very difficult due to the vast geography in getting planes to the right spot in time to intercept (especially hypersonics). The alternate is a 'wall of defence' which would be in the north and for a range of reasons is highly impractical for the range of threats (ballistic, cruise, hypersonic cruise trajectories). Yes you are right though that we still need to have a 'terminal defence' capability to defend the most critical of assets. The gotchas are this is expensive as our critical infrastructure is widely dispersed and it will inherently not intercept everything/much destined for US targets as it crosses the vast Canadian airspace - this will not be good enough, especially as the debris field is then shifted to the lower 48.
This is what Canada gets after 20 years of THE PUBLIC screaming blue bloody murder about increasing our defence spending! And multiple PM’s backtracking or putting off making decisions because of public backlash. And now that we have a PM who sees the world clearly and is NOT a politician, we are now in a race to achieve some semblance of defence but It’s not going to happen overnight.
Sadly for the last 80 years Canadians have fallen into this false sense of security knowing we were protected by the USA and who saw NO reason to upgrade our military defences and if we were gonna be spending money on the military, then that made us warmongers and we were all about being peaceful people. Apparently, it didn’t occur to a great many Canadians that you can be both peaceful and keep a good strong military just in case.
And even more sadly, we still have a large group of Canadians who don’t believe any of this is necessary because the Americans are our “friends relatives and neighbours” and they’re going to change and everything will go back to normal “soon”.
I too am worried about the “return to normal” crowd, Trump may be gone in 2028 but MAGA now controls the Republican Party and in any 4 year period we may have to deal with an administration that holds the same core beliefs. They might be more “polished” than Trump but the America First ideas are here for the foreseeable future.
“To achieve this, we will reinvest in U.S. defense production, building out capacity;…We will simultaneously leverage allied and partner production not just to meet our own requirements but also to incentivize them to increase defense spending and help them field additional forces as quickly as possible.”
While this may sound reasonable, I am reading it in the context of other documents and speeches, and actual policy initiatives. I am also looking at Israel being presented as the "good ally" in this document whereas it is implied that Canada is a "bad ally." Both "leverage" and "incentivize" can have a range of meanings.
Golden Dome (a laughably Trumpy name) is a boondoggle of the first order. It is significantly underfunded, relies on technology that doesn’t exist and must be invented, and has no concept of employment. Current ABM systems are 50% effective on a good day.
As one example, GD seeks to intercept missiles at the launch phase, rather than mid-course (where MIRVs and decoys take effect), an idea that appears technically impossible.
Just watch. Our participation in GD will turn into our already scheduled NORAD improvements. And NORAD concerns itself with *warning and identification only*. Combat remains a national responsibility.
“And where they do not, we will stand ready to take focused decisive action that concretely advances U.S. interests.” - so it’s clearly an “our way, or our way.” situation; that’s not ominous. That’s the sort of language that could be used to justify seizing land in the Arctic to “concretely advance US interests” because they (us) “did not make enough effort”. Outlandish? Maybe. Maybe not anymore. that’s what’s scary about it…
It's very concerning rhetoric, one that I hope was well emphasized here!
“They don’t care what we do, they care we align with their interests “ sums up a lot of the article. And a very good analysis. Especially after Davos and his uninformed insults hurled at our Afghan veterans and allies, we should be prepared for any eventuality. I hope our future surveillance, OTH and other sensor systems share with the Americans what we must per NORAD and nothing else.
As much as I detest how the U.S. treats us, the solution isn’t storming out and flipping the table. It’s starting Adult Nations Support Group. Step one: de-risk your codependent relationships. Step two: avoid unnecessary drama. Step three: align your defence interests with other like-minded middle powers. Be useful to the U.S. when it serves Canada. Be politely unavailable when it doesn’t. That’s not anti-American. That’s just healthy geopolitical boundaries.
How do you align with "American interests" when those change at the whim of a president who is clearly unwell? We can exhaust, bankrupt ourselves trying to keep up with their ever-changing interests or we can chart our own course. It's a difficult choice we face as we must negotiate the death throes of the US hegemony but we must make in our own best interests, however they align with those of other nations.
Aligning ourselves with the Americans is anti-National Defence. Not only from a point of Canadian sovereignty, but the fact that the US MIC is about creating value for shareholders through military Keynesianism.
Since when is a policy focus on the entire Western Hemisphere “domestic”?
Last time I checked, the U.S. is just one country in the Western Hemisphere. U.S. policies governing how they think other countries in the hemisphere should behave, and what they will do if they don’t, are anything but domestic…
The the Donroe Doctrine approach that the current administration has adopted. In that lense it makes sense that the whole of the Western Hemisphere is domestic.
Only if you’re delusional. 😊
I would urge your readers to look at both No. 3 and especially no.4 with a critical eye: what does this mean, or could this mean, for the Canadian defence industry? At best, there will be fierce competition for talent and intellectual property (look at the patents situation); realistically, there will be pressure for preferred access to critical minerals and facilities (ICE PACT, anyone?); at worst, there will be sole source scenarios where "burden-sharing partners' will not be allowed to build their own sovereign capabilities, nor to shop elsewhere. I have posted documents on the War Acquisitions Reforms of November 10, 2025. Also see the Executive Order "Prioritizing the Warfighter in Defence Contracting" of January 7, 2026.
In the November 10 reforms, there has, among other things, been a significant structural realignment of the foreign weapons sales process. Foreign sales are seen as an extension of the U.S. industrial base, not a tool of alliance-building. There are some potential tensions between the "War Department" and the State Department (which still has legal control over foreign sales- a reminder that the Trump administration is not entirely monolithic).
I'm concerned or Government isn't taking Trump or our security needs seriously enough yet. Whether it be within the Golden Dome network or not, without our own SAMS to intercept the threats over our territory we are half @$$ing our defense leaving it handicapped in the face of large airborne threats. Having Radars to detect the threats but not the capability to actually respond to them is kinda like trying to speed skate with only one leg. It doesn't work. Expecting the US to spend multiples of millions per missle to defend our Country, because we don't want to purchase nor field our own in our soil only adds to Trumps argument about our Defense.
Not said is that based on physics and trajectories, interceptors intercept in a small window at apogee of incoming ballistic weapon, which results in a debris field over Northern Canada. Same sort of philosophy for cruise missiles (hypersonics), once in flight the Canadian North becomes the intercept zone and debris field if destroyed, and doing this is still very difficult due to the vast geography in getting planes to the right spot in time to intercept (especially hypersonics). The alternate is a 'wall of defence' which would be in the north and for a range of reasons is highly impractical for the range of threats (ballistic, cruise, hypersonic cruise trajectories). Yes you are right though that we still need to have a 'terminal defence' capability to defend the most critical of assets. The gotchas are this is expensive as our critical infrastructure is widely dispersed and it will inherently not intercept everything/much destined for US targets as it crosses the vast Canadian airspace - this will not be good enough, especially as the debris field is then shifted to the lower 48.
This is what Canada gets after 20 years of THE PUBLIC screaming blue bloody murder about increasing our defence spending! And multiple PM’s backtracking or putting off making decisions because of public backlash. And now that we have a PM who sees the world clearly and is NOT a politician, we are now in a race to achieve some semblance of defence but It’s not going to happen overnight.
Sadly for the last 80 years Canadians have fallen into this false sense of security knowing we were protected by the USA and who saw NO reason to upgrade our military defences and if we were gonna be spending money on the military, then that made us warmongers and we were all about being peaceful people. Apparently, it didn’t occur to a great many Canadians that you can be both peaceful and keep a good strong military just in case.
And even more sadly, we still have a large group of Canadians who don’t believe any of this is necessary because the Americans are our “friends relatives and neighbours” and they’re going to change and everything will go back to normal “soon”.
I too am worried about the “return to normal” crowd, Trump may be gone in 2028 but MAGA now controls the Republican Party and in any 4 year period we may have to deal with an administration that holds the same core beliefs. They might be more “polished” than Trump but the America First ideas are here for the foreseeable future.
“To achieve this, we will reinvest in U.S. defense production, building out capacity;…We will simultaneously leverage allied and partner production not just to meet our own requirements but also to incentivize them to increase defense spending and help them field additional forces as quickly as possible.”
While this may sound reasonable, I am reading it in the context of other documents and speeches, and actual policy initiatives. I am also looking at Israel being presented as the "good ally" in this document whereas it is implied that Canada is a "bad ally." Both "leverage" and "incentivize" can have a range of meanings.