Errata

Correction regarding NORAD’s North Warning System (NWS) and Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD)

The June 2005 issue of the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT) magazine, Press for Conversion!, lists a wide variety of little-known ways in which Canadian companies, government departments and agencies, as well as military-research scientists employed by the Canadian government, are actively participating in the creation, design, research, development, testing, deployment, maintenance and operation of numerous, essential "missile defense" weapons systems.

Unfortunately, an error was made regarding one of many items listed as ways in which Canada is involved in this controversial, U.S.-led weapons program.

While it is true that Canada is involved in “missile defense” through NORAD, and that the Canadian government did initiate a major change to the NORAD treaty on August 5, 2004 (which added “missile defense” functions to NORAD responsibilities), the actual manner in which Canada now contributes to “missile defense” -- through NORAD -- was stated incorrectly. Canada’s commitment to “missile defense” through NORAD is to be found in Canada’s financial commitment to that military pact, as well as through the use of Canadian military personnel stationed in NORAD facilities, and not through the use of NORAD’s radar stations in Canada’s north. NORAD’s North Warning System (NWS) of radar facilities, scattered across Canada’s north, cannot be used as part of America’s controversial “missile defense” weapons tracking and targeting systems.

While the NWS is most certainly used for the detection and tracking of so called “air-breathing” warplanes, as well as incoming cruise missiles, these radar facilities cannot fulfil such functions against intercontinental ballistic missiles.

This error appeared on page 22 of Press for Conversion! in an article on corporate complicity, called “ATCO Frontec Corp.” The article stated that this Canadian company is involved in “missile defense” through three different sets of contracts: (1) “The Canadian NWS,” (2) “The Alaskan Radar System and (3) the “U.S. Air Force Space Command’s SSPARS” (radar facilities in Greenland and the UK.) Although the second and third categories of ATCO-Frontec contracts do indeed support “missile defense” efforts, the first item should not have been included.

Some small sidebars in the magazine contained sentences that repeated the same factual error: “Nasittuq Corp.” (p.22, first paragraph), “The Origins of NORAD’s North Warning System” (p.24, first paragraph) and “NORAD’s ‘Warning’ and Control’ Functions” (p.13, last paragraph), and “What did Pettigrew know and when did he know it” (p.19, eighth paragraph). Other than this particular error, all of the data in these sidebars is accurate.

The same error was repeated in emails that I sent about these articles.

The next issue of Press for Conversion! will continue to explore the largely-ignored but never-the-less very important subject of Canada’s longstanding and ongoing role in so-called “missile defense.” That issue will contain a correction notice. Similarly, the online version of Press for Conversion! will be corrected as soon as possible.

It is important to note that this mistake, regarding the manner in which Canada contributes to “missile defense” through NORAD, does not take away from the basic reality that Canada is deeply involved in the “missile defense” weapons program. Neither does this error challenge my analysis of the problem now faced by the Canadian peace movement. It is still true that many, if not most, Canadians were deceived by the Liberal government’s extensive public relations campaign that culminated in late February 2005. That’s when the government issued its supposed “no” to joining “missile defense.” As a result of this successful propaganda effort, many activists within the peace/anti-war movement were tricked into accepting the government’s “no” as if it had some real, concrete meaning. When peace/antiwar activists quickly claimed a victory on “missile defense,” and congratulated themselves for supposedly stopping the government from “joining” “missile defense,” they missed the point that Canada had already long been involved and that the Canadian government had not actually taken any steps to either withdraw its existing involvement or ensure that such ongoing participation would not actually continue to grow. By spreading the false belief that Canada was not yet even involved in “missile defense” and that the government was being responsive to public concerns, many unwittingly helped to undermine the momentum against “missile defense” programs in Canada.

Let’s hope we can now begin to build a vigorous opposition to Canada’s multifaceted commitment to the most extensive weapons development program in world history, that is so euphemistically called a “missile defense shield.”

Yours sincerely,
Richard Sanders
Editor, Press for Conversion! and coordinator, COAT