It sounds almost like the beginning of a science fiction film: four unusual looking objects transiting through North American airspace on irregular courses over a two-week period. In some cases the objects were tracked for days, in others they seemed to have appeared out of thin air. In each case, successful interceptions by sophisticated missile-armed fighter jets, the first time such a thing had ever occurred over North America.
And yet, despite how little is actually known about the four objects, supposedly sober-minded observers and ostensibly conservative parliamentarians are speculating wildly about threats to Canada’s national security.
Take Wellington-Halton Hills MP Michael Chong’s reaction to Saturday’s close encounter of the benign kind, when he stated that Canada lacks the means to adequately defend itself or its sovereignty because an American F-22 shot the object down.
He also stated that “Hard questions need to be asked about the state of the Canadian armed forces.”
Chong’s reasoning is specious for a few different reasons, not least of which is that — until conclusively proven otherwise — a likelier explanation is that this object was nothing more than an errant weather balloon.
But let us dissect his statement a little further.
To begin with, NORAD functioned exactly the way it is supposed to: the object was tracked on radar over Alaska and intercepted by U.S. combat aircraft over their territory. As the object made its way toward the Yukon, Canadian aircraft — including fighters and a surveillance aircraft — were dispatched to assist in the interception. If we believe the official narrative from both U.S. and Canadian government sources, the order to down the object was made by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and an American fighter took the shot because it was best positioned to do so.
It is hard to believe Canada was lacking in sovereignty if the decision to shoot the object down was ultimately Trudeau’s to make.
While it is true that the Americans got to the object first, we should consider that NORAD had been tracking the object since the previous evening over their territory. U.S. fighters based at Anchorage are much closer to Central Yukon than either Cold Lake or Yellowknife (where Canada’s CF-18s operate from). Had the object been spotted over Saskatchewan moving south toward Montana, a Canadian fighter would likely have intercepted the object first, and may have shot it down over U.S. territory at the request of the U.S. president. Such is the nature of the co-operative aerospace defence alliance we’ve actively participated in since 1958. And while the American F-22s are more advanced than our CF-18s, the weapon used to down the object — the AIM-9X Sidewinder — is carried by both aircrafts. While Canada has not yet received the AIM-9X missiles it purchased from the United States in 2020, the CF-18 fleet is nonetheless equipped with other advanced munitions capable of engaging threatening aircraft.
As to the state of the armed forces, consider that there are more combat aircraft capable of performing interception missions operating in Canada today than at any point during the past three decades of the Cold War. Those aircraft — despite their relative age — are still among the most sophisticated fighters flying anywhere in the world, and are further equipped with far more advanced weapons than any we used during the Cold War. We also have better infrastructure to support those aircraft: more refuelling tankers, more surveillance aircraft, better and more powerful radars, more operating bases. In sum, Canada is better equipped to intercept objects and aircraft that stray into our airspace today than we were during the Cold War, a conflict that involved regular incursions by Soviet bombers.
What’s needed now isn’t more weapons, but cooler heads.
Remember, these objects are only alleged to be for reconnaissance purposes, something that will be difficult to prove even if their sensors are recovered. It would have been practically impossible for any of the responding pilots to have distinguished between a balloon used for clandestine reconnaissance purposes and one used for meteorological data collection. The object appeared to be unmanned, unarmed and lacked a discernible propulsion system as well as the ability to manoeuvre, therefore whatever threat it posed was a consequence of potential interference with commercial aviation, a point made by Defence Minister Anita Anand and reiterated by U.S. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby. Given that the object was being tracked on radar and had been visually inspected by the intercepting pilots, they could just as easily have continued tracking it and diverted nearby aircraft away from it.
Our leaders didn’t have to order this object to be shot down. That they did is demonstrative they’re more concerned with flexing muscle and appearing tough than exercising much needed restraint or common sense. Consider that despite the apparent certainty of the objects’s Chinese origin, it doesn’t appear that anyone bothered to call Beijing.
There were dozens of incidents throughout the Cold War that nearly brought about armageddon. Solar flares, computer bugs, defective early-warning sensors, the Moon, a bear — all of these were responsible for one (or in some cases several) “nuclear close calls” that nearly caused humanity’s extinction. With the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists’ Doomsday Clock set at ninety seconds to midnight — the closest it has ever been — now might not be the best time for a “shoot first and ask questions later” aerospace defence policy. It is remarkable, and terribly ironic, that journalists inquiring about the possibility these objects may be extraterrestrial in origin, were seemingly oblivious that shooting something far more earthly down may have substantially more terrifying and immediate consequences.
It is worth considering as well that we’re all here in no small part because generations of military personnel, both in the East and West, exercised significantly far more restraint than we seem capable of today. We have substantially more and better equipment with which to defend our sovereignty than we did throughout the bulk of the Cold War, and yet security threats seem to be proliferating. Adding more weapons to this equation will not make us any safer, just as the proliferation of firearms in the United States has only served to exacerbate, rather than curb, their epidemic levels of gun violence.
Canada is very well equipped to defend itself against real threats, but we’re vulnerable to politically expedient paranoia. We can’t win a war against our imaginations.
Taylor C. Noakes is an independent journalist and public historian.
SHARE:

This data comes from MediaIntel.Asia's Media Intelligence and Media Monitoring Platform.