Advances in missile technology by both the Russians and the Chinese have the potential to paralyze leaders and decision-makers in a crisis, Canada’s top military commander warned in a speech Wednesday.
The remarks by Gen. Jonathan Vance, the chief of the defence staff, are among the most stark and forceful delivered to date about the urgency of re-imagining decades-old continental defence systems and arrangements.
The speech comes as the Liberal government begins to grapple with how to upgrade the aerospace warning systems at North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD). It’s an expensive, multi-billion, multi-year proposition that was not funded as part of the country’s defence strategy.
Both Russia and China have begun to field advanced systems, including manoeuvrable cruise missiles and, more importantly, hypersonic missiles and glide vehicles, which could deliver large conventional warheads anywhere in the world within minutes.
Vance said Russia poses the most serious immediate military threat to the continent.
Hypersonic missiles can travel at multiple times the speed of sound and there is no technology, currently available, that intercept — or shoot them down.
“We’re facing new, more advanced conventional missiles that can be launched from further away, travel faster and are more manoeuvrable,” Vance told the Ottawa Conference on Security and Defence.
“More importantly, they have the potential to hold North American decision-making hostage in a period of conflict, let alone threaten our force generation capacity and critical infrastructure. Even a modest attack could hamper or cripple Canadian response to crisis — or harm Canadians — or critical infrastructure.”
Addressing these challenges requires improved capabilities for surveillance and command and control, he added.
Last summer, CBC News reported that both Canadian and U.S. military leaders had sketched out and settled on what capabilities a revamped NORAD would need.
Vance said Wednesday there would be more public discussion later this year and that they have begun the work to identify and determine the “scope and cost” of the modernization.
Rob Huebert, a defence expert at the University of Calgary, describes the new generation of missiles as “game changers” and in some respects put military planners and political leaders in the same awkward space they were in when ballistic missiles first appeared over five decades ago.
Not ‘fear mongering’
Back then, there was no defence against the first intercontinental rockets.
Critics have argued hypersonic missiles are now a reality because successive U.S. administrations have pushed the development of ballistic missile defence systems.
Vance challenged his audience of defence and foreign policy officials and academics to take up the debate
“I’m not talking about fear mongering. I’m not talking about sensationalism. I’m talking about honest and informed discussions about the world we’re in,” he said.
The Americans, at the moment, have yet to fully develop their own hypersonic missile capability, but the Pentagon said this week it intends to field the weapons across all branches, including the air force, navy, army and marines.
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee in Washington last month, Admiral Charles Richard, the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, tried to reassure lawmakers that the U.S.will have adequate deterrence.
“I am confident that this nation has the ability to produce the capabilities we have to have,” he said.
The Trump administration, in its 2021 budget, proposed spending $3.2 billion for hypersonic weapons — a 23 per cent increase over 2019.
Arctic needs attention, says Vance
In his speech Wednesday, Vance argued that the threats to both Canada and the U.S. are more complex than missiles.
“Defending North America isn’t just about having the best point or area air defence.,” he said.
“The Armed Forces must have the capacity to help maintain our resiliency as a nation and the right capabilities to maintain a credible deterrent posture.”
Vance cited the Arctic as one region that requires special attention.
“I am increasingly concerned about the Arctic as an avenue of approach” to North America, he said.
“This requires strengthening inter-agency and multi-national partnerships, increasing surveillance and military capabilities and improving our ability to base, project and sustain forces in the Arctic.”