MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2082727913 · doi:10.1177/002070201206700314

Canada, NORAD, and the Evolution of Strategic Defence

2012· article· en· W2082727913 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
David S. McDonough

Notice bibliographique

RevueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy Analysis · 2012
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueMilitary and Defense Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBallistic missileMissile defenseStrategic Defense InitiativePolitical scienceMissileStrategic defenceArms controlNuclear weaponAeronauticsPolitical economyInternational tradeOperations researchLawBusinessEngineeringSociology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Canada proved to be reliable and cooperative partner of the Americans on variety of air defence initiatives in the early Cold War. Both countries constructed dense network of radar lines, prioritized their respective air defence forces, and eventually agreed to binational North American Air Defence Command (NORAD), imbued with the operational control of both countries' air defence forces. However, Canada's role in strategic defence was just as quickly challenged by the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles. NORAD's raison d'etre shifted to the early warning and tracking of these long-range delivery systems, even as Washington became increasingly infatuated with the potential of missile defences from the late 1960s onward. Importantly, Canada consistently refrained from cooperating with the United States on strategic missile defence.At first glance, there is curious disjunction between how Canada was so cooperative when the bete noir was the Soviet nuclear-armed bomber but became intransigent when the United States contemplated active defences against ballistic missiles. However, one should also not overlook the long-term consistency in Canadian policy choices on strategic defence - cooperation on air defence entailed some serious reservations and conditions, while non-participation on missile defence was consistently offset by supportive behaviour. This reveals some important limits on how Canada is able to cooperate with the Americans and the degree to which it is able to disagree with them on strategic policy. It also provides clues on the likelihood that Canada could revisit its decision on missile defence and the conditions required for such policy change to take place.CANADA'S DILEMMA WITH AIR DEFENCEBy the late 1940s, the Soviet Union revealed an intercontinental bomber that could be armed with atomic gravity bombs. This created the possibility of direct atomic strikes against the continent using Canadian air corridors. As John Foster Dulles acknowledged, Canada's territory suddenly became a very important piece of real estate.1 Yet Ottawa was initially hesitant on the requirement for strategic defences against the air-breathing bomber threat. Senior military officials envisioned any Soviet attack on North America to be largely in nature. Given the ambitious radar proposals being put forward by the Canada-US military cooperation committee and US Air Force, they were equally concerned at the prospective cost of any air defence system.Yet Ottawa still agreed to activate fighter aircraft squadrons and form an air defence group (renamed command in 1951). It also approved the $5-billion accelerated defence program after the Korean War to rearm the Canadian forces, with the fledgling air defence forces key recipient. Indeed, rather than being seen only as diversionary tactic, defence planners in Ottawa seemed to accept the possibility that the Soviets might launch direct attack on the population centres and industrial targets of North America. In that regard, Canada's perception of Soviet bomber threat paralleled the growing American anxiety over its own vulnerability, as shown by the US construction of rudimentary early warning capability (the permanent radar network) and the growing resources allocated to US air defence command. Officials also understood that Canadian territory offered modicum of strategic depth against the Soviet bomber threat.2Canada remained sensitive that cooperation on strategic defence could lead to American forces being deployed on Canadian territory. True, it did agree to the joint construction and shared costs of the Pinetree line radar extension finally completed in 1954. But Ottawa also obtained number of assurances on Canada's involvement in and control over these radar stations that helped safeguard the country's sense of sovereignty.3 Meanwhile, the US Air Force (USAF) had strong incentive to undertake cross-border interceptions, which even Canada found attractive due to the country's limited number of fighter aircraft and interest in pushing any interception away from its populated areas. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,506
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,996

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,303
Écart entre enseignants0,287 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations3
Publié2012
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueInternational Journal Canada s Journal of Global Policy AnalysisMême sujetMilitary and Defense StudiesTravaux en français237 207