were to spend tax dollars

Missile defence too costly for Canada, says U.S. expert
18 Feb 2006 CBC News

A military adviser to three U.S. presidents says the cost of the missile defence plan is climbing and Canada should not get involved.

Philip Coyle, who was an adviser to presidents Jimmy Carter, George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, says cost and reliability are two reasons to stay out.

Coyle says the U.S. has spent $100 billion US on missile defence since Ronald Reagan introduced the "Star Wars" program.

The U.S. is now spending $10 billion a year to develop a space-based "shield" that can theoretically shoot down nuclear missiles before they land.

Coyle says it's a lot of money for a questionable system that some critics say could reinvigorate the old arms race between the nuclear powers.

"The [missile defence] hardware that's being deployed now in Alaska and California has not demonstrated capability to actually defend the U.S., let alone Canada," Coyle said in an interview for CBC Radio's The House.

Some of the tests have had some snags, but others have been successful, says Maj.-Gen. Rich Rowe, who is in charge of missile defence for U.S. Northern Command in Colorado Springs.

Rowe says five out of the nine tests so far have been successful. He says if the system were needed today, it would work, adding that it's hard to put an economic value on the possibility that a rogue missile could be stopped.

Rowe says he appreciates Canadian participation in the North American Aerospace Defence Command, which observes and warns of potential incoming threats. He says he'd like even more co-operation and a bigger team working on missile defence.

When the Liberals were in power in Ottawa, they decided Canada should not participate. But during this year's election campaign, the Conservatives, who went on to form a minority government, promised to take another look at the idea.
source