Guarding the North

By John Heisler

I want you to imagine something for a moment. You're standing in Yellowknife on a February night when it's -40°C, looking north toward the Beaufort Sea. Somewhere out there, beneath the aurora, foreign submarines are probing the Northwest Passage. Russian bombers test our response times. Chinese research vessels map routes that could reshape global trade. And we're watching it happen with technology that, frankly, belongs in a museum.

Now here's the uncomfortable question: What if the solution to protecting Canadian Arctic sovereignty is sitting right now in the instrument landing system at Toronto Pearson?

The Problem We're Not Talking About

The Northwest Passage isn't some theoretical trade route anymore. Climate change has opened what was once impassable ice into navigable water for significant portions of the year. By 2050, some models suggest year-round shipping. That's not just about commerce—it's about control. Whoever dominates those sea lanes dominates Arctic geopolitics.

Canada claims the Northwest Passage as internal waters. Most of the world, including the United States, disagrees. And while we debate legal frameworks, other nations are building capabilities.

Here's what keeps me up at night: If we needed to demonstrate effective control of our Arctic territory tomorrow—not with lawyers, but with credible defensive capability—could we?

The ICBM Nobody Wants to Discuss

Look at that cross-section image above. That's the guts of American deterrence—the Minuteman III guidance system, soon to be replaced by the Sentinel. It's extraordinary engineering: gyro-stabilized platforms, radiation-hardened computers, thrust vector control that can place a warhead within meters of its target after traveling thousands of kilometers through space.

But strip away the nuclear payload and the Cold War psychology, and what are you really looking at?

A guidance system that can put an object exactly where you want it, regardless of weather, electromagnetic interference, or distance.

Sound familiar?

The Airport Connection

Every day, thousands of aircraft land in zero visibility using Instrument Landing Systems (ILS) and their newer cousins—Ground-Based Augmentation Systems (GBAS) and satellite-based approaches. These systems guide 200-ton aircraft through fog, snow, and crosswinds with margins of error measured in feet.

The technology is mature, modular, and—critically—civilian.

Here's the theoretical leap: What if we adapted automated landing technology to create a new class of precision-guided defensive systems specifically designed for Arctic deployment?

Not ICBMs. Not nuclear anything. But conventional defensive systems that could:

• Verify and enforce sovereignty over Canadian waters

• Respond to incursions with proportional, precise capability

• Operate reliably in extreme Arctic conditions

• Use civilian technology that doesn't violate arms treaties

Think about it: Airport ILS systems already operate in Canada's Arctic. We have the infrastructure, the know-how, and the technological foundation. What we lack is the imagination to repurpose it.

The Technical Reality

The Post-Boost Propulsion System (PBPS) that maneuvers Minuteman's payload bus uses hypergolic fuels for instant restart and micro-thrusters for attitude control. It's solving essentially the same problem as an aircraft on final approach: how do I get from Point A to Point B with precision, making continuous corrections for wind, weather, and environmental variables?

Airport guidance systems use:

• GPS/GNSS with differential correction (accuracy within centimeters)

• Ground-based pseudolites for GPS-denied environments

• Inertial reference systems for backup navigation

• Data fusion from multiple sensors for reliability

Now imagine scaling that up. Imagine guidance systems that could direct interceptors, drones, or conventional munitions with airport-landing precision across Arctic distances. Imagine deploying them from existing Canadian Forces bases, powered by modular systems that can be upgraded as civilian aviation technology advances.

The question becomes: Why are we spending billions to maintain aging systems when civilian aviation is solving the same guidance problems more efficiently every year?

The Northwest Passage Scenario

Let me paint a picture that's entirely plausible:

It's 2035. A foreign commercial vessel—let's call it what it is, a dual-use ship with military surveillance capabilities—enters what Canada claims as internal waters without permission. Our current options are limited: diplomatic protests, sending a patrol vessel (that takes days to arrive), or escalating to a level nobody wants.

But what if we had deployed defensive systems using adapted precision-guidance technology throughout the Arctic archipelago? Systems that could:

1. Track and identify any vessel or aircraft with airport-quality radar and sensors

2. Communicate warnings through automated systems

3. Deploy non-lethal deterrence with surgical precision

4. Escalate proportionally if needed, with conventional munitions guided by the same tech that lands planes in blizzards

The psychological effect alone changes the calculus. Sovereignty isn't just about what you claim—it's about what you can credibly enforce.

The Questions We Should Be Asking

This brings me to the uncomfortable part. As Canadians, we need to confront some hard truths:

1. Are we serious about Arctic sovereignty, or just performative?We love talking about "The True North Strong and Free," but are we willing to invest in actual capabilities? Or do we prefer symbolic patrol missions that don't change strategic realities?

2. Do we have the political courage to weaponize civilian technology?The line between dual-use and military-specific technology is already blurred. GPS was military before it was civilian. Jet engines. Internet. When does adapting proven civilian systems for defense become not just acceptable but necessary?

3. What's the real cost of doing nothing?Every year we delay, the Arctic becomes more accessible and more contested. At what point does "maintaining the peace" become "surrendering by default"?

4. Why are we letting perfect be the enemy of good?We won't match American or Russian military spending. But we could lead in precision, efficiency, and smart adaptation of existing technologies. Isn't that more Canadian anyway?

The Path Forward

Here's what I'm proposing, and I want you to really consider it:

A Canadian Arctic Defense Initiative built on civilian aviation guidance systems.

Phase 1: Adapt and ruggedize existing ILS/GBAS technology for Arctic conditions. We already do this for airports—extend it.

Phase 2: Integrate with surveillance systems across the archipelago. Create a sensor network using tech from airport surface detection equipment.

Phase 3: Develop modular defensive systems that can be guided with landing-system precision. Start with non-lethal deterrence, scale as needed.

Phase 4: Partner with allies who share Arctic interests (Norway, Finland, Iceland) to create interoperable systems.

The beauty of this approach? It's defensible internationally. We're not developing offensive weapons. We're adapting civilian technology to protect clearly defined Canadian territory. It's proportional, it's modern, and it leverages our actual strengths—technology, cold-weather expertise, and aviation excellence.

The Real Question

That Minuteman guidance system in the photo represents 1970s thinking applied to 21st-century problems. It's brilliant engineering, but it's also a philosophical dead-end—massive, inflexible, and optimized for a mission we pray never happens.

Meanwhile, every day, automated systems land planes with pinpoint accuracy in conditions that would have been impossible decades ago. That technology improves constantly, costs less, and is already proven in Arctic operations.

So here's my question for you: If we can guide a 737 through a Resolute Bay blizzard within a few feet of centerline, why can't we protect the Northwest Passage with the same precision?

The technology exists. The need is real. The only question is whether we have the vision—and the nerve—to make it happen.

What do you think? Am I proposing the future of Arctic defense, or have I been north of 60 too long?

Write to me at hello@icbmmagazine.ca. Let's have this debate. Because ready or not, the world is coming to our Arctic. The only question is whether we'll be ready for them.