I'm not an expert on detailed capabilities of the United States in the Arctic, but what I do understand is that both the United States and Canada share the same difficulties, share the same problems of investing resources and where to invest those resources, and share the same interests with regard to the Arctic in overwhelming terms.
It seems to me that when you talk about defending Canadian interests, I always find it very interesting and I think it should be important that everyone should remember that Radarsat, until the last year, two years at most, was never considered a national security asset, period. It's an interesting dynamic of why suddenly we think it's a national security asset.
But in terms of American capability, given the nature of our common interests over knowing what's up there, being able to monitor movement of vessels up there, etc., I think there's much more to be benefited by cooperating with the United States, given the costs of operating there by both parties, than trying to point fingers at each other, saying “You're going to threaten me here and I'm going to threaten you there”. In part, this is what's happening with this debate, it seems to me.