What do you guys think of the Star Wars system?

[Stoker]

*bangs head against desk* You asked (several times): "Why would North korea build nukes (the unspoken portion being"...if they don't intend to use them?")

The answer is: as a deterrent. ABM or nor ABM: its irrelevant to the question.

And who is it a deterrent against?

Which brings me back again to the idea that, just because North Korea (or anyone else) has nukes, that doesn't mean they'll use them. With nukes, the threat of them is usually sufficient.

Are North Korean ICBMs still a threat to us if we have ABM defence?

[Black Dog]

Are North Korean ICBMs still a threat to us if we have ABM defence?

Are they a threat if "we" don't have it? Even if ABM goes ahead, its effectiveness is still in question. Such a system is impractical beyond belief, as well as being diporportionatley expensive (that is: the cost far exceeds the threat its supopssed to guard against).

ABM is the new Maginot line. If some countery really has it in mind to turn a major U.S. city into a glass parking lot, they'll find a way, and they'll do so in a manner which ensures their own nation doesn't get wiped out in response.

[Stoker]

Are they a threat if "we" don't have it? Even if ABM goes ahead, its effectiveness is still in question. Such a system is impractical beyond belief, as well as being diporportionatley expensive (that is: the cost far exceeds the threat its supopssed to guard against).

Yes, they are a threat. As for cost, thats the nature of the beast.......still doesn't change anything.

ABM is the new Maginot line. If some countery really has it in mind to turn a major U.S. city into a glass parking lot, they'll find a way, and they'll do so in a manner which ensures their own nation doesn't get wiped out in response.

The Maginot line would have worked if the German's had of attacked it........just like ABM defence will work if the United States is attacked by ICBMs.......as I've said many times, the ABM defence is designed to defend against ICBMs, and ICBMs are still being built all over the world.

Now if ICBMs were not being built, and everbody was taking their old ones apart, then you might have a point

[Black Dog]

The Maginot line would have worked if the German's had of attacked it........just like ABM defence will work if the United States is attacked by ICBMs.......as I've said many times, the ABM defence is designed to defend against ICBMs, and ICBMs are still being built all over the world.

The U.S. faced a very real ICBM threat from the Soviet's for almost 40 years. Yet, despite the absence of a missile sheild, the two never came to an exchange. Surely there's a lesson there?

We can argue the philosophical merits of a missile sheild till the cows come home. But ABM fails to pass the basic cost-benefit test.

Basically: the absence of a realistic ICBM threat, combined with the extremely prohibitive costs of such a program and the simple matter of it failing to perform its assigned task means that the missile shield is not worth pursuing.

[Stoker]

Basically: the absence of a realistic ICBM threat, combined with the extremely prohibitive costs of such a program and the simple matter of it failing to perform its assigned task means that the missile shield is not worth pursuing.

.......but it is being pursued by coutries in Europe, Asia, Australia and North America......but as you said, we could argue until the cows come home.......I guess this is just a case of the NDP knowing best

[Black Dog]

.......but it is being pursued by coutries in Europe, Asia, Australia and North America......

If ever anything's called for a "And if they jumped off a bridge, would you?" response, it's this. Seriously, is that the best counter argument you can muster?

I know Japan and Australia are looking into it. I've heard nothing about anyone else.

I guess this is just a case of the NDP knowing best

Yeah, those damn pinkos with their fiscal responsibility and their respect for international treaties! *shakes fist*

[Stoker]

If ever anything's called for a "And if they jumped off a bridge, would you?" response, it's this. Seriously, is that the best counter argument you can muster?

I know Japan and Australia are looking into it. I've heard nothing about anyone else.

No, it's called giving you an out. I've stated why Japan, OZ, the UK, the US and Canada are developing ABM defence and reponded to all of your arguments against it..........who's the first one to bring up the cows coming home? If you want to contiune be my guest.

The U.S. faced a very real ICBM threat from the Soviet's for almost 40 years. Yet, despite the absence of a missile sheild, the two never came to an exchange. Surely there's a lesson there?

What was one of the factors that caused the Soviet Union to fail? *Whispers* The threat of Star Wars........

But we could go further........Unlike crazy Kim or some Bass-Aackwards Islamic state, the Soviet Union had something worth losing in a nuclear exchange.

[Black Dog]

No, it's called giving you an out. I've stated why Japan, OZ, the UK, the US and Canada are developing ABM defence and reponded to all of your arguments against it..........

But you haven't addressed the cost (you dismissed it as being par for the course) the fact that it doesn't work, the fact that it violates important international treaties (notably the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty) and the fact it's a disproportionate response to curent threats.

What was one of the factors that caused the Soviet Union to fail? *Whispers* The threat of Star Wars........

BZZZT! WRONG! I've already shot down the myth that military spending felled the Soviet Union (it was the inherent instability and unsustainability of the state system).

........Unlike crazy Kim or some Bass-Aackwards Islamic state, the Soviet Union had something worth losing in a nuclear exchange.

Ah here we go. When in doubt, simply assume the "enemy" will behave in an utterly irrational and unprecedented way. As I've already pointed out most, if not all, states (in particular dictatorships especially ones based on cults of personality like North Korea's Dear Leader) are predominately concerned with their own survival and hanging on to power. So they do, in fact, have something to lose. (I can't imagine a Islamic fundamentalist regime seizing power in, say, Pakistan: "Alright boys, we're finally in charge: now let's commit mass suicide!")

Furthermore, even if one does assume that these countries have a big enough hate-on for the U.S, there's plenty of ways they can strike that don't involve direct military confrontation or nuclear exchange.

[Stoker]

But you haven't addressed the cost (you dismissed it as being par for the course) the fact that it doesn't work, the fact that it violates important international treaties (notably the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty) and the fact it's a disproportionate response to curent threats.

1. What would the cost be like compared to a North Korean ICBM destroying Los Angles or Vancouver?

2. Who says it won't work? Like all technology it does need further development

3. The ABM Treaty was signed between the United States and Soviet Union......the Soviet Union no longer exists.......regardless, any form of the currnetly proposed defence system is not a threat towards Russia or China.

4. Syria, Iran, and North Korea (to name a few) you claim don't pose a threat towards you, but both the Democrats and Republicans, the Conservatives and Liberals seem to think they do

BZZZT! WRONG! I've already shot down the myth that military spending felled the Soviet Union (it was the inherent instability and unsustainability of the state system).

No you didn't, you found a couple of quotes that clamied other wise, no proof there

Ah here we go. When in doubt, simply assume the "enemy" will behave in an utterly irrational and unprecedented way. As I've already pointed out most, if not all, states (in particular dictatorships especially ones based on cults of personality like North Korea's Dear Leader) are predominately concerned with their own survival and hanging on to power. So they do, in fact, have something to lose. (I can't imagine a Islamic fundamentalist regime seizing power in, say, Pakistan: "Alright boys, we're finally in charge: now let's commit mass suicide!")

Again, you might not think of them as threats, but both national parties within Canada and the United States do.......whats your/the NDP's credentials to prove other wise?

[Black Dog]

1. What would the cost be like compared to a North Korean ICBM destroying Los Angles or Vancouver?

Alarmist nonsense.

2. Who says it won't work? Like all technology it does need further development

In the words of the American Physical Society' report on ABM technology (BTW, they are the world's largest organization of physicists):

Given the results that follow from our assumptions, we conclude that while the boost phase technologies we studied are potentially capable of defending the United States against liquid-propellant ICBMs at certain ranges of interest, at least in the absence of counter-measures, when all factors are considered none of the boost-phase defense concepts studied would be viable for the foreseeable future to defend the nation against even first-generation solid-propellant ICBMs

How much money are you wiling to sink into a pipe dream?

3. The ABM Treaty was signed between the United States and Soviet Union......the Soviet Union no longer exists.......regardless, any form of the currnetly proposed defence system is not a threat towards Russia or China

The treaty applied to Russia. the U.S. abrogated it anyway.

4. Syria, Iran, and North Korea (to name a few) you claim don't pose a threat towards you, but both the Democrats and Republicans, the Conservatives and Liberals seem to think they do

And political parties are never motivated by factors other than national security, eh? Surely the enormous influence of the military industrial comlex weilds in the American political process has no bearing at all on this program...

Again, you might not think of them as threats, but both national parties within Canada and the United States do.......whats your/the NDP's credentials to prove other wise?

Common frigging sense.

[August1991]

But BD, the Americans (at least under Bush) seem all hellbent to spend their money on this. Should we just stand by and watch? Or should we neogtiate a place at the table by giving access to our territory? (No Canadian money would go into the scheme.)

Or, BD, do you object on principle? (The current proposal does not mean putting nuclear weapons in space.)

[Black Dog]

But BD, the Americans (at least under Bush) seem all hellbent to spend their money on this. Should we just stand by and watch? Or should we neogtiate a place at the table by giving access to our territory? (No Canadian money would go into the scheme.)

Or, BD, do you object on principle? (The current proposal does not mean putting nuclear weapons in space

I object on the principle that it's a waste of money: corporate welfare for Boeing or Rayethon, Pentagon pork barrelling.

Canada shouldn't touch this with a ten foot pole.

[Stoker]

Alarmist nonsense

So you are 100% sure that there is no threat posed towards the United States from ICBMs? Please explain, and if you could, provide some form of proof.

In the words of the American Physical Society' report on ABM technology (BTW, they are the world's largest organization of physicists):

Didn't Scientists once think the world was flat and that thalidomide was a good thing during pregnancy?

And political parties are never motivated by factors other than national security, eh? Surely the enormous influence of the military industrial comlex weilds in the American political process has no bearing at all on this program...

Whats wrong with "fringe benefits"? I'm sure the workers at Boeing are organized if thats your problem......Whats wrong with making the country safe, and at the same time make shareholders rich and have people working? I thought the NDP loved Pork?

Common frigging sense

Guess you could also use that as the reason that the NDP has never formed a federal government eh?

But BD, the Americans (at least under Bush) seem all hellbent to spend their money on this. Should we just stand by and watch? Or should we neogtiate a place at the table by giving access to our territory? (No Canadian money would go into the scheme.)

Or, BD, do you object on principle? (The current proposal does not mean putting nuclear weapons in space.)

The Americans don't want one bloody thing from us other then our "support" for the program, much like they wanted "support" during the Iraq war.....I haven't even heard of them needing our land.......Is the World going to come to a thundering halt if Canada gives it's Ceaser like thumbs up to National Missile Defence???

[Black Dog]

So you are 100% sure that there is no threat posed towards the United States from ICBMs? Please explain, and if you could, provide some form of proof.

Not 100 per cent, as only a fool speaks with that amount of certainty. But I can say that the threat posed to the U.S. by ICBMs is small compared to other potential threats. Again: on a cost-benefit basis, ABM defence is simply not worth it.

Didn't Scientists once think the world was flat and that thalidomide was a good thing during pregnancy?

Whats wrong with "fringe benefits"? I'm sure the workers at Boeing are organized if thats your problem......Whats wrong with making the country safe, and at the same time make shareholders rich and have people working? I thought the NDP loved Pork?

Let's see...tax money being funnelleled into an overpriced program of dubious value that benefits a small minority (yer average assembly-line worker at the Boeing plant doesn't make an extra dime no matter how many fat Pentagon contracts the company gets): yup, that's the G.O.P free-market in action.

Guess you could also use that as the reason that the NDP has never formed a federal government eh?

You should stick to your self-rationalizing, fallacious arguments. Even those were superior to this sort of drivel.

The Americans don't want one bloody thing from us other then our "support" for the program, much like they wanted "support" during the Iraq war.....I haven't even heard of them needing our land.......Is the World going to come to a thundering halt if Canada gives it's Ceaser like thumbs up to National Missile Defence???

Support means a lot of differnt things. It could mean one's blessing. or it could mean money, manpower, planting missiles on Canadian soil...anything.

[Stoker]

Not 100 per cent, as only a fool speaks with that amount of certainty. But I can say that the threat posed to the U.S. by ICBMs is small compared to other potential threats. Again: on a cost-benefit basis, ABM defence is simply not worth it.

Name some other "potential threats"........What Terrorism? I applaud Bush (and Clinton before him ) for realizing that there are numerous threats directed towards the United States, of which ICBMs are very much a part.........so let's have some of the other "threats".

Let's see...tax money being funnelleled into an overpriced program of dubious value that benefits a small minority (yer average assembly-line worker at the Boeing plant doesn't make an extra dime no matter how many fat Pentagon contracts the company gets): yup, that's the G.O.P free-market in action.

Define "small minority"? Would you call the Western Seaboard a "small minority" that could benefit from NMD?

Support means a lot of differnt things. It could mean one's blessing. or it could mean money, manpower, planting missiles on Canadian soil...anything.

Has the United States asked for anything more then our "blessing"?

[Black Dog]

Name some other "potential threats"........What Terrorism? I applaud Bush (and Clinton before him  ) for realizing that there are numerous threats directed towards the United States, of which ICBMs are very much a part.........so let's have some of the other "threats".

Terrorism/asymetrical warfare is obviously the main threat. ICBM's are a threat, but then so are asteroids from outer space: "potential" and "likely" are too differnt things. I don't think spending billions on a vague thereat when there are specific threats or other needs worth adressing is good value.

Define "small minority"? Would you call the Western Seaboard a "small minority" that could benefit from NMD?

First: Boeing's shareholders, f'r instance.

Second: no, because, as I already pointed out (numerous times) missile defense is not a viable means of defense.

Has the United States asked for anything more then our "blessing"?

Not yet, anyway.

[Stoker]

Terrorism/asymetrical warfare is obviously the main threat. ICBM's are a threat, but then so are asteroids from outer space: "potential" and "likely" are too differnt things. I don't think spending billions on a vague thereat when there are specific threats or other needs worth adressing is good value.

If Terrorism is the main threat, (And I agree) what is the second largest threat? And shouldn't the second largest threat be defended against?

[Black Dog]

If Terrorism is the main threat, (And I agree) what is the second largest threat? And shouldn't the second largest threat be defended against?

With a system that would not be viable for the foreseeable future? Why not simply build a big wall made of $10 bills over the western seaboard in hopes of deflecting ICBM's? It would be no more expensive and probably equally effective as a missile sheild.

See, the problem is, you assume all things are equal. That North Korean or others' ICBMs are serious enough threats to justify the cost. That the cost is just par for the course. And that all the technological issues will just work themselves out. It's an awful lot to take on faith.

[Stoker]

See, the problem is, you assume all things are equal. That North Korean or others' ICBMs are serious enough threats to justify the cost. That the cost is just par for the course. And that all the technological issues will just work themselves out. It's an awful lot to take on faith.

What system/idea has the best chance of stopping a ICBM launched at North America? The Current proposal or your's? Something or nothing is the real question I guess....

[Black Dog]

What system/idea has the best chance of stopping a ICBM launched at North America? The Current proposal or your's? Something or nothing is the real question I guess....

But does that "something" have to be a missile sheild? Would it be cheaper and more effective to stop ICBM's before they're launched? Or better yet, ensure they aren't built in the first place?

BTW, here's an interesting assessment of the threat of ballistic missiles.

The Declining Ballistic Missile Threat

"U.S. territory is more likely to be attacked with [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] materials from nonmissile delivery means-most likely from terrorists-than by missiles, primarily because nonmissile delivery means are less costly, easier to acquire, and more reliable and accurate. They can also be used without attribution."

Iran

Iran's "Shahab-3" program (a missile largely based on and perhaps nothing more than a North Korean No Dong missile) has progressed in fits and starts. The missile blew up in two of its three tests in 1998 and 2000, though a recent test in May appears to have been successful. The latest test in July 2002 failed. The 2001 NIE notes "All agencies agree that Iran could attempt to launch an ICBM/SLV about mid-decade, although most agencies believe Iran is likely to take until the last half of the decade to do so. One agency further judges that Iran is unlikely to achieve a successful test of an ICBM before 2015."

North Korea

North Korea has had only two missile flight-tests in the past ten years, one of a No Dong in 1993 and one of a Taepadong-1 in 1998. North Korea is observing a self-declared moratorium on missile tests through 2003.

North Korea is the most serious case of a potential new threat. It may be able to test a Taepodong-2 missile that could approach ICBM ranges, but it would require a third stage to be able to deliver a payload to the continental United States. The capability, reliability, and payload of such a missile are highly speculative.

Unclassified photos of the North Korean test facilities revealed what many analysts have long concluded: the missile program is primitive by world standards, not capable of sustaining multiple launches of missiles, and of limited military utility. North Korea, increasingly eager to open normal trade relations with the West, and desirous of food and energy assistance seems be willing to suspend a dubious program for real material gain.

Thus, the most accurate way to summarize existing global ballistic missile threat is:

(1) There is a widespread capability to launch short-range missiles.

(2) There is a slowly growing, but still limited, capability to launch medium-range missiles.

(3) Most importantly, there is a decreasing number of long-range missiles from the levels of the Cold War and this number will continue to decline dramatically over the next fifteen years.

(4) There is some possibility that one or two new nations could acquire a very limited capability to launch long-range missiles over the next two decades.

(5) The likelihood of any nation attacking the United States or Europe with a ballistic missile is exceptionally low.

In short, the ballistic missile threat today is confined, limited and changing relatively slowly. There is every reason to believe that it can be addressed through diplomacy and measured military preparedness. Officials during any year of the Cold War would have gladly traded today's threat for the dangers they confronted.

[Stoker]

But does that "something" have to be a missile sheild? Would it be cheaper and more effective to stop ICBM's before they're launched? Or better yet, ensure they aren't built in the first place?

I agree, those would be my first choice, but in doing so, it's prudent to have an option to fall back on (ie NMD).

[KrustyKidd]

Would it be cheaper and more effective to stop ICBM's before they're launched? Or better yet, ensure they aren't built in the first place?

Right on! Good idea. We can incade Iraq, install a democracy and support it so that they can spread freedom and such across the Middle East through trade and social exchanges that are bound to occur. In the meantime, just in case North Korea makes it past 2003 and into 2010 and on and on along with other countries that have not yet come to be able to produce weapons that may become a threat, we can have a MDS. The more protection for my kid, the better I like it.

North Korea has had only two missile flight-tests in the past ten years, one of a No Dong in 1993 and one of a Taepadong-1 in 1998. North Korea is observing a self-declared moratorium on missile tests through 2003.

Politics is fluid, alliances change through the years. Friends become enemies and enemies become friends. You cite NK and others who may, in the next decade become the greatest of buds with the US and places like Pakistan and Russia may become enemies. Nobody knows the future. The SDI is a possibility and can become a viable psossibility for defence.

In the first or second post I put up an artilce of the X Prize. It hailed the first venture into outer space by a private enterprise carrying passengers. The technology and opportunity to have an idividual company make it's own ballistic weapon is there and will certainly grow in the future. A threat need not be only from a country They hijacked planes .........

[Black Dog]

Right on! Good idea. We can incade Iraq, install a democracy and support it so that they can spread freedom and such across the Middle East through trade and social exchanges that are bound to occur. In the meantime, just in case North Korea makes it past 2003 and into 2010 and on and on along with other countries that have not yet come to be able to produce weapons that may become a threat, we can have a MDS. The more protection for my kid, the better I like it.

Iraq had no ICBM or even viable mid-range missile program, let alone nukes.

Again: read the analyisis I linked to.

Nobody knows the future. The SDI is a possibility and can become a viable psossibility for defence.

There's also nothing tosay we won't be invaded by malevolant aliens withing a few years. Shall we begin work on our Anti-Alien Defense Initiative (AADI)?

I've pointed out that missile defense is not technologically viable. I've also indicated the threats posed by ICBM's are waning. In other words: it's a wasteful and pointless venture.

[KrustyKidd]

The Declining Ballistic Missile Threat

That's your link Black Dog. And here are some quotes from it;

Many experts and officials view ballistic missiles as a particularly menacing, difficult to detect, and rapidly proliferating technology.

That certainly sounds like somethng worth protecting against, wouldn't you?

You said

Again: read the analyisis I linked to.

I did, and it blew your argument out of the water.

"With the external help now readily available, a nation with a well-developed, Scud-based ballistic missile infrastructure would be able to achieve first flight of a long range missile, up to and including intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) range (greater than 5,500 km), within about five years of deciding to do so. During several of those years the U.S. might not be aware that such a decision had been made."

During several of those years the U.S. might not be aware that such a decision had been made.

Wow, does that sound like something not worth protecting against? If that doesn't make you wake up and smell something you are out to lunch.

I've pointed out that missile defense is not technologically viable.

No, you pointed out that you THINK it is not viable.

I've also indicated the threats posed by ICBM's are waning.

Good! That should make SDI much less challenging to work against threats then wouldn't it? And you said it wan't viable.

In other words: it's a wasteful and pointless venture.

If that were your opening statement, I would ask for proof. As it seems to be your closing, your argument does not even reach the 'SISSY' level on the 'Ol' Arguementer.'

Please report back when you have somethig to support your contention.

[Black Dog]

Many experts and officials view ballistic missiles as a particularly menacing, difficult to detect, and rapidly proliferating technology.

Once again:

In short, the ballistic missile threat today is confined, limited and changing relatively slowly. There is every reason to believe that it can be addressed through diplomacy and measured military preparedness. Officials during any year of the Cold War would have gladly traded today's threat for the dangers they confronted.

During several of those years the U.S. might not be aware that such a decision had been made.

Wow, does that sound like something not worth protecting against? If that doesn't make you wake up and smell something you are out to lunch.

Again, context eludes you:

Thus, even with the inclusion of U.S. allies India and Pakistan the recent NIEs highlight the limited nature of the missile proliferation threat, one that is confined to a few countries whose political evolution will be a determining factor in whether they remain threats to global security.

Nor have these programs advanced as quickly as predicted by the worst-case assessments that came to dominate U.S. policy on missile proliferation and missile defense.

...

The report concluded that Iran and North Korea had decided to do so: "The extraordinary level of resources North Korea and Iran are now devoting to developing their own ballistic missile capabilities poses a substantial and immediate danger to the U.S." The commissioner said, "Each of these nations places a high priority on threatening U.S. territory, and each is even now pursuing advanced ballistic missile capabilities to pose a direct threat to U.S. territory." However, five years later, neither country has achieved first flight of an ICBM.

No, you pointed out that you THINK it is not viable.

Technical Realities: An Analysis of the 2004 Deployment of a U.S. National Missile Defense System.

The ballistic missile defense system that the United States will deploy later this year will have no demonstrated defensive capability and will be ineffective against a real attack by long-range ballistic missiles. The administration's claims that the system will be reliable and highly effective are irresponsible exaggerations. There is no technical justification for deployment of the system, nor are there sound reasons to procure and deploy additional interceptors.

Good! That should make SDI much less challenging to work against threats then wouldn't it? And you said it wan't viable.

Once again (since apparently such a simple concept is impossible for some to grasp), when viewed from a cost-benefit perspectiove, missile defense is not a viable solution.

If that were your opening statement, I would ask for proof. As it seems to be your closing, your argument does not even reach the 'SISSY' level on the 'Ol' Arguementer.'

Please report back when you have somethig to support your contention.

Read the thread to date. I've been treading over the same ground with Stoker, and I'm not about to start with you.