What do you guys think of the Star Wars system?

[KrustyKidd]

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.

This, I assume is your main point?

Your point is valid but scince the threat of ICBMs as pointed out in your link can change withing five years most unknown to us, I see no reason to not go ahead with a program such as this.

Do you have costs and all for this program? I assume that it will cost a lot with much of the money going back into the economy as jobs and technology developments as well. Many of the develpments will have a winfall in the computor, space, transport and military sector. The whole world will benifit from this in those aspects.

You then spoke of Aliens and all forgetting that there are far more countries that could have the potential to launch ICBMs within five or ten years then there are Aliens. Matter of fact, there has been no verified recorded contact with aliens.

I know that the USA can do many things at once. They can do this as well as fight a war on terroism, provide aid, diplomacy as well as muscle. They can provide security internally as well as working on this, it does not mean that everything else falls by the wayside.

You feel that things will always be the same, you are wrong. Just the fact that they are working on it and it MAY be viable possibly minimizes attemps to try to develop ICBMs by countries. To me, I see nothing sinister in this.

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

I did. You have flimsy proof, give us something to sink our teeth into. If you are right there are lots of sites out there with stronger arguments that can give us the cost versus payoff.

[Stoker]

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.

In your opinion Black dog, after terrorism, what is the next biggest threat towards the United States, and by default Canada?

[KrustyKidd]

I know you didn't ask me Stoker, but if you did, I would note the fact that there is voter apathy in this country and that people begin retirement planning at age 18 thinking that for fifty years at a time, things will just be hunky dory.

That is frightening. All it takes is an event and the wrong person at the wrong time with the right message. All the Hobbits would lay down.

[Black Dog]

Your point is valid but scince the threat of ICBMs as pointed out in your link can change withing five years most unknown to us, I see no reason to not go ahead with a program such as this.

Well, there's certainly an argument to be made that a missile sheild would, in fact, accelerate proliferation, as countries (like China and Russia) step up production of weapons to overwhelm the sheild. Furthermore, in an era wher eteh U.S. has given itself carte blanche to pre-emptivly attack any nation it sees fit, it's not unreasonable to think that a missile sheild (if it indeed works) would be a cover for a nuclear strike, allowing the U.S. to attack other nuclear powers without fear of reprisal.

Do you have costs and all for this program? I assume that it will cost a lot with much of the money going back into the economy as jobs and technology developments as well. Many of the develpments will have a winfall in the computor, space, transport and military sector. The whole world will benifit from this in those aspects.

As of May 2004, the estimates for the program were $62.9 billion through 2009. That's up from the $47.2 billion that was projected last year. It's wholly possible (given the history of such projects) that costs could continue to climb and climb...(Also keep in mind that's $62 billion for a system that has yet to be shown to work under battlefield conditions.)

I know that the USA can do many things at once. They can do this as well as fight a war on terroism, provide aid, diplomacy as well as muscle. They can provide security internally as well as working on this, it does not mean that everything else falls by the wayside.

What's the current U.S. defecit?

You feel that things will always be the same, you are wrong. Just the fact that they are working on it and it MAY be viable possibly minimizes attemps to try to develop ICBMs by countries. To me, I see nothing sinister in this.

Or it could maximize the threat of proliferation. Or it could convince countries to develop other means of attacking the U.S. This program is opening doors that we'd probably want left closed.

In your opinion Black dog, after terrorism, what is the next biggest threat towards the United States, and by default Canada?

Creeping facism.

[Stoker]

Well, there's certainly an argument to be made that a missile sheild would, in fact, accelerate proliferation, as countries (like China and Russia) step up production of weapons to overwhelm the sheild. Furthermore, in an era wher eteh U.S. has given itself carte blanche to pre-emptivly attack any nation it sees fit, it's not unreasonable to think that a missile sheild (if it indeed works) would be a cover for a nuclear strike, allowing the U.S. to attack other nuclear powers without fear of reprisal.

As was mentioned before, Russia can't afford an arms race and China has been in one for quite some time already.

As for your second point, I'm glad you are finally starting to understand...........the best defence is a good offence

Or it could maximize the threat of proliferation. Or it could convince countries to develop other means of attacking the U.S. This program is opening doors that we'd probably want left closed.

Those "doors" will be opened regardless, so it's better to be prepaired for what on the other side.

Creeping facism.

Would you care to elaborate? You wouldn't be comparing the United States to Nazi Germany would you?

[caesar]

Or it could maximize the threat of proliferation. Or it could convince countries to develop other means of attacking the U.S. This program is opening doors that we'd probably want left closed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Those doors have already been opened; Internal terrorism attacks. That is where we need to concentrate our defense efforts and money on.

[Stoker]

Those doors have already been opened; Internal terrorism attacks. That is where we need to concentrate our defense efforts and money on.

Though I don't disagree that terrorism at this point in time is the largest threat towards the United States, that doesn't mean that the United States shouldn't prepare for the second largest threat posed towards them (rogue nation with ICBMs) and it doesn't mean that they shouldn't prepare for a potential future threat (Communist China).

I can manage Car insurance, House insurance and putting away money for Life insurance all at the same time (as I'm sure most here can also), so why do some think that the United States can't "juggle" three things (Well more then that) all at once?

[caesar]

", so why do some think that the United States can't "juggle" three things (Well more then that) all at once? "

______________________________________________

Lets get one thing done well before going off on a tangent elsewhere. Besides Bush has pretty much emptied out the piggy bank for this excursion in Iraq.

I have a impression that the USA may use the Canadian North to set up these systems then try to claim that land as their own. They are already attempting to claim Canadian territory east of Alaska; which is why Canada is now mapping to ensuring we keep the land and its resources that belong to Canada.

cn

[Stoker]

Lets get one thing done well before going off on a tangent elsewhere. Besides Bush has pretty much emptied out the piggy bank for this excursion in Iraq.

I think you maybe missing my point........the United States (unlike most nations) can "walk and chew gum" at the same time quite well.

I have a impression that the USA may use the Canadian North to set up these systems then try to claim that land as their own. They are already attempting to claim Canadian territory east of Alaska; which is why Canada is now mapping to ensuring we keep the land and its resources that belong to Canada.

The United States doesn't need Canadian soil for NMD........they already have the facilty set-up in Alaska.

As for your second point, that should be up to an international court to decide.......Of course we are going to say the mineral rights offshore are ours......just like the yanks are doing the same.....tis just a conflict of intrest..with that said, with cases like this, it would be helpful to have better realtions, if not an ear in the white house.

[Big Blue Machine]

Who's missles are we talking of using?

[idealisttotheend]

N Korea developing long range missiles says Jane's

I wonder if this will make the US more or less likely to attack N. Korea, them having missiles that can threaten the contenental US? I'm guessing less myself.

In any case I'm sure this will be used to argue for missile defence until the cows come home no matter the cost and relative effectiveness of the system.

[Big Blue Machine]

We might as well join the missle defence because we don't have a choice anyway.

[Alberta Socialist]

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???

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

So if scientists are so untrustworthy, why do you trust them to one day develop the ability to shoot bullets out of the air?

[Alberta Socialist]

As for your second point, I'm glad you are finally starting to understand...........the best defence is a good offence 

Which begs you to explain why 9/11 happened in the US, and not in, say, Canada.

[Alberta Socialist]

Sorry for the poor formatting of the posts/quotes. I'm new here and just figuring things out.

[Stoker]

So if scientists are so untrustworthy, why do you trust them to one day develop the ability to shoot bullets out of the air?

What do you mean "one day"? They have already done it (granted in controled circumstances for now) and are already starting to deploy it.

The Patriot system had a rockey start, but over time has progressed and in the recent gulf war, went nine for nine. I see no reason why the same progress can't be matched with the NMD interceptor.

Which begs you to explain why 9/11 happened in the US, and not in, say, Canada.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic.

[Alberta Socialist]

Which begs you to explain why 9/11 happened in the US, and not in, say, Canada.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow your logic.

Well, if a good offense truly is the best defence, one would expect that the nations which have been most active in bringing the fight to the enemy would in fact be the safest nations. The reverse seems to be true.

[KrustyKidd]

Which begs you to explain why 9/11 happened in the US, and not in, say, Canada.

Duh. We don't do anything meaningfiul. good or bad. When Cretien mispronounces the same word five times in the same sentence it goes unoticed and Bush has a sentence that makes perfect sense miscontrued even though the surrounding text makes the intent perfectly clear it might tell you a bit. We do nothing good or bad, no matter what our intent.

Seriously, we may as well live in the Alps and make cukkoo clocks for a living for all the effect we have on the world. Fortress Canada, until the shit hits the fan.

The facxt that we have a thread here and the whole non Canada portion of this forum is predominately about America should tell you a bit about why the US got hit and 'Whoville' didn't. When they want the Hobbits we will be here, ready for the taking.

[Alberta Socialist]

Duh.  We don't do anything meaningfiul. good or bad. 

[...]

Seriously, we may as well live in the Alps and make cukkoo clocks for a living for all the effect we have on the world.  Fortress Canada, until the shit hits the fan.

Rather than give in to the surety of the shit hitting the fan, why not instead try to prevent that scenario from occuring, rather than simply try to ensure that you get hit with the least possible splatter when it does occur?

The best defense is to not stir up the proverbial "shit", rather than to try and dodge it when it finally hits the fan.

[Stoker]

The best defense is to not stir up the proverbial "shit", rather than to try and dodge it when it finally hits the fan.

So if another person is the one doing the stirring, you would not want to try and dodge it?

[Alberta Socialist]

So if another person is the one doing the stirring, you would not want to try and dodge it?

In that hypothetical world, I suppose I would.

[Big Blue Machine]

Who's missles are we talking about?

[Black Dog]

What do you mean "one day"? They have already done it (granted in controled circumstances for now) and are already starting to deploy it.

Missile Defense "unproven": GAO

The report, by the General Accounting Office, said the eight flight intercepts attempted so far have been largely "repetitive and scripted," and that critical parts of the system have yet to be flight-tested together.

Construction of the system has been a high priority for the Bush administration, which is pursuing a series of anti-missile technologies with the aim of erecting a network of defenses to target warheads in various stages of flight. Funding for these projects has absorbed more research and development dollars than any other military program -- more, in fact, than the Army's entire R&D budget. The administration's request for fiscal 2005 tops $10 billion.

How does that compare to the counterterrorism funds?

In 2001 (after 9-11), a Senate committeeapproved the president's request for $8.3 billion for missile defense for the fiollowing fiscal year -- a $3 billion increase over te previous fiscal year's funding. Similarly, the House on approved $7.9 billion for missile defense as part of the $343 billion defense authorization bill.

In contrast (and keep in mind, this wasbefore the smoke had even cleared from the Twin towers), the Senate did give the President the authority to spend $1.3 billion of the money set aside for missile defense to combat terrorism and the House designated $400 million for anti-terrorism efforts. In all, Congress has approved about $6 billion for improved counter-terrorism efforts - a total amount that is substantially less than either chamber approved for missile defense.

Prior to 9-11, the DoD vetoed a request to divert $800 million from missile defense into counterterrorism.

So it seems the contention that money spent on missile defense is not coming at the expense of other defence priorities.

[idealisttotheend]

Looks like the Liberal women's caucus is going to give Martin large problem's if he wants to go ahead with missile defence.

Sun News Link

OTTAWA (CP) - If he signs on to the U.S. missile-defence plan Prime Minister Paul Martin may trigger the ire of a vocal and ardent contingent of critics within his own party: Liberal women.

Several women attending the government's annual caucus retreat painted a portrait of near-unanimity among female Liberal MPs against the U.S. military project.

The head of the Liberal women's caucus was coy when asked whether any members of her group supported the missile plan.

"If so, nobody's said so," Winnipeg MP Anita Neville replied Tuesday before the group met with the prime minister.

"But many feel very strongly about it -that we did the right thing in Iraq and that (abstaining from missile defence) is the right thing to do here."

The missile-defence issue heated up this summer, with the clock winding down before the U.S.'s fall deadline for inaugurating the first phase of the plan -a pair of launch sites in Alaska and California.

A top Ontario MP said the federal government should immediately turn its back on the project and that Liberal women should help lobby to make it happen.

"Do I believe that's something that women should unite about . . . ? Yes," said Sarmite Bulte, head of the federal Liberals' Ontario caucus.

Interesting. Will the left wing in the Liberal party break down to a women -- men split? At least we still have one party that has discussions amongst itself.

Globe story

A blunt-speaking Mr. Layton said after his meeting that the New Democrats will continue to loudly oppose the missile project.

"We intend to press this issue very hard," Mr. Layton said. "The Prime Minister understood that we would be doing that."

Asked whether he would push forward a non-confidence motion to bring down the government should Mr. Martin agree to back the plan, Mr. Layton shied away from providing a direct answer.

Both the NDP and the Bloc Québécois oppose the idea of supporting the military plan. However, the Conservatives are more likely to support it, meaning it might be difficult to bring the government down over the idea.

Looks like the NDP and Bloc aren't going to support missile defence and this seems to be the big issue for Mr. Layton (which I find strange).

Nevertheless, I will go out on a limb and say I don't think that the federal government will get the necessary support to push this through, (Martin still has a fractured party and will, or should, avoid irrantants). So much for kissing butt to the US military industrial complex in order to fix our trade problems.

[Stoker]

So it seems the contention that money spent on missile defense is not coming at the expense of other defence priorities.

What other defence priorities? The United States Navy is retiring a class of Destroyers slightly earlier and will most likely see a reduction in their SSN fleer and their new Stealth Destroyers. The Air Force will see a reduction in it's F/A-22 Raptor purchase. The Army cancelled the Crusader field gun. The USMC was forced to find cost savings in rebuilding their Huey fleet instead of purchasing a new fleet of Helicopters.

Now a single SSN is in the ballpark of 2.5 billion dollars, the new Destroyers over 1.5 billion per, F-22 Raptor well over 150 million per......etc

So could the case be made that perhaps additional funding for NMD is coming at the expense of certain conventional weapons systems and opposed to counter terrorism?

Interesting. Will the left wing in the Liberal party break down to a women -- men split? At least we still have one party that has discussions amongst itself.

I wonder if teamed with the Tories, what the number of male voters within the Grits would be?

Nevertheless, I will go out on a limb and say I don't think that the federal government will get the necessary support to push this through, (Martin still has a fractured party and will, or should, avoid irrantants). So much for kissing butt to the US military industrial complex in order to fix our trade problems.

How thick is that limb?