Layton Strikes While Iron Is Hot

[Choke]

You say that as if it's a bad thing.

[maplesyrup]

- from Globe and Mail

Do you feel that Canada should participate in the U.S. ballistic missile defence program?

Yes 

  1305 votes    (19 %)

No 

  5649 votes    (81 %)

Total Votes: 6954

Now we at least know why PM Martin is shit scared of BMD.

[Choke]

Why do you think Martin supports it? Do you think he's Bush's puppet? Why then aren't we sending troops to Iraq? Wouldn't that be as supposedly unpopular as BMD?

[maplesyrup]

Martin takes heat on missile defence

Bush has put the cat amongst the pigeons:

Stephen Harper wants BND and is on the wrong side of the issue as usual.

PM Martin wants BMD and is on the wrong side of the issue as well.

Jack Layton doesn't want BMD, and over 80% of Canadians agree with the New Democrat position.

PM Martin can pass BMD with the support of Harper but guess who is going to be benefiting come next election?

I'm kinda glad Bush came to town after all!

[Choke]

Harper isn't so sure about it either apparently.

http://www.politicswatch.com/harper-dec2-2004.htm

When Harper questioned Martin for saying he had not yet seen the missile defence plan from the U.S., the PM used the opportunity to accuse Harper of flip-flopping on missile defence himself.

[Choke]

From the article you posted:

The system already uses detection devices in space orbit to locate enemy missiles. Ottawa in August approved the use of these orbiting sensors, which are part of the Canada-U.S. North American Aerospace Defence Command.

But in its present limited configuration, the system's interceptor rockets, intended to destroy incoming missiles, are ground-based.

That's the only difference, the interceptors are ground-based. Wouldn't it be better to have a system that could end the threat of nuclear war forever? This could make the worst weapons of mass destruction ever known to mankind irrelevant.

The United States, Canada and other allies have used space for military purposes for many years. Satellites, for example, are used for warship navigation and communication between military units.

So, it's already happened and yet the world hasn't come to an end. Other countries don't like it because they don't want to spend the money, but I think a guarantee that nukes won't be used in war is worth it.

[Black Dog]

What's his IQ? What's Martin's? What's Harper's? What's Duceppe's? If you want to claim he's the smartest, back it up.

I think mabye Layton should be prosecuted for hate crimes against Americans.

You say that as if (fascism)'s a bad thing.

That's the only difference, the interceptors are ground-based. Wouldn't it be better to have a system that could end the threat of nuclear war forever? This could make the worst weapons of mass destruction ever known to mankind irrelevant

The only way to end the threat of nuclear war is to dismantle existing nuclear weapons. Not build new ones.

[Choke]

The only way to end the threat of nuclear war is to dismantle existing nuclear weapons. Not build new ones.

These aren't new nukes though, these are anti-nuke defensive weapons. Do you object to soldiers wearing helmets too?

[Black Dog]

The only way to end the threat of nuclear war is to dismantle existing nuclear weapons. Not build new ones.

These aren't new nukes though, these are anti-nuke defensive weapons. Do you object to soldiers wearing helmets too?

Use your head: Russia has already announced it's developing nukes to counteract the missile sheild. So the missile sheild is already spurring a new arms race.

[Guest eureka]

I don't think the measurements are designed for beliw 25 - bottom of the idiot scale. So Layton is the only one that scores.

Just listen to them talk and you will know. But listen if you can with your prejudices on hold.

[maplesyrup]

As sure as BJ = sexual relations (contrary to Clinton's assertion) it sounds like BMD = Weapons in Space (contrary to Martin's assertion).  -- Space & Technology Editor

There is no question this is going to be a very difficult hole to get out of, that the Liberals have dug for themselves.

[maplesyrup]

PM: No plans for space-based weapons

[maplesyrup]

Space Based Laser

As Paul Wells says: Who's the client?

[Stoker]

National Missile Defense

The NMD system would be a fixed, land-based, non-nuclear missile defense system with a space-based detection system, consisting of five elements:

Ground Based Interceptors (GBIs)

Battle Management, Command, Control, and Communications (BMC3), which includes:

Battle Management, Command, and Control (BMC2), and

In-Flight Interceptor Communications System (IFICS)

X-Band Radars (XBRs)

Upgraded Early Warning Radar (UEWR)

Defense Support Program satellites/Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS)

The pros take....

Current US plans call for a limited, ground- and sea-based system employing six interceptors starting in 2004 and up to forty interceptors by 2005. Interceptors destroy their targets by making physical contact with them at extremely high rates of speed. The term "using a bullet to hit another bullet" has been used colloquially to describe ballistic missile defence.

Current US plans do not call for interceptors to be armed with either nuclear or conventional explosive warheads. Moreover, unlike the Reagan administration's Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, current US plans for ballistic missile defence are intended to defeat only a small number of incoming missiles and are based on existing and evolving technology.

‘First Light’ for airborne laser weapon

[Stoker]

Better to be inside shield than left out

With Bush re-elected, the U.S. government will move on this issue, and Canada has nothing to gain by continuing to play ostrich. Admittedly, there are many skeptics in this country. But let's look at some of the thinking as to why co-operation with the U.S. might not be a good idea. Can we find any principled - as opposed to mere sneering - opposition?

There are those who oppose participation on the ground interceptor missiles can't work. But isn't that like saying in 1935 nobody should contemplate putting a man on the moon, because that would be impossible? At any rate, it's not principled opposition.

As a matter of principle, some oppose the missile shield because they are against the militarization of space. But this proposal does not entail weapons in orbit. Airspace, as oppose to airless space, has been militarized since the days of Billy Bishop and the Red Baron.

........Again, layton's talking out of his arse......he should be the one saying he's sorry for misleading the Canadian public on BMD.

[Choke]

So the missile sheild is already spurring a new arms race.

I think arms races are a good thing, they cause technology, that can later be used for humanitarian purposes, to be developed at astonishing rates.

Just listen to them talk and you will know. But listen if you can with your prejudices on hold.

I tried, and I wanted to like Layton, I wanted him to be a smart, realistic guy...I WISH the NDP could find a leader that would bring them a chance of winning, but he's none of those things. He is consistantly NOT funny compared to the other party leaders, even Duceppe who uses English better than Layton does.

[Guest eureka]

I assume that you mean reviving an extinct humanity after all the bombs have gone off.

[kimmy]

So the missile sheild is already spurring a new arms race.

I think arms races are a good thing, they cause technology, that can later be used for humanitarian purposes, to be developed at astonishing rates.

Well...

World War II spurred advances in aviation that were later of great benefit to the civilian aviation industry. Military communications technology has found its way into the civilian telecommunications industry.

But I'm not sure how a missile/anti-missile arms-race is really going to be of much benefit to the populace as a whole. Is there a civilian ballistic missile industry out there that I'm not aware of? I'm not really sure how you and I will benefit that much from all this research into building a better missile. I think the primary beneficiaries of this research will be the companies contracted.

Aside from the political ramifications, I think the idea of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a defense against missiles is dubious logic for an obvious reason, one that's already been made apparent by Mr Putin. Build a better lock, and somebody will device a better set of lockpicks. Putin has already announced plans to develop missiles that will be difficult to intercept.

Here's a thought...

Cruise missile technology is already well-known.

Stealth aircraft technology is already well-known.

And research into "scramjet" engines has the promise of delivering jet propulsion at speeds well over Mach 10.

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet#Scra...mjet_programmes )

Suppose somebody combined the 3 to give a low-flying. hard-to-detect guided missile which would approach targets very rapidly and give a very narrow window of opportunity for interception? What then? Does the US go spend another trillion dollars developing a new shield against this sort of a threat?

-kimmy

[Choke]

I assume that you mean reviving an extinct humanity after all the bombs have gone off.

Do you remember the last time an atomic weapon was used in aggression? It's 60 years this coming August. With all the massive stockpiles available to use, you'd think someone would have...but not even North Korea will. Every country knows that using these weapons would mean their own complete destruction, that won't change.

But I'm not sure how a missile/anti-missile arms-race is really going to be of much benefit to the populace as a whole.

Aside from the political ramifications, I think the idea of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a defense against missiles is dubious logic for an obvious reason, one that's already been made apparent by Mr Putin. Build a better lock, and somebody will device a better set of lockpicks. Putin has already announced plans to develop missiles that will be difficult to intercept.

It's this kind of attitude that would have rejected man developing basic tools because they could be used to hurt others...a hammer can be a weapon, but only in the wrong hands. I don't think America is irresponsible enough to use these new weapons for aggressive purposes.

[kimmy]

The civilian applications for hammers are pretty clear to everyone. The civilian application for ballistic missiles is, frankly, eluding me at the moment.

-kimmy

[Choke]

I think that eventually, and this might sound silly now, there'll be fighters in space used to shoot down the satellites. If that happens, it'll mean aerospace research will get some sorely need funding. I think it is absolutely necessary that man learns to live in environments other than Earth so that if there ever were a catastophic event that killed everyone on the planet, like a nuclear war, or a slower destruction of Earth's atmosphere and ability to sustain life due to pollution, it wouldn't mean the end of humanity. I see the weaponization of space as a positive step toward that goal.

Besides that, there's one important thing to remember. The military-industrial complex isn't going to go quietly into the night. If America doesn't spend money weaponizing space, they will have to spend it destroying things on Earth. The MI complex is going to have its way, either way. You pick.

[kimmy]

If colonizing space is something we'd like to see in the future, it would make more sense to spend the money on stuff that's actually related to space exploration... the international space-station, a faster way of travelling in space, maybe a lunar colony to process Maplesyrup's moon-rocks for fusionable helium, that sort of thing. I don't see why the "military industrial complex" would mind... most of the money would be going to the same companies anyway, I would expect.

-kimmy

[maplesyrup]

Bush Visit Leaves Canada's Leader With Missile Defense Dilemma

In the wake of President Bush's visit to Canada this week, Prime Minister Paul Martin has been left in an embarrassing position over his hesitation to decide whether to join Washington's plans for a continental missile defense system.

The proposed system has emerged as the most disputed foreign policy issue facing Mr. Martin, one that could further weaken his government, which has shaky control over the House of Commons. He is trying to balance his desire to improve relations with the United States with his efforts to keep his party united and to strengthen his popularity in preparation for parliamentary elections as soon as next year.

Before Mr. Bush arrived in Ottawa, Mr. Martin's aides assured journalists that missile defense would not be a highlighted issue on an agenda concentrating on trade, border security and antiterrorism efforts.

Government officials were happy to douse expectations because missile defense divides the government's Liberal caucus in the House of Commons and is unpopular in public opinion polls, especially in Quebec, where Mr. Martin hopes to do better in the next parliamentary elections.

But when Mr. Bush on two occasions publicly urged Canada to join in building a missile defense system, the Canadian news media and opposition members of Parliament jumped on the issue as a crucial feature of a visit that otherwise accomplished no breakthroughs on trade or other matters. Shouting matches in the House of Commons and a series of ambiguous government statements have resulted.

Jack's performance has paid off in spades this week, and as well he has contributed to Canada's position on BMD taking on international interest.

This is great as the less places there are for secrecy on this issue, the fewer opportunities will be available for the politicians (read Martin and Harper) to hid their lies to the Canadian public.

Canadians are fed up with our lying politicians - either you are for or against star wars/ballistic missle defence.

[maplesyrup]

Liberal Quebec Caucus voted against BMD today.

Martin and Harper both desperately want Canada's involvement in BMD, the problem for Martin is he can't bring his people with him. Let's call for this debate and vote on the issue. Martin's Quebec Caucus aren't stupid - they know Jack scored big time this week, and they are feeling threatened by both the NDP and the Le Bloc in Quebec on this issue.

Look at the latest results (not scientific) of the Globe's poll:

Do you feel that Canada should participate in the U.S. ballistic missile defence program?

Yes - 7220 votes (20 %)

No - 29201 votes (80 %)

Total Votes: 36421

I was going to say Martin's bubble has been burst, and he has lost control of the agenda, but what do right wingers do when that happens - trot out some diversionary tactic to do with terrorism, Canada's buzzword for the 21st century, with the help of course, of Canada's compliant mainstream media. So Lapierre trots out this nonsense about the missing airport screener uniforms. If I know anything about security companies they can't even count. It is the same thing about that tampered hydro poll being found in Quebec. The timing is impeccible.

Lapierre alerts airports, orders investigation into missing airport uniforms

/600

[Stoker]

Aside from the political ramifications, I think the idea of spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a defense against missiles is dubious logic for an obvious reason, one that's already been made apparent by Mr Putin. Build a better lock, and somebody will device a better set of lockpicks. Putin has already announced plans to develop missiles that will be difficult to intercept.

The lock was never designed to keep Putin out....it's a moot point.......BMD won't protect against a large scalew attack, the Russkies have nothing to wory about. Why else would Putin have allowed the treaty to be reworked?

Suppose somebody combined the 3 to give a low-flying. hard-to-detect guided missile which would approach targets very rapidly and give a very narrow window of opportunity for interception? What then? Does the US go spend another trillion dollars developing a new shield against this sort of a threat?

But only if it was that simple........look what Ronnie Rays Guns did to the Soviet Union with Star Wars.....they couldn't keep up with the cost. IOW, all the countries that are opposed to the United States BMD program, will have to spend the money to develop the technology to defeat it.....

Now in the three examples that you cite, who leads the world in those three fields by atleast two or three generations? For christ sakes, the Chinese have only just put a person into space.......welcome to the 1960s China

The civilian applications for hammers are pretty clear to everyone. The civilian application for ballistic missiles is, frankly, eluding me at the moment.

Most modern commercial satellites are launched on booster rockects that were derived from early ballistic misslie programs.

Jack's performance has paid off in spades this week, and as well he has contributed to Canada's position on BMD taking on international interest.

This is great as the less places there are for secrecy on this issue, the fewer opportunities will be available for the politicians (read Martin and Harper) to hid their lies to the Canadian public.

Canadians are fed up with our lying politicians - either you are for or against star wars/ballistic missle defence.

As I said before, Layton's NDP is well on it's way to a majority government..........