Layton Strikes While Iron Is Hot

[maplesyrup]

Has anyone seen the movie: "Amazing Grace and Chuck"?

[maplesyrup]

Chuck Murdock is an all American kid living in a sleepy town in Montana. He is the top pitcher of the little league team as well. After taking a tour of a nuclear silo, Chuck decides to quit playing little league until nuclear weapons are disarmed. Boston Celtic Amazing Grace Smith hears about Chuck's exploits, and decides to do the same thing. Amazing then moves to the young boy's town to live. More athletes follow suit as well. The town begins to hate Chuck and his family, and this makes Chuck's father angry. But can one kid's message make the world listen?

Amazin' Grace:

"Wouldn't it be nice? "

[maplesyrup]

Politeness is a one-way street

The ruckus whenever a Canadian says something remotely rude about the United States is overblown and pointless

By MICHAEL HARRIS -- For the Ottawa Sun

Ever since the days when President Lyndon Johnson hoisted Lester Pearson by the lapels over his criticism of the Vietnam War and told Canada's prime minister, "Don't you come down here and piss on my lawn," there has been a decidedly one-way sense of decorum in Canada-U.S. relations.

If any of them had tried it with Trudeau, they would have risked a borstal belt to the old mince pies.

Finally, the shocked-and-appalled set went into hyperdrive over Jack Layton's little chin-wag with Himself. In a Texas minute, the leader of a national Canadian political party became Lefty Layton, and y'all know what the president thinks of lefties.

Never mind that Layton was the only Canadian official who managed to remain on two legs for the entire visit. Never mind that he was able to extract the only real piece of information from President Bush during this unrepentant victory lap -- that the missile defence shield will include putting weapons in space as everyone, including Paul Martin, already knows.

Jack had opened his big, socialist mouth, thereby risking offending the Big Dog. His penalty? No invitation to learn the bug-eyed shoefly down by the fish pond at the Crawford Ranch, I would imagine. And here? All the yahoos in Parliament who were terrified that someone might sneeze in the House of Commons had the president decided to address Parliament shouted down the NDP leader like a lynch mob running for the rope.

I guess they don't remember when presidential candidate Pat Buchanan called us Soviet Canuckistan; or when President Nixon called Pierre Trudeau an ---hole; or when Secretary of State Kissinger uttered his low blows against both Pierre and Margaret Trudeau; or when Hillary Clinton declared that the 9/11 terrorists had entered the Homeland via Great White North, or when Jesse Helms called us a bunch of commies because some of us drag our fish-belly white bodies to Cuba when the winds of February blow.

Northern angst

Which is just to say that all our northern angst over offering offence to a bully who has now decided to be a jovial bully is silly and even worse futile. Ever since Johnson had Pearson's heels dangling down in Texas, the war of words has been a staple of the U.S.-Canadian relationship. The only thing sadder than protesters who think they will restore the American Republic by burning George Bush in effigy is the widespread belief that if we are good little boys and girls, Uncle Sam will be generous.

The harsher realities of international politics were on display in this trip for anyone who cared to look. What the press has called a fresh start in the relationship comes down to this: President Bush is willing to give us a second chance to line up behind U.S. foreign policy, from the war in Iraq to the missile defense shield that a solid majority of Canadians happen to reject.

It is the same second chance he will offer to that coalition of the unwilling in Europe who were dead against the Iraq war and will now be asked to take casualties there and to help pay for it. The delicate filigree of 50 years of diplomacy, international law and the UN teeters upon the answer that Europe gives to our recent visitor -- as our destiny here depends upon Paul Martin's answers in the coming months.

If we can measure possible seismic shifts ahead by palpable tremors, the Martin government has already hinted the direction in which it is leaning. Last August, the Liberal government signed a deal with the Americans to turn over the running of the missile defense shield to NORAD, of which, of course we are a member. Not noticed by many at the time was a subtle name-change in that organization, from air to aerospace defence.

And this week, our ambassador at the UN, Allan Rock, announced that Canada will abandon its traditional "honest broker" position in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Instead of abstaining from a resolution denouncing the illegal occupation and settlements, Canada will for the first time vote against the resolutions along with the United States -- despite crystal clear international law on the subject. The Arab world has already taken note of what they see as a profound shift in the Martin government's policy.

Harder currency

Meanwhile, for those who think that good manners is the way to this American president's largesse, bless them in their innocence. George Bush deals in harder currency than flowery speeches, steak dinners and rhetorical loyalty pledges. Our beef is still banned, our lumber is still blocked, and the president continues to flex his muscles as the No. 1 strongman of the world's only superpower.

We don't yet know if he can lift Paul Martin by the lapels.

It is time our sycophant Canadians grew up and smelt the roses.

[Boondoggle]

If Martin sells out, he can kiss his minority government goodbye. The question is, if that happens, what's next? Unless the NDP wins, you're still left with Liberals or American wannabes er... I mean Conservatives. Given that so many Canadians are against these policies, if Martin screws up, it'll be a good opportunity for the NDP.

[kimmy]

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.....

But will the technology to bypass a BMD shield be nearly so expensive to develop?

Last month I saw a US senator saying "I do not think we can be militarily strong if we are financially weak." I agree with him, and so I question the wisdom of a massive expenditure on a missile defence system at this point when the US is already running massive deficits.

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 

Cruise missiles are older than I am... and with technological advances in the past 10 years, it's got to be even easier. While doing some reading on cruise missiles, I found this interesting page from a New Zealander who proposes that a cruise missile can be built using off-the-shelf parts for under $5000. Check it out:

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/cruise.shtml

I don't know what the Chinese aerospace industry's capabilities are, but if they're up to the 1960s, then that's probably about all it would take for them to build a capable cruise missile. The real magic of a cruise missile isn't the aeronautical engineering, it's the guidance. The United States no longer has the leadership in computing science and electronics that it once did.

As for the scramjet part of my proposal, the US doesn't have a monopoly on that, either. One of the leading scramjet programs is the HyShot, at the University of Queensland in Australia.

And, I don't know how difficult it would be for some other country to imitate the US stealth plane technology. But from what I've been reading, low-altitude cruise missiles are difficult to detect anyway; stealth technology might not even be required.

It just seems to me that pouring literally hundreds of billions of dollars into a defence system to protect against ballistic missiles might not be wise, when it seems completely conceivable to me that non-ballistic or even non-missile methods of delivering weapons of mass destruction pose an equally large threat to the safety of Americans.

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.

Well, that's super... but given that we've been able to put satellites in orbit for over 40 years, I'm not sure that additional research on this front is going to do us a lot of good.

-kimmy

[Stoker]

But will the technology to bypass a BMD shield be nearly so expensive to develop?

It looked that way for the Soviets.

Cruise missiles are older than I am... and with technological advances in the past 10 years, it's got to be even easier. While doing some reading on cruise missiles, I found this interesting page from a New Zealander who proposes that a cruise missile can be built using off-the-shelf parts for under $5000. Check it out:

Yet the leader in crusie missile development is still the United States..........5K crusie missile, I'm sure you could reconstruct a copy of a WW II German buzz bomb for that amount......but will that Buzz Bomb be on par with a next generation Tomahawk?

I don't know what the Chinese aerospace industry's capabilities are, but if they're up to the 1960s, then that's probably about all it would take for them to build a capable cruise missile. The real magic of a cruise missile isn't the aeronautical engineering, it's the guidance. The United States no longer has the leadership in computing science and electronics that it once did.

Ahh, the guidance you say, and what system do most modern cruise missiles use? GPS. Who controls the GPS sats?

Would you agree that Japan leads in the computing science and electronics field? Whats Japan's relationship with the United States like? Whats their stance on BMD?

As for the scramjet part of my proposal, the US doesn't have a monopoly on that, either. One of the leading scramjet programs is the HyShot, at the University of Queensland in Australia.

Whats Australia's relationship with the United States like? Whats their postion on BMD?

In both Australia's and Japan's cases, the answer is good and for it.

And, I don't know how difficult it would be for some other country to imitate the US stealth plane technology. But from what I've been reading, low-altitude cruise missiles are difficult to detect anyway; stealth technology might not even be required.

The three most modern jet fighters made outside of the United States are the Eurofighter Typhoon, French Rafale, and Russian Su-37......all three don't come close to matching the stealth characteristics of the American F-117 stealth attack aircraft, which is early 80s technology.........not even in the same ballpark as the American F/A-22 Raptor.

It just seems to me that pouring literally hundreds of billions of dollars into a defence system to protect against ballistic missiles might not be wise, when it seems completely conceivable to me that non-ballistic or even non-missile methods of delivering weapons of mass destruction pose an equally large threat to the safety of Americans.

How do you protect your home? Do you use locks on your windows -or- locks on your doors? Having locks on both is a waste of money you see.......

IOW words, don't you think it prudent to try and defend against all possable threats?

Well, that's super... but given that we've been able to put satellites in orbit for over 40 years, I'm not sure that additional research on this front is going to do us a lot of good.

Should car makers stoped designing new engines 40 years ago?

[maplesyrup]

Who cares about all this technical military BMD mumbo-jumbo, as this is Canada?

Canadians will never get involved in the proliferation of nuclear weapons, that is why we see Harper and Martin dancing around the issue.

Canada just needs to focus on our northern areas where our sovereignty is most vulnerable. Martin/Harper better get there act together in this area because as usual they are off in the wrong directions.

[kimmy]

Yet the leader in crusie missile development is still the United States..........5K crusie missile, I'm sure you could reconstruct a copy of a WW II German buzz bomb for that amount...

...a GPS-guided buzz-bomb...

...but will that Buzz Bomb be on par with a next generation Tomahawk?

Who cares? It wouldn't have to be as good as the next-generation US missile to deliver a massive warhead to a big population center.

Ahh, the guidance you say, and what system do most modern cruise missiles use? GPS. Who controls the GPS sats?

If the US had prior warning of an impending attack, they could certainly foil it if it relied on GPS. That's assuming they had prior warning...

Hypothetically, some nation could build and launch their own GPS network for a fraction of the cost of the missile defence shield.

Would you agree that Japan leads in the computing science and electronics field? Whats Japan's relationship with the United States like? Whats their stance on BMD?

Whats Australia's relationship with the United States like? Whats their postion on BMD?

In both Australia's and Japan's cases, the answer is good and for it.

It doesn't matter if the Americans and Japanese have "the best" expertise in electronics and computing. Computing technology has become widely available; one no longer needs to be a world leader to do things that were on the cutting edge 20 years ago.

In 1980, a computerized autopilot for a missile was advanced military research; in 2004 it's a term-project for a tech-school student.

For the scramjet, I mentioned the Aussie program merely to point out that it's not a top secret military technology. The Russians, in fact, successfully scramjet missiles in 1992.

An enemy nation would not need to compete with top-of-the-line US technology to render a Ballistic Missile Defence system pointless; they need only come up with a system that's not ballistic or not a missile. A low-flying, rapid, guided missile (the scramjet cruise missile we've been discussing) was an idea that came to me after about 2 minutes of contemplating the shortcomings of what I've read about BMD so far, and nothing you've said has convinced me it's not a viable threat. I'm sure there are far more devious minds than mine out there who could come up with more dangerous ideas.

It just seems to me that pouring literally hundreds of billions of dollars into a defence system to protect against ballistic missiles might not be wise, when it seems completely conceivable to me that non-ballistic or even non-missile methods of delivering weapons of mass destruction pose an equally large threat to the safety of Americans.

How do you protect your home? Do you use locks on your windows -or- locks on your doors? Having locks on both is a waste of money you see.......

IOW words, don't you think it prudent to try and defend against all possable threats?

Spending hundreds of billions to protect against ballistic missiles doesn't seem that intelligent if it just causes your enemies to use other avenues. To borrow your analogy, putting security bars on your windows IS a waste of money if you can't lock your back door.

This could be the 21st century equivalent of France's Maginot Line.

Should car makers stoped designing new engines 40 years ago?

Of course not. Automobile engines of 40 years ago (and of today) fall short of ideal, in ways such as efficiency and reliability. It's never been perfected, and probably never will be. It's an ongoing competition as a multitude of consumers with different needs and preferences make choices based on ever-changing factors.

The putting-satellites-in-orbit business, on the otherhand, is a pretty small niche. There's only a few customers, a few launches per year, and the criteria are a lot simpler: satellite gets into the correct orbit, or satellite doesn't get into the correct orbit. Automobile engines fall short of the goal, and always will; satellite launching rockets reach the goal.

-kimmy

[Stoker]

a GPS-guided buzz-bomb

Then to intergrate it with GPS, it won't be something that you can make for five grand in your garage.........

Who cares? It wouldn't have to be as good as the next-generation US missile to deliver a massive warhead to a big population center.

And WW II area buzz bombs were shot down with anti aircraft guns targeted by the human eye, not too mention propeller driven aircraft.

That also begs the question, how are you going to launch it into the United States?

Hypothetically, some nation could build and launch their own GPS network for a fraction of the cost of the missile defence shield.

Sure, and Hypothetically if your aunt had balls she would be your uncle........

One question though, why has no nation deployed their own "GPS system" outside of the United States and the European union?

It doesn't matter if the Americans and Japanese have "the best" expertise in electronics and computing. Computing technology has become widely available; one no longer needs to be a world leader to do things that were on the cutting edge 20 years ago.

In 1980, a computerized autopilot for a missile was advanced military research; in 2004 it's a term-project for a tech-school student.

If thats the case, why do "rogue nations" (ie Iran, North Korea) develop ballistic missile technology instead of cruise missiles?

For the scramjet, I mentioned the Aussie program merely to point out that it's not a top secret military technology. The Russians, in fact, successfully scramjet missiles in 1992.

Sure, but why haven't they replaced their ICBMs with scramjet missiles? Why did Putin relase just a while ago that they are making new ICBMs?

An enemy nation would not need to compete with top-of-the-line US technology to render a Ballistic Missile Defence system pointless; they need only come up with a system that's not ballistic or not a missile. A low-flying, rapid, guided missile (the scramjet cruise missile we've been discussing) was an idea that came to me after about 2 minutes of contemplating the shortcomings of what I've read about BMD so far, and nothing you've said has convinced me it's not a viable threat. I'm sure there are far more devious minds than mine out there who could come up with more dangerous ideas.

Sure, or better yet, an enemy nation could just plant a spy into the US armed forces (ala Manchurian candidate) and just leave the "door unlocked"......

As I mentioned above, potentail enemy nations are developing ICBMs (North Korea exports them) and to the best of my knowledge, there are no major scramjet cruise missile projects within the third world.........so, with that information known, should we defend against the threat that is there, or the one not there?

Spending hundreds of billions to protect against ballistic missiles doesn't seem that intelligent if it just causes your enemies to use other avenues. To borrow your analogy, putting security bars on your windows IS a waste of money if you can't lock your back door.

This could be the 21st century equivalent of France's Maginot Line.

So, if BMD does not go forward, nations will no longer develop ICBMs?

Star Wars/SDI/NMD/BMD has been in the works for decades, the threat of it has not caused a halt in developing ICBMs amongest Superpowers and rogue nations alike.

And using the same analogy, who says that picking between the the door and the windows is an either or decision? Who says that the Americans won't or can't protect their back door, well at the same time putting up bars on the windows?

The putting-satellites-in-orbit business, on the otherhand, is a pretty small niche. There's only a few customers, a few launches per year, and the criteria are a lot simpler: satellite gets into the correct orbit, or satellite doesn't get into the correct orbit. Automobile engines fall short of the goal, and always will; satellite launching rockets reach the goal.

Yet, the small niche market is worth billions of dollars and I can assure that it is not using Mercury era rockets to launch Sats into orbit. With that said, If the technology were to be develped that would make the the launching of commercial satellites cheaper, you don't think that it would be explored?

[kimmy]

a GPS-guided buzz-bomb

Then to intergrate it with GPS, it won't be something that you can make for five grand in your garage.........

The guy who is, in fact, building one in his garage, disagrees. His plans indicate that the electronics, including a single-board computer, a computer-linked GPS receiver, and altimeter and attitude measuring devices used by hobbyists who build remote control helicopters.

Anyway, what does it matter? I doubt rogue nations or terrorist organizations who might consider building one would limit themselves to Mr Simpsons' self-imposed $5000 budget.

Who cares? It wouldn't have to be as good as the next-generation US missile to deliver a massive warhead to a big population center.

And WW II area buzz bombs were shot down with anti aircraft guns targeted by the human eye, not too mention propeller driven aircraft.

Well, if Bruce Simpson ever declares war on the United States, perhaps his missiles will be easy enough to intercept. However, I expect that if a foreign power puts its expertise into developing a cruise missile, they'll probably have a research budget of much more than $5000, and I would expect something quite a bit more sophisticated than a V1 to come flying over. Very low altitude flight and higher speeds would be possible; in fact Mr Simpson believes his $5000 missile will be capable of low-altitude flight.

I don't think Mr Simpson's home-made cruise missile represents something an enemy nation would wage war with, but it's worrying as an indication of how much technology is available to the average citizen, or theoretically to terrorists. Could a terrorist cell operating just south of the US-Mexico border slap together something like this and use it to deliver a WMD to San Diego or Phoenix or Houston before the USAF had a chance to respond?

That also begs the question, how are you going to launch it into the United States?

Off a boat? Dropped from a plane? Submarine? Or perhaps it could be built with enough range to make a longer trip on its own.

One question though, why has no nation deployed their own "GPS system" outside of the United States and the European union?

Maybe they just haven't had any reason to do so.

Any nation capable of putting satellites in orbit is capable of building an equivalent to the GPS system.

Anyway, other means of guidance might work well enough. I don't expect pinpoint accuracy is critical if you're delivering a nuclear warhead.

The Nazis were able to get their V1s to London using a guidance system made out of springs, pendulums, and clockworks. Given more modern instrumentation to keep track of airspeed and time, and a computer to keep track of the trip, I would anticipate a fairly effective autopilot could be made without any GPS guidance at all.

If thats the case, why do "rogue nations" (ie Iran, North Korea) develop ballistic missile technology instead of cruise missiles?

(...)

Sure, but why haven't they replaced their ICBMs with scramjet missiles? Why did Putin relase just a while ago that they are making new ICBMs?

What do I know? I'm just a kid with a computer. I thought that a cruise missile is an ideal way to bypass the missile defence shield, but if Vlad thinks new-generation ICBMs will be able to bypass the missile defence shield, then who am I to argue? He has likely discussed it with military scientists who know what they're talking about. The point is, the missile defence shield is only going to be effective until somebody else figures out a way past it.

George Patton said "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." He was probably referring to the Maginot Line, but the missile defence shield will be a fixed fortification too. Not in the literal sense of something that just sits there on the ground, but in the sense that it's a stationary obstacle that their enemies will find a way around.

All this does is throw down a gauntlet to encourage other nations to improve their technology. Iran and North Korea probably aren't up to it, but are you sure the Russians and Chinese aren't?

-kimmy

[Choke]

The Russians and Chinese aren't threatening the US.

[Stoker]

One question Kimmy, don't you think that if developing a modern cruise missile that could threaten the United States were so easy, more nations would be doing it?

What do I know? I'm just a kid with a computer. I thought that a cruise missile is an ideal way to bypass the missile defence shield, but if Vlad thinks new-generation ICBMs will be able to bypass the missile defence shield, then who am I to argue? He has likely discussed it with military scientists who know what they're talking about. The point is, the missile defence shield is only going to be effective until somebody else figures out a way past it.

Back to the old analogy.........are you going to put door locks onto your windows, and window bars onto your doors?

And as I said before, Putin has nothing to worry about with the BMD program........it's not designed to defend against him.......nor is is desigend to defend against some uber hybrid cruise missile designed in a persons garage.........it's designed to protect against rouge states with limtied numbers of ICBMs.

George Patton said "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man." He was probably referring to the Maginot Line, but the missile defence shield will be a fixed fortification too. Not in the literal sense of something that just sits there on the ground, but in the sense that it's a stationary obstacle that their enemies will find a way around.

Good thing BMD is not a fixed fortification then eh? In that from the start, it will desigend to accept new technolgies with ease.

With that said, you have to take into context the role BMD will play, in that it will only be a single "tool" in the "shed" of the defenders of North America.....namley NORAD. Also, it worth noting, that NORAD is being expended to not just defend against airborne threats, but seaborne as well. Add this to the increase intergration of intelligence services, and the defence of North America is already looking miles better than it did pre 9/11.

Now you might think it comforting to note that the policy of the Bush administration is not one of a reactive defence (As mentioned in the Patton quote), but one of a pro-active, fluid offence (as if you didn't know ) , in which the fight will be taken to the enemy, and fought on his land, in his cities, in his houses and it will be his innocents that will be the collateral damage, not ours.

Now since we are throwing out patton quotes, I'll add one:

"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country.

He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

In that I agree very much that the best defence is a good offence, and that is why i question the lack of Commitment of Canadians to the armed forces and our limp wristed responce to the war in Iraq. (But thats another debate). With all that being said, I'd still feel safer if we didn't hold back any stops on programs that are designed to protect North America.

All this does is throw down a gauntlet to encourage other nations to improve their technology. Iran and North Korea probably aren't up to it, but are you sure the Russians and Chinese aren't?

As I said in another thread, the Soviet "gauntlet" has never been picked up, in that the arms race, well it might have slowed, has never stoped. And as I also mentioned above, BMD is not desgiend to protect against a large attack in which the Russians could launch. As you admitied, North Korea and Iran are most likely not up for an arms race with the United States......those countries are the "reasons" for BMD.

One thing to mull over though:

Type 94

On 02 December 2004 Bill Gertz reported that the new 094-class submarine had been launched in late July 2004. The new Type 094 was spotted by US intelligence at the Huludao shipyard, on the coast of Bohai Bay, some 250 miles northwest of Beijing. The submarine was in the early stages of being outfitted and was not yet equipped with new JL-2 submarine-launched nuclear missiles. The Pentagon report on Chinese military power released in May 2004 stated that the new Chinese missile submarine would not be operational until around 2010.

ICBMs are not dead yet............

[Boondoggle]

Whats Australia's relationship with the United States like? Whats their postion on BMD?

If Kerry was elected, would John Howard have made a stand against change in US policy, or is he just willing to kiss the ass of whoever happens to be the US president? I could give a rats ass what someone like that thinks.

The three most modern jet fighters made outside of the United States are the Eurofighter Typhoon, French Rafale, and Russian Su-37......all three don't come close to matching the stealth characteristics of the American F-117 stealth attack aircraft, which is early 80s technology.........not even in the same ballpark as the American F/A-22 Raptor.

Ah yes the mighty F-117 that we should all worship. Forget the cost, low numbers of them, or the F-117s that crashed. Not to mention the F-117 shot down in Kosovo, but hey that's understandable given how powerful Kosovo is right? The F-117 may be an excellent and advanced aircraft, but it's not invulnerable.

The bulk of the US airforce is still made up of F-14, F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s which are falling behind. In an air exercise with India, SU-30s beat US F-15s. The F-22 is very expensive - even by US standards - and isn't going to be mass produced. Further, production will take until 2013 to finish; therefore, it doesn't totally solve the problem. The bulk of the US airforce will be replaced by the F-35, which won't enter service until 2008. Canada is one of eight countries in a partnership program developing and financing the F-35, and thus will probably buy some to replace the F-18s, which are expected to remain in service until 2010.

Of course, all this comes at a cost. The F-22s and F-35s are expected to cost about $280 billion at a time when the US debt is over $7 trillion, and about a third of the debt is financed by other countries. It's kinda hard to trot around as an untouchable superpower when other countries are keeping you afloat economically.

...in which the fight will be taken to the enemy, and fought on his land, in his cities, in his houses and it will be his innocents that will be the collateral damage, not ours.

Spoken like someone that's truly ignorant of geopolitics. Not to mention that terrorist attacks are acts of individuals not the policy of countries; therefore, what right have you to declare war on a country and kill their civilians over it? Following your logic, the US should have attacked Saudi Arabia where most of the hijackers originated from. When you do declare war on a country, the burden is yours to prove that your reasons are just. Going to war based on allegations is not acceptable, and the US government failed miserably to make its case for the Iraq war.

In that I agree very much that the best defence is a good offence, and that is why i question the lack of Commitment of Canadians to the armed forces and our limp wristed responce to the war in Iraq.

Violence begets violence. It's your mistake if you choose to become that which you despise in an attempt to fight it. Avoiding the Iraq war is one of the best things the Liberals have done in recent years, and resisting US pressure to support an illegal and immoral war is NOT limp wristed. Canada was there in WWI, WWII, the Korean war, the Cold war, Gulf war, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, and numerous peacekeeping missions. So what if Canada didn't jump in for Vietnam and the recent Iraq war. Is Canada supposed to be an extension of the US military to act without any thought of its own? I don't think so.

How's your application for US citizenship going Stoker?

[maplesyrup]

Martin can't contain missile storm

New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton, who says his brief talks with the president and his team last week confirmed all his worst suspicions about the missile-defence scheme, said Martin should recognize that a new arms race is already under way.

"This missile defence system is far more expensive and in fact Bush is proposing to spend far more on the new arms race than he is on the security of the borders, and we don't want to lose Canada's voice for disarmament at the global table. We don't want to just simply sit at George Bush's table," Layton said.

"Gee whiz", says PM Martin: "I am just not getting the respect I deserve these days!"

[Stoker]

If Kerry was elected, would John Howard have made a stand against change in US policy, or is he just willing to kiss the ass of whoever happens to be the US president? I could give a rats ass what someone like that thinks.

I don't Know, perhaps you should send him an email......

Ah yes the mighty F-117 that we should all worship. Forget the cost, low numbers of them, or the F-117s that crashed. Not to mention the F-117 shot down in Kosovo, but hey that's understandable given how powerful Kosovo is right? The F-117 may be an excellent and advanced aircraft, but it's not invulnerable.

Thanks for furthering my point........modern European aircraft are not on par with a first generation stealth aircraft.......

The bulk of the US airforce is still made up of F-14, F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s which are falling behind. In an air exercise with India, SU-30s beat US F-15s. The F-22 is very expensive - even by US standards - and isn't going to be mass produced. Further, production will take until 2013 to finish; therefore, it doesn't totally solve the problem. The bulk of the US airforce will be replaced by the F-35, which won't enter service until 2008. Canada is one of eight countries in a partnership program developing and financing the F-35, and thus will probably buy some to replace the F-18s, which are expected to remain in service until 2010.

I notice you didn't mention all the conditions of the Indian USAF duel.......Imagine the worlds strongest airforce, putting it's most vaunted (but aging) fighter, up against a third world airforce (with Russian aircraft) and losing......all when there is talk of cuts in the F/A-22 program.....

Still, I don't know how any of this is relavent and proves that American aircraft are not, ahead of their European counterparts.......

Spoken like someone that's truly ignorant of geopolitics. Not to mention that terrorist attacks are acts of individuals not the policy of countries; therefore, what right have you to declare war on a country and kill their civilians over it? Following your logic, the US should have attacked Saudi Arabia where most of the hijackers originated from. When you do declare war on a country, the burden is yours to prove that your reasons are just. Going to war based on allegations is not acceptable, and the US government failed miserably to make its case for the Iraq war.

Ignorant of geopolitics......... Whats going on in Iraq right now?

Violence begets violence. It's your mistake if you choose to become that which you despise in an attempt to fight it. Avoiding the Iraq war is one of the best things the Liberals have done in recent years, and resisting US pressure to support an illegal and immoral war is NOT limp wristed. Canada was there in WWI, WWII, the Korean war, the Cold war, Gulf war, Kosovo, and Afghanistan, and numerous peacekeeping missions. So what if Canada didn't jump in for Vietnam and the recent Iraq war. Is Canada supposed to be an extension of the US military to act without any thought of its own? I don't think so.

Has the "American violence in Iraq", led to violence in the streets of the United States?

[Black Dog]

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.

Nonsense. The U.S. is depolying a system that has never been adequately tested and has failed even the heavily controlled testing it has undergone. It's a white elephant and to say "we should support it because, well, it might work someday" is unpricipled support.

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 as World war One produced poison gas, the machine gun and tank, World War Two produced the atom bomb, Vietnam napalm etc?? Give me abreak. the risk of annihalation of the entire human race is hardly worth the potential benefits.

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.

Which kinda renders the whole missile sheild concpet moot.

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.....

Myth.

Regan's aggressive stance actually prolonged the reign of the Soviet hardliners and nearly brought the world to nuclear destruction.

........it's not designed to defend against him.......nor is is desigend to defend against some uber hybrid cruise missile designed in a persons garage.........it's designed to protect against rouge states with limtied numbers of ICBMs.

A threat which does not exist today.

Now you might think it comforting to note that the policy of the Bush administration is not one of a reactive defence (As mentioned in the Patton quote), but one of a pro-active, fluid offence (as if you didn't know  ) , in which the fight will be taken to the enemy, and fought on his land, in his cities, in his houses and it will be his innocents that will be the collateral damage, not ours.

Conforting in the sense that it is a recipe for unbridled aggression and a guarantee of reprisals. That's a recipe for disaster. Sheer madness, not to mention distressingly callous and anti-human.

[Newfie Canadian]

What about this potential problem?

Heavily populated southern Canadian cities could be littered with the debris of nuclear warheads if missiles fired at the U.S. from North Korea were shot down by a missile-defence shield over Canada

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

[kimmy]

Stoker,

ICBMs might be the present danger, and cruise missiles are not presently a major component of any nation's nuclear arsenal. I don't believe that there's a reflection of any great technological hurdle, I believe it's a reflection of present circumstances. A working Ballistic Missile Defence shield could certainly change circumstances to make cruise missiles a major component of an enemy arsenal. There might have been a time when only the Americans were smart enough to build a cruise missile; that's clearly not the case anymore.

ICBMs might be the main threat "rogue nations" have in their arsenal right now; I was hoping to illustrate that there are certainly other options they could explore.

You've said that this is not a cure-all, it's just one tool for security. Ok, and I suppose that makes sense. But as far as value of these security tools, is this the best way to spend all that money?

I keep thinking back to that senator saying "I don't think we can be militarily strong if we are financially weak."

And I keep thinking back to one of the presidential debates when Kerry asked why such a small proportion of containers coming into ports are inspected, and why they haven't got more security personnel at border crossings and airports. Bush replied that they just don't have enough money to do more. The money going into BMD could hire an awful lot of port/airport/border-crossing inspectors. If you're trying to determine which is more likey to cost American lives over the next however many years, I think there's a greater probability that it'll be a terrorist attack from within than a missile attack from some rogue nation. That's my own personal guess, of course.

I don't object to Canada participating, as long as it's limited to supplying some land, or Canadian firms participating (if any of them have anything to offer.) I don't think Canadian government money should be involved; I strongly feel that Canadian security would be better enhanced by spending that money on better coastal patrol, port inspections, airport security, etc.

-kimmy

[kimmy]

What about this potential problem?

Heavily populated southern Canadian cities could be littered with the debris of nuclear warheads if missiles fired at the U.S. from North Korea were shot down by a missile-defence shield over Canada

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

I would think that heavily populated southern Canadian cities could also be adversely affected if nuclear warheads exploded in the northeastern United States.

-kimmy

[Newfie Canadian]

That's a valid point there kimmy.

[maplesyrup]

Ex-ambassador warns against missile defence

The proposed North American ballistic missile-defence shield will be ineffective against ground-based systems and could spur a new arms race, says a former U.S. ambassador

As I have suspected all along, all this BMD is going to do is line the pockets of fat cat defence contractors, and place the entire planet in more jeopardy by escalating the arms race.

[Stoker]

Nonsense. The U.S. is depolying a system that has never been adequately tested and has failed even the heavily controlled testing it has undergone. It's a white elephant and to say "we should support it because, well, it might work someday" is unpricipled support.

How well did the Wright Flyer work at first? What about the manned flight program?

Myth.

Regan's aggressive stance actually prolonged the reign of the Soviet hardliners and nearly brought the world to nuclear destruction.

Did it cause a nuclear war? Where the Soviets able to keep up with Star Wars?

A threat which does not exist today.

Are you claiming that North Korea is not developing ICBMs? What about Iran?

Conforting in the sense that it is a recipe for unbridled aggression and a guarantee of reprisals. That's a recipe for disaster. Sheer madness, not to mention distressingly callous and anti-human.

So if the United States had of "turned the other cheek" after 9/11, they would not be threatened in the future?

ICBMs might be the present danger, and cruise missiles are not presently a major component of any nation's nuclear arsenal. I don't believe that there's a reflection of any great technological hurdle, I believe it's a reflection of present circumstances. A working Ballistic Missile Defence shield could certainly change circumstances to make cruise missiles a major component of an enemy arsenal. There might have been a time when only the Americans were smart enough to build a cruise missile; that's clearly not the case anymore.

IMHO, the United States would likley welcome present nuclear arsenals to be change to ones based on cruise missiles. With the reason being, the United States (and most other modern armed forces, including our Navy) can currently deal with cruise missiles, the same can't be said with ICBMS.

I don't object to Canada participating, as long as it's limited to supplying some land, or Canadian firms participating (if any of them have anything to offer.) I don't think Canadian government money should be involved; I strongly feel that Canadian security would be better enhanced by spending that money on better coastal patrol, port inspections, airport security, etc.

Well thats the beauty about it, they are not asking for any money or land. I think all they want, is the support of our government, which in turn will allow the cooperation of our armed forces (via NORAD I assume).

I would think that heavily populated southern Canadian cities could also be adversely affected if nuclear warheads exploded in the northeastern United States.

I'd think all Canadians would be affected, if any American cities fell victim to a nuclear attack......judging by the tone of a large amount of Canadians (some on this board), I'd say only a few would be affected emotionally........but all Canadians would be affected economically.

Ex-ambassador warns against missile defence

Canada's future role in NORAD does not hinge on its participation in missile defence, he told a news conference. Canada could establish a barrier to its participation in missile defence, drawing the line at space, he said.

"That will have to be a very clear one with clear consequences if, as is quite probable, the missile defence program does move into space," he said.

Exactly.