US Missile Shield over Canada

[caesar]

Of course BD; that is exactly why these so called "rogue nations" are declaring their possession of nuclear weapons; to attempt to dissuade the USA from attack them. Bush has not scared these nations into disarming; he has scared them into arming themselves to the teeth. Especially, since Iraq declared that they did not possess WMD; allowed UN weapons inspectors into the country; destroyed borderline illegal weapons and then still were invaded. That was the stupidest action I have ever seen from any country.

Celluci should keep his big mouth shut.

[Newfie Canadian]

Celluci should keep his big mouth shut.

Keeping his mouth shut certainly doesn't appear to be his strong suit.

[Stoker]

All but five: as of 2003 India, Pakistan, Israel, Iran and North Korea were the only non-NPT nations with intermediate-range or long-range ballistic missile development programs.

Russia

France

China

So every country that won't we inside the BMD "bubble" is and has been developing ballistic missiles........

Of course BD; that is exactly why these so called "rogue nations" are declaring their possession of nuclear weapons; to attempt to dissuade the USA from attack them. Bush has not scared these nations into disarming; he has scared them into arming themselves to the teeth.

Are you saying that the likes of North Korea, Pakistain etc.......had no nuclear and long range missile programs before Bush?

Celluci should keep his big mouth shut.

I agree, it's not like a member of the Canadian government would say disparaging remarks about the United States and their leader......

[Fortunata]

Canadian's support of the USA's missile program is down even from last year. It used to be that the general thought was, among those who didn't either fervently support or condemn it, that this program was going to happen anyways so why not get on board. It now appears that we are very apprehensive about the USA's clarity on the dangers that lurk around in the world. US is still in Cold War mode while others have moved on to plan for terror.

[Newfie Canadian]

I agree, it's not like a member of the Canadian government would say disparaging remarks about the United States and their leader......

Touché

But....

Another Missile Defence Test Fails.

[Black Dog]

So every country that won't we inside the BMD "bubble" is and has been developing ballistic missiles........

Take a look at the list again: of all the nations with long-range ballistic missile programs, most are alllied with the U.S., while those that are not close have sufficient nuclear capability as to be able to bypass or overwhelm any missile shield.

Only two (Iran and North Korea) would be affected by BMD, while only North Korea has both nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them.

All are detrrable through regular nuclear detrrence.

So why the need for BMD?

[Army Guy]

Perhaps you should be looking at Countries who have a nuclear program.( as for the means to deliver Russia or China will sell you what ever you want for a price........and you should be looking at the list for those that are truily allied with the US...Russia / Pakistan and China.....they play nice for US dollars...thats it...

Why BMD...do diligence...so our Gov't can tell the people of Canada that we have done everything we could to prevent a individual, group, or gov't from launching a surprise attack from an airbourne device on the US or Canada.

it would be hard to look the survivors of such an attack in the eyes....and say sorry if the Gov't had not done everything possiable to prevent it from happening to start with...

What is the cost to Canada ?....Nothing except some construction materials and people to help run it....

An attack on any major city within Canada would be devastating to the point of placing Canada on her death bed....so why risk that ? is my question......

[Fortunata]

Army Guy, do you really think that without putting mega bucks on the table we will actually have any input? And if we actually agree with the program without the bucks then the Americans and the Canadian whiners will just say how they are portecting us .... more of the same as what we hear now.

I think putting our money to better uses, within the Military, is the way to go.

And we still don't have any Nation enemies.

[Army Guy]

Yes, only because the US is going ahead with the program one way or the other(they have already spent the money) ....with us or without us....with missles based on US territory it works fine, but you get better coverage from missles based in Canadian territory plus from the US piont of view... interception is further away from the US of A....

Yes... we will end up paying something but again it comes down to do diligence... as for the whinners let them whin...in a couple years time they forget all about it....

And your right there are better uses for the money...but not any one of the wpns DND has could save the lives of an entire city....after all this is why we buy wpn's is it not....

[Black Dog]

Perhaps you should be looking at Countries who have a nuclear program.

Why? In the context of BMD, it's only missiles that matter.

Regardless, there are fewer countries with nuclear, programs today then there were twenty years ago.

as for the means to deliver Russia or China will sell you what ever you want for a price........and you should be looking at the list for those that are truily allied with the US...Russia / Pakistan and China.....they play nice for US dollars...thats it...

Here's question: what prevented the Soviet Union from launching a nuclear strike against the U.S. during the course of the Cold War?

Why BMD...do diligence...so our Gov't can tell the people of Canada that we have done everything we could to prevent a individual, group, or gov't from launching a surprise attack from an airbourne device on the US or Canada.

it would be hard to look the survivors of such an attack in the eyes....and say sorry if the Gov't had not done everything possiable to prevent it from happening to start with...

I believe the threat BMD is designed to counter is minimal. So the whole idea is a non-starter in my opinion.

What is the cost to Canada ?....Nothing except some construction materials and people to help run it....

That's a cost. Why should the Canadian military allocate personnel and resources to this program when there are other, far more urgent gaps to fill within our own forces?

An attack on any major city within Canada would be devastating to the point of placing Canada on her death bed....so why risk that ? is my question......

Because you need to realistically assess the threat. The key fact is the likelihood of any nation attacking the United States or Canada with a ballistic missile

is exceptionally low. Strike one.

Next, the system itself is wracked with flaws. So even if, eventually, it is able to do what it's suppossed to do, there's nothing to say that countermeasures or otehr technology won't be develped to rende rit useless. Strike two.

Finally the cost of this system is astronomical. Canada's forces are already streched thin and operating on a shoestring. Those should be our first priority, not some harebrained scheme that seems to be designed for the sole benefit of American aerospace companies. Strike three.

[Fortunata]

Amy Guy, I thought that, agree or not, US had no plans to put any bases on Canadian soil. Alaska and Greenland were to be the only two northern bases, the rest would be in the lower 48.

[Army Guy]

Black dog

Why? In the context of BMD, it's only missiles that matter.

Regardless, there are fewer countries with nuclear, programs today then there were twenty years ago.

Once you have a device getting the means to launch it is easy....if you have the money...

Here's question: what prevented the Soviet Union from launching a nuclear strike against the U.S. during the course of the Cold War?

Mutual destruction...here is the but ...if your sitting in the middle of the ocean or say 500 km of the Canadian coast no one can tell who launched it....that being said A russian or chinese attack would be on a massive scale...to ensure massive damage was down to the states so as to limit thier amount of defense missles fired......

I believe the threat BMD is designed to counter is minimal. So the whole idea is a non-starter in my opinion.

So what do you tell the people of vancover would just had thier city turned into a smoking hole....It's a wpn system purely design to be a defensive wpn...a safety net that will cost us nothing at this time...

Whats the odds of getting hit in the gonads during a hockey game...yet what is one of the first pieces of gear we put on....

That's a cost. Why should the Canadian military allocate personnel and resources to this program when there are other, far more urgent gaps to fill within our own forces?

What is a life worth? you pay taxes what is your life worth....

The threat is low...but there is still a threat..or possiability...our gov't is responsiable for our protection to do everything in it's power to ensure our safety....

The cost to us at this time is 0....

Fortunata:

That is what the liberals have said ...to sell this whole thing but what would make more sense to have it up north ...they will sell that once we swallow having it in the first place....

[Black Dog]

Once you have a device getting the means to launch it is easy....if you have the money...

Not really. Both North Korea and Iran (the two big BMD boogeymen) have been working on developing long-range missile capabilities for more than a decade. Neither one has gotten very far,

Mutual destruction...here is the but ...if your sitting in the middle of the ocean or say 500 km of the Canadian coast no one can tell who launched it....that being said A russian or chinese attack would be on a massive scale...to ensure massive damage was down to the states so as to limit thier amount of defense missles fired......

Now you're talking alternate delivery (ie. SLBMs), which only the five NPT countries (United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China and France) possess. Keep in mind, too, that if someone was to get that close to launch a missile attack, BMD wouldn't work because the system wouldn't have enough time to detect, track and kill the incoming warhead(s).

So what do you tell the people of vancover would just had thier city turned into a smoking hole....It's a wpn system purely design to be a defensive wpn...a safety net that will cost us nothing at this time...

So you're just going to disregard the evidence which indicates the threat is minimal? Even if they come from the U.S. themselves?

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.

-National Intelligence Council “Foreign Missile Developments” 

Besides, in light of the Bush doctrine, I'm not sure I buy the rhetoric that this is a "defensive" weapon.

Whats the odds of getting hit in the gonads during a hockey game...yet what is one of the first pieces of gear we put on....

Actually, those odds are pretty short. Certainly much more likely than an ICBM attack, that's for sure.

What is a life worth? you pay taxes what is your life worth....The threat is low...but there is still a threat..or possiability...our gov't is responsiable for our protection to do everything in it's power to ensure our safety....

The government can't protect us from every potential threat. That's the simple reality. I'd rather see them focus on realistic threats to the country than one's that rank below massive earthquakes and just above alien invasions.

The cost to us at this time is 0....

Sure, just like the four subs we bought were suposed to be an accounting offset for the British rental of our training bases.

We're already allocating personnel and resources to the program.

Why are so many ordinarily skeptical people so willing to believe PM PM on this particular issue?

That is what the liberals have said ...to sell this whole thing but what would make more sense to have it up north ...they will sell that once we swallow having it in the first place....

So, in other words, it will cost us.

[Stoker]

Not really. Both North Korea and Iran (the two big BMD boogeymen) have been working on developing long-range missile capabilities for more than a decade. Neither one has gotten very far,

Define far..........Iran has the capablity to hit most of Western Europe, possably the United Kingdom and North Korea has already tested missiles that can reach Hawaii and Alaska, and likely the Western Seaboard.

Now even if Canada was not to be targeted by a North Korean ICBM, in all likelyhood, the lower mainland and Vancouver Island would be directly affected. I base this assumption on the fact that in the Pacific Northwest (Seattle area) the United States has three naval bases (one bases half their SLBM fleet), and Army base and I believe an Airforce base.

Now put aside the economic diaster the entire first world's economies would face from a limtied nuclear exchange, and think of the direct threat a potentail nuclear strike would have on Southwestern British Coulmbians..........

Now you're talking alternate delivery (ie. SLBMs), which only the five NPT countries (United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, China and France) possess. Keep in mind, too, that if someone was to get that close to launch a missile attack, BMD wouldn't work because the system wouldn't have enough time to detect, track and kill the incoming warhead(s).

Do you have evidence to suggest BMD can't engage SLBM.....whats the difference if the missile is launched from the ocean or the land? Also, how have you become privy to the reaction time of the BMD system?

So you're just going to disregard the evidence which indicates the threat is minimal? Even if they come from the U.S. themselves?

Which evidence? If the threat was minimal, why are hostile and potentaily hostile nations developing ICBMs?

Besides, in light of the Bush doctrine, I'm not sure I buy the rhetoric that this is a "defensive" weapon.

What leads you to believe otherwise? Also, BMD was hatched under Clinton.......if Gore was in the oval office would you give two shits?

The government can't protect us from every potential threat. That's the simple reality. I'd rather see them focus on realistic threats to the country than one's that rank below massive earthquakes and just above alien invasions.

Of course they can't, but they can make an effort, which in the case of BMD, they are doing rather poorly, due to the fact that they are turning the defence of Canada into a game of political hot potato........It's absoultly disgusting.

Also, may I ask, what factors do you base your "ranking system" on?

[Grantler]

Canada needs to sit at the table and listen and quit letting international sentiment towards the "Evil Empire" cloud its judgements.

Jack Layton recently spoke at my university and stressed that Canada should not take part in the BMD project. This included not sitting at the table with the United States. His reasoning was that the world community will change their view of Canada as what I think he considers a peace loving nation.

BUT, by taking part in talks about BMD we will not receive a backlash internationally. We are a sovereign country that is in charge of its own territory. What we do to safeguard that has nothing to do with the international community. Whether we came up with this idea, or the Americans, it needs to be heard out.

[Black Dog]

Define far..........Iran has the capablity to hit most of Western Europe, possably the United Kingdom and North Korea has already tested missiles that can reach Hawaii and Alaska, and likely the Western Seaboard.

Now even if Canada was not to be targeted by a North Korean ICBM, in all likelyhood, the lower mainland and Vancouver Island would be directly affected. I base this assumption on the fact that in the Pacific Northwest (Seattle area) the United States has three naval bases (one bases half their SLBM fleet), and Army base and I believe an Airforce base.

Now put aside the economic diaster the entire first world's economies would face from a limtied nuclear exchange, and think of the direct threat a potentail nuclear strike would have on Southwestern British Coulmbians..........

So? Even if these countries actually develop into a threat, I don't see missile defence as being necessary as the threat of nuclear annihalation has always proven to be a successful detrrent. Diplomacy and containment are a better way to address the problem of proliferation than a system that doesn't even work.

Do you have evidence to suggest BMD can't engage SLBM.....whats the difference if the missile is launched from the ocean or the land? Also, how have you become privy to the reaction time of the BMD system

Everything I've read on the system indicates its designed to counter land based missiles. given that the system is designed to target missiles during the boost phase, I simply surmised that the system doesn't have the reaction time to deploy against a close-range threat.

According to Theodore A. Postol, a professor of science, technology, and national-security policy at the MIT , a former Defense Department consultant and missile-defense critic:

In order for a defense to intercept a submarine launched ballistic missile, the interceptors would have to be deployed around areas that were to be defended. This is because the ballistic missiles from submarines can be fired at very close range and if interceptors were very far away, they could never hope to hit the short range ballistic missile. Any defense that is supposed to defend against submarine launched ballistic missiles would have to be proliferated widely in order to defend against such attacks.

Which evidence?

The raw numbers. There's fewer long-range missiles and fewer countries developing ballistic missiles today than 20 years ago.

If the threat was minimal, why are hostile and potentaily hostile nations developing ICBMs?

The unspoken part of the the question being "if they don't intend to use them?" Well, let's look at Israel, a country who's had anuclear program for decades and who's nuclear arsenal numbers 75-130 weapons. Yet despite being faced with hostile neighbours (neighbours who lack nuclear capability), it has yet to use its weapons. Why? Because they are a deterrent. The logic is: push them far enouh and they will retaliate with nukes. But it's unlikely they would use them as an offensive weapon. Similarily, Iran and North Korea want a means of deterring their enemies. I mean really: how would you react if you knew the most powerful nation on earth has put you on its hit list?

What leads you to believe otherwise? Also, BMD was hatched under Clinton.......if Gore was in the oval office would you give two shits?

Actually BMD was hatched by the Republicans under Bush 1. Even if a Dem were in the White House, it would still be a bad idea, but the Bush doctrine adds a new dimension, giving the U.S. the capability to strike against nuclear powers without fear of reprisal (assuming the system ever actually works). That's an angle that I'm sure has been discussed, but I don't believe it to be the primary raison d'etre of BMD.

Of course they can't, but they can make an effort, which in the case of BMD, they are doing rather poorly, due to the fact that they are turning the defence of Canada into a game of political hot potato........It's absoultly disgusting.

I also think the government's been doing rather poorly in preparing us for the possibility of inavsion by subterranian mole-people. But then, mole people aren't really a threat, just as ICBM's aren't much of a threat.

Also, may I ask, what factors do you base your "ranking system" on?

Well the simple numbers, as I stated above. Every realistic assessment of the missile threat says that, while there is a possibility of more countries developing ballistic missiles, the likelihood of North Ameria or even Europe being targetted is very small. That's enough reason for me to rank missile defense as a low priority.

BUT, by taking part in talks about BMD we will not receive a backlash internationally. We are a sovereign country that is in charge of its own territory. What we do to safeguard that has nothing to do with the international community. Whether we came up with this idea, or the Americans, it needs to be heard out.

Why? Just because the Yanks cook up some cockamamie scheme, we're obliged to hear it out? Jesus Christ, if they wanted to build a giant laser in the Yukon to defend against incoming asteroids (hey, you must've seen "Armageddon" or at least "Deep Impact"), should we be all ears, even though the probability of an asteroid hitting the earth is miniscule?

I say, if they want to sink more money into the black hole of BMD, that's their problem. Canada needs to call a spade a spade and tell them to take a hike.

[Grantler]

Well, in defense of thinking about the missile shield. Maybe it would be prudent to go ahead with it. Technology is spreading and we cannot expect rogue nations not to be able to develop nuclear weapons with delivery mechanisms forever.

Maybe if we get something in place that we can always improve on we will be in a better position in the future.

[Black Dog]

Well, in defense of thinking about the missile shield. Maybe it would be prudent to go ahead with it. Technology is spreading and we cannot expect rogue nations not to be able to develop nuclear weapons with delivery mechanisms forever.

That still doesn't mean missiles would be any more of a threat. Any nuclear attack on the U.S. would be met with an overwhelming response. That simple fact has kept North America safe for 60 years and will continue to work into the future. There is every reason to believe that currwent and future threats can be addressed through diplomacy and measured military preparedness.

[Stoker]

So? Even if these countries actually develop into a threat, I don't see missile defence as being necessary as the threat of nuclear annihalation has always proven to be a successful detrrent. Diplomacy and containment are a better way to address the problem of proliferation than a system that doesn't even work.

Yeah, because Diplomacy and containment has worked soooo well in stoping the spread of nuclear weapons.....

Everything I've read on the system indicates its designed to counter land based missiles. given that the system is designed to target missiles during the boost phase, I simply surmised that the system doesn't have the reaction time to deploy against a close-range threat.

According to Theodore A. Postol, a professor of science, technology, and national-security policy at the MIT , a former Defense Department consultant and missile-defense critic:

I've no problem admitting that I don't know all the inner workings of BMD and because of that, I don't state my opinion or that of somebody elses as fact. With that said, one componet of BMD is a sea based, onboard USN AEGIS crusiers and Destroyers.......

The raw numbers. There's fewer long-range missiles and fewer countries developing ballistic missiles today than 20 years ago.

Prove it!

I've already posted a list (with proof) of nuclear nations developing ICBMs today.......if anything, the number has increased, at the very least, the number of nations developing long range missiles has stayed the same.

QUOTE 

If the threat was minimal, why are hostile and potentaily hostile nations developing ICBMs?

The unspoken part of the the question being "if they don't intend to use them?" Well, let's look at Israel, a country who's had anuclear program for decades and who's nuclear arsenal numbers 75-130 weapons. Yet despite being faced with hostile neighbours (neighbours who lack nuclear capability), it has yet to use its weapons. Why? Because they are a deterrent. The logic is: push them far enouh and they will retaliate with nukes. But it's unlikely they would use them as an offensive weapon. Similarily, Iran and North Korea want a means of deterring their enemies. I mean really: how would you react if you knew the most powerful nation on earth has put you on its hit list?

You are putting word into my mouth and changing the subject........Again:

"If the threat was minimal, why are hostile and potentaily hostile nations developing ICBMs?"

Actually BMD was hatched by the Republicans under Bush 1. Even if a Dem were in the White House, it would still be a bad idea, but the Bush doctrine adds a new dimension, giving the U.S. the capability to strike against nuclear powers without fear of reprisal (assuming the system ever actually works). That's an angle that I'm sure has been discussed, but I don't believe it to be the primary raison d'etre of BMD.

NMD

In mid 1993, the Department of Defense (DoD) conducted a Bottom-Up Review (BUR) to select the strategy, force structure, and modernization programs for America's defense in the post-Cold War era. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the threat to the U.S. homeland from a deliberate or accidental ballistic missile attack by states of the former Soviet Union (FSU) or the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) was judged to be highly unlikely. In addition, the ability of Third World countries to acquire or develop a long range ballistic missile capability in the near future was considered uncertain. As a prudent approach for responding to this uncertain threat, the Department pursued a technology readiness strategy for National Missile Defense (NMD) to develop and maintain the ability to deploy ballistic missile defenses for the United States should a threat emerge.

If the system doesn't or won't ever work, how can it be part of the Bush doctrine of preemption?

Well the simple numbers, as I stated above. Every realistic assessment of the missile threat says that, while there is a possibility of more countries developing ballistic missiles, the likelihood of North Ameria or even Europe being targetted is very small. That's enough reason for me to rank missile defense as a low priority.

Who do you think North Korea will have their ICBMs targeted at?

That still doesn't mean missiles would be any more of a threat. Any nuclear attack on the U.S. would be met with an overwhelming response. That simple fact has kept North America safe for 60 years and will continue to work into the future. There is every reason to believe that currwent and future threats can be addressed through diplomacy and measured military preparedness.

I don't disagree with you that any country that nuked a US city would be turned into a glass parking lot.........but retaliation is not prevention.

[Black Dog]

Yeah, because Diplomacy and containment has worked soooo well in stoping the spread of nuclear weapons.....

Actually it has. Diplomacy has resulted in significant reductions in the number of nukes world wide.

I've already posted a list (with proof) of nuclear nations developing ICBMs today.......if anything, the number has increased, at the very least, the number of nations developing long range missiles has stayed the same

Please. Your proof was a list of three NPT nations that were already known to have long-range missile capability.

I've posted this before.

The declining ballistic missile threat

The blurring of short, medium, intermediate and intercontinental ranges for the world's missile inventory often results in the misinterpretation of the oft-quoted assessment that over 25 nations possess ballistic missiles. This statement is true, but only the United States, China and Russia possess the ability to launch nuclear warheads on land-based intercontinental missiles. This has not changed since Russia and China deployed their first ICBMs in 1959 and 1981 respectively.

...

Long-Range Ballistic Missiles

Force reductions in U.S. and Russian arsenals have dramatically decreased the number of long-range ballistic missiles in the world from their Cold War levels.

Decreases

In 1987, the Soviet Union deployed 2,380 long-range missiles in its combined ICBM and SLBM arsenals. The United States deployed 1,640 long-range missiles. As of January 2005, Russia has 923 long-range missiles carrying 3,550 warheads and the U.S. has 918 long-range missiles carrying 3,166 warheads.

Increases

France has reduced its nuclear arsenal overall, but now has 48 long-range SLBMs that it began deploying at the very end of 1987. Similarly, the United Kingdom has reduced its arsenal but now fields 58 long-range Trident SLBMs that it did not have in 1987.

Status Quo

During this period China has maintained a force of about 20 DF-5 ICBMs. No other country has developed an ICBM or long-range SLBM during this time period. (1987-2005)

Net Decrease

By January 2005, the total number of long-range ballistic missiles in the world (including those of the United States, the United Kingdom and France) has decreased 51 percent to 1,967 from the 4,040 deployed in 1987. More significantly the total number of long-range missiles potentially threatening the United States has declined from 2,400 fielded by the Soviet Union and China in 1987 to 943 fielded by Russia and China today. This is a decrease in the number of ICBMs that threaten U.S. territory or interests of 61 percent.

"If the threat was minimal, why are hostile and potentaily hostile nations developing ICBMs?"

I answered your question. It's one word: deterrence.

Who do you think North Korea will have their ICBMs targeted at?

So? Doesn't mean they'll use them.

I don't disagree with you that any country that nuked a US city would be turned into a glass parking lot.........but retaliation is not prevention.

Yes it is. It's called deterrence. It worked throughout the Cold War and it will continue to work.

Here's a question for you: if, as you concede, any attack on North America would be met with overwhelming force, why would any nation attack North America?

[Stoker]

Actually it has. Diplomacy has resulted in significant reductions in the number of nukes world wide.

I'm not talking about arms reductions, I'm talking about poliferation.

Please. Your proof was a list of three NPT nations that were already known to have long-range missile capability.

I've posted this before.

No, I asked which nuclear nations are not developing long range missiles, knowing full well all are. You provided a list of five nations and I added three more. IOW, all the nuclear nations that will not be within the BMD "bubble" are developing long range missiles and have been doing so for quite some time.

WRT your paper, it's complete and utter fallacy.

First point, the reduction in ICBMs world wide is already known and not being contested by myself........it's obvious with the "end of the cold war".

Second point, it state no nation has :

developed an ICBM or long-range SLBM during this time period. (1987-2005)

This is admittly false, the United States developed the MGM-134A Midgetman through the early 90s and the Russians recently admitted to a new weapons program........to say nothing about the other countires programs that I provided proof to.

I answered your question. It's one word: deterrence.

I thought you implyed before that ICBMs are no longer a relavent tool for deterrence? If so, why build them?

So? Doesn't mean they'll use them.

And it doesn't mean they won't.........

Yes it is. It's called deterrence. It worked throughout the Cold War and it will continue to work.

Here's a question for you: if, as you concede, any attack on North America would be met with overwhelming force, why would any nation attack North America?

The same reason any nation threatens Americans and/or American intrests at home or abroad..... illogical thinking.

[Black Dog]

I'm not talking about arms reductions, I'm talking about poliferation.

Since 1968, only two, possibly three, "new" nuclear powers have emerged. Meanwhile, Libya, Iraq, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina have all abandoned their nuclear aspirations.

No, I asked which nuclear nations are not developing long range missiles, knowing full well all are

Your reply was misleading because it included countries that already had long range missile capability.

In other words, there are no new missile threats.

Second point, it state no nation has :

developed an ICBM or long-range SLBM during this time period. (1987-2005)

This is admittly false, the United States developed the MGM-134A Midgetman through the early 90s and the Russians recently admitted to a new weapons program........to say nothing about the other countires programs that I provided proof to.

Nice selective editing, but the actual quote was

No other country has developed an ICBM or long-range SLBM during this time period.

In other words no one has long range missile capability that didn't already have it before.

I thought you implyed before that ICBMs are no longer a relavent tool for deterrence? If so, why build them?

Where did I say that? The U.S.'s stock of ICBMs is the biggest detrrent to any country that would challenge them on a nuclear battlefield.

And it doesn't mean they won't.........

Cop out.

History and logic says they wouldn't.

The same reason any nation threatens Americans and/or American intrests at home or abroad..... illogical thinking.

Oh really? Can you give an example of such?

I can think of one off the bat: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Only thing is, Iraq believed that he U.S. would not intervene based on comments the American ambassador made to Saddam Hussein. So in that sense, invading Kuwait was not an illogical or irrational move.

Let's go back in the day: the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviet Union challenged the U.S. on its very doorstep They knew they could push he U.S., but eventually backed off when the threat of mutual destruction became too great. Diplomacy and the threat of nuclear war won the day.

In fact I have a hard time thinking of any examples where someone has threatened U.S. interests where they thouht they couldn't get away with it. That's pretty logical.

So, nuclear deterrence has worked, "no matter what country we're talking about, no matter what kind of government the country has, no matter what kind of ruler the country has had."

Your expectation that a despotic or tyrranical regime would abandon all semblence of rationality and self preservation just for kicks is defies both history and human nature.

[Stoker]

Since 1968, only two, possibly three, "new" nuclear powers have emerged. Meanwhile, Libya, Iraq, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina have all abandoned their nuclear aspirations.

Exactly, and diplomacy and containment didn't prevent poliferation........whats to say it will in the future?

Your reply was misleading because it included countries that already had long range missile capability.

In other words, there are no new missile threats.

So you concede that the current nuclear nations are still developing long range missiles?

In other words no one has long range missile capability that didn't already have it before.

And no one has stoped developing the capability.

Where did I say that? The U.S.'s stock of ICBMs is the biggest detrrent to any country that would challenge them on a nuclear battlefield.

After looking back, it wasn't you who implied it........my bad.

Oh really? Can you give an example of such?

I can think of one off the bat: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Only thing is, Iraq believed that he U.S. would not intervene based on comments the American ambassador made to Saddam Hussein. So in that sense, invading Kuwait was not an illogical or irrational move.

Ahh, but do you think not pulling out of Kuwait, when threatend with force was prudent?

Let's go back in the day: the Cuban missile crisis. The Soviet Union challenged the U.S. on its very doorstep They knew they could push he U.S., but eventually backed off when the threat of mutual destruction became too great. Diplomacy and the threat of nuclear war won the day.

But do you think that actual act of deploying missiles was smart?

[Black Dog]

Exactly, and diplomacy and containment didn't prevent poliferation........whats to say it will in the future?

You missed the point: it has worked. If those principles were abandoned, we'd be talking about dozens of nuclear powers today, not a handful.

So you concede that the current nuclear nations are still developing long range missiles?

Obviously. That's not the point, though, since (by your own admission) BMD isn't designed to defend against a Russia or China.

And no one has stoped developing the capability.

And in the context of BMD: so what? New developments by current nuclear threats will continue to be deterred. If anything, BMD will only encourage more weapons development as countries like Russia and China will work to counter the precieved advantage BMD would give the U.S. (Russia is already working on a warhead that can dodge interceptor missiles). No one wants to give anyone else an edge and BMD is fuel to that fire.

Ahh, but do you think not pulling out of Kuwait, when threatend with force was prudent?

Saddam made a number of miscalculations. For one thing, he still didn't think the U.S. would follow through and felt he could negotiate a partial withdrawl that would allow him to keep some of Kuwait's oil fields.

So he miscalculated and underestimated American interest in their oil-rich ally. A strategic blunder but not, in the end, a fatal one. (At that point the U.S. still needed Saddam in Iraq).

It's difficult to see, however, how anyone could interpret a nuclear attack as an action without serious consequenses.

But do you think that actual act of deploying missiles was smart?

Soviet reasoning was twofold — first, to defend this newly Communist Cuba from an invasion, and second, to shift the nuclear balance of power away from the U.S. by putting American cities directly within the range of Soviet missiles. Again, the pertinent fact is that faced with an outcome which, in Kennedy's words, "even the fruits of victory would be ashes in our mouth", they backed down, proving the ultimate value of nuclear deterrence.

[Stoker]

You missed the point: it has worked. If those principles were abandoned, we'd be talking about dozens of nuclear powers today, not a handful.

And you have missed the reality........only one nuclear armed "rogue" nation is required to inflict serious economic and phyiscal damage on the United States and by proxy the rest of world that trades with the United States.

Obviously. That's not the point, though, since (by your own admission) BMD isn't designed to defend against a Russia or China.

It is the point, it was you that has claimed (in this thread or another) that the threat ICBMs pose is very little to none and that future threats will be cruise missiles and suitcase nukes. This illustrates that long range missiles technology is still a viable and progressive threat, hence BMD.

And in the context of BMD: so what? New developments by current nuclear threats will continue to be deterred. If anything, BMD will only encourage more weapons development as countries like Russia and China will work to counter the precieved advantage BMD would give the U.S. (Russia is already working on a warhead that can dodge interceptor missiles). No one wants to give anyone else an edge and BMD is fuel to that fire.

In the words of you......Strawman

As we have both concluded, as I'm quite sure the Chinese and Russians have, BMD is not a threat to them.

As for the "other countries", I'm sure the United States would welcome an "arms race" with the likes of a third world despot..........The Soviets couldn't do......I doubt Kim Jong can.