US Missile Shield over Canada

[Black Dog]

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.

So basically you are expecting us to believe that some nation will go through the trouble and expense of building nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them and then, in a decision that would fly in the face of all logic and human nature, decide to attack the U.S. just for shits and giggles, knowing full well that such an attack would mean their nation's utter destuction?

I suppose you'll be telling me Santa Clause exists next.

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.

Your confusing the mere existence of long range missiles with the threat they pose. From a purely theoretical standpoint, long-range missiles are still a threat. But, from a practical standpoint, the fact that there are a lot fewer now than there were even 20 years ago means that they are less of a threat. By the U.S.'s own admission, there are other, far greater threats.

So as long as long-range missiles exist, they will constitute a threat, but the reality is they are not a big enough threat to justify the expense of BMD.

Let me dumb it down even further: you stumble out of the bar on enight and come face to face with two toughs in an alley who are eyeing your wallet. One looks to be about 90 pounds soaking wet and is unarmed. The other is a muscular 250 pounder packing a knife. Do you address these threats by putting all you efforts into taking out the pipsqueak, or do you confront the bigger threat?

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

Wow. Big red letters. I'm convinced.

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

No. I simply said that Russia and China aren't the foes BMD is designed to counter. But I'm not sure they agree.

China is undertaking long-term modernization and expansion of its strategic nuclear forces, which U.S. strategic analysts perceive as a latent threat. Still, China’s nuclear force will remain relatively small, and the U.S. will retain a massive retaliation deterrent. Hence, even in the event of direct U.S.-China military conflict, the prospects of China launching nuclear missiles against the U.S. will remain slim. Nevertheless, China’s nuclear capabilities are a meaningful coercive instrument politically—however remote the prospect, Pentagon war planners must still reckon with China’s possible use of nuclear weapons directly against the United States. U.S. NMD deployment would act to mitigate the political utility of this threat.

This concern is linked to the first two. NMD would moderate Pentagon defense planners’ concerns over escalation in the event of U.S. intervention in Taiwan or other U.S.-China regional conflicts. NMD capability would also add enormously to these planners’ perceptions of policy flexibility on many issues, including Taiwan. China would, they reason, perceive its coercive influence over the United States to have diminished, and the United States would thus have an expanded freedom to maneuver.

The Chinese and Russians also suspect that as part of a major military build-up, the US intends eventually to build a much wider missile defense system than the one now planned. They fear that by using a missile shield in combination with weapons like new Stealth aircraft, sensors in space, and precision munitions, America would be able to strike first with nuclear weapons, then defend against a missile retaliation. Sha Zukang, China's top arms negotiator, expressed his concern at a recent United Nations conference.

So both Russia and China don't like BMD and are willin to build up their arsenals in response. Not exactly what I'd call a boon to stability.

[August1991]

So basically you are expecting us to believe that some nation will go through the trouble and expense of building nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them and then, in a decision that would fly in the face of all logic and human nature, decide to attack the U.S. just for shits and giggles, knowing full well that such an attack would mean their nation's utter destuction?

I suppose you'll be telling me Santa Clause exists next.

Santa Claus? How about North Korea.

The issue is not the madness of a Kim. It's a negotiating point.

No US president would ever want to be foreced to negotiate anything faced with the threat of, for example, Seattle's destruction. That's what happened, partly, in 1962.

Missile shield research receives bipartisan support. I'm not surprised.

[Stoker]

So basically you are expecting us to believe that some nation will go through the trouble and expense of building nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them and then, in a decision that would fly in the face of all logic and human nature, decide to attack the U.S. just for shits and giggles, knowing full well that such an attack would mean their nation's utter destuction?

Sure they would.......whats the point of building them if you don't intend to use them?

I've no doubt in my mind that if pressed. the United States and the USSR would have used theirs during the cold war.

Your confusing the mere existence of long range missiles with the threat they pose. From a purely theoretical standpoint, long-range missiles are still a threat. But, from a practical standpoint, the fact that there are a lot fewer now than there were even 20 years ago means that they are less of a threat. By the U.S.'s own admission, there are other, far greater threats.

So as long as long-range missiles exist, they will constitute a threat, but the reality is they are not a big enough threat to justify the expense of BMD.

It doesn't mater what the overall numbers of ICBMs in the world are (such as during the cold war), what mater is who has them.

I've never stated that the threat of a nuclear terror attack on the States is isn't larger than the threat of a missile strike, with that being said, that doesn't make it prudent to discount other threats to ones self.

Let me dumb it down even further: you stumble out of the bar on enight and come face to face with two toughs in an alley who are eyeing your wallet. One looks to be about 90 pounds soaking wet and is unarmed. The other is a muscular 250 pounder packing a knife. Do you address these threats by putting all you efforts into taking out the pipsqueak, or do you confront the bigger threat?

I try and fend off both attackers to the best of my ablity.........honestly, I'm 6'5 and about 280...

The same can be said for the United States, they are a big "goon" (like myself) and have the inherit ablitiy to, at the very least, make a valiant attempt to defend themselves from all threats posed against them.

Wow. Big red letters. I'm convinced.

Really? I'm flattered.

No. I simply said that Russia and China aren't the foes BMD is designed to counter. But I'm not sure they agree.

QUOTE 

China is undertaking long-term modernization and expansion of its strategic nuclear forces, which U.S. strategic analysts perceive as a latent threat. Still, China’s nuclear force will remain relatively small, and the U.S. will retain a massive retaliation deterrent. Hence, even in the event of direct U.S.-China military conflict, the prospects of China launching nuclear missiles against the U.S. will remain slim. Nevertheless, China’s nuclear capabilities are a meaningful coercive instrument politically—however remote the prospect, Pentagon war planners must still reckon with China’s possible use of nuclear weapons directly against the United States. U.S. NMD deployment would act to mitigate the political utility of this threat.

This concern is linked to the first two. NMD would moderate Pentagon defense planners’ concerns over escalation in the event of U.S. intervention in Taiwan or other U.S.-China regional conflicts. NMD capability would also add enormously to these planners’ perceptions of policy flexibility on many issues, including Taiwan. China would, they reason, perceive its coercive influence over the United States to have diminished, and the United States would thus have an expanded freedom to maneuver.

QUOTE 

The Chinese and Russians also suspect that as part of a major military build-up, the US intends eventually to build a much wider missile defense system than the one now planned. They fear that by using a missile shield in combination with weapons like new Stealth aircraft, sensors in space, and precision munitions, America would be able to strike first with nuclear weapons, then defend against a missile retaliation. Sha Zukang, China's top arms negotiator, expressed his concern at a recent United Nations conference.

So both Russia and China don't like BMD and are willin to build up their arsenals in response. Not exactly what I'd call a boon to stability.

Another strawman !!! Two in a row........Wow.

As has already been proven, both China and Russia have been developing long range missiles for decades.......Granted this is in reponce to precieved American and Soviet aggression......but in reality, BMD has no really bearing on either of these nations, it's simple mathematics......both countries have larger missile arsenals then the United States planned deployment of interceptors.

Any talk coming out of the Iron and/or Bamboo curtain is just that.

[Army Guy]

Black dog :

I think your basing most of your arguement with incomplete info....The amount of countries that are still developing nuk wpns is much longer than you may think...

US,UK,Rus,France,China,India,Pak,Isreal,Iran,North Korea, south korea,Syria. these are countries that are still or have produce new wpns sys for nuc wpns....I can provide References but no links as it's out of Janes that is on the DWAN (DND LAN) it is a very lengthy doc so i will retrieve only what you ask for ...

We have also forgot to include chem or Bio wpns...both are included in WMD, and can inflict mass cas in the thousands...by including those types of wpns your list grows to almost triple in length....with over half of those with missle capabilities of at least 600 km...

Thinking that mutual destruction will keep nations in check is correct in 99 % of the cases...but one of the stated purposes of this wpn is to stop small numbers of incoming missiles launched from anywhere in the world by a groups or individual... who really don't have a nation to punish with a mass strike... Bin Laden comes to mind...do we nuc Afgan, Saudi or Pak....

I've spent a few years studing the Russian army and there is a big misconception that mutual destruction worked during the cold war....Not true...Russia has stated many times over ....that an unused wpn is a useless wpn...if the situation would have presented itself...they would have attacked,using chemical,and tactical nuc wpns in thier first of many strikes again'st Nato targets...

They had calculated in there attack plans casualties from return Nuc exchange and firmly believed they could win an nuc exchange.... Life holds a different meaning to them...we have to stop thinking like most westerns do and start thinking like they do...not just Russia...but the middle east as well....when we do then BMD will seem like a good idea.

[caesar]

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

Pakistani scientist sold nuclear technologies to these "rogue" nations ; were immediately pardoned; and allowed to keep their ill gotten gains with not a single rumble from the Bush regime. Weeks later the USA declared Pakistan to be an preferred ally and allowed to purchase up to the minute American military equipment>

It is the USA's aggression and threats; the invasion of Iraq while they were cooperating with the UN and destroying some borderline illegal weapons that has prompted these rogue nations to declare that they do have the nuclear abilities to deter an attack on them.

[Black Dog]

Sure they would.......whats the point of building them if you don't intend to use them?

The U.S. has the largest stockpiole of nukes in the world. Why would they build them if they don't intend to use them?

Wwe've had nuclear weapons hanging over our heads for more than half a century, yet they've never been used. Why?

I've no doubt in my mind that if pressed. the United States and the USSR would have used theirs during the cold war.

Key words: if pressed. Certainly not to make a point.

Which brings us back to the detrrent value of nukes and the heart of why countries like Iran and North Korea are pursuing these programs. Both have been threatened by teh U.S.. Both are weak and so teh only way they can hope to deterr the U.S. is through nuclear weapons. th emore pressed tehse countries get, the more the U.S. rattles its sabre in their direction, the mor einsecure they feel and the more likely they are to pursue weapons.

It doesn't mater what the overall numbers of ICBMs in the world are (such as during the cold war), what mater is who has them.

The same people have them today as had them 20 years ago. North Korea's ballistic missile program has been stalled for years and Iran is, according to U.S. estimates, at leats a decade removed fropm any kind of long-range capability.

I've never stated that the threat of a nuclear terror attack on the States is isn't larger than the threat of a missile strike, with that being said, that doesn't make it prudent to discount other threats to ones self.

No, but your response needs to be in proportion to the threat. Personally I think the construction of a multi-billion dollar missile sheild to counter the threat of one rickety North Korean rocket is a disproportionate response.

Another strawman !!!  Two in a row........Wow..

What straw man? I do not think that means what you think it means.

As has already been proven, both China and Russia have been developing long range missiles for decades.......Granted this is in reponce to precieved American and Soviet aggression......but in reality, BMD has no really bearing on either of these nations, it's simple mathematics......both countries have larger missile arsenals then the United States planned deployment of interceptors.

Look closer. Obviously, both China and Russia have had long range nukes for years. But it seems they are taking BMD very seriously.

Russia tests new wonder weapon

Russia has successfully tested a hypersonic anti-Star Wars weapon capable of penetrating any prospective missile shield, a senior general said Thursday.

The prototype weapon proved it could maneuver so quickly as to make "any missile defense useless," Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the first deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, told a news conference.

He said that the prototype of a new hypersonic vehicle had proved its ability to maneuver while in orbit, thereby making it able to dodge an enemy's missile shield.

"The flying vehicle changed both the altitude and direction of its flight," Baluyevsky said. "During the experiment conducted yesterday, we proved that it's possible to develop weapons that would make any missile defense useless."

Any talk coming out of the Iron and/or Bamboo curtain is just that.

Funny how lightly you take the rhetoric from the two most powerful nations after the U.S.

Thinking that mutual destruction will keep nations in check is correct in 99 % of the cases...but one of the stated purposes of this wpn is to stop small numbers of incoming missiles launched from anywhere in the world by a groups or individual... who really don't have a nation to punish with a mass strike... Bin Laden comes to mind...do we nuc Afgan, Saudi or Pak....

I wonder, though, how would someone like bin laden would get a hold of an ICBM. Given the status and prestige these weapons give to countries, I don't think they'd be too inclined to just pass them along .

I've spent a few years studing the Russian army and there is a big misconception that mutual destruction worked during the cold war....Not true...Russia has stated many times over ....that an unused wpn is a useless wpn...if the situation would have presented itself...they would have attacked,using chemical,and tactical nuc wpns in thier first of many strikes again'st Nato targets...

And there were elements within the U.S. who felt America could survive a nuclear exchange and pushed for preemptive nuclear strikes.

Life holds a different meaning to them...we have to stop thinking like most westerns do and start thinking like they do...not just Russia...but the middle east as well....when we do then BMD will seem like a good idea.

I think you're underestimating the survival instinct of someone like Kim Jong Il. Despots tend to be crafty and obsessed with holding power. They don't just want to throw everything the have away.

[Army Guy]

The same people have them today as had them 20 years ago. North Korea's ballistic missile program has been stalled for years and Iran is, according to U.S. estimates, at leats a decade removed fropm any kind of long-range capability.

Below are from Janes...a fairly accuate military pubication.

these reports are old but judging by them i'd say both Iran and N.Korea is capapble of putting a nuk down on target 800 km away...if not 4500km...

SS-1d `Scud C' variant

Reports from Iran indicate that there is a manufacturing capability for the North Korean `Scud' improvement (Scud-C variant), a missile with a 500 kg warhead and a range of 550 km. Reports indicate that 170 missile sets have been assembled, following the first trial launches in 1991. It is possible that Iran called this programme Shahab 2, and assistance may have been given by Iran to Syria to help that country develop an assembly and production capability for the 'Scud C'. Reports from the USA in 1997 suggested that Iran has built tunnel complexes at several locations along the Gulf Coast for 'Scud C' and larger ballistic missile facilities. It is believed that Iran has converted `Scud B' MAZ 543 TELs to carry the `Scud C' variant as well. A test of a 'Scud D variant' missile by Syria in September 2000, with a range increased to 650 km, suggests that a similar improvement may be developed by Iran.

M-11 variant

There are unconfirmed reports that Iran is developing a longer-range variant of the Chinese M-11 (DF-11/CSS-7) solid-propellant ballistic missile. This missile might have the Iranian designator Shahab 1 (although this name might refer to the 'Scud B' variant) or Tondar 68. Pakistan launched the Shaheen 1 in April 1999 and it is possible that Iran has a similar programme. There have been several reports from Israel that Iran and Syria are developing a solid propellant missile together, but no further details have been given. The Iranian version is believed to have a warhead weight of 500 kg and a range of 400 km. The warhead probably separates in flight and this missile would be considerably more accurate and easier to use than the 'Scud B variant'. The Chinese designed the M-11 to be launchable from the Russian MAZ 543 'Scud B' launch vehicle and it should not be difficult for Iran to use any of its 'Scud B' TELS for the M-11 variant.

M-9 variant

There are also unconfirmed reports that Iran is developing a second solid-propellant ballistic missile, based upon the Chinese M-9 (DF-15/CSS-6) design. This missile might have the Iranian designator Shahab 2 (although this name might refer to the 'Scud C' variant). The Iranian version is believed to have a warhead weight of 320 kg and a range of 800 km. The warhead probably separates in flight and this missile would be considerably more accurate and easier to use than the 'Scud C' variant. It is possible that the Chinese made a demonstration launch of this missile in Iran in 1991 and that the May 1996 launch was, in fact, the first Iranian test of this missile. Pakistan is believed to have a similar programme and to have conducted its first test flight in July 1997, although Pakistan's Shaheen 1 appears to be a scaled-up version of the Chinese M-11 rather than the M-9. The Iranian M-9 variant could be launched from standard 'Scud B' launch vehicles already in service in Iran, with only minor modifications. The status of this programme is not known.

Shahab 5/6

Unconfirmed reports suggest that Iran is developing either a solid-propellant, three-stage, intermediate-range ballistic missile, or a liquid/solid-propellant satellite launch vehicle, with a programme that started in 1997. However, there is confusion between the Shahab 4 and these two programmes. It is possible that these reports refer to the Shahab 5 and 6 missiles respectively, believed to be IRBM and satellite-launch vehicles based upon a similar North Korean project known as Taep'o-dong 2. The IRBM version has been given a range of 4,500 km.

I wonder, though, how would someone like bin laden would get a hold of an ICBM. Given the status and prestige these weapons give to countries, I don't think they'd be too inclined to just pass them along .

Steal it...or buy it..."I know your laughing" security on these wpns inside Russia are a joke...US and including Canada have paid major dollars and even personal to track all of russia nuk arsenal...

Canada most recent invest is 30 mil to help build a railway bridge so they can safetly move Nerve vapour fill arty rounds to the disposal site.......this cash of over 22,000 arty rounds is being stored in a barn in wine rack devices with only a simple pad lock on the door....It should be noted that 22,000 rds is enough chemical agent to kill everyone on the planet serveral times over....

The above type of sites are all over Russia and alot of the old warsaw pact countries. Russian black market items are sold world wide to include Jet fighters,helos,tanks Air defense wpns....it is actually pretty scary to what is avail to anyone with cash...

And there were elements within the U.S. who felt America could survive a nuclear exchange and pushed for preemptive nuclear strikes.

Yes your right, but they where held back by sensiable peers....

I think you're underestimating the survival instinct of someone like Kim Jong Il. Despots tend to be crafty and obsessed with holding power. They don't just want to throw everything the have away.

And your right Sadam was told during Gulf war I by the british if you use chemical wpns against british troops they would use nuclear wpns....so thier power means everything to them....and they are not willing to loose it....but did that stop Sadam from taking Kuwait...that would not stop a group of the likes of Bin ladens from attacking....

Just like those guys how actually flew those jets into the trade towers....they know what is at stake but it means more to them to be dead...

[Black Dog]

Below are from Janes...a fairly accuate military pubication.

these reports are old but judging by them I'd say both Iran and N.Korea is capapble of putting a nuk down on target 800 km away...if not 4500km...

So they still can't hit the continental U.S.

North Korea

The longest range missile currently deployed by North Korea is the No Dong missile, with an estimated range of 1,300 kilometers for a payload of about 700 kg. Such a range would allow North Korea to target all of Japan. North Korea is believed to have flight tested the No Dong only once—in May 1993. While Pakistan may have provided North Korea with information from the tests of its Ghauri missile, which is believed to consist largely or entirely of North Korean technology, and North Korea is believed to have used a modified No Dong as the first stage of the Taepo Dong 1 (TD-1) launched in 1998, North Korea nonetheless has limited information about the reliability and accuracy of the missile.

..

The only test of a longer range missile occurred in August 1998, when the three-stage TD-1 missile was launched in an attempt to place a small satellite in orbit. This effort was not successful due to a failure of the missile’s third stage. The test did demonstrate for the first time North Korea’s technical capability to launch missiles with multiple stages, as well as its access to solid fuel technology, which was used in the third stage. However, the missile cannot be considered operational without further testing.

...

Even if the TD-1 were successfully tested in the future, it would have limited capability and could at best deliver a small payload as far as Alaska or Hawaii. As noted in the September 1999 National Intelligence Estimate,  if North Korea decided to develop an intercontinental range missile it would likely try to develop the Taeop Dong 2 (TD-2), which could carry larger payloads, rather than the TD-1.

The TD-2 has never been flight tested, although US National Intelligence Estimates (NIE) have stated since 1998 that it was believed ready for flight testing. Even if true, this does not mean that North Korea could quickly turn it into an operational missile once it decided to begin flight testing.

...

Most discussions of the TD-2 assume that it will include a third stage, which is required for the ranges usually attributed to it, but North Korea has not successfully launched such a stage.

Moreover, North Korea has not flight tested a reentry heat shield for a long-range missile, and would need to do so before it could use it to deliver a warhead.

...

While North Korea might field a missile based on one or two tests, its confidence in its ability to use such a missile would be very low.

Knowing the reliability of a missile has important implications for the type of warhead that might be used on it. North Korea is believed to have separated enough plutonium for one or two nuclear weapons. Even if it had developed a working nuclear weapon, any leader would be reluctant to place such a valuable, scarce resource on a missile of unknown reliability, reserving it instead for other means of delivery.

...

If one is concerned about near-term capabilities for missile delivery of lethal payloads to US territory, a more likely threat is short-range missiles launched from ships, which uses simpler technology than long-range missiles and appears feasible for a country like North Korea.  Such forward-based threats have a number of advantages compared to using intercontinental missiles, since they use short-range missiles, are likely to have higher accuracy, and do not pin-point the country of origin. They could also not be engaged by the planned Ground-based Midcourse or Aegis-LEAP missile defenses, but would require large-scale deployment of short-range defenses around coastal cities.

Steal it...or buy it...

I gues the question then becomes: does Al Qaeda have the resources to steal/buy an ICBM and actually launch the thing? Personally, I don't think this is a realistic threat, at least wehen compared to a suitcase nuke or dirty bomb.

And your right Sadam was told during Gulf war I by the british if you use chemical wpns against british troops they would use nuclear wpns....so thier power means everything to them....and they are not willing to loose it....but did that stop Sadam from taking Kuwait...that would not stop a group of the likes of Bin ladens from attacking....

The threat stopped him from using any chemical weapons he might have had, didn't it? And, given that he was able to not only hang onto power, but further consolodate his hold on it, I think Saddam would consider himself the victor of the first Gulf War.

Just like those guys how actually flew those jets into the trade towers....they know what is at stake but it means more to them to be dead...

Interesting thing: it's never the leadership of these organizations that are all fired up for mrtyrdom. They don't practice what they preach. So in that sense, they are just as committed to survival and retaining whatever power and influence they have as Saddam was and Kim Jong Il is.

But I think we're getting far afield here. To sum up, I believe the nuclear missile threat posed to North America by "rogue" nations is very low and that such states are deterrable through existing means. I also believe the threat of individuals or terorist groups obtaining advanced missile technology is minute.

I believe the cost of BMD both politically (as in the case of antagonizing Russia and China) and resource wise (money and personell) is disproportionate to the threat being faced. I believe these resources would be best directed to legitimate and pressing threats (such as securing ex-Soviet weapons stocks for example) than towards a costly system of dubious effectivness designed to mitigate a threat of miniscule proportions. From a Canadian perspective, I simply don't think Canada should be involved with BMD for those reasons and for the simple fact that there are more pressing needs within our current forces that require prompt attention.

[Trial-and-Error]

Are you trying to tell us that our priorities should lie in other directions--e.g., update our public health care system to reduce waiting lists; initiate a national prescription drug program; create a national child care program; improve our educational system so that kids will learn how to think for themselves and be immune to propaganda from government and corporate sectors; initiate a job creation program that would assist people to get meaningful full-time employment; increase welfare for the truly needy; clean up the environment; create a kind of country that others will clamour to emulate? I mean, are those the sorts of things you really feel we should be devoting our time and money to?

Are you seriously suggesting that we should not be conned into Junior's BMD program so a few can become more obscenely rich than they already are? Are you saying that a BMD program will only serve to put Canadians more at risk in any number of ways?

My gawd, man, if that's the case, you're bordering on anti-Americanism! At the very least, you're showing a decided bias against the corporate world. That bodes well!!

[Stoker]

The U.S. has the largest stockpiole of nukes in the world. Why would they build them if they don't intend to use them?

Wwe've had nuclear weapons hanging over our heads for more than half a century, yet they've never been used. Why?

I think you may have misunderstood me.........instead intend, I should have put prepaired to.

IOW, a nation that builds nukes, should be prepaired to use them.......if not, why have them?

Do you believe that North Korea would never use theirs?

Key words: if pressed. Certainly not to make a point.

Which brings us back to the detrrent value of nukes and the heart of why countries like Iran and North Korea are pursuing these programs. Both have been threatened by teh U.S.. Both are weak and so teh only way they can hope to deterr the U.S. is through nuclear weapons. th emore pressed tehse countries get, the more the U.S. rattles its sabre in their direction, the mor einsecure they feel and the more likely they are to pursue weapons.

So? We both agree that, if pressed, a nuclear nation would use their nukes, right? So how does that take away from the value of BMD?

BMD will negate or at the very least, severly reduce the value of any aspiring, third world nation with an ICBM program.

The same people have them today as had them 20 years ago. North Korea's ballistic missile program has been stalled for years and Iran is, according to U.S. estimates, at leats a decade removed fropm any kind of long-range capability.

North Korea and Iran's programs are one in the same:

Taep'o-dong 2

In May 2004 Middle East Newsline reported that Western intelligence sources Teheran had been negotiating with Pyongyang for the purchase of the Taepo Dong-2 as Iran's first intercontinental ballistic missile as well as a space launcher. It was also claimed that in 2003 North Korea had discussed the Taepo Dong-2 with Libya and Syria, but neither country expressed serious interest.

No, but your response needs to be in proportion to the threat. Personally I think the construction of a multi-billion dollar missile sheild to counter the threat of one rickety North Korean rocket is a disproportionate response.

Why's that?

How many Billions of dollars is Los Angles worth? What about San Fransico? Seattle?

The Americans obviously think the cost of BMD is less than the loss of one or more of it's west coast cities.....

In Dollar terms, whats Vancouver and Victoria worth? How much (in dollar terms) of the BMD program do the Americans want us to shoulder? I've read little to none, what about you?

What straw man? I do not think that means what you think it means.

The left-wing threat that BMD will start another arms race........

Look closer. Obviously, both China and Russia have had long range nukes for years. But it seems they are taking BMD very seriously.

Russia tests new wonder weapon

QUOTE 

Russia has successfully tested a hypersonic anti-Star Wars weapon capable of penetrating any prospective missile shield, a senior general said Thursday.

The prototype weapon proved it could maneuver so quickly as to make "any missile defense useless," Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the first deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, told a news conference.

He said that the prototype of a new hypersonic vehicle had proved its ability to maneuver while in orbit, thereby making it able to dodge an enemy's missile shield.

"The flying vehicle changed both the altitude and direction of its flight," Baluyevsky said. "During the experiment conducted yesterday, we proved that it's possible to develop weapons that would make any missile defense useless."

QUOTE 

Any talk coming out of the Iron and/or Bamboo curtain is just that.

Funny how lightly you take the rhetoric from the two most powerful nations after the U.S.

How is your above quote disproving my stance that the Russians and Chinese have nothing to worry about when it comes to BMD?

It's also worth pointing out, the Soviets/Russians have had a a anti-ballistic missile system deployed since the 70s..........A-135 / ABM-3

Where is the uproar from the left over this?

[Newfie Canadian]

Now it isn't confirmed, but CTV's Mike Duffy speculated tonight that PM PM will use his upcoming trip to Brussels to tell Pres. Bush that Canada won't be joining the BMD system.

[Black Dog]

think you may have misunderstood me.........instead intend, I should have put prepaired to.

IOW, a nation that builds nukes, should be prepaired to use them.......if not, why have them?

Do you believe that North Korea would never use theirs?

No, not never. But under very different circumstances than what you and other BMD proponents invision.

So? We both agree that, if pressed, a nuclear nation would use their nukes, right? So how does that take away from the value of BMD?

BMD will negate or at the very least, severly reduce the value of any aspiring, third world nation with an ICBM program.

Wouldn't it make more sense to ensure these countries don't get nukes in the first place?

How many Billions of dollars is Los Angles worth? What about San Fransico? Seattle?

The Americans obviously think the cost of BMD is less than the loss of one or more of it's west coast cities.....

In Dollar terms, whats Vancouver and Victoria worth? How much (in dollar terms) of the BMD program do the Americans want us to shoulder? I've read little to none, what about you?

So we're back to this, which is disingenous at best. It's noty a matter of weighingthe cost of BMD versus the potential cost in lives, but of weighing teh cost of BMD with it's potential usefullness. Given that the threat of a ballistic missile attack is so low, I don't see the point in BMD.

[Stoker]

No, not never. But under very different circumstances than what you and other BMD proponents invision.

Maybe, maybe not. I'd still like the insurance that BMD could afford us though.

Wouldn't it make more sense to ensure these countries don't get nukes in the first place?

Definitely, by whatever mean necessary. Of course diplomacy should be the first option, but if that fails, do you favor preemption? If the diplomatic efforts made by the European nations fail in preventing Iran from aquiring nuclear weapons, would you be in favour of a 'first strike'?

So we're back to this, which is disingenous at best. It's noty a matter of weighingthe cost of BMD versus the potential cost in lives, but of weighing teh cost of BMD with it's potential usefullness. Given that the threat of a ballistic missile attack is so low, I don't see the point in BMD.

Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

One question though, if the United States was willing to shoulder the entire cost of R&D, and then deployment of BMD and all we where asked to provide was a handful of of extra personal to NORAD to help administer the system, would you still be opposed?

[Stoker]

Perhaps the disscussion if we should join BMD is now moot......

[Black Dog]

One question though, if the United States was willing to shoulder the entire cost of R&D, and then deployment of BMD and all we where asked to provide was a handful of of extra personal to NORAD to help administer the system, would you still be opposed?

Yes, first because I'm philosophically opposed to the system as I feel it's a white elephant, a pig in a poke, a bill of goods. Secondly, I don't believe for one minute that the U.S. won't come to us with cap in hand at some point.

[willy]

On Friday, shortly before Question Period, a defiant Martin said Canada would have to give permission before any missiles are fired over our airspace.

The US is confused, I am confused.

This is a ground based system that resideds in Alaska and the west coast. The US does not need Canada to put it in place.

.S. ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci said from now on, the U.S. will decide when to fire at incoming missiles over Canadian territory.

"We will deploy. We will defend North America," Cellucci said.

"We simply cannot understand why Canada would in effect give up its sovereignty -- its seat at the table -- to decide what to do about a missile that might be coming towards

Canada."

PM PM has said we would decide. Is he telling us that if a missile is coming at our country that the US should not just shoot it down. We have now removed ourselves from the process so they should give us a call and get our permission. This is ridiculous.

[Army Guy]

The liberal goverment could not make a decision if thier lifes depended on it....instead they mumble and delay as long as they can while constantly looking over thier should to see what we the people want....yes,no,yes,no,yes, is it a full moon....what month is it....

This is not leadership....martin is not a leader.....what we need is leadership that is capable of making a informed decision and sticking with it...

How many people out there really think that "if" a missle is fired at the US that they are not going to engage it, to defend themselfs....be it over Canada or not....do you think they are going to phone and ask permission.....and if we say no....and they engage it any ways...what then....we grab our protesting signs,dig out our song sheets, pack some mushrooms into a baggie and march to the US embassy....

You can't have both ways....you spoke and our spineless leader listened....the Answer is "no" atleast today....NO BMD ...we as a nation do not want to have anything to do with it....oh by the way phone us and let us know if you want to engage anything over Canada...

do ya Think we'll get a call....

[Trial-and-Error]

How many people out there really think that "if" a missle is fired at the US that they are not going to engage it, to defend themselfs....be it over Canada or not....do you think they are going to phone and ask permission.....and if we say no....and they engage it any ways...what then...

Can you help me understand army? - are you suggesting that if we sign on to the BMD the USA will be sure to call us for permission? As you say yourself the Americans are going to do whatever is necessary to defend themselves no matter if we're at the table or not. Can you be specific about what the upside would be if we did sign on?

[willy]

Can you be specific about what the upside would be if we did sign on?

We would have representation in the room when decisions are made. NORAD was about integrating our defense into a common strategy and system. We might not get our way but we would at least have influence. In the case of shooting an incoming missile down, I think the decision could be made even by PM PM. Shoot it down.

[Shakeyhands]

I think the bigger question now that that is settled is what do we do if a rogue nation did decide to lob a ICBM or such across the pole?

I would expect first of all that it is probably aimed at the US, and will they expect us to sit idly by as the "Intercept" said missle thereby detonating it over our soil?

I think that that is exactly what would happen.

Lucky the chjances of this happening are non existent AND the damn thing doesn't work anyway.

[kimmy]

I think the bigger question now that that is settled is what do we do if a rogue nation did decide to lob a ICBM or such across the pole?

I would expect first of all that it is probably aimed at the US, and will they expect us to sit idly by as the "Intercept" said missle thereby detonating it over our soil?

Do you understand that intercepting a nuclear warhead will NOT cause a nuclear detonation?

Shooting down a nuclear warhead over Canada will result in a relatively modest quantity of radioactive solids raining down onto Canadian soil. Horror- a crew of geeks from Atomic Energy Canada might have to drive around for a few weeks with Geiger Counters to get that sorted out.

Take a moment to consider the chaos a nuclear weapon detonating on the US northeastern seaboard will cause within Canada (not to mention the potentially enormous loss of life south of the border.)

-kimmy

[Stoker]

Interceptor shoots down missile in test

What great timing PM PM has. Bravo!!!

Then again, Aegis (the sea based componet of BMD) has been opreating for decades.........

You can't have both ways....you spoke and our spineless leader listened....the Answer is "no" atleast today....NO BMD ...we as a nation do not want to have anything to do with it....oh by the way phone us and let us know if you want to engage anything over Canada...

do ya Think we'll get a call....

Good point, but to be honest, did you ever expect PM PM to follow through on BMD? The answer is quite simple, when a member of the Liberal party says something (Like how PM PM supported BMD during the Liberal leadership race), one should always expect the opposite to be the true end result.

The guy I feel the most for is Bill Graham, due to the fact that he stuck his neck out so far in support of BMD last fall.........anybody see this poor bastard on "Politics" the other day.....If he had any balls, he would resign as MND after being made to look the fool. (added to the demotion to MND)

Opting out of missile defence could alter Norad: ex-general

Retired general Gordon O'Connor, now the Conservative defence critic, said opting out of the plan is a militarily embarrassing decision because the government has never outlined what it is saying no to.

Thursday in the Commons, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper urged Prime Minister Paul Martin to detail the plan: "If he is saying no to something, do us the honour of telling us exactly what it is that he said no to."

Forget my right-wing bias, but the Cons do make a good point......"if nothing is going to change" (WRT NORAD), what did we say no to?

I'll strap on my Aluminum Foil Deflector Beanie for a moment and wonder......did we actually say No to BMD? Did we argee last summer, and this big media circus is for the benift of parliament and the Canadian public, with PM PM's "responce" being taliored to suite public opinion?

Perhaps this thread should now be merged with the "trade war thread".........

Canada's historic missile snub will have unpredictable consequences: analysts

One immediate consequence could affect Prime Minister Paul Martin's role on the international stage.

If he had any hope the United States would help him create his cherished G-20 group of world leaders, those hopes may have been extinguished permanently.

One U.S. official emitted a deep, extended laugh when asked for an assessment of the prime minister and said Canada no longer qualifies as a trusted ally.

But Canada's refusal to sign on to the missile plan could further marginalize its concerns and interests when trade-related issues like softwood lumber appear before U.S. Congress, said one Calgary observer.

"This is one more issue that goes into the balance scale, one more reason to say, 'Screw Canada,' " said David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.

Looks like yet again, the west could suffer from the choices made by the Eastern "elite".....

[Shakeyhands]

Do you understand that intercepting a nuclear warhead will NOT cause a nuclear detonation?

Shooting down a nuclear warhead over Canada will result in a relatively modest quantity of radioactive solids raining down onto Canadian soil. Horror- a crew of geeks from Atomic Energy Canada might have to drive around for a few weeks with Geiger Counters to get that sorted out.

Hmmm... I wouldn't want to bet the farm that a detonation couldn't happen, I believe I have read that intense heat is enough to 'cook' a warhead to detonation.

I guess the point is, I am not willing to find out. Are you?

and to be honest, any amount of radioactive anything is too much in my books.

Why would anyone want to fire a missle at the US anyway, what with how they are spreading democracy throughout the lands.....

[kimmy]

Do you understand that intercepting a nuclear warhead will NOT cause a nuclear detonation?

Shooting down a nuclear warhead over Canada will result in a relatively modest quantity of radioactive solids raining down onto Canadian soil. Horror- a crew of geeks from Atomic Energy Canada might have to drive around for a few weeks with Geiger Counters to get that sorted out.

Hmmm... I wouldn't want to bet the farm that a detonation couldn't happen, I believe I have read that intense heat is enough to 'cook' a warhead to detonation.

What is your source for this information? If you can point me to someone more credible than CanadaR0X0RS4life @ Rabble.ca I would be very interested to read it. Please get back to me on this. In the meantime I will go to the engineers in my life and discuss it with them; they will draw up a few pages of statistical mechanics that demonstrate that even under ideal controlled conditions, heating is unlikely to generate the extreme kinetic energy necessary to cause a fission reaction, and that such a thing happening during an instantaneous impact with an interceptor missile is a virtual impossibility.

I guess the point is, I am not willing to find out.  Are you?

Given the alternative? Sure. Particularly since I'm not relying on CanadaR0X0RS4life @ Rabble for my scientific information.

and to be honest, any amount of radioactive anything is too much in my books. 

With that being the case, you'd most likely agree that a cloud of radioactive ash resulting from a nuclear detonation just a short drive from Toronto would be a much greater hazard than some chunks of retrievable radioactive solids landing somewhere in the sparcely populated regions of Canada's north. Yes?

Why would anyone want to fire a missle at the US anyway, what with how they are spreading democracy throughout the lands.....

So you're arguing that this scenario you've dreamed up is unlikely to happen in any event?

-kimmy

[anticlimates]

Black dog :

I think your basing most of your arguement with incomplete info.

Is that a right reserved for yourself?

ie. you claimed to know the Americans would pay for it all.

Then you claimed it was already paid for.

Also you claimed that the defensive positions would be better if Northern Canada were available.

Lot's of assumptions there....