Missle Defence Shield

[GostHacked]

I have been watching the developments on the Missle Defence Shield for some time. I know most of you have been watching the same.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...wfoundland.html

NO matter what we do. The radar will be put in place. The argument is that the new radar will not just help out with the MDS, but provide better radar coverage persion for our Atlantic coast. They want to sell it as an upgrade.

They have been looking at Labrador. The US will try anything to sell us this bullshit plan. We lost out huge when the Avro Arrow was canceled due to the prospect of a missle defence plan. Shortsighted yes.

Let's not let them pull the wool over our eyes again.

What we need to do, is start a National petition againt the MDS, let our government AND the US government know how we feel about it.

[Newfie Canadian]

Well GostHacked, looks like you're at odds with the newest Liberal MP, who is from Labrador, Todd Russell.

Labrador's new Liberal M-P says his beleaguered constituents will take any jobs they can get.

So Todd Russell is all for a proposed new radar facility in Labrador, even if it contributes to U-S missile defence. Raytheon Company hopes to set up its ``X-band'' radar technology in Labrador.

I'm not sold on the BMD thing, but it looks as though the US is going to ahead with it anyway, like Iraq, and if they are going to go ahead with no matter what, we might as well get what we can, even if we still don't sign on.

[Black Dog]

Already underway here, here, here, and here.

[Sir Chauncy]

The only way Canada wont become infested, or infected, with that damn system is if Canadians enmasse scream at Ottawa , loud and clear, and consistently, to stay to he77 out of the waste of money thing.

Sir Chauncy

[BHS]

The only way Canada wont become infested, or infected, with that damn system is if Canadians enmasse scream at Ottawa , loud and clear, and consistently, to stay to he77 out of the waste of money thing.

Sir Chauncy

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because God knows, we sure wouldn't want to be shielded from missile attacks. Or protected by the American military. Good thing we paid our own way through the Cold War.

[GostHacked]

Because God knows, we sure wouldn't want to be shielded from missile attacks. Or protected by the American military. Good thing we paid our own way through the Cold War.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Riiiiiiight .. What exactly do we beed to be sheilded from? And your sarcastic remark about paying our way through the Cold War, explain and expand on that one please.

[cybercoma]

Someone clarify this for me.

We don't need a military because the United States is expected to defend us; however, we don't want their military defense systems on our soil?

[Black Dog]

We don't need a military because the United States is expected to defend us; however, we don't want their military defense systems on our soil?

No we don't need much of a military because the threats against us are remote at best, the same reason we don't need to be part of a crackpot missile defence scheme that doesn't work and is designed to protect against threats that don't really exist.

[BHS]

Riiiiiiight .. What exactly do we beed to be sheilded from? And your sarcastic remark about paying our way through the Cold War, explain and expand on that one please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'd say it's pretty blinkered to assume there will never be an enemy capable of launching missile attacks on North America, or North American allies overseas. It's not like the technology doesn't exist, pal.

As for the Cold War, do you think we kept up our end of our NATO obligations? Going from having the world's third largest navy to having essentially no naval capability at all? And making similar cutbacks in spending throughout our defensive capability, despite having the second largest landmass of any nation on Earth? Do you really believe we defended Canada all by ourselves?

Above all else, the Cold War was brought to an end by the American commitment to winning it. If it had been left up to the Trudeaus of this world, I'd be typing in Russian right now, assuming the Soviet system would ever develop the technical capability to create something like the internet.

[GostHacked]

...... It's not like the technology doesn't exist, pal.

Never said it didn't. But the best possible scenario now is that the missles will not be comming over the North Pole since Russia is no longer a threat to the US in terms of the cold war. They will come from the east and west. Where is North Korea again, and what would be the shortest path to the continental US.

Also a missle defence sheild in Canada would be totaly fucking usless against launches that would happen from a submarine sneaking along the US coast. Reaction time is drastically reduced. Or someone trying to smuggle in a dirty bomb. That makes the missle defence sheild obsolete.

As for the Cold War, *SNIP*  Do you really believe we defended Canada all by ourselves?

Cutting back on the Military was needed for the fact we could not financially support it to the extent that it was. Also it was simply NOT needed. Cold War is over, so really no threat.

Above all else, the Cold War was brought to an end by the American commitment to winning it. If it had been left up to the Trudeaus of this world, I'd be typing in Russian right now, assuming the Soviet system would ever develop the technical capability to create something like the internet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Low blow on the Internet talk from you. **side note - Were do most of the Internet viruses/spyware/spam come from? That is right the US.** The downfall of the Soviet Union and the end to the cold war was brought by years of fighting in Afghanistan between the Taliban and the Russian military. The Soviet Union fell upon itself. It was corrupt and rotting from within. The moral was fading fast among the troops due to them not getting paid ect. The US did not really play a factor in that at all. You may have the argument that the overspending on nuclear capabilities in Russia and the US caused the downfall. Dollar for dollar the Soviet Union could not keep up. Also you had states that wanted to break away even before the Cold War ended. Belarus, Georgia ect, that also contributed to their downfall. Saying that the US was the only factor in bringing down the Soviet Union is a total lie.

[Argus]

What we need to do, is start a National petition againt the MDS, let our government AND the US government know how we feel about it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do you care? This thing won't cost us anything, will keep the yankees happy, and who knows, they might even make it work one day.

[BHS]

Never said it didn't. But the best possible scenario now is that the missles will not be comming over the North Pole since Russia is no longer a threat to the US in terms of the cold war. They will come from the east and west. Where is North Korea again, and what would be the shortest path to the continental US.

Also a missle defence sheild in Canada would be totaly fucking usless against launches that would happen from a submarine sneaking along the US coast. Reaction time is drastically reduced. Or someone trying to smuggle in a dirty bomb. That makes the missle defence sheild obsolete.

Still blinkered. You make the false assumption that there will never again be a enemy nation capable of launching such weapons, or that all future nations with this capability will be our allies, or that missiles will never again be used in any case. How can you know this? The eventual goal of the Missile Shield program is a system that detects and destroys missiles within seconds of a launch, so your scenario of subs launching weapons fast enough to beat the system is moot. And really, it just argues against all the other points you're making about missiles being obsolete.

Cutting back on the Military was needed for the fact we could not financially support it to the extent that it was. Also it was simply NOT needed. Cold War is over, so really no threat.

How is it, then, that the Americans, with a similar standard of living, have managed to maintain their military preparedness? Oh, right. They didn't opt for the third world health care scheme that we did. Makes a big difference.

Our military preparedness started to slide long before 1990. The reason it was NOT needed was that we were happy to rely completely on the Americans for our protection from the Soviets. Which was my original point. And it's true, unless you think the Soviets were all puppy dogs and ice cream and wouldn't have dreamt of enslaving us.

Low blow on the Internet talk from you. **side note - Were do most of the Internet viruses/spyware/spam come from? That is right the US.** The downfall of the Soviet Union and the end to the cold war was brought by years of fighting in Afghanistan between the Taliban and the Russian military. The Soviet Union fell upon itself. It was corrupt and rotting from within. The moral was fading fast among the troops due to them not getting paid ect. The US did not really play a factor in that at all. You may have the argument that the overspending on nuclear capabilities in Russia and the US caused the downfall. Dollar for dollar the Soviet Union could not keep up. Also you had states that wanted to break away even before the Cold War ended. Belarus, Georgia ect,  that also contributed to their downfall. Saying that the US was the only factor in bringing down the Soviet Union is a total lie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I fail to see where you're going with the computer virus factoid.

That's an interesting take, though, the Afghanistan theory of Soviet demise. I haven't heard that one before, possibly because it's so friggin implausible. The Russians went into Afghanistan of their own accord and could have pulled out at any time. True, it was a long and costly war for them, but they didn't have to fight it. Saying the Russians were brought down due to their failure in Arghanistan is like saying the Americans were nearly destroyed by their efforts in Vietnam. The Russians are in Chechnya right now, same prolonged nightmare as Afghanistan was, and I highly doubt that it will play anything more than a token role in whatever fate history has in store for them.

True, there are many other factors that played a part in the break up of the Soviet Union, including Solidarity and the price of tea in China. But it's just stupid to say the American efforts to contain the Soviets militarily and dominate them economically didn't have the most impact. Even the former Soviet apartchiks will tell you that.

[GostHacked]

Still blinkered. You make the false assumption that there will never again be a enemy nation capable of launching such weapons, or that all future nations with this capability will be our allies....

The reasons countries build nukes (aside from allies) are to protect themselves from the US. Why else is North Korea building them. To launch an attack? No it would be in retaliation if the US attacks them. They are there mearly for protection. So far the US has not attacked them, but did invade Iraq, knowing their military was non existant, plus the fact that they had no WMDs.

How is it, then, that the Americans, with a similar standard of living, have managed to maintain their military preparedness? Oh, right. They didn't opt for the third world health care scheme that we did. Makes a big difference.

One word. Captilalism. And the fact that the US spends more on their military than France, Germany, Britian combined? Plus with a population of at least 10 times that of ours in Canada, there is alot more revenue to invest in a military.

Our military preparedness started to slide long before 1990. The reason it was NOT needed was that we were happy to rely completely on the Americans for our protection from the Soviets. Which was my original point. And it's true, unless you think the Soviets were all puppy dogs and ice cream and wouldn't have dreamt of enslaving us.

Yeah I am sure the Soviet Union wanted to control the world and make us all commies. Our '3rd world' health care system is still considered one of the best on the planet. It is not perfect, but 3rd world? I guess our government decided that the health and welfare of our citizens was more important than creating a military that will go to war on a whim and a prayer.

Low blow on the Internet talk from you. **side note - Were do most of the Internet viruses/spyware/spam come from? *SNIP* I fail to see where you're going with the computer virus factoid.

Well since you said that Russia did not have the technology to create the Internet, I was pointing out that most of the problems online like spam viruses and spyware come from US based sites and ISPs. (trust me on this one)

That's an interesting take, though, the Afghanistan theory of Soviet demise. I haven't heard that one before, possibly because it's so friggin implausible.

Check out The Power of Nightmares by BBC reporter Adam Curtis. Pretty convincing.

True, there are many other factors that played a part in the break up of the Soviet Union, including Solidarity and the price of tea in China. But it's just stupid to say the American efforts to contain the Soviets militarily and dominate them economically didn't have the most impact. Even the former Soviet apartchiks will tell you that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But ignoring other facts that contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union is pretty ignorant.

It may warrent to have the protection from the US due to our proximity to them. But when it comes down to it. We are not the one being looked at through the rifle scope. And we are not the ones invading other countries for the purpose of regime change. This is important when considering all of this.

We do not need to install a missle defence shield, this will just make us more of a target. You coperate close with the US on these matters, THEN you get attacked.

Example. Madrid train bombings, todays attacks in London ect.

[Black Dog]

You make the false assumption that there will never again be a enemy nation capable of launching such weapons, or that all future nations with this capability will be our allies, or that missiles will never again be used in any case. How can you know this.

Sigh. The same principles which kept the Soviet Union from launching a nuclear attack against the U.S. (and vice versa) would most certainly apply to any rogue nation.

[PocketRocket]

ARGUS made two great points, as long as the first turns out to be true;

"It won't cost us a thing".

If GWB and his merry band of I-won't-say-whats are willing to install the whole defense system, FREE OF CHARGE to Canada, AND give Canada control over the portion of the shield that lay on Canadian soil, then I say go for it......

PROVIDING........

(Again, as ARGUS pointed out) they ever get the bloody thing to work.

As of 2 months ago, there had been 3 tests, all heavily rigged in the system's favor, and all 3 had failed miserably.

I haven't kept up on it since then.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the score so far is: dummy missiles 3, defense shield system, 0.

[GostHacked]

Pocket Rocket

Not much news on the Canadian front. This was the last I heard of it.

http://stjohns.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/Vie...on-goose-050617

But for Inida, they just now totaly refused the MDS from anyone including the US.

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/arti...40&parent_id=22

[BHS]

The reasons countries build nukes (aside from allies) are to protect themselves from the US. Why else is North Korea building them. To launch an attack? No it would be in retaliation if the US attacks them. They are there mearly for protection. So far the US has not attacked them, but did invade Iraq, knowing their military was non existant, plus the fact that they had no WMDs.

* * *

One word. Captilalism. And the fact that the US spends more on their military than France, Germany, Britian combined? Plus with a population of at least 10 times that of ours in Canada, there is alot more revenue to invest in a military.

* * *

Yeah I am sure the Soviet Union wanted to control the world and make us all commies. Our '3rd world' health care system is still considered one of the best on the planet. It is not perfect, but 3rd world? I guess our government decided that the health and welfare of our citizens was more important than creating a military that will go to war on a whim and a prayer.

* * *

Well since you said that Russia did not have the technology to create the Internet, I was pointing out that most of the problems online like spam viruses and spyware come from US based sites and ISPs. (trust me on this one)

* * *

Check out The Power of Nightmares by BBC reporter Adam Curtis. Pretty convincing.

* * *

But ignoring other facts that contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union is pretty ignorant.

It may warrent to have the protection from the US due to our proximity to them. But when it comes down to it. We are not the one being looked at through the rifle scope. And we are not the ones invading other countries for the purpose of regime change. This is important when considering all of this.

We do not need to install a missle defence shield, this will just make us more of a target. You coperate close with the US on these matters, THEN you get attacked.

Example. Madrid train bombings, todays attacks in London ect.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You seem to have missed the whole "future doesn't equal today" element of my argument in favour of missile defense (and military preparedness in general), so I'm going to give up trying to argue with you about that.

In case you missed it, Canada and every other first world nations all have capitalist economies. So what's you're point about America being capitalist? And somehow we managed to have a large and capable military in the past, so what happened? Political spending decisions have depleted our military capability. Canada has the world's 58th largest army, behind dozens of third world nations.

Of course the Soviets wanted to convert the world to communism.

Who considers our health care to be "the best on the planet" other than Canada's Liberal party? By what standards do you make that comparison? Do you realize that there are only three countries on Earth that prevent their citizens, by law, from using private health care - Canada, North Korea and Cuba. Calling our health care system "third world" might have been a step too far in the right direction on my part.

I still don't understand what your point is about spam and viruses and whatnot. You conjecture that most of the problems on the web originate in the US. But then so do most of the solutions to the problems, and most advancements in general. So what?

So the BBC is behind the Afghan theory. I might have guessed. Anything to stick one to the Yanks, truth be damned. I suppose you'd also buy the line that Thatcher made no useful contribubitons to English society, like: "The unions were going to relax their stranglehold on the moribund economy anyway, she didn't have anything to do with the economic turnaround".

As to you're last point, again I say, you're blinkered. The US is our largest trading partner, as we are theirs. We share a common language, a common culture, and the world's largest undefended international border with them. Bin Laden himself has named Canada to be one of the "Little Satans" that are in league with the Great one. We are very much in the sights, whether you like it or not.

No, I don't think we're going to be attacked tomorrow, with suicide bombs or dirty bombs or missiles or planeloads of VX. I think we're in the clear for now, thanks in large part to the American efforts to route the terrorist networks that had grown. The terrorists have been broken down to scattered terror cells, and have been forced to concentrate their efforts on smaller attacks in European cities where they have large, unassimilated populations of supporters and sympathisers. But to assume our inherent anti-American streak, and our unwillingness to protect ourselves, and our unwillingness to assist populations being ground under the heel of tyrants, will protect us from terrorism is just wrong.

[BHS]

Pocket Rocket

Not much news on the Canadian front. This was the last I heard of it.

http://stjohns.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/Vie...on-goose-050617

But for Inida, they just now totaly refused the MDS from anyone including the US.

http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/arti...40&parent_id=22

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Nice how you ignore the very first sentence of the Indian story, explaining that India doesn't want to be part of the US MDS effort because their building one of their own.

[BHS]

You make the false assumption that there will never again be a enemy nation capable of launching such weapons, or that all future nations with this capability will be our allies, or that missiles will never again be used in any case. How can you know this.

Sigh. The same principles which kept the Soviet Union from launching a nuclear attack against the U.S. (and vice versa) would most certainly apply to any rogue nation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sigh. Yawn. Scratch, scratch.

Do you know what the word "rogue" means? Do you understand how it applies in the term "rogue nation"? Your post quoted above implies not.

[cybercoma]

We don't need a military because the United States is expected to defend us; however, we don't want their military defense systems on our soil?

No we don't need much of a military because the threats against us are remote at best, the same reason we don't need to be part of a crackpot missile defence scheme that doesn't work and is designed to protect against threats that don't really exist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You must know something I don't know if you can garuantee there will NEVER be another threat to Canada again for the rest of history.

[Argus]

ARGUS made two great points, as long as the first turns out to be true;

"It won't cost us a thing".

If GWB and his merry band of I-won't-say-whats are willing to install the whole defense system, FREE OF CHARGE to Canada, AND give Canada control over the portion of the shield that lay on Canadian soil, then I say go for it......

PROVIDING........

(Again, as ARGUS pointed out) they ever get the bloody thing to work.

As of 2 months ago, there had been 3 tests, all heavily rigged in the system's favor, and all 3 had failed miserably.

I haven't kept up on it since then.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the score so far is: dummy missiles 3, defense shield system, 0.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I look at the money being spent on the "defence shield" largely as pure science. It's useful in advancing science. I don't think it'll ever be terribly useful in stopping rogue nations from nuking the odd American city. A rogue nation would most likely choose an anomymous, third party rusty freighter as a delivery mechanism, not an ICBM, and our borders are far too porous to ever stop such an attack. But if it makes the yanks happy and it doesn't cost us, then hey, why not let them install the bloody thing. It's not going to cause us any harm.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dera Argus,

and our unwillingness to assist populations being ground under the heel of tyrants, will protect us from terrorism is just wrong.

Too true. However, the problem lies in the fact that most tyrants were supported by other nations for their own (and the individual tyrant's) personal interst. This would mean that to address the real cause of most of the 'human rights' problems, Canada would have been at odds(or at war) with the US, Russia, France, UK, China.....

The only way to really deal with, and change the way things are done, is by having an organization like the UN with a lot more power to effect change. The UN, presently, is in sad need of an overhaul, or even scrapping, and a new 'global police force and 'impartial international court'.

[BHS]

Dera Argus,

and our unwillingness to assist populations being ground under the heel of tyrants, will protect us from terrorism is just wrong.

Too true. However, the problem lies in the fact that most tyrants were supported by other nations for their own (and the individual tyrant's) personal interst. This would mean that to address the real cause of most of the 'human rights' problems, Canada would have been at odds(or at war) with the US, Russia, France, UK, China.....

The only way to really deal with, and change the way things are done, is by having an organization like the UN with a lot more power to effect change. The UN, presently, is in sad need of an overhaul, or even scrapping, and a new 'global police force and 'impartial international court'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree.

It would be nice, and it's pretty much every science fiction fan's fantasy, if humanity could come together to form a global government that functioned with the same powers as our national governments do today. The UN in it's present form doesn't have the potential to go there. It legitimizes the world's worst regimes. Though it may be said that "all men are created equally", all nations are not, and do not deserve the equal stature that they acquire through UN membership. That some nations scrupulously play by the rules, while others use the rules only for their own benefit, is the greatest reason why the UN can't be given more teeth than it already has.

I believe the UN should be replaced with a United Democratic Nations. Price of entry: free elections that compare favourably to the kind of elections we enjoy in Canada. In other words, elections that DON'T feature armed thugs at polling places, opposition party memebers being thrown in jail the week before the election, or ballots to "confirm" the rulership of the present dictator (with a manditory 100% turnout). Such an organisation could, over time, be given more authority to act over memeber nations to enforce a common code of standards, more "teeth" if you will, because democratic nations by their nature are more enclined towards following the rules. It could also provide a common a front for the furtherance of spreading freedom and democracy to non-democratic nations.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

It could also provide a common a front for the furtherance of spreading freedom and democracy to non-democratic nations.

Democracy isn't the 'be all and end all', but there should be some mechanism in all societies for feedback to the 'lawmakers' of the land.

That being said, a new 'UN style' organization could have an international law that could and should be upheld whether or not nations try to 'opt out' or not join.

[Riverwind]

It would be nice, and it's pretty much every science fiction fan's fantasy, if humanity could come together to form a global government that functioned with the same powers as our national governments do today.

I would say it will remain a fantasy for a good long time given the seething resentments that existing within the Canadian federation towards a long standing national gov't and the problems the EU is having creating new super-nation gov't. And those examples include peoples that would be philosophically predisposed to the concept of a world govt.