Missle Defence Shield

[BHS]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree. The point of a Democratic UN is to establish a common set of rules that appeal to a majority of the people in the countries that participate.

It is difficult for the developed world to come up with a solution for intervention in, for example, Sudan, because there are a lot of people who feel we don't have the "right" to interfere in a the affairs of a sovereign nation, as in Iraq. It will be no less difficult to come up with a commonly accepted policy for dealing with Sudan in a Democratic UN, if Sudan isn't a part of the organization.

If the Democratic UN decides to enforce it's rules outside of the organization, but can't come to terms with the hardest cases, then what's the point?

[BHS]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed. I don't expect this to happen in the near future. There is talk, however, of the forming of a "democratic" voting block within the current UN, which might act as a stepping stone towards a purely democratically-oriented organization.

[Black Dog]

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.

Sure, I know what a rogue nation is. By the Bush definition (and, apparently, yours) it's a country who's ;leadership is willing to destroy themselves, their country and whatever power, wealth and influence they have. In other words "rogue nations" are fantasies.

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.

Well, I can look at the current world situation and see that the chances of us getting hit with a nuclear missile are prety damn slim. That tells me we should focus on other priorities.

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.

The problem with the UN is that its been an insturment of the powerful from the outset. Sure, there's a lot of unsavoury characters represented in the membership, but those guys have little or no real power or influence. That belongs to the Security Council.

So the United Democratic Nations would really be the same as the current UN, just without the illussion of inclusiveness.

[BHS]

Sure, I know what a rogue nation is. By the Bush definition (and, apparently, yours) it's a country who's ;leadership is willing to destroy themselves, their country and whatever power, wealth and influence they have. In other words "rogue nations"  are fantasies.

* * *

Well, I can look at the current world situation and see that the chances of us getting hit with a nuclear missile are prety damn slim. That tells me we should focus on other priorities.

* * *

The problem with the UN is that its been an insturment of the powerful from the outset. Sure, there's a lot of unsavoury characters represented in the membership, but those guys have little or no real power or influence. That belongs to the Security Council.

So the United Democratic Nations would really be the same as the current UN, just without the illussion of inclusiveness.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, no nuclear capable nation has ever dared to test US resolve in a nuclear confrontation. But it's a little too comfortable to conclude that no nation ever will. Why not develope the capacity to guarantee that missile technology has become obsolete?

Your desire to focus on other priorities has merit. There are always other things that government money could be spent on. Think of all the billions of dollars that have been pissed away by NASA, that could have been donated to starving African dictators instead. And yet, we may one day find that we can't live without the technologies we developed in the exploration of space. I think it's a worthwhile gamble, as is the possibility of putting ICBM technology on ice forever.

I'm hoping the UDN will forego the creation of anything like a Security Council, an idea that looked great on paper in 1948 but which has proven to be worse than useless in practice. I'm *hoping* that a generalized system of voting can be put in place that will moot the need for unilateral vetoes.

[Black Dog]

True, no nuclear capable nation has ever dared to test US resolve in a nuclear confrontation. But it's a little too comfortable to conclude that no nation ever will. Why not develope the capacity to guarantee that missile technology has become obsolete?

The question is: why would anyone be crazy enough to attack the United States, even if they could, especially using ICBM's when, as soemone else noted, it would be a lot easier to hit the U.S. through unconventional means, such as proxy terror groups.

Your desire to focus on other priorities has merit. There are always other things that government money could be spent on. Think of all the billions of dollars that have been pissed away by NASA, that could have been donated to starving African dictators instead. And yet, we may one day find that we can't live without the technologies we developed in the exploration of space. I think it's a worthwhile gamble, as is the possibility of putting ICBM technology on ice forever.

I think its silly to assume that this BMD, even if they ever get the damn thing to work, will be the end of ICBMs. Technology marches on and someone is bound to come up with a way to neutralize it. A better priority to focus on would be global nuclear disarmament.

I'm hoping the UDN will forego the creation of anything like a Security Council, an idea that looked great on paper in 1948 but which has proven to be worse than useless in practice. I'm *hoping* that a generalized system of voting can be put in place that will moot the need for unilateral vetoes.

You missed my point, which is that the current UN, despite the common canard, does not "legitimize the world's worst regimes"; rather it is an institution run by powerful nations (mainly democracies) that determine what it can and cannot do. Therefore, if the United Nations in its current incranation has failed, that failure is the responsibility of the same nations you are expecting to reform it. Basically, you are expecting the powerful to freely surrender the power they have and destroy the body that gives their actions a veneer of legitimacy.

[BHS]

I think its silly to assume that this BMD, even if they ever get the damn thing to work, will be the end of ICBMs. Technology marches on and someone is bound to come up with a way to neutralize it. A better priority to focus on would be global nuclear disarmament.

Who's chasing a pipe dream now? Global nuclear disarmament is as unlikely as effectively banning civilians from having guns. Even if you had the capability to destroy all weapons everywhere, the technological know-how to recreate them still exists.

You missed my point, which is that the current UN, despite the common canard, does not "legitimize the world's worst regimes"; rather it is an institution run by powerful nations (mainly democracies)  that determine what it can and cannot do. Therefore, if the United Nations in its current incranation has failed, that failure is the responsibility of the same nations you are expecting to reform it. Basically, you are expecting the powerful to freely surrender the power they have and destroy the body that gives their actions a veneer of legitimacy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Our nation, Canada, takes the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission very seriously. The Human Rights Commission is regularly composed of and chaired by some of the world's worst "human rights" abusers. (If you want to talk about canards, "human rights" is a biggy. Hence the scare quotes.) This is but one aspect of the ways in which the UN has served to legitimize the world's worst regimes.

I find it interesting, by the by, that you think the democracies of the world have created the UN to provide a "veneer of legitimacy" to their actions. This will no doubt be a sticking point between us in future discussions, as I believe the actions undertaken by democratic states are prima facie legitimate and require no such veneer.

[Black Dog]

Who's chasing a pipe dream now? Global nuclear disarmament is as unlikely as effectively banning civilians from having guns. Even if you had the capability to destroy all weapons everywhere, the technological know-how to recreate them still exists.

I never said it was a totally acheviable goal. But there's no denying its in the world's best interests to pursue disamrmament policies and to reduce the damage of proliferation. I don't expect any of the nuclear powers to cede their control, but its a goal that makes a lot more sense than wasting money on a BMD system, dontcha think?

Our nation, Canada, takes the recommendations of the Human Rights Commission very seriously. The Human Rights Commission is regularly composed of and chaired by some of the world's worst "human rights" abusers. (If you want to talk about canards, "human rights" is a biggy. Hence the scare quotes.) This is but one aspect of the ways in which the UN has served to legitimize the world's worst regimes.

And who empowers so many tyrants? Who allows and enables them to make a mockery of human rights? Who deals with them, props them up, sells them guns?

I believe the actions undertaken by democratic states are prima facie legitimate and require no such veneer.

How so? I assume you believe democracies have the implicit approval of their citizens. But what of actions undertaken without that approval (I'm thinking of countries like the UK and Spain where participation in the Iraq war was oppossed by large majorities)? Also you fail to realize that citizens can give their approval (and thus legitimacy) to actions that under any other circumstances, would be considered unjust or illegitimate (such as the U.S.' invasion of Iraq).

[BHS]

I never said it was a totally acheviable goal. But there's no denying its in the world's best interests to pursue disamrmament policies and to reduce the damage of proliferation. I don't expect any of the nuclear powers to cede their control, but its a goal that makes a lot more sense than wasting money on a BMD system, dontcha think?

Obviously not.

And who empowers so many tyrants? Who allows and enables them to make a mockery of human rights? Who deals with them, props them up, sells them guns?

Gratuitous Simpsons quote: "We do, we do!"

By this same logic, the government of Ontario is responsible for whatever criminal actions are undertaken by people on welfare. But I like where you're going with this. I say we cut off all communication with these ratty little nations. To hell with 'em.

I assume you believe democracies have the implicit approval of their citizens. But what of actions undertaken without that approval (I'm thinking of countries like the UK and Spain where participation in the Iraq war was oppossed by large majorities)? Also you fail to realize that citizens can give their approval (and thus legitimacy) to actions that under any other circumstances, would be considered unjust or illegitimate (such as the U.S.' invasion of Iraq).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In case you haven't been following the thrust of my arguments thus far, I don't consider America's invasion of Iraq illegitimate.

The people of Spain elected a government, disapproved of their government's foreign policy, and turfed them at the first opportunity. I suppose the government's actions can be construed as illegitimate, in that they didn't hold an election before sending troops into battle. But not really. Representative democracy means the government has a mandate to make decisions, even if the decisions turn out to be unpopular. Spain's government acted and got spanked for it. I don't think you'll see Spain sending it's troops anywhere for a long time. How is that not a legitimate outcome?

Then there's Britain, on the hand. You claim that the majority of Britons objected to the war. Yet Labour was re-elected. It may be that you are correct, and that the majority did object to the war but voted pro Labour for other reasons. But other than the election, how can you prove your point? The weight of evidence suggests that at the very least the war wasn't important enough to decide the election. So how was Tony's decision to go to war illegitimate?

Since you seem keen to cut down the workings of representative democracy, and the capabilities of democratic nations to act morally, what would you have as an alternative? You seem to be arguing to poke holes in the way things are, without offering constructive alternatives.

[Black Dog]

Obviously not.

Why not?

By this same logic, the government of Ontario is responsible for whatever criminal actions are undertaken by people on welfare. But I like where you're going with this. I say we cut off all communication with these ratty little nations. To hell with 'em.

Bad analogy alert. Perhaps your analogy would work if, in addition to giving people on welfare assistance, the government of Ontario gave them guns.

Individuals are responsible for their own actions, though social circumstances amy be a factor in influencing their choices. When it comes to nations and regimes, though, western interests habitually facilitate crimes when it suits their interests to do so. It's the way of the world, I suppose, but obviously not a workable one. As for cutting of communication, I don't think that's possible. W2hat we need is a policy of constructive engagement.

In case you haven't been following the thrust of my arguments thus far, I don't consider America's invasion of Iraq illegitimate.

But you haven't explained why.

The people of Spain elected a government, disapproved of their government's foreign policy, and turfed them at the first opportunity. I suppose the government's actions can be construed as illegitimate, in that they didn't hold an election before sending troops into battle. But not really. Representative democracy means the government has a mandate to make decisions, even if the decisions turn out to be unpopular. Spain's government acted and got spanked for it. I don't think you'll see Spain sending it's troops anywhere for a long time. How is that not a legitimate outcome?

Spain's an interesting case. the pro-war regime had a solid lead in the polls and was headed to victory until the Madrid bombings brought the war home. Again, anti-war sentiment wasn't enough to carry the day.

Then there's Britain, on the hand. You claim that the majority of Britons objected to the war. Yet Labour was re-elected. It may be that you are correct, and that the majority did object to the war but voted pro Labour for other reasons. But other than the election, how can you prove your point? The weight of evidence suggests that at the very least the war wasn't important enough to decide the election. So how was Tony's decision to go to war illegitimate?

Well, in Britain, as the USA, the choice was between two pro-war parties. In other words people didn't have an avenue to express their anti-war sentiment (I'm aware there are other parties, but they dion't realy count for reasons I shan't get into here).

All these cases illustrate the great flaws in western representive democracies: the people cannot pick and choose which policies to support: they are stuck. But it also raises the point that legitimacy goes beyond simple public approcval. If I may channel Hugo for a second, if 99 people out of 100 vote to murder the 1, does that majority approval make that course of action legitimate?

Since you seem keen to cut down the workings of representative democracy, and the capabilities of democratic nations to act morally, what would you have as an alternative? You seem to be arguing to poke holes in the way things are, without offering constructive alternatives

Nations don't act morally. They act to serve their interests. those actions have moral implications, but moral consideratiosn are seldom, if ever, the key driver of policy. As for alternatives, I don't know. I know the status quo is unsustainable. And I'm sure we'll have to come up with alternatives once we come to the end of the road we're on now.

[GostHacked]

[BHS]

Ghosthacked:

If you can't be bothered to read and grasp the whole thread, I can't be bothered to rewrite everything just to respond to your post, except to say that further to my statement that I don't believe the American invasion was illegitimate, I also don't believe that the American government lied about their intentions. If that was your perception, perhaps you ought to try a variety of news sources.

[BHS]

Obviously not.

Why not?

I think I've made my beliefs on this matter pretty clear in previous posts.

By this same logic, the government of Ontario is responsible for whatever criminal actions are undertaken by people on welfare. But I like where you're going with this. I say we cut off all communication with these ratty little nations. To hell with 'em.

Bad analogy alert. Perhaps your analogy would work if, in addition to giving people on welfare assistance, the government of Ontario gave them guns.

Individuals are responsible for their own actions, though social circumstances amy be a factor in influencing their choices. When it comes to nations and regimes, though, western interests habitually facilitate crimes when it suits their interests to do so. It's the way of the world, I suppose, but obviously not a workable one. As for cutting of communication, I don't think that's possible. W2hat we need is a policy of constructive engagement.

Good call. My analogy was flawed, but you've gotten the gist of my point - it is incorrect to assume a patron should be held responsible for a protege's later actions, especially when those actions have been denounced by the patron.

In case you haven't been following the thrust of my arguments thus far, I don't consider America's invasion of Iraq illegitimate.

But you haven't explained why.

In essence you're stating that your position, that the war was illegitimate, is a given and that I have to work to prove otherwise. I disagree with this line of reasoning. However, in the spirit of fair play I'll rise to your challenge anyway.

I have an inkling that your position is based on the situation where France's threat to unilaterally veto a Security Council resolution, a resolution that would have given an unnecessary extra sheen of approval to the operation, resulted in that unecessary extra approval not being given, which is pointed to by the anti-war side as being a breach of "international law". Again, I disagree. The approval was already explicitly present in previous Security Council resolutions.

Is that sufficient?

Then there's Britain, on the hand. You claim that the majority of Britons objected to the war. Yet Labour was re-elected. It may be that you are correct, and that the majority did object to the war but voted pro Labour for other reasons. But other than the election, how can you prove your point? The weight of evidence suggests that at the very least the war wasn't important enough to decide the election. So how was Tony's decision to go to war illegitimate?

Well, in Britain, as the USA, the choice was between two pro-war parties. In other words people didn't have an avenue to express their anti-war sentiment (I'm aware there are other parties, but they dion't realy count for reasons I shan't get into here).

All these cases illustrate the great flaws in western representive democracies: the people cannot pick and choose which policies to support: they are stuck. But it also raises the point that legitimacy goes beyond simple public approcval. If I may channel Hugo for a second, if 99 people out of 100 vote to murder the 1, does that majority approval make that course of action legitimate?

You seem to be confusing legitimacy with morality. A government might have a legitimate mandate to carry out all sorts of acts, none of which are morally acceptable upon reflection. It is then the duty of the electorate to make their moral outrage felt at the ballot box, which in turn will affect the decision making strategies of future administrations.

President Bush and Congress had the authority to take the nation into war based on a prior history of being given that permission by the electorate. There was more than a decade and numerous elections between the first Iraq invasion and the second, and yet the electorate did not indicate a policy change was necessary to prevent further involvement in Iraq. In fact, President Clinton signed a bill in 1998 making it official US policy to promote regime change in Iraq. Where was the anti-war crowd then?

Since you seem keen to cut down the workings of representative democracy, and the capabilities of democratic nations to act morally, what would you have as an alternative? You seem to be arguing to poke holes in the way things are, without offering constructive alternatives

Nations don't act morally. They act to serve their interests. those actions have moral implications, but moral consideratiosn are seldom, if ever, the key driver of policy. As for alternatives, I don't know. I know the status quo is unsustainable. And I'm sure we'll have to come up with alternatives once we come to the end of the road we're on now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, accept to state that the status quo in Iraq is likely to be sustained for years or even decades. But the future is always uncertain.

[Black Dog]

I think I've made my beliefs on this matter pretty clear in previous posts.

Good call. My analogy was flawed, but you've gotten the gist of my point - it is incorrect to assume a patron should be held responsible for a protege's later actions, especially when those actions have been denounced by the patron.

Let me ask you this: if I sell someone a gun, knowing full well they intend to commit a crime with it, does that make me partially responsible for the crime? And if not, why not?

In essence you're stating that your position, that the war was illegitimate, is a given and that I have to work to prove otherwise. I disagree with this line of reasoning. However, in the spirit of fair play I'll rise to your challenge anyway.

I have an inkling that your position is based on the situation where France's threat to unilaterally veto a Security Council resolution, a resolution that would have given an unnecessary extra sheen of approval to the operation, resulted in that unecessary extra approval not being given, which is pointed to by the anti-war side as being a breach of "international law". Again, I disagree. The approval was already explicitly present in previous Security Council resolutions.

Is that sufficient?

Not really. I've already pointed out that the UN is just a fig leaf for the powerful: nowhere was that more evident than in the kabuki theatre that passed for debate on Iraq. The USA was clear it inteded to invade and occupy Iraq for its own reasons regardless of the UN.

But let's look at Iraq: a weak, third world country with virtually no military; under a sanctions regime that devastated the people (even as western companies and nations-including the US-continued to deal with the regime under the table); a country that posed no threat to its neighbours (who were making overtures to normalize relations with Iraq). Yet somwhow we're to believe the de facto unilateral invasion and occupation of this piss pot countryis legitimate?

You seem to be confusing legitimacy with morality. A government might have a legitimate mandate to carry out all sorts of acts, none of which are morally acceptable upon reflection. It is then the duty of the electorate to make their moral outrage felt at the ballot box, which in turn will affect the decision making strategies of future administrations.

President Bush and Congress had the authority to take the nation into war based on a prior history of being given that permission by the electorate. There was more than a decade and numerous elections between the first Iraq invasion and the second, and yet the electorate did not indicate a policy change was necessary to prevent further involvement in Iraq. In fact, President Clinton signed a bill in 1998 making it official US policy to promote regime change in Iraq. Where was the anti-war crowd then?

The lack of substantive change in US policy has more to do with the homogony of politics in the US. I also can't help noticing the abscence of a key group from your discussion of whether to invade Iraq was legitimate: Iraqis.

[GostHacked]

Ghosthacked:

If you can't be bothered to read and grasp the whole thread, I can't be bothered to rewrite everything just to respond to your post, except to say that further to my statement that I don't believe the American invasion was illegitimate, I also don't believe that the American government lied about their intentions. If that was your perception, perhaps you ought to try a variety of news sources.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who started this thread? I did. I have read it over and over. I am not going to turn this into a BHS bashing but it is clear to me that you do not understand what is going on. the CNN was one example, but really it is all you need to know that the MDS is YEARS away of achieving the goal of intercepting an MDS.

OK sure put the MDS in place now then. It will be nothing but a waste of money. And do you not recal history some? How did the Avro Arrow project get cancelled? The U.S. pitched it to the Canadian government that missles will make the interceptor obsolete. One of the worst incidents of shortsightedness EVER. That was 45 years ago.

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-75-521-2573-1...fenbaker_arrow/

A quote from the website/article

"The Bomarc and SAGE were ineffective systems, and were soon phased out in both Canada and the United States. Both of Canada's Bomarc squadrons formally disbanded on April 7, 1972, and the missiles were returned to the United States."

History repeats itself for those who do not learn it.

[BHS]

Ghosthacked is correct, we're getting off track.

I don't understand how the Avro story bolsters any argument against MDS - in fact, it appears that you're adding fuel to my fire. If it was shortsighted and wrong to cancel the Arrow project, how can you turn that around and argue that it's a good idea to do the same thing to MDS?

[GostHacked]

Ghosthacked is correct, we're getting off track.

I don't understand how the Avro story bolsters any argument against MDS - in fact, it appears that you're adding fuel to my fire. If it was shortsighted and wrong to cancel the Arrow project, how can you turn that around and argue that it's a good idea to do the same thing to MDS?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact that the Arrow was cancelled to support some type of missle defence that was eventually cancelled due to it's inefectiveness is the same reasons it will not work today. It is also interesting to know that the Arrow was a superior aircraft at that time. The F-104 that eventually took the place of the Arrow was inferior to the Arrow. This was known before the cancellation of the project. It was also known that the BOMAC and SAGE system end up costing Canada more than the Arrow project in the long run. Notice that the Americans also abandoned the BOMARC/SAGE missle plan after some time. Proving that is was all a waste of time and money.

Same deal today. Don't be fooled by them. MDS is a waste of money and is a system that will eventually be scrapped/replaced by something else.

[BHS]

Ghosthacked is correct, we're getting off track.

I don't understand how the Avro story bolsters any argument against MDS - in fact, it appears that you're adding fuel to my fire. If it was shortsighted and wrong to cancel the Arrow project, how can you turn that around and argue that it's a good idea to do the same thing to MDS?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact that the Arrow was cancelled to support some type of missle defence that was eventually cancelled due to it's inefectiveness is the same reasons it will not work today. It is also interesting to know that the Arrow was a superior aircraft at that time. The F-104 that eventually took the place of the Arrow was inferior to the Arrow. This was known before the cancellation of the project. It was also known that the BOMAC and SAGE system end up costing Canada more than the Arrow project in the long run. Notice that the Americans also abandoned the BOMARC/SAGE missle plan after some time. Proving that is was all a waste of time and money.

Same deal today. Don't be fooled by them. MDS is a waste of money and is a system that will eventually be scrapped/replaced by something else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's quite an argument, except it doesn't pan out. Every new technology is expensive by comparison to the advancements that follow. But you don't get the advancements without the initial, expensive effort. I've already explained why I feel the effort is worthwhile, so I have nothing more to add.

[Black Dog]

I don't understand how the Avro story bolsters any argument against MDS - in fact, it appears that you're adding fuel to my fire. If it was shortsighted and wrong to cancel the Arrow project, how can you turn that around and argue that it's a good idea to do the same thing to MDS?

Becasue the two systems are not analagous. The Arrow was state of the art, miles ahead of its competition. It was replaced by an expensive system of questionable performance designed to defend agaisnt a non-existent threat. Sound familiar?

Every new technology is expensive by comparison to the advancements that follow. But you don't get the advancements without the initial, expensive effort.

As I've pointed out in other threads on the subject, the BMD system fails even teh most basic cost-benefit analysis.The US government has spent an estimated $130 billion on variousversions of BMD since Ronald Reagan first dreamed of a perfect shield against Soviet missiles twenty years ago, and it's only now that they are starting to put the system to the test (which it has failed again and again, even under the most controlled circumstances). Given the microscopic threat of an ICBM attack, the costs of the program to date and its failure to perform, at what point do you say enough and pull the plug on what is clearly a technological and practical dead end?

As an aside, many, right-wingers in particular, like to cite overspending on the military as a key factor in the fall of the Soviet Union. According to Janes, in 2005 the U.S.A. will spend more on its military than the rest of the world combined. Methinks the U.S.A would be wise not to ignore the lessons of history.

[GostHacked]

As per Black Dogs post.

I could not have said it better myself. I sat here for about 10 minutes trying to add to it, but I just could not.

[BHS]

I don't understand how the Avro story bolsters any argument against MDS - in fact, it appears that you're adding fuel to my fire. If it was shortsighted and wrong to cancel the Arrow project, how can you turn that around and argue that it's a good idea to do the same thing to MDS?

Becasue the two systems are not analagous. The Arrow was state of the art, miles ahead of its competition. It was replaced by an expensive system of questionable performance designed to defend agaisnt a non-existent threat. Sound familiar?

So you're saying the Soviet threat was non-existent? Interesting.

I'm not arguing the Arrow cancellation was a big mistake, one of the biggest ever. Canada would be on par with France today in our ability to sell weapons systems to the third world if we hadn't cancelled it.

Every new technology is expensive by comparison to the advancements that follow. But you don't get the advancements without the initial, expensive effort.

As I've pointed out in other threads on the subject, the BMD system fails even teh most basic cost-benefit analysis.The US government has spent an estimated $130 billion on variousversions of BMD since Ronald Reagan first dreamed of a perfect shield against Soviet missiles twenty years ago, and it's only now that they are starting to put the system to the test (which it has failed again and again, even under the most controlled circumstances). Given the microscopic threat of an ICBM attack, the costs of the program to date and its failure to perform, at what point do you say enough and pull the plug on what is clearly a technological and practical dead end?

As an aside, many, right-wingers in particular, like to cite overspending on the military as a key factor in the fall of the Soviet Union. According to Janes, in 2005 the U.S.A. will spend more on its military than the rest of the world combined. Methinks the U.S.A would be wise not to ignore the lessons of history.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's a big difference between spending a lot, and spending more than your economy can sustain.

I didn't hear anything about the Russians having decommissioned their nuclear arsenal. Google news listed the top story being that the Russians were working on their long standing plan to cut down to 1500 warheads. As long as nukes are in the ground, ready to fly, then how can you say the threat is microscopic? Even if they never intend to make a strike, accidents can happen. Again, how is missile technology a dead end without a counteracting technology to cancel it out?

[GostHacked]

Let's take a small look at who actually has nuclear ICBMs.

http://encarta.msn.com/column_nukes_tamimh...osgotnukes.html

Country Warheads

United States 10,455 <-----

Russia 8,400

China 400

France 350

Israel* 250 <-----

United Kingdom 200

India** 65

Pakistan** 40

North Korea*** 8

TOTAL 20,168

Now really the only other countries on the horizon that COULD have ICBMs within the next 5 years are Iran, Egypt, (Lybia may still be on this list despite their political turn around by Khadafi.) and a few others. The reason I point out the US and Isreal specifically is that the US does not care if Isreal has them. And yes France was the country to really get Isreal's nuke program started.

Now this article does say at the end that the threat from ICBMs are still there and will back BHS up some.

However : http://www.kirschfoundation.org/care/nucle...isarmament.html

Black Dog had it right, reducing and totaly getting rid of nukes is the way to go. And from those websites, all countries are well on their way. It is a pipe dream, but never be afriad to dream of a peaceful world.

It also seems that the US is the only state that is pursuing the use of new nukes in the form of bunker busters.

The more weapons we have the more unsafe the world becomes. You have ICBMs, you have an MDS, then you have new ICBMs with counter measures to bypass the MDS, then the MDS gets upgraded to counter THAT technology. This game just does not end. And we will all loose in the end. All this time money is spent on trying to keeping up with the Jones'

[Black Dog]

So you're saying the Soviet threat was non-existent? Interesting.

No. The threat the Bomarc was designed to mitigate was that of Soviet long range bombers, which by the time the Bomarc entered service, had been eclipsed by the threat of ICBM's, rendering the Bomarc useless.

I'm not arguing the Arrow cancellation was a big mistake, one of the biggest ever. Canada would be on par with France today in our ability to sell weapons systems to the third world if we hadn't cancelled it.

A lofty goal indeed.

There's a big difference between spending a lot, and spending more than your economy can sustain.

U.S. military spending is around three percent of GDP. But that number belies the impact military spending has on the economy. A large sector of the U.S economy hinges on the war machine, an artificial economy, if you will, an entire range of enterprise soley supported by the state. As well, the economic growth of the U.S. in the 1990s shrunk the percentage even as actual amounts increased. Keep in mind too that spending today roughly matches that (percentage wise) of spending during the Cold War when, arguably, the US faced a large conventional threat.

Now, they have have rising deficits, rising spending and shrinking revenues, an aging population and a costly foreign engagement. You do the math.

As long as nukes are in the ground, ready to fly, then how can you say the threat is microscopic? Even if they never intend to make a strike, accidents can happen.

Now the big threat is a whoopise? Given that in almost 50 years, no nuclear missile has been launched by accident, I'd put that threat even lower then that of a "rogue state" committing suicide by attacking the U.S.

Simply put: the missile threat is small and shrinking and in no way justifies mammoth spending on a project of questionable utility and performance.

[cybercoma]

Besides the nukes the United States has, let's not forget about all the depleted and non-depleted uranium the US is using in all sorts of things from armour to bullets.

[BHS]

So you're saying the Soviet threat was non-existent? Interesting.

No. The threat the Bomarc was designed to mitigate was that of Soviet long range bombers, which by the time the Bomarc entered service, had been eclipsed by the threat of ICBM's, rendering the Bomarc useless.

I'm not arguing the Arrow cancellation was a big mistake, one of the biggest ever. Canada would be on par with France today in our ability to sell weapons systems to the third world if we hadn't cancelled it.

A lofty goal indeed.

There's a big difference between spending a lot, and spending more than your economy can sustain.

U.S. military spending is around three percent of GDP. But that number belies the impact military spending has on the economy. A large sector of the U.S economy hinges on the war machine, an artificial economy, if you will, an entire range of enterprise soley supported by the state. As well, the economic growth of the U.S. in the 1990s shrunk the percentage even as actual amounts increased. Keep in mind too that spending today roughly matches that (percentage wise) of spending during the Cold War when, arguably, the US faced a large conventional threat.

Now, they have have rising deficits, rising spending and shrinking revenues, an aging population and a costly foreign engagement. You do the math.

As long as nukes are in the ground, ready to fly, then how can you say the threat is microscopic? Even if they never intend to make a strike, accidents can happen.

Now the big threat is a whoopise? Given that in almost 50 years, no nuclear missile has been launched by accident, I'd put that threat even lower then that of a "rogue state" committing suicide by attacking the U.S.

Simply put: the missile threat is small and shrinking and in no way justifies mammoth spending on a project of questionable utility and performance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We've pretty much argued this thing to death, so I'll just poke at one paragraph from the above:

Now, they have have rising deficits, rising spending and shrinking revenues, an aging population and a costly foreign engagement. You do the math.

You're choosing to ignore some data in making this statement. American federal government revenues are actually growing faster than predicted, not shrinking. The deficit is expected to be cut in half ahead of Bush's original schedule; it's not growing. The aging population is being offset by immigration - the US is still the most popular country in the world for talented young professionals to emmigrate to. And according to the general I saw interviewed today, the Iraqi constitutional efforts are on schedule and the American army expects to begin pulling out of Iraq in stages by the end of this year. You can go ahead and fact check me, if you like.

[BHS]

Besides the nukes the United States has, let's not forget about all the depleted and non-depleted uranium the US is using in all sorts of things from armour to bullets.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is slightly off topic, but interesting anyway. The "depleted" in "depleted uranium" is referring to the removal of highly volatile U235 atoms from the raw uranium ore, leaving only a small fraction of U235 behind with the bulk of the ore, being stable U238 atoms. I once read somewhere that depleted uranium isn't as radioactive as 24K gold is, but I haven't been able to locate a quote of that nature on the 'net, and so I bring it up purely for conversational purposes - ignore it at will. What can't be ignored, however, are the World Health Organization studies done in supposedly "hot" areas that were contaminated with depleted uranium dust in the former Yugoslavia after the NATO intervention. Scientists studying the problem were unable to find any indication that DU dust had caused radiation poisoning or any other evidence to back up claims by the locals that they had been poisoned.

WHO fact sheet

Please note that the copyright at the bottom of the page appears to indicate the information is current up to this year.