Missle Defence Shield

[Black Dog]

You're choosing to ignore some data in making this statement. American federal government revenues are actually growing faster than predicted, not shrinking.

Fedweral government revenues did increase loast year. But prior to that, total federal revenues declined to their lowest level since 1959.

The deficit is expected to be cut in half ahead of Bush's original schedule; it's not growing

Yes, revenues in early 2005 were higher than expected, However, administration estimates of deficit levels for the coming years appear unrealistically low and also fail to account for any spending increases (for example, the OMB's recent Mid-Session Review includes no funding after 2006 for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan or for the broader war on terrorism.)

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.

Immigration could help if immigration rates were increased. Current U.S. immigration rates are at about 1 milion immigrants a year (obviously not all will be of working age) . At current rates, the number of Americans under the age of 20 will increase by five percent, the number of working age Americans (age 20-64) will increase by 24 percent, and the number of senior citizens will jump by at least 112 percent over the next 40 years. So we're not just talking a matter of replacing the current workforce, but paying for the one that has gone before.

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.

Whether they withdraw from Iraq is not realy relevant to the question of spending. An Iraq pull out (and assuming they don't go after Iran next) will curb costs, but note that military spending to date (For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion, up from $399.1 billion in fiscal '04, while the budget request for 2006 is $441.6 billion) does not include costs of Iraq, Afghanistan or homeland security. As it stands, military spending eats up half of the U.S.'s discretionary spending budget (compared to the next largest items, education and health,which eat 6.9% and 6.1% of discretionary budget, respectively).

Anyone who thinks this is a sustainable state of affairs (also given unknowns like potential terorist attacks or future military adventures) is whistling past the graveyard.

[BHS]

Fedweral government revenues did increase loast year. But prior to that, total federal revenues declined to their lowest level since 1959.

* * *

Yes, revenues in early 2005 were higher than expected, However, administration estimates of deficit levels for the coming years appear unrealistically low and also fail to account for any spending increases (for example, the OMB's recent Mid-Session Review includes no funding after 2006 for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan or for the broader war on terrorism.)

* * *

Immigration could help if immigration rates were increased. Current U.S. immigration rates are at about 1 milion immigrants a year (obviously not all will be of working age) . At current rates, the number of Americans under the age of 20 will increase by five percent, the number of working age Americans (age 20-64) will increase by 24 percent, and the number of senior citizens will jump by at least 112 percent over the next 40 years. So we're not just talking a matter of replacing the current workforce, but paying for the one that has gone before.

* * *

Whether they withdraw from Iraq is not realy relevant to the question of spending. An Iraq pull out (and assuming they don't go after Iran next) will curb costs, but  note that military spending to date (For Fiscal Year 2005 it was $420.7 billion, up from $399.1 billion in fiscal '04, while the budget request for  2006 is $441.6 billion) does not include costs of Iraq, Afghanistan or homeland security. As it stands, military spending eats up half of the U.S.'s discretionary spending budget (compared to the next largest items, education and health,which eat 6.9% and 6.1% of discretionary budget, respectively).

Anyone who thinks this is a sustainable state of affairs (also given unknowns like potential terorist attacks or future military adventures) is whistling past the graveyard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I suspected, your first point is a mis-statement. Federal revenues were not at their lowest point since 1959, they were at their lowest percentage of GDP since 1959. There's a big difference, and a small-government fiscal conservative will tell you it's a good difference.

One of the benefits of cutting taxes is that it's like money in the bank. If revenues are insufficient in the future, taxes can be raised again.

As for future unforeseen spending increases, they're in the future, eh? And not foreseeable. (Hey, I know it's a weak argument, but the Dems would say the same think if the roles were reversed.)

Other than Medicaid, what American federal programs require outlays for seniors? They don't have a nationalized pension plan the way we do with the CPP.

Even with the gigantic defense spending outlays that you've listed, Bush isn't spending as much in real dollar values as Reagan did in 1987. Adjusted for inflation, the gap of course widens. And Reagan didn't come close to breaking the bank. You make it sound like revenues and spending and budgetary priorities are set in stone, when in fact they are among the most fluid of political factors. So much for whistling past the graveyard.

There's a reason defense spending is called discretionary - it can go down as well as up. I'm sure President Hillary will have big plans for pulling the plug on the Pentagon.

[Black Dog]

As I suspected, your first point is a mis-statement. Federal revenues were not at their lowest point since 1959, they were at their lowest percentage of GDP since 1959. There's a big difference, and a small-government fiscal conservative will tell you it's a good difference.

My mistake.

What happens when federal expenditures exceed revenue?

Other than Medicaid, what American federal programs require outlays for seniors?

Social Security?

ere's a reason defense spending is called discretionary - it can go down as well as up. I'm sure President Hillary will have big plans for pulling the plug on the Pentagon.

[BHS]

As I suspected, your first point is a mis-statement. Federal revenues were not at their lowest point since 1959, they were at their lowest percentage of GDP since 1959. There's a big difference, and a small-government fiscal conservative will tell you it's a good difference.

My mistake.

What happens when federal expenditures exceed revenue?

Deficit spending, of course.

Other than Medicaid, what American federal programs require outlays for seniors?

Social Security?

Sorry, my bad. Call it being stressed at work and not thinking. I ran a quick google for American government pension plans but nothing came up, so I didn't think about it any more before posting.

ere's a reason defense spending is called discretionary - it can go down as well as up. I'm sure President Hillary will have big plans for pulling the plug on the Pentagon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm having trouble deciphering if that's a laugh of agreement or a laugh of derision.

[Black Dog]

I'm having trouble deciphering if that's a laugh of agreement or a laugh of derision.

Derision. Woe betide the president that would take a hatchet to the Pentagon's budget. There are millions of Americans whose livelihoods depend on the permanent war economy and millions of American companies who's bottom lines are dependant on the welfare program that is military spending.

[BHS]

I'm having trouble deciphering if that's a laugh of agreement or a laugh of derision.

Derision. Woe betide the president that would take a hatchet to the Pentagon's budget. There are millions of Americans whose livelihoods depend on the permanent war economy and millions of American companies who's bottom lines are dependant on the welfare program that is military spending.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet, military spending decreased between 1987 and 2001.

[GostHacked]

I'm having trouble deciphering if that's a laugh of agreement or a laugh of derision.

Derision. Woe betide the president that would take a hatchet to the Pentagon's budget. There are millions of Americans whose livelihoods depend on the permanent war economy and millions of American companies who's bottom lines are dependant on the welfare program that is military spending.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And yet, military spending decreased between 1987 and 2001.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/archives/001221.php

And I would guess has jumped considerably since the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

[canadian_conservative]

SCREW IT LETS JOIN BMD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Trial-and-Error]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good grief, the ubiquitous bull shitter. I'm sorry, I haven't a clue why anyone wants to take the time to debate with you. Get it through your thick skull--that impenetrable mass of disconnected dendrons--the U.S. will be fighting its missile war with gawd knows who over Canadian territory. Oooooo, that's a good thing.. Nothing like accepting the appointment as war zone host. It's an absolute riot, the U.S. multinationals make zillions on the armament trade and lead the way in promoting weapons of mass destruction. Then the U.S. government calls upon its people to feed the war on WMD. The elites are creating their own markets with the gullible assistance of the likes of you. The only way their schemes can work is if they have sufficient numbers of sheeple. And yoose is such an obedient recruit.

But beyond all that, the U.S. doesn't give stink about Canada and the Canadian people. They see us as yet another country they can conquer. And by golly, gee whiz, they's doin exactly that, buying us up piece by piece by piece and undoubtedly buying our politicians too. But whooops, that would be a stretch for you, as it is not part of the Bushco propaganda that you feed off of.

[GostHacked]

Time to resurrect this old thread from the dust bins.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...114ad5a&k=96831

It did not happen under the Liberals when Martin was in charge, but now under Harper and the new Conservitives, it is gaining more steam. Raytheon and others have been in Canada for a few years now scouting sites for the BDM.

How about a national consensus on the subject? The US just won't take NO for an answer!

[BHS]

Time to resurrect this old thread from the dust bins.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national...114ad5a&k=96831

It did not happen under the Liberals when Martin was in charge, but now under Harper and the new Conservitives, it is gaining more steam. Raytheon and others have been in Canada for a few years now scouting sites for the BDM.

How about a national consensus on the subject? The US just won't take NO for an answer!

Firstly, this article is about a NATO agreement to protect Europe from missile attack using the same system design as the US has proposed for NORAD. It isn't about Canada opting into the older scheme as you appear to have infered.

Secondly, the Americans are going to protect North American airspace whether we like it or not. Trial and Error's point of view in August of last year was that if we opted out politically this would somehow magically change our geography to keep us out of harm's way. (Somehow I missed his reply, because there are a number of other points I'd like to counter to his (ahem) argument. But I digress, unless you want to take up his talking points as your own to defend.) It isn't really an option for us to refuse their protection, because they intend to protect the entire continent. At most we can refuse to participate in that defence, which as I noted is pretty much par for the course.

Thirdly, how do you propose to achieve your concensus? I'm assuming here that merely electing a government to make decisions on our behalf is insufficient. Perhaps you'd like a national referendum on the subject. Or perhaps not - missile defence is an easier sell than you might think, especially when it's pointed out that it's going to happen anyway, under the auspices of an international agency that we already enthusiatically participate in.

[Liam]

I don't mean any of this in a flaming way, because I am genuinely curious...

Honestly, I can't really fathom why Canadians are against this program. Well, let me back up a bit... I don't know that a missile defense shield would really work in the first place and that any terrorist use of a nuclear device against the US would more likely happen after the device was smuggled in and loaded into a car or truck... but let's assume the project would work -- why are Canadians against it?

Given that most of the world's nuclear weapons are north of the equator, it's safe to assume that any nuclear missile would probably cross the north pole or pretty close to it... Let's assume that a missile is headed to NYC or Washington DC, it crosses near the north pole and its path takes it down through Northern Quebec...

With the shield only covering the US, the US would have to wait till it crosses into US airspace before it shot it down. The result would be that solid radioactive mass would fall on US territory, perhaps in the northernmost region of NY state or Vermont, but the drift of nuclear waste would imperil Montreal and possibly Quebec City.

With the shield covering both the US and Canada, the same missile could be targeted before it even gets to Baffin Island. Its solid radioactive mass would land on Canadian soil, but in an extremely remote and sparsely populated area, and any radioactive fallout would scatter in a desolate part of the northermost tier. There would be no, or limited, damage done to Canada.

Given that something like 80% of Canadians live within 200 km of the US's northern border, NOT having the shield cover Canada actually puts 80% of your population at a higher risk of experiencing some of the negative side effects (i.e., fallout from the destroyed missile once it crosses into US territory) of such a nuclear attack.

[BHS]

It is my understanding that the system that is proposed will detect a launch and destroy the incoming missile before it reaches cruising speed, meaning that unless the missile originates in Canada itself there is only a slim chance that the radioactive mass will fall on Canadian soil. But even if that's not the case, it doesn't change the fact that if missiles targeting the US come over the pole they're going to cross our territory first, regardless of our public policy decisions.

It was always the case that our reluctance to participate was based on crude anti-American pandering by the Liberals. It's not surprising that a crudely pro-American government would be more agreeable to participation.

[geoffrey]

Does anyone actually think the US wouldn't shoot down a missle destined for New York over Canada... just because we tell them not to?

Silly silly silly.

Let's get on board with this ASAP so we at least have a seat at the table, and a say in the matter. Right now, anything coming over Canada will be intercepted over Canada, lets at least try to shot them down before they get here.

[Wilber]

If you want to know the trajectory of a missile, take a globe and stretch a string from point to point. The shortest distance will be the great circle route. Using a computer cable on my globe (probably not the best thing to use) It looks like a missile fired from North Korea at New York would enter Canadian airspace somewhere around Inuvik and leave it near Toronto. One fired from Iran would pass over the Maritimes somewhere.

[Machinations]

If you want to know the trajectory of a missile, take a globe and stretch a string from point to point. The shortest distance will be the great circle route. Using a computer cable on my globe (probably not the best thing to use) It looks like a missile fired from North Korea at New York would enter Canadian airspace somewhere around Inuvik and leave it near Toronto. One fired from Iran would pass over the Maritimes somewhere.

Let's not get into the ballistics systems required to lob missiles across the earth - equivalent to launching a satellite or other object into space - few nations have the technology. For one, it is enormously expensive. Two, it would require a deliberate, years-long research effort even with the benefits of reverse engineering (which they are not likely to have bits of ICBM systems, they're just not found lying around) Rocket science is used as a metaphor for complexity for a reason: it's complex.

To date, Iran can launch a missile something like 300 kilometers. Wow, I nearly fainted with excitement.

The missile shield is more likely to be used as leverage over more conventional, potential foes like China, who both possess the necessary ICBM technology and are likely to come into conflict with US interests in the future. The Chinese are not stupid. They know this.

My objections to the missile shield scheme (Son of Star Wars, if you will) are mostly based on technological hurdles. I simply don't think its feasible to be able to detect and destroy incoming ICBMs with anything near an acceptable accuracy rate. To date, all the Pentagon tests have been spectacular failures. Further, even if - and its a mighty big if - it were possible to get even 95% knockout rates - which would be about the minimum acceptable accuracy - it would only provoke an arms race, with enemies creating new, different types of nuclear delivery systems to counter the shield. This seems to me a path we don't want to go down.

[Wilber]

Let's not get into the ballistics systems required to lob missiles across the earth

Just pointing out that if you want to know the route a missile will travel or the great circle track from anywhere to anywhere, you have to put away your old Mercator map and get a globe.

[HighVoltage123]

you know the worst thing is that if it is on the market everyone could put its hands on it...

[marcinmoka]

My objections to the missile shield scheme (Son of Star Wars, if you will) are mostly based on technological hurdles. I simply don't think its feasible to be able to detect and destroy incoming ICBMs with anything near an acceptable accuracy rate. To date, all the Pentagon tests have been spectacular failures. Further, even if - and its a mighty big if - it were possible to get even 95% knockout rates - which would be about the minimum acceptable accuracy - it would only provoke an arms race, with enemies creating new, different types of nuclear delivery systems to counter the shield. This seems to me a path we don't want to go down.

Touche. Good point. I too am skeptical as to the efficiency of the system, but than I realized, it is genuinely new. For the first time in 40 years has there been even a system remotely capable of intercepting a missle. Prior to that, it was hiding under your classroom desk.

In regular battle, defense has evolved (roughly) with offense. The Nuclear Game was the first to obliterate that concept. Until now. Sure it's in it's infancy, but it will be worked, and re-worked until it ACTUALLY works.

Remember, this system is meant to guard against "rogue" states, ( for the next few years, China since their capability is still underdeveloped for the time being). Whereas only one nation can build a counter defensive weapon, or at least overtake the system by sheer volume, and that's Russia. So knowing it's paltry "kill rate" I doubt that American planners had Russia in mind. It would've been pointless. But such a system can definitely provide some leverage over say China, and until recently, N. Kora for at least another decade or so.

Will it promote new weapons, yes. Would China have built new weapons even if it did not exist, yes.