Harper's Missile Mindlessness Would Waste Billions

[River_God]

A “Defense Shield” sounds appealing, but many experts doubt that it will work. Recent studies by The US General Accounting Office, The American Physical Society, The Union of Concerned Scientists and former Pentagon weapons experts, all suggest that the system is similar to trying to hit a bullet with a bullet. In its current state of development, the defense shield is incapable of stopping missile that are sophisticated enough to hit the United States. The project will also start a new arms race, thwarting future developments.

It’s doubtful that any nation would launch a surprise attack on the United States. North Koreans and Iranians already know that their countries would be destroyed by a massive US retaliation against any missile attacks.

It is conceivable that al-Qaeda could obtain nuclear missiles and launch them at America. These fanatics might not care that their acts can be interpreted as an entire nation’s provocation of war. The US weapons industry might argue, but it seems al-Qaeda can be more effectively thwarted by spending money protecting ports, and collecting (not fabricating) intelligence.

According to 22-year CIA veteran Michael Scheuer (senior analyst on al-Qaeda), there are fewer CIA al-Qaeda experts today than there were on 2001/09/11 (The Atlantic, Dec 2004, pg 52).

If Bush doesn’t get his priorities straight, The Missile Defence Shield might well become a $500 billion pink elephant. Unlike B.C.’s Fast Ferries scam, however, the public might never know that their money was wasted.

===============

The Vancouver Sun – March 27, 2004

Washington -- A group of 49 retired U.S. generals and admirals is warning Canada to reject the Bush administration's proposed ballistic missile defense shield, complaining that the program is both too expensive and unproven to make it worthwhile. The group, which includes a former chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, also wrote George W. Bush on Friday requesting that he postpone plans to deploy the system later this year. "Tell the Canadians to hold off -- don't waste their money," retired lieutenant-general Robert Gard, a spokesman for 49 former senior American officers who oppose the missile shield, said in an interview. "If I were the Canadian prime minister, I would say: 'Look we are interested if we find out whether or not it works. And so far, we don't know.'"

Canada opened formal negotiations in January with the U.S. Defence Department aimed at reaching an agreement to participate in the national missile defence (NMD) program. The U.S. military plans to begin deploying land-based missile interceptors in Alaska and California by this September, and has waived operational testing requirements in order to meet the deadline.

http://stopwar.ca/articles/mdi/dontjoin.html

==================================

The Province, Apr. 7, 2004

Canada should reject Bush missile defence, a Jules Verne fantasy

James McNulty

High-flying arguments for Canada to join George W. Bush's missile-defence

scheme are crashing faster than popped trial balloons.

The latest broadside at the pulp-fiction dream came from American military

experts. The group of 49 ex-officers includes retired admiral William Crowe,

who chaired the joint chiefs of staff for George Bush Sr.

In a March letter to Bush Jr., the officers said the unproven

missile-defense shield should be stopped.

Its $16-billion-US budget for 2004-2005 should then be redirected to fight

terrorists who may try to bring small nuclear bombs into America, and to

beef up security at U.S. nuclear-weapons storage facilities.

"Tell the Canadians to hold off -- don't waste their money," retired

Lt.-Gen. Robert Gard recently told Sheldon Alberts of CanWest News Service.

"If I were the Canadian prime minister, I would say: 'Look, we are

interested if we find out whether or not it works. And so far, we don't

know,'" said Gard

http://www.notacolony.ca/040704A_Canada_sh...rne_fantasy.htm

==================

In fact, the current Defense shield isn't even remotely close to being effective. Many Nobel-laureate physicists have declared that the design is incapable of working effectively (much like trying to knock down a missile with a frisbee)

Even if the system did work as hoped, it would be much easier to foil it with counter-measures (multiple decoys, zig-zag flight patern, variable acceleration etc...) than to build and guide an initial ballistic missile.

Russia and China have already said they would develop counter-measures against the shield. They would obviously want to be able to foil the shield to maintain their nuclear deterrent against an aggressive strike by the USA.

Russia and China also suspect that if the Star Wars project isn't effective as a defense mechanism, that it is simply a $500 billion dollar aggressive weapons system. Because of this they are upgrading their nuclear arsenals to provide a deterrent.

With China upgrading its nuclear arsenal, India feels obliged to follow suit to defend against its historic enemy China. Pakistan, of course, will follow India's lead. this massive proliferation only increases the chances of an accident or of terrorists getting hold of a nuke.

If a terrorist did get a nuke, they would probably sneak it into the US on a $50 000 boat instead of paying hundreds of millions of dollars for a launching and guiding system. On a boat, they wouldn't even have to clear customs.

================

http://english.people.com.cn/english/20000...0707_44895.html

Nobel Scientists Says Missile Shield Would Be Dangerous

Fifty Nobel Prize laureates warned President Bill Clinton on Thursday in Washington that deployment of a National Missile Defense (NMD) shield would be "premature, wasteful, and dangerous."

In a letter addressed to Clinton, the scientists said NMD "would offer little protection and would do grave harm to this nation's core security interests."

Particularly, a dangerous arms race would unfold as new offensive weapons were developed that would render the system ineffective, according to the group, members of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) set up in 1945 by scientists who built the first atomic bomb

+====================

You have to wonder how unstable and desperate the US government is, if a well-informed, right wing guy like CNN Founder Ted Turner publicly questions whether Bush wants to start a nuclear war.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051129/ap_en_tv/people_turner_2

Media mogul Ted Turner said Monday that Iraq is no better off following the U.S.-led invasion that ousted dictator Saddam Hussein than it was before the war.

The philanthropist and founder of CNN also said the United States and Russia still have thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at each other on a "hair trigger," and he was afraid someone could make the mistake to launch them, including President Bush. You have to question ... the president on a lot of decisions he's made," Turner said in a lecture at Kansas State University. "He might just think launching those weapons would be a good thing to do. ... He thought Iraq was."

Turner also raised concerns about overpopulation, poverty and hunger. He said in the future superpowers will derive their authority from education, health care, and science and technology, and encouraged the United States to focus on those areas.

"We are going to survive together, or we are going to perish together," Turner said.

Turner’s last statement is obviously a simplification. After a nuclear war, millions of people would die slowly of radiation sickness, with their families and friends dying beside them. The rest of the world might descend into chaos (like in the Mad Max movie). It’s laughable that many religious fanatics view this (Armageddon & the End of Days) as their stepping stone to paradise.

Remember that Harper was furious at Paul Martin for backing out of the pseudo-defence shield/star wars project even after all of this information was well know. In early 2004, National Party Leader Mel Hurtig even published a book Rushing Toward Armaggeddon detailing the flaws of the shield.

http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/d...article455.html

Why then are conservatives still propagating the myth that we need to buy into the defence shield to protect Canada's sovereignty? How is having a bunch of useless American missiles on Canadian soil protecting our sovereignty???? At best they would ensure that Canada becomes a prime target in any nuclear war.

We have been, and will continue to be much better off with Martin as Prime Minister. Harper is only useful as an opposition spook.

The defence shield, like many of Harper's other ambitions (joining Iraq war to pad trade relations with the US, sovereignty for Alberta etc...) is just pork barreling, illusion and double think. If Harper had been elected in the last federal elections, he would have wasted far more of Canada's money than the Liberals. Like thousands of other pseudo-religious con-men around the world, Harper would have just ripped us off under the guise of right-wing righteousness.

Of course, the defense shield has best been described as "the Biggest Corporate Welfare Scheme in the History of the World." Free enterprise at it's worst.

[tml12]

FYI: The Martin Liberals were strong advocates of missile defence.

I should add, before they wanted to win the election.

It is good to know the Liberals are the party of integrity and honesty...

[shoop]

Gotta like the title of this thread.

Oh yeah, that is billions of US taxpayer money. Canada won't pay a dime into the deal.

[tml12]

Gotta like the title of this thread.

Oh yeah, that is billions of US taxpayer money. Canada won't pay a dime into the deal.

No but we'll have to leave the table, as usual, when the U.S. talks about how to defend us.

I wonder how long that will last...

[River_God]

FYI: The Martin Liberals were strong advocates of missile defence.

At least Martin saw the light and got over it.

Why though are conservatives still propagating the myth that we need to buy into the defence shield to protect Canada's sovereignty? How is having a bunch of useless American missiles on Canadian soil protecting our sovereignty???? At best they would ensure that Canada becomes a prime target in any nuclear war.

Former US Ambassador Paul Cellucci even argued this nonesense on The Current (CBC radio) in October 2005. I guess you have to expect people to defend their jobs and business interests as a matter of have or have more.

Why are you still defending the neo-cons on this one tml12? I thought you had grown up a bit.

[fellowtraveller]

Just a few weeks before they publcily reversed themselves on missile defence, didn't Canada agree to changes in the NORAD agreement that specifically allowed Missile Defence?

[River_God]

It's funny that they suspended testing after Raytheon's last anti-missile test .... missed the target by more than a mile.... So rather than having embarrassing situations like this reported, which could eventually lead to a cancellation of the work, the testing stopped.... so the funding wouldn't... funny eh ?

[shoop]

It's funny how you can post a totally misleading title and completely ignore the issue.

Why would any Canadians care if billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars are wasted on missile defence?

It's funny that they suspended testing after Raytheon's last anti-missile test .... missed the target by more than a mile.... So rather than having embarrassing situations like this reported, which could eventually lead to a cancellation of the work, the testing stopped.... so the funding wouldn't... funny eh ?

[Shady]

It's funny that they suspended testing after Raytheon's last anti-missile test .... missed the target by more than a mile.... So rather than having embarrassing situations like this reported, which could eventually lead to a cancellation of the work, the testing stopped.... so the funding wouldn't... funny eh ?

No, what's funny is, for some reason, you think that all new innovation and technology is perfectly functional from the beginning, and requires no testing and further experimentation. If the great innovators of the last 100 years had your attitude, we'd still be using horse and carriages to get around in. Apparently your attitude is, if you can't get something right, stop trying. Great idea. LOL.

[tml12]

FYI: The Martin Liberals were strong advocates of missile defence.

At least Martin saw the light and got over it.

Why though are conservatives still propagating the myth that we need to buy into the defence shield to protect Canada's sovereignty? How is having a bunch of useless American missiles on Canadian soil protecting our sovereignty???? At best they would ensure that Canada becomes a prime target in any nuclear war.

Former US Ambassador Paul Cellucci even argued this nonesense on The Current (CBC radio) in October 2005. I guess you have to expect people to defend their jobs and business interests as a matter of have or have more.

Why are you still defending the neo-cons on this one tml12? I thought you had grown up a bit.

I am not defending the neo-cons River.

I have argued on this forum many times River that the missile defence system proposed by the U.S. government is inherently flawed, and anyone with a B.S. Physics degree could find flaws in it.

Why, tml12, do you support it then?

Simply put,it concerns the defence of Canada and we need a seat at the table.

[Argus]

A “Defense Shield” sounds appealing, but many experts doubt that it will work.

So what?

If Bush doesn’t get his priorities straight, The Missile Defence Shield might well become a $500 billion pink elephant. Unlike B.C.’s Fast Ferries scam, however, the public might never know that their money was wasted. [/color

So what? We're not paying for it.

===============

The Vancouver Sun – March 27, 2004

The Province, Apr. 7, 2004

Nobel Scientists Says Missile Shield Would Be Dangerous

It is against the rules here to quote long lengths of copyrighted material.

Why then are conservatives still propagating the myth that we need to buy into the defence shield to protect Canada's sovereignty?

Because there's no way we can stop it, and if we agree to go along then at least we'll have some small say in things. Also, it won't cost us anything. Also, anything that doesn't harm us and doesn't cost us anything and will help to gain us back some of the trust lost with our biggest trading partners is a pretty good idea.

[August1991]

Am I wrong in saying that Bush's decsion to spend billions of US taxpayers' money on missile defense is not an issue in this election? Also, why should I care what Ted Turner thinks of George Bush Jnr or what 49 retired US generals think of their government?

[fellowtraveller]

Because there's no way we can stop it, and if we agree to go along then at least we'll have some small say in things. Also, it won't cost us anything. Also, anything that doesn't harm us and doesn't cost us anything and will help to gain us back some of the trust lost with our biggest trading partners is a pretty good idea.

You forgot another reason. We might get some aerospace supply contracts , and we could then reduce the meg-subsidies paid to private companies like Bombardier.

[River_God]

The defence shield, like many of Harper's other ambitions (joining Iraq war to pad trade relations with the US, sovereignty for Alberta etc...) is just pork barreling, illusion and double think. If Harper had been elected in the last federal elections, he would have wasted far more of Canada's money than the Liberals. Like thousands of other pseudo-religious con-men around the world, Harper would have just ripped us off under the guise of right-wing righteousness.

Of course, the defense shield has best been described as "the Biggest Corporate Welfare Scheme in the History of the World." Free enterprise at it's worst.

[/size]

Fanatical right wing + billions in corporate welfare for military contractors + limits on free speech and free press = neo-fascism aka the dark side of neo-conservatism

The American neo-conservative movement has clearly become unbalanced when media giants like FOX NEWS label the biggest capitalists in the world as “left-wing” if they don’t pledge unquestioning blind allegiance to Cheney and Bush’s Administration.

The American fanatical-right are trying to create a culture of double-think, where people who question the Iraq War are left-wing traitors who are endangering the troops. Stunningly, zealots who want to expand the crusade to Syria, Iran and Venezuela are supposedly keeping the troops safely out of harms way.

[/color]

Why should I care what Ted Turner thinks of George Bush Jnr or what 49 retired US generals think of their government?

Remember how furious Harper was that Cretien wouldn't let Canadian soldiers die "shoulder to shoulder" with americans over Iraq's non-existant weapons of mass distruction --- even when it was completely obvious that Iraq didn't pose any near-term threat to anybody?

Well the war drums are still beating August. The neo-cons still have Iran, Syria and Venezuela in their gunsights.

How has Harper changed in the last few years. Probably not much -- though he may be more cunning.

If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage a total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now.

Richard Perle

It's hard to believe that key neocon pupeteers like Perle could change their phiolosophies that much overnight.

[tml12]

River,

Chretien sent soldiers to Iraq secretly...

[River_God]

River,

Chretien sent soldiers to Iraq secretly...

Only a few TML12, and Cretien would have much rather given the inspectors more time.

By the time the US invaded Iraq, Hussein had conceded everthing the US asked (except leaving the country or producing non-existent WMDs.)

It was pretty obvious by March 2003 that Iraq had no WMDs, and the US didn't even alow Iraq time to dismantle the few mid-range misilles that did turn up.

All the high explosives at al-Qua were ignored for days after the invasion even though the weapons inspectors repeatedly told the US that this was a highest priority target.

These same explosives, of course, were later used by Iraqi militants to kill and maim thousands of US troops.

[tml12]

River,

Chretien sent soldiers to Iraq secretly...

Only a few TML12, and Cretien would have much rather given the inspectors more time.

By the time the US invaded Iraq, Hussein had conceded everthing the US asked (except leaving the country or producing non-existent WMDs.)

It was pretty obvious by March 2003 that Iraq had no WMDs, and the US didn't even alow Iraq time to dismantle the few mid-range misilles that did turn up.

All the high explosives at al-Qua were ignored for days after the invasion even though the weapons inspectors repeatedly told the US that this was a highest priority target.

These same explosives, of course, were later used by Iraqi militants to kill and maim thousands of US troops.

I did NOT support the Iraq war...yet, Martin and Harper did.

OK then, it is still not a reason to not vote Conservative...

[BubberMiley]

Martin was pretty wishy-washy about Iraq. There were rumours he was against Chretien's position, but there's little evidence to support that (though he probably was).

Harper's position was clear. How can you possibly say that isn't a reason to not vote for him? Demonstrating the lack of judgment to oppose a war that was clearly morally bankrupt is the best reason I can think of not to vote for him (and I can think of a lot).

But if someone is voting against him for that reason, they should probably be uncomfortable voting for Martin too and go NDP.

[tml12]

Martin was pretty wishy-washy about Iraq. There were rumours he was against Chretien's position, but there's little evidence to support that (though he probably was).

Harper's position was clear. How can you possibly say that isn't a reason to not vote for him? Demonstrating the lack of judgment to oppose a war that was clearly morally bankrupt is the best reason I can think of not to vote for him (and I can think of a lot).

But if someone is voting against him for that reason, they should probably be uncomfortable voting for Martin too and go NDP.

Martin wanted Iraq and he wanted missile defence too...

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/2459/35145

[BubberMiley]

I don't like to do the typical thing often done here by CPC supporters: immediately discredit the source. But Shelia Copps? Come on, she'd say anything to smear Martin. I don't dispute Paul Celucci's quote, but training security forces and taking part in an invasion are two very different things.

In total, it's like I said. Martin probably thought Canada should go but there's little evidence to support that.

[tml12]

I don't like to do the typical thing often done here by CPC supporters: immediately discredit the source. But Shelia Copps? Come on, she'd say anything to smear Martin. I don't dispute Paul Celucci's quote, but training security forces and taking part in an invasion are two very different things.

In total, it's like I said. Martin probably thought Canada should go but there's little evidence to support that.

Martin said "we must go to Iraq now." I remember reading it on www.teammartinsaid.ca or something like that during the 2004 campaign...

[BubberMiley]

I would be interested to see that quote. But I'm sure if it was well sourced, it would have been included well before the questionable Sheila Copps ones on the conservative website. It's interesting the CPC posts those few lame references to Martin's position on Iraq, but CPCers on this site get all huffy if you try to mention Harper's much clearer position.

But back to the thread topic of Harper's spendy promises, I'm glad the Libs are finally pointing out that Harper would likely do what every other neocon government (Reagan, Bush Jr...) have done: institute unaffordable tax cuts and spend, spend, spend (primarily towards friendly military supply corporations), and bring us right back into a heavy deficit.

[err]

Am I wrong in saying that Bush's decsion to spend billions of US taxpayers' money on missile defense is not an issue in this election? Also, why should I care what Ted Turner thinks of George Bush Jnr or what 49 retired US generals think of their government?

They wanted Canada to be a "partner" and put up $10 Billion if I remember correctly. They also want their weapons stationed all over Canada... All over the east coast... all over the west coast, and all over the north...

Isn't that good enough of a reason....

[err]

It's funny that they suspended testing after Raytheon's last anti-missile test .... missed the target by more than a mile.... So rather than having embarrassing situations like this reported, which could eventually lead to a cancellation of the work, the testing stopped.... so the funding wouldn't... funny eh ?

No, what's funny is, for some reason, you think that all new innovation and technology is perfectly functional from the beginning, and requires no testing and further experimentation. If the great innovators of the last 100 years had your attitude, we'd still be using horse and carriages to get around in. Apparently your attitude is, if you can't get something right, stop trying. Great idea. LOL.

If you'll stop and think for a moment, there's good reason not to implement the Star Wars system. Supposing they can get the accuracy up to say 80% hit rate on the defence shield (which is highly unlikely). What do you think the future mystery assailant will do ???? The most likely scenario is that they won't use an ICBM (inter-continental ballistic missile) that the Star Wars is to defend against. Wouldnt they show up near the coast in a fishing boat with a short-range missile.... Or how about delivering it in a suitcase. Or how about firing 10 of them... the fallout in the atmosphere would do the job anyways....

It stands to reason that the real objective of the Star Wars program is to deliver is ..... to deliver huge amounts of funding to the military companies that finance the Republican party campaigns... (has anybody read about the recent military contract kickback scandals???)

[The Honest Politician]

Good Idea lets have the Americans put missile sites all over Canada so they won't need to send troops to steal our water.