Missle Defense

[politika]

Well, it has come to my attention that Missile Defense is coming back to being a campaign issue. Harper says he will hold a free vote in the commons on it and the Liberals say that they will ban the weponization of space (assuming missile defense leads to weapons in space)

I think Harper has it right holding a free vote. I for one am for the Missile shield it will protect Canada's soverignty from terrorist's and rogue nations and for other matters I will not get in to. Holding a free vote in the commons is the democratic way of doing this, some people don't want the shield and some people like myself want it, with a vote I think it will be fair and allows either side to be happy with the democratic process, regardless of which side wins.

Any oppinions?

[geoffrey]

Well, it has come to my attention that Missile Defense is coming back to being a campaign issue. Harper says he will hold a free vote in the commons on it and the Liberals say that they will ban the weponization of space (assuming missile defense leads to weapons in space)

I think Harper has it right holding a free vote. I for one am for the Missile shield it will protect Canada's soverignty from terrorist's and rogue nations and for other matters I will not get in to. Holding a free vote in the commons is the democratic way of doing this, some people don't want the shield and some people like myself want it, with a vote I think it will be fair and allows either side to be happy with the democratic process, regardless of which side wins.

Any oppinions?

My opinion on the shield has never really changed since it was first talked about. I know it won't work, the test results are just shameful. I strongly doubt as well any rogue nation is going to fire a salvo of missles at Canada.

With this considered, I still support the idea. Lets be realistic, the Americans are going to pay for the thing, Canadian jobs are going to be created in building the thing, and at the end of the day, one of the thousand missles might actually get shot down...

If they are paying for it, why not?

[mar]

Well, it has come to my attention that Missile Defense is coming back to being a campaign issue. Harper says he will hold a free vote in the commons on it and the Liberals say that they will ban the weponization of space (assuming missile defense leads to weapons in space)

I think Harper has it right holding a free vote. I for one am for the Missile shield it will protect Canada's soverignty from terrorist's and rogue nations and for other matters I will not get in to. Holding a free vote in the commons is the democratic way of doing this, some people don't want the shield and some people like myself want it, with a vote I think it will be fair and allows either side to be happy with the democratic process, regardless of which side wins.

Any oppinions?

My opinion on the shield has never really changed since it was first talked about. I know it won't work, the test results are just shameful. I strongly doubt as well any rogue nation is going to fire a salvo of missles at Canada.

With this considered, I still support the idea. Lets be realistic, the Americans are going to pay for the thing, Canadian jobs are going to be created in building the thing, and at the end of the day, one of the thousand missles might actually get shot down...

If they are paying for it, why not?

There is no valid strategic argument for the shield and the negative aspect of it in terms of sparking a new arms race among major powers far outweighs any advantage.

However, I will say one thing that goes way, way beyond the current election. If the proliferation of nuclear weapons continues (India, Pakistan now possibly Iran and more to come) Canada will definitely revisit the debate that has existed virtually since WWII as to whether we should join the "nuclear club."

This is not some off-the-wall prediction. There have been advocates in the Canadian military for the past 50 years based on the simple premise that, for a relatively small nation in terms of population with a large landmass to protect that exceeds the capability of conventional forces, the deterrant effect of nuclear weapons is an extremely cost efficient solution. Given our current expertise in nuclear power and the pool of expertise available to the military, development would present no problem.

I am neither advocating this or automatically dismissing it, but I will bet you if international proliferation continues, within a decade or so it will break out of the closed world of the military and become a matter for public discussion. It may also serve as an interesting object lesson in how our neighbours to the South regard us as, make no mistake, a succession of U.S. governments have had very definite opinions on this.

[Riverwind]

I think Harper has it right holding a free vote. I for one am for the Missile shield it will protect Canada's soverignty from terrorist's and rogue nations and for other matters I will not get in to.

It is asburd to suggest this missle shield will accomplish anything useful. It is basically a make work project for the US military industrial complex funded by US taxpayers. That said, Canada should sign on because it does not hurt us (the US is not asking for us to pay for anything) and it would win us some friends in Washington.

The US will do it with or without Canadian support so there is nothing Canada can do to stop 'weapons in space' or a 'space arms race'. We might get a few pats on the back in Stockholm or Berlin for saying some ineffective words on the topic but that is a waste of time. Friends in Washington are more important that friends in Stockholm.

[geoffrey]

I think Harper has it right holding a free vote. I for one am for the Missile shield it will protect Canada's soverignty from terrorist's and rogue nations and for other matters I will not get in to.

It is asburd to suggest this missle shield will accomplish anything useful. It is basically a make work project for the US military industrial complex funded by US taxpayers. That said, Canada should sign on because it does not hurt us (the US is not asking for us to pay for anything) and it would win us some friends in Washington.

And win us some money in building it. We have tons of techonolgy and manufacturing firms that would love to jump all over this, create some high-tech high paying jobs.

I can't really see any reason to oppose this, especially since it will happen regardless if we agree or not.

[Canuck E Stan]

I think Harper has it right holding a free vote. I for one am for the Missile shield it will protect Canada's soverignty from terrorist's and rogue nations and for other matters I will not get in to.

It is asburd to suggest this missle shield will accomplish anything useful. It is basically a make work project for the US military industrial complex funded by US taxpayers. That said, Canada should sign on because it does not hurt us (the US is not asking for us to pay for anything) and it would win us some friends in Washington.

And win us some money in building it. We have tons of techonolgy and manufacturing firms that would love to jump all over this, create some high-tech high paying jobs.

I can't really see any reason to oppose this, especially since it will happen regardless if we agree or not.

Canadian companies lobby for missile shield contracts

You're right, it would bring lots of work on this side of the border if we agreed with the Yanks.

[mar]

And win us some money in building it. We have tons of techonolgy and manufacturing firms that would love to jump all over this, create some high-tech high paying jobs.

I can't really see any reason to oppose this, especially since it will happen regardless if we agree or not.

A great many things in the world will happen whether we agree or not but that does not make the act of agreement correct. There are various terms for this view: "passing the buck", "ethical void", "lack of principles", "mercenary attitude".

In any conflict there are people who believe in one side, people who believe in the other and people who side with whoever they think will be the winner.

I thought you were a "principles guy".

[geoffrey]

And win us some money in building it. We have tons of techonolgy and manufacturing firms that would love to jump all over this, create some high-tech high paying jobs.

I can't really see any reason to oppose this, especially since it will happen regardless if we agree or not.

A great many things in the world will happen whether we agree or not but that does not make the act of agreement correct. There are various terms for this view: "passing the buck", "ethical void", "lack of principles", "mercenary attitude".

In any conflict there are people who believe in one side, people who believe in the other and people who side with whoever they think will be the winner.

I thought you were a "principles guy".

I have nothing against building a defense system. If it were an offensive weapons system I wouldn't be in favour based on principle.

I feel the biggest argument against the shield is that it doesn't work. I know it doesn't work and won't do anything. But remember, we don't have to care if it works, because we realise we don't need it.

I feel Canadian jobs and revenue are more important than political posturing against the Americans. I believe strongly in the side that Canada needs job and heres a big job creator. I view whatever we are building as a non-issue, especially when that system doesn't even work.

[mar]

I have nothing against building a defense system. If it were an offensive weapons system I wouldn't be in favour based on principle.

I feel the biggest argument against the shield is that it doesn't work. I know it doesn't work and won't do anything. But remember, we don't have to care if it works, because we realise we don't need it.

I feel Canadian jobs and revenue are more important than political posturing against the Americans. I believe strongly in the side that Canada needs job and heres a big job creator. I view whatever we are building as a non-issue, especially when that system doesn't even work.

There is no such thing as a defensive weapons system. Any system engenders a development process whereby other states are obligated to counter with their own sytem or cede all power to the originator.

Plus, the signal aspect of the missile shield is the abililty to control the system from space and ultimately to launch space based weapons. So tell me, if you're, let say, China, do you look at this and say "Gee! The U.S. would never use the space launch capability to target us, would they? I mean its not like they ever dropped nuclear bombs on an Asian population or invaded a region close to us, is it?"

[geoffrey]

There is no such thing as a defensive weapons system. Any system engenders a development process whereby other states are obligated to counter with their own sytem or cede all power to the originator.

Plus, the signal aspect of the missile shield is the abililty to control the system from space and ultimately to launch space based weapons. So tell me, if you're, let say, China, do you look at this and say "Gee! The U.S. would never use the space launch capability to target us, would they? I mean its not like they ever dropped nuclear bombs on an Asian population or invaded a region close to us, is it?"

I see all of this, but it will happen regardless of our support. With our support, we have a seat at the table and we have a hand in deciding how far this system goes. Without our support, the US has no other government to consult before going on their merry way to do whatever they want.

I'm saying if we are at the table, we can make this system the least threating to peace as possible. If we're not there, we are relying on GWB to do that, and thats not something I have alot of faith in.

Is it really 'principled' and 'moral' though to keep unemployed Canadian's out of well paying jobs? It is a huge opportunity for Canadian business and thats strictly where my interest in this is.

[Riverwind]

So tell me, if you're, let say, China, do you look at this and say "Gee! The U.S. would never use the space launch capability to target us, would they? I mean its not like they ever dropped nuclear bombs on an Asian population or invaded a region close to us, is it?"

The US and China are already so interlinked economically that it will be next to impossible for the two countries to go to war on a large scale without severely damaging their economies and angering their populace.

If the US wants to play with it war toys then let it because they will never be used. If terrorists attack the bomb will come in on a cargo container and not a ballistic missile.

[Rovik]

I think Harper has it right holding a free vote. I for one am for the Missile shield it will protect Canada's soverignty from terrorist's and rogue nations and for other matters I will not get in to.

A missile shield will not protect from terrorists. How is a missile shield going to protect from a terrorist's dirty nuke. In regards to rogue nations, the only one close is North Korea who may or may not have nuclear weapons and if they do, the most practical and least expensive way to turn them from the nuclear course is by putting political pressure on them. Let's face it, this is is just an excuse to allow the American arms companies to make huge amount of profits, pure and simple.

My opinion on the shield has never really changed since it was first talked about. I know it won't work, the test results are just shameful. I strongly doubt as well any rogue nation is going to fire a salvo of missles at Canada.

With this considered, I still support the idea. Lets be realistic, the Americans are going to pay for the thing, Canadian jobs are going to be created in building the thing, and at the end of the day, one of the thousand missles might actually get shot down...

If they are paying for it, why not?

If it doesn't work or works very sparingly, why waste govt. money building a white elephant. And once we are committed, do you honestly think the Americans won't be looking for money from Canada to help build this system. They are deep in debt in the US already and if the costs of this missile project become much larger than anticipated the US will come knocking demanding we provide our fair share of the costs.

It is asburd to suggest this missle shield will accomplish anything useful. It is basically a make work project for the US military industrial complex funded by US taxpayers. That said, Canada should sign on because it does not hurt us (the US is not asking for us to pay for anything) and it would win us some friends in Washington.

The US will do it with or without Canadian support so there is nothing Canada can do to stop 'weapons in space' or a 'space arms race'. We might get a few pats on the back in Stockholm or Berlin for saying some ineffective words on the topic but that is a waste of time. Friends in Washington are more important that friends in Stockholm.

And should we compromise our values to make friends in the USA. We are our own country, and should be able to operate without worrying that the US will punish us if we don't do what they say.

Even if they build this system that most people believe won't work, we can say that we stuck by our moral objectives and wasn't bullied by our southern neighbour. Let's face it, one of the main reasons why the US wanted Canada to sign on is to say to the rest of the world, "geesh if Canada, a nation known for it's peacekeeping around the world, thinks it's ok, then it must be good." Basically, we would be used towards justification of the missile shield project to the rest of the world.

And win us some money in building it. We have tons of techonolgy and manufacturing firms that would love to jump all over this, create some high-tech high paying jobs.

I can't really see any reason to oppose this, especially since it will happen regardless if we agree or not.

And how far can we go to justify jobs. What if Brazil justified cutting down the trees in the Amazon by saying it will create jobs. And when all the trees were cut down what would Brazil say?...ah well, at least lots of jobs were created.

What happens if there is a glitch in the missile shield system and ends up destroying a friendly target?....What happens if this starts an escalation of weapons in space between the Americans, Russians and Chinise? What can we say? Ah well, the main thing was that lots of jobs were created.

I believe you can only justify jobs to a point, but once you cross that line....

I have nothing against building a defense system. If it were an offensive weapons system I wouldn't be in favour based on principle.

And do you think it there is no chance that this system could be turned to offensive purposes. Under the right circumstances, this system could be turned to offensive purposes and if you take what has happened the last few years in Iraq, I'm not ready to believe everything the American govt. has to say as the absolute truth.

[politika]

I have nothing against building a defense system. If it were an offensive weapons system I wouldn't be in favour based on principle.

I feel the biggest argument against the shield is that it doesn't work. I know it doesn't work and won't do anything. But remember, we don't have to care if it works, because we realise we don't need it.

I feel Canadian jobs and revenue are more important than political posturing against the Americans. I believe strongly in the side that Canada needs job and heres a big job creator. I view whatever we are building as a non-issue, especially when that system doesn't even work.

There is no such thing as a defensive weapons system. Any system engenders a development process whereby other states are obligated to counter with their own sytem or cede all power to the originator.

Plus, the signal aspect of the missile shield is the abililty to control the system from space and ultimately to launch space based weapons. So tell me, if you're, let say, China, do you look at this and say "Gee! The U.S. would never use the space launch capability to target us, would they? I mean its not like they ever dropped nuclear bombs on an Asian population or invaded a region close to us, is it?"

Are you saying the US would purposly attack us, im definatly not a yank lover im far from it but they would be commiting suicide not only economicly invadeing their largest trading partner they would be in violation of the NATO treaty and probably all UN nations would join in on are defense. The way i see it is we better get weapon sin space before our enemies do we need to have the most strategic point, dont kiss it away to are enemies is what i say.

[mar]

The US and China are already so interlinked economically that it will be next to impossible for the two countries to go to war on a large scale without severely damaging their economies and angering their populace.

If the US wants to play with it war toys then let it because they will never be used. If terrorists attack the bomb will come in on a cargo container and not a ballistic missile.

Somebody who wanted to could find a whole list of quotes about how various countries (including Britain, France, Germany, Italy, etc) were so economically intertwined in the early-mid 20th century that they would never go to war.

As an argument, yours amounts to about zero.

[politika]

The US and China are already so interlinked economically that it will be next to impossible for the two countries to go to war on a large scale without severely damaging their economies and angering their populace.

If the US wants to play with it war toys then let it because they will never be used. If terrorists attack the bomb will come in on a cargo container and not a ballistic missile.

Somebody who wanted to could find a whole list of quotes about how various countries (including Britain, France, Germany, Italy, etc) were so economically intertwined in the early-mid 20th century that they would never go to war.

As an argument, yours amounts to about zero.

But that the 20th century wars were neccassary to secure freedom. The US is not going to go to war with another country for no reason with an already at stake American economy and put themselves in more debt.

[Riverwind]

Somebody who wanted to could find a whole list of quotes about how various countries (including Britain, France, Germany, Italy, etc) were so economically intertwined in the early-mid 20th century that they would never go to war.

The level of integration in the late 1800s early 1900s does not compare to what we have today. China needs a huge amount of resources in order to keep its economy going. It does not have the military strength to protect cargo ships coming from other continents. The US needs the manufacturing facilities in China because it no longer has the capacity to produce the amount of goods that it population needs

[Wilber]

If the US and China ever go to war it will happen with or without missile defense systems.

"The Chinese are the most remarkable race on earth, and I have always thought, and still believe them to be, the coming rulers of the world. They only want a Chinese Peter the Great or Napoleon to make them so. . . and in my idle speculation upon this worlds future I have long selected them as the combatants on the one side of the great Battle of Armageddon, the people of the United States of America being their opponents. The latter nation is fast becoming the greatest power of the world. Thank Heaven, they speak English, are governed by an English system of laws, and profess the same regard that we have for what both understand by fair play in all national as well as in private business."

Lord Wolseley

Commander in Chief of the British Army

1903

An astute dude. Wonder if he will be proved correct more than a century later.

Wolseley was called "Queen Victoria's only General" and was the inspiration for Gilbert and Sullivan's "Model of a Modern Major General".

[mar]

But that the 20th century wars were neccassary to secure freedom. The US is not going to go to war with another country for no reason with an already at stake American economy and put themselves in more debt.

"But that the 20th century wars were neccassary to secure freedom."

I didn't think anybody believed any more that WW I was about freedom. GEEZ! A sizable percentage of the troops returned for WWI so radicalized and sickened by the pointlessness of that war for the economic division of the world they founded communist and socialist parties, held general strikes and transformed the political landscape of Europe.

"The US is not going to go to war with another country for no reason with an already at stake American economy and put themselves in more debt."

a) they already did with Iraq

China will become the world's largest economy. Do you think what will them be the world's richest country with the largest population of any country will accept a world dominated by the U.S.? They'd be the first ever in that position to do so.

Plus one of the things you have to realize is the U.S. economy is much more entwined with China's than vice versa. When they started, U.S. governments promised Americans trade with China would involve MORE employment in the U.S. In face it has been the reverse: an immense job drain and an export of raw materials to china that come back as electronic goods, clothing, and soon automobiles. To date the bulk of this has been by U.S. companies who either contract producation or established their own factories but now China is turnings it attention to incentivizing their citizens to establish their own companies.

So a china that leads the world in manufactured goods - with the U.S. merely as another comsumer - and has an reasonably affluent population will demand its rightful place.

Plus there is some reason to believe that this century will be the century of war bewteen the third world and the West. Despite its economic growth, Chian has positioned itself squarely with the third world in geo-political terms.

So, at the minimum the balance of power in the world will undergo major changes over the next few decades and history tells us this is rarely accomplished peacefully.

[Guest eureka]

"But that the 20th century wars were neccassary to secure freedom."

I didn't think anybody believed any more that WW I was about freedom. GEEZ! A sizable percentage of the troops returned for WWI so radicalized and sickened by the pointlessness of that war for the.....

Interestingly, Bertrand Russell saw WW1 as ending freedpm as it had been known. Of course, he saw freedom in the Liberal sense. Much like today's Conservatives.

[cybercoma]

if we don't agree to the missile defense system, is the united states just going to blow up the incoming missiles over canada?

[mar]

if we don't agree to the missile defense system, is the united states just going to blow up the incoming missiles over canada?

Every plan the U.S. has ever had involves using Canada as the wall that must be broken dowm to enter the fortress.

A little history. During the Cuban Missile Crisis the U.S. put their military on high alert and asked canada to do the same; in fact expected it under NORAD. Then PM John Diefenbaker did NOT have the order issued. More than one person close to "The Chief" as well as several military analysts have suggested he didn't see a whole lot of value for us in missiles destined for Washington being detonated over Canadian airspace.

[Wilber]

"A little history. During the Cuban Missile Crisis the U.S. put their military on high alert and asked canada to do the same; in fact expected it under NORAD. Then PM John Diefenbaker did NOT have the order issued. More than one person close to "The Chief" as well as several military analysts have suggested he didn't see a whole lot of value for us in missiles destined for Washington being detonated over Canadian airspace."

So much for NORAD or NATO for that matter. The US must take a lot comfort in the idea Canada will not live up to it's obligations under a mutual defense treaty.

[geoffrey]

"A little history. During the Cuban Missile Crisis the U.S. put their military on high alert and asked canada to do the same; in fact expected it under NORAD. Then PM John Diefenbaker did NOT have the order issued. More than one person close to "The Chief" as well as several military analysts have suggested he didn't see a whole lot of value for us in missiles destined for Washington being detonated over Canadian airspace."

So much for NORAD or NATO for that matter. The US must take a lot comfort in the idea Canada will not live up to it's obligations under a mutual defense treaty.

I'm pretty sure the US knows we are a write-off when it comes to actual national defense. Most US defense ideas are drawn up without our consent for good reason, we don't follow commitments. Missile defense will just be another defense scheme where we have no consent to what is happening over our skies. You can thank Paulie for that.

[Army Guy]

Mar.

"A little history. During the Cuban Missile Crisis the U.S. put their military on high alert and asked canada to do the same; in fact expected it under NORAD. Then PM John Diefenbaker did NOT have the order issued. More than one person close to "The Chief" as well as several military analysts have suggested he didn't see a whole lot of value for us in missiles destined for Washington being detonated over Canadian airspace."

I think if you research the Cuban Missle Crisis you'll find that our Military was on high alert, in fact Canadian warships were part of the blockade, these orders came from DND, not the PM.

[politika]

Yes the PM did not have to order it the military dosobeyed it's orders. But for good reason. I think Canada under defense treaties we should be supporting our allies like United States by signing on to the Missile Defense program. It is our obligation to defend Canadian soverignty not the United States, they are our allies and all and they will help us if the need ever arose but they want to know that we could do the same for them if the United Staes needed Military help.