Missle Defense

[Black Dog]

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.

So we should protect our soverignty by giving it away by participating inwhatever cock and bull scheme the Americans deem best for us?

Feh. I cannot believe there is so much hand wringing over Canada's unwillingness to participate in a program that doesn't work that is designed to protect us from a threat that doesn't exist.

[Wilber]

So we should protect our soverignty by giving it away by participating inwhatever cock and bull scheme the Americans deem best for us?

How does participating give away our sovereignty?

[cybercoma]

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.

So we should protect our soverignty by giving it away by participating inwhatever cock and bull scheme the Americans deem best for us?

Feh. I cannot believe there is so much hand wringing over Canada's unwillingness to participate in a program that doesn't work that is designed to protect us from a threat that doesn't exist.

How is it giving away our sovereignty to get on board with a North American missile defense system? I'm guessing if we don't sign up, the United States is just going to shoot down missiles over Winnipeg, Toronto or Montreal before they make it into US airspace. I could be wrong, but if I'm not, it would be a serious mistake not to get involved.

[geoffrey]

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.

So we should protect our soverignty by giving it away by participating inwhatever cock and bull scheme the Americans deem best for us?

Feh. I cannot believe there is so much hand wringing over Canada's unwillingness to participate in a program that doesn't work that is designed to protect us from a threat that doesn't exist.

How is it giving away our sovereignty to get on board with a North American missile defense system? I'm guessing if we don't sign up, the United States is just going to shoot down missiles over Winnipeg, Toronto or Montreal before they make it into US airspace. I could be wrong, but if I'm not, it would be a serious mistake not to get involved.

Both are very valid arguments. We would sort of be selling out our soverignty by admitting that we have to sit at the table with the Americans just to ensure our safety.

However, it seems like thats what the reality is?

Our talk won't change their plans unless we are on board, so its a really tough decision, far more involved than the Liberals "oh its American so its bad" would let you think.

[fellowtraveller]

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

Yes, of course, a glimpse at a map or globe illustrates that reality. 'Twas ever so - note the location of the old DEW and Pinetree lines of defence, and the new single line of northern radar/electronic eavesdropping stations. They are almost all, today, in Canada.

All it would take for Canada to come out foursquare behind a Ballistic Missile Defence scheme would be the hint of a big contract going to Bombardier.

[Black Dog]

How does participating give away our sovereignty?

As I said in another thread, the expectation seems to be that our participation wouldn't cost us a dime. Well, kids, there's no such thing as a free lunch. If we want a place at the table and if we want to have any say, chances are we'll be required to pony up. And even then, I sincerly doubt the U.S. would be willing to cede any real decision making authority to Canada.

(Also: I think the use of the term "ally" in the context of U.S./Canada military relations is disingeneous: such a term denotes a meeting of equals, which is not the case. Under any scheme to further integrate Canda's defense into the United States' goals, we'd most certainly be the client. Or, less charitably, the "bottom".)

I'm guessing if we don't sign up, the United States is just going to shoot down missiles over Winnipeg, Toronto or Montreal before they make it into US airspace.

Which is something they would do anyway, no? Thing is, I'm not at all worried about missiles being shot down over Canadian airspace. I'm very worried about the potential of Canadian taxpayer dollars going into a program that is little more than a direct grant to U.S. defense contractors.

[mar]

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.

You're right that I am guilty of oversimplifying for brevity. In fact, then Prime Minister John Diefenbaker hesitated when asked by Kennedy to put the Canadian forces on high-alert status. Diefenbaker finally relented - some would argue after the most crucial period has passed - but relations with Kennedy were permanently strained and the then U.S. ambassador to Canada went to considerable pains to help defeat Diefenbaker in the next election including calling reporters to the embassy to "privately" discuss the high-alert incident.

However, as I mentioned, under existing Canada-U.S. agreements it was unclear whether any explicit order from Diefenbaker was required. However, my point was Diefenbaker's position.

[Army Guy]

MAR.

You're right that I am guilty of oversimplifying for brevity. In fact, then Prime Minister John Diefenbaker hesitated when asked by Kennedy to put the Canadian forces on high-alert status. Diefenbaker finally relented - some would argue after the most crucial period has passed - but relations with Kennedy were permanently strained and the then U.S. ambassador to Canada went to considerable pains to help defeat Diefenbaker in the next election including calling reporters to the embassy to "privately" discuss the high-alert incident.

However, as I mentioned, under existing Canada-U.S. agreements it was unclear whether any explicit order from Diefenbaker was required. However, my point was Diefenbaker's position.

No you were right, Diefenbaker did tell Kennedy "he would not put his military on high alert" My piont was that the Canadain Military disregarded those orders and placed thier troops on High readiness because they saw the situation as it really was and were it was leading to, and nuke stand off. DND had ordered it's ships to par take in the blockade to atleast have a seat at the table when the button was pushed.

Diefenbaker relented when he found out that DND had acted against his orders.

[Wilber]

"As I said in another thread, the expectation seems to be that our participation wouldn't cost us a dime. Well, kids, there's no such thing as a free lunch. If we want a place at the table and if we want to have any say, chances are we'll be required to pony up. And even then, I sincerly doubt the U.S. would be willing to cede any real decision making authority to Canada.

(Also: I think the use of the term "ally" in the context of U.S./Canada military relations is disingeneous: such a term denotes a meeting of equals, which is not the case. Under any scheme to further integrate Canda's defense into the United States' goals, we'd most certainly be the client. Or, less charitably, the "bottom".)"

None of our politicians from any of our parties ever cited cost as a reason for not joining. We have much of a say? Maybe not, but we do know that we will have none as things stand.

The definition of an ally has never been a meeting of equals. British policy in Europe for hundreds of years was always to ally itself with the weaker continental powers in order to prevent the strongest power of the time from dominating the continent. They were never strong enough to do it on their own. Countries form alliances because they are not strong enough to defend themselves against certain threats. The US has never needed us as an ally as much as we have needed them. The pathetic size of our armed forces in relationship to our size and wealth is proof of that. How long do you think the two World Wars would have lasted without the US as an ally?

[mar]

MAR.

You're right that I am guilty of oversimplifying for brevity. In fact, then Prime Minister John Diefenbaker hesitated when asked by Kennedy to put the Canadian forces on high-alert status. Diefenbaker finally relented - some would argue after the most crucial period has passed - but relations with Kennedy were permanently strained and the then U.S. ambassador to Canada went to considerable pains to help defeat Diefenbaker in the next election including calling reporters to the embassy to "privately" discuss the high-alert incident.

However, as I mentioned, under existing Canada-U.S. agreements it was unclear whether any explicit order from Diefenbaker was required. However, my point was Diefenbaker's position.

No you were right, Diefenbaker did tell Kennedy "he would not put his military on high alert" My piont was that the Canadain Military disregarded those orders and placed thier troops on High readiness because they saw the situation as it really was and were it was leading to, and nuke stand off. DND had ordered it's ships to par take in the blockade to atleast have a seat at the table when the button was pushed.

Diefenbaker relented when he found out that DND had acted against his orders.

Whew! Glad we got that settled

What with the Arrow and all Dief had a rather controvesial history regarding military matters, huh? Almost as much as Paul - "the little corporal" - Hellier.

[Army Guy]

Agreed, Mr hellier was not very popular among'st the Military after unification of the elements.

[Black Dog]

None of our politicians from any of our parties ever cited cost as a reason for not joining.

I know, but it's frequently been cited as a reason to join by program proponents.

We have much of a say? Maybe not, but we do know that we will have none as things stand

So what? It's their money, let them spend it as they wish. Until someone can make a convincing case as to the necessity of this program, Canada should stay out.

Countries form alliances because they are not strong enough to defend themselves against certain threats. The US has never needed us as an ally as much as we have needed them. The pathetic size of our armed forces in relationship to our size and wealth is proof of that. How long do you think the two World Wars would have lasted without the US as an ally?

None of which is particularily germaine to the subject, save to reinforce my point that participation in missile defense would inevitavbly result in Canada taking the role of junior partner. So much for "having a say".

But the heart of the matter is this: the program is useless, a white elephant corporate welfare scam being perpatrated on the American tax payer by the defense industry and its bought and paid for cronies in Congress and the administration. It's no business of ours.

[Argus]

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.

You can't have it both ways. If the thing is crap and doesn't work then it's not going to spark an arms race. If it does work, then it's a good thing.

[Wilber]

"None of which is particularily germaine to the subject, save to reinforce my point that participation in missile defense would inevitavbly result in Canada taking the role of junior partner. So much for "having a say"."

We are a junior partner, always have been, always will. So what, small countries need alliances far more than big powerfull ones. The bottom line is we need them more than they need us when it comes to defense. That's just the way it is. Thank god we shared a border with the US instead of the Soviet Union or Germany for most of the 20th century.

Is missile defence a waist of time? Everyone has an opinion but you know what they are like and everyone has one. One day someone, somewhere, will build one that works, that is certain. Whether it can be done with todays technology is the only question.

[Black Dog]

You can't have it both ways. If the thing is crap and doesn't work then it's not going to spark an arms race. If it does work, then it's a good thing.

Sure it can. If it does work, it would give the Americans a strategic advantage. Countries like China and Russia aren't going to play it safe by hoping the thing just doesn't work. They are going to put themselves in a position whereby they can be damn sure that, if it does work, they'll still have the ability to shoot back.

We are a junior partner, always have been, always will. So what, small countries need alliances far more than big powerfull ones. The bottom line is we need them more than they need us when it comes to defense. That's just the way it is. Thank god we shared a border with the US instead of the Soviet Union or Germany for most of the 20th century.

Well, they clearly don't need our help with this cockamamie BMD scheme.

Is missile defence a waist of time? Everyone has an opinion but you know what they are like and everyone has one. One day someone, somewhere, will build one that works, that is certain. Whether it can be done with todays technology is the only question.

Even if they developed a system tomorrow that was 100 per cent successful, I'd still think it was a stupid idea for the simple reason that the countries the system is designed to deter (Iran, North Korea in particular) don't pose a threat.

[Wilber]

"Sure it can. If it does work, it would give the Americans a strategic advantage. Countries like China and Russia aren't going to play it safe by hoping the thing just doesn't work. They are going to put themselves in a position whereby they can be damn sure that, if it does work, they'll still have the ability to shoot back."

So when it comes to the major powers, nothing will change. It will still be MAD. It's the nut cases like Kim Jong-il that this thing is designed for. Deterrent is not really an issue here. One Trident sub parked a thousand miles offshore could make the whole country go away but then what would China do? Better to stop Kim's missile than risk war with China by blowing up its next door neighbor. The South Koreans wouldn't be real happy with all those nukes going off a few miles from Seoul either.

A far fetched scenario? Maybe, but then again, maybe not.

"Well, they clearly don't need our help with this cockamamie BMD scheme."

Well, clearly you believe we will ever need their help. Or if you do, you believe we will get it regardless of our behavior toward them.

"Even if they developed a system tomorrow that was 100 per cent successful, I'd still think it was a stupid idea for the simple reason that the countries the system is designed to deter (Iran, North Korea in particular) don't pose a threat."

Then why is the rest of the world, including the European countries who were against the Iraq invasion having a fit over their nuclear programs? Why is Japan having a bird every time North Korea fires a test missile into the North Pacific through their airspace?

Why do you think being weaker makes us more sovereign?

[politika]

How does participating give away our sovereignty?

As I said in another thread, the expectation seems to be that our participation wouldn't cost us a dime. Well, kids, there's no such thing as a free lunch. If we want a place at the table and if we want to have any say, chances are we'll be required to pony up. And even then, I sincerly doubt the U.S. would be willing to cede any real decision making authority to Canada.

(Also: I think the use of the term "ally" in the context of U.S./Canada military relations is disingeneous: such a term denotes a meeting of equals, which is not the case. Under any scheme to further integrate Canda's defense into the United States' goals, we'd most certainly be the client. Or, less charitably, the "bottom".)

I'm guessing if we don't sign up, the United States is just going to shoot down missiles over Winnipeg, Toronto or Montreal before they make it into US airspace.

Which is something they would do anyway, no? Thing is, I'm not at all worried about missiles being shot down over Canadian airspace. I'm very worried about the potential of Canadian taxpayer dollars going into a program that is little more than a direct grant to U.S. defense contractors.

If we sign on to missile defense we are taking initiative for protecting ourselves, and maybe one step closer to becoming a military super power. I am not sure how many nukes Canada has or if we have any but we are protecting ourselves from again rogue nations. I am a strong beliver that Canada after WW2 should have joined the US in becoming a super power. If we were today other countries wouldnt be oushing us around.

[politika]

"As I said in another thread, the expectation seems to be that our participation wouldn't cost us a dime. Well, kids, there's no such thing as a free lunch. If we want a place at the table and if we want to have any say, chances are we'll be required to pony up. And even then, I sincerly doubt the U.S. would be willing to cede any real decision making authority to Canada.

(Also: I think the use of the term "ally" in the context of U.S./Canada military relations is disingeneous: such a term denotes a meeting of equals, which is not the case. Under any scheme to further integrate Canda's defense into the United States' goals, we'd most certainly be the client. Or, less charitably, the "bottom".)"

None of our politicians from any of our parties ever cited cost as a reason for not joining. We have much of a say? Maybe not, but we do know that we will have none as things stand.

The definition of an ally has never been a meeting of equals. British policy in Europe for hundreds of years was always to ally itself with the weaker continental powers in order to prevent the strongest power of the time from dominating the continent. They were never strong enough to do it on their own. Countries form alliances because they are not strong enough to defend themselves against certain threats. The US has never needed us as an ally as much as we have needed them. The pathetic size of our armed forces in relationship to our size and wealth is proof of that. How long do you think the two World Wars would have lasted without the US as an ally?

It would have lasted a bit longer but and maybe lost the war but all the allied nationas were involved in saving the wrold some how. Likewise without Canada, Britain, France and some of the other smaller countries the US could not have faught Hitlers forces alone.

[Black Dog]

So when it comes to the major powers, nothing will change. It will still be MAD. It's the nut cases like Kim Jong-il that this thing is designed for. Deterrent is not really an issue here. One Trident sub parked a thousand miles offshore could make the whole country go away but then what would China do? Better to stop Kim's missile than risk war with China by blowing up its next door neighbor. The South Koreans wouldn't be real happy with all those nukes going off a few miles from Seoul either.

Why don't the principles of MAD apply to Norther Korea? If anything, madmen like Kim Jong Il are even more limited than major powers, given their limited ability to strike (they don't have a missile capable of reaching the continental U.S.). In any case, a nuclear attack (whether thwarted by m,issile defense or not) would mean nuclear retaliation, which in turn would be the end of North Korea. Kim Jong may be crazy, but he's not suicidal.

Well, clearly you believe we will ever need their help. Or if you do, you believe we will get it regardless of our behavior toward them.

Frankly I don't think we need the United States help. If we had a plan to defend our own territory we'd do just fine. I would be in favour of just such a plan (obviously, it would not include BMD) if it meant less integration with the U.S.

But I don't believe all the talk of bolstering Canada's military has anything to do with national defense.

Then why is the rest of the world, including the European countries who were against the Iraq invasion having a fit over their nuclear programs? Why is Japan having a bird every time North Korea fires a test missile into the North Pacific through their airspace?

A simple look at a globe will tell you why Iran and North korea are potential threats to their neighbours, but not North America.

Why do you think being weaker makes us more sovereign?

False premise. Missile defense doesn't make us stronger.

If we sign on to missile defense we are taking initiative for protecting ourselves, and maybe one step closer to becoming a military super power.

Notwithstanding the fact that the threat missile defense is designed to thwart does not exist, Canada doesn't have the population or economic might to be a superpower.

I am not sure how many nukes Canada has or if we have any but we are protecting ourselves from again rogue nations.

Canada has no nuclear weapons and is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which restricts who can have nuclear weapons.

I am a strong beliver that Canada after WW2 should have joined the US in becoming a super power. If we were today other countries wouldnt be oushing us around.

Again, Canada doesn't have the necessary prerequisites to acheive super power status. BTW, what countries are pushing us around?

[politika]

So when it comes to the major powers, nothing will change. It will still be MAD. It's the nut cases like Kim Jong-il that this thing is designed for. Deterrent is not really an issue here. One Trident sub parked a thousand miles offshore could make the whole country go away but then what would China do? Better to stop Kim's missile than risk war with China by blowing up its next door neighbor. The South Koreans wouldn't be real happy with all those nukes going off a few miles from Seoul either.

Why don't the principles of MAD apply to Norther Korea? If anything, madmen like Kim Jong Il are even more limited than major powers, given their limited ability to strike (they don't have a missile capable of reaching the continental U.S.). In any case, a nuclear attack (whether thwarted by m,issile defense or not) would mean nuclear retaliation, which in turn would be the end of North Korea. Kim Jong may be crazy, but he's not suicidal.

Well, clearly you believe we will ever need their help. Or if you do, you believe we will get it regardless of our behavior toward them.

Frankly I don't think we need the United States help. If we had a plan to defend our own territory we'd do just fine. I would be in favour of just such a plan (obviously, it would not include BMD) if it meant less integration with the U.S.

But I don't believe all the talk of bolstering Canada's military has anything to do with national defense.

Then why is the rest of the world, including the European countries who were against the Iraq invasion having a fit over their nuclear programs? Why is Japan having a bird every time North Korea fires a test missile into the North Pacific through their airspace?

A simple look at a globe will tell you why Iran and North korea are potential threats to their neighbours, but not North America.

Why do you think being weaker makes us more sovereign?

False premise. Missile defense doesn't make us stronger.

If we sign on to missile defense we are taking initiative for protecting ourselves, and maybe one step closer to becoming a military super power.

Notwithstanding the fact that the threat missile defense is designed to thwart does not exist, Canada doesn't have the population or economic might to be a superpower.

I am not sure how many nukes Canada has or if we have any but we are protecting ourselves from again rogue nations.

Canada has no nuclear weapons and is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which restricts who can have nuclear weapons.

I am a strong beliver that Canada after WW2 should have joined the US in becoming a super power. If we were today other countries wouldnt be oushing us around.

Again, Canada doesn't have the necessary prerequisites to acheive super power status. BTW, what countries are pushing us around?

Denmarks Hans Island, US driving Nuclear subs trhough arctic waters, the British selling us (excuse the language) shit subs and smaller countries driving through Canadian waters and landing on Canadian owned territory and trying to take it away from us or testing are reaction.

Also I dont think population matters to become a super power. But if it does are you saying if Canada had or ever will have the prerequisetes will we decide to become a nuclear super power along with the USA and other countries?

[sage]

Is this not getting away from the real issue. We have 2 choices, both of which will involve U.S. missiles in Canadian airspace. If we don't join, the US (if they ever get it working) will fire into Canadian airspace if they need to without regard to our perceived sovereignty. If we do join, enough said.

The difference is that at the very least we are at the table under the latter option and there is some level of consultation. Perhaps not a great deal, but some is better then none.

Can we really afford to let the US completely disregard our sovereignty? What if the US does get this working, and does need to fire into Canadian airspace, and we didn't join and they never asked permission? All things that could realistically occur except it is probably far-fetched that the Yanks will ever get the damn working. What then?

It would be an intrusion that other countries would go to war over! Obviously we wouldn't do that, so what then? We put our tail between legs and do nothing, that's what. And this is an affirmation of our sovereingty?

[Black Dog]

Denmarks Hans Island, US driving Nuclear subs trhough arctic waters, the British selling us (excuse the language) shit subs and smaller countries driving through Canadian waters and landing on Canadian owned territory and trying to take it away from us or testing are reaction.

If you want to consider a small country putting its flag on an isolated barren chunk of rock "pushing us around", that's your perogative. I don't think it's a particularily serious issue. As fo rthe rest, the U.S. has been putting subs in Canadian waters for years: bolstering our military won't stop them simply because there's no chance we'd take military action agaisnt the Americans to defend our soverignty. Finally, the Britsish sub deal had nothing todo with our military strength: it was a political screw-up.

Is this not getting away from the real issue. We have 2 choices, both of which will involve U.S. missiles in Canadian airspace. If we don't join, the US (if they ever get it working) will fire into Canadian airspace if they need to without regard to our perceived sovereignty. If we do join, enough said.

The U.S. would be shooting missiles into our airspace regardless of our participation, so our participation would simply be for apperances' sake.

The difference is that at the very least we are at the table under the latter option and there is some level of consultation. Perhaps not a great deal, but some is better then none.

And what will we do if we had such a place? Tell them "no, you can't shoot down any missiles unles sthey are in your airspace"? Riiight.

People keep talking about this "place at the table" as though just sitting down with the U.S. is an end unto itself. But no one seems capable of articulating what's in it for us once we're there.

Can we really afford to let the US completely disregard our sovereignty? What if the US does get this working, and does need to fire into Canadian airspace, and we didn't join and they never asked permission? All things that could realistically occur except it is probably far-fetched that the Yanks will ever get the damn working. What then?

What's the expression I keep hearing? Oh yeah: "the U.S. will never ask permission to defend itself". (Look it up.)

It would be an intrusion that other countries would go to war over! Obviously we wouldn't do that, so what then? We put our tail between legs and do nothing, that's what. And this is an affirmation of our sovereingty?

Again, I can't see how Canada "having a place at the table" would change anything but the optics. Let me put it this way: if someone is dead set on doing something, and you can't stop them from doing it, giving them your permission to do it is a meaningless gesture.

Beasides, on the off chance there was an inbound nuclear missile over Canadian airspace, do you really think we'd say "no, you can't shoot it down"?

[GostHacked]

I have stated in another thread about BMD (which I started) that it would be useless.

North Korea can fire a nuke and whipe out Soel in 3 minutes tops. Time window is very small. We also know that (according to a documentary I watched on North Korea last night) North Korea has the 5th largest army and has the largest fleet of subs of any country. BMD is useless if one sub can slip into US waters and launch a surprise attack. All the BMDs would be tracking stuff from space or stuff comming from the other side of the planet. Or oif someone has a nuke strapped to their back. Hard to shoot that down with BMDs.

Not only that, you will eventually have stealth missles or missles with alot of ECCM on them. Making the BMD shiels just useless. Then that gets countered. The world knows that the US wants to build this defence system. The enemies of the US will build missles that can penetrate the sheild. The US will have to devise a better system. Escalation after escalation. Vicious cycle we can stop by just saying NO.

We do not need this folks, with having this, it brings more attention to us from others that hate the US. This system of BMDs has been tried by the US since Deifenbaker. It did not come to fruition then, I doubt it will now. And we gave up and trashed one of the most superb military fighting aircraft in the world. We gave up our soverignty in that manner. The Arrow was a kick ass project. BMDs killed it. Again like others said, that it just put money into American weapons makers.

The only people that have been able to make the BMDs work is Isreal. They took the Patriot Missle batteries and made them work. And work they do. The US can't even figure it out.

We do NOT need nukes. I do not see one real reason why we need them. We as a county gave them up, for we feel safe enough. Also if the nukes start flying absofrackinglooootly no one on earth will win. By building more nukes we are just hastening the timeline to MAD.

Less weapons are what we need. Not more. BMD is an arms race of a different kind.

[Wilber]

"A simple look at a globe will tell you why Iran and North korea are potential threats to their neighbours, but not North America."

The proposed initial sights are in the Aleutian Island chain which is just south of a great circle route from Korea to North America. It is felt that they are not that far off having a missile that it capable of reaching North America. There is almost no one who believes they don't have at least a few nuclear weapons.

Iran could definitely be a threat to Western Europe in the future. A great circle from Tehran to the US would pass over Labrador and Northern Quebec.

"False premise. Missile defense doesn't make us stronger"

How so?

"Why don't the principles of MAD apply to Norther Korea? If anything, madmen like Kim Jong Il are even more limited than major powers, given their limited ability to strike (they don't have a missile capable of reaching the continental U.S.). In any case, a nuclear attack (whether thwarted by m,issile defense or not) would mean nuclear retaliation, which in turn would be the end of North Korea. Kim Jong may be crazy, but he's not suicidal."

MAD doesn't apply because there is no hope that he could destroy the US, only do them severe damage. I don't know if a thwarted attack would lead to nuclear retaliation. There would be a tremendous amount of fallout, not only radiation but political and possibly military from China, Russia, South Korea and Japan if the US started lobing nukes into the region. Kim Jong-Il is in the process of starving his whole country to death , basically to get nuclear capability. That is a pretty major assumption.

"But I don't believe all the talk of bolstering Canada's military has anything to do with national defense."

What does it have to do with. Do you believe the ability to defend yourself and sovereignty are two separate issues?

"Canada has no nuclear weapons and is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, which restricts who can have nuclear weapons."

It restricts those who have signed the treaty unless they decide they want to violate or withdraw from the treaty at a later date. North Korea was a signatory but withdrew, Iran, India and Pakistan never signed. To the best of my knowledge the missile defense program does not involve the use of nuclear weapons.

I don't know if this system can be made to work. None of us have the technical insight to now that answer. I do think that there are some arguments that can be made in favour of this system and that some of the arguments against it are valid. I also think that some of the arguments against have more to do with not being part of an American project than the project's merits alone.

I know that if such a system can be made to work and one day has to be used, I would rather see it being used over the high Arctic than southern Canada.

I also remember sitting there as a kid watching booster after booster blow up near or on the launch pad at Cape Canaveral before the Americans could get one reliable enough to send Alan Shepard on a 15 minute sub orbital flight. Ten years later they had men standing on the moon. Before someone says that some of those involved were Canadian and the project head was an ex pat German, yes they were but it was the Americans that had the vision, resources and initiative to get it done.

My biggest problem is the way that this program was handled by our government. Martin spoke in favour of involvement for months. Then Adscam came along, he got into election mode and did a 180 because anti Americanism gets votes. No consultation with the Americans and he didn't even advise his own representative in Washington. That poor sod was still busy telling the Americans we were still in. No wonder one US columnist described us as "our retarded cousins".

Just over a year and a half later, again in election mode, in a televised debate he informs us he is going to change the Constitution. All his ministers are going, "say what?" Again no consultation with the major parties involved (or anyone else that we know of) on a major issue.

Paul Martin may be a prince of a guy and I'm not saying he does this all the time but the fact he does it at all leaves me with serious doubts about him running this country.

[Black Dog]

The proposed initial sights are in the Aleutian Island chain which is just south of a great circle route from Korea to North America. It is felt that they are not that far off having a missile that it capable of reaching North America. There is almost no one who believes they don't have at least a few nuclear weapons.

North Korea hasn't tested a long-range missile since Clinton was in office. The most recent estimates put their stockple of nuclear weapons at around 10 (less than half the number carried by a single American Ohio-class nuclear sub).

What's more, even if one assumes the worst-that they have the reliable ability to hit the U.S. with a nuclear-equipped missile- that still doesn't make them immue to the principles of M.A.D.

Iran could definitely be a threat to Western Europe in the future. A great circle from Tehran to the US would pass over Labrador and Northern Quebec

Iran's long range missile capability is even less then North Korea's. And, once again, the same principles re: MAD apply.

"False premise. Missile defense doesn't make us stronger"

How so?

If we're not paying into it and our involvement is limited to "a seat at the table", we get nothing out of it. It doesn't make us weaker, but it certainly indicates questionable priorities.

MAD doesn't apply because there is no hope that he could destroy the US, only do them severe damage. I don't know if a thwarted attack would lead to nuclear retaliation.

So you admit the onlything N. Korea has to gain from a nuclear exchange is a small amount of damage and teh cost of its total destruction. So it's not MAD, it's suicide.

There would be a tremendous amount of fallout, not only radiation but political and possibly military from China, Russia, South Korea and Japan if the US started lobing nukes into the region. Kim Jong-Il is in the process of starving his whole country to death , basically to get nuclear capability. That is a pretty major assumption.

If North Korea struck first, the U.S. would be perfectly justified in retaliating. Its allies in Japan and S. Korea know that, as do China and Russia. And even if the U.S refrained from nuclear retaliation, they could pummel the North into rubble using its vast conventional might. Either way, the result is the same: North Kore and Kim Jong Il cease to exist as political entities.

What does it have to do with. Do you believe the ability to defend yourself and sovereignty are two separate issues?

I think the people who want to bolster the military (like Washington's idealogical allies in the CPC) want to do so in order to turn Canada into a fighting arm of the U.S. military.

I also think that some of the arguments against have more to do with not being part of an American project than the project's merits alone.

Beleive me, if this project had any merits, I'd consider them. But, as I said I don't see this as anuthing more than a way of bosting Boeing and friends' bottom lines at teh taxpayer's expense.