Missle Defense

[sage]

Maybe what we should take away from all this is that our autonomy is more perceived then real?

[Army Guy]

There seems to be some misconceptions about BMD, thier are serveral componets that make up the entire system.

A land based system for long range high alt missles (ballistic missles)

Another land based system made up of patriot and other Air defense systems to counter low flying cruise and other low flying missles.

And a sea based system on board an Aegis type destroyer or frigate.

Combined they make up the entire Missle defense system.

MDA

My Webpage

My Webpage

There are many portions to this Missile defense system and most work or very close to becoming mass produced and put into military service. That being said Canada was only offered a seat at the table "at no charge" because of possiable future radar sites tying it all in with existing Norad sites.

How it all works is in the below link.

url=http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/]My Webpage[/url]

So it's not just for those high alt missles but for any incoming missle threat. I think the public have been either mis informed or not told the whole story from both sides the US and Canadian Governments.

Those that think that the whole system comes at no price tag to Canada think again. those ground based short range systems and the Aegis systems have a huge price tag and would be required to complete the system ...sort of in for a penny in for a pound.

Canada will have to decide what it wants more money, or a total defense and most will agree it's not defense that a large portion of the population wants.

[Wilber]

"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."

Do you believe that Canada is so insecure, it's inferiority complex so large that it could not control the actions of it's own military and should be disarmed to avoid the possibility another country might control it?

That's pathetic.

[Black Dog]

Canada will have to decide what it wants more money, or a total defense and most will agree it's not defense that a large portion of the population wants.

Further to that, while not a top priority, most people would probably generally agree that having an adequate military is a good thing (as Martha would say). But I have a hard time believing that people would consider an elaborate and costly missile defense system to be a requirement. We're more concerened with having helicopters that don't crash and decent pay for the troops. And rightly so.

Do you believe that Canada is so insecure, it's inferiority complex so large that it could not control the actions of it's own military and should be disarmed to avoid the possibility another country might control it?

That's pathetic.

What's pathetic is you getting all that from my earlier statement. First, I'm not suggesting Canada would lose control of its military, I am sugesting that, if some had their way, our political leadership would take its policy cues from the U.S. Nor am I sugesting Canada be disarmed: rather, I'm saying Canada should set its own course for its defense, not blindly jump into whatever scheme the Americans cook up soley for the sake of making nice. In other words: we need an independant foreign policy.

[cybercoma]

Why have any sort of national defense. We should just stop funding the military altogether and let the US take care of us, like they do already.

[tml12]

Why have any sort of national defense. We should just stop funding the military altogether and let the US take care of us, like they do already.

And in 100 when the U.S. wants freshwater we'll already be a U.S. territory if the Liberals and NDP could have their way (and at this point, I am having a hard time thinking about why that be such a bad idea... )

I have said it so many times before...missile defence is a BS thing, as is the weaponization of space, but WE NEED A SEAT AT THE TABLE.

The U.S. will not defend us forever.

[Wilber]

BD

OK, lets just agree to disagree on missile defense but maybe not quite as much as you think. I'm actually not totally convinced we should be a part of it, I do like to push a contrary position at times. Maybe you do as well. I do think our government dealt with it in a dishonest manner. Yea or Nay, we should have been up front with the US from day one.

Colour me thick but there are still a couple of points I am not clear on.

"What's pathetic is you getting all that from my earlier statement. First, I'm not suggesting Canada would lose control of its military, I am suggesting that, if some had their way, our political leadership would take its policy cues from the U.S. Nor am I suggesting Canada be disarmed: rather, I'm saying Canada should set its own course for its defense, not blindly jump into whatever scheme the Americans cook up soley for the sake of making nice. In other words: we need an independant foreign policy."

By "some" I guess you mean a freely elected government. Whats new about that? Or do you mean we can only have a military if Canadians elect a government you personally approve of? Harper has said he will not make foreign deployments without the approval of Parliament. I don't know what he will do if there is an emergency and Parliament is not in session, but any PM could face that dilemma.

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

I still don't understand this. Is the military a part of an "independent foreign policy" or not? Is the military part of setting "our own course for it's defense" or not? Can Canadians be trusted to have a strong military or not, or can they only be trusted under a Liberal Government?

[BubberMiley]

TML, I notice you have a quote from Eisenhower in your signature. Here's another one, which gets to the heart of the missile defence program.

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite."

Missile defence is a classic example of how the military industrial complex grows continually for its own sake. And Iraq is a classic example of how wars are necessary (and will be instigated) to continue to feed it.

That's why we must just say no.

[geoffrey]

I'm going to need to build my own missile defense system once Harper gets in. With all those Americans marching through our streets, ya never know if any of those crazy Texans will shoot at your house.

[tml12]

TML, I notice you have a quote from Eisenhower in your signature. Here's another one, which gets to the heart of the missile defence program.

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite."

Missile defence is a classic example of how the military industrial complex grows continually for its own sake. And Iraq is a classic example of how wars are necessary (and will be instigated) to continue to feed it.

That's why we must just say no.

BubberMiley,

Eisenhower is my favourite 20th century Republican president. FDR is my favourite 20th century Democrat president. You are correct that Eisenhower was worried about the military industrial complex. He was not a hawk (unlike the far right) and he understood when war was necessary (unlike the far left). Eisenhower probably would not have supported missile defence.

I do not support missile defence. I have stated many times, on this forum too, that anyone with an undergraduate physics degree can find flaws in the missile defence program the Bush government is proposing.

THAT BEING SAID, it is CRUCIAL we join TO HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE. Canada is a de facto participant regardless of what the left thinks. "Joining" missile defence merely means that Frank McKenna and Paul Martin (or whoever the PM is) has a seat at the table and can be aware of what is happening over Canadian cities.

A loss of Canadian sovereignty is achieved by us refusing to join the program. This is why we needed to join the program.

[Army Guy]

Cybercoma.

Why have any sort of national defense. We should just stop funding the military altogether and let the US take care of us, like they do already.

Good question, Why work and pay taxes, i mean we have the government social programs to take care of us. And yet for some reason most of the country goes off to work every morning.

Can you name one time in the last 100 years were the US had use it's military to protect our nation. I think not. It is not the US that stands on gaurd for thee, But proud Canadians.

How many nations in the world today do not have a military of any sort. you can count them on one hand Why is that i wonder.

[Black Dog]

By "some" I guess you mean a freely elected government. Whats new about that? Or do you mean we can only have a military if Canadians elect a government you personally approve of? Harper has said he will not make foreign deployments without the approval of Parliament. I don't know what he will do if there is an emergency and Parliament is not in session, but any PM could face that dilemma.

Well, gee a majority government in Canada can ramrod anything it wants through Parliment, which really turns the whole process of garnering approval from the people's representatives into nothing more than political kabuki. Obviously, that's not new, but what is new (welll, new-ish) is the amount of pressure we can expect from our southern neighbours to join in on whatever venture they deem important. Also new would be the degree of compliance we can expect from our next probable government.

I still don't understand this. Is the military a part of an "independent foreign policy" or not? Is the military part of setting "our own course for it's defense" or not? Can Canadians be trusted to have a strong military or not, or can they only be trusted under a Liberal Government?

I'm trying to make the distinction between the rhetoric from the reality. For example, I've noticed many advocates of increased military spending also tend to bemoan the fact Canada did not participate in the invasion of Iraq, something we were unable to do because of our apparent diminished capabilities. That's an example of a situation where a bolstered military would not be used for Canada's national defense. I would expect other examples of that should certain parties gain power.

Any clearer?

THAT BEING SAID, it is CRUCIAL we join TO HAVE A SEAT AT THE TABLE. Canada is a de facto participant regardless of what the left thinks. "Joining" missile defence merely means that Frank McKenna and Paul Martin (or whoever the PM is) has a seat at the table and can be aware of what is happening over Canadian cities.

Notwihstanding the inconsistency above (if we're a de facto participant, we would already have a say, n'est pas?)Again, "having a seat at the table" (and, Lord how I am starting to loathe that expression) is not an end unto itself.

A loss of Canadian sovereignty is achieved by us refusing to join the program. This is why we needed to join the program.

Again: how is it a loss of sovereignty to not participate in a program that doesn't concern us and over which we will have no say even if we do participate? Most importantly: what benefit is there to Canada?

[tml12]

BlackDog,

It is clear you support the Martin government's final decision. That is fine...you are most entitled to believing this and I respect your opinion.

We are a "de facto participant" because the U.S. would shoot down a missile over Canadian airspace headed for the U.S. regardless of whether we gave them permission or not.

My interpretation of missile defence is that we will understand what is going on in our airspace and how we will be protected in the case of such an emergency. By refusing to participate in missile defence, we are giving up sovereignty by allowing the Americans to plan ahead how to defend us. This is OK with a lot of Canadians, as we hardly have an armed forces as it is now and if we were ever attacked we would need to rely on the Americans. By participating in the program, we will coordinate our defence in a North American context. By refusing to go ahead with the program, we allow the Americans to have much more power in preparing our defence. To me, that is a loss of sovereignty.

When country "A" decides behind closed doors how to defend country "B," especially when country "B" is an independent nation capable of defending itself if it wanted to, then country "B" is accepting its second-tier status as a nation, esentially allowing country "A" to move closer to taking over country "B."

The Canadian left calls the CPC "American," as they sell this country out to the Americans...

[politika]

BlackDog,

It is clear you support the Martin government's final decision. That is fine...you are most entitled to believing this and I respect your opinion.

We are a "de facto participant" because the U.S. would shoot down a missile over Canadian airspace headed for the U.S. regardless of whether we gave them permission or not.

My interpretation of missile defence is that we will understand what is going on in our airspace and how we will be protected in the case of such an emergency. By refusing to participate in missile defence, we are giving up sovereignty by allowing the Americans to plan ahead how to defend us. This is OK with a lot of Canadians, as we hardly have an armed forces as it is now and if we were ever attacked we would need to rely on the Americans. By participating in the program, we will coordinate our defence in a North American context. By refusing to go ahead with the program, we allow the Americans to have much more power in preparing our defence. To me, that is a loss of sovereignty.

When country "A" decides behind closed doors how to defend country "B," especially when country "B" is an independent nation capable of defending itself if it wanted to, then country "B" is accepting its second-tier status as a nation, esentially allowing country "A" to move closer to taking over country "B."

The Canadian left calls the CPC "American," as they sell this country out to the Americans...

It wouldnt be easy to attack Canada if anyone ever tried to and I am not saying the US woundt defend us they probably would (im trying to make a point that we can defend ourselves without the US) Say the US wasnt their. If a powerfull country tried to take over Canada. They would have a hell of a time you know how many patriots like me who who would fight a gorilla war if our armed forces were gone? millions. The invading country would have a hell of a time trying to take over Canada it would be years. All the patriot fighters like me would sit their in Canadian forest seting off bombs and traps against invading attackers. By time this all happaned it would be like Iraq many casualties and a government forced to figure out when they are goint to withdrawl, or if they ever can bring stability to the country.

[Army Guy]

Politika

It wouldnt be easy to attack Canada if anyone ever tried to and I am not saying the US woundt defend us they probably would (im trying to make a point that we can defend ourselves without the US) Say the US wasnt their. If a powerfull country tried to take over Canada. They would have a hell of a time you know how many patriots like me who who would fight a gorilla war if our armed forces were gone? millions. The invading country would have a hell of a time trying to take over Canada it would be years. All the patriot fighters like me would sit their in Canadian forest seting off bombs and traps against invading attackers. By time this all happaned it would be like Iraq many casualties and a government forced to figure out when they are goint to withdrawl, or if they ever can bring stability to the country.

Your joking right, Any military force that was capable of destroying our current military would have no problem in securing the rest of the country...i mean what would you fight them with Snowballs, what would you make your bombs from when was the last time any Canadian actully lived of the land...You can't compare Canada with Iraq or Afgan two totally different cultures.

Don't get me wrong i'm not questioning your patriotism just your idea's about stopping a determined enemy.

[Black Dog]

We are a "de facto participant" because the U.S. would shoot down a missile over Canadian airspace headed for the U.S. regardless of whether we gave them permission or not.

First: that doesn't make us a participant, it makes us a bystander.

Second: given that missile defense is only designed to counter small-scale nuclear attacks (ie. one's launched from "rogue states") and given the inescapable fact that no such state has the ability to launch such an attack, the point that the U.S. would be blowing up missiles over Canada is moot. Put another way: the only way missile defense makes sense is if they get it to work, if a "rogue" develps both nuclear capability and long range delivery systems, if that "rogue" is underrable through traditional means and if that same rogue is willing to invite total destruction upon itself by atacking the U.S. The chances of all those variables (and others that I haven't mentioned) coming together and making missile defense a valid poroposal are slim to nil.

Any discussion about the specific pros and cons of Canadian participation that fails to take into account the fundamentally flawed nature of the BMD program is simply an academic exercise. Frankly, wondering about the what would happpen in the event of a hyopthetical interception of a hypothetical missile over Canadian airspace (hypothetically) is about as relevant as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

My interpretation of missile defence is that we will understand what is going on in our airspace and how we will be protected in the case of such an emergency. By refusing to participate in missile defence, we are giving up sovereignty by allowing the Americans to plan ahead how to defend us. This is OK with a lot of Canadians, as we hardly have an armed forces as it is now and if we were ever attacked we would need to rely on the Americans. By participating in the program, we will coordinate our defence in a North American context. By refusing to go ahead with the program, we allow the Americans to have much more power in preparing our defence. To me, that is a loss of sovereignty.

When country "A" decides behind closed doors how to defend country "B," especially when country "B" is an independent nation capable of defending itself if it wanted to, then country "B" is accepting its second-tier status as a nation, esentially allowing country "A" to move closer to taking over country "B."

I don't accept the argumenty that not taking part in BMD is letting the Americans decide our defense for us for the reasons above. At the end of the day, I see allowing the Americans to do what they please (by pumping billions into a program with no demonstratable benefit) a far less grave threat to our soverignty than dancing to their tune on this issue.

[Biblio Bibuli]

At the end of the day, I see allowing the Americans to do what they please (by pumping billions into a program) ......

That sounds somewhat like what Putin said after Bush assured him that, should the BMD system work, he'll put one of those babies around Russia too.

The Province's Alan Ferguson asks: "On missile defence, isn't it at least worth the effort to see what can be done to stop bombs dropping on our heads?

What's wrong with us?

[tml12]

We are a "de facto participant" because the U.S. would shoot down a missile over Canadian airspace headed for the U.S. regardless of whether we gave them permission or not.

First: that doesn't make us a participant, it makes us a bystander.

Second: given that missile defense is only designed to counter small-scale nuclear attacks (ie. one's launched from "rogue states") and given the inescapable fact that no such state has the ability to launch such an attack, the point that the U.S. would be blowing up missiles over Canada is moot. Put another way: the only way missile defense makes sense is if they get it to work, if a "rogue" develps both nuclear capability and long range delivery systems, if that "rogue" is underrable through traditional means and if that same rogue is willing to invite total destruction upon itself by atacking the U.S. The chances of all those variables (and others that I haven't mentioned) coming together and making missile defense a valid poroposal are slim to nil.

Any discussion about the specific pros and cons of Canadian participation that fails to take into account the fundamentally flawed nature of the BMD program is simply an academic exercise. Frankly, wondering about the what would happpen in the event of a hyopthetical interception of a hypothetical missile over Canadian airspace (hypothetically) is about as relevant as discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

My interpretation of missile defence is that we will understand what is going on in our airspace and how we will be protected in the case of such an emergency. By refusing to participate in missile defence, we are giving up sovereignty by allowing the Americans to plan ahead how to defend us. This is OK with a lot of Canadians, as we hardly have an armed forces as it is now and if we were ever attacked we would need to rely on the Americans. By participating in the program, we will coordinate our defence in a North American context. By refusing to go ahead with the program, we allow the Americans to have much more power in preparing our defence. To me, that is a loss of sovereignty.

When country "A" decides behind closed doors how to defend country "B," especially when country "B" is an independent nation capable of defending itself if it wanted to, then country "B" is accepting its second-tier status as a nation, esentially allowing country "A" to move closer to taking over country "B."

I don't accept the argumenty that not taking part in BMD is letting the Americans decide our defense for us for the reasons above. At the end of the day, I see allowing the Americans to do what they please (by pumping billions into a program with no demonstratable benefit) a far less grave threat to our soverignty than dancing to their tune on this issue.

OK BlackDog, as I said before, I think we will agree to disagree. We certainly see the program and Canada's role in it differently and I respect that...

[Black Dog]

That sounds somewhat like what Putin said after Bush assured him that, should the BMD system work, he'll put one of those babies around Russia too.

Key word "should teh BMD system work". Not to sound like a conspiracy nut, but I don't think it's in the best interets of the people building the thing not to make it work. Continued failure means mor etrips to the4 drawing board, which means higher costs, which means more money, which means fatter bottom lines for the contracters. And really, it's highly unlikely the thing will ever be used in a real-world scenario, so the game can continue indefinitely, or until someone wises up to the scam and kills the project (a highly unlikely scenario in a state where military contracters and political leadership enjoy a symbiotic relationship).

The Province's Alan Ferguson asks: "On missile defence, isn't it at least worth the effort to see what can be done to stop bombs dropping on our heads?

What's wrong with us?

That would make sense if there were bombs dropping on our heads, or even the faintest threat of bombs dropping on our heads. But there ain't and there isn't. The amount of effort we put into defending ourselves from "rogue" nuclear states should be slightly more than preparations for a large scale Martian invasion. But not much more.

[cybercoma]

Cybercoma.

Why have any sort of national defense. We should just stop funding the military altogether and let the US take care of us, like they do already.

Good question, Why work and pay taxes, i mean we have the government social programs to take care of us. And yet for some reason most of the country goes off to work every morning.

Can you name one time in the last 100 years were the US had use it's military to protect our nation. I think not. It is not the US that stands on gaurd for thee, But proud Canadians.

How many nations in the world today do not have a military of any sort. you can count them on one hand Why is that i wonder.

I was being a tad bit facetious, if not sarcastic. I know the value of our military, I'm poking fun at those who are seemingly clueless as to why we need one or any sort of defense whatsoever.

[cybercoma]

Let me ask a question...

You're George W. Bush and a missile is headed towards New York City (pop. 8 million) and the only opportunity you have to disable that missile is directly over Montreal (pop. in and around Montreal ~3 million).

As president of the United States, do you really give a crap about those 3 Million Canadians when your first priority is 8 Million American citizens?

[tml12]

Let me ask a question...

You're George W. Bush and a missile is headed towards New York City (pop. 8 million) and the only opportunity you have to disable that missile is directly over Montreal (pop. in and around Montreal ~3 million).

As president of the United States, do you really give a crap about those 3 Million Canadians when your first priority is 8 Million American citizens?

No, but you would think Canada would be able to have its own plan if it knows the US plan well in advance.

Instead Canada has opted to let the US do everything and let us be ignorant.

Shame...

[Black Dog]

You're George W. Bush and a missile is headed towards New York City (pop. 8 million) and the only opportunity you have to disable that missile is directly over Montreal (pop. in and around Montreal ~3 million).

As president of the United States, do you really give a crap about those 3 Million Canadians when your first priority is 8 Million American citizens?

Do you think our "having a seat at the table" (whatever that means) would affect that decision?

Not bloody likely.

Fortunately, the chances of us being confronted with such a situation are beyond slim.

[Biblio Bibuli]

I know the value of our military, ....

The only way I could evaluate our military would be by looking in their mouths.

Are you a dentist? How much is gold worth these days anyway?

[fellowtraveller]

Let me ask a question...

You're George W. Bush and a missile is headed towards New York City (pop. 8 million) and the only opportunity you have to disable that missile is directly over Montreal (pop. in and around Montreal ~3 million).

As president of the United States, do you really give a crap about those 3 Million Canadians when your first priority is 8 Million American citizens?

If you are Canadian and believe such a scenario is possible, it seems to me the sensible thing to do would be to base the missile defences in central Quebec and shoot down the incoming weapon over Hudson Bay (population +/- zero).

Of course, you'd have to put up with the curse of somebody else paying you for developing, deploying and maintaining the system on your soil.