Missle Defense

[shoop]

Exactly.

What if aliens came down and said we will destroy all national leaders who do not have cheezy pornstaches?

It could happen... But I ain't gonna vote for Jacko just in case.

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.

[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).

You also realize that the missile defense system is designed to intercept targets in the mid-course phase of flight when they are outside of the atmosphere? So if they pick up a warhead over Quebec inbound for the U.S.A, they won't have time to do much more than kiss their asses goodbye.

(Another interesting BMD fact: the system is designed to operate on a "hit-to-kill" basis, meaning the interceptors don't explode, but destroy the targets through the force of kinetic energy, pulverizing the missile and sending its remains to burn up on re-entry. Of course, there's been no testing of the system under realistic conditions, even against a single missile unequipped with countermeasures.)

[Hicksey]

The US is not the only country doing this.

The Russians and Chinese are as well. I am sorry, but if the Americans want us to help a little to make sure we're adequately protected--we should help as our budget allows.

The best defense is a good offense.

It is an evitability--whether people want to believe it or not.

So the question is: do we want to keep pace and be prepared or what?

[Black Dog]

The Russians and Chinese are as well. I am sorry, but if the Americans want us to help a little to make sure we're adequately protected--we should help as our budget allows.

How come not a single suporter of BMD has addressed any of my points on the level of threat presented by "rogue" states (hint: it's zero)?

The best defense is a good offense.

So why missile defense?

It is an evitability--whether people want to believe it or not.

Well, it's inevitable that the Americans will continue to throw good money after bad into this pointless project. Our following suit is still up in the air.

So the question is: do we want to keep pace and be prepared or what?

No that's not the question. The question is "Does Canada need missile defense?" I've yet to hear a good reason why we do.

[tml12]

Canada needs missile defence because we need to ensure that we know what the Americans are doing.

[BubberMiley]

They wouldn't tell us anyway.

[tml12]

They wouldn't tell us anyway.

That I don't believe.

[Black Dog]

Canada needs missile defence because we need to ensure that we know what the Americans are doing.

Can you tell me what possible beneift ther eis to having that information? We already know two things about this program: 1) it doesn't work and (2) it's designed to counter a threat that doesn't exisit. What else is there?

[tml12]

Canada needs missile defence because we need to ensure that we know what the Americans are doing.

Can you tell me what possible beneift ther eis to having that information? We already know two things about this program: 1) it doesn't work and (2) it's designed to counter a threat that doesn't exisit. What else is there?

I can't say "seat at the table" because you'll get mad at me again but, you know what, that is what it comes down to.

[BubberMiley]

You actually believe that the present administration would listen to anything Canada has to say about defence? They believe in one thing--their ability to act unilaterally. They wouldn't even tell their Congress what they're doing, never mind Canada.

[tml12]

You actually believe that the present administration would listen to anything Canada has to say about defence? They believe in one thing--their ability to act unilaterally. They wouldn't even tell their Congress what they're doing, never mind Canada.

Yes I do. If you establish an agreement, a working relationship with someone, they would do that.

Comparing Congress with Ottawa is something that I wouldn't do because Bush's issues with Congress have nothing to do with our participation inmissile defence.

[BubberMiley]

Yes, they would never go back on a working agreement.

My point is, the U.S. administration only wants to act unilaterally. That's why they mislead Congress; that's why they don't bother using their secret courts before wiretapping; that's why they don't care about NAFTA. You're incredibly naive to think that they would include Canada as a partner at the table in any serious defence issues.

[Black Dog]

I can't say "seat at the table" because you'll get mad at me again but, you know what, that is what it comes down to.

You're just begging the question. "Canada needs to have a seat at the table because we need a seat at the table" doesn't answer the question of whether BMD is a good idea on principle, nor does it explain why this seat would be beneficial. If the answer to the former question is "no" then having a seat at the table (grrrr) is meaningless anyway. It's telling that's the most substantial argument anyone can come up with.

[Murray B.]

The missile defence concept came out of a realization almost thirty years ago that the U.S. and the Soviet Union both had massive first strike policies in place.

First strike relies upon the fact that a ballistic missile moves like molasses when first fired. For the first minute they are hardly moving at all. This means that a single nuclear (not nucular) warhead exploded among the slow moving missiles would destroy them all. It follows, that the first country to launch a massive first strike would competely destroy the other. This was kind of like having hair triggers on all the atomic arsenals.

Having a ballistic missile defence system, that works or not, reduces the possibility of a massive first stike because it is not possible to eliminate all opposing missiles at the beginning. This political desire to reduce the risk is why the Strategic Defence Initiative came into being in the first place. Nevertheless, there are still those that seem to prefer the old massive first strike option.

I'm just glad it was the Soviets on the other side and not some bunch of religious fanatics that would attack regardless of the cost. Of course, the fanatics could get them in a few years. It is, after all, 1945 technology and this is the twenty-first century.

Voters should be properly informed about this subject because this is one area where mistakes could be very costly.

P.S. There is no reason to assume that Canada is not a target for somebody's nuclear weapons. We have always been targeted for strategic (big picture) reasons and this has nothing to do with our tactical (military) capability or lack thereof. All North American factories, refineries and resources have always been targets regardless of the rhetoric spewed by the politicians.

[shoop]

We will never know if we don't try. But a policy of open hostility to the U.S. has done nothing to further the relationship. So why not attempt to be a little less contentious? What do we have to lose?

My point is, the U.S. administration only wants to act unilaterally. That's why they mislead Congress; that's why they don't bother using their secret courts before wiretapping; that's why they don't care about NAFTA. You're incredibly naive to think that they would include Canada as a partner at the table in any serious defence issues.

[BubberMiley]

There's nothing contentioius about not being willing to blow the bank on an unproven, likely unnecessary technology. Conservatives claim to be fiscally responsible, but they love deficits and they're more always than willing to "give it a try" when feeding the trough of the military industrial complex.

[cybercoma]

There's nothing contentioius about not being willing to blow the bank on an unproven, likely unnecessary technology. Conservatives claim to be fiscally responsible, but they love deficits and they're more always than willing to "give it a try" when feeding the trough of the military industrial complex.

heaven forbid people have jobs doing government projects that could potentially save lives in the event of a crisis.

[BubberMiley]

If you are so in favour of employing people in programs that could save lives, there are lots of other potential projects that are far more likely to save lives--ones that could even guarantee saving lives. Why are conservatives only in favour of social programs that feed the military industrial complex and not actual people?

[tml12]

We will never know if we don't try. But a policy of open hostility to the U.S. has done nothing to further the relationship. So why not attempt to be a little less contentious? What do we have to lose?

My point is, the U.S. administration only wants to act unilaterally. That's why they mislead Congress; that's why they don't bother using their secret courts before wiretapping; that's why they don't care about NAFTA. You're incredibly naive to think that they would include Canada as a partner at the table in any serious defence issues.

Shoop has it 100% correct...less contentious behaviour from Canada+a willingness to work with the U.S. (which hopefully will be defined after the next election as a new Conservative government)=the best result.

Again Bubber, the Congress comparison has no merit here.

[BubberMiley]

Again Bubber, the Congress comparison has no merit here.

Why?

[tml12]

Again Bubber, the Congress comparison has no merit here.

Why?

Because Congress's power, as the legislative body, is to check Bush's power. This government has no such authority on Bush...we are talking about missile defence here. If we tell Bush we want a seat at the table, I think he will give it to us.

[Black Dog]

Having a ballistic missile defence system, that works or not, reduces the possibility of a massive first stike because it is not possible to eliminate all opposing missiles at the beginning. This political desire to reduce the risk is why the Strategic Defence Initiative came into being in the first place. Nevertheless, there are still those that seem to prefer the old massive first strike option.

BMD is not being billed as a counter to a massive nuclear strike. It's designed to deal with small-scale attacks from "rogues" or accidental launches. BMD would be useless in the event of a large scale nuclear exchange.

There is no reason to assume that Canada is not a target for somebody's nuclear weapons. We have always been targeted for strategic (big picture) reasons and this has nothing to do with our tactical (military) capability or lack thereof. All North American factories, refineries and resources have always been targets regardless of the rhetoric spewed by the politicians.

And you know this how?

Shoop has it 100% correct...less contentious behaviour from Canada+a willingness to work with the U.S. (which hopefully will be defined after the next election as a new Conservative government)=the best result.

So basically, you're saying Canada's participation in BMD has absolutely nothing to do witrh the program and is simply an exercise in prostration before the U.S. If that's the goal, there's better ways to mend fences than by taking part in a ill-concieved project with no tangible benefits to Canada.

If we tell Bush we want a seat at the table, I think he will give it to us.

Goody! Maybe we'll gat a pat on the head and a biscuit too!

[tml12]

We may never agree on this issue BlackDog and that is fine.

We see "sovereignty" differently and that is OK.

I don't think our participating has anything to do with being the subordinate of the U.S. We are a big, capitalistic nation with a materialistic culture no less than the American nation is. We are a target for the terrorists too. Yes missile defence has flaws, but we need to coordinate our defence and security departments.

[Black Dog]

We may never agree on this issue BlackDog and that is fine.

We see "sovereignty" differently and that is OK.

I think I'd be able to agree to disagree if I felt like you've seriously attempted to make a case. But you take for granted some basic assumptions that aren't neccesarily true (see below), which colour your whole argument.

I don't think our participating has anything to do with being the subordinate of the U.S. We are a big, capitalistic nation with a materialistic culture no less than the American nation is.

But we also are a nation with a a smaller economy, smaller military and smaller population, which means our defense needs are not going to be the same as the U.S.'s. Furthermore, none of the rhethoric has convinced me that even people who believe Canada should be part of BMD think our role would be an equal one or even substantive.

We are a target for the terrorists too. Yes missile defence has flaws, but we need to coordinate our defence and security departments.

That's a few big assumptions, none of which neccesarily point to missile defnse having any value. Terrorism is an issue for many countries, but its not one that can be addressed by a program like BMD. Similarily, the need to coordinate our defence with the U.S. does not mean we have to participate in everythin the U.S. does. As I said, our needs are different and it just doesn't make sense to be part of something that does not fall in line with our own priorities. .

The ay I see it, if you can't explain why participation is necessary on principle (for exaple, what Canadian needs are being met), there's no way you'll even get to the part where you have to defend the program on its own (dubious) merits.