Missile Defense

[Topaz]

I was listening to the former US Ambassador and he was talking about the US and Canadian military and he mentioned that Canada didn't agree to the "Missile Defense" agreement but under NOAD, if a missile was coming into Canada from elsewhere, the CANADIAN military would step down and let the US military DECIDE WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT!!! WHY would the Canadian govt agree to this and what stops the US to do nothing about it if they have another Prez like Bush!!

[Wilber]

NOAD or NORAD? I assume that's a typo.

Why would the Americans give Canada a say on the use of a weapon Canada has said it wants no part of, particularly if it is being used to defend against a missile aimed at the US? What exactly do you think the Canadian government could do to stop them?

[madmax]

NOAD or NORAD? I assume that's a typo.

Why would the Americans give Canada a say on the use of a weapon Canada has said it wants no part of, particularly if it is being used to defend against a missile aimed at the US? What exactly do you think the Canadian government could do to stop them?

Don't worry, Missile Defence is a boondoggle. It doesn't work, its not close, it is very expensive. These systems are well developed to shoot down planes which was their original design. The missile technology to shoot down missiles are neither cost effective, nor will they be successful in stopping a missile. It is a good military contract perk.

So the argument is moot, and soon after the Bush Administration is toast, whether it be Republican or Democrat, unless they have ties to the corporations that want a Missile Defence Contract and government development funds, the next military expenditure will be based upon whatever contractor has the President in its pocket.

[Curiouscanuck]

Don't worry, Missile Defence is a boondoggle. It doesn't work, its not close, it is very expensive. These systems are well developed to shoot down planes which was their original design. The missile technology to shoot down missiles are neither cost effective, nor will they be successful in stopping a missile. It is a good military contract perk.

So the argument is moot, and soon after the Bush Administration is toast, whether it be Republican or Democrat, unless they have ties to the corporations that want a Missile Defence Contract and government development funds, the next military expenditure will be based upon whatever contractor has the President in its pocket.

Where are you getting this information? Toronto Star?

It does work. It may be expensive in your eyes but we only pay a fraction of what the total cost is. Consider yourself lucky the US paying for the vast majority of it. And you know what else is expensive? A decemated city!

Read this and learn some of the facts.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed083104b.cfm

[guyser]

I am not so sure that it will work either. Seems it hasn't very well to this day , although getting better. I imagine that a new Pres (if Dem) will slow it down and spend money elsewhere and especially if things settle down in the Middle East.

[Wilber]

Curious

A clip from your link.

Yet polls say nearly 70 percent of Canadians oppose even this tiny step, even though its government did not commit beyond this step to participate in America’s missile defense program. Members of Parliament from nearly every party, including the prime minister’s, also oppose Canadian involvement — one argued that it amounted to the “weaponization of space,” which Canada officially opposes.

What kind of f____d up logic maintains that using ground launched sub orbital missiles to destroy countries is not weaponization of space but using other ground launched missiles to shoot them down is the weaponization of space?

[Saturn]

Where are you getting this information? Toronto Star?

It does work. It may be expensive in your eyes but we only pay a fraction of what the total cost is. Consider yourself lucky the US paying for the vast majority of it. And you know what else is expensive? A decemated city!

Read this and learn some of the facts.

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed083104b.cfm

Pfff. You must be kidding! Missile defence is nothing but a useless pile of very expensive crap. I'd be more worried about the missile defence shield screwing up and blowing up a city accidentally because that's more likely to happen than to have foreign missiles intercepted by it.

[Curiouscanuck]

Curious

A clip from your link.

Yet polls say nearly 70 percent of Canadians oppose even this tiny step, even though its government did not commit beyond this step to participate in America’s missile defense program. Members of Parliament from nearly every party, including the prime minister’s, also oppose Canadian involvement — one argued that it amounted to the “weaponization of space,” which Canada officially opposes.

What kind of f____d up logic maintains that using ground launched sub orbital missiles to destroy countries is not weaponization of space but using other ground launched missiles to shoot them down is the weaponization of space?

Are you reading the same thing I am? Where did you come up with that attack from that quote?

[Curiouscanuck]

Pfff. You must be kidding! Missile defence is nothing but a useless pile of very expensive crap. I'd be more worried about the missile defence shield screwing up and blowing up a city accidentally because that's more likely to happen than to have foreign missiles intercepted by it.

Are you? Where did you get this info from?

In a world with an increasing amount of unaccounted for nuclear material and an increasing chance that an individual can cause severe damage using such material, isnt it wise to spend a relatively small amount of money to protect ourselves in one of the only ways we can? Why is Canada immune in your eyes? Even if the system didnt work well (which it does 4 of last 5 tests successful and 3 of last 3) the horrible damages of an attack warrant a system that has some chance of protecting ourselves.

[madmax]

Are you reading the same thing I am? Where did you come up with that attack from that quote?

It's in the article you sent us too. Perhaps you should read it again.

[madmax]

Where are you getting this information? Toronto Star?

It does work. It may be expensive in your eyes but we only pay a fraction of what the total cost is. Consider yourself lucky the US paying for the vast majority of it. And you know what else is expensive? A decemated city!

Read this and learn some of the facts.

Yes, I read your link. It is a powder piece. Fox News is should never be the basis for any factual discussion, without any backup. 2nd it is a commentary, not a report.

Your decimated city threat reminds me of Condi Rice and the Smoking Gun.

Thanks for the fear factor.

From Projects on Government Oversight.

BIG DREAMS STILL NEED OVERSIGHT

Missile Defense Testing and Financial Accountability

are Being Circumvented

Summary

The Department of Defense is cutting testing requirements and financial oversight of the missile defense program, one of the most technologically challenging and expensive Pentagon weapons programs ever. History has demonstrated that cutting-edge defense initiatives, lacking oversight, will lead to cost overruns and ultimately to the production of weapons that don't work. On the other hand, experience also indicates that adding independent oversight to the mix yields a winning formula. The office of the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) has played an integral role over the years in the successes of defense programs, providing independent advice and structure in the developmental stages to pre-empt costly post-production modifications. DOT&E was elemental in bringing an end to an era of costly Defense embarrassments that included the B-1 Bomber, the C-5 Cargo Jet, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the Sergeant York Gun. And yet, according to a January 2002 defense directive issued by Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the new Missile Defense Agency (MDA) is exempted from DOT&E oversight during those early stages where its contributions have meant the most. At the same time, missile defense contracts are eligible for "other transactions" status which enables them to bypass the normal procurement contract requirements in favor of virtually unregulated acquisition. Denied the security of testing requirements and financial oversight protections that have traditionally been guaranteed, the nation is in danger of buying a weapons system that doesn't work, at an alarming cost.

Tuesday, February 15, 2005

(02-15) 04:00 PST Washington -- For the second time in two months, a test of the national missile defense system has failed, Pentagon officials said Monday.

Administration Responds to North Korea Missile Stunt With Missile Defense Stunt

The Bush administration has responded to a North Korean missile that doesn’t work by activating an anti-missile system that doesn’t work. From Reuters:

The United States has moved its ground-based interceptor missile defense system from test mode to operational amid concerns over an expected North Korean missile launch, a U.S. defense official said on Tuesday. …

“It’s good to be ready,” the official said.

But we’re not “ready.” The interceptors the administration has placed in silos in Alaska have never been realistically tested and are known to have serious operational problems. They have as much chance of hitting an incoming missile as a kid with a slingshot.

Fortunately, the missile the North Koreans may test does not work either. The last time they fired a long-range missile was in 1998, it went about 1300 killometers and failed to put its tiny payload into orbit.

The North Korean test is a political stunt designed to grab some attention. The same can be said of the decision to activate the Alaska site. The North Koreans want to increase their negotiation leverage; the U.S. Missile Defense Agency wants to protect its massive $10 billion annual budget — “more than the entire U.S. Army is spending on research and development” — for a product that doesn’t work.

We have to hope that neither stunt succeeds.

THE BUSH RECORD: Missile Defense

Interceptor System Set, But Doubts Remain

Network Hasn't Undergone Realistic Testing

By Bradley Graham

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, September 29, 2004; Page A01

At a newly constructed launch site on a tree-shorn plain in central Alaska, a large crane crawls from silo to silo, gently lowering missiles into their holes. The sleek white rockets, each about five stories tall, are designed to soar into space and intercept warheads headed toward the United States.

With five installed so far and one more due by mid-October, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld is preparing to activate the site sometime this autumn. President Bush already has begun to claim fulfillment of a 2000 presidential campaign pledge -- and longtime Republican Party goal -- to build a nationwide missile defense.

But what the administration had hoped would be a triumphant achievement is clouded by doubts, even within the Pentagon, about whether a system that is on its way to costing more than $100 billion will work. Several key components have fallen years behind schedule and will not be available until later. Flight tests, plagued by delays, have yet to advance beyond elementary, highly scripted events

Missile Defence is a boon doggle

Support it if you like.

I don't and won't and our government is smart not too. Good for them.

[geoffrey]

I was listening to the former US Ambassador and he was talking about the US and Canadian military and he mentioned that Canada didn't agree to the "Missile Defense" agreement but under NOAD, if a missile was coming into Canada from elsewhere, the CANADIAN military would step down and let the US military DECIDE WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT!!! WHY would the Canadian govt agree to this and what stops the US to do nothing about it if they have another Prez like Bush!!

How stupid are Canadians getting? The Americans would have funded nearly the entire deal.

If a missile was about to hit a Canadian city, I hope the Americans would shoot it down. Unfortunately blind patriots like this would claim Canadian sovereignty is at stake while we all die.

Another case of idealism over the reality of the situation. The 70% of Canadians quoted earlier in opposition to this are either victims of the media, or victims of a very sad ideology.

[madmax]

How stupid are Canadians getting? The Americans would have funded nearly the entire deal.

Another case of idealism over the reality of the situation. The 70% of Canadians quoted earlier in opposition to this are either victims of the media, or victims of a very sad ideology.

Even Trudeau allowed for Cruise Missiles to be tested in the Artic.

As for sovereignty and Norad, I am still and Avro Aero fan.

[geoffrey]

It goes much further than this though. Canadian's blind anti-Americanism in this case has sacrificed our freedom and sovereignty even more. I really am fearful of the stupidity of the electorate in this country.

Simple as this. Those missiles are getting shot down no matter what, missile defense is happening no matter what. Do we want a say in it or not?

Apparently 70% of Canadians would rather just hand a foreign power our sovereignty.

Ignorance really knows no bounds.

[Saturn]

It goes much further than this though. Canadian's blind anti-Americanism in this case has sacrificed our freedom and sovereignty even more. I really am fearful of the stupidity of the electorate in this country.

Simple as this. Those missiles are getting shot down no matter what, missile defense is happening no matter what. Do we want a say in it or not?

Apparently 70% of Canadians would rather just hand a foreign power our sovereignty.

Ignorance really knows no bounds.

It's happening either way. Canada has no say in it and no matter what we do, the Americans will always handle things the way they see fit. I'd rather have them pay for it too.

[Curtis Smith]

Thank Paul Martin for his ignorance and anti-Americanism. Not to mention the Liberal Conspiracy theories that think it is going to lead to weapons in space, and who told us if we joined, we would be jumping in to Bush's pocket.

I think I would rather set up some silo's that risk being blown to hell if we piss of North Korea some how, even if it does lead to putting pre-emptive strike weapons into space which is probably a few decades or centuries away.

[Who's Doing What?]

The missile defense shield. Sounds good but unfortunately, technology already exists to beat it.

"The flying vehicle changed both the altitude and direction of its flight," Baluyevsky said. "During the experiment conducted yesterday, we proved that it's possible to develop weapons that would make any missile defence useless."

The new missile will not be put into production right away but the fact the technology exists seems to make spending more on a defense system that won't work a bit foolish.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?s_name=&no_ads

[Big Blue Machine]

The technology is 10 years old. Also other nations are just looking for ways to be the system, so the system is essentially not helpful.

[Black Dog]

Geoffery:

If a missile was about to hit a Canadian city, I hope the Americans would shoot it down. Unfortunately blind patriots like this would claim Canadian sovereignty is at stake while we all die.

That's one of the dumber reductio ad absurdum arguments I've read in a while. The Americans would shoot down any inbound missile (well, in theory: like if the system worked and someone actually launched a missile, two very improbable events) regardless of our level of participation as a matter of self defense. That doesn't obligate us to support it.

It goes much further than this though. Canadian's blind anti-Americanism in this case has sacrificed our freedom and sovereignty even more. I really am fearful of the stupidity of the electorate in this country.

Simple as this. Those missiles are getting shot down no matter what, missile defense is happening no matter what. Do we want a say in it or not?

Apparently 70% of Canadians would rather just hand a foreign power our sovereignty.

Ignorance really knows no bounds.

So blindly following another country in some hare-brained white elephant scheme is not handing over our sovereignty, but making policy according to our own needs is :handing it over"? Yah. Right.

As for the old "have a say" chestnut what kind of say would we have? None.

In a world with an increasing amount of unaccounted for nuclear material and an increasing chance that an individual can cause severe damage using such material, isnt it wise to spend a relatively small amount of money to protect ourselves in one of the only ways we can?

No. Your assessment of the threat is way off. regarledd of whether there's nuclear material floating about, the technology we need to be concerned with is ICBMs. Very few countries have long-range ballistic missiles and very few nations have the means to develop them. So the physical threat isn't there. Also, the probability of any "rouge" state armed with ICBM's launching a nuclear attack on the U.S. that would result in the quick and total devestation of the aggressor state further reduces the threat. In short, BMD is a solution to a non-existent problem.