posted
After months of ambiguity, support, no support, and just outright ignoring the questions Martin has finally and officially said no to missile defense.
Let me be the first to say, Huzzah!
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why? Isn't a missle defense plan a good idea? Do they not have the money? Or do they figure that having a missle shield would destabilize the nuke ban treaty or something?
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I like my missiles stuffed with rice, dried apricots, and water chestnuts. I find a bread stuffing makes me too sleepy before I can finish the whole missile.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
There are lots of reasons missile defense is a bad idea. For one, it's very expensive. On top of that, it doesn't currently work. The theory is sound, but there are still all kinds of technical challenges before it's really ready. This will take years. Even once they do actually get the system running, it will never be a defense against a real nuclear exchange. Many countries have nuclear arsenals ranging in the thousands of missiles. The current missile defense system not only can't currently stop that kind of attack, but it never will. It's not designed to. Finally, there's a strong argument that the development of missile defense technology leads to increased nuclear proliferation.
Edit: I misspoke a bit. Only two countries--Russia and the US--have nuclear arsenals of over 1000 missiles. Both are in the 10,000+ range. Most of the other countries with nukes have something in the range of 100-400 missiles. Which is most likely still more than the current missile defense system could handle.
posted
From Canada's perspective, they know we'll use the system to defend them once we get it working, so this is win-win for them.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So once we have lasers to shoot down missiles do we have to shoot down ones heading towards Canada?
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but Martin is a major proponent of CruelShoes; which are expensive as heck as well as environmentally unfriendly to feet.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That point is moot, because I'm willing to bet that not only will the system never work, it will also never be tested in anything that even faintly resembles a real situation.
Edit: And I'll go further that saxon75: I don't even think the theory is sound.
quote:Why? Isn't a missle defense plan a good idea? Do they not have the money? Or do they figure that having a missle shield would destabilize the nuke ban treaty or something?
Primarily because the program is massively unpopular in Canada. We *do*, by and large, consider ourselves a peaceful nation. We have no nuclear weapons, we spearheaded the treaty against landmines, and we are very much against anything that may instigate an arms race. Further, there are concerns that this may lead to a weaponization of space, something that, unsurprisingly, most Canadians are against.
Originally the deal was that all Canada had to offer was the land for the US to use to mount the actual missile silos. This is, incidentally, when Martin first said he was in support of it. Since then, however, there has been continuing mutterings from the US that we should foot an increasing amount of the bill. Understand that a billion+ dollars US is quite a lot of money to us. This, combined with continued failing of tests and a feeling that the technology isn't viable puts the program in an even poorer light.
That is not to say that we're taking no interest in defense, the budget does call for the largest increase in military spending in decades. We are just not willing to go forward with this particular program.
And yes, you should shoot down missile that are heading for Canada. Why? Because if we ever get attacked it'll probably be something you did Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you basing that on anything solid, or is it just an opinion?
I'm not basing it on anyone else's published work, if that's what you're asking. But basically my problem is fallout.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My problem's not even fallout. My problem is that modern warfare makes a defensive strategy almost impossible. On another board, I've compared it to trying to ward off an expected mugger by covering yourself with cayenne pepper; it's expensive, and it MIGHT prevent a mugger from biting you, but the mugger has other ways to hurt you -- and might well bite you anyway.Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
I’ve never been a big fan of the missile intercept concept. Just to fast and to chancy. Laser is the way to go.
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: And yes, you should shoot down missiles that are heading for Canada. Why? Because if we ever get attacked it'll probably be something you did
Plus it's the neighborly thing to do.
<cynic> And besides, we don't want to let another country get a foothold that close to us. </cynic>
Incidentally, I think it's a stupid plan and a stupid thing for us to be pushing Canada to be involved if y'all don't want to be, and I'm glad he took a stand and said no to us. Someone's got to.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regardless of whether or not you think the missile defense system is a good idea, this certainly isn't the best way to go about repairing the diplomatic rift between the US and Canada.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why does "repairing the rift" always mean "doing what the US wants"?
At any rate, most analysts agree that this won't have any real impact. The amendment to NORAD states that we will share information with the US regarding incoming missiles. Which means that we'll quite happily share the necessary information for tracking and targeting a missile that's flying over our country. Which seems to be the way to give the US what it wants without upsetting our population.
There is the argument that giving the US what it wants without getting anything in return is a little short-sighted. Or, I suppose, classic Canadianism which sees us trying to appease anyone. Cellucci seems to see this as a sovereignty issue where he wonders why we'd give up control of our airspace. If there's a missile flying over Canadian soil it's up to Washington as to what's done about it. To a certain degree I see what he's saying, but the fact that he sees that as the critical issue illustrates part of the divide between our two countries.
You could also say it makes Canada more irrelevant. Not because we said "no" but because it took almost two years to come to a decision. The next time a similar situation comes up the prevailing thought may be "do we really want to wait for Canada to make up its mind about this?" Again, this a difference between how our governments work. The Bush administration comes to quick decisions and stands steadfastly behind them and the Martin (and Chretien before him) waffle and discuss things for years before making up their minds, which they do generally stand behind. Both systems have their faults and merits, but they don't necessarily mesh well.
edit: me fail English? That's unpossible.
[ February 24, 2005, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So Canada should spend a billion dollars that it doesn't want to to make the US happy instead, because it would be "repairing the rift?" Not to mention doing something the vast majority of it's populace is against? Can you imagine the screaming if someone suggested we do something using that logic?
They're a democracy, too. Their government is supposed to do what the people who elected it want, not what our government wants.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Canada shouldn't give the US whatever it wants, but when the US offers shared missile protection, its pretty easy to take it as an insult when the offer is refused. If you don't like the terms, you should at least make a counter offer to show you are acting in good faith.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Canada knows that come what may we'll defend them so why should they shell out a billion bucks when giving up some worthless ice covered tundra will do the trick.
And that goes for the rest of NATO too. Why should they bother defending themselves when they know the US will do it for them. No matter what they say about us and no matter how they obstruct us. We will always be there for them.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can someone link where Canada's participation was contingent on their ponying up a billion dollars? Because I haven't seen anything about that except the "mutters" bit.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
EIJay, I know you're quoting me but that's just a figure I tossed out there. Everyone had their own idea as to how much it would cost us, but the fact is nobody knows. The Martin government never did announce what the expected costs were, although most people are reasonably sure that it wouldn't be "free".
But, nfl, that's exactly what happened. We have said that we are unwilling to go forward with BMD. It's not politically possible right now, it may not be economically viable, and it's ideologically against what most (according to polls) Canadians believe.
However, there was the NORAD amendment. And we're increasing the standing and reserve population of our military, putting forward a little more money for border security, putting more money into exercising our marine and arctic sovereignty. All things that help the security of North America. Considering our population won't let our government consider BMD, I'd say we're doing a pretty good job of working with the US where we can.
Edit: This is what happens when you post while running an experiment. You completely forget how to spell.
[ February 24, 2005, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: Bob the Lawyer ]
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Canada shouldn't give the US whatever it wants, but when the US offers shared missile protection, its pretty easy to take it as an insult when the offer is refused.
What the US offered was not "shared missile protection," since the system in question does not work.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I figured it was a rough number, BtL, and was treating it as such. I can't imagine why we would would ask for much less if we were asking you to help foot the bill.
I would do some googling and try to find out if there are actual numbers out there, but I really don't have time right now. Perhaps when I'm home tonight, just to make Dagonee happy. I'm sure there are at least estimates published somewhere.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It'll work eventually. Don't bet against technology getting better.
With the proper laser or enough ABMs I have no doubt a computer could target 10s of thousands of incoming missiles and destroy them... given the technology.
Of course, what a missile shield won't stop is container or suitcase nukes. Living not terribly far from a port this is what worries me. Yes, there are still enough missiles out there to destroy the world 50 times over. Yes, they're still a problem. A missile shield fixes that type of delivery.
But there's so much freight coming into our country that even with floating "triage" centers stationed outside minimum safe distance, you couldn't inspect every container on every ship.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm doing the same thing right now, EIJay. Depending on who you ask and when you asked the cost was projected to be somewhere between $0 and $60 billion.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and I disagree that it's pretty easy to take it as an insult to refuse our offer to come play our missle defense games. As twinky pointed out, the system doesn't work. Even if it did, I think it's equally easy to see why a relatively (to us) pacifist country wouldn't be interested in participating. As long as they just said the equilivent of "Sorry guys, that's not our cup of tea, have fun!" as opposed to "Why the h*** would we want to do that you warmongering idiots, are you wack?" I think it's a stretch to say this should be harmful to diplomatic relations.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Canada is not pacifist no matter how they like to think of themselves. Forty thousand Canadians died fighting in World War II, 27,000 served in Korea, they fought in the first Persian Gulf War, they are a member of NATO, they were the first country to pledge military support after September 11, and they certainly have a standing military.
The system at present isn't functional, there's no reason to believe that with technological development it won't work.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Be that as it may, there are extremes we will not go to. We will not have or use weapons of mass destruction. We will not use landmines. We will not support the weaponization of space. We will not undertake the development of technology that may spark an arms race. Everyone has their line in the sand, this happens to be ours.
Granted the system is in development. But then, if it doesn't work yet, and you don't need Canada for either money for development or land for deployment (a year ago the proposed cost was a 700 person and 300 million/year contribution to NORAD) why are they asking for us to support it now? Wouldn't it make sense to wait until the technology works before asking for us to back it? As clearly our backing isn't needed for the program to go forward? That always seemed odd to me.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"All due respect to twinky, the system is in development."
The system as designed is also scheduled for deployment. Do you think the Bush admin is more likely to miss the schedule to overhaul the faulty design, or meet the schedule by deploying an interceptor that has yet to pass a real test?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can't be more pacifist than another country, you either are or you're not. Canada fights in wars and has a military that exists not soley for defensive purposes. Canada is not pacifist. Also remember, the missile defense system is not a weapon, but a defense against would be agressors. So unless you think it makes sense not to have protection...
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just to add to the tally.... I believe Canada rushed into both world wars well before the US. The US was significantly more pacifist than canada back then.
Was it the right thing to do to sit out as long as we did? Should we have sat out the entirity of both wars and let other countries fight because it's not our problem? What did we have to gain going to war with the Kaiser? And Hawai'i wasn't even a state in '41. We coulda just gone on with our business.. especially since we didn't have much of a fleet anymore.
btw, what will 800,000 canadian dollars buy in the way of boarder security? Somehow, I'm not impressed.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: So unless you think it makes sense not to have protection...
I choose not to own a gun for personal protection. Some people do. That's fine. But I'd rather take my chances of being attacked rather than walk around prepared to shoot someone. On a smaller scale, I think it's the same thing. Yeah, it's defense, but the actions you take in defense are part of who you are, and you need to decide how you wish to define yourself.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "strapped chicken" tests of missle defense are poor theatre, a multi-billion dollar fraud and basically embarassing America.
The tests proved nothing, and for the DoD to be spending to implement a non-existent system is a colossal waste of funds. No wonder Canada balked.
I agree with saxon75:
quote: There are lots of reasons missile defense is a bad idea. For one, it's very expensive. On top of that, it doesn't currently work. The theory is sound, but there are still all kinds of technical challenges before it's really ready. This will take years. Even once they do actually get the system running, it will never be a defense against a real nuclear exchange. Many countries have nuclear arsenals ranging in the thousands of missiles.[Sax later changed his mind on this--I think only US, Russia, maybe China have 1000s, possibly UK--Morbo] The current missile defense system not only can't currently stop that kind of attack, but it never will. It's not designed to. Finally, there's a strong argument that the development of missile defense technology leads to increased nuclear proliferation
and I agree with Bob the lawyer:
quote: Further, there are concerns that this may lead to a weaponization of space, something that, unsurprisingly, most Canadians are against.
And from my link:
quote: There are other consequences as well. In order to advance the missile defense system, George Bush has announced that the United States will abandon the 1972 ABM treaty with Russia. Facing an opposing missile defense system, the Russian government will be under irresistible pressure to reactivate and expand its offensive missile forces.
posted
As an aside, I've been reading that number as well, Pix, but I don't understand where it came from. I took a look through the actual budget and it quotes $433 million over 5 years to border security. Dunno.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It also called for another $807,950 to improve Canada's anti-terrorism efforts and security along the unarmed, 4,000-mile border with the United States.
quote: With the proper laser or enough ABMs I have no doubt a computer could target 10s of thousands of incoming missiles and destroy them... given the technology.
The Pixiest. Don't be too sure. Even assuming you have enough extremly powerful lasers, particle beams or interceptors, the computer processing needed for targeting and systems integration to shoot down a large amount of incoming weapons, especially if they are MIRVs or with decoys, is massive.
Many computer scientists don't think it's possible for the foreseeable future.
So basically, I think the system could work against a small number of weapons. Possibly. But not without years and many more billions spent in R&D. After all that developement, by the time it's on-line ICBMs will probably be obsolete.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ElJay, we're not talking about a "gun" here. You're making it sound like they turned down our offer to station soldiers in their country. They turned down missile defense.Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo, I'm a computer scientist and I don't see how it would be a problem... given a powerful enough laser. Which we will have eventually.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
