North American Missile Shield

The US has been lobbying Canada hard to be a participant in the proposed continental ballistic missile defence shield. Logistically it makes sense. But the Canadian Gov't has been undecided, although recently it seems more likely they will decline to participate.

Should the US develop space-based weapons to counter a theoretical threat from other nations? Is this just escalating another arms race?

If so, whom might stage an attack? Russia? North Korea? China? All these countries, (yes N.Korea too) would economically suffer greatly from a damaged or bombed US, (not to mention a heated retaliatory strike) so it would not be in their best interest to do so.

Do you think an expensive missile shield is useless because a future terrorist attack likely will use very primitive methods? Or will Osama buy a "Dong II" missile from North Korea and use that?

Can the US afford to build it? Their deficit spending has already soared due to Iraq and other commitments.

IMHO I suspect the interest and commitment for such a program may well evaporate after Bush leaves the White House.

I also believe that Canada should spend it's military budget improving its naval, NATO and UN commitments which are already underfunded.

Your thoughts?

I don't agree with it. Now, mind you, I haven't closely looked at all the facts, so I might very well have an uneducated opinion on the matter - if so feel free to correct me.

In my opinion, it just escalates tensions. The world should be disarming, not re-arming. To me, this seems like it makes for the beginnings of a new Cold War, with everybody constantly wondering who will pull the trigger first. Also, to me it says that any current leaders participating in this "Cold war" are incompetent and unable to settle differences diplomatically and peacefully. More than that, it seems to say that America is scared. They realize they've turned nearly the entire world against them, and are building their wall...

America can do what they please, but I'm strongly against Canada following the same path. Who would attack Canada anyways? :eek7::biggrin:

The population of the US has not been lobbying Canada at all for this alliance.I can't recall any letters to the major newspapers demanding that this alliance be forged, or that the project is even neccesary. Like the alleged 'coalition of the willing',it is another example of the current millitary solution-obsessed administration trying to legitimise a bad idea by dragging other countries into the equation.
Has nothing been learned from history?for decades, Americsa and the soviets poured billions into pointing weapons at each other istead of trying to reach civil terms for mutual non-aggression.

It wasn't until Gorbachev broke the cycle of stupid posturing that the world became,briefly,a safer place. The 'star wars' defence system is little more than an employment scheme for the military.Any product that it creates will be worthless against terrorism,and could not prevent another WTC type attack.The Cold War is over and only a fool would attempt to restart it. A project such as this would require decades of development and the GNP of a small continent. Even if America elected an admninistration foolish enough to commence this monument to national inseecurity,the average American would probably tire of pouring money into it long before it produced a contribution to their defence.

Spend the money more wisely.Send a man to Mars.I have a particular man in mind.

The population of the US has not been lobbying Canada at all for this alliance.

Correct, but the government is. Unfortunately Paul Martin is keen to suck up to the Americans. Chretien was, but I think after turning down the request to aid in Iraq, he'd grown balls and was more willing to object.

The missle defense shield will not cause an arms race for the simple matter that it can only shoot down a few dozen missles concurrently. Russia, UK and France have more then enough missles to overwhelm the system if they actually wanted to attack the US with nukes. The shield is for the Irans, North Koreas and to a limited degree China.

The real threat of the missle shield is who we could sell the technology to. An arms race would escalate between India and Pakistan if we sold it to either (though the race is on and nobody is paying much attention). How about Taiwan, South Korea or Japan. Think that would put a scare in to China and North Korea?

As for missles being dismantled. They have been. Over 60,000 have been dismantled of the 70,000 built by the US. http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf04norris I know that leaves over ten thousand nukes but they are still being dismantled. I don't have the figures for the Russians, but from what Yuri (one of my Russian collegues) tells me, over two thirds of their stock piles have been dismantled. Libya voluntarily stopped their development. South Africa stopped theirs.

Canada can choose to join or not. However, putting things in place to protect citizens here is both reasonable and worthwhile.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

70,000 nukes built by the US? Why on earth...

Wouldn't that be more than enough to destroy every major city in the world?

It's sad that the US has invaded so many places now that all it's citizens have to live in constant fear...

70,000 nukes built by the US? Why on earth...

Wouldn't that be more than enough to destroy every major city in the world?

It's sad that the US has invaded so many places now that all it's citizens have to live in constant fear...
:1: Each one is just a giant political tool, so is this star wars type project, money could be much better spent if we werent constantly fighting with eachother over trivial tripe.

70,000 nukes built by the US? Why on earth...

Wouldn't that be more than enough to destroy every major city in the world?

It's sad that the US has invaded so many places now that all it's citizens have to live in constant fear...


Because the USSR built over 90,000 nukes. If you don't remember your history, read up on MAD. Look up Krushchev and his wonderful shoe pounding speach at the UN. Recall the nations that the USSR engulfed at the time both countries were arming. The point is that those arms are being dismantled. Only Russia and the US are doing it right now. China, France and Britian aren't. India and Pakistan are in their own arms race. Iran and North Korea look to join. It might be time to lay off bitching about what the US did or is doing when it comes to nukes and look at the folks who are doing the opposite.


I don't live in fear and a quick ask around the guys sitting near me also indicate that they are not in fear. Perhaps we missed that memo :shakehead













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Because the USSR built over 90,000 nukes. If you don't remember your history, read up on MAD. Look up Krushchev and his wonderful shoe pounding speach at the UN. Recall the nations that the USSR engulfed at the time both countries were arming. The point is that those arms are being dismantled. Only Russia and the US are doing it right now. China, France and Britian aren't. India and Pakistan are in their own arms race. Iran and North Korea look to join. It might be time to lay off bitching about what the US did or is doing when it comes to nukes and look at the folks who are doing the opposite.


I don't live in fear and a quick ask around the guys sitting near me also indicate that they are not in fear. Perhaps we missed that memo :shakehead
Actually I was never taught that stuff in history - I may have been interested if I had. Instead I had to learn about crap like the first railroad and whatnot :(

I had no intention of laying on the US with that post, I just only mentioned the US's nukes because that was the only number I had. I'm also very glad to see the US and Russia disarming. My post was simply shock at the sheer number that have been built in the US alone - complete waste of money, IMO, when 100 or so would do the trick just fine. I had always assumed the US and Russia had around 100 or so each, not tens of thousands...

About living in fear - in my opinion, feeling the need to have a missle defence system implies fear. Perhaps not an ever-present, overwhelming paranoia, but I guess more a general level of concern. For example, I lock the doors of my car when I leave it - I'm not constantly, consciously in fear that it will be entered/stolen, but it's a very unfortunate general concern that I wish I didn't have to have.

I guess I should have said that it's sad the US has to live in general concern about protecting themselves against attacks...

I had always assumed the US and Russia had around 100 or so each, not tens of thousands...

Heck, the Russians and US have missles called MRVs which means Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles. They contain multiple warheads (perhaps up to a dozen). Boomers (subs) may have a couple dozen MIRVs on each boat.

Needless to say, there are a lot of nukes still out there. Though the number of them are dropping, the number of countries getting them is increasing.

http://www.cdi.org/nuclear/database/nukestab.html

http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/500/381nukecount.jpg













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Yeesh!

Shows how much I think about war, I guess :lol2:

You were never taught about modern warfare or the cold war?

If our government tabled a plan to spend massive amounts of money on military hardware that was potentially worthless, they'd be laughed out of office.The idea that one nation needs to have enough weapons to destroy the entire population of the world 20 times over simply because another nation could do it 19 times is like something out of the Mad Hatter's Tea Party.

Two quotes spring to mind........

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

and

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These are two of the cornerstones of Uncle Sam's philosophy.Sadly,Uncle Sam appears to have taken a vacation, usurped dy an administration of cowards,bullies and fools.America has gone from being a trusted friend of civilised behaviour to the weird old guy with the high fence and the Rottweilers.

The current administration has lost the plot.Hopefully Uncle Sam will show up again soon.

Good comments from all.
The missile shield is just like the nukes, as much a political tool as a useful weapon.

Since the military and related research and industry is so important to the US economy, I am sure there are many highly interested companies and regions lobbying Washington for this program.

Bully other nations?? Sure. Canadians can see it now. Bush was in Ottawa (our capital) this past week and in a very blunt speech brought an old but well known Canadian conecpt that the US is an elephant and Canada is the mouse........that is, if the US rolls over, we get squashed. As 83% of our foreign trade goes to the US (with a hefty trade surplus for us,) we are vulnerable.

3 days ago our Prime Minister told the press (in French) that Canada will not participate. Today he said (in English) that we will go along so long as it does not involve orbiting weapons platforms in space.

With this rapid change of policy, I can only think that the US is threatening to roll over..........

It's sad that the US has invaded so many places now that all it's citizens have to live in constant fear...

Hmm, I dont live in fear. My country just likes being prepared. Its not like this world is getting to be a better place to live anyways.


Spend the money more wisely.Send a man to Mars.I have a particular man in mind.

I have a certain man in mind too. But I have a diferent place to send him.

About living in fear - in my opinion, feeling the need to have a missle defence system implies fear. Perhaps not an ever-present, overwhelming paranoia, but I guess more a general level of concern. For example, I lock the doors of my car when I leave it - I'm not constantly, consciously in fear that it will be entered/stolen, but it's a very unfortunate general concern that I wish I didn't have to have.

I guess I should have said that it's sad the US has to live in general concern about protecting themselves against attacks...

This isnt an idea caused my 9/11 or any recent events. The Star Wars program has been in development since the Reagan era. Thats 20 years ago.

And about the US living in fear... there was alot more fear something would happen during the cold war than now. Terrorists are peanuts, people were afraid of WWIII


Canada and the US already have NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) together. Thats the place everyone goes in Deep Imact, Terminator 3, War Games, etc. So it only makes sense if they're gunna cover America they mightaswell cover all of North America.



And i dont understand how people are saying this is gunna start a new cold war?! The program is DEFENSIVE not OFFENSIVE like the coldwar was.

Hmm, I dont live in fear. My country just likes being prepared. Its not like this world is getting to be a better place to live anyways.


I corrected myself in my post right after that one ;)

What I'm trying to say is not that Americans are constantly freaking out that they're going to be attacked, I'm just saying that it's very unfortunate that you have to feel the need to be prepared.

I know I prefer living somewhere I don't need to lock my doors...
that is, if the US rolls over, we get squashed.
That's one reason why I'm moving to Australia - to get as far away as possible! :D
You were never taught about modern warfare or the cold war?
Nope. I had a useless history teacher who's since been commited to a mental institution.

The fact that we feel that we need this ballistic missle shit is what scares me. like someone is anticipating an attack, like someone said, more a political tool than anything.

The missle defense shield will not cause an arms race for the simple matter that it can only shoot down a few dozen missles concurrently. Russia, UK and France have more then enough missles to overwhelm the system if they actually wanted to attack the US with nukes. The shield is for the Irans, North Koreas and to a limited degree China.

i wonder what would happen if China started to build 10,000 new nuclear or biological weapons, with an emphasis on strategic delivery systems.

i wonder what a stink it would cause if they were building a missile shield and looking at providing cover to select allies. and they don't have a history of using WMD. Nor do they have a history of Invading other countries. Before comment remember that they see places like taiwan and tibet as rebel provinces... a bit like america might want texas back if it decided to seperate.

I wonder if the US would sit back and say, well that's fair, we have one of our own so why can't they have one? or better yet, we don't have one but they can.

Hmm, I dont live in fear. My country just likes being prepared. Its not like this world is getting to be a better place to live anyways.


it will get worse and worse and worse.


i would love for all countries to mind there own business and all be fair to eachother. i would love for evryone to be happy.

ok, now i will check out reality, its getting worse and worse and worse.

it will get worse and worse and worse.


i would love for all countries to mind there own business and all be fair to eachother. i would love for evryone to be happy.

ok, now i will check out reality, its getting worse and worse and worse.

not really... look at the World Wars and imperial times and basically pre-90s around the world. It's gotten alot better

not really... look at the World Wars and imperial times and basically pre-90s around the world. It's gotten alot better
In what regards? Technology? Peace? I'm not so sure. We can (usually)finish wars much quicker and with more precision, and we, for the most part, have more understanding of other cultures, but I'm not sure that we're in any better position than we were back then.

i wonder what a stink it would cause if they were building a missile shield and looking at providing cover to select allies.

That's a very valid point. While Americans may (understandably) view the missle shield as for the protection of all and increased world safety (and that does, honestly, appear to be it's goal), you can only wonder what the "enemy" thinks of it. One can only hope that it won't increase tensions, and make the likes of the Chinas to gear themselves up even more...

"gear themselves up even more" is probably not the best analogy when it is the US that seems so "geared up" already. Especially when the US is invading smaller, less capable countries. Unfortunately, America can be seen going to war world wide with seemingly no regard for anyone else. Surely the fact that they are now "gearing up" themselves, can be seen as nothing other than a threat to countries like China and especially North Korea, who have more military might than the defunct Iraq, but still nowhere near the US. It may look like america are getting bigger tackle to catch bigger fish.

The US by its actions, and foreign policy, is inviting another world arms race.

I find it hard to see that as a good thing.

The States just want to cover there ass after pissing off the wrong people

In what regards? Technology? Peace? I'm not so sure. We can (usually)finish wars much quicker and with more precision, and we, for the most part, have more understanding of other cultures, but I'm not sure that we're in any better position than we were back then.


You're looking at it from a North American stand point where things have pretty much always been good, the only minor threat of invasion was during WW2. But look at the rest of the world before the 90s, all of eastern europe was under the occupation and control of the soviet union. There was constant threat of war and invasion. Communism didnt die till the 90s when people were finally freed from the dictators. Now there isnt much threat for countries to get invaded. Now its a new era internal corruption rather than external threats.... its getting better around the world.

If I remember hearing right, the U.S. has enough nukes to destory the world 32 times over. Having enough nukes to destroy the world 1 time over is too many so 32 is way to many. I agree with what people have said, we should be disarming instead of rearming ourselves.

Also, if China and NK really wanted to destroy us and shot several hundred nukes at us, we'd shoot several hundred back and take them down with us.

I'm not worried at all about other countries nuking us. If China built up and threw everything they had at us, we turn them into a parking lot that glows in the dark. I don't see any country growing the balls to nuke us because they know they'll get nuked 10 times back. Even if they destroy ever square inch of American soil, they're going to be destroyed as well.

everyone knows that stang, thats why building more WMD weapons programs and defence systems is rediculous and threatening. the thing is if the US nukes one of those countries at the moment they can be nuked back too, but the shield could stop that, (i know "16" missiles... ) making it possible for the US to attack those nations without fear of consequences. If that is not an action that threatens world security and stability i don't know what is.

ok aside from flying a plain into a building. but those aren't the people that this affects. Surely the money would be better spent on improved intelligence.

everyone knows that stang, thats why building more WMD weapons programs and defence systems is rediculous and threatening. the thing is if the US nukes one of those countries at the moment they can be nuked back too, but the shield could stop that, (i know "16" missiles... ) making it possible for the US to attack those nations without fear of consequences. If that is not an action that threatens world security and stability i don't know what is.

ok aside from flying a plain into a building. but those aren't the people that this affects. Surely the money would be better spent on improved intelligence.

So you are saying defending oneself is rediculous? And are you saying any defense is rediculous? Please explain your logic on this. Locking your car door is a defense. Leaving your keys in the ignition is stupid.

The States just want to cover there ass after pissing off the wrong people

Who are the wrong people?

So you are saying defending oneself is rediculous? And are you saying any defense is rediculous? Please explain your logic on this. Locking your car door is a defense. Leaving your keys in the ignition is stupid.

defending yourself from something that is not a threat is rediculous. a little like not taking your car out in case an asteroid or a falling piano get it. unfortunately because of MAD stability is reached, by then offsetting that security by putting in place SAD (selectively assured destruction) the US is provoking other countries to enter an arms race to be able to assure their own security.

at the very least it makes people wonder who the U.S. is planning on attacking next.

defending yourself from something that is not a threat is rediculous.

amazing


well everyone is different.

a women is in her car in the middle of compton and 3 black guys start walking past her car.
she does not know if these guys are a threat, though still she locks her doors just in case. this is not a stupid thing to do. its called prepare for the worst.

defending yourself from something that is not a threat is rediculous. a little like not taking your car out in case an asteroid or a falling piano get it. unfortunately because of MAD stability is reached, by then offsetting that security by putting in place SAD (selectively assured destruction) the US is provoking other countries to enter an arms race to be able to assure their own security.

at the very least it makes people wonder who the U.S. is planning on attacking next.

In the US all police wear bullet proof vests yet less than 1% get shot in the vest. Is that rediculous? Most home owners install smoke detectors inside there homes yet most homes don't burn down. All cars come with saftey devices yet most people never get into a bad accident. I can go on and on but I'm sure you get the point.

With the missile shield its better to get ti up and running then play catch up after the nukes are built and aimed.

Who are the wrong people?
The people who finally have the guts to wage war on the US before the US wages war on them for any reason.

Why would they need such systems if they believe they are liberating the world of evil?

amazing


well everyone is different.

a women is in her car in the middle of compton and 3 black guys start walking past her car.
she does not know if these guys are a threat, though still she locks her doors just in case. this is not a stupid thing to do. its called prepare for the worst.

However, if she decides to pull a machine gun from under the seat and shoot them in the back,she will have a hard time claiming self defence.

Even in she was in Crawford,Texas

something that seems to be missing from this debate is "whay was the program abandoned 20 years ago?". from memory there was a treaty signed during the cold war not to put weapons in orbit. does this mean that the US is going to break that agreement too?

also regardess of whether these satelites are geo stationary or not they WILL pass over other countries, the US doesn't currently extend to the equator so even geostationary sateites will sit over other countries. do those countries have the right to shoot down armed satellites over their own country and airspace. I'm sure the US wouldn't like north korea flying weapons over their heads. why is this different? without double standards please.

In the US all police wear bullet proof vests yet less than 1% get shot in the vest. Is that rediculous? Most home owners install smoke detectors inside there homes yet most homes don't burn down. All cars come with saftey devices yet most people never get into a bad accident. I can go on and on but I'm sure you get the point.


It is a decent point but there is one vital aspect missing. The examples you've listed above are strictly passive defences that pose no threat, literal or imagined, to the opposition. Airspace full of weapons, however, is active defense, that could, however mistakenly, be perceived as a threat to the opposition, perhaps causing provocation.

However, if she decides to pull a machine gun from under the seat and shoot them in the back,she will have a hard time claiming self defence.

Even in she was in Crawford,Texas

that is the most retarded comparison to what he said that you could possibly think of

Having a missile system that is used for defense incase there are nukes flying towards America is like locking your doors or keeping a gun in the glove box.

How the fuck does it compare to pulling a machine gun from under the seat and shooting people in the back?! :rolleyes:
that would be like a comparison to nuking North Korea because they have nukes and are somewhat a threat


Osama Bin Taranaki loves spreading the hate

lol, thank you gotti

Having a missile system that is used for defense incase there are nukes flying towards America is like locking your doors or keeping a gun in the glove box.
Wrong. Having a missile defence system while invading country after country is like pointing a shotgun at an unarmed, one-legged, half-blind person and yelling "Bring it!".

Having a missile system that is used for defense incase there are nukes flying towards America is like locking your doors or keeping a gun in the glove box.


The locking doors is invalid as that's passive defence only, and the gun analogy would be more accurate if it were a gun on the dash-top. Most will see it and avoid you, however, others may see it as a threat that needs to be removed.

Osama Bin Taranaki loves spreading the hate

Gotti,since when have I ever directed a personal insult at you because I disagree with your politics?

That is arguably the most offensive and unsolicited comment I have seen in this forum for quite some time.

feel free to get some manners before you come back in two weeks.or better still, use that two weeks to find another site to talk shit on.

Having a missile system that is used for defense incase there are nukes flying towards America is like locking your doors or keeping a gun in the glove box.




No,having a defensive missile system is like using a tank for your personal vehicle, then ignoring all of the road safety rules because if anyone else collides with you they are going to come off much worse anyway..

I'm Still Waiting For Someone To Tell Me Whether The Countries These Weapons Will Be Flying Over Can Shoot Them Down.

Or Whether North Korea Can Fly Weapons Over The Us And Not Offend The Us.

I'm Still Waiting For Someone To Tell Me Whether The Countries These Weapons Will Be Flying Over Can Shoot Them Down.

Or Whether North Korea Can Fly Weapons Over The Us And Not Offend The Us.

How does one shoot down an installation in space that is designed to take out hostile missiles? :lol2:

My main concern over weapons in space would be their reliability.At this particular point in time,NASA are not showing themselves to be very smart.Satellites have a high failure rate on takeoff,space shuttles have a safety record worse than the Pinto, and NASA engineers are incapable of even building new projects without causing millions of dollars of damage to them buy sheer negligence.

Who is going to take the blame when ths orbiting missile base drops out of the sky and explodes in ,say Sweden, or the missile coordinate software malfunctions and fires off WMD to random destinations?

How does one shoot down an installation in space that is designed to take out hostile missiles? :lol2:With another installation in space designed to take out installations in space designed to take out hostile missiles :lol2:

Missiles already exist for which there is no effective defence e.g. SSN22 and SSN25. Then there's EMP (electromagnetic pulse) weapons.

Beginning to sound like an arms race isn't it?

Surely Though The People Advocating This Scheme Realise They Are Talking About Occupying Many Other Nations Airspace (or Above) With Weaponry?

And Surely Americans Could See How It Was Provocative And Threatening If Say North Korea Was Flying Weapons Over Them, Even If They Were Strictly Defensive.

Are These People Stupid? Can't They See The Double Standards?

I don't think space is classified as terrtorial airspace.

Is there an international protocol on space etc? There probably is but Bush is not really one for international protocols is he.

Anyway, I'm not sure this shield includes space installations. If it was space based then why would they need other countries to participate?

i think you're right, it's not airspace, but i still can't see the states being happy with armed sattelites sailing over their heads... even if it IS out of their tecnical airspace. yet they expect every other country to be fine with it.

What if these satellites were in stationary orbit over the U.S. and didn't buzz over anybody else's head? Then nobody could really say anything about it because the satellites would be in U.S. airspace (if space is considered an extension of a country's airspace).

great. but geo-stationary orbits are only possible around the equator. Currently the US hasn't extended it's territory that far. so the satellites WILL go over other countries.

Even if this system does go into effect, does anyone (no matter where they live) feel safe when the recent test FAILED!!! If the US is trying to protect themselves then they should worry about how those terrorists managed to get onto 4 planes and crashed them into buildings. You can waste all the money you want on a system that MIGHT work, but until you stop that single person from walking into your backyard with a bomb. What's the point ?

Also, as I Canadian, what happens to the nuke and warhead when the US fires their missile at it, and it connects? Guess where it falls ... into my backyard. Why should I feel warm and fuzzy about that? The US is only looking out for themselves and is making it appear, politically, that Canada is protected as well.

To quote a famous clown "I don't think so, Homey don't play that !!"

that is the point. wouldn't the money/effort be better piled into something that actually combats terrorists... not provokes countries? wouldn't it be better to invest in new counterterrorist equipment, perhaps even improved intelligence because obviously that area is screwed.improved intelligence might even stop the US from attacking more countries based on lies, i mean "bad intelligence". the US intel services have been found wanting, there is a war on terror and what does george do? start the ball rolling on a pre-berlin wall cold war program designed to fight technology that terrorists don't have. perhaps if he addressed the actual problem and got back to this "war on terror" he declared rather than gradually throwing the whole world into alternate wars, he could prevent the risk of terrorist WMD's in the first place. Given the times, george is way off the mark.

When you say "disarming" do you mean that they are being destroyed or disassembled. And if there being disassembled where is the uranium/neptunium/plutonium being held.(Or did they find a way to speed up its half-life?)