# Bush warns Canada could be a target of North Korean missiles



## techie (7 Jul 2006)

Bush warns Canada could be a target of North Korean missiles

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=bd6c1548-98d8-40d8-9d28-4afebe79b063&k=48006

Sheldon Alberts, CanWest News Service
Published: Friday, July 07, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President George W. Bush on Thursday warned Canadians could be a target of a future North Korean missile strike and raised the possibility that a long-range ballistic missile fired this week by Pyongyang could have been aimed at Canada.

Following a White House meeting with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Bush said U.S. military officials were still uncertain where the Taepodong-2 missile was headed on Tuesday when it malfunctioned and crashed into the Sea of Japan.

"We were trying to make sure, by the way, that the missile he fired wasn't headed for Canada," Bush said at a joint news conference with Harper in the East Room of the White House. "We don't know for a fact where it was headed."

During a 40-minute meeting in the Oval Office, Bush said he told Harper Canada should consider North Korea as a great a threat as the United States does, primarily because the communist regime's long-range missiles could easily go off target.

The Taepodong-2 is a three-stage rocket with an estimated range of between 6,000 and 15,000 kilometres, potentially enough to reach Alaska or the U.S. West Coast.

But the missile system is still wildly unpredictable: the long-range rocket fired Tuesday crashed after 40 seconds.

North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il "could be seemingly firing a missile at the United States at I don't know, this is all speculation but it could be headed toward the northwest of our country, and it wouldn't take much for it to get off course and land somewhere he may not have intended," Bush said.

"It's hard for me to tell you what's on (Kim Jong Il's) mind. He lives in a very closed society E What we don't know are his intentions."

The president, however, said he did not ask Harper to reverse a decision taken by former Prime Minister Paul Martin against formal participation in the U.S. missile defence system.

"I didn't bring it up, because I figured if he was interested, he would tell me," said Bush, adding he knew missile defence was a "particularly difficult political issue in Canada."

Canada agreed in 2004 to amend the North American Aerospace Defence Agreement to allow the organization to share any intelligence information on missile threats with the U.S. military.

For his part, Harper practiced extreme caution when responding to questions about missile defence, seemingly sensitive to both political opposition in Canada and American anger over Ottawa's decision to turn down the U.S. request to join the plan.

"We're not yet ready to open this debate in Canada," he said.

But Harper quickly added he shared Bush's concerns Canada could be caught in the crossfire of a nuclear attack against the U.S.

"I think this should concern us immensely E Missiles that are fired in the direction in the United States constitute a threat to Canada," the prime minister said. "I think it should be obvious, when we look at this kind of threat, why the United States and others would want to have a modern and flexible defense system against this kind of threat."

Concerns about North Korea's nuclear program jumped sharply after the secretive regime test fired seven ballistic missiles this week.

The U.S. is seeking a UN Security Council resolution imposing sanctions against North Korea's weapons program.

Bush personally phoned Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese President Hu Jintao to lobby for their support. Bush had earlier spoken with the leaders of Japan and South Korea, the other nations involved in six-party talks with North Korea that have been suspended since late last year.

"Kim Jong Il's going to pose less of a threat the more isolated he becomes and the more we work together," Bush said. "My message was that we want to solve this problem diplomatically, and the best way to solve this problem diplomatically is for all of us to be working in concert."

CanWest News Service
© CanWest News Service 2006


I have nothing to say about this other then it wants to make me laugh. Im not naive, i know that we could be a target, but come on Bush. Stop trying to scare us


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Jul 2006)

The Japanese reported the missile was supposed to hit near Hawaii, a very provocative action if it had worked.


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2006)

techie said:
			
		

> Stop trying to scare us


when a policeman tells you to lock your doors and windows because a rapist is known to be operating in the area, is he "trying to scare you"?


----------



## techie (7 Jul 2006)

Not the same thing, although i do get your point. I should have clarified my statment. I think its a scare tatic to get Canada to be a part of the missle defence program, or join the US on a number of other programs he may want us to join them on.


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2006)

techie said:
			
		

> Not the same thing, although i do get your point. I should have clarified my statment. I think its a scare tatic to get Canada to be a part of the missle defence program, or join the US on a number of other programs he may want us to join them on.


1. joining it is in our best interest.
2. it means nothing to the US whether we join or not. They can protect themselves, either way. There's a couple threads on the subject here, somewhere.
3. if you're one of the "Bush is evil" loonies who occasionally pop up around here, you won't enjoy your stay.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2006)

techie said:
			
		

> I have nothing to say about this other then it wants to make me laugh. Im not naive, i know that we could be a target, but come on Bush. Stop trying to scare us



Some potential North American targets in range of Korean IRBM's include ABM radar and missile sites in Alaska and the submarine base in Peugeot Sound, Washington. An error in aiming or a technical glitch in the missile would have a fairly large probability of sending the missile landing somewhere in BC, or in the Pacific ocean off the Canadian west coast.

Even if it was able to strike the targert, the effects of EMP and radioactive fallout would also be felt in BC, and perhaps Alberta as well. Talk about "feeling your pain". 

If Prime Minister Harper leads a majority government in the next election, then we should consider having an ABM interceptor squadron positioned to cover the west coast. Since IRBM and ICBM's follow the great circle route over the high arctic and north pole to reach targets in the United States, then an ABM wing should be posted in several bases across the arctic as well. A little common sense goes a long way.


----------



## techie (7 Jul 2006)

My apoligize again, i have to clarify myself again.

1. Never said it was a bad thing thing to get in on.(although my launguge may have indicated otherwise) I think it actually would be a good idea.
2. Actually it kinda does. If someone decides to launch a ICBM through the north pole, and the US dosnt have any Anti-missles along the Canada border, it will get through.
3. I think Bush may be an idiot at times, but i dont think hes evil.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (7 Jul 2006)

Do we have anything that can effectively deal with an ICBM in our arsenal right now?  Is the ADATS effective at all?  What about any weapons we have for the CF-18 or on our ships?

Either way this is a concern for us.  Even if we weren't so close (both geographically and politically) with the USA we should still be concerned as N. Korea does not have the most mentally stable leadership.  I'm paying very close attention what the US's reaction will be in the coming days and weeks.


----------



## George Wallace (7 Jul 2006)

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> Do we have anything that can effectively deal with an ICBM in our arsenal right now?  Is the ADATS effective at all?  What about any weapons we have for the CF-18 or on our ships?



No on all accounts.




			
				Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> Either way this is a concern for us.  Even if we weren't so close (both geographically and politically) with the USA we should still be concerned as N. Korea does not have the most mentally stable leadership.  I'm paying very close attention what the US's reaction will be in the coming days and weeks.



Have a look at a globe.  The distance to Canada is shorter than that to the US.  Korea missiles aimed at the US Naval facilities in Seattle, with questionable guidance systems, would most likely take out Victoria and Vancouver as well.

Yes it is a concern.


----------



## Centurian1985 (7 Jul 2006)

I agree that the possibility of a country launching a misile at us is a cause for concern.  Canada is reputed to be on the 'hit list' if the big balloon ever does go up with Russia.   

But North Korea? North Korea has never been a threat to Canada, Canada has never been a threat to North Korea, and I have never heard of North Korea ever issuing a statement making a threat against Canada anytime in the past 20 years.  Yes, we sent soldiers over there to fight during the war, but Canada never declared war against the country, nor does this equate a current standing rivalry or antagonism.   

Why is it that the first time a North Korean threat is perceived against us it comes from Bush's mouth?  Nice smokescreen, but this is merely political posturing for gaining political support for upcoming US talks with the North Koreans. Inflammatory rhetoric for the masses.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2006)

No weapon in the Canadian arsenal has either the range, speed or guidance system to reach an IRBM or ICBM in flight. Even the US ABM system is built around refurbished Minuteman ICBM's with the warheads replaced with the interceptor package.

As the problem becomes more complex (guarding against missile sites in Korea and Iran, protecting allies like Canada, Europe and Australia, defending aginst mobile launchers), the logic of the system would have to be putting the hardware in orbit to provide global coverage. Might be a nice set of Air Force trades 20 years from now......


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Jul 2006)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Might be a nice set of Air Force trades 20 years from now......


They don't have nice trades now? 
J/K.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jul 2006)

von Garvin said:
			
		

> They don't have nice trades now?
> J/K.



Think of the TD when a tech has to go into orbit to service an interceptor. Hot shot shuttle pilots will need 5 star orbital hotels (with zero-g "recreational" facilities.....), the possibilites are endless!.


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> I agree that the possibility of a country launching a misile at us is a cause for concern.  Canada is reputed to be on the 'hit list' if the big balloon ever does go up with Russia.
> 
> But North Korea? North Korea has never been a threat to Canada, Canada has never been a threat to North Korea, and I have never heard of North Korea ever issuing a statement making a threat against Canada anytime in the past 20 years.  Yes, we sent soldiers over there to fight during the war, but Canada never declared war against the country, nor does this equate a current standing rivalry or antagonism.
> 
> Why is it that the first time a North Korean threat is perceived against us it comes from Bush's mouth?  Nice smokescreen, but this is merely political posturing for gaining political support for upcoming US talks with the North Koreans. Inflammatory rhetoric for the masses.


uh, did you happen to read any of the posts above yours? Or look at an atlas inthe past 50 years? Or read a newspaper in the past three? North Korea is a threat to everyone on the freakin' planet. Especially to Canada, since (as has been pointed out) we live very close to the US and North Korea is threatening the US with crappy missile systems.


----------



## Centurian1985 (7 Jul 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> uh, did you happen to read any of the posts above yours? Or look at an atlas inthe past 50 years? Or read a newspaper in the past three? North Korea is a threat to everyone on the freakin' planet. Especially to Canada, since (as has been pointed out) we live very close to the US and North Korea is threatening the US with crappy missile systems.



Other than trying to start a flame war, have you got any evidence to back up your allegations (other than that we live on the same planet)?  Yes, they are a threat, but in what way are they a threat to Canada?  What possible military advantage is there for them in hitting Victoria or Vancouver with a missle sytem that cant even fly where its supposed to?   

This is not about missile range, this is about politics.  There are a lot of countries out there that could launch a missile at our country, but there must be a 'motive' for them to do so.  In regard to North Korea, that currently does not exist.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (7 Jul 2006)

Perhaps it is time to start up the old "Star Wars" missle defence program again.  No sense launching a missle if it is going to brew up half a kilometer from where it was launched.  
Failing that, trained sharks with lasers.


----------



## paracowboy (7 Jul 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> Other than trying to start a flame war,


stop. I don't have to start anything. If I wanted to ridicule you, you'd know it.  



> have you got any evidence to back up your allegations (other than that we live on the same planet)?  Yes, they are a threat, but in what way are they a threat to Canada?  What possible military advantage is there for them in hitting Victoria or Vancouver with a missle sytem that cant even fly where its supposed to?


   that is the whole point! They can't aim the missiles! They don't have any contol over them, so they can land anywhere! Whether they intend to hit Vancouver or London, England, they have no control over the missile system. THAT is the threat to us. The fact that we share a border with a nation they have threatened to attack, and to do it with a missile that cannot be aimed. You trackin' now?


----------



## Kat Stevens (7 Jul 2006)

Sorta like firing a slingshot straight up.... anyone standing within range is a potential casualty,  kinda like a Serbian wedding celebration.


----------



## HItorMiss (7 Jul 2006)

C1985, They can't aim the thing. So they intend to hit Coronado, they hit Vancouver Island instead...Seems like a threat to me.

Oh and umm 1950's we did help stop their invasion of South Korea, and I'm sure Kim Jong IL has very good history teachers even if that history is skewed. I'm pretty sure he may not have uttered an open threat but I highly doubt were not on his hit list. Kinda like "well if I miss the US and I hit Canada meh samething they screwed us too!" 

*The second paragraph is all IMO...whereas the first is factual.


----------



## Matty B. (7 Jul 2006)

It should be interesting to see what the Conservatives do if they win a majority. 

How much would Canada have to spend to get an ample missile defense system? Would a few interceptor missiles placed on the West coast and the Arctic do, or would we have to pay big bucks for a Star Wars system (maybe go joint with the US to save money)?


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (7 Jul 2006)

Bomark + DEW line = winning combination  Let's bring it back old school.

Perhaps placing a system such as what the Aegis cruisers have on our Frigates/Destroyers would be a possibility.  If I remember correctly the Aegis had limited success in intercepting some missiles.



			
				zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Failing that, trained sharks with lasers.


Throw me a frickin' bone? ;D


----------



## CanadaPhil (7 Jul 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> that is the whole point! They can't aim the missiles! They don't have any contol over them, so they can land anywhere! Whether they intend to hit Vancouver or London, England, they have no control over the missile system. THAT is the threat to us. The fact that we share a border with a nation they have threatened to attack, and to do it with a missile that cannot be aimed. You trackin' now?



Yes THAT is the point. 

The article noted in the first post misrepresented Bush's comments entirely. I watched the press conference live yesterday.

What Bush was in fact saying was that the missiles could malfunction and hit Canada, so it would be in our interests to at least revisit the whole idea of missile defence if the government chose to.


----------



## CanadaPhil (7 Jul 2006)

And oh yeah..... No we DO NOT have any means of defending against a missile attack (Except of course what NORAD can provide)

ADATS is virtually useless at countering missiles. 

It is intended for local area air defence and as a last resort? against armoured forces. I believe the effective range is about 10km and we have less than 40 of them.


----------



## xenobard (7 Jul 2006)

We could purchase a few F35's when they come out, one variation thereof is said to be equiped with particle / high-powered laser beam weapons.  These could take out ICBMs, couldn't they?


----------



## Centurian1985 (7 Jul 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> That is the whole point! They can't aim the missiles! They don't have any contol over them, so they can land anywhere! Whether they intend to hit Vancouver or London, England, they have no control over the missile system. THAT is the threat to us. The fact that we share a border with a nation they have threatened to attack, and to do it with a missile that cannot be aimed. You trackin' now?



I'm trackin' now!  My apologies, I saw the posts as a knee-jerk reaction to a tin-pot dictator.    

In that case, you are looking at a distance of about 8,000 km that can be traversed in about 25 minutes by a modern ICBM, probably about 30-35 minutes for a less dynamic system that NK is developing, with the final rate of descent (the last 100 km) at about 4 km/s.  

For an interum solution, there is a base at Comox that, if occupied by by CF-18's armed with AAM's, and given enough notice, could knock the system out (low chance of success).  A Canadian frigate armed with short-range SAMs could be used to intercept within the final 25 km of flight, if in the right position and receiving real-time tracking information (slightly better chance of success). 

However, travelling at about +/-14,000 kmh still makes it a hard target ot hit.  Best option for a long-term solution would be the purchase of a 4 x mobile Patriot missile systems.  Although it's success rate has been debated, it is still reputed to be the best Western ABM system.   

The problem here is not the solution but the chain of command and associated actions.  Effective engagement would require a) authorization to fire from the Prime Minister (or rep) within 25 minutes of launch notification, b) clearance of all air traffic from the missile approach corridor within 25 minutes of launch, c) an emergency message system warning all occupants of the southwest BC region to take cover (to avoid either being hit by the missile if missed by our assets, or to avoid being hit by missile fragmens if hit by our assets), and d) if you have this ABM system, a guarded exclusion area to prevent local anti-arms groups from interfering with unit activities during an emergency (if you think BC groups were bad before, wait until you install an ABM unit!).


----------



## Centurian1985 (7 Jul 2006)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Oh and umm 1950's we did help stop their invasion of South Korea, and I'm sure Kim Jong IL has very good history teachers even if that history is skewed. I'm pretty sure he may not have uttered an open threat but I highly doubt were not on his hit list.



Yes, I know we were there, the most prominent reminder is the PPCLI Kapyong battle honor.   However, the NK's are fixated on who's there now, which is the US.  



> Kinda like "well if I miss the US and I hit Canada meh samething they screwed us too!"



Yes, I agree with that!


----------



## Armymatters (7 Jul 2006)

I am actually wondering about the flight characteristics of the North Korean long range ICBMs. If they fly in any way how a Scud does (erratically), it may be very difficult, if not impossible to even _track_ the missile, let alone aim another missile at it. The Americans are testing their ABM on decommed ICBMs of their own design, which have excellent flight characteristics and are stable aerodynamically. I wonder about the efficacy of the ABM against such less aerodynamically stable missiles. Food for thought.


----------



## tamouh (8 Jul 2006)

Looking at the results of N.K missile tests, I find the whole argument unnecessary. 

Is N.K. a threat to Canada? No

Could N.K. become a potential threat to Canada? Possibly if China and Russia provides them with the technology and material to manufacture long range missiles.

The fact their "new" and "long-range" missile fell off after 30 secs shows how ill designed and poorly constructed the missile. 

I'm more concerned about China and Russia providing more advanced weaponry technology to bully the west than anything else. But the whole concept of N.K. hitting Canada/USA with its current weapon system is impossible (unless they aim for the moon and the rocket left overs fall over Canada).

The old say goes.....hope for peace and prepare for war!


----------



## Armymatters (8 Jul 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Looking at the results of N.K missile tests, I find the whole argument unnecessary.
> 
> Is N.K. a threat to Canada? No
> 
> ...



I don't think we have to worry about the Chinese in this matter. In fact, their patience with North Korea is wearing thin, and they want the issue resolved as soon as possible to get back to normal. The Chinese know that a lot more stakes are involved than when they initially got involved in the Korean War, as the North Koreans can turn on THEM. That is why they are party to the Six-Party talks, they don't want the North Koreans in possession of nuclear weapons, as it threatens them as well. They also have already stated that if Korean War II breaks out, they will not get involved.


----------



## FormerHorseGuard (8 Jul 2006)

The North Korean missiles are not exactly perfected to launch and hit a single target with any certainly of hitting intended target. Sort of reminds me of the V1 and V2 rockets of the Germans during WW 2 . They knew they could hit England with some certainly, but could not pinpoint where the rockets were going to hit, city, block, or even the right city, just knew it would hit some where on English Soil, that was enough to scare some people who lived on the soil that  might be targeted or just hit by accident or luck ( bad luck is still luck.

During the Cold War we all knew if the Russian launched the missiles at the USA some of the missiles were going to come down on Canadian  soil. Slim to none chances that  all Missiles launched at the USA would make it that far. Even today  with GPS and other targetting software there are still some misses.  Does anyone think that missile aimed at Washington State or Alaska might not fall short or just end up flying a few 100 Km north or south depending on target and hit Canada?

I am not too worried that the people in power in North Korea will launch a missile at Canada but they  might launch one at the USA and miss the intended target, fall short or go long depending how good of a target software they are running. Crazy people with missiles who are in need of goods and service, hard cash and other items just might trade with people who have the hard cash, the goods and services required by the first crazy person. Then more crazy people have missiles that is the scary part to me. 

Money Talks and Missiles Walks? Do not have to hit intended targets just have to be there.  How many  countries already have North Korean weapons and goods? What else would North Korea supply  for cash and goods to the wrong buyers? They are working on the BOMB, if they have the people to create that, a good missile is not too far away afterwards.


----------



## paracowboy (8 Jul 2006)

tamouh,
I'm curious. Is there ANY tyrannical government or terrorist organization you aren't willing to apologize for, or offer appeasement to?


----------



## tamouh (8 Jul 2006)

> I'm curious. Is there ANY tyrannical government or terrorist organization you aren't willing to apologize for, or offer appeasement to?



Seriously I'm not. I despise tyrannical regimes. Yet, I see things from a different view than many on this forum. I'm not a fan of wars and sanctions simply because it only affects the working class. Tyrants careless about their people. isn't that why they are tyrants in the first place ? On the other view, you've to make sacrifices to achieve your objective. So it is a double edged sword.

back to NK, my humble opinion says , the US should have let Gen. McArthur finish that war and save us all the headaches. Yet, you may never know how the North Koreans and their communist neighbours would have influenced the new N.K. afterwards.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Looking at the results of N.K missile tests, I find the whole argument unnecessary.
> 
> Is N.K. a threat to Canada? No
> 
> ...



I have to question your logic on this.  Is N.K. a threat to Canada?  Of course it is!  If we follow your argument that these are ill designed and poorly constructed missiles, then even more so.  The shortest distance to the US would be over the Arctic and Canada.  If these missiles are so poor in quality, you can rest assured they are likely to land in parts of Canada.  What payloads will they carry?  Nuclear?  Biological?  Chemical?  Any of which is still a threat.

As too those missiles falling off after 30 seconds, don't be an idiot.  They may have planned it that way, after gaining all the data they needed in the first 30 seconds of flight.  Do you honestly think that they would have tested these missiles by actually have them impact in continental North America?  As Korea has a very limited 'Air Space', they can not reasonably 'invade' another nation's 'Air Space'.


----------



## tamouh (8 Jul 2006)

> As too those missiles falling off after 30 seconds, don't be an idiot.  They may have planned it that way, after gaining all the data they needed in the first 30 seconds of flight.  Do you honestly think that they would have tested these missiles by actually have them impact in continental North America?  As Korea has a very limited 'Air Space', they can not reasonably 'invade' another nation's 'Air Space'.



They already do invade other nations air space, what do you think the Japanese are complaining about ? These are flying over Japan and landing in the sea. I also largely doubt NK intentionally crashed their missile after 30s, that means the missile have travelled shorter distance than any of their other short-range missiles.


----------



## Kat Stevens (8 Jul 2006)

30 secs of real time telemetry from a missile in flight is a hunormous amount of useful data for rocket surgeons to use in further research.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> They already do invade other nations air space, what do you think the Japanese are complaining about ? These are flying over Japan and landing in the sea. I also largely doubt NK intentionally crashed their missile after 30s, that means the missile have travelled shorter distance than any of their other short-range missiles.



 ???

They have short-range missiles that travel farther?

"Intentionally crashed"?  Were they supposed to be landed somewhere?  Were they supposed to remain in orbit?  Were they supposed to be retrieved by the Space Patrol?  What do you mean by "Intentionally crashed"?  What do you expect that a missile would do?

They test fired several missiles.  They got lots of telemetry.  As you pointed out, they flew these over Japan.  They are a threat.


----------



## tamouh (8 Jul 2006)

> They test fired several missiles.  They got lots of telemetry.  As you pointed out, they flew these over Japan.  They are a threat.



I see your point...


----------



## GAP (8 Jul 2006)

Just so we are talking about the right missiles...here is a pic of NK's & Irans missile compliment found at: 
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/dprk/missile.htm


----------



## Enzo (8 Jul 2006)

Let's just invest in a few Boeing 747-400F Airborne LASER systems, keep one in the air at all times on the west coast with another on :30 alert and a third in maintenance rotation.

Should prove effective against one incoming ICBM. Anyone have any idea as to the costs associated with this program?

Or, we could continue diplomatic pressure on the NK regime from one side; encouraging political, economical and social incentives on the other.


----------



## HDE (8 Jul 2006)

I'd imagine the cost to Canada of siding with the U.S. on some sort of missile defence program, at least in monetary terms,  would be pretty minimal; they'll spend whatever is required.  What the U.S. is likely after is some sort of co-operation in terms of basing, research, etc. and, more importantly, a show of solidarity.   The Chretien/Martin Liberals made it a point of sniping constantly at the U.S. administration and I believe that fostered considerable concern over just how reliable an ally we'd become, at least at the political level.


----------



## FoverF (8 Jul 2006)

The 747-based YAL-1 was designed to knock out missiles shortly after launch, when their speeds are sub-sonic, they are large targets full of fuel, and they fall on the bad-guy's turf. The aircraft also need to be close (maybe 100km or so as a good educated guess, although the USAF guesses are more optimistic) to the launch site. Close enough that the aircraft would have to be in orbit INSIDE North Korean airspace 24 hours a day to provide coverage. 

On the other side of apogee, ICBMs and IRBMs are coming down closer to Mach 10 (give or take about 5 mach numbers). And they're much smaller (anything that can hit Canada from overseas will have to discard some stages on the way), and much harder to kill. There's no possible way an airborne laser (of this generation) can kill an incoming missile. It's not something airborne lasers were designed to de.

The USA's missile defence system is likewise completely useless, for a large number of reasons. First and foremost is the fact that all you have to do to defeat it is fire another missile. The system is planned to defend against 2 or possibly 3 missiles at a time (provided all of the intercepts are successfull... this has not been the case so far). All NK has to do to defeat this ridiculously expensive system is to wait until they've got that fourth missile. Not much of a challenge. 

Not to mention the (no apologies here) IDIOCY of using a kinetic kill 'warhead'. The interceptor vehicle (moving high supersonic) has to actually physically contact the missile (which is moving hypersonically), in order to kill it. No warhead, no explosion, nothing. Just relying on the ability of a missile to directly 'plink', head-on, into another missile, at high hypersonic speeds.

And a major consideration from a Canadian perspective:

Let's say (hypothetical scenario) North Korea fires ten ICBMs at North America. One of them seems to be off-course, and will likely land in Canada. Anyone want to take odds on the chances of this missile being given a higher priority than the one aimed at the Los Angeles basin? Heck, if *I* was in charge at Cheyenne during the same scenario,, I'd say screw Canada too. At that point it boils down to a numbers game of saving lives, and Canada is going to lose that game.  So the chances of us getting ANY use out of the system is essentially nil. 

Unless someone expects North Korea to actually fire ONE missile, and ONLY ONE missile. And that it will land in Canada. They are both extremely unlikely events. Even more unlikely is the chance that NK can actually develop a functioning nuclear weapon that can fit in their ghetto ICBMs in the next 20 years anyways, which kind of moots most of this discussion anyways.

I think we should co-operate with the Americans on their BMD system,, maybe let them put radars on our turf, be good friends and good neighbors about it, but they can cover the tab themselves. 

I don't think Canada really has any need for a missile defence system (*YET*. This will change as technology changes). But Canadian forces overseas will/do have this need. A ship-based system will be able to provide this a lot of the time, and might be able to provide some protection to coastal cities.  Modified SM-3s or something along those lines on future destroyer/frigate platforms can offer at least some protection for coastal areas, and can provide the much more likely to be needed task of protecting friendly forces deployed overseas from IRBM/SRBM attack as well. 

There are other options, though (Japan is responding to the NK threat with Patriot PAC-3s, which is the best western system for the job), but I don't realistically see ANY of them happening. I think having an existing system (such as AAW destroyers) provide some sort of protection is the ONLY type of BMD system that the Canadian government or public will buy. And realistically, thats probably all we need.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2006)

If we want to look at hard numbers, an incoming IRBM/ICBM needs to be moving at sub orbital velocity, which is basically > Mach 25. The fact that this generation of USAF interceptor rockets has had a 50% success rate in tests indicates a very impressive level of technical sophistication, since they are flying through the atmosphere and accelerating to almost orbital velocity to hit the target at the maximum practical altitude (somewhere in the upper atmosphere, where decoys and "penetration aids" are being stripped away by air friction).

A collision with anything at all at a combined speed of under Mach 50 will vaporize virtually anything human technology can make (and those aliens better watch out as well!), and we don't know just how the kinetic energy interceptor actually works. A reasonable guess is it might open up like an umbrella at the last moment, or perhaps eject material and allow the enemy warhead to fly through a cloud of ball bearings. Missiles like the BaE Javelin and Thales Starstreak really are designed to physically impact the target (a missile at supersonic speed trying to hit an enemy aircraft also moving at supersonic or high subsonic speed and capable of manoeuvre) so an ABM interceptor designed to do the same thing is not a complete stretch.

Anyway, defense systems create uncertainty in the minds of the attackers. If there is a 50% chance of an intercept, they may have to devote two missiles to a critical target, which means there is one less missile available for other targets. In this game, a rich and technologically sophisticated nation like the United States can crank out interceptors far more easily than the Koreans or Iranians can crank out offensive missiles. Worse yet, each step the enemy take to evade the ABMs costs in terms of extra weight, volume and cost, meaning the missiles carry fewer or smaller warheads. (BTW, this is the same calculation made in the 1980s, which made President Reagan confident that some form of the SDI or "Star Wars" system could defeat a mass launch by the USSR).

It also seems there are a whole raft of potential ABM systems and technologies on the horizon, so once again, the attacker has to devote more and more resources to try to overwhelm the defense, and loses more and more offensive capability as he adds countermeasures to defeat the different defense mechanisms.

The United States had pledged to pay for the bulk of the system themselves, and "we" have control of the system through NORAD (the DComd is a Canadian officer, for example), so initially this is a sweet deal for us. As responsible adults, we should pick up some of the tab and some of the responsibility, including buying and basing an ABM wing on Canadian soil to cover the West Coast and the High Arctic (say one Squadron in BC, and one each in the Yukon, NWT and Navuat). If Iran becomes a nuisance, then a further Squadron in Goose Bay might become a requirement as well.

Given the evolving threat of mobile launchers and the need for theatre defense, I would say the sooner a space based system is in place, the better, since that gives us global coverage without having to screw around with ships, planes, ground bases and so on. The space based C4I infrastructure is very useful for all other branches of the Armed Forces. Google G-PALs  (Global Protection Against Limited Strike) for an example of what could be done.


----------



## Enzo (9 Jul 2006)

You're advocating the militarization of space?


----------



## JackD (9 Jul 2006)

Just an aside here, I must say that I find this thread interesting in that historically speaking,  this thread seems to be re-arguing the debate on the Bomarc system of the late 50's - early 60's. Ironic isn't it?


----------



## paracowboy (9 Jul 2006)

Enzo said:
			
		

> You're advocating the militarization of space?


do you honestly think it isn't already "militarized"? Where do you suppose the satellites we use for imagery is located? 

Do you actually think that as humanity makes more and more forays into the 'final frontier' (thank you, Mr. Roddenberry) we aren't going to bring our political/religious differences with us?


----------



## GAP (9 Jul 2006)

Does anyone seriously think we would have gotten even above the clouds without the militarization of the process. It always has been about militarization. There is no other major source of funding that would have seen the project through. That applied to BOTH the US and CCCP, and others.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Jul 2006)

Enzo said:
			
		

> You're advocating the militarization of space?



Three words...okay, letters... G...P...S... 8)


----------



## zipperhead_cop (9 Jul 2006)

Enzo said:
			
		

> You're advocating the militarization of space?



*CAUTION!!!  UNINFORMED HIPPIE ALERT!!! CAUTION!!! UNINFORMED HIPPIE ALERT!!!*


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2006)

Space has been militarized by recce and support satellites, and the United States and former USSR made many studies of military space systems. 

The USSR actually had military flight hardware, such as space stations armed with a cannon and provisions for missile launchers. They also had a flight capable anti satellite system as well. This link is a good starting point: http://www.astronautix.com/project/almaz.htm and the Astronautix site has lots of historical data about many strange and wonderful projects considered by both sides.


----------



## Centurian1985 (10 Jul 2006)

What with all the conglomerates, unions, consortiums, and private enterprises out there nowadays, its almost easier to ask 'who hasn't  militarized space?


----------



## 1feral1 (10 Jul 2006)

Centurian1985 said:
			
		

> There are a lot of countries out there that could launch a missile at our country, but there must be a 'motive' for them to do so.  In regard to North Korea, that currently does not exist.




What about the North Koreans selling this missle to some nutcase terr org? Seeking an easy western target? This is a real possiblilty, not far fetched.

Should they ever target the USA, Canada could be the fallout zone when the thing falls short or is destroyed by the Yanks.

Cheers,

Wes

The threat is serious.


----------



## Enzo (10 Jul 2006)

Nice one Zip; I don't resemble that comment.  ;D

The militarization of space began as soon as German scientists came over to assist with the rocketry programs of the late 40s, early 50s; maybe even sooner. I made an error and I wasn't precise with my choice of wording. In recent times, _militarization of space_ in the lexicon has become synonymous with _arming_ and that was where I intended to base my comment. US Space Command has been operational since the early 80s, military personnel have been involved with all facets of the space program for not only the American, but other nations agencies since their incorporation, and, as has been pointed out, civilian companies are involved in all aspects of this growing industry. GPS and intelligence gathering satellites are the norm to the point where what was once confidential is now commonplace, i.e., recreational navigation, _Google Earth_, etc.

The arming of space. That is a door that hasn't been opened, as far as I know. Should it? I can't say. Will it? Of course, it's inevitable. I am simply curious as to the mindset of those who express themselves in this forum so that I know how to respond in kind.

Off topic: I have a tendency to assume the role of the devils advocate with the intention of inspiring thought. It is a shame that the best a differing viewpoint often produces is ridicule.


----------



## tamouh (10 Jul 2006)

> What about the North Koreans selling this missle to some nutcase terr org? Seeking an easy western target? This is a real possiblilty, not far fetched.



I think that scenario is far fetched. They could possibly sell it to a country, a region, a nation. but it is not the missile only that terrorists will need, they'll need the missile, the equipments to launch it, the fuel , the launch pads or vehicles, and a very well know-how. In addition to that, the US already has a system of early detection for any missiles around the world launched or prepared to launch.


----------



## Armymatters (10 Jul 2006)

a_major:
Just to let you know, the probability of making a successful intercept is, as you have stated (and shown in tests) 50%, but 2 attempts at intercept does not equal 100%. Basic high school math: when you flip two coins, the outcome of the first coin is not affected by the outcome of the second coin, and vice versa. The same goes for ABM's: the probability of success with each ABM by itself is only 50%. The concept is called Statistical Independence. So in short, you may need more than two ABM's to intercept even one ICBM.  This also means that you can expend all the ABM's you have, and there is still the mathmatical probability that ALL ABM's miss the target, as each attempt only has a 50% chance of success.  I am a bit rusty when it comes to probability, but I still remember this stuff.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (10 Jul 2006)

Enzo said:
			
		

> Off topic: I have a tendency to assume the role of the devils advocate with the intention of inspiring thought. It is a shame that the best a differing viewpoint often produces is ridicule.



You did inspire thought.  Five posts shot down your open-for-interpretation comment.  Thanks for being inspiring.   
Perhaps the ridicule comes from the perception (at least on my part) that you don't think there should be anything in orbit that can shoot downwards and provide people with a missile defence.  I never understood this bass ackwards thinking in the 80's when the original SDI was being tossed about.  Who gives a crap where the weapons are, if they render nukes obsolete?  I can understand why the USSR didn't want it, because nukes are all they had going for them for a while there.  But now, with gearboxes like Kim Jong running around farming out missile tech to anyone who can afford it, coupled with the former Soviet states having an apparent lack of ability to keep a grip on their old nuclear weapons, wouldn't now be a good time to get back on the wagon and have some quality space based weapons?  Instead of trying to play catch up after someone lobs one of these things in our general direction?  
Maybe we could piggy back a couple of ozone quality sniffers or an earth temperature monitor just to appease the enviro-weenies.


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jul 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> I think that scenario is far fetched. They could possibly sell it to a country, a region, a nation. but it is not the missile only that terrorists will need, they'll need the missile, the equipments to launch it, the fuel , the launch pads or vehicles, and a very well know-how. In addition to that, the US already has a system of early detection for any missiles around the world launched or prepared to launch.


they don't need the entire missile. Just the part that blows up and scatters nasty stuff around. But, they certainly can purchase the entire thing and find a nation willing to support them for a price. Off-hand, I can think of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, a couple of the 'Stan-type countries, RhodesiaZimbabwe, Somalia, the Sudan, in fact most of Africa.

Transport is easy. If entire villages of people can be smuggled into western nations on alert, how difficult is a missile and EIS. Especially if broken up and smuggled over months or years?

You need to either wake up, or shut up.


----------



## tamouh (10 Jul 2006)

> they don't need the entire missile. Just the part that blows up and scatters nasty stuff around. But, they certainly can purchase the entire thing and find a nation willing to support them for a price. Off-hand, I can think of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, a couple of the 'Stan-type countries, RhodesiaZimbabwe, Somalia, the Sudan, in fact most of Africa



If Taliba, Al-Qaida in Afghanistan, a country and a government also closely connected with Pakistan knew before hand the US was planning to attack them, yet they couldn't purchase any types of missiles, I have strong doubt any country is willing to provide them with that sort of technology.

There is more risk in terr. hijacking a nuclear warhead in-transport than able to obtain it. I also think it is far fetched any country in the world will attempt to launch a missile at the US unless they're seeking nothing but complete destruction including their own government.


----------



## KevinB (10 Jul 2006)

:

The Taliban was not nec close with the Pakistani Gov't but the ISI - the Pakistani (extremist) Inteligence service (who have made attempts on Musharef)

tamouh -- your also making the mistake of assuming that non-host nation terrorist organizatiosn care about retaliation -- some thrive on it for they realize it will cause people to flock to them...


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jul 2006)

tamouh,

did the Palestinian invaders care what happened to the Lebanese people when they used Lebanon to attack Israel? Did the Taliban, most of whom were Pakistanis, care about the Afghan people when they sheltered Al Queda? Do the Iranians (Jordanians, Saudis, Kuwaitis, et al) care about the Iraqi people when they launch their attacks on the Coalition forces?

Groups like this invite retaliation from their enemies as a means of promoting their own agenda.


----------



## tamouh (10 Jul 2006)

> did the Palestinian invaders care what happened to the Lebanese people when they used Lebanon to attack Israel? Did the Taliban, most of whom were Pakistanis, care about the Afghan people when they sheltered Al Queda? Do the Iranians (Jordanians, Saudis, Kuwaitis, et al) care about the Iraqi people when they launch their attacks on the Coalition forces?



PLO definitely used Lebanon as a base to launch their attacks. Talibans are not Pakistani, they are Pashtu, however, they were supported by Pakistan.

The Iranians,Jordanians,Saudis,Kuwaitis......I hope you're not referring to the countries. If you meant individuals, then you proved my point. No soverign nation would want to involve itself in a losing battle against the US. Even N.K. regime knows that very well. All what they want is more money, money and money. 

Such nations might use bulley tactics to try and provoke the US, but they'd not dare to directly attack the US with missiles.

Most tyrant regimes in the mid-east or south east-asia do not care about their people, but they care ALOT about the power they have over these people.


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jul 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> Talibans are not Pakistani, they are Pashtu, however, they were supported by Pakistan.


The Taliban movement began in the madrassas of Pakistan, and spread north. The original students who took up arms were from Pakistan. 



> The Iranians,Jordanians,Saudis,Kuwaitis......I hope you're not referring to the countries. If you meant individuals, then you proved my point.


 the nation of Iran, certainly. The original point was that terrorists can obtain the missiles, move into a nation that supports their aims, or will shelter them for money, and lanch from that nation. You have proven Wes's, Infidel's, and my point.



> No soverign nation would want to involve itself in a losing battle against the US. Even N.K. regime knows that very well. All what they want is more money, money and money.


 the N.K. regime is desperate to maintain their power, and they can only do so by keeping their population down-trodden, and keeping the democratic powers out via fear and intimidation. Communist nations' activities are all entirely aimed at keeping their own people under control. They can only do so by severely restricing interaction with other nations. If they feel threatened enough, they WILL launch missiles in order to maintain their own power.



> Such nations might use bulley tactics to try and provoke the US, but they'd not dare to directly attack the US with missiles.


if they have nukes that can reach, they certainly would. But the actual attack is not necessarily the aim. They hope that by gaining long-range nukes, they can keep the US out of the local area through fear, while they continue with their illegal activites. You ain't looking at the bigger picture. Or, you're choosing to ignore it. 



> Most tyrant regimes in the mid-east or south east-asia do not care about their people, but they care ALOT about the power they have over these people.


exactly.


----------



## tamouh (10 Jul 2006)

> The original point was that terrorists can obtain the missiles, move into a nation that supports their aims, or will shelter them for money, and lanch from that nation.



Fair, they'll supply them with money and technology but no country interested in having them launch missiles against the US from their ground. They might as well launch the missiles themselves (the hosting country)!

How many Arab nations have launched missiles against Israel in the past 20 yrs ? None, except to Iraq during the gulf war and there were obvious political motives for it. We're talking about Israel here, the most hated country in the whole Arab world. Lets even look closer, how many Arab nations have provoked all out war with Israel since 1973 ? None.....it is a simple equation that IDF proved capable of winning the war.



> If they feel threatened enough, they WILL launch missiles in order to maintain their own power.



I agree, but we disagree on what is the definition of "threatened enough", This is not 1950s with USSR and Commun China, post-WWII where everyone is busy rebuilding.



> They hope that by gaining long-range nukes, they can keep the US out of the local area through fear, while they continue with their illegal activites.



Absolutely! They're not seeking to initiate the war, but rather secure their ambitions. Hence why I believe no country will allow terrorist organizations to launch the rockets.


----------



## paracowboy (10 Jul 2006)

North Korea is a paranoid nation reeling from famine to plague and back to famine. Their infrastructure is a shambles, they are surrounded by perceived enemies, and they know, better than we, that their entire government is about to collapse. They no longer listen to their Chinese "allies" because they know they are on their deathbed. And you expect logical reasoning from them? They prefer to have their population eating each other than cooperate with another nation. If you expect them to behave like a rational human would, you are as crazy as they are. 

I prefer to disarm lunatics, lock them away, or kill them than trust to their good faith. 

As for your argument that no host nation would "allow" a terrorist organization to launch an attack, who says that the host nation has that much control? Syria had little control over what the various Palestinian terrorists did in Lebanon. Yemen had none whatsoever over the various training camps on their soil. And we've already established that these groups have no concern for the welfare of the civil populations of the nation they are hiding in.

Again, I prefer to disarm lunatics.

You are trying to put a reasonable face on unreasonable people. I still haven't decided if you are an apologist quisling, or simply deluded. Either way, you can stop trying to 'educate' us, and let us carry on with preparing for the worst, in order that it cannot come about.


----------



## Enzo (10 Jul 2006)

_"Russia has the ability for an adequate response to the countries that orbit their weapons,'' Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said during an official visit to China in late August 2005. ``Both Americans and Russians are actively using space for military purposes. However, they have been observing certain limits so far, deploying only communications, targeting, intelligence and other (defense-related) spacecraft. These are not weapons. But the deployment of weapons in space will have unpredictable consequences.''_
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14302555.htm

That was basically the view I shared when I enquired of *a_majoor* as to whether he advocated the _militarization_, i.e., weaponization of space. The political and social position maintained in Canada for the past 30 odd years is that the weaponization of space is a policy that should not be supported. Until the current government announces otherwise, it is a position that has not changed and my stance was reflected in the same.

I was caught off guard by prior statements in this thread. My personal distaste for nuclear weapons notwithstanding (this a technology that I wish mankind could un invent), the idea of arming space with certain weapons was a chilling proposal due primarily to the unforeseen. It is the unknown factor that I found to be disturbing, i.e., accidents or poor communication from a lack of information leading to catastrophic mistakes, etc.

Space systems in any form are not my area of expertise. I (like many) have had opinions that were shaped more so on ideology than facts. This topic has kept me up for the past few nights researching and I have to say; I am more than a bit fatigued by this, but somehow, I've remained open-minded. I have read enough essays, articles and reports, from both sides of this debate (including a very long manifesto published by the Chinese government stating their position on the matter) to have arrived at a more reasoned position on this subject. Two resources proved to be particularily advantageous:

This one clarified the current realities of the militarization of space and the redundancy of the argument; a position that has found support on this thread, it's worth a look.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4244

This was the essay (more like a small novel, have at least :30 on hand for this one) that swung me into the favourable camp.
http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/spaceforum/Dolmanpaper%5B1%5D.pdf

After reading these, I arrived at a supporting position on the future of the military in space. The types of weapons systems will be determined in due course and I have to be optimistic; just as the policy of _MAD_ led to the overall success of the _Cold War_, one has to believe that a secure presence in space utilizing a defensive posture will also lead to further future stability.

_BMD_ as is currently proposed doesn't interest me beyond a theatre defense role, due primarily to lack of efficiency vs. overall expendure of resources and funds. I'd prefer to see the pursuit of an initial response technology that eliminated the threatened missile system in it's launch phase. The advantages of a system that could remain in stationary orbit over the threat (as in *NK* for example) are evident when compared to regional _BMD_. *NKs* current and future abilities notwithstanding, there is no reason to not pursue peaceful alternatives to reducing *NKs* adversarial position in concert with the development of such technologies.

I'm still not in favour of nuclear weapons however, in any strategic form, but that isn't limited to space; I'd just simply prefer that these things were made obsolete as soon as possible. I'm very much in favour of conventional warfare, it's just that until someone invents _"nuke-away"_; radiation and fallout are experiences I would prefer to continue to live without.

Bear in mind, this is just one _"hippies"_ opinion.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jul 2006)

The laws of physics constrain what can and cannot be done, including missile defense. A device in stationary orbit would be quite far from the scene of the action and very constrained in how it could respond. A sensor satellite could be in stationary orbit and see about 1/3 of the globe (a constellation of three is the minimum for global coverage), and in any event, a stable stationalry orbit is only possible over the equator.

Low altitude interceptors like G-PALS or earlier incarnations of the idea have short response times since they are closer to the launch site in that portion of their orbit, have additional kinetic energy since they are already moving at Mach 25, and by default cover the entire globe, so can cover regions, theaters and even continents. Mobile launchers, SLBMs and other ideas to disguise the launch site are not effective, an interceptor satellite is always only a few minutes away, and even if the enemy should choose to use aircraft or cruise missiles, the sensor systems on the ABM satellites can assist the defenders with real time information. They could probably assist to a certain extent against terrorists as well. Ground based point defence will also have a much better chance with the G-PALS cutting down the number of targets they have to deal with.


----------



## Old Guy (10 Jul 2006)

Occupying the high ground has been a military axiom since General Og's lads discovered the efficiencies inherent in throwing or rolling rocks downhill at General Ug's men.

But, the term 'high ground' does not mean just terra firma.  Airplanes took us to a more nebulous high ground.  Satellites took us even higher.  The military has been using near-space for military purposes since the Germans launched the first V2 rocket.  Surveillance satellites merely raised the level.  The Moon and Mars are steps in the ladder.

The question is: Who do you want on the high ground?
Hint: The answer can't be 'nobody'.
Just as it isn't feasible to uninvent nuclear weapons, the question of who will militarize space is more relevant than the militarization itself.

Jim


----------



## Armymatters (10 Jul 2006)

paracowboy said:
			
		

> North Korea is a paranoid nation reeling from famine to plague and back to famine. Their infrastructure is a shambles, they are surrounded by perceived enemies, and they know, better than we, that their entire government is about to collapse. They no longer listen to their Chinese "allies" because they know they are on their deathbed. And you expect logical reasoning from them? They prefer to have their population eating each other than cooperate with another nation. If you expect them to behave like a rational human would, you are as crazy as they are.



Add to that the fact that the Chinese don't give much of a damn about North Korea. It has been like that for the past couple of years, since Hu Jintao came into power. One of the bigger reasons the Chinese aren't openly hostile to North Korea is that that they don't want to be blackmailed like Japan, South Korea, and the US.  They just don't want North Korea to collapse: if the North Koreans collapse, the Chinese will have a major refugee crisis on their hands as millions of starving North Koreans will pour over the border into China. The Chinese in short see the North Koreans as a liability to their interests. The North Koreans need the Chinese more than the Chinese need the North Koreans, and the Chinese in short know it.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (12 Jul 2006)

Enzo said:
			
		

> Bear in mind, this is just one _"hippies"_ opinion.



Feh.  Half a page of posting space to say "I changed my mind after I did some reading".  Try to get past the hippie thing.  If the truth hurts, it's because it's supposed to.  If it doesn't, then don't sweat it.  
Were nukes in space ever a plan?  Other than in the plot line of "Space Cowboys"?  Space based weapons were always supposed to be laser or particle beam, were they not?   Not my area, so I'm not making a stand either way.
Of course, if you look at the video I found on a Russian military web site, they seem to have some sort of prototype of something:
 SECRET RUSSIAN PROTO TYPE 










  Of course that isn't real.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jul 2006)

The facts:

Yes, both the United States and the USSR examined many possible weapons systems which could be employed in space, starting in the 1950's when it became apparent that rocket science had advanced to the point large payloads could be sent into orbit.

Nuclear weapons in orbit were a serious possibility, in the United States it was investigated as the "Fractional Orbital Bombardment System", and reference to this idea can be found in many SF stories in the 1950's and early 60's. Of course, basing weapons in orbit has its own problems (space is a very tough environment for men and equipment), so basing weapons on the ground made more sense. Soviet systems were also under study, and occasionally rumored to have been put into service. The USAF was also very big on ideas like space "bombers" like the X-20 Dynasoar, but the technology just wasn't there.

Space based interceptors were also studied starting in the 1950's, Google BAMBI, G-PALS and "High Frontier" for some American examples. These systems actually fired missiles at enemy ICBMs, the laser and particle beam stuff was always considered (by engineers, who know how things work) to be second and third generation systems to be launched in the 1990's and 2000's is SDI had begun during the 1980's as planned. The USAF also had an ASAT program tested in the 1980's based on missiles fired from an F-15, but the fact satellites move at Mach 25 gives you an idea of how mismatched the systems were. The USSR had an active ASAT based on ground based rocket boosters, and has a deployed ABM system since the 1960's called GALOSH. Some of the Soviet AA missile systems are suspected of having limited ABM ability as well.

One common denominator seems to be that the US has studied all kinds of weapons systems to deploy in space, but the USSR was the only nation to deploy operational military hardware (as opposed to support systems) in space.

People bleating about the "Militarization of Space" are almost half a century behind the curve (even farther when you consider German scientists were looking at the "America Bomber" AKA "Silverbird" near the end of WW II).


----------



## Enzo (12 Jul 2006)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> Feh.  Half a page of posting space to say "I changed my mind after I did some reading".



I originally asked a question, I hadn't established a position for myself prior and if I had stated as such without an explanation or the use of any supporting evidence, then I could be viewed as some sort of a waffler, thereby leaving myself open to criticism and ridicule.



			
				a_majoor said:
			
		

> People bleating about the "Militarization of Space" are almost half a century behind the curve (even farther when you consider German scientists were looking at the "America Bomber" AKA "Silverbird" near the end of WW II).



Having now stated_ "my"_ position on this (because it isn't relevant until I acknowledge it... yeah right  ;D); I believe I see where the misconception of this argument lies within the general population. First is the misuse of the word _militarization_, it has been established above that the military has been active in space for well over 50 years. As *Majoor* pointed out, it is a little late to question that one. The upset appears to lie within the weaponization of space, specifically, the use of nuclear materials.

The public doesn't appear to be fond of nuclear technology and is much less accepting of radiation issues; the threat of accidents is paramount in this regard. Whether the technology in question utilizes nuclear warheads, destroys others warheads, or is powered by nuclear fission, that is most likely the primary motivator of the fears of such technologies. As as example, look at the resistance against the launch of the _Cassini_ deep space probe; in particular, fears of the plutonium carried onboard for fuel irradiating the atmosphere if a launch failure were to occur. Until these fears can be allayed, this appears to be the primary resistance to the implementation of proposed defense systems.

So there is the task at hand. How best to develop a spaced based defense apparatus that is friendly to the environment and doesn't pose a risk to humanities quality of life, etc. Bear in mind, this is soley for the sale of the system to the public, i.e., taxpayer. The diplomatic issue is to have such a system without creating another arms race or returning to a "Cold War" environment and then there is the final matter of destabilizing the balances of international power through the abandonment of the *MAD* theory.


----------



## GAP (12 Jul 2006)

This just received: 

Missile Defense Element Successfully Flight Tested
By Steven Donald Smith      American Forces Press Service
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2006/20060712_5641.html

WASHINGTON, July 12, 2006 – The Missile Defense Agency successfully completed a developmental flight test of a major element of its ballistic missile defense system today at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., agency officials said.  

quote from inside article: 

The THAAD components include truck-mounted launchers, interceptor missiles, radars, and fire control and communications management. 

Today's test aimed to demonstrate that the THAAD system could follow a trajectory required to hit a target -- in this case, a Hera target missile -- just inside the earth's atmosphere. In doing so, it successfully locked onto, intercepted and destroyed the missile, officials reported

also: 

The mobile THAAD system can be airlifted to almost anywhere in the world within hours and is designed to defend against short-, medium- and long-range ballistic missiles during the critical final minute of flight, according to a Missile Defense Agency news release. Its ability to operate at higher altitudes provides more protection of larger areas than lower-tier systems, officials said. 



More on link


----------



## zipperhead_cop (13 Jul 2006)

Enzo said:
			
		

> So there is the task at hand. How best to develop a spaced based defense apparatus that is friendly to the environment and doesn't pose a risk to humanities quality of life, etc. Bear in mind, this is solely for the sale of the system to the public, i.e., taxpayer. The diplomatic issue is to have such a system without creating another arms race or returning to a "Cold War" environment and then there is the final matter of destabilizing the balances of international power through the abandonment of the *MAD* theory.



At such time a country launches a nuclear warhead at our continent, I for one will have absolutely no qualms about some space based weapon causing it to detonate over it's own country.  To whit; if you launch it, you are nuking yourself.  If that makes the people from that country a little glowy, then I guess it was a bad day to be in that country.  What sort of system do you think can be created?  A giant Mickey Mouse glove comes out of the clouds, gently pinches the missile and redirects it into the sun?  
And why are you worried about a "Cold War".  I think there are thousands of troops overseas that would love us to get into a cold war.  Sadly, most of the developed countries are all fairly actively engaged in hot wars.  
We are the *good guys*.  We are supposed to have the best toys and the soul-quailing advanced technology.  If one of these systems can take out an incoming ICBM, it would probably be able to take out missiles shot at our ships and overseas bases if need be.  
As for the arms race, when did that stop?  Seems to me that someone forgot to tell Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and China.  Maybe mention it as well to Germany and Russia who haven't seemed too shy to share their tech to those other countries.  
It seems to me common sense that if we have the tech advantage, we would forever press it and stay ahead of the rest of the planet.  I'm sure it will be a very warm and fuzzy kum-bay-ah moment when we all beat our swords into plowshares,  but until that point, we still have to be the Baddest MF's in the valley of the shadow of death.


----------



## 1feral1 (13 Jul 2006)

tamouh said:
			
		

> I think that scenario is far fetched. They could possibly sell it to a country, a region, a nation. but it is not the missile only that terrorists will need, they'll need the missile, the equipments to launch it, the fuel , the launch pads or vehicles, and a very well know-how. In addition to that, the US already has a system of early detection for any missiles around the world launched or prepared to launch.



Well Mr Tamouh, opinions are like arseholes everyone has one and thats mine. We all know whos side you are on. I grew up in the cold war years, air-raid sirens and drills as a child, and the US ATGM missle ring was just 11km south of the Saskatchewan border, and still is!

Should that US technology of shooting things down before it hits the CONUS be used, just take a small guess were it is going to land? One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.


----------



## Spr.Earl (13 Jul 2006)

Even if we did sign on the crap is still going too fall over our country even if the Yank's could shoot one down.
So why waste the money.
Fear mongering again I suspect.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (14 Jul 2006)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Even if we did sign on the crap is still going too fall over our country even if the Yank's could shoot one down.
> So why waste the money.
> Fear mongering again I suspect.



I'm no NBC sme, but wouldn't it be better to have chunks of plutonium crap falling down that could potentially be recovered and disposed of, as opposed to a big ass mushroom cloud, which is notoriously difficult to clean up after?


----------



## Enzo (14 Jul 2006)

How about this; we seem to agree that holding the high ground is a priority, but what about a little bit of old school? Interdiction after launch of a missile is a great technology to have and hopefully it works whenever it comes online (and also manages to negate the escalation of a misinformed nuclear retaliation by the superpowers, etc.). Continuing the diplomatic, economic and social pressures are all to be pursued in course. That leaves some good old fashioned espionage. Encouraging defection, planting misinformation, bribing individuals and a little bit of sabotage, etc. Anything wrong with that? Isn't the ability to disrupt operations by subterfuge a course to be quietly endorsed? Defeat the threat before it can actually become one, etc.

Seems that history has taught us that an over reliance upon technology has a habit of creating an atmosphere of overconfidence, and this can bite one's arse.


----------



## Centurian1985 (14 Jul 2006)

Unfortunately, our government doesnt work that way...at least not as far as we know...   ;D


----------

