Author Topic: Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada  (Read 130560 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline gryphon664

  • Member
  • ****
  • -135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 171
  • VVV
    • http://ca.geocities.com/imreglaser
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #50 on: November 15, 2004, 14:41:39 »
The question that everyone should be asking is that if Canada does sign a missile defence pact with the United states, how much say would the Canadian government/military have in the matter... That's the more important aspect of it... sure, it may be more comfortable to let the US take care of everything, all we have to do is sign a small scrap of paper saying that they can put missiles in Canada... and then US acts with Canada as Big Brother, dictating our forgien affairs, our affairs of the military, and the affairs at home... for the interest of "Security" next thing we know, we're told to wear the US flag on our shoulder, kids are saying the pledge of alliegiance, and we've become the 51st state.

Or, the total opposite... Mr. Martin goes to the bathroom and uses the contract for toilet paper... and then what? Mr. Bush goes on a Crusade against the "ignorant Canadians", boycotts, tarrifs, a new defended frontier, visas to travel to the states, expulsion from NATO, and from NAFTA, American carriers patroling our waters, and basically just stirring **** in Canada and internationally...

OK.. these are the two extremes... but unteathered, it's a real possibility... unfortunatly...

My take on the issue... who is dumb enough anyways to launch a Nuke? as soon as one gets launched.. good bye world... kablewy.... so do we really need MORE flying death as a deterrant?

Sorry... Both sides of the argument are valid... but the question still remains.. US missiles? or NORTH AMERICAN missiles? Ultimatly, my question is, will the President be able to push a button, launch these weapons without consulting the PMO? If yes, then I wholeheartedly disagree... We've had so much brilliant intellignece come out of the Bush Administration  ::) that I wouldn't trust it..

Vice versa? The PMO launching a missile off of Canadian territory without having approval from the US President... I like the thought better, but I don't know.. We've had flawed info before..

Both neccessary? or some joint command decision? Then by all means... go ahead... i guess.. i don't know where I stand 100% on this topic, but if i were to say yes, then this would be the only way that I would be happy accepting it...
Velox Versutus Vigilans!

Per Nuntium Ad Victoriam!

Offline Bruce Monkhouse

    Is a pinball wizard.

  • Lab Experiment #13
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 238,315
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,655
  • WHERE IS MY BATON?
    • http://www.canadianbands.com./home.html
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #51 on: November 15, 2004, 14:45:39 »
QUOTE,
My take on the issue... who is dumb enough anyways to launch a Nuke? as soon as one gets launched.. good bye world... kablewy.... so do we really need MORE flying death as a deterrant?

You either didn't really think about the way that would read, or you've been living in a cave for 3 years.
IF YOU REALLY ENJOY THIS SITE AND WISH TO CONTINUE,THEN PLEASE WIGGLE UP TO THE BAR AND BUY A SUBSCRIPTION OR SOME SWAG FROM THE MILNET.CA STORE OR IF YOU WISH TO ADVERTISE PLEASE SEND MIKE SOME DETAILS.

Everybody has a game plan until they get punched in the mouth.

Online Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 134,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,668
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #52 on: November 15, 2004, 15:08:07 »
Sometimes, I am in awe of the enlightenment that this board brings me; especially when insights into policy and strategy are dictated by those who have failed to grasp grammer and spelling.

 ::)
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline Canuck_25(Banned)

  • Banned
  • Member
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 210
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #53 on: November 15, 2004, 15:26:27 »
 The effectiveness and cost of "star wars 2" is a total joke. If the U.S. was willing to pay for all the expenses, then i would be on board.

Offline Ex-Dragoon

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 46,342
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,995
  • dealing with life not that active here anymore
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #54 on: November 15, 2004, 15:29:59 »
So Canuck_25 by your statement you believe that the US should solely shoulder the cost of continental defence? Whether the program works or not at least the US is making an attempt to protect themselves better. With your attitude its no wonder we have politicians like Carolyn Parrish in office.
I will leave your flesh on the mountains and fill the valleys with your carcasses. I will water the land with what flows from you, and the river beds shall be filled with your blood. When I snuff you out I will cover the heavens and all the stars will darken. Ezekiel 32:5-7
Tradition- Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid
Former RCN Sailor now Retired

Offline MissHardie

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 40
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 51
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #55 on: November 15, 2004, 15:32:17 »
The effectiveness and cost of "star wars 2" is a total joke. If the U.S. was willing to pay for all the expenses, then i would be on board.

As a (potential) junior partner, why shouldn't we contribute to the expenses? The purpose is to defend North America, and remember that Canada does make up a large part of that land mass. TANSTAAFL.

Offline rw4th

  • Kung Fu Hamster
  • Member
  • ****
  • 735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 239
  • Kung Fu Hamster
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #56 on: November 15, 2004, 15:37:37 »
Quote
Sorry... Both sides of the argument are valid... but the question still remains.. US missiles? or NORTH AMERICAN missiles? Ultimatly, my question is, will the President be able to push a button, launch these weapons without consulting the PMO? If yes, then I wholeheartedly disagree... We've had so much brilliant intellignece come out of the Bush Administration   that I wouldn't trust it..

Vice versa? The PMO launching a missile off of Canadian territory without having approval from the US President... I like the thought better, but I don't know.. We've had flawed info before..
This argument makes no sense. These are not offensive missiles. It is a defensive net meant to shoot down incomming ICBM. As for launch authority, it would probably reside in a NORAD style facility manned by Americans and Canadians.

As for people being "to smart" to use ICBMs; is it really that hard to understand that if a group willing to use children as suicide bombers ever gained control of a missile silo we would be facing just that scenario?

Offline gryphon664

  • Member
  • ****
  • -135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 171
  • VVV
    • http://ca.geocities.com/imreglaser
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #57 on: November 15, 2004, 16:08:09 »
First of all, i would like to appologize for my worstening spelling and grammar.. i'm overseas learning a forgein language.. and usually by the end of the day, i'm just so wiped out, that my grammar and spelling goes out the window..

This argument makes no sense. These are not offensive missiles. It is a defensive net meant to shoot down incomming ICBM. As for launch authority, it would probably reside in a NORAD style facility manned by Americans and Canadians.
If this would be the case, then I don't see any sort of problem with it

As for people being "to smart" to use ICBMs; is it really that hard to understand that if a group willing to use children as suicide bombers ever gained control of a missile silo we would be facing just that scenario?

I'm sorry.. i didn't even think of that type of situation...

point well taken
Velox Versutus Vigilans!

Per Nuntium Ad Victoriam!

Offline MikeM

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 652
    • Lightfighter Tactical
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #58 on: November 15, 2004, 16:31:05 »
The effectiveness and cost of "star wars 2" is a total joke. If the U.S. was willing to pay for all the expenses, then i would be on board.

A perfect example of another "lets hitch a free ride with the US" Canadian. The US cannot pay for everything, I fully support their efforts for continental defense, and we must throw in our fair share to the pot in order for it to succeed.

Offline Dogboy

  • The pride of publick school sistom.
  • Member
  • ****
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 198
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #59 on: November 15, 2004, 16:56:10 »
War has changed now days and the role of a ICBM is becoming out of date

the war on terror is a asymmetrical war and a missile def. will not help at all

the Rogue nation defence is leaping at best

besides N-Korea their is no really nation with ICBMs that has anything to gain from using them agents Canada or the us for that matter


and what would N Korea gain from it ?

war is about gaining something from using force who will gain anything from attacking Canada or the US  the only thing you'd gain is the total decimation of you nation
Iv got a learning disability. Iv had to deal with it for years you can deal with it for a min.

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,517
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #60 on: November 15, 2004, 17:01:30 »
Why do you think BMD is ICBM centric? That is only one scenario for the technology.

Offline MissHardie

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 40
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 51
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #61 on: November 15, 2004, 17:13:58 »
Dogboy,

War has indeed changed, but you contradict that first statement by assuming with your last that war only occurs between nations and that only nations can benefit (or not) from the waging of war.  You'll notice, especially upon reflection of the past ten years or so, that this belief is simply not true.  Nowadays we have the notions of War on Terror and War on Drugs floating around, and while these are semantic fallacies, as war is conflict between two or more parties, the concept remains the same: destroy thine enemy.  The important point is that this enemy no longer has to be a state! The enemy is no longer necessarily a recognized entity under international law.

Why are ICBMs becoming out of date? While we've seen a rise in asymmetrical warfare, this doesn't mean conventional warfare is now old-fashioned and useless.

I'd like to see some evidence before I believe North Korea is the only nation with ICBMs with something to gain from attacking North America.


whiskey601,

I think most people focus on ICBMs as the purpose behind BMD because that's the most publicized facet.

Offline rw4th

  • Kung Fu Hamster
  • Member
  • ****
  • 735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 239
  • Kung Fu Hamster
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #62 on: November 15, 2004, 17:24:42 »
Quote
Why do you think BMD is ICBM centric?
Agreed, but we'd be arguing semantics. How about using the expression "incoming missile" instead? My point is that the system is defensive; they aren't looking to place offensive ICBM silos in Canada.

Quote
the role of a ICBM is becoming out of date
What about all those silos in former USSR states or Russia itself for that matter? Out of date or not the potential for destruction is there if the wrong people get control of them. This is not about wining a cold-war type scenario; this about preventing an act of terror using some kind of missile as the delivery mechanism.

Offline Acorn

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 852
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #63 on: November 15, 2004, 22:38:51 »
Is it cost effective? Maybe if one believes that no price is too great for security. That's not reality though.

I hate to say it, but my rudimentary "risk-benefit" analysis doesn't support the concept with the info I have. You (all supoorters) need to provide more convincing arguments that it is worth the expense.

Acorn
"Liberal societies cannot be defended by herbivores. We need carnivores to save us." - Michael Ignatieff, The Lesser Evil

Offline IT_Dude_Joeschmo

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 2,091
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 799
  • Getting 1's and 0's to flow...
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #64 on: November 15, 2004, 23:01:05 »
After reading all the posts on this thread and having read MANY posts on other threads about the same topic. One thing comes to mind I haven't seen mentioned yet at all.

If we put these defensive missle bases in Canada, that would make targets in Canada for any nation(s) that went to war with the US and intended to even do a non-nuclear cruise missle/ICBM attack. HIGHLY unlikely, but regardless, in war, those bases/properties would be high-asset targets.

Suppose it doesn't make a big difference since the only time we've been attacked on our own land is by the US and our own people back in the William Lyon Mackenzie days!

:P

Just a thought+point but it would make more targets in our borders. Just like the Niagara Falls power generating stations Adam Beck 1+2... Germans had spies in Canada back in WW2 (Maybe ww1 as well) who were making maps of the area+targeting info.

Joe
"When I retire, I want to become a gay Hollywood actor, they always make more money!"... My old boss's plans ;)

ACISS-IST's, look here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/239432422884449

PS> It's not a trap!

Offline MissHardie

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 40
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 51
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #65 on: November 15, 2004, 23:43:36 »
Hasn't Canada been a potential target for agressors since we first agreed to the concept of continental defence after WW2? Since we implemented the DEW line? Since our decision to make our navy interoperable with the USN?  Since our economies have so neatly and tightly integrated? They are our natural allies, and we theirs, if ever the North American continent was attacked.  I find it highly unlikely that Canada would simply sit back and watch the US be attacked in the event of agressive action, and the moment we step in to help them we also are a target.  Unless, of course, we were at war with the US, but that would be a suicidal policy and nigh unthinkable under the current circumstances.

In pulling away from the BMD system and refusing to play ball with the Americans, we are in effect saying that they're on their own, that we really don't mean it when we say we're in for continental defence, that we'll sit back and watch them take a beating while simultaneously expecting their aid should anything warlike happen to us.  I know we've heard it a thousand times, but the Canadian-US relationship is the tightest in the world.  That should mean something to us, something along the lines of responsibility and reciprocity.  Canada is trying to assert itself in a changing world, yet really doesn't have a defined foreign policy - lately it seems that all we're doing is distinguishing ourselves from the Americans.  While perceived as the right thing to do by many citizens on a national level, we're really not doing much to define our place in the world, aka the international level.

There are many issues flying around regarding the BMD system, but I suppose being for or against depends on which you think is more important: our fledgling national identity and the 'prestige' of saying NO to the Americans or realizing that for better or worse our lot is with the US and no matter how hard we try to change that all we'll do is hurt ourselves by going in opposite directions.  There really is no third option under our present circumstances.  We are a middle power nation, and as such our choices, while there, are more limited than if we were a great power or acted like on on the international scene as we did in the 1950s - which earned us great international reknown and allowed us input into the important international decisions.   Why was Canada regarded as such a great nation after WW2? Worthy of respect and being solicited for opinions?  Because we pulled our weight - more than pulled our weight - during the war.  I see it as idealism versus realism, honestly.  We all want to be a separate and distinguishable entity, but is that really possible to the extent that most people seem to think is necessary for Canada to survive as a nation and not merely an American satellite? Personally I think we're doing just fine in that regard, although I'm interested in hearing other opinions.

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,402
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #66 on: November 15, 2004, 23:52:13 »
After reading all the posts on this thread and having read MANY posts on other threads about the same topic. One thing comes to mind I haven't seen mentioned yet at all.

If we put these defensive missle bases in Canada, that would make targets in Canada for any nation(s) that went to war with the US and intended to even do a non-nuclear cruise missle/ICBM attack. HIGHLY unlikely, but regardless, in war, those bases/properties would be high-asset targets.

Suppose it doesn't make a big difference since the only time we've been attacked on our own land is by the US and our own people back in the William Lyon Mackenzie days!

:P

Just a thought+point but it would make more targets in our borders. Just like the Niagara Falls power generating stations Adam Beck 1+2... Germans had spies in Canada back in WW2 (Maybe ww1 as well) who were making maps of the area+targeting info.

Joe

Here's another way to look at it....

Without BMD, the United States must rely on Mutually Assured Destruction.

Ergo, if an Al Qaeda sleeper gets into a Pakistani silos and decides to launch a missile, which of the following options would you like them to have:

Option One - No BMD
With no ability to defend themselves the ICBM will land in Seattle killing several hundred thousand people.   Two Choices - Nuke Pakistan - creating a great impetus for a world Jihad, or do nothing - and give Al Qaeda the a victory 10x greater than 09/11 reinvigorating its recruiting efforts worldwide.

Option Two - BMD
Shoot down the incoming missile first, then figure out what the hell happened before nuking anyone in response.

Run the hypothetical in your head again based on this model for both Pakistan and North Korea and try to tell me how BMD is a bad thing.....

Thanks,



Matthew.    :salute:
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Canuck_25(Banned)

  • Banned
  • Member
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 210
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #67 on: November 15, 2004, 23:57:45 »
As a (potential) junior partner, why shouldn't we contribute to the expenses? The purpose is to defend North America, and remember that Canada does make up a large part of that land mass. TANSTAAFL.

 Yes contribute to something that hasnt proved its effectiveness. The americans have money to waste, we dont.

Offline MissHardie

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 40
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 51
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #68 on: November 16, 2004, 00:13:48 »
Yes contribute to something that hasnt proved its effectiveness. The americans have money to waste, we dont.

Yes, we should contribute to something that hasn't proved its effectiveness or yes, there is such a thing as a free lunch? I'm sorry; you're being unclear.

Why do you say the Americans have money to waste? Just because they lavishly spend money on things that many Canadians don't happen to agree with as being important doesn't mean they're necessarily throwing money away.  Besides, they're the ones running the deficit while we're the ones enjoying a surplus.  Who has the means to invest? I realize there is a vast difference in scale between the American and Canadian budgets and thus the amount of money involved, but really, does this mean that even with our surpluses we're still behind the game?  While the Americans, running a deficit, are ahead and thus have the money to 'waste' on a defensive project?  I'd look closer to home for examples of wasting money.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 187,705
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,434
  • Freespeecher
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #69 on: November 16, 2004, 00:50:53 »
We have a lot to potentially contribute and a lot to gain if we come on board. Canada has developed a "micro satellite" called MOST which is about the size of a barracks box and weighs @60kg. This was hand built for about $10 million Cdn, not much for space hardware. (It is a space telescope. See http://www.astro.ubc.ca/MOST/ )

We could tool up an assembly line for small satellites to act as part of the BMD system. The Americans get cheap spaceborn sensors and other systems, and we get access to the same spaceborn systems for our own uses (long haul satellite comms, space recce, SIGINT...). Seems like a very sweet deal for us, if we can put aside the ideology, and even if we accept that BMD isn't practical or effective (an unproven assertion, by the way).
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline gryphon664

  • Member
  • ****
  • -135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 171
  • VVV
    • http://ca.geocities.com/imreglaser
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #70 on: November 16, 2004, 05:02:53 »
My question is: If a terrorist launches a nuclear missile, and the US counteracts it with BMD, then wouldn't the ICBM still detonate?

Velox Versutus Vigilans!

Per Nuntium Ad Victoriam!

Offline Guardian

  • Member
  • ****
  • 100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 204
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #71 on: November 16, 2004, 06:27:14 »
No, it won't.

Nuclear devices have to be triggered prperly to detonate. They aren't point-detonating weapons like Arty High Explosive rounds; they have to be "set off." If BMD intercepts a nuclear-tipped ICBM, the kinetic energy of the two projectiles hitting each other (each of them traveling well over the speed of sound) will completely destroy both missiles.

The only danger is that some nuclear material will be released by the impact (and likely spread around). Think of that nuclear-powered Soviet satellite that crashed in Northern Canada during the Cold War (can't remember when, sorry) - we had troops crawling all over the tundra looking for radioactive waste.

Which, incidentally, is a reason to jump on board. I'd rather be inside the US perimeter than outside of it - that way, Canadian participation can ensure that if a missile is intercepted, it happens over the Pacific (or at least some barren stretch of tundra) rather than over Calgary or Winnipeg.

Offline SHELLDRAKE!!

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 405
  • BIG GUN GO BOOM
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #72 on: November 16, 2004, 06:36:19 »
IMHO this equates to saying, why do we need an armed forces if the Americans are right next door to save us.This defence shield thing is raising the same problems as when they tested cruise missiles over Canada.Maybee Canada should be thinking about this more seriously as a defence issue but it sounds (IMHO) like more defence avoiding to me
"Artillerymen believe the world consists of two types of people; other Artillerymen and targets"-unknown

Offline Dogboy

  • The pride of publick school sistom.
  • Member
  • ****
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 198
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #73 on: November 16, 2004, 12:41:04 »
Here's another way to look at it....

Without BMD, the United States must rely on Mutually Assured Destruction.

Ergo, if an Al Qaeda sleeper gets into a Pakistani silos and decides to launch a missile, which of the following options would you like them to have:

Matthew.    :salute:

thats a valid consern and chance of hapining
verey good point
Iv got a learning disability. Iv had to deal with it for years you can deal with it for a min.

Offline rw4th

  • Kung Fu Hamster
  • Member
  • ****
  • 735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 239
  • Kung Fu Hamster
Re: Mixed Messages: Missile Defense Program in Canada
« Reply #74 on: November 16, 2004, 16:39:44 »
<rant on>
The whole â Å“we don't want to make Canada a targetâ ? argument is a crock of ****. Canada has been and is a target. Acts of terror against Canada have already been planned (plans for attacks were discovered by troops in Afghanistan if I recall correctly) and some have already been carried out (namely attacks on Synagogues). The lib press usually does not report them as acts of terror however, but as hate crimes to reinforce their deluded belief that there are no terrorists in Canada

Furthermore, the whole â Å“violence is not the wayâ ? or â Å“violence doesn't solve anything argumentâ ? has always been used by intellectual elitist who are too cowardly to stand behind their morals, draw a line in the sand, and say NO. These idealists have been around since the dawn of time and their unwillingness to act, even when faced with proof, is responsible for some of history's most disturbing atrocities (e.g. see the UN, it's staffed is replete with these types of people).
</rant off>