Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada

[Disillusioned]

I can imagine what is sounds like to Ukraine right about now. How about Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc.?

That's not western Europe.

 

[a_majoor]

If the U.S. had the ability to shoot down a Russian or Chinese missile, so you think they would wait until Canada gave them permission to shoot it down? Do you think they would wait until it was over American territory if we said no? :

I'd much rather be in on the decision making process and see the intercept as a fireworks show in the western Pacific then suddenly be showered with radioactive debris when the BMD interceptor knocked the enemy missile down over Calgary.

So far, Disillusioned, your posts seem to combine the negativity of "it can't be done" with the reflexive "If the Americans are doing it, it must be bad". I will grant there are a lot of technical issues to be worked out, and BMD V1 probably will be very leak prone indeed. Regardless, our neighbours are taking serious steps to defend themselves (as is their right and duty), and are generous enough to offer to shelter us as well. All we have to do is step up to the plate and provide some help, either technical, operational (changes to NORAD) or perhaps offering some territory for sensors, like the old DEW line, or some combination of the above. We need to make an informed decision, and fully understand what rejection of the BMD shield would mean to us. If your next door neighbour was becoming alarmed about break ins and suggested you pool some resources with him to establish a neighbourhood watch, install extra lights etc. would you sit back and mock his efforts?

As for your other posts, what possible relevance does the use of DU have in this thread? You routinely use much more dangerous material on a daily basis: the Ni-Cad rechargeable batteries in your electronic devices (if you don't have Ni-Cads, good on you, but I'll bet there are lots at your school/place of work/ the bus you ride in) and I'm sure you take the same sensible precautions that armourers using NON-RADIOACTIVE DU munitions do (The CF uses DU shells on Canadian warships equipped with the PHALANX anti-missile system).

Nuclear weapons? The French exploded lots of nuclear weapons in the Pacific with very rudimentary safety and environmental controls as late as the 1980s, when everyone "knew better", and the former USSR exploded the largest nuclear weapon ever (60 Megatonnes) in the open air over the arctic, perhaps you should investigate how other nations have been using the power of nuclear weapons before issuing blanket condemnations.

 

[McG]

Depleted uranium may not be a nuclear weapon, but it is quite radioactive,

Ah, no.  It is infact not "radioactive".  It is actually a stable form of uranium.

 

[48Highlander]

Depleted uranium may not be a nuclear weapon, but it is quite radioactive, which doesn't exactly dissipate overnight. I wouldn't want to be a . soldier near where the stuff was used.

    You obviously didn't read the article.

    DU is so mildly radioactive as to be harmless.  You get exposed to more radiation every time your doctor takes an x-ray.  In fact, it's chemical properties are more harmfull than any radiation it releases.  If you ingest DU you're more likely to get metal poisoning than radiation poisoning.  And if you ingest tungsten or lead instead of DU, you'll still end up getting metal or lead poisoning, so don't bother trying to argue that it should be replaced with a different substance.  Do a little research or at the very least read the info I provided.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Thats enough, Disillusioned. How about some studying time?

 

[Acorn]

(The CF uses DU shells on Canadian warships equipped with the PHALANX anti-missile system).

Actually, I don't think they do any more. Not that your point about the radioactivity of DU is incorrect. It's also used in industry as counter-weights for various applications, because it's very dense (more so than tungsten) and a cheap by-product of the nuclear power industry. A piece of DU in one's front pocket is not as dangerous as a Bic lighter.

That being said, there are lots of issues with DU that are better discussed on another thread.

Acorn

 

[JBP]

Some news+updates on the BMD thingy...

Not sure if this is old or new...

I watched on TV this morning a recorded interview with Paul Martin saying, and I quote directly, "There will be no missles on Canadian soil", he continued on to say it's not in the interest of Canadians to have BMD on Canadian soil, he further added that, "I'll address the issue of BMD when Canada is ready, I won't be dictated too!"...

I am surprised, he seems pretty adament about this issue now. It seems from his words that indeed there will be no missle bases on Canadian soil. Has he given this response to George W Bush directly yet??? I suppose that's what Bush gets for not talking about opening the border up to beef!

Just kidding.... I was surprised though I must say and happy myself, given my stance on the BMD (I don't like it, to be simple).
Joe

 

[Infanteer]

Do most people oppose Ballistic Missile Defence because of its military qualities, or because it is an American system?

I wonder, if BMD was an initiative between the Philippines and Canada, would people think it was a great thing?

 

[a_majoor]

The former USSR deployed the "Galosh" ABM system in the 1970's, and have kept it in operation even to this day. It is suspected some Former Soviet (now Russian) AA missile systems are in fact "dual purpose" and capable of performing ABM intercepts, similar to the US Patriot SAM system. China has some of these systems, and I would not be surprised to hear they are working on a BMD system of their own.

The overwhelming volume of protests against the deployment of Russian and Chinese BMD systems...whats that? Only silence from the  "anti-war" crowd?

This situation is very similar the the great "nuclear missile scare" or the 1980's, when President Ronald Reagan began deploying accurate nuclear weapons (Pershing 2 IRBM and the Ground Launched Cruise Missile) in response to the Soviet deployment of SS-20 and similar generations of IRBM's to threaten Europe. Despite the fact the USSR had deployed the weapons first, and in fact deployed far more than the Americans ever contemplated, the "anti-war" and "leftist" crowds would only condemn the US systems as "agressive" and "destabilizing", creating a "threat to peace". The asymetrical nature of the protests then (as now) would indicate the true reason to oppose US systems is to limit the range of options the US and by extention, the West, can undertake.

As for Mr Martin, we can just pour syrup on him for breakfast. The man simply is waffling between the Anti-American public sentiment in Canada, and the very real and urgent requirment for the United States to bolster their security posture. Martin's choices? Loose support of the Anti-American crowd and watch votes go to the NDP, or P/O the US congress and watch our economic access dry up and take down the economy.

 

[McG]

The PM has been saying that he does not think BMD will work and so Canada does not want any part in it.

U.S. missile-defence test fails
Associated Press
POSTED AT 5:19 AM EST  Wednesday, Dec 15, 2004 
GlobeandMail.com

Washington â ” An interceptor missile failed to launch early Wednesday in what was to have been the first full flight test of the U.S. national missile defence system in nearly two years.

The Missile Defense Agency has attempted to conduct the test several times this month, but scrubbed each one for a variety of reasons, including various weather problems and a malfunction on a recovery vessel not directly related to the equipment being tested.

A target missile carrying a mock warhead was successfully launched as scheduled from Kodiak, Alaska, at 12:45 a.m. EST, in the first launch of a target missile from Kodiak in support of a full flight test of the system.

However, the agency said the ground-based interceptor â Å“experienced an anomaly shortly before it was to be launchedâ ? from the Ronald Reagan Test Site at Kwajalein Atoll in the central Pacific Ocean 16 minutes after the target missile left Alaska.

An announcement said the interceptor experienced an automatic shutdown â Å“due to an unknown anomaly.â ?

The agency gave no other details and said program officials will review pre-launch data to determine the cause for the shutdown.

The military is in final preparations to activate missile defences designed to protect against an intercontinental ballistic missile attack from North Korea or elsewhere in eastern Asia.

Wednesday's test was to have been the first in which the interceptor used the same booster rocket that the operational system would use.

In earlier testing of tracking and targeting systems, which critics derided as highly scripted, missile interceptors went five-for-eight in hitting target missiles.

 

[Infanteer]

Imagine the world dismissed the Apollo program as a "useless and technologically unfeasible waste of money" after the Apollo 1 disaster.

Infact, why are we even bothering with space exploration - it is obvious that with the destruction of the Columbia and the Challenger (among many satellite and probe failures) that NASA should be disbanded....

 

[Acorn]

Bill Gates is alleged to have once said something like "640k of RAM is all anyone will ever need."

The guys who say "that'll never work" are usually the ones forgotten by history.

Acorn

 

[Infanteer]

The guys who say "that'll never work" are usually the ones forgotten by history.

Hopefully we'll forget about Carolyn Parrish sooner then later, eh?

 

[Acorn]

Who?

 

[a_majoor]

Interesting link on BMD and the political aspects (actual paper is 11 pages long)

James Fergusson, Canada and Ballistic Missile Defence: What we know, don't know and can't know!

http://www.fedcan.ca/english/pdf/fromold/breakfast-fergusson1104.pdf

 

[RCA]

Question:  For those missiles coming over the North Pole. Where will they be intercepted, and would matter whether we are members of BMD or not?

As for the analogy of the two houses, it is always preferable that the shoot out with the burglars happens in the other guys house.

 

[DJL]

"Well, boys, I reckon this is it - nuclear combat toe to toe with the Roosskies......."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4052847.stm


"......we must not allow... a mine shaft gap!"  

 

[Acorn]

There should be some sort of regulation.

"501.b.iii any discussion involving nuclear weapons and capabilities, including defence from same, shall be declared complete at the first point a 'Dr. Strangelove' quote is invoked."

Acorn

 

[Glorified Ape]

I don't see much point in spending god knows how much money on a system to protect against an ever-decreasing type of threat. If nuclear attack comes, it's not likely to come from another state and even less likely to come in the form of a missile. The cliche "suitcase bomb" is far more likely, imo. States, be they North Korea or Britain, tend to guard their nuclear weapons quite closely, as they're their primary assurance of security while also being their greatest potential liability if they should be stolen or clandestinely sold to groups willing to use them. The money that would be spent on the program would be better spent on beefing up intelligence services and domestic security, not to mention our armed forces, as far as I'm concerned.

That's to say nothing of the detrimental effect nuclear defense programs have on MADD. If a country believes itself capable of surviving (acceptably) a nuclear attack, it's that much more likely to be willing to launch one, the US included. I was under the impression that this is what the ABM treaty was intended to guard against. As someone else here said, arms races are always happening in response to the "arms race" argument against the shield. Agreed, though that hardly means we should encourage or initiate them.

The program would only heighten the tension between the US and other semi-friendly nuclear countries, not to mention the downright unfriendly ones. The more the US and North America take initiatives to secure the continent from ballistic attack, the more these countries are going to worry about aggressive foreign policy stemming from our sense of security and take measures, be they weapons programs or diplomatic opposition, to counter us. In essence, I think that in this case the absence of security is a better means of achieving security.

I read an interesting article regarding the issue of nuclear weapons and rogue states that seems apropos... here's an excerpt (a bit long, but worth the read):

Excerpt from Kenneth N. Waltz's article "Peace, Stability, and Nuclear Weapons"

"Despite the variety of nuclear motivations, an American consensus has formed on why some states want their own weapons - to help them pursue expansionist ends. "The basic division in the world on the subject of nuclear proliferation," we are authoritatively told,"is not between those with and without nuclear weapons. It is between almost all nations and the very few who currently seek weapons to reinforce their expansive ambition." Just as we feared that the Soviet Union and China would use nuclear weapons to extend their sway, so we now fear that the likes of Iraq, Iran, and Libya will do so. The fear has grown depsite the fact that nuclear capability added little to the Soviet Union's or China's ability to pursue their ends abroad, whether by launching military attacks or practicing blackmail.

The fear that new nuclear states will use their weapons for aggressive purposes is as odd as it is pervasive. Rogue states, as we now call them, must be up to no good, else we would not call them rogues. Why would states such as Iraq, Iran and North Korea want nuclear weapons if not to enable them to conquer, or at least to intimidate, others? The answer can be given in one word: fear. The behavior of their rulers is often brazen, but does their bluster convey confidence or fear? Even though they may hope to extend their domination over others, they first have to maintain it at home.

What states do conveys more than what they say. Idi Amin and Muammar Qaddafi were favorite examples of the kinds of rulers who could not be trusted to manage nuclear weapons responsibly. Despite wild rhetoric aimed at foreigners, however, both of these "irrational" rulers became cautious and modest when punitive actions against them seemed to threaten their continued ability to rule. Saddam Hussein further illustrated the point during, and even prior to, the war of 1991. He invaded Kuwait only after the United States gave many indications that it would acquiesce in his actions. During the war, he launched missiles against Israel, but they were so lightly armed that little risk was run of prompting attacks more punishing than Iraq was already suffering. Deterrence worked once again.

Many Westerners write fearfully about a future in which the Third World countries have nuclear weapons. They seem to view their people in the old imperial manner as "lesser breeds without law." As ever with ethnocentric views, speculation takes the place of evidence. How do we know that a nuclear-armed and newly-hostile Egypt, or a nuclear-amred and still-hostile Syria, would not strike to destroy Israel? Yet we have to ask whether either would do so at the risk of Israeli bombs falling on some of their cities? Almost a quarter of Egypt's people live in four cities: Cairo, Alexandria, El-Giza, and Soubra el-Kheima. More than a quarter of Syria's live in three: Damascus, Aleppo, and Homs. What government would risk sudden losses of such proportion, or indeed of much lesser proportion? Rulers want to have a country that they can continue to rule. Some Arab country may wish that some other Arab country would risk its own destruction for the sake of destroying Israel, but why would one think that any country would be willing to do so? Despite ample bitterness, Israelis and Arabs have limited their wars and accepted constraints placed on them by others. Arabs did not marshal their resources and make an all-out effort to destroy Israel in the years before Israel could strike back with nuclear warheads....

Despite North Korea's exposed position, Americans especially have worried that the North might invade the South and use nuclear weapons in doing so. How concerned should we be? No one has figured out how to use nuclear weapons except for deterrence. Is a small and weak state likely to be the first to do so? Countries that use nuclear weapons have to fear retaliation. Why would the North once again invade the South? It did so in 1950, but only after prominent American Congressmen, military leaders, and other officials proclaimed that we would not fight in Korea. Any war on the peninsula would put North Korea at severe risk. Perhaps because the South Koreans appreciate this fact more keenly than Americans do, relatively few of them seem to believe that North Korea will invade. Kim Il Sung at times threatened war, but anyone who thinks that when a dictator threatens war we should believe him is lost wandering around somwhere in a bygone conventional world. Kim Il Sung was sometimes compared to Hitler and Stalin. Despite the similarities, it is foolish to forget that the capabilities of the North Korea he ruled in no way compared with those of Germany and the Soviet Union under Hitler and Stalin.

Nuclear weapons make states cautious, as the history of the nuclear age shows. "Rogue states," as the Soviet Union and China were once thought to be, have followed the pattern. The weaker and the more endangered a state is, the less likely it is to engage in reckless behavior. North Korea's external behavior has sometimes been ugly, but certainly not reckless. Its regime has shown no inclination to risk suicide. This is one good reason why surrounding states counseled patience. "

 

[Infanteer]

I don't see much point in spending god knows how much money on a system to protect against an ever-decreasing type of threat. If nuclear attack comes, it's not likely to come from another state and even less likely to come in the form of a missile. The cliche "suitcase bomb" is far more likely, imo. States, be they North Korea or Britain, tend to guard their nuclear weapons quite closely, as they're their primary assurance of security while also being their greatest potential liability if they should be stolen or clandestinely sold to groups willing to use them. The money that would be spent on the program would be better spent on beefing up intelligence services and domestic security, not to mention our armed forces, as far as I'm concerned.

I think the ballistic missile spin-offs will be worth the research.  The research can spawn into better THAAD systems to protect against ballistic missiles aimed at soldiers in the operational setting - we have a hard enough time hitting a Scud, and that is nothing but a souped up V-2.

That's to say nothing of the detrimental effect nuclear defense programs have on MADD. If a country believes itself capable of surviving (acceptably) a nuclear attack, it's that much more likely to be willing to launch one, the US included. I was under the impression that this is what the ABM treaty was intended to guard against. As someone else here said, arms races are always happening in response to the "arms race" argument against the shield. Agreed, though that hardly means we should encourage or initiate them.

The program would only heighten the tension between the US and other semi-friendly nuclear countries, not to mention the downright unfriendly ones. The more the US and North America take initiatives to secure the continent from ballistic attack, the more these countries are going to worry about aggressive foreign policy stemming from our sense of security and take measures, be they weapons programs or diplomatic opposition, to counter us. In essence, I think that in this case the absence of security is a better means of achieving security.

As has been elaborated before, I don't see how a system to deal with a handful of missiles at most factors into theories of MAD.  The Chinese and the Russians both know that they can overwhelm the system.  I think a far bigger issue (with regards to MAD) is the continuing existence of Launch-on-Demand forces.  Having an itchy trigger figure with these things isn't very good.