Missile Defence: Canada says "No way!!"

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Deal!

all sales are final fyi.


please sign here ________________.

[Kuciwalker]

X

[Odin]

I am for the most part for a missle defense system, I would prefer to get rid of all nukes, but that is a long shot, missle defense is the next best thing. My only qualm is that what they are working on now is a worthless, ineffective POS designed to line the pockets of defense contracors (Ike must be rolling in his grave) rather than keeping North America safe from a loony dictator, or prehaps a possible Taliban-clone in Pakistan, in the future.

[DanS]

I challenge you Canadians to find an American that really cares about this, by the way. Even our ambassador couldn't muster more than a scratch of the head and a shrug of the shoulders.

Strange Canadians...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
I disagree. Policy is based on probability, not mere possibility.

First, military planning and policy is often based on the possible. This is because you often won't have time to develop a countermeasure once a possible threat in general becomes 'probable' from a specific source.

Second, anyone who has even a passing knowledge of human history who put the 'probability' of a rogue launch of a nuclear weapon at 0 is an imbecile.

The more these weapons proliferate (both warheads and missiles) the more likely it becomes that someone will use one in anger. We no longer live in a world with two super powers governed by groups who could be counted on to behave rationally for the preservation of their friends, families, and nations. Pretending that the future will go as the past did is folly. If you want to know what sorts of catastrophes such thinking can lead to, have a look at French military history 1820 to 1940.

[Drake Tungsten]

Why would a "rogue state" (whatever that is) go the length of trying to make ICBMs, when far simpler methods of delivery are available?

I don't know. Why is North Korea making ICBM's when far simpler methods of delivery are available?

As for the topic of the thread, who cares? It's not like we really need Canada anyway. Not that I approve of free-riding, but we're a decent country and shooting down missiles headed for Canada would be the right thing to do. Maybe...

[Agathon]

I don't know. Why is North Korea making ICBM's when far simpler methods of delivery are available?

Because what other method would they use?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The more these weapons proliferate (both warheads and missiles) the more likely it becomes that someone will use one in anger.

Missiles don't proliferate, not in the sense that a terrorist organisation could get their hands on one. It's not something you can put in the back of a pickup truck and drive away.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Agathon

I don't know. Why is North Korea making ICBM's when far simpler methods of delivery are available?

Because what other method would they use?

submarine, and have a couple of disposable guys dropped off in San Fransisco bay. and to detonate it manually.

although the warhead may be too heavy to move manually. And you wouldn't be able to use a crane without suspician.

an even easier solution is just to detonate the nuke inside the sub while it's surfaced . and yes they do have diesal subs that can reach the west coast.

no missile shield can protect against that.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


Missiles don't proliferate, not in the sense that a terrorist organisation could get their hands on one. It's not something you can put in the back of a pickup truck and drive away.

The technology to blow up cities with a single warhead, and the means to deliver them via missiles, is proliferating among states.

We are, of course, speaking of states and not terror cells.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Dissident


submarine, and have a couple of disposable guys dropped off in San Fransisco bay. and to detonate it manually.

although the warhead may be too heavy to move manually. And you wouldn't be able to use a crane without suspician.

an even easier solution is just to detonate the nuke inside the sub while it's surfaced . and yes they do have diesal subs that can reach the west coast.

no missile shield can protect against that.

And it's not a viable strategy in the midst of a crisis. It would take weeks to put into motion and realise the target.

An ICBM takes max 2 hours from decision to large kaboom.

Which one do you think your favorite martian would prefer?

[notyoueither]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/02/25/martin-missile.html

U.S. must not intrude on Canadian airspace: Martin
Last Updated Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:26:39 EST
CBC News
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Paul Martin said Canada must be consulted before the U.S. decides to fire on missiles that enter Canadian airspace, despite Ottawa's refusal to participate in America's missile defence program.

"I don't think that anyone expected that there would be any other finger on a button than the Americans," Martin said Friday, a day after his decision not to join the program.

"But in terms of Canadian airspace, yes we would expect to be consulted. This is our airspace. We're a sovereign nation. And you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission," Martin said.

Martin also rejected claims by U.S. ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci that Canada has given up its sovereignty by saying no to the missile plan.

Cellucci had said the U.S. was surprised by Martin's decision, saying "we simply cannot understand why Canada would, in effect, give up its sovereignty, its seat at the table, to decide what to do about missiles that might be headed towards Canada."

"We did not give up sovereignty," Martin responded. "We affirmed sovereignty."

Martin repeated that the nearly $13 billion allocated for the military in Wednesday's budget proves Canada is committed to taking its share of responsibility for national and international security.

"I think the other important thing is the other affirmation of sovereignty is the very large defence budget, which is designed to protect our coast, borders and Arctic sovereignty and also make sure we can play a role in the world. That is also an affirmation of our sovereignty," he said.

When he first took office, Martin suggested he supported joining the plan, saying he believed Canada should be at the table when it comes to any discussion of the defence of North America.

"I think our sovereignty depends on us being at the table when discussions are taking place about the defence of North America," Martin said in 2003, before becoming the Liberal leader.

... or we'll huff and we'll puff and we'll... insult you an additional time.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yeah, I don't think we'll be doing that...

[notyoueither]

Sir, there is an inbound missile from But****istan, what should we do?!

Where is it?

It just passed Alaska and seems headed for Seattle!

Well, let's see if we can get the PM on the line so we can ask permission to shoot it down...

What do you mean the PM has gone fishing and can't be reached?!!

...

Aside from the fact that not even the PM has the individiual authority to authorise any such thing at the drop of a hat. He needs cabinet or parliamentary approval to wipe his ass if the wiping involves a decision being made.

[Drake Tungsten]

To be nice, I think we should ask for permission to shoot down any missiles heading towards Canada.