Missile Defence: Canada says "No way!!"

[Elok]

Originally posted by Tingkai
No democratic government would survive if it decided to launch an unprovoked attack against an insignificant country that posed no threat.

Sorry, but are you ironically refering to Iraq?

[Dis]

Originally posted by Tingkai
No democratic government would survive if it decided to launch an unprovoked attack against an insignificant country that posed no threat.

you're being silly now.

In most people's eyes, conventional war is considered acceptable, nuclear war is not.

[Patroklos]

That was his best attempt at wit, with predictable results.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by Dissident


you're being silly now.

In most people's eyes, conventional war is considered acceptable, nuclear war is not.

I know what you mean, but the US's system is different than most countries. Which isn't to say the US isn't democratic, I think thats silly.

But most democracies have a parliamentary system which have multiple parties holding seats. The majority party in the house usually doesn't have too huge of a lead on their nearest competitor, so if they slip up there's a good chance an election will be called and they will lose the majority, and thus the Prime Minister's office. I know if the PM of Canada and his party were to mess up horribly ala Iraq, there would be no way in hell he would be around next election as leader of the majority.

I think this is what Tingkai was getting at. Although correct me if I'm wrong.

[Kontiki]

To be fair, I took it he meant a nuclear attack, not just any attack. Perhaps I'm wrong, though.

[Agathon]

You seem to think the Yanks are a bunch of idiots most of the time.

Their record does not speak well, especially in the last 5 years.

Why do you bet so heavily there will never be any idiots elsewhere with a few crude super-V2s?

Because it won't make a difference. North Korea is developing nuclear weapons for one purpose only, to deter the United States from attacking it.

The problem is that no-one capable of putting a nuke on a medium range missile will ever find that it is in its interest to launch a pre-emptive strike on the USA. Anyone with that ability necessarily has too much to lose from retaliation.

For the umpteenth time, nuclear weapons are defensive in nature. You cannot use them for fear of retaliation.

The usual response to this is stories about lunatic dictators ignoring their own interests and accidental launches. The probability of an accidental launch is very very low, and the possibility of a serious lunatic getting his hands on nuclear weapons is even lower.

If Kim Jong Il went completely potty and ordered a launch on the US, he would be quickly removed from power by his own associates, as would Bush or any other leader. Every ruler requires the co-operation of subordinates and they always have the power to remove him.

If "terrorists" got their hands on a nuclear weapon (even though no-one has provided a reason why any state would spend billions on acquiring nukes, only to give them to an unstable bunch of lunatics) they wouldn't use a missile anyway.

Right wing paranoiacs need to get real and stop speculating about what is possible, start dealing with the real probabilities, and get rid of the insane assumption that their enemies are lunatics.

[Agathon]

What Bush is worried about is this (from Wikipedia)

Nuclear blackmail is a term used in nuclear strategy to refer to the threat of use of nuclear weapons to force an adversary to perform some action.

It is generally regarded as ineffective against a rational opponent who has or is an ally of someone who has assured destruction capability. In this situation if the opponent refuses to respond, then one's choices are either surrender or suicide. Hence during the Cold War, the explicit threat of nuclear warfare to force an opponent to perform an action was rare in that most nations were allies of either the Soviet Union or the United States.

The United States issued several nuclear threats against the People's Republic of China in the 1950s to force the evacuation of outlying islands and the cessation of attacks against Quemoy and Matsu. The unwillingness of the Soviet Union to respond to these threats was one of the major factors in the Chinese decision to develop an independent nuclear arsenal.

Interestingly, nuclear blackmail is considered most effective when the person making the threat is not rational and is willing to commit suicide. (See game theory). The prevention of these threats by irrational actors is the stated purpose behind the National Missile Defense program undertaken by President George W. Bush of the United States.

If missile defence is to be worthwhile, its proponents have to show that a suicidal gambit is sufficiently probable among those who have the means to deliver ballistic missiles to warrant the costs.

So far, no-one has shown that.

[Wezil]

Even if I were to accept your analysis of the situation today Agathon (and that is a big "if"), what about tomorrow? Or ten years from now? Maybe 20 years?

Can you see the future to KNOW this country will face no such threats in the future?

[Agathon]

Even if I were to accept your analysis of the situation today Agathon (and that is a big "if"), what about tomorrow? Or ten years from now? Maybe 20 years?

Can you see the future to KNOW this country will face no such threats in the future?

That's just my point. It is insane to make policy based on mere possibilities. You have to work out as best you can the probabilities.

Too many people say, "Well someone might....", but that is bad policymaking.

[Wezil]

Not something you would want to be wrong about. I prefer to err on the side of caution.

Beside, look at the R&D possibilities will will lose out on now.

[Kuciwalker]

Agathon - does it matter? WTF is wrong with letting us set it up in some godforsake place like Northern Canada?

[Dis]

"might"

Policy is based on what something "might" happen. This is why we have a tsunami warning system on the west coast.

But the probablity of that happening is far greater than someone launching a nuke at us. But that doesn't mean we should wait until it's too late to develop the technology.

I'm for developing the technology, I'm against these large scale plans to put up radar towers and such for something that does not work yet.

They need to spend some more time in the planning stages, before they start spending billions on hardware.

go back to the drawing board and come up with a better solution. That's all I ask.

[Agathon]

Agathon - does it matter? WTF is wrong with letting us set it up in some godforsake place like Northern Canada?

How about Canada swaps the Yukon for Florida?

Policy is based on what something "might" happen. This is why we have a tsunami warning system on the west coast.

I disagree. Policy is based on probability, not mere possibility.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Agathon

Agathon - does it matter? WTF is wrong with letting us set it up in some godforsake place like Northern Canada?

How about Canada swaps the Yukon for Florida?

Deal!

[techumseh]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Deal!

You keep the Cuban emigres, though.