Missile Defence: Canada says "No way!!"

[notyoueither]

Would you be willing to wait for the results of the Royal Commission?

[Mordoch]

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.

This might be technically true, although who knows, but its not very practical.

The only still operational subs North Korea has that might have that range is the Romeo Class. This extremely obsolete submarine is generally believed to have a max speed of 13 knots, so it will take a very long time to to reach its destination. Since North Korea lacks maps of most of the Pacific Sea floor, it has a good chance of running into something at full speed along the way. (You can't use active sonar and have any realistic chance of being undetected.)

Going at its max speed with its weak batteries, it will have to run its engine a large portion of the time. This makes a huge amount of noise and makes the submarine very easy to detect. If nothing else, as it gets close to the West Coast for instance, US passive sonar nets are certain to pick it up. The odds of the US Navy letting it get right next to a significantly sized US city without sinking it are increadibly remote.

The time delay and lack of control once the mission is launched is also a huge drawback that makes this option not that desirable.

Trying to sneak it in a transport might be slightly more practical, although still with the last drawback, but its still not likely to work. North Korea does not trade with the US so simply sending a transport straight for North Korea to the US will likely get it intercepted by the US Coast Guard or Navy well at sea. You might take out a single ship with the nuke blast, but that's it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by 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?

DPRK is not making ICBMs. Or rather, the missiles they tested weren't ICBMs.

[Kuciwalker]

They're capable of hitting the US, which is on another continent. Ergo, they are inter-continental.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
They're capable of hitting the US, which is on another continent. Ergo, they are inter-continental.

According to Kuci-logic, a small rocket shot from the eastern-most tip of Russia to Nome, Alaska is an ICBM.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Dissident
you're being silly now.

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

It wouldn't take much to change that. It is a fact that in the U.S., politicians do not pay a price for launching an unprovoked attack on another country. The Republicans killed millions in Southeast Asia and got re-elected. They provided extensive and open support for the dirty wars in the Central and South America in the 80s and got re-elected. About 400,000 Iraqi civilians have died during the US occupation of Iraq, and Bush got re-elected.

A majority of American voters have historically indicated that a) they do not care much about how many foreigners are killed by their government, b) they will remain loyal to their government regardless of what it does; and c) they will accept any excuse that justifies their government's actions. (and this may very well be a universal attitude rather than a specifically American trait)

The U.S. was attacked by terrorist who were mainly from Saudi Arabia and this attack was then used as an excuse to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks. It is highly likely that if a Muslim terrorist group exploded a nuke bomb in the U.S., a majority of the American people would support using nukes against other potential threats, like North Korea.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
DPRK is not making ICBMs. Or rather, the missiles they tested weren't ICBMs.

You don't happen to be in Nagano right now, do you?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Odin


According to Kuci-logic, a small rocket shot from the eastern-most tip of Russia to Nome, Alaska is an ICBM.

Don't plan on any holidays in the Aleutians is my advice.

And definitely stay away from Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlotte Islands.



I steer clear of intercontinental ballistic missiles from Asia by not visiting the northernmost extremities of Australia. You never know what Indonesia or East Timor might be planning to send over.

[optimus2861]

Originally posted by Tingkai
The Republicans killed millions in Southeast Asia and got re-elected.

A war Democrats started, in case you forget. The Gulf of Tonkin was Johnson's doing.

About 400,000 Iraqi civilians have died during the US occupation of Iraq, and Bush got re-elected.

I call bull**** on that number. Even the oft-quoted 100,000 figure is the absolute high end of a range of varying analyses that put the number of civilian casualties somewhere between ten and one hundred thousand, yet nobody on the left ever states the uncertainty of the figure, instead repeating it like a mantra.

Source on the 400,000, please.

The U.S. was attacked by terrorist who were mainly from Saudi Arabia and this attack was then used as an excuse to invade Iraq, which had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks.

Aside from the 50,000 American troops in Saudi Arabia for the purpose of containing Iraq at the behest of the UN -- you know, those "infidels in the holy land" Osama *****ed about? And are you seriously saying that the United States should've invaded Saudi Arabia instead? All those criticisms of "creating more terrorists" and "destabilizing the region" would've been heard ten-fold louder if they'd tried to do that, not to mention that not even the United Kingdom would've gone along with them. There was no case for war with the Saudi Arabian government, no decade of flaunting international sanctions and a cease-fire agreement, no history of attempting to acquire bio/chem/nuclear weapons, no starting wars with its neighbours, no use of chemical weapons on its own people, no setting oil fields aflame; all you've got on them is the shady relationships they have with al Qaida affiliates, and since the Iraq invasion and the removal of American troops, the regime has begun to crack down on those terrorist groups. Meanwhile the Iraqi people have held elections and are trying to build a better society for themselves while we sit here and tut-tut the whole thing like some moral superior *******s.

What the hell has happened to Canada? When did we become so afraid to fight for a better future and help others do the same and instead decide to keep our heads down, hope nobody wants to bother us, and thumb our noses like a bunch of juveniles at our neighbour and best friend?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
You don't happen to be in Nagano right now, do you?

Are you one of the rejects?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Tingkai

About 400,000 Iraqi civilians have died during the US occupation of Iraq

TIN-FOIL HAT ALERT! WE HAVE A TIN-FOIL HAT ALERT PEOPLE! EVEYONE STAY CALM.

[Patroklos]

About 400,000 Iraqi civilians have died during the US occupation of Iraq

Were there three of four Normandy scale invasions I didn't hear about?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Odin
TIN-FOIL HAT ALERT! WE HAVE A TIN-FOIL HAT ALERT PEOPLE! EVEYONE STAY CALM.

[Drake Tungsten]

Are you one of the rejects?

Of course. I'm not retarded, so obviously my application to participate was rejected. It's a damn shame; I could be there right now if only I had claimed that North Korea didn't have ICBMs!

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by optimus2861
A war Democrats started, in case you forget. The Gulf of Tonkin was Johnson's doing.

But it was the Republicans who started bombiing Cambodia w/o telling the American public and even after the bombings were exposed, the Republicans still won the next elections.

Originally posted by optimus2861

I call bull**** on that number. Even the oft-quoted 100,000 figure is the absolute high end of a range of varying analyses that put the number of civilian casualties somewhere between ten and one hundred thousand, yet nobody on the left ever states the uncertainty of the figure, instead repeating it like a mantra.

Source on the 400,000, please.

My mistake, a typo. I meant to say 100,000, a middle estimate. The high range is 194,000 according to the Lancelet.

But, my point still stands regardless of whether the number of civilians killed was 10,000, 100,000 or 400,000. It was simply not an issue in the last American elections. A majority of Americans showed no concern about the number of civillians killed in a war started by their government.

How many Americans here have posted regret about the number of civilians killed? Compare that number to the number of Americans here who argue that the war was justified.

There is nothing to indicate that Americans would strongly oppose the use of nuclear weapons by their government.

Originally posted by optimus2861
And are you seriously saying that the United States should've invaded Saudi Arabia instead?

No, I think the Americans should have focused on capturing Bin Laden rather than invading a country that had nothing to do with Bin Laden.

Originally posted by optimus2861
What the hell has happened to Canada? When did we become so afraid to fight for a better future and help others do the same and instead decide to keep our heads down, hope nobody wants to bother us, and thumb our noses like a bunch of juveniles at our neighbour and best friend?

Are the 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians better off? Are the children who have lost their parents better off?

I thank the gods that the majority of Canadians are not a bunch of demogues spouting off trying to justify an unprovoked invasion. It's all very easy for people to sit in their comfortable homes and talk about fighting for a better future, but it's a far different thing to be living in a war zone.