Missile Defence: Canada says "No way!!"

[Odin]

Originally posted by Tingkai

I meant to say 100,000, a middle estimate.

That is still too high, more like 30,000, 40,000 at the most.

[Agathon]

Can someone please tell me which country has reason to fire missiles at Canada?

Other than the US or some other poor losers that Canada has whupped at hockey that is...

In which countries do angry mobs attend parades of ballistic missiles while chanting "Death to Canada"?

Who among the world's peoples are desperately worried about Canadian influence defiling their culture?

Does Kim-Jong-Il have a Maple Leaf shaped dart board? Or a voodoo doll of Anne Murray? Does he want to wreak revenge on Canada for spawning Avril Lavigne?

In short, who other than the US hates Canada? I can't think of a more inoffensive or popular nation than Canada with the exception of countries that no one will attack because no-one has heard of them.

I love it when right wingers tell us we need an army to protect ourselves, but they can never quite tell us who it is we must protect itself against.

Right now I'm having a hard time thinking of any credible threat against Canada.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Agathon
In short, who other than the US hates Canada? I can't think of a more inoffensive or popular nation than Canada with the exception of countries that no one will attack because no-one has heard of them.

To answer the question directly - Bin Laden. Hates us and has said as much in one of his videos.

I love it when right wingers tell us we need an army to protect ourselves, but they can never quite tell us who it is we must protect itself against.

Future threats.

Right now I'm having a hard time thinking of any credible threat against Canada.

I'm not at all surprised. Put some effort into it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Patroklos
All Russian and Chinese missiles would enter via the poles, as the Chinese house their missles in the extreme north. NK's would probobly clip British Colombia, depending on where in the US they are shooting at.

I thought missile defense was specifically slated as not being there to intercept Chinese missiles (this from US govt spokespeople).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oerdin


No one thinks a missile attack is very likely but if North Korea or China did launch a missile targeting a place like Chicago then the likely route would be to arch up towards Alaska, through Canada and then into the lower 48.

NK is at 38th parallel. ICBMs from them to anywhere (at least anywhere important) in the Western half of the US would enter on the US West Coast. If they were able to reach the East Coast (far beyond their capabilities for at least the next 20 years) then missiles would traverse large parts of Canadian airspace.

And see my previous statement about Chinese ICBMs. If this is intended to stop a Chinese nuclear attack then it's an even stupider idea and is a further argument against Canadian participation.

[Agathon]

I love it when this happens.

To answer the question directly - Bin Laden. Hates us and has said as much in one of his videos.

And how is he going to get his hands on ballistic missiles? Thwarting terrorist attacks is a police and SIS matter, it has little to do with the military.

Future threats.

Who?

You can't just predicate spending millions and millions of dollars on paranoia about the future. Who is likely to become a threat?

I'm not at all surprised. Put some effort into it.

Why don't you? The only "examples" you can come up with are patently ridiculous.

[Seeker]

"Future threats"

lol isn't that just a little paranoid? Obviously by created a vast and deadly machine that 'must' be used you make others paranoid...why not adopt the 'stealth nation' principle and just stay clear of foreign entanglements, like the first american president suggested?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Dissident
yep, it's a win-win situation for Canada.

Because of the way the earth is shaped, the shortest route is the northern route. Missiles will be going through Alaska (or north pole). Or if for some reason Europe attacks us- it will go through Greenland and Canada from that direction.

Likely rogue state sources are much further south than traditional ICBM capable powers. The route their ICBMs would take would be drastically different.

The missiles would tend to follow a great circle between endpoints with bias toward easterly travel (to gain rotation boost).

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


How to contradict yourself in one easy lesson.

No, it's a lesson in the difference between cooperation and submission. We don't refuse to cooperate in defense because they're american; we refuse to cooperate in certain defense initiatives which are bad ideas.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by 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!

Yup, you amply showed why you did not even qualify. Reject means you are below standard.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Seeker
"Future threats"

lol isn't that just a little paranoid? Obviously by created a vast and deadly machine that 'must' be used you make others paranoid...why not adopt the 'stealth nation' principle and just stay clear of foreign entanglements, like the first american president suggested?

What if a crude missile intended for San Fransisco goes off course? Does it avoid Vancouver because we are nice guys?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

No, it's a lesson in the difference between cooperation and submission. We don't refuse to cooperate in defense because they're american; we refuse to cooperate in certain defense initiatives which are bad ideas.

So bad an idea that the Liberal Minister of Defence was for it?

[Agathon]

What if a crude missile intended for San Fransisco goes off course? Does it avoid Vancouver because we are nice guys?

The probability of a missile that misses its target striking a populated area is very very low.

But who's going to fire a missile at San Fransisco anyway? You forget that nuclear weapons are about deterrence. No rogue state is going to engage in a first strike against the US because the cost would be too high.

The Soviet Union wouldn't do it and they had a much higher chance of "winning".

The probability of a rogue state launching at the US is considerably less than the probability of an accidental launch by the US itself.

Please give me a realistic scenario of a missile attack on North America that would pose a probable threat to Canada, and which missile defence could stop (it's already been admitted that it is useless against large assaults).

[St Leo]

Originally posted by 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...

Which Butt****istan would that be? Could you please point out a country on the map that would fire missiles over Canadian airspace into the US (without being invaded by Russia two minutes later, as Russia would get really pissed if someone Schlieffenned through it)?

Are we going to be nuked by Norway? Or Iceland? Or the frigging UK?

[notyoueither]

Canadians struggle to find that safe spot on the fence

http://www.canada.com/news/national/story.html?id=e481736e-639c-4402-8ef0-231e2358dd8d

Canadians open to missile plan
poll: 'Oppose it in practice, support it in principle'

James Cowan
National Post


February 28, 2005



The U.S. missile defence system is designed to thwart attacks from countries like North Korea. Canada has decided not to take part.

Most Canadians believe the country should help defend North America against missile attacks and cannot rely on the United States for protection, according to a National Post poll.

The new COMPAS poll suggests that while a slim majority opposes Canadian participation in the American missile defence program, public opinion remains highly unstable.

Overall, the results suggest Canadians could easily be persuaded to back the missile shield, said COMPAS president Conrad Winn.

"The Conservatives could almost certainly mobilize majority support for missile defence and make the party system a lot more competitive if they put their mind to it," he said.

"I don't think the country has firm opinions on this issue.''

The survey shows 54% oppose Canadian participation in the shield and 36% support it. But while opposing the shield itself, many respondents support the principles behind its creation.

For example, 56% said Canada should help protect North America against missiles, while 53% said it cannot be an independent country if it relies on the United States for protection.

Furthermore, 53% of those surveyed believe Canada needs to protect its cities because the country does have enemies and only 30% give credence to the argument that increased military spending will provoke others to attack Canada.

"They oppose it in practice and support it in principle," Mr. Winn said. "They oppose participation in missile defence but when you give them the arguments in favour of it, they embrace them.

"What you see here is a majority of Canadians subscribe to principles that would logically lead one to favour collaborating with the Americans on missile defence."

There is also a dwindling belief the United States would help defend Canada against an international attack, the poll suggests.

In April, 1998, 32% of respondents said they had "a lot of confidence" the Americans would protect Canada. By April, 2003, the percentage who gave the same answer fell to 19% and in the new poll, the number stands at 13%.

Only in Quebec is the opposition to missile defence unshakeable, according to the COMPAS poll. In that province, respondents reject the program by a ratio of three to one. Mr. Winn suggested Quebec has a long history of opposing military programs, dating back to the Boer War.

"What you have is a very strongly ingrained pacifist strain in Quebec and a very different opinion in the rest of the country," Mr. Winn said. He noted the survey also showed 31% of Quebecers believe Canada should not have a military, compared to 22% in the country as a whole.

A spokesman for Mr. Pettigrew declined to comment on the poll. "The Prime Minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Defence have repeated countless times in the House that the decision would be made in Canada's best interest and they have kept their word," Sebastien Theberge said.

Opposition to the missile shield has grown nominally over the past four years. A COMPAS poll in June, 2001, showed 38% of Canadian supported missile defence and 47% opposed it.

For the latest poll, COMPAS surveyed 508 individuals across Canada on Feb. 25 and 26. The results are considered accurate within 4.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

© National Post 2005

WTF is this supposed to mean?

Canadians like the principle but hate having to have anything to do with Yanks?