Missile Defence: Canada says "No way!!"

[St Leo]

Ian Welsh | Who the **** do Celucci and Bush think they are?

Via the CP:
The United States will decide when to fire missiles over Canadian airspace whether Canada likes it or not, says America's ambassador. The blunt warning from Paul Cellucci came minutes after Prime Minister Paul Martin announced yesterday that he will not sign on to the controversial U.S. missile defence program.

Let me put this very clearly - **** you. If the US fires missiles over our airspace without our permission I will do everything I can to have Canada withdraw from NORAD and from all military cooperation with the United States - as well as never, ever again participating in any US military operations anywhere - not Haiti, not Afghanistan, not Serbia - nowhere until we have a full grovelling apology. Firing missiles over our airspace without our permission is an act of war - this is how you treat your allies? **** you Bush. **** you Cellucci and **** any Americans who think they have the right to do this.

Who the **** do you think you are?

Now - on a more reasoned note - odds are if this hadn't been said by Cellucci, Martin, or any future PM would have simply allowed tests over Canadian turf with a wink. Now, you've made it an issue, they may not be able to.

This is not going to play well in Canada. You're forcing Martin to go Anti-American. He has no choice now.

Idiots.

Oh - I'm also thinking Canada should divest itself of its US dollar reserves.

Now. As fast as possible.

God I'm pissed. And the irony is that I actually figured "hey why not sign on to missile defense - it'll never work, but they don't want any money from us and it'll make them happy." I was wrong - anyone who has this much contempt for Canada's sovereignty shouldn't be given anything that looks like approval for their policies.

Bush.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by 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?

NK is as far North as China, and KH already said Chinese missiles would go through Canadian airspace.

Several former SSRs who are possible states for Muslim fundamentalism have both the geography that would send missiles through Canada enroute to the US and the residule infrastructure for the lauch of ICBMs.

Oh, and I doubt Ivan would do **** if the next missile could hit Moscow.

[Agathon]

This military paranoia think really wrecks public policy.

For example, in New Zealand, a sizeable portion of people believe that Indonesia is out to get us, and we should have a better military to prevent this.

But they seem to have no answer to two facts.

(1) If the Indonesians wanted to invade New Zealand, we couldn't stop them even if we quadrupled our military spending.

(2) There is no evidence at all that the Indonesians have any interest at all in invading New Zealand.

In fact there's no evidence that anyone has any interest in invading New Zealand.

Same goes for Canada: the country has no state enemies. Hence its military is best served by being a coast guard combined with a small well-trained force that is available to complement the armed forces of others in UN interventions.

Welcome to the modern world of warlessness.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by 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.

You repeat that like a religious mantra. I admit that the reverse could be said about the proponents of missile defence, but please admit that all this is based on conjecture, not laws of physics.

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).

A recently diagnosed as fatally ill with 2 weeks to live Kim wanting to go out with a bang and his missiles might not be too accurate at the range.

Can you assure anyone that that scenario is impossible?

[Agathon]

NK is as far North as China, and KH already said Chinese missiles would go through Canadian airspace.

Tell me again why China would wish to start a nuclear war against the United States, which is their major trading partner and given the fact that their entire economic model is based on increasing foreign trade (esp. with the US).

Several former SSRs who are possible states for Muslim fundamentalism have both the geography that would send missiles through Canada enroute to the US and the residule infrastructure for the lauch of ICBMs.

But they don't have any nuclear weapons, and if they had them they would not want them for protection against the United States, but against Russia and China.

You're paranoid NYE.

Why not try actually thinking about what is realistic?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon
This military paranoia think really wrecks public policy.

For example, in New Zealand, a sizeable portion of people believe that Indonesia is out to get us, and we should have a better military to prevent this.

But they seem to have no answer to two facts.

(1) If the Indonesians wanted to invade New Zealand, we couldn't stop them even if we quadrupled our military spending.

(2) There is no evidence at all that the Indonesians have any interest at all in invading New Zealand.

In fact there's no evidence that anyone has any interest in invading New Zealand.

Same goes for Canada: the country has no state enemies. Hence its military is best served by being a coast guard combined with a small well-trained force that is available to complement the armed forces of others in UN interventions.

Welcome to the modern world of warlessness.

Well, Aggie. You may say that no one is ever going to hit Canada. Say I grant that, and I do as far as nuclear weapons are concerned. Also say I grant that every missile that could ever be launched against the US will be accurate and Canada would never be bothered.

What should Canadians do about the possibility of someone wanting to hit Seattle, Los Angeles, or Chicago with a nuclear weapon?

We are friends and neighbours. Wouldn't it be neighbourly to lend a hand that cost us nothing to prevent bad things happening to our friends?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

NK is as far North as China, and KH already said Chinese missiles would go through Canadian airspace.

Tell me again why China would wish to start a nuclear war against the United States, which is their major trading partner and given the fact that their entire economic model is based on increasing foreign trade (esp. with the US).

Several former SSRs who are possible states for Muslim fundamentalism have both the geography that would send missiles through Canada enroute to the US and the residule infrastructure for the lauch of ICBMs.

But they don't have any nuclear weapons, and if they had them they would not want them for protection against the United States, but against Russia and China.

You're paranoid NYE.

Why not try actually thinking about what is realistic?

You have all the qualities of the religious fanatic.

Lalalala, is your mantra.

[Agathon]

You repeat that like a religious mantra. I admit that the reverse could be said about the proponents of missile defence, but please admit that all this is based on conjecture, not laws of physics.

It's based on numbers. A rogue state would have very few nuclear weapons. For example, Iran will never have as many as Israel because they can't afford it for one.

The United States has tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and we know that accidental warnings and near launches have happened. In fact nuclear holocaust due to accidental launch has been much more likely than intentional nuclear war.

A recently diagnosed as fatally ill with 2 weeks to live Kim wanting to go out with a bang and his missiles might not be too accurate at the range.

OK. What about the rest of Kim's government, who aren't terminally ill? The fact of his illness sets limits to his power, since everyone else will just wait him out.

You seem to be under the impression that the North Koreans are completely irrational. Of course they aren't. It's a bad government, but one that like all governments is dedicated to its own preservation.

Kim Jong Il does not run North Korea by himself. Like every leader he needs to secure the co-operation of others who have their own interests.

And we all know why North Korea wants nuclear weapons - to deter the US from attacking it.

Can you assure anyone that that scenario is impossible?

Here you make the same mistake again. Policy is predicated on probabilities, not possibilities.

It is possible that an asteroid could hit the earth. Do we devote all our resources to preventing this from happening, or do we make a sober assessment of how likely it is and do the usual cost/benefit analysis?

All sorts of things are possible. But decisions are made by multiplying the probability by the expected utility of the outcome, and then comparing it to alternative courses which are evaluated similarly.

That is how rational policy is conducted, not by paranoia about what might happen.

[St Leo]

Re: Canadians struggle to find that safe spot on the fence

Originally posted by notyoueither
WTF is this supposed to mean?

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

It means that Canadians don't want to have anything to do with Bush. Once Americans clean up their government, maybe we'll consider it.

Also, another interpretation of the poll is that Canadians can be galvanized into overwhelming opposition to Star Wars once they know all the facts. After all:
- the "Shield" can barely shoot down one missile in the optimum circumstances. If North Korea ever makes a working ICBM, they could attack in cloudy weather and no one would be the wiser.
- China and Russia would use thousand upon thousands of ICBMs. Even if the "Shield" achieves 99% accuracy, that's still ten+ cities getting nuked.
- Since we are trying to hit a hurtling needle with speck of dust with a ten minute margin of error, we won't achieve 99% accuracy. It's a futile waste of money.
- the "Shield" is a billion and billion and billion dollar boondoggle. A billion there and a billion here and maybe they'll have plans for something that might work.
- the "Shield" would give monsters like Bush the illusion of invulnerability so that they'd exercise even less discretion when following belligerent tomfool fancies.

Maybe Martin averted being crushed by Layton in the next election by not backing the "Shield".

[Agathon]

What should Canadians do about the possibility of someone wanting to hit Seattle, Los Angeles, or Chicago with a nuclear weapon?

We are friends and neighbours. Wouldn't it be neighbourly to lend a hand that cost us nothing to prevent bad things happening to our friends?

No. Because the US already has a defence against this sort of thing - it's called MAD.

Missile defence is not about defence, it's about giving the US the power to conduct offensive operations against smaller nuclear powers without fear of nuclear reprisals. It makes war more likely, and not less.

Canada does not support that.

[Agathon]

You have all the qualities of the religious fanatic.

Lalalala, is your mantra.

Hardly.. I'm the one asking you to back up your paranoia with actual probabilities, rather than fairy tales about what might happen.

You have provided no realistic or likely scenario in which a state is likely to attack North America in a way that missile defence could stop.

Please supply such reasons.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What should Canadians do about the possibility of someone wanting to hit Seattle, Los Angeles, or Chicago with a nuclear weapon?

Advise the US to not waste money on porkbarrel nonsense. Buying a rock will not keep tigers away, even if it is a trillion dollar rock.

We are friends and neighbours. Wouldn't it be neighbourly to lend a hand that cost us nothing to prevent bad things happening to our friends?

We are lending our hand. Canada is investing in practical defenses like an active foreign service, not pipe-dream crap that no physicist not on the payroll of Uncle Sam military would take seriously.

And if the US thinks it's our friend, it should stop suckerpunching us.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

What should Canadians do about the possibility of someone wanting to hit Seattle, Los Angeles, or Chicago with a nuclear weapon?

We are friends and neighbours. Wouldn't it be neighbourly to lend a hand that cost us nothing to prevent bad things happening to our friends?

No. Because the US already has a defence against this sort of thing - it's called MAD.

Missile defence is not about defence, it's about giving the US the power to conduct offensive operations against smaller nuclear powers without fear of nuclear reprisals. It makes war more likely, and not less.

Canada does not support that.

MAD is no defence against an irrational opponent.

Can you guarantee that there never will be an irrational opponent or chaotic situation in some small state with nuclear weapons?

What do the Yanks get if they have to cash that guarantee in? Nothing? Then what are your words worth?

[St Leo]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Oh, and I doubt Ivan would do **** if the next missile could hit Moscow.

Ivan would nuke the **** out of any of their former slave satellites if they were ever in a position to threaten a hair on Moscow's collective head.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by notyoueither
What should Canadians do about the possibility of someone wanting to hit Seattle, Los Angeles, or Chicago with a nuclear weapon?

Advise the US to not waste money on porkbarrel nonsense. Buying a rock will not keep tigers away, even if it is a trillion dollar rock.

We are friends and neighbours. Wouldn't it be neighbourly to lend a hand that cost us nothing to prevent bad things happening to our friends?

We are lending our hand. Canada is investing in practical defenses like an active foreign service, not pipe-dream crap that no physicist not on the payroll of Uncle Sam military would take seriously.

And if the US thinks it's our friend, it should stop suckerpunching us.

It's their money St Leo. Who are we to say they shouldn't spend it?

What we are saying is that they should go **** themselves. Should a missile be incoming, they better damn well seek our approval before shooting it down.

How neighbourly is that? What are Yanks supposed to make of it?