Missile Defence: Canada says "No way!!"

[notyoueither]

It's over there, behind the curtain you continually refuse to admit exists.

[Agathon]

I haven't seen it. Please repeat it for my benefit. I so wish to be enlightened by you.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by notyoueither


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?

To which you said,

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.

Do you have a ****ing clue? MAD only works between roughly equal states. NK has no MAD vis-a-vis the US.

If the US were so inclined, NK would be a smoking hole on the face of the globe before dear leader had any idea what was up. He wouldn't have a chance to change his shorts, let alone check his missile.

How is BMD supposed to protect the US against retaliation from a smoking hole?

BMD is intended to protect the US (and Canada if we let it) from a rogue launch of a small number of weapons. How hard is it for you to understand that? Is there some specially shaped brick that could get that through to you?

Can you actually formulate an argument that doesn't borrow from the Globe and Mails knee jerk reactions to the Yanks?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Do you have a ****ing clue? MAD only works between roughly equal states. NK has no MAD vis-a-vis the US.

Correct, but you miss the point entirely. The point is, since the US has a huge stockpile of nuclear warheads, DPRK will not want to fire nuclear warheads at the US due to fear.

Originally posted by notyoueither
If the US were so inclined, NK would be a smoking hole on the face of the globe before dear leader had any idea what was up. He wouldn't have a chance to change his shorts, let alone check his missile.

How is BMD supposed to protect the US against retaliation from a smoking hole?

I don't know what you are trying to get at, but it is not an argument that supports the "missile shield."

Originally posted by notyoueither
BMD is intended to protect the US (and Canada if we let it) from a rogue launch of a small number of weapons. How hard is it for you to understand that? Is there some specially shaped brick that could get that through to you?

You have been harping the same broken tune for years, NYE.

The facts are:

1. The "missile shield" doesn't work.
2. No "rogue nation" (whatever that means) has ICBM or verified nuclear capability.
3. Most importantly, as it was pointed out repeatedly, there are far simpler ways to deliver nuclear warheads into the US.

[notyoueither]

Then why are your so opposed to BMD, UR?

Why not let the Yanks quietly waste their money while you snicker?

And then I could inot why you are wrong on other points, but those are good questions to start with.

[Agathon]

Do you have a ****ing clue? MAD only works between roughly equal states. NK has no MAD vis-a-vis the US.

It has effective deterrence. How many American Presidents would consider the price of two or more major American cities worth regime change in North Korea?

Anyone who did, would end up hanging from a lamp post after it was all over.

And the US has effective deterrence over North Korea, since it could destroy that country.

Result: peace of a sort.

If the US were so inclined, NK would be a smoking hole on the face of the globe before dear leader had any idea what was up. He wouldn't have a chance to change his shorts, let alone check his missile.

Why isn't it? It's not as if they don't want to. One reason is that NK could flatten Seoul in a matter of hours, and another is that NK now has effective deterrence.

BMD is intended to protect the US (and Canada if we let it) from a rogue launch of a small number of weapons.

From who? According to your logic, not North Korea, since it would be a "smoking hole in the ground".

Again, from who? You show me a single regime in which it is in the interest of to conduct a small scale nuclear attack on the USA.

How hard is it for you to understand that? Is there some specially shaped brick that could get that through to you?

It would be if you actually provided a reason that this is likely to happen. So far you've said that someone could go nuts. This demonstrates astonishing ignorance of the power structures even in tyrannical regimes.

And you still haven't shown why anyone wants to nuke Canada.

Can you actually formulate an argument that doesn't borrow from the Globe and Mails knee jerk reactions to the Yanks?

I don't read that right wing rag.

You must do better NYE.

And UR was right on the rest.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Agathon

Do you have a ****ing clue? MAD only works between roughly equal states. NK has no MAD vis-a-vis the US.

It has effective deterrence. How many American Presidents would consider the price of two or more major American cities worth regime change in North Korea?

Anyone who did, would end up hanging from a lamp post after it was all over.

And the US has effective deterrence over North Korea, since it could destroy that country.

Result: peace of a sort.

How desirable is that peace if NK tanks were parading through Seoul? What sort of peace is that?

BMD is intended to protect the US (and Canada if we let it) from a rogue launch of a small number of weapons.

From who? According to your logic, not North Korea, since it would be a "smoking hole in the ground".

Again, from who? You show me a single regime in which it is in the interest of to conduct a small scale nuclear attack on the USA.

Why do you insist on ignoring that regimes of all sizes are vulnerable to instability, and smaller ones especially?

How the hell do we know who is in control during the dark hours when NK changes leadership?

We didn't know what was going on in large parts of the nuclear armed Soviet Union for significant periods of time.

Uncertainty and nukes do not make good partners.

How hard is it for you to understand that? Is there some specially shaped brick that could get that through to you?

It would be if you actually provided a reason that this is likely to happen. So far you've said that someone could go nuts. This demonstrates astonishing ignorance of the power structures even in tyrannical regimes.

And you still haven't shown why anyone wants to nuke Canada.

And you continue to ignore that it isn't Canada Candians need be concerned about. The Americans are our friends, no matter how much that burns your shorts, and we should not turn a blind eye to their legitimate desires for safety.

It might be a stupendously stupid idea that will never work. Fine! It is their stupendously stupid idea and their stupendous amounts of money that will pay for the pink elephant.

But telling them we don't care if they burn down is not a way to keep friends and build bridges.

[Agathon]

How desirable is that peace if NK tanks were parading through Seoul? What sort of peace is that?

Um... why aren't they already? The answer is because the costs to North Korea of invading South Korea are too high. American retaliation would be one. Kim Jong Il knows this.

He already has nuclear weapons and missiles that can reach the US coast. Why hasn't he done so already? Now would be the perfect time.

Why do you insist on ignoring that regimes of all sizes are vulnerable to instability, and smaller ones especially?

Instability usually means factional infighting. Why would that lead to an attack on a foreign country? What would there be left to fight over but a smoking hole in the ground if said nation attacked the US.

How the hell do we know who is in control during the dark hours when NK changes leadership?

Whoever it is has their own interests. Whoever it is probably doesn't have dying in a thermonuclear explosion as one of them.

We didn't know what was going on in large parts of the nuclear armed Soviet Union for significant periods of time.

Good example. Nothing happened, did it?

Uncertainty and nukes do not make good partners.

It's our uncertainty, not theirs.

And you continue to ignore that it isn't Canada Candians need be concerned about. The Americans are our friends, no matter how much that burns your shorts, and we should not turn a blind eye to their legitimate desires for safety.

You assume that their desires are legitimate. There appears to be no reason for BMD other than to give the US leverage over countries it doesn't like.

That unilateralism is against everything Canada stands for.

It might be a stupendously stupid idea that will never work. Fine! It is their stupendously stupid idea and their stupendous amounts of money that will pay for the pink elephant.

Their stupendous idea may well start yet another arms race. It will waste resources that would be better spent elsewhere.

But telling them we don't care if they burn down is not a way to keep friends and build bridges.

Nor is demanding that your "friends" do everything you say, especially when they have a moral objection to your unilateralist foreign policy and can clearly see that your missile "defence" program is offensive in nature.

[notyoueither]

Aggy, you sound like all those who said that there could never be another war after 1918.

Well, guess what? **** happened that nobody ever figured. It was insane, yes, but it happened.

Insanity happens. The Yanks want an assurance against it. It is decidedly unfriendly to tell them to go stuff themselves on the issue.

[notyoueither]

And actually, a majority of Canadians seem to be in favour of North American defence, just not with the Yanks.

What's that sound the idiot makes?

Ebabblebabblebabblebabble...

If you can make any other sense of it, I'll welcome the scenario.

[Agathon]

Aggy, you sound like all those who said that there could never be another war after 1918.

Not this tired, fallacious crap again.

Well, guess what? **** happened that nobody ever figured. It was insane, yes, but it happened.

Let me explain this to you very slowly.... when people bring up examples like this, they make the mistake of assuming that the people in the original situation could have known better. Sorry... they couldn't.

It is always rational to go with the preponderance of evidence than to assume some wild and unproven scenario - even if the wild scenario comes to pass.

Insanity happens. The Yanks want an assurance against it. It is decidedly unfriendly to tell them to go stuff themselves on the issue.

Again, you have provided nothing other than some vague Hollywood scenario that someone might go nuts. If you want to base your knowledge of international relations on James Bond movies, that's your problem.

And you forget the costs - an arms race for a start.

I'd tell them to **** themselves anyway. The US government are worthless ****heads who belong on a gallows.

[Geronimo]

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.

just to be quite clear. when did the US sucker punch Canada?

1812?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Agathon

MAD is no defence against an irrational opponent.

The existence of an irrational opponent (meaning someone irrational enough to use nuclear weapons in a first strike) is extremely unlikely in a nation capable of affording or constructing nuclear weapons. Both require a large degree of central organization and diffusion of power from one individual. In the case where a leader went mad and ordered a first strike, it is far more likely that he would be removed by his subordinates than that the strike would take place.

There is really no such thing as a dictatorship - there are only oligarchies of various sizes.

Can you please point to a country where this is actually likely.

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

I don't have to. You are the one wanting to make the change, you have to show how this is likely or likely enough to warrant doing something about it.

"Mental people might come to power", is not an answer.

if that were all true it seems odd that nobody in Iraq deposed Saddam.

[Seeker]

I think the 'suckerpunching' comment referred to Celucci's recent statements and Rice's recent petty snub.

[notyoueither]

I don't get how we should see her snub as petty when it is the lives of (potentially) millions of Americans that we just told the US we don't give a damn about.