Canada doesn't have to be involved with this venture or spend any money on it, they will benefit from it by default.

Let's say we get it working with high accuracy percentages.

Let's say a missile gets launched to North America and goes wayward, heading somewhere in Canada.

We would shoot it down, regardless of where it is going.

So...I would say it is a win-lose situation. Canadians win if we can get the system working. They get the benefits of the added defense with none of the cost--plus, Martin can save face and maintain popularity.

However.........there seems to be a few things sitting on the table that Canada would like from the U.S.

Cows and timber come to mind. These things might fall under the "lose" column for Canada.

Who knows.

The problem is that the further away the missile bases are, the longer the flight time. The longer the flight time, the greater the chances of missing. The greater chances of missing, the higher the chances of leakers, and with the extended flight time, that means you don't have an opportunity to re-engage the target. Also, your coverage will be much more pourous. You also have to remember that these things are generally not volleyed off en masse. it's far better to have a series of "picket" style bases, one every so often, rather than have ye olde "One big base" that's expected to cover a huge geographic area. The defense costs are higher, but the odds of the enemy taking out a great amount of your defensive capability with a single strike goes down drastically too. Ideally, you'd have bases located so that the first line would have at a minimum double coverage (every flight path could be hit by at least two bases) with higher concentrations along the most likely ICBM pathways which would be expected to get the highest number of inbounds in a real attack. Then you'd have a second line with similar coverage a couple of hundred k back, to take out the ones that got through. The thing to remember is that it only takes one leaker to create a huge tragedy, so you provide defense in depth. If any given missile has a 25% chance of taking out the inbound, you'd want to have the ability to target it with AT LEAST 6 missiles, originating from multiple well-defended bases.

I read somewhere that something like 65% of Canada's population lives within a very short distance (a few miles) of the US border. That fact ALONE puts Canada in the crosshairs. A country launching a full-scale nuclear strike isn't going to give a shit about the fallout from a strike on the US poisoning citizens of another country that just happen to live close to the US. And they'd target Canadian assets as a matter of course, lest those Canadian assets be used by elements of hte US military. Example: They'd target airfields to keep those US aircraft that were not destroyed from using Canadian air bases, and they'd target Canadian ports to prevent their use by US Navy elements.

I'm wondering if you ever studied the Maginot line. At the time of it's building, it was the cat's ass. We're talking state of the art. Pop-up arty, heavily fortified, could be resupplied completely underground, yadda yadda yadda. The only problem with it was that it only ran along France's border with Germany, not France's borders with the Low Countries, since France was on good terms with them. Consequently, the Germans ran through the Low Countries and rendered the French's entire defense strategy obsolete. By leaving a weak spot, France caused their friends and allies who lived in the weak spot to be invaded and overrun, simply because they didn't want to offend them. If the French had built the Maginot line along the projected and well known path of the Schlieffen (sp?) Plan (simplified, it's that the folks on the right flank of the thrust should have their cuffs in the channel) that the Germans dusted off after it ALMOST worked in WWI, the Low Countries would most likely not have been invaded in the manner that they were, and France might not have fallen.

If you present an enemy with a weak zone in your defense, THAT's where they're going to attack, since one of the bedrock principles of military strategery (I love that Bushism) is that you try to match your strength to the enemy's weakness, rather than his strength (Remember Kursk?). Canada seems hell-bent on making their entire nation into that weak spot. And given the reality of the kind of situation that this system is designed to deal with, which city do you think the US is going to use it's ABMs to defend? An American city, or a Canadian city? With the bases on the northern borders of Canada, the US has no choice but to engage EVERY missile, since it's not definite where each missile is targeted. But projecting coverage into Canada when the US is itself under attack? Any commander who tried to do that would be relieved on the spot, because he'd be wasting assets for a non-mission purpose.

How about missile bases in Alaska? It's pretty far out into the perimeter, especially the Aleutians. Or is it too close to the Russians for comfort.

Otherwise I would think that is the ideal location and compromise. Perfect location, non-intrusion on Canadian soil, and closer to the "action" to ensure more accuracy.

Funny, all this talk of ABM has reminded me of the old 80s arcade game "Missile Command".

Personally, I don't think China's a real threat. They have nothing to gain by attacking, well, anyone including Taiwan. It's all for show. Still, better prepared....

As I see it, missle defense is about a lot of things but one of the main things is about China... and not, as some have suggested in preparation for war.

The US is trying (and will likely succeed) in goading China into an arms race similar to the one they had with the USSR. The administration is concerned about the growing economic and military precense that China represents. They are laying the ground work for a new arms race in a hope that they can bankrupt China the way they did the Soviets...

As such, I don't see a need for Canada to become involved. We have better things to spend out money and political currency on than another arms race...

(and don't get me started on the inevitable weaponization of space)

is everything old new again? 70's fashion and music is in style... now back to goold old fashion arms race... just what I thought we grew out of. isn't it ironic?

If anyone does any bankrupting, it will be China. All they have to do is shut off the money spiggot they have left open for so long as we borrowed ourselves into unmanageable debt.

The day China shuts off the borrowing and calls on all our notes, the dollar nosedives to the worth of it's paper and we face the reality of a possible Argentin-ish bankruptcy.
Both China and the Saudi Royal Family (through trillions invested in american stocks) have us by the balls that way.

I mean on the other side. Argentinian military technology (including those missiles that where used against the British navy) seemed a bit more advanced than what the Iraqi's had.

Then again, what do I know.

Sorry, I should have put a sarcasm tag on there...

So I did a bit of research.

USA >>>>> Canada
UK, Russia >>> Canada
Japan, France > Canada
Germany ~ Canada
Egypt, NZ, Saudi, SK, Mexico, Argentina < Canada
Iran <<< Canada

One of USA's carriers displaces more than the 15 largest ships in the Canadian navy put together. Aircraft carriers are fooking huge man(tm).

The above information was based off quickly reading the 'surface combatant' tonnages.

4 of the above nations have an actual aircraft carrier: USA, UK, Russia and France (in that rough order).

"Bitch Slap"
 

link

I love this article. It is everything that needs to be said and Condi should be ashamed for misusing the office of State (she delayed a trip to Canada for several days to show her distaste for Canada not signing onto ABM).
Canada is our closest neighbor and our paths are intimately intertwined. Childish antics that equate to holding your breath and stomping your feet to show displeasure are exactly the reason that many didn't want her to take the role and illustrates the huge step back we took from when Colin stepped down.

Too bad he couldn't have written that while he was holding office...

Anyone know where these anticipated missiles would be shot down? Over what country?

Presumably over the Pacific Ocean, I would think.

I believe we tested the Minutemen over the PAcific - Launched from California and supposed to hit over the South Pacific somewhere.

Anyways, I think an ABM installation in Alaska would be fine. It looks closer to the "hot" area anyways so Canada as a location would be moot. Look at a map: it appears (to me anyways) that Alaska would be the ideal location for an ABM network.

The shortest distance for the ICBMs to travel from Korea would be over the pole... going over the Pacific is much further.

Yes, I agree. I should have clarified:

Alaska is in the flight path of a "polar" missile route. At least that is what I see on the map.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...h_america.html

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...ps/arctic.html

Article

Was Bush asking for something from Canada that he couldn't get support for in the US? Was Canada' rejection of joint missile defense more the result of a diplomatic blunder on our part than an unwillingness to cooperate with Americans? If we had been more specific in our requests, would we have received a different response?

absolutely YES YES YES.

to answer your question modestly.

This whole thing is a moot point. If Heaven forbid a ICBM should be launched at Canada or somehow gets thrown off course and heads to Canada, the USA would do what it can to protect Canada. That's just who we are. We are a compassionate people who won't let our neighbors to the North suffer because the ruling party would rather spend the money on their healthcare debacle or any other govt program.

You really are broken record, you know? :lol:

I don't get the debacle part. nore the any other govt programme part. I understand the whole friendship thing, because it's obvious that our two countries are the closest and best of friends.

There's none of that sycophantic toadying that the Brits (sorry brits, I mean Blair) have developed to an art. Nore is there the boorish disdain that other Euros (Merci und danke shoen) have adopted. Our is a relationship that is close, honest, and durable.

Of course, when the shoe is on the other foot, we have proven ourselves friends in need in the past. At considerable risk too (as Ken Taylor and his staff can readily attest).

We've knocked heads in the past, but like PET alluded, you are the elephant to our sleeping mouse. so it is to be expected.

I knew you'd get a kick out of that one ;)

You know, somehow I understand what you are saying. Americans are a compassionate and a passioned people. So are Canadians. But your administration isn't showing much in terms of patience since the inception of the "with us or against us" slogan to the masses.

Sometimes the U.S just acts, in a split of a second in rebuttal, with such an 'in your face' attitude of condemnation of any sort not to their liking. Good grief. The rest of the world gonna sign on to be led down the garden path by the U.S and be it's honored "allies"?

We are at a defining moment in Canadian history as well the world's and Canada is vying for a global position to take herself into the future and it's betting on the diplomatic, peaceful and respectful reputation in common with the rest of the world. If that means Canada get's screwed by the U.S over trade etc,..because it doesn't comply like a lagdog, then so be it. Maybe 50 years from now the world won't have anything to do with the U.S. Then what?

I think that therein lies the problem.

You're right, Canada and the rest of the world are facing a critical moment in history. Diplomacy is only successful if it's failure can be backed up by force. Ask Neville Chamberlain how well peaceful diplomacy works. Canada is following the ways of "Old Europe", a path that leads only to irrelavency.

Well, truth be told, the European Union is up and coming while the American Empire is in decline. The EU economy is now larger than that of the USA's.

How do you like those apples.

If Canada were to forge closer ties with the EU, so much the better as far as I am concerned. We need to lessen our dependence on trade with Uncle Sam and Europe and Asia are definitely where it is at.

Socially, Canadians think more like Europeans, and Economically, the US has been in trouble for 5 years and showing no signs of changing anytime soon.

Canada should join the EU in fact. Wouldn't that be a kick!!

You shouldn't be asking me how I like them apples, you should be asking the Germans, with their 12.4% unemployment rate and less than 1% growth (down from a robust 1.8% in the first two quaters of '04). You should ask the French with their 9.4% unemployment rate, though their growth rate is at is booming at 2.3%, the largest ROG in years.

What, is your 7% unemployment rate not up to European standards? Perhaps if y'all did join, Canada can take some pointers from France on how to bump up a ROG from 1.7%.

Using the numbers of the currently weakest economies of the E.U. to "prove" to overall economic weakness of the E.U. is akin to pointing out the very flawed economy of, say, California to "prove" an economical weakness of the whole states.

Bottom line mon ami -the EU GDP is greater than that of the USA's.

http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=9&aid=18646

:cool:

NCB -

Good find on the article, it shows the basic flaw in using GDP as an economic indicator.

While the EU GDP might be greater than the GDP of the US, the per-capita GDP would be the more correct number to use for a comparison.

All EU member countries, minus one (Luxemburg) have significantly lower per-capita GDP than the US (Which is #2 in the world). While I couldn't find an overall "per-capita GDP" for the EU, if you were to average all EU member countries, it would fall well below the per-capita GDP of the U.S. (which is an average of the 50 states). LINK

It is a bogus comparison.

Another economic indicator is the rate of inflation. Almost all EU member countries have a higher rate of inflation than the US (stats at the same link as above).

Almost every economic comparison I looked at, comparing the EU with the U.S., puts the U.S. on top (using averages, since there aren't "total" EU numbers yet).

Missing from the euobserver article is how productivity in the EU has far outpaced the US while the average number of hours in the EU has significantly dropped and the average number of hours in the US has consistently increased.

That this fundamental aspect is missing in the study cited in the euobserver tells me the study is essentially nonsense.

A cursory google search brings up this:

NCB, a nation that takes 2-4% of it's unemployed and puts them in the armed forces and jail tends to have a lower unemployment rate. =)

You do realize that, unlike every other western nation, the USA actually has military and jail populations large enough to significantly swing it's employement/unemployment rates?

Canada could drive the unemployed into crime with well-designed social programs and engeneering, and lower our unemployment rate! That sounds like a solution!

Then, we could make a military full of uneducated unemployable people, and send them off to be shot! Not only would those people be removed from the unemployment lines, this would allow us to funnel money into large government contracts, from which our politicians could get jobs and/or campaign contributions, and produce tonnes of goods that are destroyed! It's a perfect Keynsian solution, dig holes and bury the poor in them. . .

( WARNING: hyperbole levels reaching critical! ;-) )

Ayep, Germany and France's economies need some work. Of course, unlike the USA, they don't have a 5%+ annual current account deficit with no end in sight. They are, last I checked, actually running surplusses.

And yet, their economies are in the toilet and our isn't. Go figure

Um. Not even close.

Ok :rolleyes:

wow. such exquisite insight. The preceding is an example of how incomplete statistics can be wielded in either side of an arguement. Also, it shows how an arguement can degenerate into gain-saying when the statistics are borne out to be faulty.

Which stats do you believe are faulty? Also, do you agree or disagree with the article stating that the EU is a good 20 years behind us economically.

Maybe the EU is 20 years behind the US as you say (which is no true). But with the last growth, the EU has the potential to become a even bigger economic power. Whereas the US isolation only leads to one way: down.