Canada backs out of North American missile defence system - Page 3 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

munchen · 02-26-2005, 08:33 PM

lebell, I think that question may involve too much speculation to be of any weight. I will admit that some reason for our this attitude is because of the US military but I don't think this is the reason. I think we feel that anti war is the best way to stay safe. Tons of organizations around the world want to attack the US and one was successful despite your military might. Why doesn't anyone want to attack Canada? I think our policies are what make us safe because we tend to make friends and not enemies. That is another reason why I don't want to be part of this program. The states has made so many enemies recently I think it could be dangerous for us to associated with your military advancement. We want to show the world that we will are still for peace.

I was thinking about the pro's of this attitude and I came up with a hypothetical question. What if Canada had adapted an american pro military view from the begining of our country? If we had stockpiled weapons and troops from conception. We would definitly have been a threat to you. Would have had wars? if you would have conquered us we might have terrorist factions like the middle east. I doubt we would have had a partnership like we do now and i seriously doubt either of us would have been safer. Peace just always seems like the best option.

Hardknock · 02-27-2005, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munchen

Just a question. Why? Why do you have to prepare for war? you have 20 years. If you have twenty years why not start positive diplomatic relations with them? Why not form positives ties with them and start working together in partnership so in twenty years you will be allies and not enemies? If they are such a threat why not work to dismantle the threat? I don't understand why this has to be confrontation. Why is peace not a viable option here?

Becasue it's Bush in office! He's that swagger cowboy from Texas! Can't trust those commies!

pan6467 · 02-27-2005, 02:15 AM

I truly have always wondered and this thread does allow the question..... if Canada is anti-war, why do they have the 3rd strongest navy?

I know this for a fact because a few PO1st's and Chiefs when I was in the US Navy, would say when they retired they were going to join the Canadian Navy as advisers. I thought at first it was a joke until a couple of them told me how the Canadian Navy was very strong.

Just wondering.

daswig · 02-27-2005, 05:10 AM

post removed by author

retsuki03 · 02-27-2005, 06:38 AM

I respect Canadian's decision, but I don't understand it.

If they really didn't have to pay for anything and just give the US land, then do they really have a reason to oppose it? For a country that is supposed to be a good ally of the US, they don't seem to be acting like it.

My person opinion is that Canada is trying to assert itself as a sovereign nation, rather than being viewed as the 51st state. This coupled with the disdain for Bush and all things military, I am not at all surprised with Canada's decision.

daswig · 02-27-2005, 06:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I see, our country has never fudged test results. Even if they are successful, we obviously have not sold the Canadians on it. They are a sovereign nation, bullying them into our will is NOT a good thing.

so you're saying that all of the successful tests were fraudulent? What evidence do you have to base this on?

Quote:

My point is we are destroying our lands here, Canada may not wish us to destroy theirs. NOR DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO. They have the right to say no and we should respect their rights.

Absolutely. they have a right to say "no, we don't want to participate." And then they have to accept the results of that non-cooperation, whatever that may be. Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences...When certain Canadian politicians say "The US Sucks" or it's equivalent, and then the Canadians start not cooperating on things that make both them and us safer, and when terrorists try to infiltrate the US from Canada with nasty stuff and Canadian Law Enforcement doesn't catch them (like what happened in Seattle prior to Y2K), they shouldn't be surprised when Americans start thinking "Maybe the Canadians are not as friendly to us as we thought they were", and when we therefore start acting accordingly, they have no grounds to be surprised or to complain. Friendship is a two-way street, and America doesn't have an obligation to remain friendly to ANYBODY when they tell us to "piss up a rope."

retsuki03 · 02-27-2005, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Friendship is a two-way street, and America doesn't have an obligation to remain friendly to ANYBODY when they tell us to "piss up a rope."

What does "piss up a rope" mean?

Like you piss on the rope and it drips down on you? I don't get it. I am from Texas, and we have lots of sayings like that, but I have never heard that one.

Sorry, I know it is off topic.

silent_jay · 02-27-2005, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Absolutely. they have a right to say "no, we don't want to participate." And then they have to accept the results of that non-cooperation, whatever that may be. Remember the Law of Unintended Consequences...When certain Canadian politicians say "The US Sucks" or it's equivalent, and then the Canadians start not cooperating on things that make both them and us safer, and when terrorists try to infiltrate the US from Canada with nasty stuff and Canadian Law Enforcement doesn't catch them (like what happened in Seattle prior to Y2K), they shouldn't be surprised when Americans start thinking "Maybe the Canadians are not as friendly to us as we thought they were", and when we therefore start acting accordingly, they have no grounds to be surprised or to complain. Friendship is a two-way street, and America doesn't have an obligation to remain friendly to ANYBODY when they tell us to "piss up a rope."

Not cooperating or not going along with the US? It seems the only time the US has an issue is when a country decides to make up their own minds and soemthing that the people of the country wants, then they take issue with it and decide to do things their way. When has the US tried to remain friendly with a nation? Also when did Canada say "go piss up a rope"? All Canada said was no thank you, we don't want to participate in your missle defence program, which is what the people of this country wanted. I mean whats the big deal with a country making up it's own mind, or is this not allowed in the worlds present political environment.

IC3 · 02-27-2005, 09:13 AM

I seem to remember Bush saying "Either your with us, Or your against us" Not directly at canadians, I guess to any country who doesn't take americas side in what they want to do.

This makes my blood boil

Quote:

The US HAS assumed absolute control over Canadian Airspace, when we deem it necessary.

I have no problem with the US using Canadian airspace to intercept an enemy missile..But what i do have a problem with is, The US being told that Canada is to be in on the decision of anything happening in canadian airspace, I personally feel that canada saying no should be enough of an answer, But i guess not..This is the reply we get from america on our decision.. (Taken from the news article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv.../BNStory/Front/)

Quote:

the American ambassador said the country had given up its right to be involved in any such decision

WTF is that?

Why is it that the leaders of america think that they can do whatever they want wherever they want? Canada has made thier decision and for some reason americas leaders can't accept that..So instead they turn around and say that they will assume control when they deem necessary..How exactly does that work?

Sorry to say but, This kind of attitude is what gives america so many enemies..Canada is looked at as a peacefull country with virtually no military threat directed at us..And this decision on not supporting america's missile defense program keeps our peacefull presence in the eyes of the rest of the world, I would rather live in a peacefull country than in any country that feels threatened by another country.

daswig · 02-27-2005, 01:41 PM

Post removed by author

jorgelito · 02-27-2005, 02:11 PM

What I don't understand is, why would Canada allow an "enemies'" missiles or whatever fly through their airpace en route to the US? Isn't that a threat to them as well? Assume the following scenario: North Korea launches missiles at the US via Canadian airspace, we shoot em down (or more realistically, we shoot some of them down say, optimistically 25%). Some missiles land in Montana, a couple malfunction and land on Canadian soil, others cause close calls with various airliners of various registry. Wouldn't Canada be pissed at North Korea?

If the reverse happened: Say Mexico launched misslies at the Canadians via US airspace (ridiculous, I know): Wouldn't we be pissed at Mexico, NOT Canada?

This is silly, we're close, we've been good buddies for a long time. I'm sure we'll resolve the issues.

Sh!t daswig! You beat me to it! (LOL!)

That's a good point: many Canadian population centers are located near American ones:
Seattle-Vancouver, Toronto, etc. So, theoretically, a missile threat to US cities could be a threat to Canadian cities as well (Read: mutual interest). Especially "sloppy" North Korean or Scud types (gives new meaning to , "off by a mile").

daswig · 02-27-2005, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jorgelito

What I don't understand is, why would Canada allow an "enemies'" missiles or whatever fly through their airpace en route to the US?

The problem comes in because Canada spends a pittance on defense, and will remain incapable of knocking down ICBMs overflying their territory indefinitely. America CANNOT rely on Canada to defend Canadian airspace, because they're simply not up to the task in any meaningful way. What should America do? Allow Canadian unwillingness to defend its airspace in any meaningful way to put the entire US at risk to a nuclear attack? It simply aint gonna happen. Until Canada becomes able to deny their airspace to ICBMs overflying their country, America has an obligation to take up the slack, by whatever means are necessary. And if Canada doesn't like it, well, they can file a complaint with the UN, or invade us if they are so inclined.

Quote:

Wouldn't Canada be pissed at North Korea?

Heh. What's Canada going to do if they are pissed at North Korea? Attack them with harsh language? North Korea's ground forces outnumber Canada's by a factor of more than 10 to 1. Canada's navy is, best-case scenario (in reality, they need US help to defend their shores), barely adequate to defend Canadian waters, they have no ability to project force. how would Canada express it's displeasure with North Korea? Most likely, they'd go to the UN, and the UN would ask the US to help Canada out. Somehow, if Canada refused to let us use their airspace, I doubt America would be receptive.

IC3 · 02-27-2005, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

It's very simple. If an ICBM or 50 is coming towards the US, and is passing through Canadian airspace, there's no time for the US to consult with the Canadian government to seek permission to shoot the ICBMs down. And the American government has one duty only...to protect AMERICAN lives, even if it means irritating Canada.

Think about it if the situation was reversed, and, say, Mexico wanted to nuke Canada. (I know, it's an unlikely scenario, but that's what hypotheticals are all about) Let's say that Canada had an effective ABM system in place, but the US told Canada that they could not use American airspace to shoot down the incoming missiles. Considering that most large Canadian population centers are close to the US border, that would effectively leave Canada's population unprotected and at great risk of immediately being killed, since there wouldn't be enough of a reaction time for the Canadian ABM system to function properly. That would turn the US into a shield for Canada's enemy to destroy Canada, and that would simply be unacceptable to the Canadian government.

I know what your saying and i agree, Like i said..I have no problem with the whole issue. I just have a problem with america pretty much saying fck you were doing what we want, It just seems when america doesn't get thier way it becomes a problem.

If it actually came down to a situation where there was a missile passing through canadian airspace towards america..I highly doubt Canadian leaders would have anything to say about an american missile intercepting it in canadian airspace.

America always seems to predict when terrorism threats are high and they raise the threat levels, So i would think that if they felt tensions building between them and another powerfull country that poses a threat of missile attacks that they would in a sense be ready for it or atleast expecting something..That's when america would say to canada that the threat level is high and that thier missiles are on stand by.

Quote:

I doubt America would be receptive.

We still got britain, I'm sure they would side with us if it ever came to it..I just don't see any real threat to canada.

daswig · 02-27-2005, 02:59 PM

Post removed by author

Yakk · 02-27-2005, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I truly have always wondered and this thread does allow the question..... if Canada is anti-war, why do they have the 3rd strongest navy?

I know this for a fact because a few PO1st's and Chiefs when I was in the US Navy, would say when they retired they were going to join the Canadian Navy as advisers. I thought at first it was a joke until a couple of them told me how the Canadian Navy was very strong.

Just wondering.

Canada had the world's 3rd largest navy as of the end of WW2, mostly because every other navy had been sunk. Well, and we had a huge merchane marine (to ship goods over the atlantic).

I doubt Canada still has the 3rd largest navy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by retsuki03

I respect Canadian's decision, but I don't understand it.

If they really didn't have to pay for anything and just give the US land, then do they really have a reason to oppose it? For a country that is supposed to be a good ally of the US, they don't seem to be acting like it.

My person opinion is that Canada is trying to assert itself as a sovereign nation, rather than being viewed as the 51st state. This coupled with the disdain for Bush and all things military, I am not at all surprised with Canada's decision.

Because the technology leads to the weaponization of space. Because the star wars program is viewed with distain. Because Canadians are upset with some of the US's foriegn policy decisions. Because it may lead to a new arms race.

I don't nessicarially agree with it, but I understand it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Heh. What's Canada going to do if they are pissed at North Korea? Attack them with harsh language? North Korea's ground forces outnumber Canada's by a factor of more than 10 to 1. Canada's navy is, best-case scenario (in reality, they need US help to defend their shores), barely adequate to defend Canadian waters, they have no ability to project force. how would Canada express it's displeasure with North Korea? Most likely, they'd go to the UN, and the UN would ask the US to help Canada out. Somehow, if Canada refused to let us use their airspace, I doubt America would be receptive.

If we had to, we'd nuke them. More practically, we'd invote NATO mutial defence. If NATO falls apart, it wouldn't take Canada long to build nuclear weapons and retaliate. You do know that Canada know how to build them, we just choose not to out of a point of policy, right?

If that fails, we could invoke conscription. Our economy makes the N.K. economy look tiny -- even with 1/3 of the NK economy devoted to the military, and 1.1% of Canada's, Canada outspends the NK's on military spending.

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

Britain is a paper kitten (they no longer qualify as a paper tiger) from a military perspective. Remember how touch and go the Faulklands War was?

That war was against a higher technology military than any the US has fought since WW2, wasn't it? Maybe I missed a war...

jorgelito · 02-27-2005, 04:25 PM

daswig,

My point is that Canada's (hypothetical) anger at us if we defended North American airspace against hypothetical North Korean missile barrage is misdirected: I would think you'd be angry at whomever launched said missiles, not the friend that helped protect you. I think that is retsuki03's question too.

Our posts were near identical so I assume we're thinking along similar lines in this particular case.

RE: Canada's 3rd largest navy. In the given context, I think it may have been a gag on the sailor's part but someone should check with either Jane's or CIA.gov to see naval strengths (I'm too lazy, sorry). I would have thought either UK or France have larger navies or even China (quantitative, not qualitative) than Canada given their own downsizing etc.

Is the missile defense just a bunch of Patriot batteries or is it something else? Maybe Canada has a problem with success rate?

IC3 · 02-27-2005, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by daswig

We've learned from Von Paulus and the Romanians in WWII. You never, EVER leave your flank defense to an "ally" that's not able to hold up it's end of the deal or carry the weight.

If America was TRULY saying "fuck you, we'll do what we want" to Canada, we'd go ahead and put the bases in Canada without Canadian permission. There are excellent technical reasons why it is far better for the bases to be in Northern Canada instead of the Northern US. We don't do that because we're nice people. But there's a very finite limit to our niceness when people are spitting in our faces. To this point, the US response has basically been "OK, sorry you don't want to play with us, but we're going to play anyway, we'll try to stay out of your way". We haven't come REMOTELY close to being nasty about it, even though it negatively affects our defensive posture.

This is what i am talking about, You state that if america wanted to get nasty they would put thier bases on our land..I don't care that america or any other country is powerfull or poor..I don't see how they can justify doing what they want and disregarding what the other country has to say about what's going on on thier own land..I know that this isn't really an issue, But i'm just going along with what you said.

I don't know if you reffering to us being the ones spitting in your face..That's not what Canada's doing Canada made thier decision based on that we are our own country and not gonna get "bent over"..The way it seems to me is that Canada doesn't want to be seen as a pro war country in any shape or form..Which i am all for it as is alot of canadians.

To my knowledge when it comes to anything war related this is really the only major issue that america & canada don't see eye to eye on..But i trust that if it actually came down to america being invaded, America would want Canada involved and i don't think Canada would back out of a situation like that.

Right now though, Is there any real threat at all of a missile attack on america? Someone already stated that we should put more money into security on the borders and other present threats.

I think the success rate has alot to do with it also..I gotta look into this more.

daswig · 02-27-2005, 05:26 PM

Post removed by author

SecretMethod70 · 02-27-2005, 06:19 PM

PLEASE, the level of debate in this thread is improving (that's not to say more work at it wouldn't be appreciated), but I'm serious about people using the edit button. There's simply no need for every other person in this thread to make 3-4 posts in a row every time they have a few people or points to respond to. There are occasional instances where it is useful, such as Janey's second post explaining the House of Commons' official vote - that second post is more like an update to the thread itself than to one's own comment and, thus, there is reason behind it standing on its own. That is the only such case in this thread. I've gone through (AGAIN) and compacted these multi-posts (11 this time, 7 from one person alone - you know who you are) some of you have been making (you know who you are), but this is the last time I will be making a general statement about it in this thread. I'm fairly tolerant of such minor issues, but like I said before, the extent to which it is occuring in this thread is simply rediculous.

IC3 · 02-27-2005, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Canada's historic missile snub will have unpredictable consequences: analysts

ALEXANDER PANETTA

OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's rejection of missile defence is a historic shift in its relationship with the United States and could have deep unforeseen consequences, analysts warn.

This week's announcement is more significant than Canada's refusal to join fighting in Iraq or Vietnam because, some say, this time the country has rejected a domestic defence plan. One military analyst in Washington says Canada has turned its back on a 67-year-old agreement signed by then-prime minister Mackenzie King and president Franklin Roosevelt to jointly defend North America.

"This is a significant policy change, and it will clearly have consequences," says a briefing paper released Friday by Dwight Mason.

He served for eight years as chairman of the American section of the Canada-U.S. Permanent Joint Board on Defense and was a diplomat in Ottawa.

The first impact, he suggested, will come next year when the Norad agreement comes up for renewal, but it could also have economic consequences as yet unknown.

"The decision to opt out of missile defence is an abandonment of some Canadian sovereignty," he writes.

"This brings the basic partnership policy underlying the U.S.-Canadian defence relationship into question. These developments will have long-term consequences that will take time to be revealed fully."

One immediate consequence could affect Prime Minister Paul Martin's role on the international stage.

If he had any hope the United States would help him create his cherished G-20 group of world leaders, those hopes may have been extinguished permanently.

One U.S. official emitted a deep, extended laugh when asked for an assessment of the prime minister and said Canada no longer qualifies as a trusted ally.

While wary of speaking on the record, the Americans are particularly annoyed with Martin over what they perceive as weak leadership.

They say he expressed support for missile defence, then did nothing to refute misconceptions about it, and finally pulled out when public opinion mushroomed against it.

Most analysts believe the Canada-U.S. trade relationship will continue unhindered because the countries rely heavily on each other's goods and services.

But Canada's refusal to sign on to the missile plan could further marginalize its concerns and interests when trade-related issues like softwood lumber appear before U.S. Congress, said one Calgary observer.

"This is one more issue that goes into the balance scale, one more reason to say, 'Screw Canada,' " said David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.

"There's a lot of precedent for us not participating (in military operations) overseas.

"To my knowledge, this is the first time we've said no to the United States on what the Americans consider a crucial matter of continental defence."

He said the missile-defence snub was more significant even than the debate over whether to store nuclear-tipped Bomarc missiles on Canadian soil.

Thursday's announcement already has both countries debating some of the consequences.

A defiant Martin declared again Friday that the United States must seek permission before firing any missile over Canadian airspace.

He was responding to warnings that Canada has abdicated sovereignty by refusing to take part in the U.S. project.

The top U.S. envoy to Canada - Ambassador Paul Cellucci - says Canada would be "outside of the room" when his country decides whether to fire at incoming missiles.

But Martin said Friday: "We would expect to be consulted.

"This is our airspace, we're a sovereign nation and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission."

Martin repeated Friday that Canada reaffirmed its sovereignty this week with a $12.8-billion investment over five years to help rebuild the military.

But critics said the prime minister is deluding himself if he expects a heads-up. Bercuson said only military officials involved in missile defence would be in on any strike.

"Somebody has obviously not explained to the prime minister how these arrangements work," Bercuson said.

"The reason you put these arrangements in place beforehand . . . is that you don't have to run back to your respective government every time you have to make a decision.

"The White House would be informed that there was a missile launch against North America. It would not be asked for its permission to shoot the missile down."

One Conservative critic openly mocked the idea that Martin would get a phone call.

"What, are (the Americans) phoning a 1-800 number on missile consultation?" said Conservative foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day.

"These missiles are coming in at, you know, four kilometres a second."

But the leader of the NDP said the only delusion is in the minds of people imagining scare scenarios of some potential missile attack.

"These are the kind of hypothetical questions that (George) Bush has tried to create in the minds of people to elevate a sense of fear," said Jack Layton.

"The fact is that if Canada is a part of a program like this, then we become a target."

Link To Article

It's kinda of a lose lose situation for Canada, We said no for the missile defense system and that screws up the relations with america as far as defense goes and maybe even more. If we agreed with it, we would become a target having to rely on america's military to help defend canada..Which isn't a bad thing, But the whole point is..Canada doesn't want to be a target.

I will admit after reading this and other information it opened my eyes more to the whole situation.

Daswig also made a good point which didn't even cross my mind, at first..I didn't know that missile launchers would be placed on Canadian soil..I thought the whole argument was about america shooting thier missile's into Canadian airspace..When in fact if they were placed on Canadian soil as daswig stated, enemy missile's would be intercepted over the ocean and not canada. Which makes more sense to me than shooting them down over Canada if one were to be over Canada.

What about alaska, America is going to place some of these missile defense systems there aren't they? Especially if enemy missile's will be coming from the west..That's kind of a gimme.

KMA-628 · 02-27-2005, 07:02 PM

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.

daswig · 02-27-2005, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IC3

Link To Article

It's kinda of a lose lose situation for Canada, We said no for the missile defense system and that screws up the relations with america as far as defense goes and maybe even more. If we agreed with it, we would become a target having to rely on america's military to help defend canada..Which isn't a bad thing, But the whole point is..Canada doesn't want to be a target.

I will admit after reading this it opened my eyes more to the whole situation.

Daswig also made a good point which didn't even cross my mind, at first..I didn't know that missile launchers would be placed on Canadian soil..I thought the whole argument was about america shooting thier missile's into Canadian airspace..When in fact if they were placed on Canadian soil as daswig stated, enemy missile's would be intercepted over the ocean and not canada. Which makes more sense to me than shooting them down over Canada if one were to be over Canada.

What about alaska, America is going to place some of these missile defense systems there aren't they? Especially if enemy missile's will be coming from the west..That's kind of a gimme.

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.

jorgelito · 02-27-2005, 10:41 PM

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....

Charlatan · 02-28-2005, 05:52 AM

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)

Janey · 02-28-2005, 06:36 AM

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?

Superbelt · 02-28-2005, 07:20 AM

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.

Yakk · 02-28-2005, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Nope, GulfWar 1 and 2 both involved more modern tech than the Faulklands war involved. Hell, the Argentines were still issuing FALs as their MBR.

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.

daswig · 02-28-2005, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

Way North? Where exactly is way North? To me way North is like Nunavut, or Elesmere Island.

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

Yakk · 02-28-2005, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I truly have always wondered and this thread does allow the question..... if Canada is anti-war, why do they have the 3rd strongest navy?

I know this for a fact because a few PO1st's and Chiefs when I was in the US Navy, would say when they retired they were going to join the Canadian Navy as advisers. I thought at first it was a joke until a couple of them told me how the Canadian Navy was very strong.

Just wondering.

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).

Superbelt · 03-03-2005, 10:12 AM

link

Quote:

Missile Counter-Attack

Axworthy fires back at U.S. -- and Canadian -- critics of our BMD decision in An Open Letter to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Thursday, March 3rd, 2005

By LLOYD AXWORTHY

Dear Condi, I'm glad you've decided to get over your fit of pique and venture north to visit your closest neighbour. It's a chance to learn a thing or two. Maybe more.

I know it seems improbable to your divinely guided master in the White House that mere mortals might disagree with participating in a missile-defence system that has failed in its last three tests, even though the tests themselves were carefully rigged to show results.

But, gosh, we folks above the 49th parallel are somewhat cautious types who can't quite see laying down billions of dollars in a three-dud poker game.

As our erstwhile Prairie-born and bred (and therefore prudent) finance minister pointed out in presenting his recent budget, we've had eight years of balanced or surplus financial accounts. If we're going to spend money, Mr. Goodale added, it will be on day-care and health programs, and even on more foreign aid and improved defence.

Sure, that doesn't match the gargantuan, multi-billion-dollar deficits that your government blithely runs up fighting a "liberation war" in Iraq, laying out more than half of all weapons expenditures in the world, and giving massive tax breaks to the top one per cent of your population while cutting food programs for poor children.
[note:] Last two paragraphs = pure gold

Just chalk that up to a different sense of priorities about what a national government's role should be when there isn't a prevailing mood of manifest destiny.

Coming to Ottawa might also expose you to a parliamentary system that has a thing called question period every day, where those in the executive are held accountable by an opposition for their actions, and where demands for public debate on important topics such a missile defence can be made openly.
[note:]I'd kill to have this

You might also notice that it's a system in which the governing party's caucus members are not afraid to tell their leader that their constituents don't want to follow the ideological, perhaps teleological, fantasies of Canada's continental co-inhabitant. And that this leader actually listens to such representations.

Your boss did not avail himself of a similar opportunity to visit our House of Commons during his visit, fearing, it seems, that there might be some signs of dissent. He preferred to issue his diktat on missile defence in front of a highly controlled, pre-selected audience.

Such control-freak antics may work in the virtual one-party state that now prevails in Washington. But in Canada we have a residual belief that politicians should be subject to a few checks and balances, an idea that your country once espoused before the days of empire.

If you want to have us consider your proposals and positions, present them in a proper way, through serious discussion across the table in our cabinet room, as your previous president did when he visited Ottawa. And don't embarrass our prime minister by lobbing a verbal missile at him while he sits on a public stage, with no chance to respond.

Now, I understand that there may have been some miscalculations in Washington based on faulty advice from your resident governor of the "northern territories," Ambassador Cellucci. But you should know by now that he hasn't really won the hearts and minds of most Canadians through his attempts to browbeat and command our allegiance to U.S. policies.

Sadly, Mr. Cellucci has been far too closeted with exclusive groups of 'experts' from Calgary think-tanks and neo-con lobbyists at cross-border conferences to remotely grasp a cross-section of Canadian attitudes (nor American ones, for that matter).

I invite you to expand the narrow perspective that seems to inform your opinions of Canada by ranging far wider in your reach of contacts and discussions. You would find that what is rising in Canada is not so much anti-Americanism, as claimed by your and our right-wing commentators, but fundamental disagreements with certain policies of your government. You would see that rather than just reacting to events by drawing on old conventional wisdoms, many Canadians are trying to think our way through to some ideas that can be helpful in building a more secure world.

These Canadians believe that security can be achieved through well-modulated efforts to protect the rights of people, not just nation-states.

To encourage and advance international co-operation on managing the risk of climate change, they believe that we need agreements like Kyoto.

To protect people against international crimes like genocide and ethnic cleansing, they support new institutions like the International Criminal Court -- which, by the way, you might strongly consider using to hold accountable those committing atrocities today in Darfur, Sudan.

And these Canadians believe that the United Nations should indeed be reformed -- beginning with an agreement to get rid of the veto held by the major powers over humanitarian interventions to stop violence and predatory practices.

On this score, you might want to explore the concept of the 'Responsibility to Protect' while you're in Ottawa. It's a Canadian idea born out of the recent experience of Kosovo and informed by the many horrific examples of inhumanity over the last half-century. Many Canadians feel it has a lot more relevance to providing real human security in the world than missile defence ever will.

This is not just some quirky notion concocted in our long winter nights, by the way. It seems to have appeal for many in your own country, if not the editorialists at the Wall Street Journal or Rush Limbaugh. As I discovered recently while giving a series of lectures in southern California, there is keen interest in how the U.S. can offer real leadership in managing global challenges of disease, natural calamities and conflict, other than by military means.

There is also a very strong awareness on both sides of the border of how vital Canada is to the U.S. as a partner in North America. We supply copious amounts of oil and natural gas to your country, our respective trade is the world's largest in volume, and we are increasingly bound together by common concerns over depletion of resources, especially very scarce fresh water.

Why not discuss these issues with Canadians who understand them, and seek out ways to better cooperate in areas where we agree -- and agree to respect each other's views when we disagree.

Above all, ignore the Cassandras who deride the state of our relations because of one missile-defence decision. Accept that, as a friend on your border, we will offer a different, independent point of view. And that there are times when truth must speak to power.

In friendship, Lloyd Axworthy

(Lloyd Axworthy is president of the University of Winnipeg and a former Canadian foreign minister)

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.

Charlatan · 03-03-2005, 10:36 AM

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

prosequence · 03-03-2005, 03:04 PM

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

jorgelito · 03-03-2005, 03:17 PM

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.

Charlatan · 03-03-2005, 04:41 PM

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

jorgelito · 03-03-2005, 06:54 PM

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

sapiens · 03-04-2005, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Don't blame Canada for missile-defense snub

By Michael O'Hanlon

WASHINGTON – The Liberal Party government of Prime Minister Paul Martin in Canada told the Bush administration last week that it will not endorse the US plan for national missile defense.
Many are viewing this as a slap in the face from Ottawa to Washington, and a change in the position Canada seemed to be taking a year ago. They expect it to poison relations between the two neighbors - ensuring, among other things, that next month's three-way summit with Mexican President Vicente Fox will fail to make progress in broadening NAFTA. It would seem that the knee-jerk liberal Canadians just could not get over their nostalgia for the ABM Treaty, as well as their visceral dislike of missile-defense systems.

This interpretation is badly mistaken. The Bush administration made major diplomatic errors in handling this topic with Canada. It asked for blanket endorsement of an open-ended US missile defense program, rather than for specific help with specific technical challenges and defensive weapons. This was a fundamental mistake, and the US has mostly itself to blame for the resulting fallout.

The problem really began in late fall. Shortly after gaining reelection on the strength of a campaign in which he spoke plainly and forthrightly to the American people about national security, President Bush took the same attitude up north. Although he'd promised beforehand not to bring it up, during a state visit to Ottawa Mr. Bush nonetheless asked Prime Minister Martin to support US missile defense efforts.

On its face, the request probably struck Bush as eminently reasonable. After all, any system the US developed would protect Canada too, making it natural that Ottawa would offer at least minimal support and political blessing.

During the cold war, Canada cooperated with the US on air defense, making missile defense seem a natural successor. And Canada had recently agreed to cooperate with the US at the NORAD air defense command in Colorado, tracking not only traditional threats from aircraft but possible missile launches against North America as well.

But Canadians, who have followed the American missile defense debate closely since Ronald Reagan's "star wars" Strategic Defense Initiative, did not hear Bush's request in such innocuous terms. They know what is in the Pentagon's long-term plan for missile defense systems. It isn't simply a pragmatic and modest defense against possible North Korean or Iranian threats, of the type now being deployed in California and Alaska. Although not yet formalized, it also envisions the possibility of a land-based and sea-based system that might be large enough to challenge China's deterrent (and even make some Russians nervous). And perhaps most controversial of all, it speaks of space weapons - be they small interceptor missiles or lasers to shoot down threats from wherever they might be launched.

These concepts remain red-flag topics in the great white north. Canadians are not wasting their time wallowing over the demise of cold war arms control; they are worried that the Rumsfeld Pentagon's missile defense efforts might damage future great power relations and might also result in the near-term weaponization of space - a prospect that most countries, including Canada, find highly objectionable.

I gave a talk on missile defense in Toronto last month, and was stunned by two things: the large turnout, which said much more about the degree of Canadian anxiety over the subject than my draw as a speaker, and the degree of confusion in Canada over just what the US president could have been requesting when he visited last fall.

In the two months since the Bush visit, American diplomats still had not clarified the subject for their good allies to the north - and now the US ambassador has had the audacity to publicly criticize the Canadian prime minister for his recent decision.

What Bush administration officials need to remember is that they almost surely could not get blanket endorsement for all of the above missile defense systems even in the US. Congress has provided funding just for deployment of a limited land-based system and for research and development of other possible concepts. It has not bought into a grandiose architecture of the type that many Pentagon planners still envision. Nor is Bush unwise enough to request such an open-ended endorsement from Congress.
Indeed, his budget request for 2006 cuts missile defense, in recognition of the facts that the relevant technologies are proving slow to develop and that other, nonmissile threats seem more pressing. Yet it was at this moment the president asked Canada for something he probably could not get from the Republican-controlled legislature in his own country.
If Bush had wanted help with a specific missile defense test, further cooperation at NORAD, the right for a US ship hosting a missile defense radar to call at Canadian ports, or something else specific and finite, he probably could have gotten it. But instead, he asked for the moon, and was surprised when the answer was "no."

It is time to walk this subject back. For now, Canada doesn't want to support the US further on missile defense. That's fine, because there's nothing more the US needs to ask Ottawa to do at the moment. Let the issue cool, proceed with other business such as trade, cooperation against terrorist threats, and NATO operations in Afghanistan (where Canada has contributed enormously) - and revisit this subject when there is something finite and reasonable to request.

• Michael O'Hanlon, author with James Lindsay of 'Defending America: The Case for Limited Ballistic Missile Defense,' is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

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?

Janey · 03-04-2005, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sapiens

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.

NCB · 03-04-2005, 01:24 PM

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.

Charlatan · 03-04-2005, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

... 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?

Janey · 03-04-2005, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NCB

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.

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.

02-26-2005, 08:33 PM	#81 (permalink)
munchen Crazy Location: Sudbury, Ontario	lebell, I think that question may involve too much speculation to be of any weight. I will admit that some reason for our this attitude is because of the US military but I don't think this is the reason. I think we feel that anti war is the best way to stay safe. Tons of organizations around the world want to attack the US and one was successful despite your military might. Why doesn't anyone want to attack Canada? I think our policies are what make us safe because we tend to make friends and not enemies. That is another reason why I don't want to be part of this program. The states has made so many enemies recently I think it could be dangerous for us to associated with your military advancement. We want to show the world that we will are still for peace. I was thinking about the pro's of this attitude and I came up with a hypothetical question. What if Canada had adapted an american pro military view from the begining of our country? If we had stockpiled weapons and troops from conception. We would definitly have been a threat to you. Would have had wars? if you would have conquered us we might have terrorist factions like the middle east. I doubt we would have had a partnership like we do now and i seriously doubt either of us would have been safer. Peace just always seems like the best option. __________________ "Love is a perky elf dancing a merry little jig and then suddenly he turns on you with a miniature machine gun" -Matt Groening

02-27-2005, 02:15 AM	#83 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	I truly have always wondered and this thread does allow the question..... if Canada is anti-war, why do they have the 3rd strongest navy? I know this for a fact because a few PO1st's and Chiefs when I was in the US Navy, would say when they retired they were going to join the Canadian Navy as advisers. I thought at first it was a joke until a couple of them told me how the Canadian Navy was very strong. Just wondering. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

02-27-2005, 05:10 AM	#84 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	post removed by author Last edited by daswig; 02-28-2005 at 12:31 PM..

02-27-2005, 01:41 PM	#90 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Post removed by author Last edited by daswig; 02-28-2005 at 12:31 PM..

02-27-2005, 02:11 PM	#91 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	What I don't understand is, why would Canada allow an "enemies'" missiles or whatever fly through their airpace en route to the US? Isn't that a threat to them as well? Assume the following scenario: North Korea launches missiles at the US via Canadian airspace, we shoot em down (or more realistically, we shoot some of them down say, optimistically 25%). Some missiles land in Montana, a couple malfunction and land on Canadian soil, others cause close calls with various airliners of various registry. Wouldn't Canada be pissed at North Korea? If the reverse happened: Say Mexico launched misslies at the Canadians via US airspace (ridiculous, I know): Wouldn't we be pissed at Mexico, NOT Canada? This is silly, we're close, we've been good buddies for a long time. I'm sure we'll resolve the issues. Sh!t daswig! You beat me to it! (LOL!) That's a good point: many Canadian population centers are located near American ones: Seattle-Vancouver, Toronto, etc. So, theoretically, a missile threat to US cities could be a threat to Canadian cities as well (Read: mutual interest). Especially "sloppy" North Korean or Scud types (gives new meaning to , "off by a mile"). Last edited by SecretMethod70; 02-27-2005 at 06:24 PM..

02-27-2005, 06:38 AM	#85 (permalink)
retsuki03 Crazy Location: Austin, TX	I respect Canadian's decision, but I don't understand it. If they really didn't have to pay for anything and just give the US land, then do they really have a reason to oppose it? For a country that is supposed to be a good ally of the US, they don't seem to be acting like it. My person opinion is that Canada is trying to assert itself as a sovereign nation, rather than being viewed as the 51st state. This coupled with the disdain for Bush and all things military, I am not at all surprised with Canada's decision.

02-27-2005, 02:59 PM	#94 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Post removed by author Last edited by daswig; 02-28-2005 at 12:32 PM..

02-27-2005, 04:25 PM	#96 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	daswig, My point is that Canada's (hypothetical) anger at us if we defended North American airspace against hypothetical North Korean missile barrage is misdirected: I would think you'd be angry at whomever launched said missiles, not the friend that helped protect you. I think that is retsuki03's question too. Our posts were near identical so I assume we're thinking along similar lines in this particular case. RE: Canada's 3rd largest navy. In the given context, I think it may have been a gag on the sailor's part but someone should check with either Jane's or CIA.gov to see naval strengths (I'm too lazy, sorry). I would have thought either UK or France have larger navies or even China (quantitative, not qualitative) than Canada given their own downsizing etc. Is the missile defense just a bunch of Patriot batteries or is it something else? Maybe Canada has a problem with success rate?

02-27-2005, 05:26 PM	#98 (permalink)
daswig Banned Location: BFE	Post removed by author Last edited by daswig; 02-28-2005 at 12:33 PM..

02-27-2005, 06:19 PM	#99 (permalink)
SecretMethod70 Human Administrator Location: Chicago	PLEASE, the level of debate in this thread is improving (that's not to say more work at it wouldn't be appreciated), but I'm serious about people using the edit button. There's simply no need for every other person in this thread to make 3-4 posts in a row every time they have a few people or points to respond to. There are occasional instances where it is useful, such as Janey's second post explaining the House of Commons' official vote - that second post is more like an update to the thread itself than to one's own comment and, thus, there is reason behind it standing on its own. That is the only such case in this thread. I've gone through (AGAIN) and compacted these multi-posts (11 this time, 7 from one person alone - you know who you are) some of you have been making (you know who you are), but this is the last time I will be making a general statement about it in this thread. I'm fairly tolerant of such minor issues, but like I said before, the extent to which it is occuring in this thread is simply rediculous. __________________ Le temps détruit tout "Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling Last edited by SecretMethod70; 02-27-2005 at 06:31 PM..

02-27-2005, 07:02 PM	#101 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	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.

02-27-2005, 10:41 PM	#103 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	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....

02-28-2005, 05:52 AM	#104 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	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) __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

02-28-2005, 06:36 AM	#105 (permalink)
Janey Junkie Location: Toronto	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?

02-28-2005, 07:20 AM	#106 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	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.

03-03-2005, 10:36 AM	#111 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Too bad he couldn't have written that while he was holding office... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-03-2005, 03:04 PM	#112 (permalink)
prosequence Psycho Location: YOUR MOM!!	Anyone know where these anticipated missiles would be shot down? Over what country? __________________ And now here I stand because of you, Mister Anderson, because of you I'm no longer an agent of the system, because of you I've changed...

03-03-2005, 03:17 PM	#113 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	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.

03-03-2005, 04:41 PM	#114 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The shortest distance for the ICBMs to travel from Korea would be over the pole... going over the Pacific is much further. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-03-2005, 06:54 PM	#115 (permalink)
jorgelito All important elusive independent swing voter... Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia	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