The whole missle defense idea is designed to counter the threats of the American's past enemies, not the current ones. It can't stop hijackings. It can't stop a dirty bomb. It can't stop insurgents. It can't hunt down terrorist leaders. It can't disarm NK or Iran (or Israel, Pakistan, India, ...). The world has seen that you can't fight a superpower head on and won't try. I see it as a collosal waste of energy and money. If the Americans want to spend their money on this antiquated monstrosity, let them. If Canadian companies get hired along the way, fine. Just don't spend my tax dollars on this crap.
Should Canada participate in missile defence?
- Thread starter happygrump
- Start date
strange1 said:The whole missle defense idea is designed to counter the threats of the American's past enemies, not the current ones. It can't stop hijackings. It can't stop a dirty bomb. It can't stop insurgents. It can't hunt down terrorist leaders. It can't disarm NK or Iran (or Israel, Pakistan, India, ...). The world has seen that you can't fight a superpower head on and won't try. I see it as a collosal waste of energy and money. If the Americans want to spend their money on this antiquated monstrosity, let them. If Canadian companies get hired along the way, fine. Just don't spend my tax dollars on this crap.
Wait a second. lets assume you are correct in most respects other than money. What is the cost of participation versus a comparable early warning system all your own? As i understand the figures, you still come out ahead. Now that argument is in play it can only be addressed with real numbers.
You miss the point entirely. The cost of an early warning system against missles that the Soviets send at us is .... Wait, it's not 1980. No need for a warning system either because missles are not a credible threat against Canada. You guys are a big target for those few that could launch nukes, not us.islandboy said:Wait a second. lets assume you are correct in most respects other than money. What is the cost of participation versus a comparable early warning system all your own? As i understand the figures, you still come out ahead. Now that argument is in play it can only be addressed with real numbers.
As they're most likley to take a polar route I'd say Calgary - then we wouldn't have to worry if the warhead was intact or about fallout.yychobbyist said:well, where the hell do you think the missile's supposed to fall once it's hit?
OTB
Oh, Strange 1 is not worried about anything under the ice, in the air, or outside the atmosphere. You are making presumptions about the sensitivity of the proposed detection system and its uses. How strange, Strage 1.
Listen, if your guys have the details, evalutate it, and say it would help, how do you argue the point. If your military on the other hand says that you simply do not need to participate, then you have to consider the secondary considerations which involve cost and profit. What they are saying is that they know the details, see strategic value, and that it is cost effective. Your argument fails unless you have information they do not.
Listen, if your guys have the details, evalutate it, and say it would help, how do you argue the point. If your military on the other hand says that you simply do not need to participate, then you have to consider the secondary considerations which involve cost and profit. What they are saying is that they know the details, see strategic value, and that it is cost effective. Your argument fails unless you have information they do not.
Y
yychobbyist
Actually, I'm thinking Edmonton would be a better spot. Right in the middle of the mall.onthebottom said:As they're most likley to take a polar route I'd say Calgary - then we wouldn't have to worry if the warhead was intact or about fallout.
OTB
Now you know why we're not interested in detecting it early. We'd rather see the incoming missiles keep going to their intended target. And we'll all get the fallout anyway so how much sense does it make to pay good money and still get nuked? Your sales pitch needs a little work!onthebottom said:As they're most likley to take a polar route I'd say Calgary - then we wouldn't have to worry if the warhead was intact or about fallout.
OTB
Slowpoke. Your thinking is stuck in the past. The world is fast becoming multipolar world in which many powers have awsome technowlegy and there are terroists to consider as well. If you think this sytem is usuful only against the Russians you underestimate the strategic thinking. The strategic thinking and the question if things can actually be shot down are two absolutely different questions and have to be considered separately when it comes to your decision making. Is there deterance in the surveilance and/or is the ablity to surveil have salutory benefits all on its own, is there deterance in the untested system, is there deterance in a sytem that works, and what costs/benefits are there to Canada even if it gets only surveillance. And I sputter when I hear that you think you can find a way not to be a target too; break off realtions, do not sell or buy from us, help fly anyone who wants to bomb us, and start funding all terroist organizatations plus Iran's and Korea's nucular program and you may have start on keeping on the side lines. (That is if we didn't take you out first.)
I was half kidding in my response to OTB who was, hopefully, kidding when he suggested that incoming missiles would be downed over Calgary.islandboy said:Slowpoke. Your thinking is stuck in the past. The world is fast becoming multipolar world in which many powers have awsome technowlegy and there are terroists to consider as well. If you think this sytem is usuful only against the Russians you underestimate the strategic thinking. The strategic thinking and the question if things can actually be shot down are two absolutely different questions and have to be considered separately when it comes to your decision making. Is there deterance in the surveilance and/or is the ablity to surveil have salutory benefits all on its own, is there deterance in the untested system, is there deterance in a sytem that works, and what costs/benefits are there to Canada even if it gets only surveillance. And I sputter when I hear that you think you can find a way not to be a target too; break off realtions, do not sell or buy from us, help fly anyone who wants to bomb us, and start funding all terroist organizatations plus Iran's and Korea's nucular program and you may have start on keeping on the side lines. (That is if we didn't take you out first.)
BTW, your sales pitch could use a little work too! I assume you're saying the system might be a useful surveillance device, even if it can't block incoming missiles. So what? I'm not a defence analyst and you're a lawyer. So where does that leave us? The correct answer, of course, is absolutely fucking nowhere!
So lets forget these lofty technicalities until someone who actually knows WTF it all really means comes along and tells us. If the missile defence shield turns out to be the Swiss Army Knife of high tech hardware, a cornucopia of unexpected military multifunctionality, we'll give it another look. In the meantime, however, it still looks like an classic example of expensively bogus space junk that just flunked its latest exam.
The biggest threat, IMHO, is a suitcase bomb, a dirty bomb or terrorists operating within our borders like in Oklahoma or 9/11. We in Canada are more at risk from our unprotected borders and underfunded military. So, until we actually find out that your missile defence gadget can solve even one of our existing military priorities, I can't get too excited about it.
The biggest threat are the idiots that keep thinking up new ways to kill people and the planet. They are supported by other idiots with money, power and a needless cause. Further still, there are the idiots that feel it is OK to lend their labour to the cause, retirement savings to the stock and supportive comments in the media.slowpoke said:...The biggest threat, IMHO, is a suitcase bomb...
Just to repeat my original post,islandboy said:Slowpokes makes a good point but if we are going to spend the money anyway and ride is cheap or makes money for Canada, WTF is the problem in doing it.
But of course, Canada will be expected to kick in some $$$ to allow the Americans to save us from their enemies. Strategically, we're a buffer zone and a (small) financial resource, nothing more.strange1 said:If the Americans want to spend their money on this antiquated monstrosity, let them. If Canadian companies get hired along the way, fine. Just don't spend my tax dollars on this crap.
But mostly it's idiots who disarm and invite disaster - do the 1930's ring a bell?blitz said:The biggest threat are the idiots that keep thinking up new ways to kill people and the planet. They are supported by other idiots with money, power and a needless cause. Further still, there are the idiots that feel it is OK to lend their labour to the cause, retirement savings to the stock and supportive comments in the media.
OTB
onthebottom said:But mostly it's idiots who disarm and invite disaster - do the 1930's ring a bell?
OTB
I wasn't around then and I can't know for sure what feature of that era you're referring to.
The thing about the 1930's that always sticks in my mind is the part where poorly equipped, underfunded and almost completely unprepared Canada was the first to join Britain in the biggest rumble in the history of mankind. Oh, and the obscenely erie silence from that burly neighbor a few doors south of our place, the one who was always yapping about freedom...
I remember him; he's the reason we won. All you’d have to do is read Churchill to know that.slowpoke said:I wasn't around then and I can't know for sure what feature of that era you're referring to.
The thing about the 1930's that always sticks in my mind is the part where poorly equipped, underfunded and almost completely unprepared Canada was the first to join Britain in the biggest rumble in the history of mankind. Oh, and the obscenely erie silence from that burly neighbor a few doors south of our place, the one who was always yapping about freedom...
OTB
And given that they will most likely be the first long range shots by China or North Korea they'd probably fall short all on their own. Then they'd have the massive Canadian military to deal with - if you could rent the Russian transports again....slowpoke said:Now you know why we're not interested in detecting it early. We'd rather see the incoming missiles keep going to their intended target. And we'll all get the fallout anyway so how much sense does it make to pay good money and still get nuked? Your sales pitch needs a little work!
OTB
It is so refreshing to hear outmoded, decades old logic applied to the 21st century when it is convenient.
The problem with the war mongering ideals of people like you OTB and those you despise is that there will never be enough lebenshraum. It's endless.
You and your ilk will always skew past transgressions or paranoid assumptions of the present to justify violence and an economy based on violence.
Sadly, as the world tries to move forward there will always be just enough dick measuring, cowardly brutes willing to create death to justify their own backward vision.
The problem with the war mongering ideals of people like you OTB and those you despise is that there will never be enough lebenshraum. It's endless.
You and your ilk will always skew past transgressions or paranoid assumptions of the present to justify violence and an economy based on violence.
Sadly, as the world tries to move forward there will always be just enough dick measuring, cowardly brutes willing to create death to justify their own backward vision.
Wow, so many big words and you managed not to say anything. I always like the "and your ilk", sign of a truly closed mind.blitz said:It is so refreshing to hear outmoded, decades old logic applied to the 21st century when it is convenient.
The problem with the war mongering ideals of people like you OTB and those you despise is that there will never be enough lebenshraum. It's endless.
You and your ilk will always skew past transgressions or paranoid assumptions of the present to justify violence and an economy based on violence.
Sadly, as the world tries to move forward there will always be just enough dick measuring, cowardly brutes willing to create death to justify their own backward vision.
OTB
Who said we were going to spend the money anyway? Our government isn't exactly famous for throwing money at our military. To borrow a famous phrase from former Toronto Argonaut head coach, Leo Cahill: "He throws nickels around like they were manhole covers." He was talking about the team's famously parsimonious general manager but he might just as well have been talking about the feds in Ottawa.islandboy said:Slowpokes makes a good point but if we are going to spend the money anyway and ride is cheap or makes money for Canada, WTF is the problem in doing it.
We have so many more urgently pressing problems with our underfunded military that this missile defence gadget makes about as much sense as buying a Ferrari when you can't afford food or shelter for your raggedy-assed children. It simply musn't happen.
Exactly, which is why I said:slowpoke said:Who said we were going to spend the money anyway? Our government isn't exactly famous for throwing money at our military. To borrow a famous phrase from former Toronto Argonaut head coach, Leo Cahill: "He throws nickels around like they were manhole covers." He was talking about the team's famously parsimonious general manager but he might just as well have been talking about the feds in Ottawa.
We have so many more urgently pressing problems with our underfunded military that this missile defence gadget makes about as much sense as buying a Ferrari when you can't afford food or shelter for your raggedy-assed children. It simply musn't happen.
I’m sure we’ll end up paying you to protect you, kind of like our troops in Germany and Japan…..onthebottom said:There probably should have been "Could the US tell the difference" option.
……..
OTB
OTB
