Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada

[old medic]

So what you are basically saying is "IF I'M OKAY JACK - PISS ON YOU" ?.

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll paraphrase:

In reality, this probably isn't about Canada or the US, it's about finding strategic defence for strategic allies in Asia without
directly confronting possible Asian opponents.

The minority government can't make a politically unstable decision in Canada. The only answer possible was "No".
A "yes" answer could bring down the government, cancel the budget, probably cost DND a further budget cut, and installed
yet another minority government.

 

[Kirkhill]

I understand the PM not making a decision that he can't sell - on the principle "don't give an order you don't expect to be followed".

What I don't understand is his being so weak and indecisive that he couldn't bring himself to TRY to sell a position - ANY position.  He allowed the situation to drift far beyond his control.

The Iraq "decision" was similar.

In the run-up to the war Canadian opinion, even in the period between the withdrawl of the second UN resolution and Chretien's declaration in the Commons, were split with about half supporting or inclined to give benefit of the doubt to the Anglo-American position and about half supporting or inclined towards the Franco-European position.  A good chunk of Canadians were in the middle and waiting for the politicians to give some leadership.  Only after Chretien took a position - credit where its due, I don't like the decision and was slow coming and poorly executed but it was a decision - only afterwards did opinion swing against the US.  

Even now something like 30-35% of Canadians support the invasion of Iraq.  If the government had taken the Australian position then I am convinced that it would have carried the Canadian voter with it.  

The only question I have is which would sell better - liberating Iraq from a brutal dictatorship that violated human rights which, like the "responsibility to protect" line should appeal to our vanity of being moral leaders of the world, or preserving ourselves from Weapons of Mass Destruction which would seem to play a fearful, cowering audience only stirred to action when their personal safety is threatened.

This latest pronouncement I can't yet put my finger on what it says about us as a country - I am struggling to find anything positive.  To me it speaks to a disconcerting Anti-Americanism, a parsimonious desire not to spend on anything other than our own health and retirement and an overweaning an undeserved sense of moralizing self-worth.

Perhaps some of the rest of you can convince me to see this in a more positive light.  I would welcome it.

 

[FastEddy]

I'm not sure I understand your question, but I'll paraphrase:

In reality, this probably isn't about Canada or the US, it's about finding strategic defence for strategic allies in Asia without
directly confronting possible Asian opponents.

The minority government can't make a politically unstable decision in Canada. The only answer possible was "No".
A "yes" answer could bring down the government, cancel the budget, probably cost DND a further budget cut, and installed
yet another minority government.

So I'll rephrase my reply, So our Government stays in Power by snubbing our closest Ally. thereby ensuring
increased DND funding which trickles down to you. However if we endorse the U.S BMD, the Liberals   are voted out or fall. The Funding for the DND might not be forthcoming and you might not get a pay increase or new boots.

I imagine you find these arguments and rules for Political Decision Making acceptable.

Therefore, "The Liberals are Okay Jack - The Funding is Okay Jack - I'm Okay Jack - So Piss on you America"

 

[old medic]

I imagine you find these arguments and rules for Political Decision Making acceptable.

This is how the world works.

So our Government stays in Power by snubbing our closest Ally

As opposed to what?  Having another party in power that will vote "NO" on missle defence?

However, you missed the point.  This has nothing to do with us at all.  Getting Canada on side is only one way to legitimize the spending on the program for the US taxpayer, and the US Senate committees while not directly confronting the UN or the counties they theorize to use this system against. They are hiding it as homeland defence because they can sell that.  They wouldn't have support if they called it what it probably is: The Chinese Containment System, or the Sea of Japan Defence System. so they have to hide it politically as something else.

Any contribution Canada could make would be tiny, it could just as easy be done alone by the US defence budget.

The only reason for asking us, was the very same politics your complaining about. It's all about international politics.

 

[Dare]

So you are saying that the spending for NMD in the US is only legitimate if Canada were to take part? I doubt it very much. They most certainly are not "hiding" this system anywhere. There is popular support for it there. It also certainly isn't just directed to Asia as you seem to think. Future threats are what the system is dedicated for. Thinking long term is thinking that somewhere along the line a terrorist organization may gain the capability to launch a ballistic missile at the US. It's not entirely directed at todays threats, as the system itself is not ready today. It's ready tomorrow when the threats of the future may pop up at any time.

I'm not sure what US Senate you're talking about that is afraid of confronting the UN or it's enemies, but I don't know of such an entity. Unlike Canadian politicians, US politicians, for the most part, are far from concerned about the opinion of Kofi and his crew (unless it suits their political pursuits).

It's a very cynical view you have, that the only reason they would ask us is for the opinion of the rest of the world. I think it's much more likely that they asked us because they actually wanted to know our position, and even more likely wanted some help. I'm sure they considered the effects it would have on other nations perhaps pulling them into their umbrella, but what other major US ally is not already in the fold? And even more important, what nation would suddenly change it's mind after hearing Canada accepted BMD?

This is how the world works.

As opposed to what?  Having another party in power that will vote "NO" on missle defence?

However, you missed the point.  This has nothing to do with us at all.  Getting Canada on side is only one way to legitimize the spending on the program for the US taxpayer, and the US Senate committees while not directly confronting the UN or the counties they theorize to use this system against. They are hiding it as homeland defence because they can sell that.  They wouldn't have support if they called it what it probably is: The Chinese Containment System, or the Sea of Japan Defence System. so they have to hide it politically as something else.

Any contribution Canada could make would be tiny, it could just as easy be done alone by the US defence budget.

The only reason for asking us, was the very same politics your complaining about. It's all about international politics.

 

[Buzz]

In reality, this is probably more about finding a defence for threats to Taiwan, South Korea and Japan than it is about North America.
It's just politically correct to say it's defending North America because it won't start a conflict or an arms race with China or North Korea.

Personally, Good for Mr. Dithers.
If there is very little public support, he did the right thing.   If he, and the Canadian Military were seen (even on here) to support
something unpopular with the public, then the CF will loose more public support.   Loosing more public support makes it politically
acceptable to CUT the DND budget down the road.

Ok who does the US trade with in Asia?  Next who does Canada trade with in Asia?  How can Canada secure a trade advantage with countries that may see our country as being incompetant to defend our own country without the help of another country, especially in Asia where it would be look at being dishonorable being in a communist state they are in.  I'm sure that is the way it would be looked at even though we would know different if he said "yes".   So to say "no thanks" was a wise move, no errors in misconception.  In the public opinion, agreed, but because they think Martin is just taking a stand against the US all because of what we see in the media. EG)finger pointing and cross boarder closings to goods and tariffing of goods along with NAFTA and cr*p.  But down to a personal level where if we don't approve to someone's liking at the border we could be blacklisted and prohibited from entering the US for 5 years and at one point (we forget) they wanted to do biometrics.  How far is it going to go?   You know it's almost like they were taking advantage of us and hey, can you say "bad taste".  But really it's much bigger than that.  Trade, Trade, Trade.  

Do we agree we dont' need our hand held and we should be able to stand up on our own 2 feet without a crutch? Therefore, adding more money into the Military budget because of public support seeing that we have become independant upon the US. and vise versa.  I would like to see the statistics on how many Americans moved to Canada because of home land security and why they moved here instead of sticking it out.  

It usually seems, the ones that feel we don't need a military, or cut budgets are the ones that go and hug a tree every once and a while.  :-X I think it would look bad if the US started taking on defensive roles in Canada.  There is just something "not right" with that picture. How would that make you feel?    

I do agree that we need some sort of defence but in a completely different thread, a good point was brought up, that suit case bombs and nukes pose more of a threat.


This is the pre-thread leading up until the announcement:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26593.165.html

Alot of this is repetitive but at the same time a lot of good points were brought up aswell. Just my .02  

Cheers!
-Buzz

 

[old medic]

So you are saying that the spending for NMD in the US is only legitimate if Canada were to take part?

I didn't say that at all. I didn't imply it either.  It has nothing to do with spending. 

It's not entirely directed at todays threats, as the system itself is not ready today

Correct, but future threats do not involve privately owned ICBMs.  They belong to the countires I mentioned.
Otherwise, you've just given us a blanket statement that could be talking about any weapon system.

I'm not sure what US Senate you're talking about that is afraid of confronting the UN or it's enemies, but I don't know of such an entity

You've missed the politics point as well.
They risk having future security council resolutions at North Korea vetoed by China.  That would cause political problems for any administration. So once again, it's all about politics and confrontation down the road.  Everything is linked.

I think it's much more likely that they asked us because they actually wanted to know our position, and even more likely wanted some help

Once again, only for political appearance.  There is no money for such help, and if we said yes, it would come out of another DND budget line item somewhere else and mean one more cancelled piece of major kit, or another 20 years of the airforce flying antiques.

what nation would suddenly change it's mind after hearing Canada accepted BMD?

None at all.  I think you summed it all up right there 

 

[Buzz]

Correct, but future threats do not involve privately owned ICBMs.   They belong to the countires I mentioned.
Otherwise, you've just given us a blanket statement that could be talking about any weapon system.

They risk having future security council resolutions at North Korea vetoed by China.   That would cause political problems for any administration. So once again, it's all about politics and confrontation down the road.   Everything is linked.

Once again, only for political appearance.    There is no money for such help, and if we said yes, it would come out of another DND budget line item somewhere else and mean one more cancelled piece of major kit, or another 20 years of the airforce flying antiques.

EXACTLY!! 

-Buzz

 

[tomahawk6]

All Mr Martin has to do is declare neutrality. Abrograte NATO and NAFTA. Then Canada will be like Switzerland.

 

[Cloud Cover]

All Mr Martin has to do is declare neutrality. Abrograte NATO and NAFTA. Then Canada will be like Switzerland.

Hello Jack Layton.

 

[Dare]

1) Explain to me how a suitcase bomb is more of a threat than a nuclear tipped ICBM?
2) Explain to me how the US has not already taken up a defensive role for Canada?
3) Explain to me why it would be a Bad Thing that the US would step up to defend it's closest ally?
4) Explain to me why it would be a Bad Thing that Canada would step up to defend it's closest ally?

I'm not sure if you are aware, but a suitcase nuke just isn't going to make as big of a crater as your average ICBM. NMD is part of a larger strategy. Certainly they are working on port security and boarder security *as well*. Not instead of. And judging by your link to the previous thread, your posts there indicate you're simply going to use whatever excuse it takes to present BMD as a Bad Thing. What you seem to be suggesting is that we should focus exclusively on one delivery system for the weapon (a suitcase) and ignore the others.

As for your segway into a rant about trade policies, I'm not too sure what that has to do with NMD, nor am I really sure what you're saying there. Canadians being mad because the Americans won't let them arbitrarily come into their country? Maybe we should be mad at the Jihadist who makes such policies required practice, or mad at the politicians who let such Jihadists reside in our country?

Just a thought..

Ok who does the US trade with in Asia?  Next who does Canada trade with in Asia?  How can Canada secure a trade advantage with countries that may see our country as being incompetant to defend our own country without the help of another country, especially in Asia where it would be look at being dishonorable being in a communist state they are in.  I'm sure that is the way it would be looked at even though we would know different if he said "yes".  So to say "no thanks" was a wise move, no errors in misconception.  In the public opinion, agreed, but because they think Martin is just taking a stand against the US all because of what we see in the media. EG)finger pointing and cross boarder closings to goods and tariffing of goods along with NAFTA and cr*p.  But down to a personal level where if we don't approve to someone's liking at the border we could be blacklisted and prohibited from entering the US for 5 years and at one point (we forget) they wanted to do biometrics.  How far is it going to go?  You know it's almost like they were taking advantage of us and hey, can you say "bad taste".  But really it's much bigger than that.  Trade, Trade, Trade. 

Do we agree we dont' need our hand held and we should be able to stand up on our own 2 feet without a crutch? Therefore, adding more money into the Military budget because of public support seeing that we have become independant upon the US. and vise versa.  I would like to see the statistics on how many Americans moved to Canada because of home land security and why they moved here instead of sticking it out. 

It usually seems, the ones that feel we don't need a military, or cut budgets are the ones that go and hug a tree every once and a while.  :-X I think it would look bad if the US started taking on defensive roles in Canada.  There is just something "not right" with that picture. How would that make you feel?   

I do agree that we need some sort of defence but in a completely different thread, a good point was brought up, that suit case bombs and nukes pose more of a threat.


This is the pre-thread leading up until the announcement:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26593.165.html

Alot of this is repetitive but at the same time a lot of good points were brought up aswell. Just my .02 

Cheers!
-Buzz

 

[old medic]

1) Explain to me how a suitcase bomb is more of a threat than a nuclear tipped ICBM?

You can look at an ICBM with arial and space imagery.
You can see missle carriers the same way.
You can see silos the same way
You can see portable launchers the same way.
You can track ICBMs.

You can not do any of those things with dirty weapons or suitcases.

also,

There are missing Soviet suitcases.
Suitcases are easy to hide.
Suitcases require less man power.
Suitcases are very hard to account for.
Suitcases and dirty weapons are easier to carry down the sidewalk than a Titan or an SS18.


But this is now getting way off track.  Lets try and keep this on topic.

 

[Dare]

I didn't say that at all. I didn't imply it either.  It has nothing to do with spending. 

"Getting Canada on side is only one way to legitimize the spending on the program for the US taxpayer"
Sure looks like more than an implication to me.

Correct, but future threats do not involve privately owned ICBMs.  They belong to the countires I mentioned.
Otherwise, you've just given us a blanket statement that could be talking about any weapon system.

Ah, now I think it's you who's "missing the point". See future threats do indeed involve privately owned ICBMs, as well as cruise missiles. As the cost and technology filters down, as it will eventually, this will become more and more of a problem. How much money do you think it costs to buy an ICBM? You think that only states can manage that cost? You think that the ones that would be capable of supplying or producing such technology would only be willing to sell to a state?

You've missed the politics point as well.
They risk having future security council resolutions at North Korea vetoed by China.  That would cause political problems for any administration. So once again, it's all about politics and confrontation down the road.  Everything is linked.

No, actually, I didn't miss any point. I dismissed the point. As we have seen in this US administration, they're perfectly content in going around the UN. While it's true most things are linked in some way, kind of like how I'm 7 degrees seperated from Kevin Bacon. Unfortunately, this isn't a very good measure of an actual connection. Asking Canada to join a NMD system is not some kind of elabourate public relations event.

Once again, only for political appearance.  There is no money for such help, and if we said yes, it would come out of another DND budget line item somewhere else and mean one more cancelled piece of major kit, or another 20 years of the airforce flying antiques.

I'm sure they could cough up some money. Perhaps it would come from the DND's budget. So what? This sort of thing is far more important. We managed to cough up quite a bit in disaster relief for tsunami victims. It was important. How about managing that to avoid an even bigger disaster.

 

[Dare]

First off, this is very much on topic.

Secondly, isn't it lovely how you can see all those things. I notice you didn't put DEFEND AGAINST anywhere in amongst that list. It's interesting and wonderful we can see those ICBM's. It's also unfortunate we can't see those suitcase nukes, but when all is said and done. Once the ICBM is launched, it's flung into space and then hurtles down at Mach 23 and makes quite a big dent into a lot of peoples lives. A suitcase nuke would also make a pretty big dent. The ICBM's dent is orders of magnitude larger, but apparently, according to you, it's less of a threat because we saw it launch and tracked it in space.

You can look at an ICBM with arial and space imagery.
You can see missle carriers the same way.
You can see silos the same way
You can see portable launchers the same way.
You can track ICBMs.

You can not do any of those things with dirty weapons or suitcases.

also,

There are missing Soviet suitcases.
Suitcases are easy to hide.
Suitcases require less man power.
Suitcases are very hard to account for.
Suitcases and dirty weapons are easier to carry down the sidewalk than a Titan or an SS18.


But this is now getting way off track.  Lets try and keep this on topic.

 

[Buzz]

1) Explain to me how a suitcase bomb is more of a threat than a nuclear tipped ICBM?

Not to sound blunt but both are dangerous to the public. One is on a much larger scale than the other. Obviously.

2) Explain to me how the US has not already taken up a defensive role for Canada?

Good one..and point taken. But question to you is how does that make you feel then?

3) Explain to me why it would be a Bad Thing that the US would step up to defend it's closest ally?

It wouldn't be a bad thing but depending on the severity or scale.  Not at the tip of hat.

4) Explain to me why it would be a Bad Thing that Canada would step up to defend it's closest ally?

If you read any of my earlier post in which i don't think you really did....I mentioned that if an unknown was in our airspace who says we wouldn't shoot it down anyway. and was wondering what the NORAD policy was concidering that should still be in effect no?

And judging by your link to the previous thread, your posts there indicate you're simply going to use whatever excuse it takes to present BMD as a Bad Thing. What you seem to be suggesting is that we should focus exclusively on one delivery system for the weapon (a suitcase) and ignore the others.

Not at all.  It seems you'll use any excuse to support it and I'm not suggesting anything in regards to a suitcase bomb being the only means of an attack against our homeland. But what I am suggesting is reading what others have to say and seeing the validity as to why Paul Martin said no.  I didn't say no! hahaha But as an average civvy this is what I see and read. Remember to keep that in mind. But if I saw a reason as to why Canada should have it...I might be in agreeance with you. Simple. Money plays a major role. How are we going to expand when we have no money.  Because now we have to jointly look after(maintain) our end of a piece of equipment for something that may or may not happen.  

As for your segway into a rant about trade policies, I'm not too sure what that has to do with NMD, nor am I really sure what you're saying there. Canadians being mad because the Americans won't let them arbitrarily come into their country? Maybe we should be mad at the Jihadist who makes such policies required practice, or mad at the politicians who let such Jihadists reside in our country?

let me put it this way....how are we going to get more money so we can expand our military? Is the US our only trade partner?

Continued thought.......

 

[Dare]

1] I do not mind that the US is involved in defending Canada, I do not mind that any of our allies are involved. They are allies.
2] I don't quite understand your second question.
3] I do not know how we are going to get more money to expand our military, but I'm quite positive that theres more than enough fat that can be trimmed from government spending to cover it.
4] Obviously the US is not our only trading partner, but it's unarguably the most important trading partner. We would fall into anarchy if they shut the borders down for a significant chunk of time. We *are* dependant. It's time we faced up to that fact and planned with that in mind. Ignoring it does not make it change.

Not to sound blunt but both are dangerous to the public. One is on a much larger scale than the other. Obviously.Good one..and point taken. But question to you is how does that make you feel then?It wouldn't be a bad thing but depending on the severity or scale.  Not at the tip of hat. If you read any of my earlier post in which i don't think you really did....I mentioned that if an unknown was in our airspace who says we wouldn't shoot it down anyway. and was wondering what the NORAD policy was concidering that should still be in effect no?Not at all.  It seems you'll use any excuse to support it and I'm not suggesting anything in regards to a suitcase bomb being the only means of an attack against our homeland. But what I am suggesting is reading what others have to say and seeing the validity as to why Paul Martin said no.  I didn't say no! hahaha But as an average civvy this is what I see and read. Remember to keep that in mind. But if I saw a reason as to why Canada should have it...I might be in agreeance with you. Simple. Money plays a major role. How are we going to expand when we have no money.  Because now we have to jointly look after(maintain) our end of a piece of equipment for something that may or may not happen.  let me put it this way....how are we going to get more money so we can expand our military? Is the US our only trade partner?

Continued thought.......

 

[big_johnson1]

I'm not sure if you are aware, but a suitcase nuke just isn't going to make as big of a crater as your average ICBM. NMD is part of a larger strategy. Certainly they are working on port security and boarder security *as well*. Not instead of. And judging by your link to the previous thread, your posts there indicate you're simply going to use whatever excuse it takes to present BMD as a Bad Thing. What you seem to be suggesting is that we should focus exclusively on one delivery system for the weapon (a suitcase) and ignore the others.

A suitcase nuke could be just as bad as an ICBM because if it were taken up to the top floor of a buildling, even just 300 feet, that is more than enough to create the same effect as an airburst. An airbust just has to be above the ground to be effective. If the US DOE estimate of as little as 4kg of plutonium required for a nuke is correct, then you could be dealing with 1-5kilotons in a very small package. Doesn't sound like much until it's detonated in downtown New York, with a population density of about 70,000 per square mile in Manhattan. Suddenly that 1/4 mile crater seems to do a lot more damage doesn't it?

 

[Buzz]

2] I don't quite understand your second question.

I was wondering what the policy was for NORAD because if the early warning system was upgraded to recognize and track an ICBM for an early warning.  Would this in fact allow us to "go get" regardless if it's heading to the states or not.  And be much cheaper than installing an anti-missle program with the use of patriots or whatever they deem to be anti ICMB.    

 

[spenco]

More government flip flopping. 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/02/26/missile-defence050226.html

OTTAWA - Ottawa won't be taking part in the U.S. ballistic missile defence system, but Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew says that doesn't mean Canadian aerospace companies shouldn't get involved.
 
Pettigrew says having the government join the program would have been inconsistent with Canada's defence priorities, and U.S. officials have given no assurances it wouldn't lead to placing weapons in space.
But Pettigrew, in an interview with CBC' Radio's The House, sees no contradiction with Canadian companies bidding on contracts to build that same system.

"I do not believe that we should control Canadian business. I would be very pleased if Canadian busines can contribute to the defence systems of the United States," says Pettigrew.

While the government has no trouble endorsing the participation of Canadian firms in the controversial defence system, they may end up shut out of contracts.


Natalie Bourque, vice-president of CAE, a Montreal-based company that produces weapons simulators, says she's not confident the company will get any missile defence work now.
"We would have liked the government to move ahead because it would have meant good contracts for CAE and good contracts for our employees," she says.

Instead, Canadian aerospace firms are hoping the Feb. 23 budget and the promised $13 billion in new defence spending will provide work oppportunities they no longer expect from south of the border.

 

[Dare]

I certainly do not dispute the lethality of a suitcase nuke. I only compare that an ICBM is considerably larger and more lethal.There are micronukes and such of various yields, but this goes around my point. Which is that, it's very important we be able to defend against an attack of this type and while we have a multitiered system to filter out and detect nuclear material being shipped here on boats and planes, we do not have any sort of system to filter out nuclear material being shipped on incoming missiles.

A suitcase nuke could be just as bad as an ICBM because if it were taken up to the top floor of a buildling, even just 300 feet, that is more than enough to create the same effect as an airburst. An airbust just has to be above the ground to be effective. If the US DOE estimate of as little as 4kg of plutonium required for a nuke is correct, then you could be dealing with 1-5kilotons in a very small package. Doesn't sound like much until it's detonated in downtown New York, with a population density of about 70,000 per square mile in Manhattan. Suddenly that 1/4 mile crater seems to do a lot more damage doesn't it?