We're back in the USSR...

[Soldier]

...not sure.

Of course, if I fly trash-haulers or 'copters, it won't matter, because it definitely won't be 1.5.

[Inquartata]

Be of good cheer, Soldier! Jeff may be in Japan, but I'd be willing to bet that he has no chickens in his room....

[jeff]

No chickens in the room, but I've finished my last meeting, and can now go Goof Off (tm) and sightsee a little!

[A Fencer]

It seems the Russian federation under Putin is returning to a dictatorial state. I say this in regard to his consolidation of the media, the destruction and assault on the business kingpins, and the recent plan to remove the ability of independant candidates to run for government positions and to make the position of reigional governor an appointment position instead of an elected one. So, is this a revival of the Soviet Union by an ex-KGB officer and all the political problems that result from such, or merely paranoia from a left-winger like myself who likes such things as freedom of the press and the ability to vote?

My question is thus, what the **** does the sovereign privilege of any state have the **** to do with the US? Sort out your own **** before meddling in other peoples...

oh and ps left-wing DOES NOT equal liberal. Right wing vs left wing and Liberal vs Totalitarian are NOT two sides of the same coin. You can for instance be left wing totalitarian (the USSR or east germany), but you can also be right wing totalitarian (fascist italy or pre-war germany). At the same time you can also be left wing liberal (in its most extreme form - anarchism) or right wing liberal. Get a clue retards, or at least think before opening your gobs...

[lochinvar]

My question is thus, what the **** does the sovereign privilege of any state have the **** to do with the US? Sort out your own **** before meddling in other peoples...

It's called "making conversation". Intelligent people do it. You should try it sometime.

oh and ps left-wing DOES NOT equal liberal. Right wing vs left wing and Liberal vs Totalitarian are NOT two sides of the same coin. You can for instance be left wing totalitarian (the USSR or east germany), but you can also be right wing totalitarian (fascist italy or pre-war germany). At the same time you can also be left wing liberal (in its most extreme form - anarchism) or right wing liberal. Get a clue retards, or at least think before opening your gobs...

So it seems we're reduced to receiving civics lectures from the clueless...

[jBirch]

Anyone care to comment on the now official Canadian position of taking Missile Defense and shoving it?

[Soldier]

I don't know...where are they shoving it?

[jBirch]

I don't know...where are they shoving it?

Well, the plan was Cheyenne Mountain, but the US government made a stink and it'll probably end up in North Bay or Shilo.

Seriously though, the Canadian government recently issued a statement saying that it officially refuses to participate in BMD especially with regards to the weaponisation of space. Do you think this is wise or stupid? What are the likely ramifications of the decision?

[Soldier]

War's going to get to space eventually, one way or another; it's just a matter of time. We can make all sorts of treaties to keep space de-weaponized, but that will only mean that the first people to get the jump on extra-atmospheric combat will be some rogue nation that doesn't care about treaties. Might as well get on the bandwagon early.

[Larrison]

A couple of comments --

First, there is NO treaty prohibiting the weaponization of space. There is a treaty prohibiting the stationing of weapons of mass destruction in space, but nothing about "weapons" in general.

Secondly, Canada is a long term ally and valued partner in the defense of North America through NORAD -- to the point that a Canadian general was in command in Cheyenne Mountain I believe, on 9/11.

Canada's participation in NMD isn't necessary -- we don't need to locate a missile detection radar site, nor interceptor site there in any form. (Radars in Alaska, Continental US, and in space, if memory serves -- Interceptors in Alaska and California). So their participation in NMD isn't a big deal.

However... Does this mean the US has no requirement nor responsibility to intercept a missile heading for Vancouver, or Toronto? Does this mean that Canada is also opting out of getting the Missile Detection and Track data, which is produced and shared with other countries like Australia, the UK, and Japan? How will we seaparate "air defense" data, from "missile defense data"?

Lastly, I'm still confused about how this has to do with "weaponization of space"? I don't see anything in any plans about putting any interceptors in orbit? I know they've been talked about, but there's nothing in the current plans except for ground based interceptors.

IMHO, it appears that this is a political decision in Canada, at least partially driven by the national budget issues in Canada, and then dressed up to make it sound good for the Canadian population to get a bump in the polls for the current minority government.

[Larrison]

Just ran across this.. published by the Canadian Institute of International Affairs, back in 2000. Interesting reading.. and seems on point for this discussion.

www.ciia.org/proceedings/ NMD%20and%20Canada-US%20relations.pdf

[jBirch]

Larrison,

You make some good points. The key to the decision I think is the general unpopularity of the pitch put forward by the US and a generally growing pro-Canada sentiment to stand up for Canadian interests as seperate from US interests. The argument the PM is putting forward, namely eshewing NMD participation in favour of more Canadian funding, I think is the right answer. With Canada's diminished importance in continental defense, comes a choice between giving more and more concessions to stay on par or cutting the costs and trying to go it alone.

I think strategically there are a couple of other factors playing out. Canada has always thrived as a nation by playing off the US and Europe against each other in order to maintain our sovereignity. Realistically, Canada needs to move a little bit closer to the middle (and closer to Europe because of that) in order to maintain any sort of sovereignity.

Part too of the problem is the desire of the US to intercept missiles over Canada in order to ensure that any medium-stage debris falls outside of US territory as well as practically ensure that US targets can be protected legitimately. You ask the question of inbound nuclear missiles to Toronto or Vancouver instead of Buffalo or Seattle. Depending on the flight path, protecting Canadian sovereign airspace in these scenarios is a distant concern when faced with American lives. If a missile is flying over Toronto toward Detroit, will the US hesitate to shoot it down as far away from the target as possible?

Finally, I think, many politicians and foreign entities regard terrorism, especially state-sponsored agression, as a bit of a plague. If you distance yourself from anyone infected then you're less likely to fall victim to it. Canada can not afford to invest in NMD to protect Canadian cities so participation in the program would only be to assuage US interests. This means that Canada is better served by making itself different and distant from the US and removing itself from the prime list of targets. A great way to accomplish this is to take a moral stand different from the US on something considered by the public to be needlessly agressive, Iraq and NMD being prime examples.

[Larrison]

A couple of comments, jBirch,

>>[ ... ] Part too of the problem is the desire of the US to intercept missiles over Canada in order to ensure that any medium-stage debris falls outside of US territory as well as practically ensure that US targets can be protected legitimately. You ask the question of inbound nuclear missiles to Toronto or Vancouver instead of Buffalo or Seattle. Depending on the flight path, protecting Canadian sovereign airspace in these scenarios is a distant concern when faced with American lives. If a missile is flying over Toronto toward Detroit, will the US hesitate to shoot it down as far away from the target as possible?<<

I think you're thinking too much of the cold war with that example. The interceptors were put in Alaska and California because the most probable trajectories that a potential threat could come in are primarily North Pacific/ Alaska Trajectories, not "over the pole" trajectories. Under those scenarios, the intercept will most probably take place over the Pacific, or over Alaska.

The scenario I was thinking of a path from somewhere like N. Korea or China towards Seattle. The satellite sensors are supposed to be able to give a target point within a few kms pretty quickly. Suppose the US sees one and the probably target point turns out to be Vancouver, and not Seattle -- a different of well over 100 km. Given a limited interceptor set (20 I think is the number being installed), would a US commander launch against that missile, or preserve his options against follow on shots? Similarly for Toronto/ Detroit. A little visualization with a globe shows the most probable paths would have an intercept over water or Alaska.

So I'm not sure the issue about where the intercepted missile might fall plays here. However, my opinion is the commander in that scenario would launch, regardless. But in this case, the Canadian government has de facto turned defense against ballistic threat over to the US -- and taken a Canadian voice out of the discussion.

Secondly, as a bit of a nit.. you use the phrase later >>[ ... ] Finally, I think, many politicians and foreign entities regard terrorism, especially state-sponsored agression, as a bit of a plague.<<

I think there's a distinct difference between terrorism and state sponsored aggression. Terrorism is the calculated targeting of civilians in aid of a political aim. As such, it violates every international law and statute and has been condemned by virtually every government and government wannabe in the world. I also note, that it immediately removes any person or organization performing this from under any UN or other agreement (such as the Geneva convention). State sponsored agression is something quite different, at least in my opinion. If a state sponsors indescriminate targeting against civilians, without making a reasonable attempt to avoid civilian casualties, then that is terrorism.

As for Canada being able to avoid being infected with the "plague" of terrorism, I will note that there has been at least one attempted mass murder/ terrorist attack planned and launched on the US from Canada -- the New Years bombing in Seattle in 2000, that was stopped purely by luck on the US/ Canadian border.

[SamIam]

War's going to get to space eventually, one way or another; it's just a matter of time. We can make all sorts of treaties to keep space de-weaponized, but that will only mean that the first people to get the jump on extra-atmospheric combat will be some rogue nation that doesn't care about treaties. Might as well get on the bandwagon early.

Hmm... some rogue nation that doesn't care about treaties...

Now who could that refer to?

[jBirch]

A couple of comments, jBirch,

I think you're thinking too much of the cold war with that example. The interceptors were put in Alaska and California because the most probable trajectories that a potential threat could come in are primarily North Pacific/ Alaska Trajectories, not "over the pole" trajectories. Under those scenarios, the intercept will most probably take place over the Pacific, or over Alaska.

True, though the significant "accidental launch" threat is till over the pole. Frankly, a more probable scenario is a rogue missile smuggled somewhere by ship and launched without government approval, say from cuba or northern Canada.

The scenario I was thinking of a path from somewhere like N. Korea or China towards Seattle. The satellite sensors are supposed to be able to give a target point within a few kms pretty quickly. Suppose the US sees one and the probably target point turns out to be Vancouver, and not Seattle -- a different of well over 100 km. Given a limited interceptor set (20 I think is the number being installed), would a US commander launch against that missile, or preserve his options against follow on shots? Similarly for Toronto/ Detroit. A little visualization with a globe shows the most probable paths would have an intercept over water or Alaska.

I think that geopolitically targetting Vancouver, say, from NK or PRC is unlikely in the extreme. Eastern US is more likely, if a launcher can be manouvred into position.

So I'm not sure the issue about where the intercepted missile might fall plays here. However, my opinion is the commander in that scenario would launch, regardless. But in this case, the Canadian government has de facto turned defense against ballistic threat over to the US -- and taken a Canadian voice out of the discussion.

True, to an extent. If the commander is going to launch, regardless, then what is an assenting voice going to do to the equation? Not much. How much is having that voice there going to cost? Quite a lot, I think.

Secondly, as a bit of a nit.. you use the phrase later >>[ ... ] Finally, I think, many politicians and foreign entities regard terrorism, especially state-sponsored agression, as a bit of a plague.<<

I think there's a distinct difference between terrorism and state sponsored aggression. Terrorism is the calculated targeting of civilians in aid of a political aim. As such, it violates every international law and statute and has been condemned by virtually every government and government wannabe in the world. I also note, that it immediately removes any person or organization performing this from under any UN or other agreement (such as the Geneva convention). State sponsored agression is something quite different, at least in my opinion. If a state sponsors indescriminate targeting against civilians, without making a reasonable attempt to avoid civilian casualties, then that is terrorism.

No, I chose my words deliberately. Terrorism is one threat, rogue nations launching nuclear weapons at urban populations is another. Let's not get into State Terrorism as the topic has been beaten to death. Both are supposed to be deterred using NMD. My point was that I think in Canada's case, vocally rejecting NMD increases our safety from both.

As for Canada being able to avoid being infected with the "plague" of terrorism, I will note that there has been at least one attempted mass murder/ terrorist attack planned and launched on the US from Canada -- the New Years bombing in Seattle in 2000, that was stopped purely by luck on the US/ Canadian border.

True, but again, the target of that attack was not a Canadian city, an important consideration. It is in the US' best interest that Canada support NMD and similar programs. It is not necessarily in Canada's interest to do so. Unfortunatly, one of the best ways to protect Canadians abroad is to emphasise that they are not American. Rejecting NMD is another way of doing that.

[Soldier]

Hmm... some rogue nation that doesn't care about treaties...

Now who could that refer to?

North Korea...China...a whole lot of Middle Eastern nations...

[Soldier]

Unfortunately, one of the best ways to protect Canadians abroad is to emphasise that they are not American. Rejecting NMD is another way of doing that.

"No, no, don't talk to them...they're not popular. Don't want to be associated with such people..."

[Gav]

Reagan launches Cold War into space

The BBC taking a look back on this (we were chatting about ballistic missile defence on this thread; weren't we?).

[jBirch]

"No, no, don't talk to them...they're not popular. Don't want to be associated with such people..."

Or the, "if it walks like an American and quacks like an American then it probably is an American".

DEATH TO THE INFIDEL!

I don't mind being the Canadian swan hanging out with the ugly American ducklings though.