What were the reasons for Canada to join the missile defence plan, anyways?

Actually the one we're building is pretty much the best thing around at the moment.

Its opponents tend to embarass themselves by lumping it in with the Reagan-era SDI, but it isn't anything like what was proposed during the 1980s. We didn't have the tech to do it then and we still don't have a lot of it (not to mention some of the ideas proposed then were just plain fantasies).

I say this as somebody who came of age during the SDI era, whose career path was heavily swayed by its reach-for-the-stars appeal.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you were in an artillery squadron somwhere in korea... how does that relate to the sdi?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right now I work with the stuff and it's always been an interest of mine so I'm pretty keen about the history and workings of it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

cool

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

best thing around at the moment? If it doesn't work, how does it matter that it's better than other systems that also don't work?
Exactly what REALISTIC scenario is this system meant to defend against?

Here, go debate with these guys:
A group of top US scientists, including nine Nobel Prize winners, called on Congress to stop funding deployment of interceptor missiles for a controversial ground-based missile defense system, saying it was incapable of defending against a real attack.

Among the 22 signers of the letter were nine Nobel laureates in physics, as well as physics professors from leading US universities and research centers.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0408-05.htm

 

Face it, even if this thing worked perfectly at some unknown point in the future, and everyone knows that we have it, enemies can easily find alternative means to attack us; dirty bombs, bio-war, 9/11 anyone?

But that point is that it will never work perfectly; one word for you: DECOYS

 

hmmm, yes,
how will it work if a swarm of dummy rockets is launched and just behind them are a few real nuclear missiles?

 

Heres what I saw and read up in Canada:

Paul Martin is diplomaticaly closer to Bush than the former prmie minister Chrétien was. In an effort to both please Bush and part of the public which would like us to participate in the program (mostly conservative voters in the prairies) Martin has never given a clear answer on the subject on his intentions although hinting he would be against.
Finally, some articles I read in the Globe and Mail and The Citizen criticized Martin between October and December 2004 that whatever he was thinking saying or not saying, the project was already underhand anyways, implying that the Liberal governement had secretly giving the OK to the U.S., namely by allowing the U.S. to use our northern intelligence system (NORAD?).

Peace.

 

No, it doesn't work. But neither does the 2008 Honda Accord. I'll give you one guess as to why.

The scenario it is designed to defend against is an accidental launch, or a deliberate attack by a rogue ICBM power of perhaps one or two missiles. Basically a very small strike from a marginal state.

Appeal to authority.

Also, I've read their letter and been asked about it many times. Suffice to say, they really don't understand the level of technology we are working with (nor that of the level of the threat it is designed to mitigate) so their analysis is very poor. If you would like me to explain something further, just ask.

What about them?

 

Well, as I said above, the threats it is designed to defend against would not originate from a country like Russia, who is currently the only one capable of lobbing a swarm of ICBM's at us. Anyway, that would be a gigantic waste of launch vehicles that could be carrying comparatively cheap warheads just in case they made it through, and probably more trouble than it's worth.

I assume he's referring to parasitic decoys that are carried by the 1-2 offending missiles in addition to the actual warhead, but I'll let him elaborate further.

 

I'm writing to you Stokes in order to help you in your future argumentative endeavours. You start off your segment by dismissing another members' argument stating that he is relying on a fallacy of authority. Yet, at the same time, you offer to better explain (which for some odd reason you chose not to do at the moment) how the system works to that same member as if your own opinion or understanding was an authority on the subject.

So, just like Descartes and the mind\body problem, you can't have your cake and eat it to. Either you dismiss all arguements founded on authority (including your own) or you can recognize that nobel prize winners have good mathematical chances of knowing what they are talking about, just like -maybe- you do.

Prisme

 

The best reasons given in this thread for the shield are lame reasons to spend $100+ billion on it. A dirty bomb is a hundred times the realistic threat of a missile attack, and can probably cause as much economic damage. And the risk of a dirty bomb can be greatly diminished by simply not doing the mean things we do that lead people to seek revenge against us. A big chunk of the US defense budget now goes to thwarting revenge-seekers. As someone mentioned above, who would attack Canada?

 

I agree with zanket here. The US spends large sums of money creating threats for it and then spends even largers sums of money to counter those threats.

 

Yeah, I'm supposed to believe politicians over a group of top-notch scientists. It's well known that Bush actively silences the scientific community on subjects for which they are the experts. The shield is just one more thing. Bush isn't stupid; the shield will make some of his buddies even more fabulously wealthy. That's been the the overriding mission of his presidency. The Republicans in power know that their secret to continued rule is selling off the country's future to their wealthy supporters. Pork projects that appease the average kill-kill-kill Republican are the best of all worlds.

 

Keep that military industrial complex rolling. The owners of our country wouldn't have it any other way.

 

I don't want to sound too much like a doomsday prophet, but if the U.S. ever economically collapses, I am sure it will be because of two things:

1- Outsourcing of jobs (destroying middle class)

2- Continuous and gross mismanagement of public funds (handouts)

What strikes me in the eventually catastrophic economy policy the conservatives are following is that from the top everything looks fine since a ton of money is flowing everywhere in many industries. Of course, the problem is more than evident when your at the bottom: you see people with less qualified jobs, less buying power and thus less cosuming which in turn leads to less internal production. This is an obvious way to have the social structure implode.

This said, outsourcing and mismanagement are both caused by private interests overriding the public interests. I'm sure in a couple of years after such a collapse, people will talk of how the corporations and the governement leaders 'sold america' in little pieces accross the world because it was worth more to them in pieces than it was in one unified center founded on public interest.

Then, maybe, the world will recognize the political fallacy of both the former U.S.S.R and the U.S.A (I'm implying that we will one day see both economical systems as deficicent: since one has a tendency to be insensitive to the market demands and the other too heavily founded on private interests) For as we all know, the U.S. claimed controled markets was a corrupt method of operating, while the communists predicted the end of capitalism through the impossible reconciliation of private interests with a form of public interest.

God save the people, the Queen and the King are already beyond saving,

Prisme

 

Exactly. The sad thing is, the public still has the reigns on the power but of late has let the horse loose to run where it wants. Republican politicians are private servants. Not only will they sell off the country, they'll eventually figure out how to cut off the reigns too. Then we're screwed.

 

If you'll read through my posts on this subject (especially in GS&T) you will find that I am imbued with a certain degree of authority on this matter being that it is my current profession. However, I do agree with what you are saying, but I am not going to bother "refuting" anything until he (newjesustimes) actually chooses what argument of theirs he is subscribing to. I have addressed each and every argument against this technology very specifically and in great detail in this forum in the past, and unless he is going to offer more than a link lifted from a ten second google search, I have neither an intention nor interest of wasting anybody's time with a long-winded rebuttal to an empty-set argument.

This argument is not cogent. NMD won't stop a dirty bomb any more than body armor will protect you from a head shot. Does that mean it is useless? Of course not. Two different threats require two different countermeasures and neither are mutually exclusive of one another.

Oh hey, look who corrected your partisan fuckery on the first page of this thread!

 

The correct question is, is the solution to the threat cost-beneficial all things considered? NMD is clearly not.

As I said before, that was then, this is now. It was not known then that NMD is not cost-beneficial. Now it is known. The very moment that is known, the dismantling of it should begin.

 

Fine, let's start with decoys then. Let's say I'm running a small dictatorship in eastern asia and I've got ICBM technology. Compared to the cost of developing the ICBM, MIRVing each with decoys (or if we can afford it, armed warheads!) would be relatively inconsequential, and well worth it, if I know you've got a functioning (?!) anti-missile system... What is the maximum number of simultaneous warheads you can take out?

Ok here's another exercise.
Estimate the cost of developing a nuclear warhead, (obtain the material, assemble the technology, test, develop, etc)
Next estimate the cost of devloping an ICBM.

Now, if you'll entertain me, estimate the cost of detonating a dirty bomb. Let's say a truck full of fertilizer and spent fuel rods.

Now estimate the cost of developing & deploying your '08 Honda, a SUCCESSFULLY FUNCTIONING anti-missile system.

Now look at these numbers (post them too!) and tell me what you see. Maybe your numbers look different than my estimates, but I think that a rogue state single missile attack is just completely bananas, compared to the dirty bomb.

Remember this; assuming you are the number one world expert in anti-missile technology, that still doesn't mean I'd take your advice as to whether or not we need anti-missile technology. That's like an insurance expert telling me I need insurance - you have a self interest in convincing us of the need for your product!

Are you also an expert on nuclear arms races? If so, then you'll remember that every new defensive technology has invariably been viewed as an offensive technology by rivals and has spurred a faster and further arms race among a growing group of participants. Some might relish the idea of living in a world where every developed nation is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons. (yeah, anti-missile technology salesmen!) But I don't.