Missile Defence Links

[Disillusioned]

Here is an interesting link I found that may prove that missile defence is an offensive system to dominate space.          

www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/visbook.pdf


I'm not usually a fan of blanket "peace" sites, but this one has some important links:

www.acp-cpa.ca/NMDlinks.htm

York University political economist James Laxer wrote two interesting article in 2003 regarding the issues we now face, giving us a historical perspective.....

1. Canada Should Stay Out of Missile Defence     -     www.jameslaxer.com/missiledefence.htm

2. LIVING WITH AN EMPIRE   -   www.jameslaxer.com/boer.htm


Those interested can e-mail Paul Martin at:  

Martin.P@parl.gc.ca  

....regardless of their views of course.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

:boring:

 

[Bograt]

I believe in BMD. I support the concept.

Having a little background in political polling, let me illustrate some of the fallacies of using "polls" to formulate and justify public policy.
A scientific poll must be weighed according to sample size, sample population, and the specific question.

If the question was "Do you think Canada should support President's Bush's initiative to weaponize space?" and it was asked in Downtown Toronto, its not hard to determine the outcome.

If the question was "Do you support North Korean and Iranian efforts to build ballistic missiles?" "Do you think Canada has a duty to protect its citizens from emerging threats?" "Do you think Canada should have a role in defending North American airspace?" "Would you support the capability to defend against rogue nations and their nuclear capabilities?"

"Weaponization of Space" and other terms are words used by spin doctors and cheats who do not want an honest debate about the issue. The argument against the weaponization of space is ridiculous anyways. We use GPS, satelight communications, and photos to augment current military capabilities.

Disillusioned, you have said a number of things recently that have pissed me off. I don't respect you. I'm an old fashioned guy, and "I don't respect you" is the harshest comment I can make.

 

[Thirstyson]

Pollster's spin aside, I don't support the current BMD system the US is persuing.

I fully support military use of space for comms and imaging, and the current BMD systems does not put weapons into space.

That said, the reason I don't agree with the BMD is because the system does not work, is easily defeatable, does not address the real threats to the US, promotes further IBM research and is funded with 13b$/yr (150% of our entire mil. budget). Furthermore, Canada has nothing to offer this system, save our blessing. We have no money to throw at this and the US doesn't want any. This system is simply a "feel good" system for US politics and nothing useful.

A reasonable alternative, one which I have no problems with but the US is underfunding, is the Air Born laser MD option that would neutralize rogue threats and not further the arms race.

The current system is useless and a waste of tremendous resources, it should not receive Canada's support.

 

[Kirkhill]

It is nonsense to try and separate space borne observation and communications capabilities from weapons. 

The reason we have Fighters is because Aircraft and Balloons were too useful as recce tools, and just like any other recce forces part of their job became denying the enemy the ability to observe.  As a result aircraft were armed (originally just with pistols) to discourage the other side from getting too close.

The stakes are just too high, no side will allow space based systems to operate if they can disrupt them.

And I venture to suggest that if North Korea and Iran, not to mention China and Russia, India and Pakistan, can launch 2 and 3 stage  missiles with Intercontinental Ranges then they can put up enough gravel in the path of GPS and other Low Earth Orbit satellites to seriously disrupt American/NATO comms and surveillance.  Satellite killing missiles can be launched from high altitude aircraft.  The Americans developed on in the 70s/80s to be launched from the F15.  Others probably have the capability now.

Keep in mind, unlike trying to knock down an incoming missile or MIRV warhead, when there is no warning, very little time to track the course and less time to get close enough to intercept the vehicle knocking down satellites is more akin to knocking down balloons or buoys with a shotgun.  Their positions are all well known, trackable and, within very finely defined limits invariable.  Also they are apparently/effectively/probably? devoid of active defenses.

Weaponization of space is a political canard that will have no value in the event of a war or national survival, even one that eschews nuclear weapons. 

It ultimately is a continuing attempt by all parties to deny the other side "the high ground".  War continues by other means, even in peace time.

 

[Thirstyson]

I completely agree that talking out a satellite is trivial and can be accomplished by many many militaries, and no one would be surprised to see it happen during a confilct, though the space community would be heartbroken by all the extra debris.

A big problem is that satellites cannot exist if we start to blow them up, Earth orbit will become unusable. This makes it unnatural to expect that we need to weaponize space. The US's satellites share the same orbits as other countries military's, they can't kill them without risking their own and everybody elses.

 

[Kirkhill]

Better keep practicing how to read a map and use a compass then.  And if you get lucky and the satellites stay up long enough then you might get the opportunity to orient the map to ground using the GPS, at least long enough to confirm the landmarks.

As for comms, figure on line of sight relays, maybe incorporating some high altitude atmospheric platforms like aircraft, UAVs and possibly even balloons.

Because as you correctly point out Low Earth Orbit is going to get pretty junky.  While the Americans may not find it in their interest to clutter up LEO and deny themselves a capability the enemy don't possess the enemy surely has an incentive to deny that capability to the Americans so as to at least even up the battlefield.  And if they are playing at home domestic geographical knowledge as well as interior and short lines of communications conceivably puts them at an advantage.

Cheers.

 

[Thirstyson]

I seriously doubt these doomsday satellite scenarios will ever playout as there's too much at stake and the benefits are too little. This is my main opposition the space weaponry. Also, GPS is in mid earth orbit and would require much more powerful weaponry to reach a satellite, and its >20 satellites have some redundancy so its not an easy target.

But  in any case, we couldn't stop it, it'd just be a big step backwards for humanity.



Stop me if sound too much like a hippy

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair point on Mid Earth Orbit.

I wonder what the effect of a Ground Launched Nuke, generating an Electromagnetic Pulse would have on the Satellite infrastructure?

I think, if I only had half a dozen warheads and a few missiles that might be a better use for the rounds than a few poorly aimed pinpricks targetted against a much better armed enemy.

 

[Thirstyson]

If one only had a limited arsenal, I don't think an attack on space (basically an attack on the world) would be better utilized than an attack on the enemy...

As for the EMP, it'd be fun to see, and if you really wanted to hit the US where it hurts you could take out a dozen or so TV satellites in geostationary in one shot 

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting lines of thought anyway Thirstyson.

Cheers.

 

[Disillusioned]

I believe in BMD. I support the concept.

Having a little background in political polling, let me illustrate some of the fallacies of using "polls" to formulate and justify public policy.
A scientific poll must be weighed according to sample size, sample population, and the specific question.

If the question was "Do you think Canada should support President's Bush's initiative to weaponize space?" and it was asked in Downtown Toronto, its not hard to determine the outcome.

Nothing on the links provided gave any indication the poll was a Toronto poll. It was a Canadian-wide poll, the council of Canadians have chapters across the country, and other polling companies would probably not risk their reputation by lying about how they conduct their polls.

If the question was "Do you support North Korean and Iranian efforts to build ballistic missiles?" "Do you think Canada has a duty to protect its citizens from emerging threats?" "Do you think Canada should have a role in defending North American airspace?" "Would you support the capability to defend against rogue nations and their nuclear capabilities?"

Is there a bit of a contradiction here? Why is the United States the only country that should be allowed to possess nuclear weapons? No other country has used them on civilians. Please don't suggest to me that poor middle-eastern countries pose more of a threat to the world than the U.S. military industrial complex.


"

Weaponization of Space" and other terms are words used by spin doctors and cheats who do not want an honest debate about the issue. The argument against the weaponization of space is ridiculous anyways. We use GPS, satelight communications, and photos to augment current military capabilities.

Disillusioned, you have said a number of things recently that have pissed me off. I don't respect you. I'm an old fashioned guy, and "I don't respect you" is the harshest comment I can make.

I don't care if you like me. This is a political forum. Politics doesn't mean getting what you want or like all the time.

The U.S. did sign the ABM treaty, so don't tell me that criticizing them when they violated it is "spin-doctoring." 

 

[Kirkhill]

Disillusioned you were aware that the Russians always had a Ballistic Missile Defence capability around Moscow weren't you? Can't vouch for how welll it worked but they seemed happy enough with it that they kept it in the ABM treaty.  The Americans by contrast were allowed an ABM capability but never deployed it.  Both countries' systems were intended for limited response and not intended as a general shield.  Just as the American's current system is designed to deal with a couple of incoming missiles not dozens, much less the hundreds that are currently available to both the Russians and the Chinese.

You were aware that the Russians, the other signatory to the treaty (ie it was a bilateral treaty - not an international treaty) have agreed not to renew the treaty.

http://fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/

In many respects the Americans can be viewed as finally exercising the option that was always available to them under the treaty and matching the capability that the Russians believed they had in place.



And please, don't even bother with that canard about the Americans being the only ones to have employed the bomb as proof of the vileness of the Empire......

After Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, London, Hamburg, Dresden, and too many others to contemplate there is enough guilt about targeting civilians during the Second World War to be spread widely and thickly.  The Japanese preferred their slaughter up close and personal - people at Nanking China buried in trenches with their necks just at the right height to get in some great sword practice, young girls raped, cities gassed.

As far as any of the nations chasing after the Bomb in WW2 were concerned it was just a more efficient way of destroying cities and convincing the other side to give up.

The Germans employed Stukas with "terrifying" sirens to drop bombs on civilian populations.  The Brits dropped millions of little Fire Bombs to create Fire Storms that created much the same effect as at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  The Americans figured out how to do it with one bomb, one plane and one crew.

As for radiation - be interesting to compare the percentage of Japanese victims that survived to a ripe old age versus the percentage of Allied POWs interned by the Japanese that survived to equivalent ages.

There have been litterally hundreds of Nuclear tests, both atmospheric and underground since 1945,  and guess what -  we're still here and my kids don't have two heads.

Cheers youngster.

 

[muskrat89]

This is a political forum. Politics doesn't mean getting what you want or like all the time.

Yes - a political forum on an ARMY board. Why don't you enlighten us with your volumes of military knowledge?

 

[Disillusioned]

Disillusioned you were aware that the Russians always had a Ballistic Missile Defence capability around Moscow weren't you? Can't vouch for how welll it worked but they seemed happy enough with it that they kept it in the ABM treaty.   The Americans by contrast were allowed an ABM capability but never deployed it.    Both countries' systems were intended for limited response and not intended as a general shield.   Just as the American's current system is designed to deal with a couple of incoming missiles not dozens, much less the hundreds that are currently available to both the Russians and the Chinese.

You were aware that the Russians, the other signatory to the treaty (ie it was a bilateral treaty - not an international treaty) have agreed not to renew the treaty.

http://fas.org/nuke/control/abmt/

In many respects the Americans can be viewed as finally exercising the option that was always available to them under the treaty and matching the capability that the Russians believed they had in place.



And please, don't even bother with that canard about the Americans being the only ones to have employed the bomb as proof of the vileness of the Empire......

After Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, Coventry, London, Hamburg, Dresden, and too many others to contemplate there is enough guilt about targeting civilians during the Second World War to be spread widely and thickly.   The Japanese preferred their slaughter up close and personal - people at Nanking China buried in trenches with their necks just at the right height to get in some great sword practice, young girls raped, cities gassed.

As far as any of the nations chasing after the Bomb in WW2 were concerned it was just a more efficient way of destroying cities and convincing the other side to give up.

The Germans employed Stukas with "terrifying" sirens to drop bombs on civilian populations.   The Brits dropped millions of little Fire Bombs to create Fire Storms that created much the same effect as at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.   The Americans figured out how to do it with one bomb, one plane and one crew.

As for radiation - be interesting to compare the percentage of Japanese victims that survived to a ripe old age versus the percentage of Allied POWs interned by the Japanese that survived to equivalent ages.

There have been litterally hundreds of Nuclear tests, both atmospheric and underground since 1945,   and guess what -   we're still here and my kids don't have two heads.

Cheers youngster.

I didn't mean to glamourize other countries, or the treaties.....

I realize that the U.S. will do what it wants on this issue. My main concern is that it will be used as an excuse to put our army and navy under U.S. command at NORAD. I don't have the link handy, but I recall that some dispute the official claim that a Canadian was at the desk when the two towers were hit.....maybe someone could clear this up, because one article I can't seem to find claimed that the Canadian defence establishment was annoyed that our fighters were scarmbled without their consent....if that ever happened to our army....

 

[Disillusioned]

This is a political forum. Politics doesn't mean getting what you want or like all the time.

Yes - a political forum on an ARMY board. Why don't you enlighten us with your volumes of military knowledge?

I don't have volumes of military knowledge.....that's why I came here.

If, as those links I provided in the other thread show, our political elites are negotiating to attempt to assimilate our armed forces, I think people have to know this stuff.

The most poweful business lobby in Canada is pushing it, and their constituency includes many U.S. branch plants....they call their plan "reinventing the border," and "a North American defence alliance." They don't even really lie about it. Lots of annoying stuff on their site, and we're talking ALL the major players, 2.5 trillion is assets every year:

www.ceocouncil.ca/en/north/north_def.php

Here are the companies involved, and they are a monumental list--a very powerful lobby:

www.ceocouncil.ca/en/about/members.php

 

[Kirkhill]

I realize that the U.S. will do what it wants on this issue. My main concern is that it will be used as an excuse to put our army and navy under U.S. command at NORAD. I don't have the link handy, but I recall that some dispute the official claim that a Canadian was at the desk when the two towers were hit.....maybe someone could clear this up, because one article I can't seem to find claimed that the Canadian defence establishment was annoyed that our fighters were scarmbled without their consent....if that ever happened to our army....

You are correct as I understand it.  The Duty Officer at NORAD at the time of the September 11th strikes was a Canadian.  And, probably in accordance with Standard Operating Procedures, he launched aircraft, both US and Canadian.

This is the essence of an Alliance.  It entails a degree of mutual trust.  In the case of Canada and the US both countries agreed that, based on mutually agreed procedures and protocols, that both countries accepted the judgement of the other's officials.  Now this may have come as a surprise, possibly unpleasant, to some politicians, I find it difficult to accept that any of the military establishment, either civilian or uniformed would have been surprised.

The thing about Alliances, Treaties and Friendships is that the parties to the arrangement agree to trust each other and while all parties recognize that any party may make a mistake in judgement from time to time those lapses are far outweighed by the assurance of having a friendly supporter on which you can rely in times of need or which confers some other material benefit.

That is why Australia and Britain received better treatment than Canada recently.  It was not that their governments necessarily thought that the US was right in everything it was doing but that what it was doing was being done with the best of intentions and that it was more important to support a friend in need in time of crisis.  There have been times in the past when they needed the US's help and there will be times again.

Canada has, to a large extent, forfeited the right to expect the Americans to offer us an open hand.  From now on, like any other friend who has proved to be only a fair weather friend we will be treated in a much more guarded and suspect fashion.  They can no longer rely on being able to predict our actions.  While that may appeal to nationalists it makes for very unstable relationships between countries and a very cold and lonely neighbourhood.

Cheers.

 

[Pugnacious]

Canada has, to a large extent, forfeited the right to expect the Americans to offer us an open hand.   From now on, like any other friend who has proved to be only a fair weather friend we will be treated in a much more guarded and suspect fashion.   They can no longer rely on being able to predict our actions.   While that may appeal to nationalists it makes for very unstable relationships between countries and a very cold and lonely neighbourhood.

Cheers.

Good points, but lets not forget that the US did the equivalent of robbing a neighbous house, and then getting mad at his other buddies on the block that didn't help them carry out the loot. 

Even though It may have been a bad neighbour who beat their wife, kids, and kicked their dog, and while it is true that no one is going to miss that dictator... Nothing changes that fact that the Iraq war is still an illegal action under international law.

I'm glad Canada has stayed out of this (so far).

Besides methinks Canadians are doing more then enogh in A-stan. 
This fact seems to be overlooked by Mr. Bu$h.

Cheers!
P.

 

[Infanteer]

Good points, but lets not forget that the US did the equivalent of robbing a neighbous house, and then getting mad at his other buddies on the block that didn't help them carry out the loot.

Even though It may have been a bad neighbour who beat their wife, kids, and kicked their dog, and while it is true that no one is going to miss that dictator... Nothing changes that fact that the Iraq war is still an illegal action under international law.

As prior threads have shown, other "neighbours" have been more then happy to "rob" houses (I fail to see how the US has profitted materially from the war) on their own.  For them to take a moral stand based on International Law is hypocritical.  For us to hold only the United States to "international law" (which is a facade anyways), while overlooking others is also hypocritical.

 

[Pugnacious]

Very true, but it doesn't take much drawing outside the legal lines before choas happens.

The next Question is, what or who is next?

Cheers!
P.