- Reaction score
- 1,929
- Points
- 1,160
Why do you think BMD is ICBM centric? That is only one scenario for the technology.
Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Dogboy,
War has indeed changed, but you contradict that first statement by assuming with your last that war only occurs between nations and that only nations can benefit (or not) from the waging of war. You'll notice, especially upon reflection of the past ten years or so, that this belief is simply not true. Nowadays we have the notions of War on Terror and War on Drugs floating around, and while these are semantic fallacies, as war is conflict between two or more parties, the concept remains the same: destroy thine enemy. The important point is that this enemy no longer has to be a state! The enemy is no longer necessarily a recognized entity under international law.
Why are ICBMs becoming out of date? While we've seen a rise in asymmetrical warfare, this doesn't mean conventional warfare is now old-fashioned and useless.
I'd like to see some evidence before I believe North Korea is the only nation with ICBMs with something to gain from attacking North America.
whiskey601,
I think most people focus on ICBMs as the purpose behind BMD because that's the most publicized facet.
War has indeed changed, but you contradict that first statement by assuming with your last that war only occurs between nations and that only nations can benefit (or not) from the waging of war. You'll notice, especially upon reflection of the past ten years or so, that this belief is simply not true. Nowadays we have the notions of War on Terror and War on Drugs floating around, and while these are semantic fallacies, as war is conflict between two or more parties, the concept remains the same: destroy thine enemy. The important point is that this enemy no longer has to be a state! The enemy is no longer necessarily a recognized entity under international law.
Why are ICBMs becoming out of date? While we've seen a rise in asymmetrical warfare, this doesn't mean conventional warfare is now old-fashioned and useless.
I'd like to see some evidence before I believe North Korea is the only nation with ICBMs with something to gain from attacking North America.
whiskey601,
I think most people focus on ICBMs as the purpose behind BMD because that's the most publicized facet.
Agreed, but we'd be arguing semantics. How about using the expression "incoming missile" instead? My point is that the system is defensive; they aren't looking to place offensive ICBM silos in Canada.
What about all those silos in former USSR states or Russia itself for that matter? Out of date or not the potential for destruction is there if the wrong people get control of them. This is not about wining a cold-war type scenario; this about preventing an act of terror using some kind of missile as the delivery mechanism.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Is it cost effective? Maybe if one believes that no price is too great for security. That's not reality though.
I hate to say it, but my rudimentary "risk-benefit" analysis doesn't support the concept with the info I have. You (all supoorters) need to provide more convincing arguments that it is worth the expense.
Acorn
I hate to say it, but my rudimentary "risk-benefit" analysis doesn't support the concept with the info I have. You (all supoorters) need to provide more convincing arguments that it is worth the expense.
Acorn
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
After reading all the posts on this thread and having read MANY posts on other threads about the same topic. One thing comes to mind I haven't seen mentioned yet at all.
If we put these defensive missle bases in Canada, that would make targets in Canada for any nation(s) that went to war with the US and intended to even do a non-nuclear cruise missle/ICBM attack. HIGHLY unlikely, but regardless, in war, those bases/properties would be high-asset targets.
Suppose it doesn't make a big difference since the only time we've been attacked on our own land is by the US and our own people back in the William Lyon Mackenzie days!
Just a thought+point but it would make more targets in our borders. Just like the Niagara Falls power generating stations Adam Beck 1+2... Germans had spies in Canada back in WW2 (Maybe ww1 as well) who were making maps of the area+targeting info.
Joe
If we put these defensive missle bases in Canada, that would make targets in Canada for any nation(s) that went to war with the US and intended to even do a non-nuclear cruise missle/ICBM attack. HIGHLY unlikely, but regardless, in war, those bases/properties would be high-asset targets.
Suppose it doesn't make a big difference since the only time we've been attacked on our own land is by the US and our own people back in the William Lyon Mackenzie days!
Just a thought+point but it would make more targets in our borders. Just like the Niagara Falls power generating stations Adam Beck 1+2... Germans had spies in Canada back in WW2 (Maybe ww1 as well) who were making maps of the area+targeting info.
Joe
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Hasn't Canada been a potential target for agressors since we first agreed to the concept of continental defence after WW2? Since we implemented the DEW line? Since our decision to make our navy interoperable with the USN? Since our economies have so neatly and tightly integrated? They are our natural allies, and we theirs, if ever the North American continent was attacked. I find it highly unlikely that Canada would simply sit back and watch the US be attacked in the event of agressive action, and the moment we step in to help them we also are a target. Unless, of course, we were at war with the US, but that would be a suicidal policy and nigh unthinkable under the current circumstances.
In pulling away from the BMD system and refusing to play ball with the Americans, we are in effect saying that they're on their own, that we really don't mean it when we say we're in for continental defence, that we'll sit back and watch them take a beating while simultaneously expecting their aid should anything warlike happen to us. I know we've heard it a thousand times, but the Canadian-US relationship is the tightest in the world. That should mean something to us, something along the lines of responsibility and reciprocity. Canada is trying to assert itself in a changing world, yet really doesn't have a defined foreign policy - lately it seems that all we're doing is distinguishing ourselves from the Americans. While perceived as the right thing to do by many citizens on a national level, we're really not doing much to define our place in the world, aka the international level.
There are many issues flying around regarding the BMD system, but I suppose being for or against depends on which you think is more important: our fledgling national identity and the 'prestige' of saying NO to the Americans or realizing that for better or worse our lot is with the US and no matter how hard we try to change that all we'll do is hurt ourselves by going in opposite directions. There really is no third option under our present circumstances. We are a middle power nation, and as such our choices, while there, are more limited than if we were a great power or acted like on on the international scene as we did in the 1950s - which earned us great international reknown and allowed us input into the important international decisions. Why was Canada regarded as such a great nation after WW2? Worthy of respect and being solicited for opinions? Because we pulled our weight - more than pulled our weight - during the war. I see it as idealism versus realism, honestly. We all want to be a separate and distinguishable entity, but is that really possible to the extent that most people seem to think is necessary for Canada to survive as a nation and not merely an American satellite? Personally I think we're doing just fine in that regard, although I'm interested in hearing other opinions.
In pulling away from the BMD system and refusing to play ball with the Americans, we are in effect saying that they're on their own, that we really don't mean it when we say we're in for continental defence, that we'll sit back and watch them take a beating while simultaneously expecting their aid should anything warlike happen to us. I know we've heard it a thousand times, but the Canadian-US relationship is the tightest in the world. That should mean something to us, something along the lines of responsibility and reciprocity. Canada is trying to assert itself in a changing world, yet really doesn't have a defined foreign policy - lately it seems that all we're doing is distinguishing ourselves from the Americans. While perceived as the right thing to do by many citizens on a national level, we're really not doing much to define our place in the world, aka the international level.
There are many issues flying around regarding the BMD system, but I suppose being for or against depends on which you think is more important: our fledgling national identity and the 'prestige' of saying NO to the Americans or realizing that for better or worse our lot is with the US and no matter how hard we try to change that all we'll do is hurt ourselves by going in opposite directions. There really is no third option under our present circumstances. We are a middle power nation, and as such our choices, while there, are more limited than if we were a great power or acted like on on the international scene as we did in the 1950s - which earned us great international reknown and allowed us input into the important international decisions. Why was Canada regarded as such a great nation after WW2? Worthy of respect and being solicited for opinions? Because we pulled our weight - more than pulled our weight - during the war. I see it as idealism versus realism, honestly. We all want to be a separate and distinguishable entity, but is that really possible to the extent that most people seem to think is necessary for Canada to survive as a nation and not merely an American satellite? Personally I think we're doing just fine in that regard, although I'm interested in hearing other opinions.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Recruit Joe said:After reading all the posts on this thread and having read MANY posts on other threads about the same topic. One thing comes to mind I haven't seen mentioned yet at all.
If we put these defensive missle bases in Canada, that would make targets in Canada for any nation(s) that went to war with the US and intended to even do a non-nuclear cruise missle/ICBM attack. HIGHLY unlikely, but regardless, in war, those bases/properties would be high-asset targets.
Suppose it doesn't make a big difference since the only time we've been attacked on our own land is by the US and our own people back in the William Lyon Mackenzie days!
Just a thought+point but it would make more targets in our borders. Just like the Niagara Falls power generating stations Adam Beck 1+2... Germans had spies in Canada back in WW2 (Maybe ww1 as well) who were making maps of the area+targeting info.
Joe
Here's another way to look at it....
Without BMD, the United States must rely on Mutually Assured Destruction.
Ergo, if an Al Qaeda sleeper gets into a Pakistani silos and decides to launch a missile, which of the following options would you like them to have:
Option One - No BMD
With no ability to defend themselves the ICBM will land in Seattle killing several hundred thousand people. Two Choices - Nuke Pakistan - creating a great impetus for a world Jihad, or do nothing - and give Al Qaeda the a victory 10x greater than 09/11 reinvigorating its recruiting efforts worldwide.
Option Two - BMD
Shoot down the incoming missile first, then figure out what the hell happened before nuking anyone in response.
Run the hypothetical in your head again based on this model for both Pakistan and North Korea and try to tell me how BMD is a bad thing.....
Thanks,
Matthew.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
Canuck_25 said:
Yes, we should contribute to something that hasn't proved its effectiveness or yes, there is such a thing as a free lunch? I'm sorry; you're being unclear.
Why do you say the Americans have money to waste? Just because they lavishly spend money on things that many Canadians don't happen to agree with as being important doesn't mean they're necessarily throwing money away. Besides, they're the ones running the deficit while we're the ones enjoying a surplus. Who has the means to invest? I realize there is a vast difference in scale between the American and Canadian budgets and thus the amount of money involved, but really, does this mean that even with our surpluses we're still behind the game? While the Americans, running a deficit, are ahead and thus have the money to 'waste' on a defensive project? I'd look closer to home for examples of wasting money.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
We have a lot to potentially contribute and a lot to gain if we come on board. Canada has developed a "micro satellite" called MOST which is about the size of a barracks box and weighs @60kg. This was hand built for about $10 million Cdn, not much for space hardware. (It is a space telescope. See http://www.astro.ubc.ca/MOST/ )
We could tool up an assembly line for small satellites to act as part of the BMD system. The Americans get cheap spaceborn sensors and other systems, and we get access to the same spaceborn systems for our own uses (long haul satellite comms, space recce, SIGINT...). Seems like a very sweet deal for us, if we can put aside the ideology, and even if we accept that BMD isn't practical or effective (an unproven assertion, by the way).
We could tool up an assembly line for small satellites to act as part of the BMD system. The Americans get cheap spaceborn sensors and other systems, and we get access to the same spaceborn systems for our own uses (long haul satellite comms, space recce, SIGINT...). Seems like a very sweet deal for us, if we can put aside the ideology, and even if we accept that BMD isn't practical or effective (an unproven assertion, by the way).
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 210
No, it won't.
Nuclear devices have to be triggered prperly to detonate. They aren't point-detonating weapons like Arty High Explosive rounds; they have to be "set off." If BMD intercepts a nuclear-tipped ICBM, the kinetic energy of the two projectiles hitting each other (each of them traveling well over the speed of sound) will completely destroy both missiles.
The only danger is that some nuclear material will be released by the impact (and likely spread around). Think of that nuclear-powered Soviet satellite that crashed in Northern Canada during the Cold War (can't remember when, sorry) - we had troops crawling all over the tundra looking for radioactive waste.
Which, incidentally, is a reason to jump on board. I'd rather be inside the US perimeter than outside of it - that way, Canadian participation can ensure that if a missile is intercepted, it happens over the Pacific (or at least some barren stretch of tundra) rather than over Calgary or Winnipeg.
Nuclear devices have to be triggered prperly to detonate. They aren't point-detonating weapons like Arty High Explosive rounds; they have to be "set off." If BMD intercepts a nuclear-tipped ICBM, the kinetic energy of the two projectiles hitting each other (each of them traveling well over the speed of sound) will completely destroy both missiles.
The only danger is that some nuclear material will be released by the impact (and likely spread around). Think of that nuclear-powered Soviet satellite that crashed in Northern Canada during the Cold War (can't remember when, sorry) - we had troops crawling all over the tundra looking for radioactive waste.
Which, incidentally, is a reason to jump on board. I'd rather be inside the US perimeter than outside of it - that way, Canadian participation can ensure that if a missile is intercepted, it happens over the Pacific (or at least some barren stretch of tundra) rather than over Calgary or Winnipeg.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
IMHO this equates to saying, why do we need an armed forces if the Americans are right next door to save us.This defence shield thing is raising the same problems as when they tested cruise missiles over Canada.Maybee Canada should be thinking about this more seriously as a defence issue but it sounds (IMHO) like more defence avoiding to me
Cdn Blackshirt said:Here's another way to look at it....
Without BMD, the United States must rely on Mutually Assured Destruction.
Ergo, if an Al Qaeda sleeper gets into a Pakistani silos and decides to launch a missile, which of the following options would you like them to have:
Matthew.
thats a valid consern and chance of hapining
verey good point
<rant on>
The whole â Å“we don't want to make Canada a targetâ ? argument is a crock of sh*t. Canada has been and is a target. Acts of terror against Canada have already been planned (plans for attacks were discovered by troops in Afghanistan if I recall correctly) and some have already been carried out (namely attacks on Synagogues). The lib press usually does not report them as acts of terror however, but as hate crimes to reinforce their deluded belief that there are no terrorists in Canada
Furthermore, the whole â Å“violence is not the wayâ ? or â Å“violence doesn't solve anything argumentâ ? has always been used by intellectual elitist who are too cowardly to stand behind their morals, draw a line in the sand, and say NO. These idealists have been around since the dawn of time and their unwillingness to act, even when faced with proof, is responsible for some of history's most disturbing atrocities (e.g. see the UN, it's staffed is replete with these types of people).
</rant off>
The whole â Å“we don't want to make Canada a targetâ ? argument is a crock of sh*t. Canada has been and is a target. Acts of terror against Canada have already been planned (plans for attacks were discovered by troops in Afghanistan if I recall correctly) and some have already been carried out (namely attacks on Synagogues). The lib press usually does not report them as acts of terror however, but as hate crimes to reinforce their deluded belief that there are no terrorists in Canada
Furthermore, the whole â Å“violence is not the wayâ ? or â Å“violence doesn't solve anything argumentâ ? has always been used by intellectual elitist who are too cowardly to stand behind their morals, draw a line in the sand, and say NO. These idealists have been around since the dawn of time and their unwillingness to act, even when faced with proof, is responsible for some of history's most disturbing atrocities (e.g. see the UN, it's staffed is replete with these types of people).
</rant off>
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I've never understood the objection to the BMD.
It doesn't even put (more) weapons in space!?!
We can't rely on Mutually assured destruction anymore as a defence.
We aren't dealing with the Soviets, we're dealing with a stateless group who could care less if they're destroyed in the process of carrying out "Gods Will."
It doesn't even put (more) weapons in space!?!
We can't rely on Mutually assured destruction anymore as a defence.
We aren't dealing with the Soviets, we're dealing with a stateless group who could care less if they're destroyed in the process of carrying out "Gods Will."
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Dogboy said:
That's why I get paid the big bucks....
Matthew ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
http://canadiancomment.blogspot.com/2004_11_01_canadiancomment_archive.html#110072241004740532
Zaman article reference: http://www.zaman.com/?bl=hotnews&alt=&trh=20041117&hn=13954
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 8,635
- Points
- 1,040
I estimate that on one city block where I live, there are approximately 25 single detached residences. In a grid square, I estimate there could be as many as 1800 residences. Assuming the replacement cost of each to be $100K, including reconstruction, refurnishment, landscaping, replacement of vehicles, refurbishment of utilities, etc, that amounts to about $180M. Now be conservative and cut the estimate by nearly one-half to a nice, round, $100M to replace one grid square blown away by a nuclear warhead. A 3km radius of devastation? Maybe $700M. 5km? Maybe $2B. Keep in mind my estimates should be on the low side. I can't begin to estimate the cost of replacing densely populated high-rise residential or commercial property. There are also, not incidentally, the lives.
Of course, there are the economic costs: what happens if in the aftermath of a detonation cargo stops moving out of the Port of Vancouver (check out the daily cost of a longshoreman's strike) and most of the surviving population decides to take an extended vacation with relatives east of the Rockies? That could happen even if a near miss occurs and the worst that happens is that the "Lions" are slightly resculpted.
Likelihood of occurrence: very small. Impact: very large. Worth at least a little more commitment to research into preventive measures against missiles as well as sea containers? You decide.
Of course, there are the economic costs: what happens if in the aftermath of a detonation cargo stops moving out of the Port of Vancouver (check out the daily cost of a longshoreman's strike) and most of the surviving population decides to take an extended vacation with relatives east of the Rockies? That could happen even if a near miss occurs and the worst that happens is that the "Lions" are slightly resculpted.
Likelihood of occurrence: very small. Impact: very large. Worth at least a little more commitment to research into preventive measures against missiles as well as sea containers? You decide.
Similar threads
