The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Endomatic is just pulling the stereotypical American hate card. It happens quite a lot in Canada and around the world.
Seriously though, if you have a problem with the US administration, talk about a specific thing and maybe make an informed decision as opposed to "olol Bush/US".
As a Canadian, I don't want any bullshit American shields. The thing will fail when we need it most, just like all American made things.
So you have to understand my country's reluctance.
You're not an easy country to be friends with US.
Why the fuck would you care that the US blows millions upon millions on a system that may knock down a rogue missile aimed at North America? That's like saying 'fuck the US military, they are incompetent and may fail we we need them most" If we are protecting your ass, what does it matter? If you really feel that way, lobby you're govt. for a missile shield, or better defenses, since the US will fuck it up anyway.
What do you think the relative chances of missles being aimed at Canada actually are compared to the US?
Seriously.
When NK finally gets a long range missile above 1000ft, what makes you think that it's guidance systems will be so successful. It's not that far between Seattle -Vancouver.
But that's not really the point. The comment I was responding to makes absolutely no sense. It would be like Canada providing some resource that we didn't have (say wood, hypothetically) and Canada provided the US with wood, and the US would say, god this wood is shit, they give us pine when we want oak.
I know, a stupid, stupid analogy, but I can't think of a situation where Canadian forces provide defense for the US (searching now though)
As a Canadian, I don't want any bullshit American shields. The thing will fail when we need it most, just like all American made things.
So you have to understand my country's reluctance.
You're not an easy country to be friends with US.
Why the fuck would you care that the US blows millions upon millions on a system that may knock down a rogue missile aimed at North America? That's like saying 'fuck the US military, they are incompetent and may fail we we need them most" If we are protecting your ass, what does it matter? If you really feel that way, lobby you're govt. for a missile shield, or better defenses, since the US will fuck it up anyway.
What do you think the relative chances of missles being aimed at Canada actually are compared to the US?
Seriously.
When NK finally gets a long range missile above 1000ft, what makes you think that it's guidance systems will be so successful. It's not that far between Seattle -Vancouver.
But that's not really the point. The comment I was responding to makes absolutely no sense. It would be like Canada providing some resource that we didn't have (say wood, hypothetically) and Canada provided the US with wood, and the US would say, god this wood is shit, they give us pine when we want oak.
I know, a stupid, stupid analogy, but I can't think of a situation where Canadian forces provide defense for the US (searching now though)
We don't want to be party to something that will likely lead to an arms race and the militarization of space.
As a Canadian, I don't want any bullshit American shields. The thing will fail when we need it most, just like all American made things.
So you have to understand my country's reluctance.
You're not an easy country to be friends with US.
Why the fuck would you care that the US blows millions upon millions on a system that may knock down a rogue missile aimed at North America? That's like saying 'fuck the US military, they are incompetent and may fail we we need them most" If we are protecting your ass, what does it matter? If you really feel that way, lobby you're govt. for a missile shield, or better defenses, since the US will fuck it up anyway.
What do you think the relative chances of missles being aimed at Canada actually are compared to the US?
Seriously.
When NK finally gets a long range missile above 1000ft, what makes you think that it's guidance systems will be so successful. It's not that far between Seattle -Vancouver.
But that's not really the point. The comment I was responding to makes absolutely no sense. It would be like Canada providing some resource that we didn't have (say wood, hypothetically) and Canada provided the US with wood, and the US would say, god this wood is shit, they give us pine when we want oak.
I know, a stupid, stupid analogy, but I can't think of a situation where Canadian forces provide defense for the US (searching now though)
NORAD.
On the subject of the Missile Defense Shield I'm pretty sure that even though the Canadian Government has turned down joining the US Missile Defense Shield the Americans would most likely shoot down any rogue missile that were to be headed towards North America including towards Canada. So it's not like if Canada doesn't go along with the Missile Defense Shield the US Government is just gonna say "fine fuck you then", then allow a missile to hit Canada. The only thing that the Canadian Government really stopped was the deployment of the actual missile defense units on Canadian Soil.
It's like the Nuclear Umbrella, even though Canada doesn't possess any nuclear weapons, we are still protected by the NATO nuclear umbrella from the nuclear countries of NATO but more so the US.
As a Canadian, I don't want any bullshit American shields. The thing will fail when we need it most, just like all American made things.
So you have to understand my country's reluctance.
You're not an easy country to be friends with US.
Why the fuck would you care that the US blows millions upon millions on a system that may knock down a rogue missile aimed at North America? That's like saying 'fuck the US military, they are incompetent and may fail we we need them most" If we are protecting your ass, what does it matter? If you really feel that way, lobby you're govt. for a missile shield, or better defenses, since the US will fuck it up anyway.
What do you think the relative chances of missles being aimed at Canada actually are compared to the US?
Seriously.
When NK finally gets a long range missile above 1000ft, what makes you think that it's guidance systems will be so successful. It's not that far between Seattle -Vancouver.
But that's not really the point. The comment I was responding to makes absolutely no sense. It would be like Canada providing some resource that we didn't have (say wood, hypothetically) and Canada provided the US with wood, and the US would say, god this wood is shit, they give us pine when we want oak.
I know, a stupid, stupid analogy, but I can't think of a situation where Canadian forces provide defense for the US (searching now though)
NORAD.
On the subject of the Missile Defense Shield I'm pretty sure that even though the Canadian Government has turned down joining the US Missile Defense Shield the Americans would most likely shoot down any rogue missile that were to be headed towards North America including towards Canada. So it's not like if Canada doesn't go along with the Missile Defense Shield the US Government is just gonna say "fine fuck you then", then allow a missile to hit Canada. The only thing that the Canadian Government really stopped was the deployment of the actual missile defense units on Canadian Soil.
It's like the Nuclear Umbrella, even though Canada doesn't possess any nuclear weapons, we are still protected by the NATO nuclear umbrella from the nuclear countries of NATO but more so the US.
Believe me, I agree. Which is why endo's comment makes me giggle at it's retardedness. Like you said, Canada benefits from the 'Nuclear Umbrella" that NATO/US provide. I guess endo doesn't want that protection either because the yanks would "f it up"
Comprehensive missile defense systems designed to protect the continental United States would require facilities in Canada to be effective- remember a Soviet/Russian attack would go over the North Pole, and so enter into Canada well before it reached the United States. Likewise, the US has early warning facilities in Greenland for the same reason. NORAD is a joint thing between Canada and the US- of course this was back in the days Canada was just as targeted as the US for nuclear destruction by the Soviet Union, so Canada had a mutual interest.
This is for missile defense aimed at stopping a Russian or Chinese ICBM attack. The system being built ostensibly to stop a North Korean missile wouldn't have to have over-the-pole radar coverage and intercept capability.
Note that the missle defense system being researched by the US for "rogue states" is really just a smokescreen for the continued development of a more robust and large-scale missile defense technology. The neocons want to have something like that ready to go when the door closes on American hegemony and some other power has strategic nuclear capability. It's basically just an excuse to develop the basics of missile interception.
If they could get away with it, they'd start weaponizing space as well- in the hopes of getting the early edge in that inevitable arms race. (But, of course, just ending up triggering the race to begin in the first place)
Maybe I'm insane, but I kind of like all this cloak and dagger, spy vs spy, assasinations and return to the cold war shit. I get the feeling it may return some equilibrium to the world again. Neither side wanting to push their luck or make stupid decisions for fear of starting conflict with the other superpower. The resurgence of the old Soviet Union is unlikely, but would it really be such a bad thing?
And really, Russia is right here. None of these 'rogue states' have the capability to strike the country next door without launching the missile a mile from the border, let alone the US, and they are annoyed about the smoke being blown up their ass. Seems to me like a 'Do you think we are fucking stupid?' response from Putin. The radar in Poland will also be able to track anything inside Russian airspace. You think the US would be ok with Russia putting an OTH radar in Cuba that did the same thing? I think not. Their annoyance is perfectly justified, and even an idiot can see that this defence shield is aimed at detection of Russian launches, and spying on their military aircraft movements.
I personally do not think a new European arms race is such a bad thing in the long term. Nobody will actually nuke anybody, but nobody is willing to test that theory, just in case.
Maybe I'm insane, but I kind of like all this cloak and dagger, spy vs spy, assasinations and return to the cold war shit. I get the feeling it may return some equilibrium to the world again. Neither side wanting to push their luck or make stupid decisions for fear of starting conflict with the other superpower. The resurgence of the old Soviet Union is unlikely, but would it really be such a bad thing?
And really, Russia is right here. None of these 'rogue states' have the capability to strike the country next door without launching the missile a mile from the border, let alone the US, and they are annoyed about the smoke being blown up their ass. Seems to me like a 'Do you think we are fucking stupid?' response from Putin. The radar in Poland will also be able to track anything inside Russian airspace. You think the US would be ok with Russia putting an OTH radar in Cuba that did the same thing? I think not. Their annoyance is perfectly justified, and even an idiot can see that this defence shield is aimed at detection of Russian launches, and spying on their military aircraft movements.
I personally do not think a new European arms race is such a bad thing in the long term. Nobody will actually nuke anybody, but nobody is willing to test that theory, just in case.
Cold War 2: The motherland strikes back
I agree with you on how there should be another superpower in the world to match the US. I think it's time that another country had the power to tell the US government that they can't do whatever they want and for it to actually have an effect.
The whole idea that the missile shield was to be used against missiles launched from rogue states is a complete and utter joke. The only rogue country that has a nuke that is on the US shit list is North Korea and they can barely launch a missile past Japan let alone to the west coast of the US. Plus all of the rogue countries on the US shit list who launch a missile at the US know that they will immediately made in to a large parking lot. The missile defense shield is just the US saying to the Russians and the Chinese that they are not going to give up their status as the sole superpower in the world.
Honest to God, if any country in the world is to have global hegemony, I'm quite glad for it to be the United States. Considering the two possible alternatives in Russia and China, who are the only two feasible alternatives that could possibly exist as rivals in any reasonable time frame from now...
I'm quite glad for there to not be a global hegemony for another couple or ten centuries, though I would like us to step up our space exploration and colonization programs. Seriously, where the hell is my damn Martian apartment?
But on the subject of Russia, I can very much so understand what Putin is doing. He was given a country that was relatively shattered but had very rich resources, all he really needed to do was what Russian leaders have historically done, call the people shitheads, kill a few dissenters and tell everyone what to do. It worked for Ivan the terrible, for the Czars, for Lenin and Stalin it's always worked in Russia for some reason so he's just following the great Russian leader playbook. The sad part isn't so much that he is doing it, it's that it's working like a charm. So here we go back to the cycle, Russia becomes a big dog in the big game, gets run into the ground and collapses in on itself, a charismatic leader rises up to fix it and reinstate an iron fisted rule and make them a big dog in the big game.
I swear, we need a fucking rehab clinic for that country.
Gah, it's never worked for Russia. Russia has always been a terrible nation to live in, for its people, which is the only thing that matters. For the most part, in any case. Such policies may have given rise to Russia as a state, but a state gaining might is an abstract idea and, when the people who live in and comprise the state are treaded like horseshit, is worthless to anyone with half a brain.
Which the people of Russia are, and always have been, apparently lacking.
Honest to God, if any country in the world is to have global hegemony, I'm quite glad for it to be the United States. Considering the two possible alternatives in Russia and China, who are the only two feasible alternatives that could possibly exist as rivals in any reasonable time frame from now...
Yeah, I'm taking the fucking States on this one.
Well, the argument isn't that some other country should have hegemony, it's that the United States should be balanced by another superpower- both therefore not being hegemonic.
I don't subscribe to that idea. I consider a "benevolent hegemony" a more long-lasting and stable configuration than a bipolar world, and certainly more stable than a collection of great powers. Like it or not, a 4-5 way great power arrangement is in the cards for the near-ish future. Russia, the US, the European Union, India and China.
If the United States had adequately managed its sudden victory in the Cold War all the way back from 1991, and through the Clinton/Bush administrations, the world would be in a better shape. But two Presidents in a row dropped the ball badly and now it is too late.
Honest to God, if any country in the world is to have global hegemony, I'm quite glad for it to be the United States. Considering the two possible alternatives in Russia and China, who are the only two feasible alternatives that could possibly exist as rivals in any reasonable time frame from now...
Yeah, I'm taking the fucking States on this one.
Well, the argument isn't that some other country should have hegemony, it's that the United States should be balanced by another superpower- both therefore not being hegemonic.
I don't subscribe to that idea. I consider a "benevolent hegemony" a more long-lasting and stable configuration than a bipolar world, and certainly more stable than a collection of great powers. Like it or not, a 4-5 way great power arrangement is in the cards for the near-ish future. Russia, the US, the European Union, India and China.
If the United States had adequately managed its sudden victory in the Cold War all the way back from 1991, and through the Clinton/Bush administrations, the world would be in a better shape. But two Presidents in a row dropped the ball badly and now it is too late.
Probably the saddest part of the 4-6 way arrangement is that so long as any 2 countries are particularly nationalistic it just leads to WWI, but now our weapons are many times scarier...
Probably the saddest part of the 4-6 way arrangement is that so long as any 2 countries are particularly nationalistic it just leads to WWI, but now our weapons are many times scarier...
Well, possibly. Some people contend that globalization, the incredible lethality of nuclear weapons, the potential development of game-ending biowarfare technology, the rise in importance of NGOs, and the generally post industrial global economy will help keep a great power system stable.
Particularly if (somehow) space exploration becomes cheap enough to regularly off-set resource scarcity.
I tend to be skeptical. Technological amelioration of ancient realities always seems like wishful thinking to me.
Russia's threat to aim weapons at Europe if the US sets up a missile defence shield there was "unhelpful and unwelcome", Nato has said.
The US says it wants missile defence in eastern Europe to counter threats from states like Iran and North Korea.
On Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Iran was not a threat to the US, hinting that Russia was the target.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said he will have "frank" talks with Mr Putin this week about the threat.
Great, just great. The US sets up missile defence bases to protect itself from "Rogue States" or at least so it says and Russia starts targeting Europe. "Unhelpful and unwelcome" is a bit of an understatement really.
Its because Russia and everyone else knows that missile defense bases arent intended to protect from "rogue states"
Gah, it's never worked for Russia. Russia has always been a terrible nation to live in, for its people, which is the only thing that matters. For the most part, in any case. Such policies may have given rise to Russia as a state, but a state gaining might is an abstract idea and, when the people who live in and comprise the state are treaded like horseshit, is worthless to anyone with half a brain.
Which the people of Russia are, and always have been, apparently lacking.
Russia's threat to aim weapons at Europe if the US sets up a missile defence shield there was "unhelpful and unwelcome", Nato has said.
The US says it wants missile defence in eastern Europe to counter threats from states like Iran and North Korea.
On Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Iran was not a threat to the US, hinting that Russia was the target.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said he will have "frank" talks with Mr Putin this week about the threat.
Great, just great. The US sets up missile defence bases to protect itself from "Rogue States" or at least so it says and Russia starts targeting Europe. "Unhelpful and unwelcome" is a bit of an understatement really.
Its because Russia and everyone else knows that missile defense bases arent intended to protect from "rogue states"
I don't know about that.
It would tie our hands in the middle east if Europe was a hostage.
Also - if we have a more pressing current need for European bases, that gives Europe a stronger hand in restraining our foreign policy.
As a Canadian, I don't want any bullshit American shields. The thing will fail when we need it most, just like all American made things.
So you have to understand my country's reluctance.
You're not an easy country to be friends with US.
Why the fuck would you care that the US blows millions upon millions on a system that may knock down a rogue missile aimed at North America? That's like saying 'fuck the US military, they are incompetent and may fail we we need them most" If we are protecting your ass, what does it matter? If you really feel that way, lobby you're govt. for a missile shield, or better defenses, since the US will fuck it up anyway.
yeah right.
The US expects Canada to pay for a rather large portion of the missile defense cost. This is estimated at $200 billion.
As a Canadian, I don't want any bullshit American shields. The thing will fail when we need it most, just like all American made things.
So you have to understand my country's reluctance.
You're not an easy country to be friends with US.
Why the fuck would you care that the US blows millions upon millions on a system that may knock down a rogue missile aimed at North America? That's like saying 'fuck the US military, they are incompetent and may fail we we need them most" If we are protecting your ass, what does it matter? If you really feel that way, lobby you're govt. for a missile shield, or better defenses, since the US will fuck it up anyway.
yeah right.
The US expects Canada to pay for a rather large portion of the missile defense cost. This is estimated at $200 billion.
As a Canadian, I don't want any bullshit American shields. The thing will fail when we need it most, just like all American made things.
So you have to understand my country's reluctance.
You're not an easy country to be friends with US.
Why the fuck would you care that the US blows millions upon millions on a system that may knock down a rogue missile aimed at North America? That's like saying 'fuck the US military, they are incompetent and may fail we we need them most" If we are protecting your ass, what does it matter? If you really feel that way, lobby you're govt. for a missile shield, or better defenses, since the US will fuck it up anyway.
yeah right.
The US expects Canada to pay for a rather large portion of the missile defense cost. This is estimated at $200 billion.
Actually your article says the whole thing costs 200 billion and Canada will pay a share.
All the propaganda weasel wording that I've come to expect from anything that labels itself "alernative media."
Jesus. I've seen Carl Rove be more honest and straight forward.
I'll say "Ouch" for the Canadians. What they are really pissed about is the fact that the Flames lost to the Lightning, the Oilers lost to the Hurricanes, and the Sens will probably lose to the ducks. Having a Canadian team lose the Stanley cup to Tampa Bay, Charlotte, and Anaheim in consecutive post seasons can't help but make them a bit deranged. I feel for ya fellas. On the plus side, the Canadian national anthem with the entire crowd singing last night was pretty awesome.
Russia's threat to aim weapons at Europe if the US sets up a missile defence shield there was "unhelpful and unwelcome", Nato has said.
The US says it wants missile defence in eastern Europe to counter threats from states like Iran and North Korea.
On Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Iran was not a threat to the US, hinting that Russia was the target.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said he will have "frank" talks with Mr Putin this week about the threat.
Great, just great. The US sets up missile defence bases to protect itself from "Rogue States" or at least so it says and Russia starts targeting Europe. "Unhelpful and unwelcome" is a bit of an understatement really.
Its because Russia and everyone else knows that missile defense bases arent intended to protect from "rogue states"
I don't know about that.
It would tie our hands in the middle east if Europe was a hostage.
Also - if we have a more pressing current need for European bases, that gives Europe a stronger hand in restraining our foreign policy.
I didn't think the system was capable of shooting down a missile aimed at Europe?
Russia's threat to aim weapons at Europe if the US sets up a missile defence shield there was "unhelpful and unwelcome", Nato has said.
The US says it wants missile defence in eastern Europe to counter threats from states like Iran and North Korea.
On Sunday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Iran was not a threat to the US, hinting that Russia was the target.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said he will have "frank" talks with Mr Putin this week about the threat.
Great, just great. The US sets up missile defence bases to protect itself from "Rogue States" or at least so it says and Russia starts targeting Europe. "Unhelpful and unwelcome" is a bit of an understatement really.
Its because Russia and everyone else knows that missile defense bases arent intended to protect from "rogue states"
I don't know about that.
It would tie our hands in the middle east if Europe was a hostage.
Also - if we have a more pressing current need for European bases, that gives Europe a stronger hand in restraining our foreign policy.
We back out of the ABM, we place ABM technology around the U.S.S.R. to protect from Iranian ICBMs that dont exist[and wont ever exist], and we enshrine a policy of preemption.
What do you expect them to do say "Im sorry, i will sit by as my deterrent force is assaulted so that i can never gain power on the international stage"
Bush's administration certainly doesn't seem to think Iran will never have nuclear missiles. They seem to take Iran quite seriously.
And it isn't really "around" Russia. It's on part of the western border of Russia.
And how is it that this precludes Russia from ever gaining power on the international stage? I mean, what?
Nuclear weapons and ICBMs are much different. If it is even possible for Iran to develop a first strike capable Nuclear force it would take decades.
It prevents Russia from gaining power on the international stage because it gives the U.S.A. carte blanche to interfere in Russian interests while not allowing Russia to interfere in ours.
Wouldn't Missile Defence only really be useful against a rogue state anyways?
What I mean is, if you are planning on defending a massive attack from Russia, they will just send more nukes than you can shoot down anyways.
I would also like to point out that I am not so anti- missile defence, and I am Canadian. I think the main reasons Canadians have been against it is because so far it looks like it hasn't worked (I am optimistic with their development of laser technology that it will work) and that the US gov. wants us to front some of the bill.
I dont have problems with fronting some of the bill if the technology actually works.
Wouldn't Missile Defence only really be useful against a rogue state anyways?
What I mean is, if you are planning on defending a massive attack from Russia, they will just send more nukes than you can shoot down anyways.
I would also like to point out that I am not so anti- missile defence, and I am Canadian. I think the main reasons Canadians have been against it is because so far it looks like it hasn't worked (I am optimistic with their development of laser technology that it will work) and that the US gov. wants us to front some of the bill.
I dont have problems with fronting some of the bill if the technology actually works.
Well, it’s not something one really wants tested.
Wouldn't Missile Defence only really be useful against a rogue state anyways?
What I mean is, if you are planning on defending a massive attack from Russia, they will just send more nukes than you can shoot down anyways.
I would also like to point out that I am not so anti- missile defence, and I am Canadian. I think the main reasons Canadians have been against it is because so far it looks like it hasn't worked (I am optimistic with their development of laser technology that it will work) and that the US gov. wants us to front some of the bill.
I dont have problems with fronting some of the bill if the technology actually works.
No, Rogue states wont fire nuclear weapons at the U.S. or any of its allies. They know we would respond in kind. If anyone besides a state with a missile shield able to protect itself launched a pre-emptive strike, they would be destroyed by detterent forces. As well, ICBMs are fucking expensive. Not only is it easier to deliver a nuclear weapon by non-ballistic means, it is also safer, as its harder to track the nation that launched the attack.
Yes, but in order to do that they need to make sure they have enough nukes to get past the shield. Which is what they[and China, when they declared they were doubling the size of their aresenal when we declared we were going to withdraw from the ABM treaty] are doing.
Wouldn't Missile Defence only really be useful against a rogue state anyways?
What I mean is, if you are planning on defending a massive attack from Russia, they will just send more nukes than you can shoot down anyways.
I would also like to point out that I am not so anti- missile defence, and I am Canadian. I think the main reasons Canadians have been against it is because so far it looks like it hasn't worked (I am optimistic with their development of laser technology that it will work) and that the US gov. wants us to front some of the bill.
I dont have problems with fronting some of the bill if the technology actually works.
No, Rogue states wont fire nuclear weapons at the U.S. or any of its allies. They know we would respond in kind. If anyone besides a state with a missile shield able to protect itself launched a pre-emptive strike, they would be destroyed by detterent forces. As well, ICBMs are fucking expensive. Not only is it easier to deliver a nuclear weapon by non-ballistic means, it is also safer, as its harder to track the nation that launched the attack.
Yes, but in order to do that they need to make sure they have enough nukes to get past the shield. Which is what they[and China, when they declared they were doubling the size of their aresenal when we declared we were going to withdraw from the ABM treaty] are doing.
But, but its sooooooooooooo cool.
Rumsfeld is a nut, and the pentagon is full of crazies who don't understand politics, Cheney used to be in there and he's the one in charge, thats why its going down.
sigh.
What I mean is, if you are planning on defending a massive attack from Russia, they will just send more nukes than you can shoot down anyways.
ABM is useless against Russia's first strike capability for precisely that reason. What Putin is (claiming to be) worried about is that it robs Russia of second strike capability.
MAD works because both sides have such a ridiculous amount of nuclear weapons that even if one of them pulled of a successful (i.e. surprise) first strike, the other side would have enough left to retaliate totally. Therefore, there is no incentive to strike first.
An ABM system allows you to strike first and then shoot down the second strike from your enemy. Therefore, there is an incentive to strike first. Striking first is the "safe" option. In other words, ABM can change the game from MAD to a Mexican Stand-Off.
You can say that they may not be able to develop ICBMs capable of hitting us, but to say that if they DID have the capability that they would not strike is naive, I think.
North Korea is batshit insane. As long as Kim Jong Ill can get to a decent fallout shelter I don't think he would give two shits about nuking us and also having his country nuked to smitherines.
Iran I wouldn't say is batshit insane. But who is to say they won't let the technology fall into the hands of terrorists who are batshit insane? There is plausible deniability there on the part of Iran.
Assuming that all people are rational, is not rational.
I was under the impression that this system wouldn't do much to stop a Russian nuclear strike, even a second strike. They still have their submarine fleet don't they? If this isn't the case it would be nice to see some justification as I haven't heard that except maybe coming from Putin.
I could see this being more a thorn in the side of someone with a smaller arsenal, such as China or a nuclear state to be named later. China's operated under the principle that MAD doesn't necessitate complete anhilation and only the destruction of some cities, so they might not be as bothered by it as others.
Bush's administration certainly doesn't seem to think Iran will never have nuclear missiles. They seem to take Iran quite seriously.
And it isn't really "around" Russia. It's on part of the western border of Russia.
And how is it that this precludes Russia from ever gaining power on the international stage? I mean, what?
Nuclear weapons and ICBMs are much different. If it is even possible for Iran to develop a first strike capable Nuclear force it would take decades.
It prevents Russia from gaining power on the international stage because it gives the U.S.A. carte blanche to interfere in Russian interests while not allowing Russia to interfere in ours.
Its the trump card, so to say.
Meh. I think Russia is capable of gaining plenty of power regardless of nuclear balance with the United States.
You might have a point if you were arguing that it prevented Russia from gaining international power equal to ours - but even that would be a stretch because Russia is simply not as powerful as we are on a lot of fronts.
No, Rogue states wont fire nuclear weapons at the U.S. or any of its allies. They know we would respond in kind. If anyone besides a state with a missile shield able to protect itself launched a pre-emptive strike, they would be destroyed by detterent forces. As well, ICBMs are fucking expensive. Not only is it easier to deliver a nuclear weapon by non-ballistic means, it is also safer, as its harder to track the nation that launched the attack.
Yes, but in order to do that they need to make sure they have enough nukes to get past the shield. Which is what they[and China, when they declared they were doubling the size of their aresenal when we declared we were going to withdraw from the ABM treaty] are doing.
Here as I see it is where you are going off the tracks.
You think that the Bush administration sees the situation the same way you do, and then you diagnose their motives accordingly.
You are iron confident that no country under any circumstances will launch a weapon because they will be detered by rational self-interest. I don't think the Bush administration has that same belief.
I was under the impression that this system wouldn't do much to stop a Russian nuclear strike, even a second strike. They still have their submarine fleet don't they? If this isn't the case it would be nice to see some justification as I haven't heard that except maybe coming from Putin.
Whether Putin's official argument is reasonable is up for D&D. If we attacked, Russia's boomers would certainly be our first targets, since they couldn't immediately know that we had taken them out.
Put yourself in Putin's position. If the U.S. had the ambition to annihalate Russia, would you currently be confident that they are too scared to attack because of your second strike?
Now they are parking an ABM system right along your western border. Are you still so confident?
Wouldn't Missile Defence only really be useful against a rogue state anyways?
What I mean is, if you are planning on defending a massive attack from Russia, they will just send more nukes than you can shoot down anyways.
I would also like to point out that I am not so anti- missile defence, and I am Canadian. I think the main reasons Canadians have been against it is because so far it looks like it hasn't worked (I am optimistic with their development of laser technology that it will work) and that the US gov. wants us to front some of the bill.
I dont have problems with fronting some of the bill if the technology actually works.
No, Rogue states wont fire nuclear weapons at the U.S. or any of its allies. They know we would respond in kind. If anyone besides a state with a missile shield able to protect itself launched a pre-emptive strike, they would be destroyed by detterent forces. As well, ICBMs are fucking expensive. Not only is it easier to deliver a nuclear weapon by non-ballistic means, it is also safer, as its harder to track the nation that launched the attack.
Yes, but in order to do that they need to make sure they have enough nukes to get past the shield. Which is what they[and China, when they declared they were doubling the size of their aresenal when we declared we were going to withdraw from the ABM treaty] are doing.
But, but its sooooooooooooo cool.
Rumsfeld is a nut, and the pentagon is full of crazies who don't understand politics, Cheney used to be in there and he's the one in charge, thats why its going down.
sigh.
Do I have to start posting Coulter again? Because I'll do it. Don't doubt that.
I was under the impression that this system wouldn't do much to stop a Russian nuclear strike, even a second strike. They still have their submarine fleet don't they? If this isn't the case it would be nice to see some justification as I haven't heard that except maybe coming from Putin.
Whether Putin's official argument is reasonable is up for D&D. If we attacked, Russia's boomers would certainly be our first targets, since they couldn't immediately know that we had taken them out.
Put yourself in Putin's position. If the U.S. had the ambition to annihalate Russia, would you currently be confident that they are too scared to attack because of your second strike?
Now they are parking an ABM system right along your western border. Are you still so confident?
Nuclear deterrence is some scary shit.
A submarine force is more or less impossible to take out with a first strike though. We'd still have to deal with the loss of multiple cities if Russia waited until our first strike hit to launch the second strike, which barring some pretty crazy shit is an unacceptable loss.
Perhaps if the missile defense was a lot more powerful there would be cause for concern. But I'm not seeing any reason to believe why it would be the case that we could stop retaliation from someone as powerful as Russia.
I can see why he is irritated, but this should be on the scale of something that he doesn't need to lose his head over, especially if he can get concessions about the system and knowing how it works as has been suggested. And all this is assuming that there are ambitions to annihilate Russia, which would have to be seriously long term unless there is something very important and secret going on with them.
I was under the impression that this system wouldn't do much to stop a Russian nuclear strike, even a second strike. They still have their submarine fleet don't they? If this isn't the case it would be nice to see some justification as I haven't heard that except maybe coming from Putin.
Whether Putin's official argument is reasonable is up for D&D. If we attacked, Russia's boomers would certainly be our first targets, since they couldn't immediately know that we had taken them out.
Put yourself in Putin's position. If the U.S. had the ambition to annihalate Russia, would you currently be confident that they are too scared to attack because of your second strike?
Now they are parking an ABM system right along your western border. Are you still so confident?
Nuclear deterrence is some scary shit.
A submarine force is more or less impossible to take out with a first strike though. We'd still have to deal with the loss of multiple cities if Russia waited until our first strike hit to launch the second strike, which barring some pretty crazy shit is an unacceptable loss.
Perhaps if the missile defense was a lot more powerful there would be cause for concern. But I'm not seeing any reason to believe why it would be the case that we could stop retaliation from someone as powerful as Russia.
I can see why he is irritated, but this should be on the scale of something that he doesn't need to lose his head over, especially if he can get concessions about the system and knowing how it works as has been suggested. And all this is assuming that there are ambitions to annihilate Russia, which would have to be seriously long term unless there is something very important and secret going on with them.
I was under the impression that Russia can't afford to keep their missile subs on patrol, i.e. they are all docked at ports.
I guess it makes more sense that he is angry then. Moving those subs out of dock would be necessary for them if they though nuclear war was a real threat, as they are key in a second strike. He might be pissed that Bush is pushing him to shell out more to keep the nuclear deterrent in full force more than any real threat.
But I seriously doubt that he considers the US nuking them in the near future much of a possibility.
Posts
Seriously though, if you have a problem with the US administration, talk about a specific thing and maybe make an informed decision as opposed to "olol Bush/US".
When NK finally gets a long range missile above 1000ft, what makes you think that it's guidance systems will be so successful. It's not that far between Seattle -Vancouver.
But that's not really the point. The comment I was responding to makes absolutely no sense. It would be like Canada providing some resource that we didn't have (say wood, hypothetically) and Canada provided the US with wood, and the US would say, god this wood is shit, they give us pine when we want oak.
I know, a stupid, stupid analogy, but I can't think of a situation where Canadian forces provide defense for the US (searching now though)
NORAD.
On the subject of the Missile Defense Shield I'm pretty sure that even though the Canadian Government has turned down joining the US Missile Defense Shield the Americans would most likely shoot down any rogue missile that were to be headed towards North America including towards Canada. So it's not like if Canada doesn't go along with the Missile Defense Shield the US Government is just gonna say "fine fuck you then", then allow a missile to hit Canada. The only thing that the Canadian Government really stopped was the deployment of the actual missile defense units on Canadian Soil.
It's like the Nuclear Umbrella, even though Canada doesn't possess any nuclear weapons, we are still protected by the NATO nuclear umbrella from the nuclear countries of NATO but more so the US.
Believe me, I agree. Which is why endo's comment makes me giggle at it's retardedness. Like you said, Canada benefits from the 'Nuclear Umbrella" that NATO/US provide. I guess endo doesn't want that protection either because the yanks would "f it up"
This is for missile defense aimed at stopping a Russian or Chinese ICBM attack. The system being built ostensibly to stop a North Korean missile wouldn't have to have over-the-pole radar coverage and intercept capability.
Note that the missle defense system being researched by the US for "rogue states" is really just a smokescreen for the continued development of a more robust and large-scale missile defense technology. The neocons want to have something like that ready to go when the door closes on American hegemony and some other power has strategic nuclear capability. It's basically just an excuse to develop the basics of missile interception.
If they could get away with it, they'd start weaponizing space as well- in the hopes of getting the early edge in that inevitable arms race. (But, of course, just ending up triggering the race to begin in the first place)
And really, Russia is right here. None of these 'rogue states' have the capability to strike the country next door without launching the missile a mile from the border, let alone the US, and they are annoyed about the smoke being blown up their ass. Seems to me like a 'Do you think we are fucking stupid?' response from Putin. The radar in Poland will also be able to track anything inside Russian airspace. You think the US would be ok with Russia putting an OTH radar in Cuba that did the same thing? I think not. Their annoyance is perfectly justified, and even an idiot can see that this defence shield is aimed at detection of Russian launches, and spying on their military aircraft movements.
I personally do not think a new European arms race is such a bad thing in the long term. Nobody will actually nuke anybody, but nobody is willing to test that theory, just in case.
Cold War 2: The motherland strikes back
I agree with you on how there should be another superpower in the world to match the US. I think it's time that another country had the power to tell the US government that they can't do whatever they want and for it to actually have an effect.
The whole idea that the missile shield was to be used against missiles launched from rogue states is a complete and utter joke. The only rogue country that has a nuke that is on the US shit list is North Korea and they can barely launch a missile past Japan let alone to the west coast of the US. Plus all of the rogue countries on the US shit list who launch a missile at the US know that they will immediately made in to a large parking lot. The missile defense shield is just the US saying to the Russians and the Chinese that they are not going to give up their status as the sole superpower in the world.
Yeah, I'm taking the fucking States on this one.
But on the subject of Russia, I can very much so understand what Putin is doing. He was given a country that was relatively shattered but had very rich resources, all he really needed to do was what Russian leaders have historically done, call the people shitheads, kill a few dissenters and tell everyone what to do. It worked for Ivan the terrible, for the Czars, for Lenin and Stalin it's always worked in Russia for some reason so he's just following the great Russian leader playbook. The sad part isn't so much that he is doing it, it's that it's working like a charm. So here we go back to the cycle, Russia becomes a big dog in the big game, gets run into the ground and collapses in on itself, a charismatic leader rises up to fix it and reinstate an iron fisted rule and make them a big dog in the big game.
I swear, we need a fucking rehab clinic for that country.
Which the people of Russia are, and always have been, apparently lacking.
Well, the argument isn't that some other country should have hegemony, it's that the United States should be balanced by another superpower- both therefore not being hegemonic.
I don't subscribe to that idea. I consider a "benevolent hegemony" a more long-lasting and stable configuration than a bipolar world, and certainly more stable than a collection of great powers. Like it or not, a 4-5 way great power arrangement is in the cards for the near-ish future. Russia, the US, the European Union, India and China.
If the United States had adequately managed its sudden victory in the Cold War all the way back from 1991, and through the Clinton/Bush administrations, the world would be in a better shape. But two Presidents in a row dropped the ball badly and now it is too late.
Probably the saddest part of the 4-6 way arrangement is that so long as any 2 countries are particularly nationalistic it just leads to WWI, but now our weapons are many times scarier...
Well, possibly. Some people contend that globalization, the incredible lethality of nuclear weapons, the potential development of game-ending biowarfare technology, the rise in importance of NGOs, and the generally post industrial global economy will help keep a great power system stable.
Particularly if (somehow) space exploration becomes cheap enough to regularly off-set resource scarcity.
I tend to be skeptical. Technological amelioration of ancient realities always seems like wishful thinking to me.
Its because Russia and everyone else knows that missile defense bases arent intended to protect from "rogue states"
Racist swine.
I don't know about that.
It would tie our hands in the middle east if Europe was a hostage.
Also - if we have a more pressing current need for European bases, that gives Europe a stronger hand in restraining our foreign policy.
yeah right.
The US expects Canada to pay for a rather large portion of the missile defense cost. This is estimated at $200 billion.
http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/Article253.html
Actually your article says the whole thing costs 200 billion and Canada will pay a share.
All the propaganda weasel wording that I've come to expect from anything that labels itself "alernative media."
Jesus. I've seen Carl Rove be more honest and straight forward.
I'll say "Ouch" for the Canadians. What they are really pissed about is the fact that the Flames lost to the Lightning, the Oilers lost to the Hurricanes, and the Sens will probably lose to the ducks. Having a Canadian team lose the Stanley cup to Tampa Bay, Charlotte, and Anaheim in consecutive post seasons can't help but make them a bit deranged. I feel for ya fellas. On the plus side, the Canadian national anthem with the entire crowd singing last night was pretty awesome.
I didn't think the system was capable of shooting down a missile aimed at Europe?
And apparently Bulgaria believes it, because they are complaining that unlike other European countries they are outside the shield.
We back out of the ABM, we place ABM technology around the U.S.S.R. to protect from Iranian ICBMs that dont exist[and wont ever exist], and we enshrine a policy of preemption.
What do you expect them to do say "Im sorry, i will sit by as my deterrent force is assaulted so that i can never gain power on the international stage"
And it isn't really "around" Russia. It's on part of the western border of Russia.
And how is it that this precludes Russia from ever gaining power on the international stage? I mean, what?
Nuclear weapons and ICBMs are much different. If it is even possible for Iran to develop a first strike capable Nuclear force it would take decades.
It prevents Russia from gaining power on the international stage because it gives the U.S.A. carte blanche to interfere in Russian interests while not allowing Russia to interfere in ours.
Its the trump card, so to say.
What I mean is, if you are planning on defending a massive attack from Russia, they will just send more nukes than you can shoot down anyways.
I would also like to point out that I am not so anti- missile defence, and I am Canadian. I think the main reasons Canadians have been against it is because so far it looks like it hasn't worked (I am optimistic with their development of laser technology that it will work) and that the US gov. wants us to front some of the bill.
I dont have problems with fronting some of the bill if the technology actually works.
No, Rogue states wont fire nuclear weapons at the U.S. or any of its allies. They know we would respond in kind. If anyone besides a state with a missile shield able to protect itself launched a pre-emptive strike, they would be destroyed by detterent forces. As well, ICBMs are fucking expensive. Not only is it easier to deliver a nuclear weapon by non-ballistic means, it is also safer, as its harder to track the nation that launched the attack.
Yes, but in order to do that they need to make sure they have enough nukes to get past the shield. Which is what they[and China, when they declared they were doubling the size of their aresenal when we declared we were going to withdraw from the ABM treaty] are doing.
Rumsfeld is a nut, and the pentagon is full of crazies who don't understand politics, Cheney used to be in there and he's the one in charge, thats why its going down.
sigh.
ABM is useless against Russia's first strike capability for precisely that reason. What Putin is (claiming to be) worried about is that it robs Russia of second strike capability.
MAD works because both sides have such a ridiculous amount of nuclear weapons that even if one of them pulled of a successful (i.e. surprise) first strike, the other side would have enough left to retaliate totally. Therefore, there is no incentive to strike first.
An ABM system allows you to strike first and then shoot down the second strike from your enemy. Therefore, there is an incentive to strike first. Striking first is the "safe" option. In other words, ABM can change the game from MAD to a Mexican Stand-Off.
North Korea is batshit insane. As long as Kim Jong Ill can get to a decent fallout shelter I don't think he would give two shits about nuking us and also having his country nuked to smitherines.
Iran I wouldn't say is batshit insane. But who is to say they won't let the technology fall into the hands of terrorists who are batshit insane? There is plausible deniability there on the part of Iran.
Assuming that all people are rational, is not rational.
I could see this being more a thorn in the side of someone with a smaller arsenal, such as China or a nuclear state to be named later. China's operated under the principle that MAD doesn't necessitate complete anhilation and only the destruction of some cities, so they might not be as bothered by it as others.
Meh. I think Russia is capable of gaining plenty of power regardless of nuclear balance with the United States.
You might have a point if you were arguing that it prevented Russia from gaining international power equal to ours - but even that would be a stretch because Russia is simply not as powerful as we are on a lot of fronts.
In short - I disagree.
Here as I see it is where you are going off the tracks.
You think that the Bush administration sees the situation the same way you do, and then you diagnose their motives accordingly.
You are iron confident that no country under any circumstances will launch a weapon because they will be detered by rational self-interest. I don't think the Bush administration has that same belief.
Whether Putin's official argument is reasonable is up for D&D. If we attacked, Russia's boomers would certainly be our first targets, since they couldn't immediately know that we had taken them out.
Put yourself in Putin's position. If the U.S. had the ambition to annihalate Russia, would you currently be confident that they are too scared to attack because of your second strike?
Now they are parking an ABM system right along your western border. Are you still so confident?
Nuclear deterrence is some scary shit.
A submarine force is more or less impossible to take out with a first strike though. We'd still have to deal with the loss of multiple cities if Russia waited until our first strike hit to launch the second strike, which barring some pretty crazy shit is an unacceptable loss.
Perhaps if the missile defense was a lot more powerful there would be cause for concern. But I'm not seeing any reason to believe why it would be the case that we could stop retaliation from someone as powerful as Russia.
I can see why he is irritated, but this should be on the scale of something that he doesn't need to lose his head over, especially if he can get concessions about the system and knowing how it works as has been suggested. And all this is assuming that there are ambitions to annihilate Russia, which would have to be seriously long term unless there is something very important and secret going on with them.
I was under the impression that Russia can't afford to keep their missile subs on patrol, i.e. they are all docked at ports.
Linky: http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/BG1374.cfm
I guess it makes more sense that he is angry then. Moving those subs out of dock would be necessary for them if they though nuclear war was a real threat, as they are key in a second strike. He might be pissed that Bush is pushing him to shell out more to keep the nuclear deterrent in full force more than any real threat.
But I seriously doubt that he considers the US nuking them in the near future much of a possibility.