Yes or No to missile defense?


czardogs
#1
By Roy Whyte
CDM
May 11/03

That would be a resounding NO!

Look at the issue closely and see the actual figures of the effectiveness of the system have been far from anything to spend further money on.

Of all the tests so far conducted less then 10% have done what they have sought to achieve - downing an incoming missile. 10% for missiles they know are coming, at what speed, and altitude!

Now for the costs... early estimates range from 200 billion dollars all the way up to 1 trillion dollars! Already the Americans have spent over $120 billion and still have very little to show for it. How are we to take part in that when we cannot even fund our health care system and maintain our own aging military? Beyond that, how much input into the process are we really going to get in the whole ordeal? Without doubt, very little in fact.

Moreover, look at the connections between the current American government and those that have been contracted to build and maintain the missile systems. The connections are dubious to say the least.

Now, do some research of the potential enemies. Russia and China have both openly said that the missile defense system as proposed by Washington is no deterrence to them because they will simply build more missiles, with more warheads and include with them more counter measures. No amount of money spent on missile defense could stop them.

Offense in this case is far cheaper and easier to deploy then defense.

As for rogue nations - why should they launch a multi-million dollar missile to attack America when it was clearly shown by Osama Bin Laden that a few determined men could inflict massive casualties with just a little planning. No missile defense system can stop a dirty bomb or suitcase nuke. Who really thinks the bad guys are going to play by the rules?

Missile defense is nothing more then a scam to give false hope and to line the pockets of the military industrial complex in the United States. It will cause a new arms race, which we had just turned away from. Remember now it took the US pulling out of the long established Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to get their plans this far.

We should focus and concentrate on preventing new threats from emerging in the first place. Canada should avoid this little fiasco and spend the money where it is really needed, here at home.
 
Andem
Free Thinker
#2
I say no all the way.

NO
NO
NO (!)

There's absolutely nothing we would gain from this and yet our PM wants to contribute to an American dream (which is doomed to be a failure)... Let's just thank the United States for starting the world's next arms race
 
czardogs
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Andem

I say no all the way.

NO
NO
NO (!)

There's absolutely nothing we would gain from this and yet our PM wants to contribute to an American dream (which is doomed to be a failure)... Let's just thank the United States for starting the world's next arms race

that is exactly what will and IS happening. this american dream of missile defense is part and parcel of the grand plan of pre-emptive war. They could aggressively attack nuclear armed nations in the hope that any retaliation from them would be shot down. So what will those potential targets do to circumvent that? build more missiles of course.

We should spend those billions rebuilding our aging military by building most of the armoured vehicles and armoury here at home. Spend it here so it stays here. Dubyas friends in the arms industries in the US are rich enough thank you very much.

Beyond all of that... who is targeting us with nukes? Really now who is aiming our way?
 
Shmad
#4
NO! This is a useless program. To show how particularly useless it is, during tests, one missile missed its intercept point by 400 miles!!! Thats right 400 miles! Hows that for accuracy
 
czardogs
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Shmad

NO! This is a useless program. To show how particularly useless it is, during tests, one missile missed its intercept point by 400 miles!!! Thats right 400 miles! Hows that for accuracy

And many of the so called "hits" we actually misses as the companies that were given contracts to build this system were to return money for not meeting their stated goals. With a framework like that of course numbers would be fudged.

I have started to pour over documents around this issue and its clear that it will not work. The ability to fool the system far outweighs the ability of the system to shoot them down. Simple foil chaff or dummy warheads can easily be deployed.

the precursor to this system is of course the patriot missle system. In the first gulf war the outright lied about the "hits". One scud was shot down. ONE! They claimed 90% accuracy but Senate investigations showed it was one big lie. How soon they forget their own inquiries. Those scuds proved hard to hit because on re-entry they would break apart or wobble and that would make the patriot miss. One would have to be a real fool to think Russia, China, North Korea et al have not also studied this data and employed the outcomes into their own missiles.

Living on this planet is precarious enough without everyone building more warheads each and every month for now and into the future.
 
gnuman
#6
Well even if the system works with 90% accurancy, let alone on the political front, but the advantage terrorists would have in getting the job done.

If a nuke warhead or a biological one was attached and a missle shot it down the weapons would be sprayed everywhere. What's the point?
 
LuShes
#7
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Consindering how many defence missles the states accidently used in "friendly fire" On themselves and the brits. They seem to be pretty accurate when you target yourself

I bet Canada would be purchasing these faulty missles from the states? Or would we be trying to be econonmically safe and purchase missles with the approval ceal "Made in Canada!" And keep our hockey hoser labourers working?!?! *ponders*

I agree with the small chance of anyone coming after Canada. They all proclaim us to be "Ignorant, bacon eating, hockey hoser, beer guzzling rednecks" Like come on, we can beat the terroists over the head with a hockey stick, be in style.... *rolls her eyes*

Canada does better in peace keeping duties. Canada have missles would be ne just oversized ugly paper weights for the PM and his congress...
 
czardogs
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by LuShes

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Canada does better in peace keeping duties. Canada have missles would be ne just oversized ugly paper weights for the PM and his congress...



Do I need to whip you again?!

I know your sleepy and all but...

PM and his CONGRESS!! I know we are almost a colony but not yet! That would be the PM and his cabinet.
 
LuShes
#9
Yes whip me if you must

I thought Congress sounded good...When will you learn not to argue with the lady....lol *taps foot and gives you a stern look* Men...

Congress...Cabinet...Still all full with stinking political money eating back stabbing pigs
 
czardogs
#10
Quote:

Congress...Cabinet...Still all full with stinking political money eating back stabbing pigs

that I can agree with!
 
Anonymous
#11
So, now I need to ask...why is Canada thinking of going along with this?

Could it be the PM is trying to create jobs, line his own pockets, improve us/canada relations, or is Canada getting ready for the most devious plan yet...world domination!

If Canada goes along with this then it is as evil as the US and you are all bad people for letting it happen because I know you will all be at the meeting where the Prime Minister decides on this...so it is your personal descion really. :P
 
Shmad
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by W-K

If Canada goes along with this then it is as evil as the US and you are all bad people for letting it happen because I know you will all be at the meeting where the Prime Minister decides on this...so it is your personal descion really. :P

Thats a really big conference room :P
 
Andem
Free Thinker
#13
Have you ever seen that Simpsons episode with Bart calling Australia. The guy calls out his window to his friend who yells out to the prime minister .. That's like Canada..

The prime minister is my next door neighbour and I can convince him to sign and not to sign anything I want

Shmad is in BC and he can also speak to the prime minister who lives across the street.
 
czardogs
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by W-K

So, now I need to ask...why is Canada thinking of going along with this?

Could it be the PM is trying to create jobs, line his own pockets, improve us/canada relations, or is Canada getting ready for the most devious plan yet...world domination!

If Canada goes along with this then it is as evil as the US and you are all bad people for letting it happen because I know you will all be at the meeting where the Prime Minister decides on this...so it is your personal descion really. :P

It will create no jobs in Canada as all of the technology and equipment is made in America.

Our PM is putting out feelers over the issue. He wants to show some kind of kiss and make up over US-Canada relations. This is the wrong way to show it.
 
LuShes
#15
Omg dear lord Andem, what did you do to me and your avatar? *cracks up*

czardogs: Yes I agree with you, Cretchian just like to do some ass kissing, and well who else better to ass kiss, is the united states, since they are threatning us, and well the rest of the world.

Maybe he's thinking along the lines "if you can't beat em, join em..." Lord I hope not.
 
Andem
Free Thinker
#16
I hope to god we have a premier replacing Jean Chrétien really fast who opposes this crazy idiotic idea.

This would be a move equally or more idiotic than NAFTA by Mulroney... There's one thing Chretien has not had yet and thats a comparison to Mulroney... Well, that time is just about to come.
 
czardogs
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Andem

I hope to god we have a premier replacing Jean Chrétien really fast who opposes this crazy idiotic idea.

This would be a move equally or more idiotic than NAFTA by Mulroney... There's one thing Chretien has not had yet and thats a comparison to Mulroney... Well, that time is just about to come.

Um, did you mean Prime Minister or did you mean a premier who was going to run for the Prime Ministers office!?

Our next Prime Minister will be Martin and he is making it very clear he will play suckup and will take a hard look at the missile defense scheme. Do not be surprised if he goes through with it.

That money would be far better spent upgrading our already aging military and its equipment.

Hard choice, billions for missile defense that may never be used or work if it is used - or spend it on helicopters, tanks, fighting vehicles, and other equipment or even more soldiers. Or what is sorely missed - heavy lift capabilities.
 
Shmad
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Andem

Have you ever seen that Simpsons episode with Bart calling Australia. The guy calls out his window to his friend who yells out to the prime minister .. That's like Canada..

The prime minister is my next door neighbour and I can convince him to sign and not to sign anything I want

Shmad is in BC and he can also speak to the prime minister who lives across the street.

Homer and Marge also live across the street.. mmm big blue hair..
 
Andem
Free Thinker
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by czardogs

Quote: Originally Posted by Andem

I hope to god we have a premier replacing Jean Chrétien really fast who opposes this crazy idiotic idea.

This would be a move equally or more idiotic than NAFTA by Mulroney... There's one thing Chretien has not had yet and thats a comparison to Mulroney... Well, that time is just about to come.

Um, did you mean Prime Minister or did you mean a premier who was going to run for the Prime Ministers office!?

Yeah, I did mean Prime Minister, not Premier

But you know, I would really like to see Ontario's former premier (Mike Harris) run for the PC party in the federal elections and take over from Joe Clark, who has driven the party into the ground. He's a liberal!

Anyways back to my other point, Mike Harris made magic in Ontario and although he cut back from schools and hospitals, the cut backs did not make such a big difference since it was just cash flowing with no regulations.. Very badly mismanaged. Anyhow, he took it out, changed some things and made the tax payers` dollar more efficiently used. He also got rid of welfare! There's some people who live(d) on welfare for their whole life without working! terrible.
 
Andem
Free Thinker
#20
As you can see, I tend to go on ranting and raving about something completely off topic!
 
czardogs
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Andem

Quote: Originally Posted by czardogs

Quote: Originally Posted by Andem

I hope to god we have a premier replacing Jean Chrétien really fast who opposes this crazy idiotic idea.

This would be a move equally or more idiotic than NAFTA by Mulroney... There's one thing Chretien has not had yet and thats a comparison to Mulroney... Well, that time is just about to come.

Um, did you mean Prime Minister or did you mean a premier who was going to run for the Prime Ministers office!?

Yeah, I did mean Prime Minister, not Premier

But you know, I would really like to see Ontario's former premier (Mike Harris) run for the PC party in the federal elections and take over from Joe Clark, who has driven the party into the ground. He's a liberal!

Anyways back to my other point, Mike Harris made magic in Ontario and although he cut back from schools and hospitals, the cut backs did not make such a big difference since it was just cash flowing with no regulations.. Very badly mismanaged. Anyhow, he took it out, changed some things and made the tax payers` dollar more efficiently used. He also got rid of welfare! There's some people who live(d) on welfare for their whole life without working! terrible.

Harris is no better than Martin. He ran Ontario into the ground and openly privatized everything in sight. He is your typical right leaning politician who believes the private sector can do everything better. This even though the methods of the right have been proven time and again NOT to work.

Ontario is suffering through some of the highest electricity rates in Canada because of the moves of the right. Want to guess who owns those power plants now? Hint - they are not Canadian.
 
Andem
Free Thinker
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by czardogs

Ontario is suffering through some of the highest electricity rates in Canada because of the moves of the right. Want to guess who owns those power plants now? Hint - they are not Canadian.

I disagree with a lot of the privitisation going on in Ontario.. I disagree even more with the foreign ownership of our power!!! If NAFTA did not exist, would it be any better?

The PC's won't get in the next provincial elections in Ontario, god help us, the Liberals will . I know you would like to have NAFTA thrown out and it is possible, but is it possible to reverse the privitisation of our electricity in Ontario? Just curious...
 
czardogs
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Andem

Quote: Originally Posted by czardogs

Ontario is suffering through some of the highest electricity rates in Canada because of the moves of the right. Want to guess who owns those power plants now? Hint - they are not Canadian.

I disagree with a lot of the privitisation going on in Ontario.. I disagree even more with the foreign ownership of our power!!! If NAFTA did not exist, would it be any better?

The PC's won't get in the next provincial elections in Ontario, god help us, the Liberals will . I know you would like to have NAFTA thrown out and it is possible, but is it possible to reverse the privitisation of our electricity in Ontario? Just curious...

Look at the ownership, it is NOT Canadian majority owned anymore. Can they roll back Nafta? Not a chance. Once that door is opened there is no closing it due to the national treatment clause. They could sue us for lost profits past/present/ and future. That would be into the hundreds of millions of dollars.

BTW I do not want Nafta "thrown out" only rewritten to exclude national treatment which trumps Canadian laws, and to establish trade based on the Marquis of Queensbury rules of FAIR TRADE. A trade deal IS neccessary but not under the current framework.
Did you know Mexico balked at signing the energy portion of the bill because it in essence makes the Canadian/Mexican resource a "north american" resource. We got suckered where as Mexico saw through the bullshit.

The other part that needs to be tossed or rewritten is the foreign ownership levels. Personally I think it should be no more than 25% of any one resource. Right now there is no cap and we are nearing 50% foreign ownership of all our major industries.

this while the major economic powers of Germany 6%, Japan 1.5% and the US at 12% protect their industries.

Harris will sell out this nation faster than we could say asshole!
 
Jo Canadian
#24
Here's an old one...


 
bluealberta
#25
Yes to missile defence, it would have cost us nothing, we would have had a "seat at the table" with some input. Now we are not even in the same room, with no input.

God save us from the Left and Liberals.
 
annabattler
#26
NO to missile defense(an oxymoron if I ever heard one).
An agreement to support it would NOT be without strings attached,whether or not dollars were expended.
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by annabattler

NO to missile defense(an oxymoron if I ever heard one).
An agreement to support it would NOT be without strings attached,whether or not dollars were expended.

AGREE.


("God" help us from the right wing fanatical psychotics who are so threatened/paranoid they have to build a fortress around themselves )
 
Jo Canadian
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by annabattler

NO to missile defense(an oxymoron if I ever heard one).
An agreement to support it would NOT be without strings attached,whether or not dollars were expended.






AGREED AGAIN
 
Ocean Breeze
Free Thinker
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Jo Canadian

Quote: Originally Posted by annabattler

NO to missile defense(an oxymoron if I ever heard one).
An agreement to support it would NOT be without strings attached,whether or not dollars were expended.






AGREED AGAIN



Keep them comining Jo C. The graphics say more than words can.

(good job)
 
Jo Canadian
#30
Who knew, I found one more. I wasn't able to find the one that had canada as the ash-tray for fallout though, that was a good one.




 

Similar Threads

5
China's Defense
by Sparrow | Mar 4th, 2007
0
Canada DID join "Missile Defense"
by Paranoid Dot Calm | Dec 28th, 2005
0
Domestic Defense
by mrmom2 | Oct 6th, 2005
19
PM Martin says NO to Missile Defense
by Andem | Dec 24th, 2004