Missile Defence Acceptable : Defense Minister

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
DasFX said:
Hank C said:
Other than that, missile defense is a good idea in this day and age.

Sure it is a good idea in theory, but two important points:

1) It doesn't work. It won't work. It is technically way beyond what we are capable of.

2) The threats the US face in this "day and age" aren't going to be sending ICBM over the pole. So having a great defense system is great and all, but if there is no one to use it against, then what is the point.

Sure it will work. We just need to keep working. With modern technology it is quite possible. The last time this came up I posted a link to a defence site that showed them actually shooting down a missle with a laser.

Of course I was bombarded with hate posts and that it was all Hollywood.

Missle defense is coming.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
canada news
Thursday, Feb 23, 2006

Stay out of costly U.S. missile defence system, former Pentagon expert warns

TORONTO (CP) - A former top Pentagon official is warning Canada not to join Washington's missile defence program, calling it a colossal waste of money that would make the country more vulnerable to attack, not less.

In fact, Canada should be leading international talks to prevent the weaponization of space, said Phil Coyle, who was assistant secretary of defence and senior weapons tester at the U.S. Department of Defence from 1994 to 2001.

"The concept of missile defence is quite seductive," Coyle said Thursday in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"(But) it's destabilizing, it's incredibly expensive, and it doesn't work."

* Related: New defence minister willing to re-open missile debate



A year ago, former Liberal prime minister Paul Martin pulled the plug on Canadian participation in developing and deploying a system that would, in theory, shoot incoming missiles out of the sky before they strike North American targets.

The decision drew pointed scorn from the American ambassador at the time, Paul Cellucci, who called it a "perplexing, astounding" and "disappointing" decision that amounted to Canada wimping out and hiding behind the skirts of the U.S. military.

"If there's a missile incoming, and it's heading toward Canada, you are going to leave it up to the United States to determine what to do about that missile," Cellucci said during a speech in Toronto last year.



"We don't think that is in Canada's sovereign interest."

The new Tory government under Stephen Harper has been musing about revisiting the decision; Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said Thursday he's willing to reopen the debate.

"In principle, I don't have difficulty, personally, with ballistic missile defence," O'Connor said.

Coyle, who is in Canada for a seminar on missile defence Friday at the National Press Club in Ottawa, warned against going that route.

"You don't get anything for your investment," he said. "All you get is a scarecrow defence."

Currently, Washington is spending about $10 billion US a year on the missile-defence system; two weeks ago, President George W. Bush asked Congress for $11.1 billion US for the program in 2007 - close to Canada's entire defence budget.

Despite the mammoth infusion of cash, Coyle said the system will never work.

Trying to hit an incoming intercontinental ballistic missile is like trying to score a hole-in-one on a green that's not only moving at 15,000 miles per hour, but also covered with holes identical to the one you're aiming at, he said.

He also said the threats the Pentagon cites as its justification for the program are bogus, warning that the system would inevitably spark a new arms race and lead to the weaponization of space.

"That's where Canada has drawn the line and it's a practical place to draw the line," Coyle said.

Taking part would increase the likelihood that friendly countries such as China would regard Canada with increased hostility, while refusing to get involved would not hurt our relations with the U.S., he added.

"Canada's place in the hearts of Americans is secure," he said.

"There's no country in the world that is as well regarded, admired and engenders as much affection in Americans as Canada does. Nothing is going to change there."

That affection also makes Canada ideally situated to persuade the Americans to rethink their plans, Coyle added.
 

Gerald24

New Member
Jan 29, 2006
34
0
6
Red Earth Creek
I am a rightwinger, but this missle defence plan makes no sense. No Country in there right mind would launch a missle attack from abroad to the USA considering thy have 5 thousand Warheads in waiting. Now having said that I could see a strike from within the USA and how would a missle shield stop that. If the USA really wants to protect itself,leave the Middle east and get there oil in other regions of the world. Yes they will have to pay more , but what I see coming done the line is a World War with the Muslim Countries, and you would almost have to destroy them totally to get any peace. I really don't think we want to go there.
 

Jersay

House Member
Dec 1, 2005
4,837
2
38
Independent Palestine
Agreed with you about Missile defence. but with over 1 billion adherents only second to Christianity you will never be able to defeat Islam and the nations that have Muslim majorities.
 

MMMike

Council Member
Mar 21, 2005
1,410
1
38
Toronto
Hank C said:
I got no problem with missile defense except in the area of costs.....the US has spent billions to develop this so I would think they want Canada to spend some too. Other than that, missile defense is a good idea in this day and age.


This is one of the problems with the Liberal party, it has conservative opritunists in it and they will vote on conservative policy if the party diciplan is not upheld
so what...I hate when any party whips a caucus to vote a certain way. The MPs are elected in their riding, so let them choose which way to best serve their constituents. Not every liberal should be forced to vote for homosexual marriage or for the gunregistry, as not all of their constituents feel the same way.

I disagree that 'missile defense is a good idea'. Maybe if you had unlimited resources, but nobody does. That is a MASSIVE amount of money poured into a solution for a scenario (ballistic missile attack on mainland America) that has MINIMAL probability of ever occurring. There are so many better things the US could do with that money that would do much more for their national security.
 

Hank C

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2006
953
0
16
Calgary, AB
true if a rouge nation launched a nuke that actually detonated on American soil.... whoever sent it would be turned into a smoking glass hole in a matter of hours.

That being said, while it is suicidal move for any country.........one can apply the same logic to suicide bomber....remember we are dealing with animals
 

Hank C

Electoral Member
Jan 4, 2006
953
0
16
Calgary, AB
I disagree that 'missile defense is a good idea'. Maybe if you had unlimited resources, but nobody does. That is a MASSIVE amount of money poured into a solution for a scenario (ballistic missile attack on mainland America) that has MINIMAL probability of ever occurring. There are so many better things the US could do with that money that would do much more for their national security

yep that is pretty much my only problem with this project. i have read the the US has spent 200 billion over some time to develop this? anyways there are probably more logical ways to spend this money to defend oneself.....but in wartime logic often looked over.

still if the deal is at the right price for canada i have no problem
 

DasFX

Electoral Member
Dec 6, 2004
859
1
18
Whitby, Ontario
EagleSmack said:
Sure it will work. We just need to keep working. With modern technology it is quite possible. The last time this came up I posted a link to a defence site that showed them actually shooting down a missle with a laser.

Missle defense is coming.

I have no doubt that missle defense is coming, so too is the Starship Enterprise, warp drive and the human colonization of space.

Shooting down one missle with a laser is great in a controlled test but it is very different than a full scale attack with decoys and multiple targets.

I have no idea why the US is so gunho on this idea. At least during the cold war, the need somewhat existed, but today who is shooting ICBMs at NA?

If there is a nuclear event in the US it will be:

a) a dirty bomb detonated by hand at the target - Missle defense won't work.

b) an close and proximal off shore attack - Missle defense won't work.

c) a nuclear reactor meltdown or explosion - Missle defense won't work.

Canada should stay out of this, let the Americans try and waste their money.
 

DasFX

Electoral Member
Dec 6, 2004
859
1
18
Whitby, Ontario
Re: RE: Missile Defence Acceptable : Defense Minister

Hank C said:
true if a rouge nation launched a nuke that actually detonated on American soil.... whoever sent it would be turned into a smoking glass hole in a matter of hours.

No "rouge" nation could launch a nuke that would actually reach America. North Korea won't waste their one shot on the US. They don't have the capabilities in the first place and second they'd much rather hit Seoul or Tokyo. Iran would use their one shot on Tel Aviv or Jerusalem.

Who else is a rouge nation with possible nuclear capabilities?
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Every weapon system eventually becomes obsolete with the advance of new weapons. You can mock all you want with your warp drive and Starship Enterprise garbage. Who would have thought the sword would be replaced by the musket?

If you and I were two Roman Soldiers lining up against Germanian Tribes and I turned to you and said...

"Someday this type of warfare will be obsolete. We will have weapons that fire projectiles across this field, Chariots that fly and drop things that will explode on the ground."

You would have turned to me and thought I was completely off my Roman rocker.

I think missle defense is for that rouge country that fires a single shot. I do not think that missle defense is meant to irradicate a full scale Russian or Chinese ICBM attack.

Not yet anyways.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Re: RE: Missile Defence Acceptable : Defense Minister

EagleSmack said:
Every weapon system eventually becomes obsolete with the advance of new weapons. You can mock all you want with your warp drive and Starship Enterprise garbage. Who would have thought the sword would be replaced by the musket?

If you and I were two Roman Soldiers lining up against Germanian Tribes and I turned to you and said...

"Someday this type of warfare will be obsolete. We will have weapons that fire projectiles across this field, Chariots that fly and drop things that will explode on the ground."

You would have turned to me and thought I was completely off my Roman rocker.

I think missle defense is for that rouge country that fires a single shot. I do not think that missle defense is meant to irradicate a full scale Russian or Chinese ICBM attack.

Not yet anyways.

Ten years ago, if I told you America would have a retarded hydrocarbon junkie for a president, you,d have called me crazy.The U.S is the rogue country. The U.S is not a rouge country. :lol:
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Re: RE: Missile Defence Acceptable : Defense Minister

darkbeaver said:
EagleSmack said:
Every weapon system eventually becomes obsolete with the advance of new weapons. You can mock all you want with your warp drive and Starship Enterprise garbage. Who would have thought the sword would be replaced by the musket?

If you and I were two Roman Soldiers lining up against Germanian Tribes and I turned to you and said...

"Someday this type of warfare will be obsolete. We will have weapons that fire projectiles across this field, Chariots that fly and drop things that will explode on the ground."

You would have turned to me and thought I was completely off my Roman rocker.

I think missle defense is for that rouge country that fires a single shot. I do not think that missle defense is meant to irradicate a full scale Russian or Chinese ICBM attack.

Not yet anyways.

Ten years ago, if I told you America would have a retarded hydrocarbon junkie for a president, you,d have called me crazy.The U.S is the rogue country. The U.S is not a rouge country. :lol:

I would say you are right... Clinton was in office.

I like your last two sentences. Confused a bit?

But your response still doesn't change the fact that technology does advance and weapons systems become obsolete with the advance of newer systems.
 

DasFX

Electoral Member
Dec 6, 2004
859
1
18
Whitby, Ontario
Re: RE: Missile Defence Acceptable : Defense Minister

EagleSmack said:
I think missle defense is for that rouge country that fires a single shot. I do not think that missle defense is meant to irradicate a full scale Russian or Chinese ICBM attack.

Not yet anyways.

Go for it, just leave Canada out of it. America would be wiser to find defenses against more probable threats then having some rouge nation miraculously fire a nuclear warhead. The greatest threats to America are from within its borders.

Like I said they are your tax dollars, not mine.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
I agree with you on that Das. We should be working on other things and I have no reason to believe we are not.

It would be a miracle for some of these countries to get a shot off today... but 10 years... 20... who knows.

We will go forward with or w/o Canada.