NationStates Jolt Archive

That's really weird...I could have sworn this quote originally said WalMart...did you just change it? Freakish:)

Anyway, *rolls eyes*...I HATE hockey. And I'm not going to get into a pissing contest over who has travelled abroad more. Of course not everyone loves us...but it is also silly to say everyone hates us. No one is planning to attack Canada...and even if they were, this system has limited capabilities of 'protecting' us from such attacks. Limited use. In fact, useless.

Lol, You got a BC baggie near you?

This is gonna make many Canadian angry but I must.

In the past Canadians had a true national identity and so they were comfortable living next to the United States, they didn't feel the need to constantly disagree with the US simply for the sake of doing so.

This is in fact the reverse of the actual situation. Canadians used to define themselves by what they weren't, i.e. warmongering Americans. Thanks to the polarization of American politics, the bad faith of Americans in matters of bilateral trade agreements, and the unilaterally aggressive stance of the current US admin, we have been vindicated in our original self-identity, even if it was rooted in negativity.

Having been vindicated, we have for the first time in our nation's history, collectively felt positive enough about our societal direction for us to begin charting new territories of social evolution. These efforts are currently being thwarted by our meddlesome neighbours to the south, who fear the eventual loss of their own society's various status quo (can't think of how to pluralize 'status quo', sorry) - presumably because if their own citizens get wind of how much better we, as Canada are becoming...their own people will demand the same.

And why not? If I were an American, I know I'd want change, positive change that is - and I'd want to see it within my own lifetime.

This is in fact the reverse of the actual situation. Canadians used to define themselves by what they weren't, i.e. warmongering Americans. Thanks to the polarization of American politics, the bad faith of Americans in matters of bilateral trade agreements, and the unilaterally aggressive stance of the current US admin, we have been vindicated in our original self-identity, even if it was rooted in negativity.

Having been vindicated, we have for the first time in our nation's history, collectively felt positive enough about our societal direction for us to begin charting new territories of social evolution. These efforts are currently being thwarted by our meddlesome neighbours to the south, who fear the eventual loss of their own society's various status quo (can't think of how to pluralize 'status quo', sorry) - presumably because if their own citizens get wind of how much better we, as Canada are becoming...their own people will demand the same.

And why not? If I were an American, I know I'd want change, positive change that is - and I'd want to see it within my own lifetime.

Statum quo?

to reject a missle defense system because it doesn't work now and hasn't worked in the past is strange. Rockets didn't worked at first and before they worked, it didn't cause people to give up, they just kept trying until they did work.
It will take many years to make a viable missle defense system but we must keep trying because having one will help, it certainly won't hurt anything.

How exactly will having a missile defence system help anyone? I can think of ways it could hurt...like instigating another arms race. But you're right - a missile defense system would certainly help munitions manufacturers and their shareholders.

Yea, Canada doesn't need to participate for many reasons. Most have been stated, but insane countrys like N Korea and Iran would still attack Canada too just for no damn good reason. And we wouldn't only come up to Canada and help defend them just because of material objects such as electricity ( That may be a fraction ) but there our neighbor to the north, the UN would make us anyways, a lot of Americans ( despite popular beliefe ) still don't mind Canada at all ( and no matter what Canada says about Americans ) and just many other reasons, and there are a lot of familys who have family members in Canada and America.

Anyways, were apparently making plans to assault Iran next. And even if we don't, Iran will attack Iraq regardless if we are there or not. N Korea will do something to piss everyone off anyways, so N Korea will eventually get blown the hell up. I kind of think everything is going a little steady.

I don't believe for a minute that North Korea would attack Canada ("too just for no damn good reason"). That's not only utterly paranoid thinking, it is incredulous as well. As is most of what you are asserting.

Guess maybe thats better than being lap dogs to those French Canadians in Quebec.

What would you know about Francophones? Been having trouble with Cajuns again, have you?

The only countries that might even try to shoot missles at North America are Iran and North Korea, and I doubt they'd even try.

If you've ever seen WarGames, then you should know there is no way to win a nuclear war, and no one is stupid enough to simply launch missiles and start war, so why even build a missile shield that will take billions of dollars and years to construct?

It is my opinion that we don't need to worry about airborne nuclear attacks. No country with self-preservation goals in mind would attack the U.S. with nuclear missiles, as they would be reduced to a parking lot in less than an hour. What I am scared of is the briefcase-sized nuclear bombs that can be taken into cities by terrorists, instantly killing hundreds of thousands.

And I'm afraid of robot attack. What to do?

Y'know, maybe I'm in the minority here, but I've lived my entire life under the atomic gun - always knowing that everything standing around me could be reduced to vapour by an ICBM, and never quite trusting those in positions of power to not turn everything into rolling hills of slag.

911 was just a realization of the deep-seeded fear that yes, terrible things could happen - I could get hit by a car, have a piano fall on my head, or even have a 'briefcase-sized' nuke go off next to me in a subway train.

Just because something terrible happened doesn't mean I want to live hiding under my bed. Or live in a Police State where nothing could ever possibly go wrong again. I prefer to live life as I've always done, with the same threats to my safety and well-being in place.

Want me to feel secure? Disarm. Completely. Maybe then I'll get a decent night's sleep.

What would you know about Francophones? Been having trouble with Cajuns again, have you?
Hey, interesting fact for the Americans (and maybe some Canadians), but the British kicked out the Acadians and drove them south into the US. They set up in New Orleans (and elsewhere, but mostly there) and Acadian got slanged to Cajun...

So really, your Cajuns are just our Acadians...beware, they are sleeper Candian spies that we may activate at any moment...

*has said to much...slinks off before CSIS comes to get her*

Canada is being incredibly idiotic. It would provide them with plenty of jobs, increased security, as anyone that nukes America...you can bet Canada will get affected by the Nuclear Fallout. Plus I'm sure Canada would not have to pay much, if Bush was pressuring them to pay for it, when they can't afford it, that's one thing. But if Canada can pay for it's share, they should go for it.

No one is going to launch missiles at the US. And some things, like sovereignty, you just can't put a price tag on.

This system is not good for anything. Why would we want to pay any share of it? So the shareholders of the companies manufacturing this unneeded, nonfunctioning crapola can enjoy a big fat dividend?

I ask you to bring me credible evidence that the U.S. organized the 9/11 attacks, and you tell me to search within myself and discover the truth? No...that's not how debate works. Until you bring me proof, news articles, links, etc., backing up your points, all your statements are worth nothing more than crap.

I knew deep in my gut at 9:15 AM on September 11, 2001 that the incident at the WTC was staged. It was just too convenient for too many involved parties to be anything other than one of the most brazen examples of mass manipulation carried out against a people by their leadership.

And now, I expect to be flayed alive...

Just to point out, your "gut" is not credible evidence.

Just to point out, your "gut" is not credible evidence.
Unless you are trying to prove that you indeed have a gut :D

To go back to something discussed earlier, I'm having some trouble finding out why the Avro arrow was cancelled as it looked like a rather promising aircraft.

LOL the only problem is, it costs more to extract a barrel of oil from the surrounding minerals than it does to just buy a barrel of oil. I'm afraid the Canadians are out of luck.

It is more expensive to pull oil out of oil sands, yes. Cost more than current prices per barrel? No.

Canada is a net exporter of energy. There's a reason why the TSX goes up with the oil prices, while the NYSE goes down.

Well...it just came in.

Premier Martin said that Canada will not participate in the Missile sheild.


I think it`s good and bad at the same time. It`s good because we will not take part in the armement of space and bad cause it`s the first time since 1938 that Canada will not participate at the defence of the North American continent and it will probably affect our political friendship with the US.

Missile Defence (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/02/24/missile-canada050224.html)
Canada does not need a missile sheild, if they do then so does Ireland. Who wants to attack Canada anyway.

To be honest i could have really gave a shit either way.

they will never be able to make a system work that will shoot down missiles with any great accuracy.

How many do you think they would shoot down if N korea threw 20 missiles at the states, half of em? a third?

The patriot missle defence program was crap.

But who cares if the americans want to waste money on crap like this?

To go back to something discussed earlier, I'm having some trouble finding out why the Avro arrow was cancelled as it looked like a rather promising aircraft.

Basically, because the US started pressuring the Canadian Minister of the time, to cancel the Avro (which was by all accounts, an impressive machine, even by todays standarts). The Canadians fell to the pressure, canceling the project (shure, sparing some money), and allowing some US minutemen ICBM's (Im not shure on the details here) to be placed in Canada, or something like that.

By the way, those missiles later shown to have flaws :p

To go back to something discussed earlier, I'm having some trouble finding out why the Avro arrow was cancelled as it looked like a rather promising aircraft.

In short, Prime Minister Diefenbaker (a Conservative, I might add) folded when the US government told him that BOMARC was more important than building the Avro, and we couldn't afford to do both. In fact, Avro costs were spiralling, so we needed to be able to sell aircraft to other countries to recoup costs.

However, it seems that US companies who build military aircraft were worried that the Avro would kick the butts of their planes. At any rate, the US gov told Dief that the US would not buy any Avros, but if we went forward with BOMARC, we'd 'share defense production' - in other words, be permitted to purchase American planes at a cheaper rate.

We Canadians have a long history of folding to the demands of the US government, which is one reason they get shocked the few times we do say "no".

For the polite and longer versions of what I said above:

http://www.histori.ca/minutes/minute.do?ID=10220
http://www.dewit.ca/archs/avro_shaw/index.html
http://archives.cbc.ca/IDD-1-75-275/science_technology/avro_arrow/

The americans wanted Canada to buy their bomark missles instead of building a new fighter.

they will never be able to make a system work that will shoot down missiles with any great accuracy.

The PAC-3 and SM-3 work quite well. One has been proven in combat, and the other has a great record in tests. Both are in operational service. It's the GBI that has trouble - but not with the missile technology - it's the software in the GBI that's causing the trouble.

How many do you think they would shoot down if N korea threw 20 missiles at the states, half of em? a third?

Between the PAC-3 stationed in South Korea now, and the SM-3 currently stationed off the cost, if you only fired 20 missiles, I don't believe any would get through.

The patriot missle defence program was crap.


In the first Gulf War, yes. But that first system was not intended to be a missile defense system. The current missile, radar, and systems for the PAC-3 successfully hit and destroyed eight missiles during Operation Iraqi Freedom. They also destroyed an RAF Tornado by accident (oops). The current Patriot is NOT THE SAME SYSTEM OR MISSILE that you're talking about.

The SM-3 Standard is an even better missile, and connected to an even more sophisticated radar and computer system. It also operates without human intervention - it has a much faster reaction time and is more accurate. One of these Aegis cruisiers is currently armed with the SM-3 and is off the coast of North Korea.

When you want to talk about which missile systems are crap, make sure you know what you're talking about.

Ein Deutscher']NATO should be dissolved anyway. It's long overdue since the USSR is gone.

Hear, hear!

*Stands up and applauds Ein Deutscher*

Hear, hear!

*Stands up and applauds Ein Deutscher*

The original reason for NATO has dissolved.

But...

In a world where the UN is impotent by design, NATO is not impotent.

The intervention in Kosovo marks the first time that NATO operated as the UN should have (and did not).

NATO will probably grow into something else - another organization far more credible and far more powerful than the nations that belong to it. Also, it will not include a lot of Third World nations.

As such, it will be a more politically nimble and militarily credible organization than the UN.

So Hitler had a reason to go to war with Poland starting WWII? Austria-Hungary against Serbia that started WWI? North Korea invading South Korea starting the Korean War? North Vietnam invading South Vietnam? How about Queen Victoria's Wars? Napoleon's?

All of these wars had reasons behind them, expansion of borders and colonialisation, as well as new resources. No war has ever been started without cause, sometimes the 'official' causes are silly, but even the slightest effort in reaseach or deeper thought will turn up other reasons. Germany had been screwed over after WW1 and was left without colonies, so Hitler gave the german people what they wanted. Austria-Hungary wanted control of the Balkans, and the assasination of Franz-Ferdinand, a fairly valid reason in itself, was just the stray that broke the camel's back. The Korean War, as I understand it, was also about expanding their borders. The Vietnam War was about a country trying to rebuild after years of french colonial oppression, and about removing a corrupt, US-sponsered dictatorship in South Korea (It was supposedly a democracy, but that is a load of BS). Queen Victoria wanted to expand her empire and reep the wealth that came with British colonies. Napoleon wanted control of Europe, and to pass on many of the values and thoughts of the French Revolution. All these wars had reasons, it is foolish to argue that they didn't.

What's wrong with having "Third World", i.e. developing nations, involved in security councils? Gives a better perspective, I say.

In short, Prime Minister Diefenbaker (a Conservative, I might add) folded when the US government told him that BOMARC was more important than building the Avro, and we couldn't afford to do both. In fact, Avro costs were spiralling, so we needed to be able to sell aircraft to other countries to recoup costs.
The second link seems to indicate that it was known beforehand that American Aerospace companies would never let the government purchase Canadian planes anyways...

Fleming claimed it was the U.S. refusal to buy the aircraft in December that sealed the Arrow's fate, but the government must have known from the start that the U.S. would never make an off-shore purchase of an aircraft such as the Arrow. As was obvious to any intelligent observer at the time, the powerful U.S. aircraft industry would never have permitted this to happen. This raises the question: why did the Government wait until December of 1958 to formally ask the U.S. if they would buy the Arrow when they must have known for some time that the answer would be no?

It's all very mysterious.

What's wrong with having "Third World", i.e. developing nations, involved in security councils? Gives a better perspective, I say.

If you can't realistically contribute something to the military alliance in NATO, they generally won't let you participate. It's the same argument used to keep Third World nations out of the EU (or out of the United States, for that matter).

Commonality of purpose is a good reason.

Humm, the US will shoot down nuclear weapons over canada causing them to land on Canada, it seems canadas real threat now is America shooting down weapons over Canada; MAYBE WE SHOULD CREATe ELECTRONIC COUNTER COUNTER MEASURES SO THE AMERICANS CAN'T SHOT DOWN MISSLES OVER CANADA, AND THE MISSLES WILL THEREFORE HIT THEIR TAGETS IN THE US, SPAREING CANADA!.......or we could have been on board with the missle shield to begin with.

The second link seems to indicate that it was known beforehand that American Aerospace companies would never let the government purchase Canadian planes anyways...

It's all very mysterious.

Hindsight is 20/20. And before costs went out of control, we didn't need other countries to agree to buy the Avro. (Although I imagine we expected they would, once it's [expected] superiority over other aircraft of the day was proven.)

Humm, the US will shoot down nuclear weapons over canada causing them to land on Canada, it seems canadas real threat now is America shooting down weapons over Canada; MAYBE WE SHOULD CREATe ELECTRONIC COUNTER COUNTER MEASURES SO THE AMERICANS CAN'T SHOT DOWN MISSLES OVER CANADA, AND THE MISSLES WILL THEREFORE HIT THEIR TAGETS IN THE US, SPAREING CANADA!.......or we could have been on board with the missle shield to begin with.

You're in need of reading how these systems work.

PAC-3: Stationed near the launch site, or in a terminal defense area (near the area of impact). Not going to shoot down anything OVER Canada or in Canada.

SM-3: Stationed out at sea. Capable of boost-phase defense, or mid-course intercept, or terminal defense. Once again, not shooting something down OVER Canada or IN Canada.

GBI: Stationed in Ft. Greeley, Alaska. Mid-course interceptor - over the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Once again, not shooting something down OVER Canada or IN Canada.

Airborne Laser: Stationed near the launch area - as they are slated to be over South Korea. Once again, not shooting something down OVER Canada or IN Canada.

More to the point - the hit to kill mechanism used in the missiles (instead of an explosive or nuclear warhead) results in complete destruction of the target - the impact energy is sufficient to vaporize the entire warhead.

So stop saying ridiculous things about intercepting anything OVER Canada.

You're in need of reading how these systems work.

PAC-3: Stationed near the launch site, or in a terminal defense area (near the area of impact). Not going to shoot down anything OVER Canada or in Canada.

SM-3: Stationed out at sea. Capable of boost-phase defense, or mid-course intercept, or terminal defense. Once again, not shooting something down OVER Canada or IN Canada.

GBI: Stationed in Ft. Greeley, Alaska. Mid-course interceptor - over the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Once again, not shooting something down OVER Canada or IN Canada.

Airborne Laser: Stationed near the launch area - as they are slated to be over South Korea. Once again, not shooting something down OVER Canada or IN Canada.

More to the point - the hit to kill mechanism used in the missiles (instead of an explosive or nuclear warhead) results in complete destruction of the target - the impact energy is sufficient to vaporize the entire warhead.

So stop saying ridiculous things about intercepting anything OVER Canada.

Just as well. Our StA Moosiles will stop anything heading our way.

Just as well. Our StA Moosiles will stop anything heading our way.

The best thing Canada has going for it as far as WMD are concerned is that if the enemy can barely hit "Canada" somewhere on the letters, and can't hit an actual city, most of Canada is unpopulated.

You could probably carry out aboveground nuclear testing in Manitoba without anyone noticing.

The best thing Canada has going for it as far as WMD are concerned is that if the enemy can barely hit "Canada" somewhere on the letters, and can't hit an actual city, most of Canada is unpopulated.

You could probably carry out aboveground nuclear testing in Manitoba without anyone noticing.

No, they'd see it in Regina.

You're in need of reading how these systems work.

PAC-3: Stationed near the launch site, or in a terminal defense area (near the area of impact). Not going to shoot down anything OVER Canada or in Canada.

SM-3: Stationed out at sea. Capable of boost-phase defense, or mid-course intercept, or terminal defense. Once again, not shooting something down OVER Canada or IN Canada.

GBI: Stationed in Ft. Greeley, Alaska. Mid-course interceptor - over the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Once again, not shooting something down OVER Canada or IN Canada.

Airborne Laser: Stationed near the launch area - as they are slated to be over South Korea. Once again, not shooting something down OVER Canada or IN Canada.

More to the point - the hit to kill mechanism used in the missiles (instead of an explosive or nuclear warhead) results in complete destruction of the target - the impact energy is sufficient to vaporize the entire warhead.

So stop saying ridiculous things about intercepting anything OVER Canada.

Same old story, how many times has ameirca accidentally irradiated canada in some way or another, not to mention enemys of america like the soviet union.

No, they'd see it in Regina.

Well, the people of Las Vegas saw hundreds like that.

Didn't seem to harm anything. I have a permanent vision of Canada as unpopulated (in most locations) as Nevada.

Well, the people of Las Vegas saw hundreds like that.

Didn't seem to harm anything.

That's a pretty debatable statement. Lots of people claim that there are higher rates of cancer in the area (then elsewhere) and amongst the people who witnessed the tests.

I've seen studies that claimed harm as well as studies that didn't claim harm. I recall being taught in school that it did cause harm, but I'ma leaving that out, since who knows where they got that info from.

That's a pretty debatable statement. Lots of people claim that there are higher rates of cancer in the area (then elsewhere) and amongst the people who witnessed the tests.

I've seen studies that claimed harm as well as studies that didn't claim harm. I recall being taught in school that it did cause harm, but I'ma leaving that out, since who knows where they got that info from.

Probably worse for the people downwind in St. George, Utah. They definitely have the leukemia rates to prove it.

But I think it stands that a nuclear weapon landing in a remote area of Alberta or Manitoba is not the same as a nuclear weapon landing in downtown Ottawa.

And considering that the North Korean weapons are atomic and not thermonuclear, their yields are going to be relatively tiny - less than 40 kilotons. Not like the city-busting things the US and USSR came up with.

The PAC-3 and SM-3 work quite well. One has been proven in combat, and the other has a great record in tests. Both are in operational service. It's the GBI that has trouble - but not with the missile technology - it's the software in the GBI that's causing the trouble.

Between the PAC-3 stationed in South Korea now, and the SM-3 currently stationed off the cost, if you only fired 20 missiles, I don't believe any would get through.


In the first Gulf War, yes. But that first system was not intended to be a missile defense system. The current missile, radar, and systems for the PAC-3 successfully hit and destroyed eight missiles during Operation Iraqi Freedom. They also destroyed an RAF Tornado by accident (oops). The current Patriot is NOT THE SAME SYSTEM OR MISSILE that you're talking about.

The SM-3 Standard is an even better missile, and connected to an even more sophisticated radar and computer system. It also operates without human intervention - it has a much faster reaction time and is more accurate. One of these Aegis cruisiers is currently armed with the SM-3 and is off the coast of North Korea.

When you want to talk about which missile systems are crap, make sure you know what you're talking about.


:rolleyes: post some links, I saw a test on the news where they tried knocking out a ICBM and missed badly. (over hawaii)

Hey, if you can actually prove it, then I might change my mind.

In any event, N korea is not going to shoot some nukes, they will sell em to terrorists and go that route...

:rolleyes: post some links, I saw a test on the news where they tried knocking out a ICBM and missed badly. (over hawaii)

Hey, if you can actually prove it, then I might change my mind.

In any event, N korea is not going to shoot some nukes, they will sell em to terrorists and go that route...

First, not all missiles are the same. The one you keep reading about failing is the Ground Based Interceptor, or GBI. And it is not the missile that is failing - it is the launch control system. The missile itself has successfully intercepted targets and distinguished between decoys and warheads.

But the other two missiles:
SM-3 Standard, a ship-based missile that is part of the Aegis system.
SM-3 success (fifth successful test):
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Feb/25/ln/ln10p.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050224/phth038_1.html
The SM-3 is currently deployed off the North Korean coast. It is also capable of supplanting the GBI system in mid-Pacific and operating as a mid-course interceptor (thus giving the GBI more time to mature as a separate system).

The PAC-3 is the replacement for the original Patriot, and is a completely different missile with a completely different kill mechanism, different radar, and different software system.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/p/patriot-pac3-abm.htm
It works well in ripple-fire (rapidly firing one after the other) at multiple targets, both in tests and in real combat against incoming ballistic missiles.
It is deployed in Korea and can fire at missiles during boost-phase, and it can also act as the terminal point defense system (Japan and the Netherlands are buying PAC-3).

Probably worse for the people downwind in St. George, Utah. They definitely have the leukemia rates to prove it.

But I think it stands that a nuclear weapon landing in a remote area of Alberta or Manitoba is not the same as a nuclear weapon landing in downtown Ottawa.

And considering that the North Korean weapons are atomic and not thermonuclear, their yields are going to be relatively tiny - less than 40 kilotons. Not like the city-busting things the US and USSR came up with.

Given that pollution from China (for example) is effecting Canada's north, I'ma still gonna argue that exploding nukes or atomic weapons in this hemisphere is not a good thing. I'm not clear on why and how, but tests in our arctic show that world pollution seems to settle there. (High mercury counts in women's breast milk, all that kind of thing)

First, not all missiles are the same. The one you keep reading about failing is the Ground Based Interceptor, or GBI. And it is not the missile that is failing - it is the launch control system. The missile itself has successfully intercepted targets and distinguished between decoys and warheads.

But the other two missiles:
SM-3 Standard, a ship-based missile that is part of the Aegis system.
SM-3 success (fifth successful test):
http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2005/Feb/25/ln/ln10p.html
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050224/phth038_1.html
The SM-3 is currently deployed off the North Korean coast. It is also capable of supplanting the GBI system in mid-Pacific and operating as a mid-course interceptor (thus giving the GBI more time to mature as a separate system).

The PAC-3 is the replacement for the original Patriot, and is a completely different missile with a completely different kill mechanism, different radar, and different software system.
http://www.defense-update.com/products/p/patriot-pac3-abm.htm
It works well in ripple-fire (rapidly firing one after the other) at multiple targets, both in tests and in real combat against incoming ballistic missiles.
It is deployed in Korea and can fire at missiles during boost-phase, and it can also act as the terminal point defense system (Japan and the Netherlands are buying PAC-3).


So under "lab" conditions they were about 80% successfull.

You dont think it would be easier to provide counter measures to your anti missile systems then to build this crazy system to shoot the missiles down?

Given that pollution from China (for example) is effecting Canada's north, I'ma still gonna argue that exploding nukes or atomic weapons in this hemisphere is not a good thing. I'm not clear on why and how, but tests in our arctic show that world pollution seems to settle there. (High mercury counts in women's breast milk, all that kind of thing)

Well, who wants to be bunkmates with a cosmic catastrophe?

So under "lab" conditions they were about 80% successfull.

You dont think it would be easier to provide counter measures to your anti missile systems then to build this crazy system to shoot the missiles down?
The countermeasures are launching more missiles than there are interceptors.

The countermeasures are launching more missiles than there are interceptors.

Apparently, the hit to kill technology used in PAC-3, SM-3, and the GBI has no trouble distinguishing decoys from real targets.

In one test, the GBI successfully identified the real RV out of a cloud of ten decoys.

I'm glad to hear that. :) But I actually meant all live missiles not decoys.

Well, who wants to be bunkmates with a cosmic catastrophe?

LOL Few want to be bunkmates with any kind of catastrophe.

N. Korea may use missiles. So might Iran if they develop a long range one.

North Korea won't nuke us. Canada has been feeding their military for 30 years. Technicly we've been feeding civilians, but donations in North Korea have a habit of ending up in their military.

I'm glad to hear that. :) But I actually meant all live missiles not decoys.

The problem with North Korea is making more than six to ten per year.

A PAC-3 battery has three launchers each containing 16 missiles.
A SM-3 Aegis ship could have as many as 80 missiles aboard in ready-to-launch condition.
The Airborne Laser has the ability to fire hundreds of shots.

I would bet that North Korea would have to manufacture and deploy thousands of missiles. That's as many as the US manufactured and deployed during the Cold War.

Iceland? And this has what to do with Canadian/US military relations?

WWII the brits wanted to station Canadians in Iceland to defend it from the nazis, but the Americans, just like today, didn't trust us, and instead sent their own troops.

I have never met a people with a bigger chip on their national shoulders than Canadians. They constantly acuse we USians of being full of pride and then fall back on, " We're better than you!" "Canada has the best. . . . in the world!" for their own arguments. If you don't like other people having national pride then don't have any yourselves.

And you always accuse us of being a poor country full of hossiers and french lumberjacks. Okay Mr. Texan, high noon by the oil well, revolvers, ten paces.

Apparently, the hit to kill technology used in PAC-3, SM-3, and the GBI has no trouble distinguishing decoys from real targets.

In one test, the GBI successfully identified the real RV out of a cloud of ten decoys.

Yes, and yet the Patriot has trouble determining friend from foe.

And yes, against a missile from the 1970's, it prolly could intercept it.

Well in the case of using it for missile interdiction it erred on the side you would want it to I suppose.

Yes, and yet the Patriot has trouble determining friend from foe.

And yes, against a missile from the 1970's, it prolly could intercept it.

The PAC-3 did just fine in real combat during Operation Iraqi Freedom. During that operation, it actually shot down multiple incoming missiles simultaneously. And it demonstrated capabilities far beyond what was asked for.

A ballistic missile, once it's on the ballistic trajectory, is identical whether it was made in the 1970s or 1990s. And to a Patriot, it doesn't matter if you maneuver, because it will ripple-fire to optimize the chances for a hit - the computer will predict a number of possible trajectories, and send missiles to as many of those predictions as possible - just to hit one target.

And yes, as an indication of how deadly it is, it was able to hit an evading RAF Tornado flying supersonic below 200ft altitude.

The system is by nature no longer controlled by humans. Once it's on, and in a mode to defend an area, it can ripple-fire at multiple targets without human intervention.

One of the reasons the older Patriot wasn't any good against missiles is the problem of human reflexes and human decisionmaking. Humans are slow. The current PAC-3 can compute that the first missile launched will become a miss - and in milliseconds, it can launch another missile - and another - all to fit a constantly optimized prediction as to where the incoming warhead will be, all without human guesswork or delay.

Of course that means if the IFF isn't working correctly you're boned.

Of course that means if the IFF isn't working correctly you're boned.

Yes, as the RAF Tornado pilot found out. It's still up in the air as to whether the IFF from the Tornado wasn't working, or doesn't work at low level, or whether the PAC-3 didn't interpret it correctly, but...

those missiles just take off on their own now once the system is armed.

And it will keep shooting until it hits you.

Apparently, the hit to kill technology used in PAC-3, SM-3, and the GBI has no trouble distinguishing decoys from real targets.

In one test, the GBI successfully identified the real RV out of a cloud of ten decoys.


Well i personally think the money spent on missile defence can be better used in other areas, leaving this system to do the job in a real situation would be pretty scary.

The only test i would really find to be realistic would be random shots of missiles from a unknown area, and the system would have to track, identifiy + kill the incoming missiles...

Its one thing to track + destory a set missile from a known firing range then to target and kill a missile from some random area in the world...

*snip*
Sorry to interject, but you still haven't responded to your thread on EI, so I thought I'd remind you:).
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=399948&page=1&pp=15

Well i personally think the money spent on missile defence can be better used in other areas, leaving this system to do the job in a real situation would be pretty scary.

The only test i would really find to be realistic would be random shots of missiles from a unknown area, and the system would have to track, identifiy + kill the incoming missiles...

Its one thing to track + destory a set missile from a known firing range then to target and kill a missile from some random area in the world...

PAC-3 was tested in combat. It works.

SM-3 has demonstrated capabilities in test far beyond that of PAC-3, and it is superior so far to the GBI (the GBI is experiencing problems).

You have to set the missiles up to defend in a particular area, from missiles fired from a particular direction.

But, regardless of how well they work - even if they were all 100 percent effective - I don't see any reason for Canada to buy any. No one wants to nuke Canada. No one. And even if a few landed in Canada, if they landed outside of a populated area (as is extremely likely for a missile that was intended for the US but lands in Canada), very few people will be killed and little or no property damaged.

So, it's a no-brainer if you're a Canadian - don't do what you did in the Cold War and buy crap you'll never use.

PAC-3 was tested in combat. It works.

SM-3 has demonstrated capabilities in test far beyond that of PAC-3, and it is superior so far to the GBI (the GBI is experiencing problems).

You have to set the missiles up to defend in a particular area, from missiles fired from a particular direction.

But, regardless of how well they work - even if they were all 100 percent effective - I don't see any reason for Canada to buy any. No one wants to nuke Canada. No one. And even if a few landed in Canada, if they landed outside of a populated area (as is extremely likely for a missile that was intended for the US but lands in Canada), very few people will be killed and little or no property damaged.

So, it's a no-brainer if you're a Canadian - don't do what you did in the Cold War and buy crap you'll never use.

Well hopefully this missile lands in the far far far north.

But that missile has NOT been trained in combat untill, um, combat actually happens. It wont be on a test firing range....

That's the thing though, they have pac-3's in Korea, and they can just park some boats off the coast with the SM-3 and they'll know where the missile's coming from pretty much.

That's the thing though, they have pac-3's in Korea, and they can just park some boats off the coast with the SM-3 and they'll know where the missile's coming from pretty much.

and why would crazy jim II not launch the missile from somewhere else or sell em to terrorists?

and why would crazy jim II not launch the missile from somewhere else or sell em to terrorists?

Uranium tags! Each reactor has its own fingerprint as it was. If they sell it to a terrorist and a terrorist uses it. Detection and identification of where it came from will follow. It'll be traced right back to North Korea. When it is traced,

BOOM

No more Pyongyang!

and why would crazy jim II not launch the missile from somewhere else or sell em to terrorists?
Who's going to let him launch a nuclear missile from their country? And dictators aren't generally in the business of giving up their prized weapons, which is why the threat of Sadam giving any of his chem/bio weapons to terrorists while he was still in power was total bunk. /tangential

Uranium tags! Each reactor has its own fingerprint as it was. If they sell it to a terrorist and a terrorist uses it. Detection and identification of where it came from will follow. It'll be traced right back to North Korea. When it is traced,

BOOM

No more Pyongyang!


hmm i did not know that, but the guy is crazy, so you never know.

And whos to say if the guy is the atypical tin pot dictator, maybe he will sell his nukes for the next great super crazy DVD collection! The guy is really nutz.

hmm i did not know that, but the guy is crazy, so you never know.

And whos to say if the guy is the atypical tin pot dictator, maybe he will sell his nukes for the next great super crazy DVD collection! The guy is really nutz.

Yes he is a nut. That is why we have 6 and not Bi-lateral talks going on or was going on with him.

It's my sincere hope that Canada's decision to not participate in silly missile defence fantasies gives the elected leaders of other western democracies the gumption to tell America 'no' when it comes knocking on their doors trying to upsell idiocy, fear and loathing yet again.

It's my sincere hope that Canada's decision to not participate in silly missile defence fantasies gives the elected leaders of other western democracies the gumption to tell America 'no' when it comes knocking on their doors trying to upsell idiocy, fear and loathing yet again.

How is it idiocy when we know that half of it works?

How is it idiocy when we know that half of it works?

Look, either something works, or it doesn't. Buying into something that doesn't work is idiocy.

Do you really need this underscored, capitalised, and made bold type for it to sink in? Are you that stubborn? Missile defence is a sham - a very expensive, very poorly-concealed bit of shamwork, designed to make a very few people that much more wealthy, while providing a 'defence' system that doesn't work, and will never be put to the test in any event, as no country or terrorist group will ever launch a missile attack against continental North America.

If you believe that a missile attack is forthcoming against the lower 48, I've got a whole whack of this 'robot attack' insurance I'd like for you to consider, too. A free tinfoil hat for every new subscriber - send money today!

Look, either something works, or it doesn't. Buying into something that doesn't work is idiocy.

The Laser System Works
The PAC-3 Works
SM-3 Works
GBI--Doesn't work thanks to software.

Yea it is working!

Do you really need this underscored, capitalised, and made bold type for it to sink in? Are you that stubborn? Missile defence is a sham - a very expensive, very poorly-concealed bit of shamwork, designed to make a very few people that much more wealthy, while providing a 'defence' system that doesn't work, and will never be put to the test in any event, as no country or terrorist group will ever launch a missile attack against continental North America.

And yet we have 3 out of 4 systems working! I lied it was 75% of it working, not half. My apologies.

If you believe that a missile attack is forthcoming against the lower 48, I've got a whole whack of this 'robot attack' insurance I'd like for you to consider, too. A free tinfoil hat for every new subscriber - send money today!

*Yawns*

If you believe that a missile attack is forthcoming against the lower 48, I've got a whole whack of this 'robot attack' insurance I'd like for you to consider, too. A free tinfoil hat for every new subscriber - send money today!

It may not happen today or tomorrow, but that doesn't mean it will never happen.

Corenliu, go look up the success of the "ABOUT" system, which is the proposed American ABM system.

Corenliu, go look up the success of the "ABOUT" system, which is the proposed American ABM system.

Artitsa look up the laser defense weapon and the PAC 3 and the other system I named. I'm sure the links were provided by Whispering legs and are somewhere on this thread.

It may not happen today or tomorrow, but that doesn't mean it will never happen.

You're quite right - if the Republicans need another 9/11 to happen, that is...

Artitsa look up the laser defense weapon and the PAC 3 and the other system I named. I'm sure the links were provided by Whispering legs and are somewhere on this thread

ABOUT is the actual system that will be used for the ABM role. PAC-3 was considered out of date for the new threats (SS-25) and the Laser, as stated, would be rendered obsolete by simply putting prisms on the skin of the missile... like the SS-25.

You're quite right - if the Republicans need another 9/11 to happen, that is...

Why are you trying to blame everything on Republicans?

ABOUT is the actual system that will be used for the ABM role. PAC-3 was considered out of date for the new threats (SS-25) and the Laser, as stated, would be rendered obsolete by simply putting prisms on the skin of the missile... like the SS-25.

Care to provide proof so I can look at it myself please?

Why are you trying to blame everything on Republicans?

I don't personally believe in the existence of 'evil'. My wake-up call on this one came when I realized that as much as I don't believe in black/white, cut-and-dry absolutes like 'good' or 'evil', there are those that do. And it's the ones who do believe deeply in those illusory descriptors who are the most capable of perpetrating acts which could be described as being 'evil'.

The Republicans have been hijacked by a group of people who, though they may believe themselves to be 'good', have helped bring about more useless death and bloodshed, i.e. 'evil', than can be willfully ignored. Having no apparent internal dialogue to discuss these matters, it would seem the Republican party membership has no collective difficulty with spreading death and bloodshed - making them all, in my eyes, rather 'evil' people.

The road to Hell is indeed paved with 'good' intentions.

Care to provide proof so I can look at it myself please?

Don't happen to have the link, I'll get it for you in a day.

But the successes you are thinking of are actually the SM-3 and BMD (AEGIS) naval tests. That is to say, all successful tests have been from naval launches, but the ground-based ABM system is the one causing troubles (ABOUT).

The land-based system was offered to Canada, and it has been unsuccessful thusfar.

Don't happen to have the link, I'll get it for you in a day.

But the successes you are thinking of are actually the SM-3 and BMD (AEGIS) naval tests. That is to say, all successful tests have been from naval launches, but the ground-based ABM system is the one causing troubles (ABOUT).

This I already know. Its only ONE SYSTEM among several that we have.

The land-based system was offered to Canada, and it has been unsuccessful thusfar.

Thanks to software problems that will be corrected.

When will the US decide to blow a few billion on an anti-space alien countermeasures program? I feel so insecure...they might be ready to pounce at any moment!!

When will the US decide to blow a few billion on an anti-space alien countermeasures program? I feel so insecure...they might be ready to pounce at any moment!!

Who says we're not?

It seems a bit like Canada wants a free ride with the US, just like it always does on its own defence. Otherwise, the Canadian military wouldn't be in the miserable state that it is today. They have to realize that unless they start with their own defense initiatives, they have to at least morally support any efforts in continental defense.

It seems a bit like Canada wants a free ride with the US, just like it always does on its own defence. Otherwise, the Canadian military wouldn't be in the miserable state that it is today. They have to realize that unless they start with their own defense initiatives, they have to at least morally support any efforts in continental defense.

Well, if Bush had been asking for "moral" support, he would have got it. It was the requested dollar support that wasn't in line with our defense priorities right now.

Well, if Bush had been asking for "moral" support, he would have got it. It was the requested dollar support that wasn't in line with our defense priorities right now.
Even so, dollar support does not come with a hefty price tag for Canadians. The primary contribution Canada can make would be to utilize its expertise in NORAD, being very well established. That would cost very little.
I do have a feeling, however, that there is not much Canada could actually do in order to financially buttress this project. The US military is far too large and/or advance for most countries on the planet, yet it has a multilateral streak. This makes the US unable, and now unwilling, to accomodate other countries to participate in military actions. If this were not the case, I believe that the Baltic Republics and South Korea would send far more troops to Iraq, and more countries would be involved in Djibouti.
Canada is not on the same military field as the Baltic states, of course. But its size makes it a marginal force in continental defense, anyway. There isn't much Canada would need to do to help. However, no one likes free riders, which Canada usually is.

Even so, dollar support does not come with a hefty price tag for Canadians. The primary contribution Canada can make would be to utilize its expertise in NORAD, being very well established. That would cost very little.
I do have a feeling, however, that there is not much Canada could actually do in order to financially buttress this project. The US military is far too large and/or advance for most countries on the planet, yet it has a multilateral streak. This makes the US unable, and now unwilling, to accomodate other countries to participate in military actions. If this were not the case, I believe that the Baltic Republics and South Korea would send far more troops to Iraq, and more countries would be involved in Djibouti.
Canada is not on the same military field as the Baltic states, of course. But its size makes it a marginal force in continental defense, anyway. There isn't much Canada would need to do to help. However, no one likes free riders, which Canada usually is.

You have clearly detailed a big part of the problem. Canada is (as often before) being asked to sign over a cheque to help out with a project that they will have almost no input into. IT is hardly suprising that we decline in such cases where we do not feel that a) the project has great likelyhood of success, and b) is in reaction to a threat that is unlikely to directly impact us.


But no, Canada will never match up the US militarily. How could we? How could we ever support and armed force of 1.3 Million active-duty servicemen and a budget of 500B? Hell, that's half our GDP!

However, to label us a free-rider is also a crock, especially as you also pretty much state that our help is neither welcome nor needed. What? You want us to spend money to train troops only ever to be used under direct US command? i.e. cannon fodder for the Pentagon? Before WWI the British used Canadian troops that way. We got tired of it and aren't interested in doing it again for a new country.

I believe that we need to upgrade our military, but that will be for OUR OWN purposes thank you very much - not for yours.

I so Got tired of reading this entire dribble that I decided to post my thoughts on the thing that bothers me the most.

First Canada's own news agency debunks much of what is said here about its military.
[snip]

"It's no secret that since the end of the Second World War, Canada's military has been downsized – in terms of personnel, equipment and budget. Canadian Forces have been pared down from well over 100,000 in 1956 to approximately 60,000 today. At the same time, government spending on the military has dropped from almost six per cent of the GDP in 1956 to just over one per cent in 2003. "

Seems to me this is a huge problem off the bat. Can you provide proof that this has changed? Military sites do not count as they can say whatever they need to. So they get more funding or whatever. Regardless of your naive opinion that somehow Canadians are honest. No one is that honest when it is threatened with absurdity.

[snip]

"He also says Canada's equipment is aging into obsolescence, with insufficient plans to replace it. Jack Granatstein, a Canadian military historian, says the study "is depressingly correct." In an interview with CBC News Online in December 2003, he said the military has been ailing for decades. "For the last 35 to 40 years, successive governments have paid no attention to defense spending," he said. "

I believe this is more troubling news for the proof provided that the Canadian military is in good shape. I of course wait for your rebuttals

CBC story (http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/shrinking_military.html)

I guess you all can provide me with proof that your military has indeed fixed its self in the last 1 year? I doubt your government works that efficiently. It is after all a socialist styled government and that happens to be the most inefficient style around IMHO.

You have clearly detailed a big part of the problem. Canada is (as often before) being asked to sign over a cheque to help out with a project that they will have almost no input into. IT is hardly suprising that we decline in such cases where we do not feel that a) the project has great likelyhood of success, and b) is in reaction to a threat that is unlikely to directly impact us.

a.) Success is trial and error. It's definitly worth a try.
b.) So we can dismantle NORAD, as no significant enemies have planes. How about taking down all of the anti aircraft systems in both countries? And while we're at it, let's trash all of the nuclear submarines, and just get one or two subs for each navy?
None of these weapons are designed for a current threat, yet we all keep them. Why? Because there are plenty of future threats. The rise of post-Revolutionary France and Germany were "bolts from the blue" to many policy makers. Besides, there's always the risk of a militaristic China, or perhhaps a ressurgent Russia. The most likely scenario for the near future, however, is North Korea or Iran lobbing a nuke at the US. Both regimes are advancing in WMDs, and are acquiring missiles that will get to the US, such as North Korea's Nodong II. They are both dying, and Kim Jong-Il is irratic. Nothiing may happen, but we don't want to wait for LA to be a crater in order to find out. That's why every weapons system matters.

However, to label us a free-rider is also a crock, especially as you also pretty much state that our help is neither welcome nor needed. What? You want us to spend money to train troops only ever to be used under direct US command? i.e. cannon fodder for the Pentagon? Before WWI the British used Canadian troops that way. We got tired of it and aren't interested in doing it again for a new country.
And by WWII, the British found out that they were not invincible, so the Canadians looked south. Since then, the Canadians have let their military deteriorate. Why do they need to maintain it? It's not to the same degree as Japan, but Canada has no real defensive incentives. At the very least, the Canadians can start by bringing the military into the 21st century, but so far, they are reluctant even to try.
The Canadians, or the Mexicans, or anyone else in North America, will not be of big help to the US by supplying troops in battle. But there are things any country can do to support. In most every military, someone, somewhere has the expertise to help with an operation. Canada certainly has that, and can contribute a few of those specialists to help. And since Canada probably could use a military budget increase, a few million dollars won't hurt.
I believe that we need to upgrade our military, but that will be for OUR OWN purposes thank you very much - not for yours.[/QUOTE]

Do you really need this underscored, capitalised, and made bold type for it to sink in? Are you that stubborn? Missile defence is a sham - a very expensive, very poorly-concealed bit of shamwork, designed to make a very few people that much more wealthy, while providing a 'defence' system that doesn't work, and will never be put to the test in any event, as no country or terrorist group will ever launch a missile attack against continental North America.

You're not very well informed about what "works" and what doesn't.

PAC-3 works and has been tested in combat. Against boost-phase and terminal defense ballistic missiles.
SM-3 works against boost-phase, mid-course intercept, and terminal phase defense ballistic missiles.

Both are operationally deployed right now - PAC-3 is in South Korea and Japan is buying it to deploy to defend Japan. SM-3 is on ships stationed off the coast of North Korea.

Two systems are slated to come online -
Airborne Laser (which has been proven to work)
Ground Based Interceptor (GBI) - the system you keep hearing about that has the problems.

But...

If you ever wondered why there are so many different systems -
it raises the odds that one or more will actually work. In actuality, on the PAC-3, SM-3, and GBI, the whole missile technology itself, including the ability to discriminate decoys from real targets, and to directly hit an incoming warhead with a "hit to kill" warhead (instead of a high explosive warhead) has been proven over and over again, including in combat.

The main hurdle has not been the missile technology. It has been the battle management software - software that automatically runs the whole battle from start to finish without human intervention (if humans were trying to run the system, it would never shoot down anything).

The GBI has problems with its software - but the PAC-3 and SM-3 and Airborne Laser do not have problems.

Given the presence of a PAC-3 unit in South Korea and the SM-3 off the coast of North Korea, it is estimated that North Korea would already need more than a few hundred missiles just to get a single warhead through to Japan or targets further away.

When the GBI comes on line, or more SM-3 equipped ships move into the waters there, the number required may go over 1000 - it would be infeasible for North Korea to deploy that many nuclear warheads.

It's not a pipe-dream. Many scientists have been proven wrong because it was merely an engineering problem - not one of impossible physics. And they have succeeded because they took multiple program tracks - each a bit different from the other.

I'm not saying Canada has to buy anything - if past history is a good example, it's just not worth it for Canada to buy anything. Of course, I'm of the opinion that other than some maritime patrol and search and rescue capability, Canada doesn't need any armed forces - at all.

a.) Success is trial and error. It's definitly worth a try.
b.) So we can dismantle NORAD, as no significant enemies have planes. How about taking down all of the anti aircraft systems in both countries? And while we're at it, let's trash all of the nuclear submarines, and just get one or two subs for each navy?
None of these weapons are designed for a current threat, yet we all keep them. Why? Because there are plenty of future threats. The rise of post-Revolutionary France and Germany were "bolts from the blue" to many policy makers. Besides, there's always the risk of a militaristic China, or perhhaps a ressurgent Russia. The most likely scenario for the near future, however, is North Korea or Iran lobbing a nuke at the US. Both regimes are advancing in WMDs, and are acquiring missiles that will get to the US, such as North Korea's Nodong II. They are both dying, and Kim Jong-Il is irratic. Nothiing may happen, but we don't want to wait for LA to be a crater in order to find out. That's why every weapons system matters.


EXCUSE ME? NORAD and nuclear subs were not devloped to face existing threats? And there are still no existing reasons to fear aircraft or potential enemy fleets? Or no reason to have mobile, stealthy platforms for cruise missiles?

Sorry - Didn't realize that this was a comedic debate......

and as you point out, the most likely scenarios are countries lobbing a nuke... AT YOU! Not us. So if all you want is us to pick up the tab for YOUR defense without a reasonable amount of input into the project, then you are really trying to sell us something with little upside for us.

And by WWII, the British found out that they were not invincible, so the Canadians looked south. Since then, the Canadians have let their military deteriorate. Why do they need to maintain it? It's not to the same degree as Japan, but Canada has no real defensive incentives. At the very least, the Canadians can start by bringing the military into the 21st century, but so far, they are reluctant even to try.
The Canadians, or the Mexicans, or anyone else in North America, will not be of big help to the US by supplying troops in battle. But there are things any country can do to support. In most every military, someone, somewhere has the expertise to help with an operation. Canada certainly has that, and can contribute a few of those specialists to help. And since Canada probably could use a military budget increase, a few million dollars won't hurt.
I believe that we need to upgrade our military, but that will be for OUR OWN purposes thank you very much - not for yours.

Here you are again both denigrating your allies, but also asking them to spend money simply to support your causes. Give it up already! Canada should have a stronger military for one reason only - it's OWN interests. Those interests may fall in line with yours, and sometimes we shall choose to use them in peacekeeping operations that do not interest you.

But the notion that we should build our military job-order to support YOUR nation interests is a farsical notion.

Not interested. Never will be. Nor would YOU be if anyone else put the argument to you in that way either.

I guess you all can provide me with proof that your military has indeed fixed its self in the last 1 year? I doubt your government works that efficiently. It is after all a socialist styled government and that happens to be the most inefficient style around IMHO.


Fixed itself in a year? No. And what military DOESN'T have some obsolete (or near obsolete) equipment still in use that can be focused on to make a negative article? Can I say that the US military is falling apart simply based on the problems getting their HUMVEES armoured for Iraq? Are they not also looking at replacing the F15/F16s as being old technology? Do they not retire older portions of their fleet regularly? It is a cyclic process that is ongoing - there is always SOME crap in the inventory.

Canada has just finished replacing almost all of it's frigates over the past decade. Canada has upgraded it's APC's to the new home-built Coyote which is also selling very well overseas as it is a fine platform. Canada just replaced it's old fleet of diesel subs with newer diesel subs that suck..... OK, bad example. :p But still a sign that the current government HAS been working to replace older equipment.

Contracts have recently been signed to replace most of our military helicopter fleet, and a major upgrade to the F-18s. The f18's are nearing the end of their lifespan, however are not likely to need replacement for another 5-10 years as they match up nicely against anyone we are ever likely to face - except the Americans who we cannot compete with in an arms race so why bother?

Also - much of the field equipment used by the ground troops was upgraded for the Afghanistan missions.

Just got a big budget boost this year to work on a few other items, including adding 5000 servicemen to the roster.

Things still needed? More haevylift air capacity, upgraded tanks, and I'd like to see us add better ground-support helicopters or even a squadron of Warthogs. For the type of work that we seem to get involved with - those would be excellent additions to the inventory. The destroyers in the fleet are also nearing the end of the line, so some additions to the fleet will also need to be done.

But to state that the military is "falling apart" or in need of total replacement of equipment is patently false. More needs to be done - yes, but it is also not as dire as some make it out to be either. There is, after all, a reason why JTF2 performed so well in the invasion of Afghanistan and at Tora Bora. Because they are well trained, well equiped soldiers who excel at their jobs.

And that is the mark of success in military circles. Results. And they got 'em.

The reason Canadian government goes in the opposit direction of the US, is simply because the people don't want what americans want. If the people of a nation tell their government NO, then the government must obey. Canadians firmly said NO, to the missle shield.

Was there a referendum or vote I missed? The Canadian PEOPLE had no say in the shield...their (ahem) elected representatives DID.

But ain't that always the case?

Was there a referendum or vote I missed? The Canadian PEOPLE had no say in the shield...their (ahem) elected representatives DID.

But ain't that always the case?

If you read any articles on the subject in Canada, it is always noted that public opinion has been strongly against our involvement in the missile shield. And astute politicians CAN guage the prevailing public opinion on some things without resorting to a referendum....

If you read any articles on the subject in Canada, it is always noted that public opinion has been strongly against our involvement in the missile shield. And astute politicians CAN guage the prevailing public opinion on some things without resorting to a referendum....

I'm a canadian and i would have like the missle sheild alot of people i know would have too but its more of we gotta "look at helping others" before our selves like come on if the us wanted they could attack canada and take us out... but on the other side that would be americas downfall

If you read any articles on the subject in Canada, it is always noted that public opinion has been strongly against our involvement in the missile shield. And astute politicians CAN guage the prevailing public opinion on some things without resorting to a referendum....

See, now there's the problemo, Zep: we haven't had an astute politician since Rene Levesque.

See, now there's the problemo, Zep: we haven't had an astute politician since Rene Levesque.


Well, GW could have played his side of it better too. He was not expected to make a public pitch for this on his visit to Ottawa, but he did so on several occassions which made it look like he was Pressuring MArtin. And in Canadian politics being seen to cave in to pressure from the US is political suicide, so Bush really backed Martin into a corner on this one.


As to Rene - I miss his fiery rhetoric. I may have disagreed with pretty much everything he said - but damn he was fun to listen to! Parizeau was too much the lose cannon to fill his shoes - thankfully.

EXCUSE ME? NORAD and nuclear subs were not devloped to face existing threats?

Zep, your wrong regarding NORAD though I'll give you the nuclear sub one. There is still a need for NORAD though. NORAD is needed more now than every before considering the threat we face from rogue nations.

NORAD was designed to protect both Canada and the US!

Who We Are

Three regions, two countries, one team.

Responsible for protecting the airspace of two vast countries, North American Aerospace Defense Command's area of responsibility stretches from Clear, Alaska, to the Florida Keys, and from St. John's Newfoundland, to San Diego, Calif. Thousands of U.S. and Canadian military members have worked side-by-side in both countries for more than 40 years to protect North America against an aerospace attack. Aerospace warning and control are the cornerstones of the NORAD mission.

To perform its twin missions of aerospace warning and aerospace control, NORAD consists of three regions: Alaskan NORAD Region (ANR), Canadian NORAD Region (CANR), and the Continental U.S. NORAD Region (CONR).

CONR is further broken into three sectors: Western Air Defense Sector at McChord AFB, Wash.; Northeast Air Defense Sector at Rome, N.Y.; and Southeast Air Defense Sector at Tyndall AFB, Fla., which is also the headquarters for CONR.

CANR's headquarters is in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and the Canadian Air Defence Sector is located in North Bay, Ontario. ANR's headquarters is located at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, adjacent to Anchorage.

www.norad.mil

There is alot of info on the site Zep, including quotes.

Errrr.... in case you missed it that was kinda my point Corneliu......

It was Mystic Mindinao who stated:

So we can dismantle NORAD, as no significant enemies have planes. How about taking down all of the anti aircraft systems in both countries? And while we're at it, let's trash all of the nuclear submarines, and just get one or two subs for each navy?
None of these weapons are designed for a current threat, yet we all keep them. Why? Because there are plenty of future threats

And I was disagreeing with him.

It seems a bit like Canada wants a free ride with the US, just like it always does on its own defence. Otherwise, the Canadian military wouldn't be in the miserable state that it is today. They have to realize that unless they start with their own defense initiatives, they have to at least morally support any efforts in continental defense.
I have yet to hear an answer to the question of:

A FREE RIDE FROM WHAT???? WHAT ARE WE IN NEED OF DEFENCE FROM?????

Paranoid Americans.

I'm not saying Canada has to buy anything - if past history is a good example, it's just not worth it for Canada to buy anything. Of course, I'm of the opinion that other than some maritime patrol and search and rescue capability, Canada doesn't need any armed forces - at all.
I agree with you on this, wholeheartedly. I can understand the desire of Canadians to keep contributing to peace keeping missions though, so perhaps we should have a military completely focused on that, instead of domestic defence, for which there is no need.

*yeah, no need because the Americans are here to protect you*

From what? The Mexican Army? Greenland? North Korea? We're the only ones who want to live in this damn, cold, country...

The best part of the missile defense program is that we're busy building it, and so far the thing doesn't even work right. Woo-hoo!

The best part of the missile defense program is that we're busy building it, and so far the thing doesn't even work right. Woo-hoo!

Oh it works, just the GBI (Ground Base Intercept) isn't!

EXCUSE ME? NORAD and nuclear subs were not devloped to face existing threats? And there are still no existing reasons to fear aircraft or potential enemy fleets? Or no reason to have mobile, stealthy platforms for cruise missiles?
Someone was having a bad day.

and as you point out, the most likely scenarios are countries lobbing a nuke... AT YOU! Not us. So if all you want is us to pick up the tab for YOUR defense without a reasonable amount of input into the project, then you are really trying to sell us something with little upside for us.

The survival of every nation in North America depends on the well-being of the US. It is in Canada's best interests to keep the US as a regional power, as well as Mexico, and the Carribean and Central American states. If some nation, like China, threatened the US directly by invading Taiwan, there'd be no way to defend the country without a missile shield. Sure, the nuclear response will weaken China, but also the US, and in addition to nuclear winters on Canada's East Coast, it may also cause the end of US regional power, and serious soul searching by Canada.
The US is not asking Canada to build mountains. It is simply asking for a small sum to guard against a remote yet present threat. It is the same reason why Canada and the US both maintain weapons systems in their respective militaries.
And btw, what makes you think I am American?

Here you are again both denigrating your allies, but also asking them to spend money simply to support your causes. Give it up already! Canada should have a stronger military for one reason only - it's OWN interests. Those interests may fall in line with yours, and sometimes we shall choose to use them in peacekeeping operations that do not interest you.

But the notion that we should build our military job-order to support YOUR nation interests is a farsical notion.
And there is a reason why I do that: Canada will never stand alone in the world. First, it needed the UK to survive, and now the US. In many aspects, if it weren't for Ottowa, Canada would be a bunch of US states. I'm not asking Canada to give up their sovereignty (though that may not be a bad idea in the long run). I just want Canada to acknowledge that the US's defense interests are also Canada's.

I have yet to hear an answer to the question of:

A FREE RIDE FROM WHAT???? WHAT ARE WE IN NEED OF DEFENCE FROM?????

Paranoid Americans.
You tell me. But in any case, whenever a continental defense initiative has gone up, the Canadians contribute little, if anything, and enjoy the benefits. The Canadians are very bullheaded in that area.

Whatever, I'm Canadian, if the Americans want to build a defense program and use it to protect Canada they can go right ahead, if they don't protect us with it, then that's fine also, I really don't care.

Also, what do we need the U.S.A.'s defense for anyway, think about it, who in the world would attack us, Russia is now our ally, the U.K. was always our ally, the Arabs and Asians won't attack us, they have most of their relatives living here.

N. Korea may use missiles. So might Iran if they develop a long range one.

The only reason N. Korea has missiles to begin with is because Bush stated that he does not believe in their right to exist as a country so they are using that as self defense. In fact Bush's statement about an 'axis of evil' will be noted as probably the catalyst for any future conflict between these countries in the future. Now you have Iran and Syria working together, and N. Korea developing a nuclear program. Bin Laden has yet to be found and we know that he has been trying to buy nucs from the former Soviet states. In fact Afghanistan and Pakistan do not think he is located near the border anymore, which leads me to wonder will we have a real life 'Sum of all fears' soon (and no my opinions are not because of that movie, if anything they are influenced partly by Samuel Hungtington's Clash of Civilizations. Excellent book).

I'm a canadian and i would have like the missle sheild alot of people i know would have too but its more of we gotta "look at helping others" before our selves like come on if the us wanted they could attack canada and take us out... but on the other side that would be americas downfall

How would taking out Canada be Americas downfall? Who would complain and who could do anything? We couldn't defend ourselves that is for sure, except for the odd sea king crashing into a tank we dont have much else to defend ourselves with (our subs suck - thanks Chretien, great deal you got from the Brits!, the Iliad jeep I doubt could survive the potholes in Toronto let alone a war zone, and our F18s our over 20 years old and were obsolete years ago in terms of the tech inside of them).

With who would defend us, well in terms of world powers, China would not care, the middle east would not care, Europe and Britain might complain but really could not do anything, and Bin Laden might be unhappy since our border security sucks which is why some suspect he might have gotten his guys in through us. So to be honest US would get away with it.

In terms of why they would attack us, well not sure on that one. Then again Bush did go after Iraq even though his advisors told him it would make the terrorist situation worse instead of getting Bin Laden so hey anything could happen.

Point of reference, Canada has just increased its military budget by 15 billion dollars. We're doing ok.

Ok, Canada didn't sign on to the missile defence because it wasn't good for us, and it wasn't good in general. It has nothing to do with blind contrarianism. So screw you to all of those people who say that we are irrational and weak