|
martin tells the Yanks to stick the missile shield up thier arse (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| swilly |
| quote: | Originally posted by crazedcanuck
Swilly, I competely agree with you on the uselessness of the system.
I'm not even for it.
But I am for our government supporting it politcally. If the Amreicans are going to spend billions to try to develop it, including research and development grants to Canadian corporations, then what does it hurt us? It already been agreed to by Martin that we only require our current NORAD level of staffing and funding once it's been developed on the data collection stations using the current radar net that forms our defensive perimeter.
As for cranking up a threat, during the coldwar, nukes were fought with nukes. So if you are using the cause and effect argument for an arms race, they all will create a multi-billion dollar usless BMD as opposed to more viable weapons.
I'd think you'd be happy with that. |
fair enough:p |
|
|
| crazedcanuck |
| quote: | Originally posted by swilly
fair enough:p |
*metipshat
Last thing I want to to appear on the same side as Captain "save our families". |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Bush offered to pay for the whole thing and Canada still turned it down!! lol stupid |
I haven't read much on this past the original posted story, but it seems I did overlook this point.
However, I think it would be naive at best to think that if Canada gave its support they wouldn't eventually have to cover some cost. The initial agreement was just a “political” agreement, according to the article. But I think it’s not unreasonable to speculate that after this initial agreement there would be negotiations on financial coverage. As I mentioned before, Bush himself wants to cut back funding. According to his own words for his 150 program budget cuts, missile defense being included, his rationale for cutting funds is a result of monies being inadequately spent on inefficient programs. So clearly he sees his missile defense, at least at present, being an inefficient program. And this would make sense to both cut back funding, as well as eventually ask other participants to help cover the costs.
So I concede that the initial agreement would not have entailed any present payment by the Canucks, but I’m highly skeptical it would remain that way in the near future, given Bush’s own words and given our current huge budget deficit that needs addressed in practically every financial decision being made. |
|
|
| auujay |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
No a decade ago they missed all the scuds!! |
The PATRIOTs were not perfect but they did shoot them down ("70 percent success rate for Saudi Arabia and a 40 percent rate for Israel" source). The AEGIS Cruisers in Desert Storm were able to detect and track SCUD launches (source).
So lets see, we can shoot down SCUDs with out land based missles and we can detect and track lanches from our ships... hey, why don't we put these two things together...
My point is it is far from a BMD system. |
|
|
| igottaknow |
Let's have a reality check...
| quote: | Originally posted by auujay
The PATRIOTs were not perfect but they did shoot them down ("70 percent success rate for Saudi Arabia and a 40 percent rate for Israel" source). The AEGIS Cruisers in Desert Storm were able to detect and track SCUD launches (source). |
http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html
"Part of the reason the success rate was 30% higher in Saudi Arabia than is Israel is that in Saudi Arabia the Patriots merely had to push the incoming Scud missiles away from military targets in the desert or disable the Scud's warhead in order to avoid casualties, while in Israel the Scuds were aimed directly at cities and civilian populations.The Saudi Government also censored any reporting of Scud damage by the Saudi press. The Israeli Government did not institute the same type of censorship. "
"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ns/patriot.html
"After a 10-month investigation in 1992 by the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security, the subcommittee concluded there was little evidence to prove the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq.
Another 1992 investigation done by the General Accounting Office found that only 9 percent of the Patriot-Scud engagements "are supported by the strongest evidence that an engagement resulted in a warhead kill." (The GAO defined "the strongest evidence" as instances in which Scud debris or radar data indicated that a Scud was destroyed or disabled after a Patriot detonated near it.) Except in 9 percent of the cases, the GAO report said the Army could prove only that "the Patriots came close to the Scuds, not that they destroyed them"
Patriots were just wounding Scuds or pushing them off course; big chunks of both missiles then fell to the ground. In Israel, the amount of damages and casualties increased after the Patriots were deployed there.
edit: i forgot to mention they're really good at locking on to friendly aircraft and shooting them down. Just ask the Brits. :eek: |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Let's have a reality check...
http://www.cdi.org/issues/bmd/Patriot.html
"Part of the reason the success rate was 30% higher in Saudi Arabia than is Israel is that in Saudi Arabia the Patriots merely had to push the incoming Scud missiles away from military targets in the desert or disable the Scud's warhead in order to avoid casualties, while in Israel the Scuds were aimed directly at cities and civilian populations.The Saudi Government also censored any reporting of Scud damage by the Saudi press. The Israeli Government did not institute the same type of censorship. "
"The results of these studies are disturbing. They suggest that the Patriot's intercept rate during the Gulf War was very low. The evidence from these preliminary studies indicates that Patriot's intercept rate could be much lower than ten percent, possibly even zero." (Statement of Theodore A. Postol before the U.S. House Of Representatives Committee on Government Operations, April 7, 1992)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...ns/patriot.html
"After a 10-month investigation in 1992 by the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Legislation and National Security, the subcommittee concluded there was little evidence to prove the Patriot hit more than a few Scud missiles launched by Iraq.
Another 1992 investigation done by the General Accounting Office found that only 9 percent of the Patriot-Scud engagements "are supported by the strongest evidence that an engagement resulted in a warhead kill." (The GAO defined "the strongest evidence" as instances in which Scud debris or radar data indicated that a Scud was destroyed or disabled after a Patriot detonated near it.) Except in 9 percent of the cases, the GAO report said the Army could prove only that "the Patriots came close to the Scuds, not that they destroyed them"
Patriots were just wounding Scuds or pushing them off course; big chunks of both missiles then fell to the ground. In Israel, the amount of damages and casualties increased after the Patriots were deployed there.
edit: i forgot to mention they're really good at locking on to friendly aircraft and shooting them down. Just ask the Brits. :eek: |
The Patriots used in the first Gulf War were the PAC-2s and were not all that successful. However, the upgraded PAC-3 system acheived a very high success rate against Iraqi ballistic missiles during the recent Iraq war. Altho it failed to intercept modified Chinese made anti-ship cruise missiles (which the 'advert' for the PAC-3 claims it is capable of) But it should be noted that the PAC-3s were used as theatre missile defence in Iraq, not strategic missile defence (as in the BMD) so a comparison may not be as relevent |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Yoepus
like what? uncovering why the universe was formed? how species were created? What exists beyond the current known smallest layer of an atom?
Why the literature of Shakespear is better than the literature Charles Dickens? Why chimpanzes have sex? How come mosquites have a virus from Egypt? Or why the greek odyseey is the origin of Roman foundation lure?
Most science is useless if you want to look at it that way...
At least this science can shoot down something in the air. That's not bad. |
well, develop an carengine that is working on renewable resources, develop a vaccine against HIV, develop a new clean source for electricity... etc the possibilites are endless ;) |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
The Patriots used in the first Gulf War were the PAC-2s and were not all that successful. However, the upgraded PAC-3 system acheived a very high success rate against Iraqi ballistic missiles during the recent Iraq war. Altho it failed to intercept modified Chinese made anti-ship cruise missiles (which the 'advert' for the PAC-3 claims it is capable of) But it should be noted that the PAC-3s were used as theatre missile defence in Iraq, not strategic missile defence (as in the BMD) so a comparison may not be as relevent |
I don't have the figures on the success rates in Desert storm but if they were recorded by the US military I would expect them to be just as skewed. I posted those reports of the Gulf War because auujay was using the Army's Gulf War assessment of the Patriot missiles.
What is useful about the Patriot missile performance in the Iraqi wars is it shows how unreliable a missile defense system is in a real war not in a rigged exercise. Even if they performed better in Desert Storm it’s not really a fair test against a weakling opponent, with complete air superiority, open non-populated desert, limited targets to protect, and conventional outdated missiles with no wmd payloads. What sort of failure rate would be acceptable against state of the art missiles caring nuclear warheads? |
|
|
| imokruok |
It's increasingly apparent that the liberals on this board don't have the balls to try anything that they don't think they can finish by tomorrow evening. Technology development takes time.
There have been numerous successful tests of the ballistic missile defense system - something that numerous think tanks didn't think would ever happen, just 10 years ago. Plus, the PAC-3 has lived up to its design, and the US/Israeli Arrow system is performing fantastically.
Here is the latest on the Canadian decision, from the Canadian Press! Some funny quotes in there, Canucks.
| quote: |
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm..._defence_martin
Canada's historic missile snub will have unpredictable consequences: analysts
Fri Feb 25, 10:23 PM ET
ALEXANDER PANETTA
Canadian Press
OTTAWA (CP) - Canada's rejection of missile defence is a historic shift in its relationship with the United States and could have deep unforeseen consequences, analysts warn.
This week's announcement is more significant than Canada's refusal to join fighting in Iraq or Vietnam because, some say, this time the country has rejected a domestic defence plan. One military analyst in Washington says Canada has turned its back on a 67-year-old agreement signed by then-prime minister Mackenzie King and president Franklin Roosevelt to jointly defend North America.
"This is a significant policy change, and it will clearly have consequences," says a briefing paper released Friday by Dwight Mason.
He served for eight years as chairman of the American section of the Canada-U.S. Permanent Joint Board on Defense and was a diplomat in Ottawa.
The first impact, he suggested, will come next year when the Norad agreement comes up for renewal, but it could also have economic consequences as yet unknown.
"The decision to opt out of missile defence is an abandonment of some Canadian sovereignty," he writes.
"This brings the basic partnership policy underlying the U.S.-Canadian defence relationship into question. These developments will have long-term consequences that will take time to be revealed fully."
One immediate consequence could affect Prime Minister Paul Martin's role on the international stage.
If he had any hope the United States would help him create his cherished G-20 group of world leaders, those hopes may have been extinguished permanently.
One U.S. official emitted a deep, extended laugh when asked for an assessment of the prime minister and said Canada no longer qualifies as a trusted ally.
While wary of speaking on the record, the Americans are particularly annoyed with Martin over what they perceive as weak leadership.
They say he expressed support for missile defence, then did nothing to refute misconceptions about it, and finally pulled out when public opinion mushroomed against it.
Most analysts believe the Canada-U.S. trade relationship will continue unhindered because the countries rely heavily on each other's goods and services.
But Canada's refusal to sign on to the missile plan could further marginalize its concerns and interests when trade-related issues like softwood lumber appear before U.S. Congress, said one Calgary observer.
"This is one more issue that goes into the balance scale, one more reason to say, 'Screw Canada,' " said David Bercuson, director of the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary.
"There's a lot of precedent for us not participating (in military operations) overseas.
"To my knowledge, this is the first time we've said no to the United States on what the Americans consider a crucial matter of continental defence."
He said the missile-defence snub was more significant even than the debate over whether to store nuclear-tipped Bomarc missiles on Canadian soil.
Thursday's announcement already has both countries debating some of the consequences.
A defiant Martin declared again Friday that the United States must seek permission before firing any missile over Canadian airspace.
He was responding to warnings that Canada has abdicated sovereignty by refusing to take part in the U.S. project.
The top U.S. envoy to Canada - Ambassador Paul Cellucci - says Canada would be "outside of the room" when his country decides whether to fire at incoming missiles.
But Martin said Friday: "We would expect to be consulted.
"This is our airspace, we're a sovereign nation and you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission."
Martin repeated Friday that Canada reaffirmed its sovereignty this week with a $12.8-billion investment over five years to help rebuild the military.
But critics said the prime minister is deluding himself if he expects a heads-up. Bercuson said only military officials involved in missile defence would be in on any strike.
"Somebody has obviously not explained to the prime minister how these arrangements work," Bercuson said.
"The reason you put these arrangements in place beforehand . . . is that you don't have to run back to your respective government every time you have to make a decision.
"The White House would be informed that there was a missile launch against North America. It would not be asked for its permission to shoot the missile down."
One Conservative critic openly mocked the idea that Martin would get a phone call.
"What, are (the Americans) phoning a 1-800 number on missile consultation?" said Conservative foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day.
"These missiles are coming in at, you know, four kilometres a second."
But the leader of the NDP said the only delusion is in the minds of people imagining scare scenarios of some potential missile attack.
"These are the kind of hypothetical questions that (George) Bush has tried to create in the minds of people to elevate a sense of fear," said Jack Layton.
"The fact is that if Canada is a part of a program like this, then we become a target."
|
|
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
It's increasingly apparent that the liberals on this board don't have the balls to try anything that they don't think they can finish by tomorrow evening. Technology development takes time. |
well, even if it works i dont really see the meaning with it. There are so much better things to put money into, even within the militairy... |
|
|
| igottaknow |
| quote: | Originally posted by imokruok
It's increasingly apparent that the liberals on this board don't have the balls to try anything that they don't think they can finish by tomorrow evening. Technology development takes time. |
Conservatives are tight fisted when it comes to spending except when it’s for expensive boondoggle military projects. Would you concede that the 'Star Wars' missile defense system was a waste? Or is billions of dollars and over 20 years later too 'early' to tell? lol
| quote: | | There have been numerous successful tests of the ballistic missile defense system... |
I don't put much faith in rigged 'tests' that the military conducts to justify funding for expensive inept weapon systems we don't need. Too bad we didn't heed Dwight Eisenhower’s warnings about impending dangers of the industrial military complex. Even though we are the undisputed super power in the world seems like our insatiable appetite for weapons can never be filled. |
|
|
| imokruok |
| quote: | Originally posted by igottaknow
Would you concede that the 'Star Wars' missile defense system was a waste? Or is billions of dollars and over 20 years later too 'early' to tell? lol |
It certainly wasn't a waste for science. But you are free to opine that the research wasn't necessary for our defense. The military laser programs, like the THEL and the ABL all had their start in 1980s research. In addition, the new Oak Ridge technology for neutralizing nuclear waste with high-powered laser beams came from the chemical laser research that began during SDI.
| quote: |
I don't put much faith in rigged 'tests' that the military conducts to justify funding for expensive inept weapon systems we don't need. |
Would you rather we take all new technologies straight from the factory to the front lines? Skip the whole "testing" charade, and hope the thing works if we see some real action? Once again, you can argue that the system isn't necessary, but each test serves a purpose. They've already accomplished what some believed couldn't be done - hitting a "bullet with a bullet." They'll only get better at it. The tests may be expensive, but for those who believe in the future of the system, they're absolutely necessary. |
|
|
|
|
