Canada says no to missle defense scheme

[Justice 0]

I don't know if it was brought up in this thread yet, because I didn't bother reading past the first page, but terrorists aren't going to fire ICBMs. Therefore, the argument that the missile defense system will help protect us from terrorism is stupid at best.

Just to mention, if it hasn't been, North Korea does have ICBMs.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Just like attacking Iraq is "defending" America?

 

Speaking of banging heads...

[cbacon 0]

I'm trying not to bang my head against the keyboard. 

 

What is bad about a missle defense system?

It's a waste of money and it could spark an arms race. There. It's been mentioned several times in this thread including the article I referenced which also outlines US goals for the program.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

What is bad about a missle defense system? This thing won't kill anyone. It won't be used to invade other countries. It isn't threatening in any way.

 

I think C-Bacon just summed it up, but again:

 

A missle defense system would be destabalizing. It would give the US a HUGE upper hand in terms of nuclear weapons, which would make every single other nuclear power nervous. In turn, they would seek to design ways to get around this shield, which, of course, leads to an arms race, which leads to everyone spending lots of money on nukes they don't need.

 

Also, it will most probably make the US *think* they are immune to nukes. And if you don't have to worry about being nuked yourself, then you're a lot more likely to nuke someone else, since you don't need to fear the reprecussions.

 

Further, I can't see any real benefits to the system. In the first place, they're telling us that they're gonna shoot down missles over Canada. Well, where are they gonna go? They can't just make them detonate in the air, that'd probably be much worse. So are there gonna be all kinds of nuclear payloads just falling on Canada, still radioactive and deadly, should a nuclear war go on? Why the hell should we support that?

 

And yeah, you can argue that a benefit is that it'll shoot down nukes. Well, good job. The REAL question is: How MANY nukes can it shoot down? Can it shoot down 10? 50? A thousand nukes launched at the same time? Can they shoot ALL of those down, with 100% accuracy, guaranteed? Because if it can't, the system is USELESS.

 

I don't know how many nukes China has, but I've got a strong feeling it's a lot. And I have a stronger feeling that one of their responses to the shield will be to build more. So many more, in fact, that should nuclear war break out, they will just launch ALL of their nukes at the states, and the shield simply won't be able to shoot them all down. Some will get through. Maybe not many, but really, how many nukes do you NEED anyway?

 

So that's why people like me are against the shield. It will do nothing but serve to aggravate everyone who doesn't have it, make an arms race almost guaranteed, and it won't actually STOP nuclear warfare from killing everything anyway.

[Jingus 0]

By you guys' logic, we should disarm all policemen because seeing that pistol on their hip might provoke a criminal to shoot at them first.

[cbacon 0]

Nice analogy and all, but nowhere near the same thing or relevant.

[Boon 0]

It isn't threatening in any way. It's a purely defensive measure, just in case one of the several countries with ICBM capabilities gets a wild hair up its ass and decides to lob one at the North American continent.

It's kind of hard to grasp, but a system like this is not solely a defensive move. Let me elaborate.

 

Having a defense system like this (assuming it works the way it should) takes away second-strike capability. For example, if America has a defense system that works, it doesn't have to worry about a country like China retaliating if we struck first. It's an offensive move because, essentially, you've disabled your opponent's ability to hit you back.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Exactly. Which is a problem.

 

I mean, I REALLY wouldn't be surprised if the US, thinking it was immune to nuclear attack (as I explained before, I doubt the system would work anyway) decided to just nuke one of those annoying Arab countries rather then go through a lengthy invasion.

 

With the shield in place, there'd be NO ONE to stop them from doing that. And I REALLY don't think that things as deadly as nukes should be able to be used like that.

[Guest Brian]

It isn't threatening in any way.  It's a purely defensive measure, just in case one of the several countries with ICBM capabilities gets a wild hair up its ass and decides to lob one at the North American continent. 

It's kind of hard to grasp, but a system like this is not solely a defensive move. Let me elaborate.

 

Having a defense system like this (assuming it works the way it should) takes away second-strike capability. For example, if America has a defense system that works, it doesn't have to worry about a country like China retaliating if we struck first. It's an offensive move because, essentially, you've disabled your opponent's ability to hit you back.

Are you implying that we should nuke China? Or that China would even consider nuking us given our artillery?

[Vyce 0]

A new Cold War with China is almost certainly going to happen before this century is complete, provided they remain Communist. Which is likely, because even though they're rapidly becoming incredibly economically capitalist, their political machine is still a rabidly Communist regime with little chance of that changing any time soon.

 

With the shield in place, there'd be NO ONE to stop them from doing that.

 

You know, I didn't really care that much about this missile defense thing until I read that sentence there.

 

You've actually sold me on this missile defense thing.

[cbacon 0]

It isn't threatening in any way.  It's a purely defensive measure, just in case one of the several countries with ICBM capabilities gets a wild hair up its ass and decides to lob one at the North American continent. 

It's kind of hard to grasp, but a system like this is not solely a defensive move. Let me elaborate.

 

Having a defense system like this (assuming it works the way it should) takes away second-strike capability. For example, if America has a defense system that works, it doesn't have to worry about a country like China retaliating if we struck first. It's an offensive move because, essentially, you've disabled your opponent's ability to hit you back.

Are you implying that we should nuke China? Or that China would even consider nuking us given our artillery?

Didn't sound like he was implying that, rather presenting the notion that the US would have pre-emptive striking capabilities with this system intact. Not neccesarily to do with China.

 

You know, I didn't really care that much about this missile defense thing until I read that sentence there.

 

You've actually sold me on this missile defense thing

 

Hmm, I wonder if this utterly stupid comment will get any backlash from the usual group, despite being quite obvious.....nah.

[Jingus 0]

Yes. I agree with you all. The defense system would indeed give America first-strike capability.

 

So what?

 

Does anyone here really believe that the US would shoot first in a nuclear war?

[Guest Brian]

Does it really matter who shoots first in a nuclear war? Because things are going to quickly get dangerously out of hand quickly, and even a working shield is not going to protect us from everything given the success rates of things they've already tested.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Duck and cover, folks.

[Boon 0]

Are you implying that we should nuke China? Or that China would even consider nuking us given our artillery?

I was just using China as an example to make my point, so no, I wasn't really implying that.

 

But in the age of nuclear warfare, it really doesn't matter how big your artillery is, point in case being the DRNK. They're still a threat, and our arsenal far exceeds anything that they have. You really only need a few well-placed nukes to really, really fuck some shit up. Granted, the US could destroy the world a few times over w/ all our weapons, but after say maybe three or four nukes from China, we'd be pretty messed up.

 

Such a pleasant conversation.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Yes. I agree with you all. The defense system would indeed give America first-strike capability.

 

So what?

 

Does anyone here really believe that the US would shoot first in a nuclear war?

Yes.

 

You are very a very self-righteous people. And, you know, you *did* drop 2 of them before and still feel justified in doing so.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

They were justified. An invasion of Japan would have been a disaster for both sides, and the Japanese had a tradition of fighting to the last man. They wouldn't surrender otherwise, even though they were beaten. The war was over, even Japan knew it, but they weren't willing to accept it. Truman saved millions of lives, both civilian and military by dropping those bombs.

[Guest Cerebus]

The missle defense system is a moronic, overpriced, and ineffective excuse to pump money into some defense contractors.

 

That being said, what the hell is Canada going to do if we shoot down a missle over their air space? Declare war?

[Guest MikeSC]

I'm trying not to bang my head against the keyboard.

 

What is bad about a missle defense system? This thing won't kill anyone. It won't be used to invade other countries. It isn't threatening in any way. It's a purely defensive measure, just in case one of the several countries with ICBM capabilities gets a wild hair up its ass and decides to lob one at the North American continent.

 

Yeah, disarmament would be nice. So would be a time machine to go back & kill every single scientist who worked on The Bomb. The two are about the same in terms of probability as far as I can see.

Jingus, you ignorant slut.

 

It's bad because AMERICA thought it up.

 

I figured you'd have guessed that by now. Remember, you ARE writing to C-Bacon, who thought the world should have a voice in our Presidential elections.

-=Mike

[Boon 0]

Yes.  I agree with you all.  The defense system would indeed give America first-strike capability. 

 

So what? 

 

Does anyone here really believe that the US would shoot first in a nuclear war?

Yes.

 

You are very a very self-righteous people. And, you know, you *did* drop 2 of them before and still feel justified in doing so.

Sixty years ago the weapons were completely different then they are today. Everybody knows that, so citing H&N as evidence that we would strike FIRST is not only flawed in its very premise (b/c we dropped bombs after Japan had started our involvement w/ Pearl Harbor, we did not start that war), it's flawed b/c the weapons are so much more advanced that the reason we haven't had another massive war is because we all recognize the notion of Mutually Assured Destruction.

 

BTW, you make it sound like Canada is so much more civil then America, when you don't even deal w/ the stuff that we, the hegemon, are responsible for. When Canada becomes the hegemon and deals with the same things America do, we can compare. Until then, it's really not a valid argument.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Does anyone here really believe that the US would shoot first in a nuclear war?

 

I do. Especially if they think they're immune to counter-attack. Or if they nuke someone who doesn't have nukes.

 

I mean, nuking Iraq would've saved lots of US lives. Why not?

 

I don't think it's bad because the US thought of it. I think it's bad because it's needless, costly, and will only serve to piss people off.

[Guest MikeSC]

Does anyone here really believe that the US would shoot first in a nuclear war?

 

I do. Especially if they think they're immune to counter-attack. Or if they nuke someone who doesn't have nukes.

 

I mean, nuking Iraq would've saved lots of US lives. Why not?

 

I don't think it's bad because the US thought of it. I think it's bad because it's needless, costly, and will only serve to piss people off.

I love that "Mutually Assured Destruction" is considered by the left to be the best possible military option.

 

The ironic part is that the US has ALWAYS offered to share the technology with anybody who wants it.

-=Mike

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I wasn't aware I was left.

[Justice 0]

Yes.  I agree with you all.  The defense system would indeed give America first-strike capability. 

 

So what? 

 

Does anyone here really believe that the US would shoot first in a nuclear war?

Yes.

 

You are very a very self-righteous people. And, you know, you *did* drop 2 of them before and still feel justified in doing so.

We were completely justified. Like Kahran said, the Invasion of Japan would have been a disaster. The predicted military casualties, judging by trends as we got closer to Japan, were around 1,000,000 Americans. That's JUST Americans. Considering the better part of the plan consisted of invading the southern islands, setting up air-strips, and firebombing them into submission, atomic weapons were BY FAR the best option.

[2GOLD 0]

Nuking Iraq WASN'T an option. We weren't out to wipe the country off the map! We bombed military targets to lighten counter attack and then we surgical removed the government.

 

As for Japan, even Thurman hated the idea but his option was either kill thousands or let BOTH sides lose millions upon millions of lives. So to bring up Japan is idiotic anyway. And last I checked, we don't celebrate the day we dropped an a-bomb on Japan.

 

God, every time I turn around I read something stupid from one side or the other. All it does is make me glad I despise both the left and the right for being completely moronic.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Sixty years ago the weapons were completely different then they are today. Everybody knows that, so citing H&N as evidence that we would strike FIRST is not only flawed in its very premise (b/c we dropped bombs after Japan had started our involvement w/ Pearl Harbor, we did not start that war), it's flawed b/c the weapons are so much more advanced that the reason we haven't had another massive war is because we all recognize the notion of Mutually Assured Destruction.

 

The statement was in response to starting a "nuclear war". Whether Japan striked first is irrelevant, they didn't use nukes. The US did. They introduced it into warfare. Precident is set. The missile defense shield, in theory, eliminates the notion of MAD, at least for the US.

 

BTW, you make it sound like Canada is so much more civil then America, when you don't even deal w/ the stuff that we, the hegemon, are responsible for. When Canada becomes the hegemon and deals with the same things America do, we can compare. Until then, it's really not a valid argument.

 

What, exactly, does America have to deal with?

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

My point is being proved, thank you.

 

Moral Relativism at it's finest. I am not saying it was justified or not, I didn't make a single judgement in that sentence. I am saying that the US has justified killing 100,000+ with nuclear weapons. Period. It could very easily happen again. This "the best defense is a good offense", which was used in WWII and in Iraq now, reasoning is shit, because ultimately the aggressor -the country in the wrong- is the US. But you'll manage to come up with some excuse for killing 10,000 people. For killing 100,000. And no doubt, if it ever happens, you'll find a reason for killing 1,000,000 people.

 

Edit:: And I'm sure it will be a great reason.

[Justice 0]

My point is being proved, thank you.

 

Moral Relativism at it's finest.  I am not saying it was justified or not, I didn't make a single judgement in that sentence.  I am saying that the US has justified killing 100,000+ with nuclear weapons.  Period.  It could very easily happen again.  This "the best defense is a good offense", which was used in WWII and in Iraq now, reasoning is shit, because ultimately the aggressor -the country in the wrong- is the US.  But you'll manage to come up with some excuse for killing 10,000 people.  For killing 100,000.  And no doubt, if it ever happens, you'll find a reason for killing 1,000,000 people.

This is where your argument is completely flawed. To ignore the facts that we were attacked first (Thusly NOT the aggressors) and we had fought this war for 3 years and were desperately trying to end it with the least amount of lives lost. Our justification for dropping the atomic bomb: Millions of lives would be lost any other way. I don't see how that morally relative.

 

Perhaps you could justify why we shouldn't have dropped the bomb. Maybe that'll help me out here.

Edited March 1, 2005 by Justice

[Guest Cerebus]

This entire thread is pointless.

 

After a billions speant, the last test was 5 for 8 plus difficulties which prevented launch in the cases of almost 50% of the tests. You'd think someone, somewhere, would finally just say "Look, this shit isn't working. Either give us 100% reliability or we go to the old doctrine: You nuke us, we can assure you that your shithole country will be a smoking radioactive crater in less than 24 hours."

 

All this garbage about Japan and Iraq mean nothing.

[Vyce 0]

You know, I didn't really care that much about this missile defense thing until I read that sentence there.

 

You've actually sold me on this missile defense thing

 

Hmm, I wonder if this utterly stupid comment will get any backlash from the usual group, despite being quite obvious.....nah.

Oh my.

 

Do I REALLY need to whip out a dictionary to provide you with the definition of sarcasm?

 

Do you even have ANY sort of discernible sense of humor?