Canada says no to missle defense scheme

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Or perhaps the whole 'It was speculation' is a magnificent straw man so that you can ignore anything that might go against your argument?

 

It's not a strawman, it's bait.

 

The US successfully made the case to attack Iraq. They garnered support through fear tactics. They said that Saddam had the ability and the desire to attack America which would cause heavy casualties and that the only course of action was to remove Saddam from power. In the end, they conceeded that Saddam didn't have WMD's. Therefore, since Saddam didn't have WMD's, they acted on speculation that he did. And people believed them. But that's ok, because there was a brand new justification for going into Iraq - spreading freedom and democracy; liberating the Iraqi people. Your government can get the American people to fear anything, and they can be wrong, but the American people will continue to support your government, because the American people are under the belief that America is the Good Guys and can do no wrong. So whatever reason they feed, that somehow _attacking_ other countries is _defending_ freedom, the American people will take it.

 

That is the real danger America presents, and it's what I originally have said and have said for the past 2/3 pages. It's your self-righteousness that will allow you to make a first nuclear strike, because you will believe it is for the just cause. The government has already started putting in the fear tactics, that Iran and North Korea are nuclear. All it takes is some photos of a missile silo pointing towards the US and the need to "protect America" through attacking another country will become engrained into your heads. And the idea of striking with a nuclear bomb first will pop up, because a direct assault without nukes would surely push them to use it first and kills millions and millions of people. And what if it turns out that NK or Iran never intended on firing their nuclear weapons? It won't matter, because a new justification -a new excuse- will be made so you can come through killing thousands upon thousands of people clean as a whistle. You've done it before, you'll do it again.

[cbacon 0]

Rudo should post in CE more often. Balance things out a bit.

[Red Baron 0]

This whole missile defence system is idiotic, and unsafe. Canada will not put up a defence system that would harm the people if it is not fail safe, and even so, radiation effects from the missiles that float around the atmosphere can cause serious environmental effects.

 

The thing is, why should we help fight a war that we are not in?

 

About the justifying cause of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

 

Both these cities were strategic naval ports for the war. With this A-Bomb technology, the Allies had the upper hand in the war. By eliminating these ports it hurts the Japanese navy, and boasts the strength of the Allies. No one knew what damage these bombs could have done, or the long term affects from these bombings, that still occur in these places. After the destruction of these cities, the Japanese had no other choice than to surrender.

[Justice 0]

No offense, but Darwin had a theory. It's never been actually proven or anything. Just because it's the main belief of SCIENCE~! doesn't mean much. Science can and sometimes is wrong. Look at Hawking on Black Holes. Theories = written truth.

 

Secondly, I've always sort of subscribe that if I were ever to really believe the bible, that much of 'creation' could easily concide with Big Bang and evolution, with 'days' being the simplest way to represent the gross amount of time that it all took. Of course, being agnostic, I'm not really a firm believer in anything.

 

Ok, but I think it's safe to say that the Earth is older than 10,000 years, right?

That's my personal belief. Again, the whole hangup I have with the 10,000 years thign is that I know a ton of people who would say "A day for God is eons for us". I don't think the whole 10,000 years thing is completely accurate.

[cbacon 0]

No offense, but Darwin had a theory. It's never been actually proven or anything. Just because it's the main belief of SCIENCE~! doesn't mean much. Science can and sometimes is wrong. Look at Hawking on Black Holes. Theories = written truth.

 

Secondly, I've always sort of subscribe that if I were ever to really believe the bible, that much of 'creation' could easily concide with Big Bang and evolution, with 'days' being the simplest way to represent the gross amount of time that it all took. Of course, being agnostic, I'm not really a firm believer in anything.

 

Ok, but I think it's safe to say that the Earth is older than 10,000 years, right?

That's my personal belief. Again, the whole hangup I have with the 10,000 years thign is that I know a ton of people who would say "A day for God is eons for us". I don't think the whole 10,000 years thing is completely accurate.

Alright, so according to them 10,000 years in God's time = 4.55 billion years in ours. Fair enough. Scientific fact still pretty much states the Earth is 4.55 billion years old in 'our time' regardless of the God/Human conversion scale.

[Boon 0]

The US successfully made the case to attack Iraq. They garnered support through fear tactics. They said that Saddam had the ability and the desire to attack America which would cause heavy casualties and that the only course of action was to remove Saddam from power. In the end, they conceeded that Saddam didn't have WMD's. Therefore, since Saddam didn't have WMD's, they acted on speculation that he did. And people believed them. But that's ok, because there was a brand new justification for going into Iraq - spreading freedom and democracy; liberating the Iraqi people. Your government can get the American people to fear anything, and they can be wrong, but the American people will continue to support your government, because the American people are under the belief that America is the Good Guys and can do no wrong. So whatever reason they feed, that somehow _attacking_ other countries is _defending_ freedom, the American people will take it.

My problem w/ what you're saying, Rudo, is that you act like America is alone in thinking that we're the "Good Guys." Besides the fact that every country thinks that they're right, America has accepted responsibility for many of its actions, including H&N and Iraq.

 

Yes- I will concede that the war w/ Iraq was justified through scare tactics, but in the end, the Middle East is a better place w/o Saddam in power. I don't really know anybody that refutes that, maybe you will. And many people agree that spreading democracy to the Middle East isn't a bad thing to do, either.

 

That is the real danger America presents, and it's what I originally have said and have said for the past 2/3 pages. It's your self-righteousness that will allow you to make a first nuclear strike, because you will believe it is for the just cause.

 

Then why didn't America use nukes in Iraq? If America feels justified there, I think you're saying we'd feel justified in using nukes. So... why didn't we? B/c we're not going to be the ones who use them first. We've been through this, already. If they felt justified, why didn't we already use them? It certainly would have caused less American casualties. It's almost like we don't want to use nukes! [GASP!]

 

And the idea of striking with a nuclear bomb first will pop up, because a direct assault without nukes would surely push them to use it first and kills millions and millions of people.

 

Once again, we agree that we were convinced that Iraq had WMDs and was going to use them against us... according to your logic, we should've nuked them. Right? Weird, though, when we didn't.

 

And what if it turns out that NK or Iran never intended on firing their nuclear weapons?

 

...Maybe you missed it when Iran made an alliance w/ Syria to combat "hostilities," or when the DRNK said they had nukes and weren't afraid to use them.

[Justice 0]

It's not a strawman, it's bait.

No, it's a strawman.

 

The US successfully made the case to attack Iraq. They garnered support through fear tactics. They said that Saddam had the ability and the desire to attack America which would cause heavy casualties and that the only course of action was to remove Saddam from power. In the end, they conceeded that Saddam didn't have WMD's. Therefore, since Saddam didn't have WMD's, they acted on speculation that he did. And people believed them. But that's ok, because there was a brand new justification for going into Iraq - spreading freedom and democracy; liberating the Iraqi people. Your government can get the American people to fear anything, and they can be wrong, but the American people will continue to support your government, because the American people are under the belief that America is the Good Guys and can do no wrong. So whatever reason they feed, that somehow _attacking_ other countries is _defending_ freedom, the American people will take it.

 

There was always that justification. Read the damn resolution. Agreed that WMDs was the main focus, but there were always multiple reasons. Most Americans believed in that reason long before Bush proposed it. WMDs were to try and get the UN and the World behind it.

 

That is the real danger America presents, and it's what I originally have said and have said for the past 2/3 pages. It's your self-righteousness that will allow you to make a first nuclear strike, because you will believe it is for the just cause.

 

And why in God's name can no other country be guilty of this? Seriously, your argument doesn't make sense because this is entirely situational, and anything can be claimed when something is as situational as this is.

 

And frankly, you've been more self-righteous than anyone else in this thread so far. This idea that because you aren't an American you are somehow have a more unbiased and better opinion is easily as jingoistic as the guy who wouldn't have a problem bombing France because 'them frogs suck ass!'

 

The government has already started putting in the fear tactics, that Iran and North Korea are nuclear.

 

They are nuclear. Both countries have admitted to it. OMG FEAR TACTICS~!

 

All it takes is some photos of a missile silo pointing towards the US and the need to "protect America" through attacking another country will become engrained into your heads.

 

'Cause we've done that with China already. God damn us and our simple-minded ways!

 

And the idea of striking with a nuclear bomb first will pop up, because a direct assault without nukes would surely push them to use it first and kills millions and millions of people.

 

...

 

A nuclear assault in today's world would anhillate far more than any ground assault, and the effects would last far, far longer. That's a simple fact. Trying to somehow draw a parallel between Operations Olympic and Coronet and a ground invasion today is simply incorrect. But hey, you still haven't told me what you would have done, and where the damn secret report where we definitely knew some sort of better way out.

 

And what if it turns out that NK or Iran never intended on firing their nuclear weapons? It won't matter, because a new justification -a new excuse- will be made so you can come through killing thousands upon thousands of people clean as a whistle.

 

Wow, could we pull anything else out of thin air? Perhaps we can have the Americans start raising swastikas and killing puppies while were at it. I'm sure you obviously think we do.

 

You've done it before, you'll do it again.

 

And he calls us self-righteous. You're 'proof' is so based in this idea that Americans so far fucking below you when it comes to considering human life it's truly, truly sickening.

[Justice 0]

No offense, but Darwin had a theory. It's never been actually proven or anything. Just because it's the main belief of SCIENCE~! doesn't mean much. Science can and sometimes is wrong. Look at Hawking on Black Holes. Theories = written truth.

 

Secondly, I've always sort of subscribe that if I were ever to really believe the bible, that much of 'creation' could easily concide with Big Bang and evolution, with 'days' being the simplest way to represent the gross amount of time that it all took. Of course, being agnostic, I'm not really a firm believer in anything.

 

Ok, but I think it's safe to say that the Earth is older than 10,000 years, right?

That's my personal belief. Again, the whole hangup I have with the 10,000 years thign is that I know a ton of people who would say "A day for God is eons for us". I don't think the whole 10,000 years thing is completely accurate.

Alright, so according to them 10,000 years in God's time = 4.55 billion years in ours. Fair enough. Scientific fact still pretty much states the Earth is 4.55 billion years old in 'our time' regardless of the God/Human conversion scale.

Well, I meant 7 days as all the time up before human civilization. That'd probably be more accurate to what they mean. But I'm not really a big fan on that, either.

 

And bud, don't compliment Rudo. Seriously, it's below you.

[cbacon 0]

There was always that justification. Read the damn resolution. Agreed that WMDs was the main focus, but there were always multiple reasons. Most Americans believed in that reason long before Bush proposed it. WMDs were to try and get the UN and the World behind it.

 

This was the reason given in Bush's address. The primary reason. The typical American was made to believe this, and this alone. Because the other reasons such as humanitarian issues do not suffice, because the US still supports other dictators.

 

And why in God's name can no other country be guilty of this? Seriously, your argument doesn't make sense because this is entirely situational, and anything can be claimed when something is as situational as this is.

 

Other countries can be guilty of this. Dosen't exempt the US though. Historically, we've seen the US take such pre-emptive action, so a nuclear strike isn't out of the question.

 

And frankly, you've been more self-righteous than anyone else in this thread so far. This idea that because you aren't an American you are somehow have a more unbiased and better opinion is easily as jingoistic as the guy who wouldn't have a problem bombing France because 'them frogs suck ass!'

 

The frog thing is a racial slur. It's not so much being self-righteous than it is being critical of US foriegn policy. The majority of Canadians believe this. As does most of the world and a large number of Americans. Are those that oppose these policies in your country thus self-righteous?

 

They are nuclear. Both countries have admitted to it. OMG FEAR TACTICS~!

 

But of course these threats will be exagerrated to get the public to buy in to whatever your administration does. We've seen it time and time again. If you can get people to believe that Iraq, a country that posed no threat to you was about to attack, then you can easily get people to believe that North Korea is about to attack tomorrow morning, regardless if it's true or not.

[Vyce 0]

Considering most of your country has no idea what their government had done in the past 30 years or so on the international scale (terrorism, conducting coups and installing brutal regieme), i'd say thats a pretty accurate assesment.

 

I think the point Vyce is emphasizing is that it is presumptuous as well as pompous for people who are not Americans to be telling Americans what our psyche is, regardless of what has been happening over the past 30 years.

That was my point, yes. I was also hoping that someone, as I see Justice did (and perhaps you as well), would appreciate the absolutely delicious (so much so that I want to eat it with a spoon so that I can savor the last DROP) irony of RRRudo spending god knows how many pages now complaining about how self-righteous America / Americans is, when his remarks in this thread have been oh-so-wonderfully contemptuous (and more than a little jingoistic) in their conceit. Such chutzpah brings a tear to my eye, because it makes me believe that maybe the Canucks are more like us barbarian hordes in the States than we had previously thought, and that just makes me positively rosy with the swell of brotherly love in my chest.

 

But seriously......we shouldn't bust Rudo's chops, because he got an almost glowing recommendation from C-Bacon, and that's reason enough to give him some of our sympathy.

 

And I don't know how we got onto the religious stuff, but I ain't touching that one.

[cbacon 0]

Yes Vyce, criticism of US foriegn policy makes everyone self-righteous. Of course. You can observe the US psyche by the actions they carry out.

 

If Americans think that they're the good guys, no matter what situation or what disaster they cause, is that being self righteous? Of course it is.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

Yes Vyce, criticism of US foriegn policy makes everyone self-righteous. Of course.

It is not just criticism of US foreign policy. I have no problem with that, and I certainly don't agree with a lot of which this president is doing. But you are blatantly anti-American and act like the United States is this Nazi-esque fascist state, and it simply couldn't be further from the truth. Given a choice between living in the United States and living in North Korea, you seem like you would pick Korea and it is just absurd. There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and actively hating them. You act like Americans defile the ground they set foot on. That is no better than Hitler.

 

If I am wrong, then you are really poor at conversing, because that is how you come across. Use some common sense, and try to discuss something without immediately declaring the other side as evil.

[cbacon 0]

It is not just criticism of US foreign policy.  I have no problem with that, and I certainly don't agree with a lot of which this president is doing.  But you are blatantly anti-American and act like the United States is this Nazi-esque fascist state, and it simply couldn't be further from the truth.

 

Well thats just simply not true. I point out what are very valid concerns regarding US foriegn policy, past and present. Thus, I strongly disagree with the way the country is being run, but that dosen't make me Anti-American. It's like saying if I oppose the policies of my elected representatives here in Canada, that i'm anti-Canadian.

 

When, have I ever gone out of my way to attack the US without a valid reason? The major issues i'm critical of are it's current "War on Terror" and the crimes that the country has committed since the end of the WWII, mostly in Central America. Should I just ignore this even though it's a concern? Given the fact that we're dealing with the world's greatest super power making such reckless decisions, it should be the concern of everyone.

 

Given a choice between living in the United States and living in North Korea, you seem like you would pick Korea and it is just absurd.

 

While the US wouldn't be my first choice, I'd certainly rather live there than North Korea. Why you brought up such an absurd and irrelevant argument though, i'd like to know. Psst, if you can't tell i'm generally against countries that build up weapons and commit human rights violations.

 

There is a difference between disagreeing with someone and actively hating them.  You act like Americans defile the ground they set foot on.  That is no better than Hitler.

 

Enlighten me, how am I 'actively hating' rather then disagreeing? Hmm? Drawing parallels with Hitler now? Please.

 

If I am wrong, then you are really poor at conversing, because that is how you come across. Use some common sense, and try to discuss something without immediately declaring the other side as evil.

 

Don't think I ever used the word evil to describe the US. Hmm. I'm not sure what your asking here. Should I post reasons why I like America everytime I make a criticism of it? Pictures of flowers and bunny rabbits perhaps? I didn't realize being hostile towards a certain aspect of a particular nation would strike up such a label.

[Jingus 0]

-On nukes:

FACT: America will never strike first with nuclear weapons.

 

That is permanent American policy. Our military does not nuke anyone unless they nuke us first. It's writ in fucking stone as far as our officials are concerned. It will not be changed. That is the rule. Period.

 

Don't argue that H&N contradict that, either. They don't. Those bombs were dropped to end a war that had already killed 50 million people and might've still killed millions more. Those bombs were much, much weaker than the ones that exist today, and nobody knew anything about the long-term effects of such a weapon. As the weapons got stronger and we learned more about them, the new rules were put in place.

 

 

-On the missle defense shield:

Most of the arguments against it are ridiculous. "It's not our war." Like I said earlier, WMDs won't just stop at the Canadian border because you guys aren't involved. "If you shoot down a missle we'll get radioactive fallout." Not near as bad as the fallout you'd get if the warhead detonates instead. "It encourages an arms race." With who? Nobody else has military technology that's even close to being advanced as ours; they'd have to run that race for decades to catch up. "It's not 100% effective." I think even 1% is better than nothing at all.

 

 

-On religion:

-Those Gallup numbers are just plain wrong. I live in Tennessee, the buckle of the Bible Belt, and nowhere near 45% of the people I know believe that the Bible is literally true and that evolution is false.

 

 

-On the cause of 9/11:

Osama Bin Ladin TOLD US, repeatedly, exactly why he planned the 9/11 attacks: because he objected to the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia (his home country and the birthplace of Islam). Despite the fact that our troops are there because the Saudi government wants them there.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

While the US wouldn't be my first choice, I'd certainly rather live there than North Korea. Why you brought up such an absurd and irrelevant argument though, i'd like to know. Psst, if you can't tell i'm generally against countries that build up weapons and commit human rights violations.

 

But I thought it was just US propaganda that claimed that North Korea & Iran were interested in nukes. And what about France? They have nukes and they performed atrocities in the Ivory Coast just last year. Even Canada is hardly clean. Look at what we did in Somalia, and the federal government under Jean Chretien practically ignored it. The United States made a lot of mistakes in the 1980s. That doesn't mean that it is their intention or that they haven't learned from it.

 

Enlighten me, how am I 'actively hating' rather then disagreeing? Hmm? Drawing parallels with Hitler now? Please.

Don't think I ever used the word evil to describe the US. Hmm. I'm not sure what your asking here. Should I post reasons why I like America everytime I make a criticism of it? Pictures of flowers and bunny rabbits perhaps? I didn't realize being hostile towards a certain aspect of a particular nation would strike up such a label.

Haven't I read many mocking posts of the American public regarding the way that you think that they are a backwards people right in this thread? You don't just criticize George Bush, you claim that he is purposely trying take over the world by acting for personal gain. As well as your theories on 9/11. You don't need a big sign to see what your feelings are.

 

You have some valid criticisms, but nobody will listen to you even if you are right because of the arrogant and spiteful way that you handle yourself. You are only hurting your cause and make the other liberals on this board who share many of the same views look bad. You need to calm down and argue base on logic as opposed to emotion.

[cbacon 0]

-On the missle defense shield:

Most of the arguments against it are ridiculous. "It's not our war." Like I said earlier, WMDs won't just stop at the Canadian border because you guys aren't involved. "If you shoot down a missle we'll get radioactive fallout." Not near as bad as the fallout you'd get if the warhead detonates instead.

 

But the argrument is that it would be costly and ineffective. We don't need it so we shouldn't adopt it.

 

"It encourages an arms race." With who? Nobody else has military technology that's even close to being advanced as ours; they'd have to run that race for decades to catch up.

 

So places like Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc. are going to sit by idley while the dominant superpower builds BMD capabilities and mililtarize space? Thats quite naive.

 

"It's not 100% effective." I think even 1% is better than nothing at all.

 

I wouldn't want to invest billions of dollars in something that's 1% effective.

 

 

-On religion:

-Those Gallup numbers are just plain wrong. I live in Tennessee, the buckle of the Bible Belt, and nowhere near 45% of the people I know believe that the Bible is literally true and that evolution is false.

 

If you say so...

 

-On the cause of 9/11:

Osama Bin Ladin TOLD US, repeatedly, exactly why he planned the 9/11 attacks: because he objected to the presence of US troops in Saudi Arabia (his home country and the birthplace of Islam). Despite the fact that our troops are there because the Saudi government wants them there.

 

Right.

[cbacon 0]

But I thought it was just US propaganda that claimed that North Korea & Iran were interested in nukes

 

Didn't say that.

 

And what about France? They have nukes and they performed atrocities in the Ivory Coast just last year. Even Canada is hardly clean. Look at what we did in Somalia, and the federal government under Jean Chretien practically ignored it.

 

Exactly, and they should also be codemned

 

The United States made a lot of mistakes in the 1980s. That doesn't mean that it is their intention or that they haven't learned from it.

 

It wasn't their intention to stage military coups for democratically elected governments? Yeah, they sure were looking out for the best interests in places like Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala when they helped attack soft targets and innocent civilians.

 

 

Haven't I read many mocking posts of the American public regarding the way that you think that they are a backwards people right in this thread? You don't just criticize George Bush, you claim that he is purposely trying take over the world by acting for personal gain. As well as your theories on 9/11. You don't need a big sign to see what your feelings are.

 

That what? They were a reaction to US foriegn policy? They were, as Jingus so helpfully pointed out. Of course that's just one aspect in a line of many. Not like the Arab world dosen't have a right to be pissed or anything. If your trying to allude in some way that I feel the actions of 9/11 were deserved, then I suggest you stop there.

 

You have some valid criticisms, but nobody will listen to you even if you are right because of the arrogant and spiteful way that you handle yourself. You are only hurting your cause and make the other liberals on this board who share many of the same views look bad. You need to calm down and argue base on logic as opposed to emotion.

 

I do. I refrain from flaiming and pety insults unless provoked, and when dealing with the likes of Mike, that can be hard to do. I stand by what I say because I believe it to be true. Why should I hold back? I don't think many Liberals take these concerns as serious given their huge implications. It concerns me what the geopolitical landscape will look like 10, 20, 50 years from now as a result of the actions being taken now. O

 

On the contrary, the things that I bring up are often overlooked. Despite the dissent movement in the States, the majority still has no qualms with the actions being taken, and many don't know or even care. This is a dangerous sceanario and everyone should be aware of whats going on in their name.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

There's a ton of people in this thread that are blaming the US needlessly.

 

There's also a lot of people who are letting their overweening patriotism blind them from every single scenario.

 

I've always been cold on the missile shield, although the emergence of rogue nations with big bombs has made me rethink my position on the issue, and I think everyone should do the same. However, I still retain my position against it, not because of the situation above but because of situations that may involve nations that aren't rogues.

 

I think there may be a time where America is some how violent/corrupt/whatever enough in the world that it actually earns a bomb landing somewhere on the mainland. We are not, currently, at that point, or anywhere near it. I think that should be obvious, but I want to get it out of the way. But, all this talk about the bombing in Japan doing horrible things for people in the fallout zone but in the long run bringing about a positive change in the country are blind to the possibilities of this sort of move being necessary with the United States in the centuries of our descendants.

 

I cannot trust the US, forever and into the future, to be always so just and right that it deserves to be the only invincible piece of property on the globe.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

That is permanent American policy. Our military does not nuke anyone unless they nuke us first. It's writ in fucking stone as far as our officials are concerned. It will not be changed. That is the rule. Period.

 

A rule which was made because if the US did nuke anyone, then YOUR country would be radioactive glass too. That doesn't really apply with a shield in place. Am I saying they'd change it for sure? No, but then they'd have the option to. You DON'T have that option right now.

 

"It's not 100% effective." I think even 1% is better than nothing at all.

 

But it's NOT; it's actually worse, because other countries will KNOW the shield doesn't work very well. Thus, they won't need any sort of crazy-advanced technology to get around the shield, they'll just need MORE NUKES. And then they'll build more nukes, so that if it comes down to it, they can STILL turn your country into radioactive glass. You know, like an arms race, only they won't have to develop anything new, they'll just have to expand what they have.

 

As it stands, everything is nice and calm thanks to MAD's stabilizing effects. But this shield is a de-stabilizing weapon, which means it's only gonna cause trouble and cost billions upon billions of dollars.

[Guest MikeSC]

MAD has "stabilized" things?

 

Explains why all of these countries are actively seeking to gain nuclear weaponry.

 

Doesn't seem very stable to me.

-=Mike

[The Metal Maniac 0]

They're all just trying to catch up to everyone else.

 

But I'd say that no one actually, you know, USING the weapons is pretty damned stable.

[Guest MikeSC]

They're all just trying to catch up to everyone else.

 

But I'd say that no one actually, you know, USING the weapons is pretty damned stable.

So, as long nobody is dropping nukes, it's stable?

 

Never mind the rapid proliferation to increasingly unstable regimes...

-=Mike

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Honestly, that sounds about right to me. I'd rather more people have nukes then have people who think they can use nukes without fear.

 

Because while places like N. Korea may be somewhat crazy, I honestly don't think even they would be dumb enough to turn their own country into radioactive glass; which is exactly what using a nuke would accomplish.

 

I mean, even if the guy in charge is a total wackjob, I would think he'd realize, if nothing else, that destroying N. Korea means he has no place to rule. Or live.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

MAD has "stabilized" things?

 

Explains why all of these countries are actively seeking to gain nuclear weaponry.

MAD has stabilized things between nations, even rival nations.

 

What MAD doesn't stabilize is radical factions without a representative country from buying black market arms.

 

The only way to do that is for everyone to work together and drop their nuke supply so that there's less stock for those factions to work with. Unfortunately, that event is akin to two men pointing a gun at each other and promising to drop their weapons on the count of three.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

Do these past few pages cause anyone else to want to start playing Sid Meier's Civilization again?

[EricMM 0]

Mike, I think my point is something like this:

 

MAD is Mutally Assured Destruction (duh)

 

MAD is assured when everyone has enough bombs to kill everyone else.

 

Right now, it only takes a few hundred bombs to do all of that.

 

Having a shield may mean that other nations may need to accumulate a few thousand bombs, instead of a few hundred. But eventually, even if only one percent of the bombs get through the shield (which is rediculously optimistic) all a nation needs is a few hundred bombs to nuke the US/Canada anyways, however they would need more than they needed previously.

 

So more bombs would be made. And the more bombs we have, the more bombs get lost. Even one lost bomb is too many.

 

Why is it hawks don't understand nuclear NONproliferation, and DISarmermant is what will lead to a peaceful and safe future?

[Justice 0]

So more bombs would be made. And the more bombs we have, the more bombs get lost. Even one lost bomb is too many.

My problem with this is that we are getting bombs in more and more dangerous hands. Iran and North Korea are the types of nations that WOULD make a first strike attack against us, especially NK.

 

Why is it hawks don't understand nuclear NONproliferation, and DISarmermant is what will lead to a peaceful and safe future?

 

We call it being realistic. Disarmament is a sad, hopeless dream when faced with the reality of the world.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, I think my point is something like this:

 

MAD is Mutally Assured Destruction (duh)

 

MAD is assured when everyone has enough bombs to kill everyone else.

 

Right now, it only takes a few hundred bombs to do all of that.

 

Having a shield may mean that other nations may need to accumulate a few thousand bombs, instead of a few hundred. But eventually, even if only one percent of the bombs get through the shield (which is rediculously optimistic) all a nation needs is a few hundred bombs to nuke the US/Canada anyways, however they would need more than they needed previously.

 

So more bombs would be made. And the more bombs we have, the more bombs get lost. Even one lost bomb is too many.

 

Why is it hawks don't understand nuclear NONproliferation, and DISarmermant is what will lead to a peaceful and safe future?

As Justice said --- I'd LOVE for non-proliferation et al to work.

 

It doesn't. Even remotely. It's naive to look at history and ignore that reality. We have an agency (IAEA) that is supposed to deal with this --- and we're only seeing MORE countries developing nukes.

 

You assume that hawks LOVE war, rather than us recognizing that war is a sad fact of life and we'd best be prepared for it.

 

Is having no shield slowing anybody down in their pursuit of nukes?

Honestly, that sounds about right to me. I'd rather more people have nukes then have people who think they can use nukes without fear.

I'd rather have protection for the psycho who doesn't CARE what the nukes do. The only good line from the abysmal movie "The Peacekeeper" was "I don't fear the man who wants dozens of nukes. I fear the man who only wants one."

MAD has stabilized things between nations, even rival nations.

N. Korea having nukes is stabilizing in what way, exactly?

The only way to do that is for everyone to work together and drop their nuke supply so that there's less stock for those factions to work with. Unfortunately, that event is akin to two men pointing a gun at each other and promising to drop their weapons on the count of three.

So, since your way, by your own admission doesn't work, any defensive measure --- even one we have offered to give to others --- is a bad idea to try?

-=Mike

[cbacon 0]

3.05

When I Debut At Just For Laughs

 

Any attempt at levity is not the brightest of ideas. Until, perhaps, next year, when I debut at Just For Laughs.

 

B. is in Los Angeles right now. Earlier today were talking and he mentioned how rampant the anti-Canadian rhetoric was on the local news. He said that he was worried that the US might take real action against us in the future if we didn’t change our tune.

 

I wonder what Americans make of all this. I mean, they lambasted the French when they refused to support the invasion of Iraq, so much so that French jokes were the mainstay on every late night talk show for weeks. I wonder if Canadian jokes will be the new craze. I wonder if, in 2008, the next Democratic candidate for President will be called “too Canadian”, as if it were an insult?

 

I can tell you this - I’m mighty tired of it all. Living next to a rude giant is like living next to a garbage dump filled with diapers. It’s huge and full of shit.

[Guest MikeSC]

You mean the same Canada that bitched and moaned about Triumph the Comic Insult Dog mocking them? Yeah, we worry about you. No, honestly, we do.

 

I'm worried about making a Canadian cry if you speak ill of them.

-=Mike