Canada says no to missle defense scheme

[The Metal Maniac 0]

I don't think a terrorist group is going to try firing an ICBM into our country. They're going to sneak it into the states through mexico in a van or some shit, drive it someplace populated, and set it off.

 

It is currently possible to have a nuclear device which is small enough to fit in two suitcases. Scary thought.

[Guest MikeSC]

They're going to sell a nuke, and that's a different problem that can only really be fought by anti-proliferation and international pressure.

Two forces that have never worked.

 

So you don't believe Bush is doing the right thing with unilateral talks?=

Bush is doing what he has to do. You have to hope it'll work. I do not expect it to stop, though, without some serious incentives (military, not economic in this case).

We have no reason to believe that N. Korea won't fire one.

That's their whole bargaining chip. They're trying to extort everything they can out of people over the threat of a nuke. If they actually use a nuke, the threat is gone.

And if the nuke might never reach us, the threat is even MORE non-existant.

Because, like I've said before, unless the shield is 100% effective, then the only thing people will need to penetrate the shield will be lots and lots of nukes.

 

Thus, they will build lots and lots of nukes to ensure that they still can nuke the states, should circumstances arise.

That's what they're doing presently. The shield isn't making them do that presently.

-=Mike

[The Metal Maniac 0]

But the shield is just gonna make them do it faster and with more effort.

 

I don't see how that helps.

[Guest MikeSC]

But the shield is just gonna make them do it faster and with more effort.

 

I don't see how that helps.

Where is this lack of speed and lack of effort now?

 

You're acting as it there isn't a problem with proliferation right now.

-=Mike

[Special K 0]

I'm simply stunned by the lack of success. How long have we had ICBM's? And after 20 years we haven't had any results from this program.

[Justice 0]

Ultimately, there's only one sure-fire Missile Defense.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 4, 2005 by Justice

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Where is this lack of speed and lack of effort now?

 

You're acting as it there isn't a problem with proliferation right now.

 

Because I think the current problem will only get worse with the shield, thus, in comparison, it's not THAT bad.

 

And again, I don't see how giving them a reason to want even more nukes is going to help this problem. Don't you think there's better things the US can do to help stop proliferation besides starting up a whole new arms race?

[Special K 0]

Unfortunately Doctor Manhattan was said to only have been able to stop about 70% of them.

 

 

 

 

RRARRNGH!

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Bush is doing what he has to do. You have to hope it'll work. I do not expect it to stop, though, without some serious incentives (military, not economic in this case).

So, to quote a previous post of yours, you want to go to war with a country that we know virtually nothing about?

 

Really, what do you see happening here?

[Guest MikeSC]

Bush is doing what he has to do. You have to hope it'll work. I do not expect it to stop, though, without some serious incentives (military, not economic in this case).

So, to quote a previous post of yours, you want to go to war with a country that we know virtually nothing about?

 

Really, what do you see happening here?

If that is what has to happen, yes.

 

And, yes, I expect that to have to happen. I do not expect N. Korea, for the prime example, to ever stop. Kim Jong-Il is the head of the epitome of an echo chamber government --- where all they hear is their own voices proclaiming how great they are.

Because I think the current problem will only get worse with the shield, thus, in comparison, it's not THAT bad.

 

And again, I don't see how giving them a reason to want even more nukes is going to help this problem. Don't you think there's better things the US can do to help stop proliferation besides starting up a whole new arms race?

And I think giving us some measure of protection from the assorted whackjobs who want nukes is a good idea.

 

We've offered to SHARE the technology with anybody who wants it.

-=Mike

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Why don't we just continue to cripple them economically so they don't have the money to keep making bombs? Eventually people are going to get pissed when they're starving and see a whole bunch of shiny new tanks.

[Guest MikeSC]

Why don't we just continue to cripple them economically so they don't have the money to keep making bombs? Eventually people are going to get pissed when they're starving and see a whole bunch of shiny new tanks.

Who? N. Korea?

 

Their people have been LITERALLY starving to death for many years now.

 

It hasn't stopped them.

-=Mike

...I don't think people can fully grasp how insulated from the world N. Korea is...

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Actually, I do, which is why I suggest they try to end the situation without war. You want to talk about a people that will reject freedom, the people of N Korea won't know what to do with it, and it'll take them 30+ years to catch up to speed with the rest of the world, at least. Which makes it too big of a task for us to carry it around by ourselves like a crack monkey on our back like we're doing with Iraq.

 

That, plus also any nuke fired by either side will blow into S Korea or Japan, unless all the nuclear war is restricted to a week when the wind is dead.

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, I do, which is why I suggest they try to end the situation without war. You want to talk about a people that will reject freedom, the people of N Korea won't know what to do with it, and it'll take them 30+ years to catch up to speed with the rest of the world, at least. Which makes it too big of a task for us to carry it around by ourselves like a crack monkey on our back like we're doing with Iraq.

 

That, plus also any nuke fired by either side will blow into S Korea or Japan, unless all the nuclear war is restricted to a week when the wind is dead.

And let's say N. Korea refuses. Let's say they refuse to give up nukes. Do you trust Kim Jong-Il, who by many accounts is not the most stable guy out there (though Albright seemed to think he was just nifty), with the sole power to launch a nuke? How about whatever assorted general ends up overthrowing him?

 

It's nice to say "Let's do this without war". History has shown that this seldom is a viable option.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Well, a little war is probably inevitable, but not escalated into nuclear war, and not far enough war that we storm into Pyongyang and shoot Kim in the head.

 

If we can get the surrounding powers on our side though, it would help. China and the US should be able to fight their way in enough to force Kim to disarm and then apply sanctions.

 

The community is such an insular little bizarro-universe that removing the Communist dictator may do more damage at this point than sanctioning him powerless, letting him die off, and then slowly integrating changes.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, a little war is probably inevitable, but not escalated into nuclear war, and not far enough war that he storm into Pyongyang and shoot Kim in the head.

You seem to have this fantasy that WE'D make it a nuclear war. The person who'd make it nuclear would be one Kim Jong-Il.

If we can get the surrounding powers on our side though, it would help.

A policy Bush was bashed for advocating in the campaign, mind you.

China and the US should be able to fight their way in enough to force Kim to disarm and then apply sanctions.

You know we've been trying that since Bush took office, right?

The community is such an insular little bizarro-universe that removing the Communist dictator may do more damage at this point than sanctioning him powerless, letting him die off, and then slowly integrating changes.

N. Korea has had a legitimate problem with mass starvation for MANY years now.

 

It hasn't changed anything.

 

What do you think can be done non-violently that will suddenly start to impact them?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

A policy Bush was bashed for advocating in the campaign, mind you.

And one place where I thought he had a more realistic picture of what's going on than the other guy did. Ditto Iran.

 

N. Korea has had a legitimate problem with mass starvation for MANY years now.

 

It hasn't changed anything.

 

What do you think can be done non-violently that will suddenly start to impact them?

Well, I wasn't suggesting we starve the beast in the most literal sense. But a castrated military with inspections of all weaponry that is attempted to be imported through the border would keep them from endangering the world until their nutcase leader dies.

 

Sanctions probably won't hurt the people of N Korea as it did in Iraq, because people are starving already. In Iraq, we have a bit of a personality problem because sanctions really did fuck things up for a lot of citizens and all they ever heard from Saddam was that they should blame the US & UN for it, which probably plays a small factor into why our welcome has involved more return fire than ticker-tape parades.

[Guest MikeSC]

N. Korea has had a legitimate problem with mass starvation for MANY years now.

 

It hasn't changed anything.

 

What do you think can be done non-violently that will suddenly start to impact them?

Well, I wasn't suggesting we starve the beast in the most literal sense. But a castrated military with inspections of all weaponry that is attempted to be imported through the border would keep them from endangering the world until their nutcase leader dies.

 

There is nothing we can do. Again, ANY money they get will go the military --- and we lack the heart to completely cut off their money. So, we're shafted. We won't cut them off entirely because we have a heart --- and we also know that all of the money will go to the military rather than the people.

 

As was the case with Iraq.

 

And if Kim Jong-Il has anything of even moderate value, we know he'll be able to bribe our continental European "allies".

 

I see nothing to indicate Kim would EVER allow inspectors. And if he refuses, we are stuck with the ugly two options:

1) Do nothing

2) Make him allow inspectors (read MILITARY ACTION)

Sanctions probably won't hurt the people of N Korea as it did in Iraq, because people are starving already. In Iraq, we have a bit of a personality problem because sanctions really did fuck things up for a lot of citizens and all they ever heard from Saddam was that they should blame the US & UN for it, which probably plays a small factor into why our welcome has involved more return fire than ticker-tape parades.

N. Korea is far more insulated. Kim controls EVERYTHING they see and hear --- and the N. Korean people are taught that America is, flat-out, evil.

 

Imagine if C-Bacon had an open forum --- N. Korea hears the kind of crap about the US that he'd utter.

 

And, for what it's worth, terrorist groups are having to go to Europe to recruit new members. Their pool of talent in the Middle East is drying up.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Mike, what I'm saying is that sanctions on Iraq and sanctions on N. Korea will be different.

 

Iraq wasn't just your usual desert country of sand dunes and guys riding camels from tent to tent. People drove decent cars. Women could show their face without men beating them down and blinding them in full-body cloth, etc. While you generally wanted to avoid doing anything that could draw the ire of the government for your own health, everything was rather modern.

 

Then sanctions happened, people weren't allowed to get decent cars anymore so they had to use parts of old cars to keep their cars on the road. People started getting hungry, and life took a decidedly downward note. Saddam, of course, told them to hate America for using sanctions, and a large number of them bought that rather than realize that if Saddam wasn't a maniac we wouldn't need sanctions.

 

N Korea is a different case. Life there sucks enough that sanctions can't really impact lives that much.

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, what I'm saying is that sanctions on Iraq and sanctions on N. Korea will be different.

 

Iraq wasn't just your usual desert country of sand dunes and guys riding camels from tent to tent. People drove decent cars. Women could show their face without men beating them down and blinding them in full-body cloth, etc. While you generally wanted to avoid doing anything that could draw the ire of the government for your own health, everything was rather modern.

 

Then sanctions happened, people weren't allowed to get decent cars anymore so they had to use parts of old cars to keep their cars on the road. People started getting hungry, and life took a decidedly downward note. Saddam, of course, told them to hate America for using sanctions, and a large number of them bought that rather than realize that if Saddam wasn't a maniac we wouldn't need sanctions.

 

N Korea is a different case. Life there sucks enough that sanctions can't really impact lives that much.

How can we make them "different"? How can make them in such a way that none of our alleged "allies" will end up being bribed?

 

I'd LOVE for diplomacy and sanctions to work with N. Korea.

 

I just have no reason to believe they will.

-=Mike