[Thematic-Device]

Scape Scape:

Missile Defense

* is a system that does not function

Debatable, there have been many admirable successes, enough to warrant Japan and South Korea to sign on.

$1:

* could be easily cheated by fake targets

It isn't designed to take on russia, it's designed to defend against North Korea. And North Korea doesn't have the money to create countermeasures.

$1:

* is useless against cheap kind of attacks like 9/11 or from cruise missiles fired from sea

Thats what the PAC-3 is for

$1:

* is useless against new Russian ICBM developments

It wasn't designed to work against russian ICBMs in the first place.

[Yank-in-NY]

grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:

The watch officer is a far cry from being in command. As an example, every Land Force HQ has a General who commands the forces in his area and everyone from the Brigade CO to the Duty Officer in charge in the Generals absence is ultimately under his command. Don't get me wrong, I don't think a Canadian deserves to head the program.

I think a Canadian is both trained and has the know how to head the program quite efficiently. I have no problem with it. Whether a Canadian or American officer is at the helm I sleep just fine. Duty officer is in command, anything short of launching a nuclear missile, Ibelieve they have alot of authority to act as they see fit.

[Wullu]

Yank-in-NY Yank-in-NY:

grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:

The watch officer is a far cry from being in command. As an example, every Land Force HQ has a General who commands the forces in his area and everyone from the Brigade CO to the Duty Officer in charge in the Generals absence is ultimately under his command. Don't get me wrong, I don't think a Canadian deserves to head the program.

I think a Canadian is both trained and has the know how to head the program quite efficiently. I have no problem with it. Whether a Canadian or American officer is at the helm I sleep just fine. Duty officer is in command, anything short of launching a nuclear missile, Ibelieve they have alot of authority to act as they see fit.

I believe the Canadian 2IC has all the duties of the CINC and that includes being the second man in the two man rule for a nuclear release if the CINC is unavailable or incapcitated. Not sure what exactly the powers are of the watch officer. Have to ask my winger that just got posted back from there.

[Scape]

Yank-in-NY Yank-in-NY:

Scape Scape:

So your assuming this will not have a cost for Canada now or in the future. Used Car salesmen must see you miles away because you have no clue what a lemon this is.

I'm not assuming anything. There wasn't going to be anything stationed in Canada, didn't ask for financial participation and if anything, the Cold War didn't cost you a dime. Why would missile defense? It's foolish of you to make presumptions based on your bias. Good or bad the US is proceeding with the program, and Canada, as usual is on the sidelines, which is fine, you need money for your social programs, better spend it there than missile defense. But spreading false rumors around doesn't help anyone.

Report links Alaska rail to military

$1:

The link, which has been debated for years, would require 1,150 miles of new track, from the current Alaska railroad terminus near Alaska's Eielson Air Force Base to Fort St. John or Fort Nelson in northeastern British Columbia. Those two cities are already linked to Canada's national railroad system.

It would enhance support of missile-defense interceptor silos being built at Fort Greeley in Alaska, and missile-tracking radar on Shemya, one of the Aleutian Islands, says the report by Charles River Associates, prepared for the Yukon Territory provincial government and obtained by the Associated Press.

The railroad, costing $1.15-billion to $2.3-billion, would allow Washington to develop an Alaskan port to station up to three missile defense ships in the northern Pacific, outside Korean territorial waters, the report said.

So, here we have a prime example of the backdoor cost of BMD for Canada and the province of BC. Now we know just how treacherous commercial rail is in BC So you can imagine having US military convoys carrying potential nuclear, biological or chemical weapons through the BC rockies. Not to mention the need for extra security as this will attract terrorists like flies on shit. Do we really want to attract attacks vs the US on our own soil? This will be a bonafide US military target.

We are a part of NORAD and NATO so the idea that we are needed for BMD is laughable at best. We already are freely giving the US any and all information we gather from our surveillance of a missile threat.

BMD is a political not a strategic purchase and it comes at a cost of sovereignty and control over foreign policy. All the while supporting with a blank check the ideals of unchecked militarism as it will grant the US an unprecedented 1st strike capability. BMD needs more countries to sign on in order to maintain the contracts they have for now and long in to the future and will espouse the ideals of throwing good money after bad as a means to keep the contracts coming. It is in that way that if we sign on now there will be a heavy toll in future.

[gideon]

Scape Scape:

BMD is a political not a strategic purchase and it comes at a cost of sovereignty and control over foreign policy.

You gave up your sovereignity and control over foreign policy the moment you decided to reduce your military to its pitiful present-day levels.

$1:

All the while supporting with a blank check the ideals of unchecked militarism as it will grant the US an unprecedented 1st strike capability.

What's wrong with that?

The canadian people who voted tonight understand what you liberals don't: if you side with the US, you will be safe, secure, and prosperous. United we thrive; divided you perish.

[craigsmith2002]

I only have two words to say about missile defense when it comes to the United States and Canada together --> CANADIAN BACON! Yeah people. Ive been in the USA for 6 years now, they really are that ignorant about this kind of thing. Believe it, or prove me wrong.

[Scape]

$1:

You gave up your sovereignty and control over foreign policy the moment you decided to reduce your military to its pitiful present-day levels.

I had what to do with that? NOTHING.

I was one of those Canadians who voted. I don't take to being told what to think especially by the 'with us or against us' ideologues. Am I a terrorist for not wanting a huge bullseye being painted over CN rail in my province? Is it too much to ask that some form of accountability be used? This has done more to show the US is more a menace to itself and others than a protector.

[gideon]

Scape Scape:

I don't take to being told what to think especially by the 'with us or against us' ideologues.

I guess you voted for "against us."

Thank God your side lost.

[Yank-in-NY]

Scape Scape:

Yank-in-NY Yank-in-NY:

Scape Scape:

So your assuming this will not have a cost for Canada now or in the future. Used Car salesmen must see you miles away because you have no clue what a lemon this is.

I'm not assuming anything. There wasn't going to be anything stationed in Canada, didn't ask for financial participation and if anything, the Cold War didn't cost you a dime. Why would missile defense? It's foolish of you to make presumptions based on your bias. Good or bad the US is proceeding with the program, and Canada, as usual is on the sidelines, which is fine, you need money for your social programs, better spend it there than missile defense. But spreading false rumors around doesn't help anyone.

Report links Alaska rail to military

$1:

The link, which has been debated for years, would require 1,150 miles of new track, from the current Alaska railroad terminus near Alaska's Eielson Air Force Base to Fort St. John or Fort Nelson in northeastern British Columbia. Those two cities are already linked to Canada's national railroad system.

It would enhance support of missile-defense interceptor silos being built at Fort Greeley in Alaska, and missile-tracking radar on Shemya, one of the Aleutian Islands, says the report by Charles River Associates, prepared for the Yukon Territory provincial government and obtained by the Associated Press.

The railroad, costing $1.15-billion to $2.3-billion, would allow Washington to develop an Alaskan port to station up to three missile defense ships in the northern Pacific, outside Korean territorial waters, the report said.

So, here we have a prime example of the backdoor cost of BMD for Canada and the province of BC. Now we know just how treacherous commercial rail is in BC So you can imagine having US military convoys carrying potential nuclear, biological or chemical weapons through the BC rockies. Not to mention the need for extra security as this will attract terrorists like flies on shit. Do we really want to attract attacks vs the US on our own soil? This will be a bonafide US military target.

We are a part of NORAD and NATO so the idea that we are needed for BMD is laughable at best. We already are freely giving the US any and all information we gather from our surveillance of a missile threat.

BMD is a political not a strategic purchase and it comes at a cost of sovereignty and control over foreign policy. All the while supporting with a blank check the ideals of unchecked militarism as it will grant the US an unprecedented 1st strike capability. BMD needs more countries to sign on in order to maintain the contracts they have for now and long in to the future and will espouse the ideals of throwing good money after bad as a means to keep the contracts coming. It is in that way that if we sign on now there will be a heavy toll in future.

You sound like a Mel Hurtig sub-culturalist. He has written some great "fiction" stuff.

[BeaverBill]

gideon gideon:

Scape Scape:

I don't take to being told what to think especially by the 'with us or against us' ideologues.

I guess you voted for "against us."

Thank God your side lost.

The losing side equates to 64% of Canadians. The conservative side, the minority, 36%. They don't reflect all Canadian views, but do reflect just over a third of Canadian's views. The rest don't agree.

[Wullu]

BeaverBill BeaverBill:

The losing side equates to 64% of Canadians. The conservative side, the minority, 36%. They don't reflect all Canadian views, but do reflect just over a third of Canadian's views. The rest don't agree.

And 2 years ago 63% did not agree with the liberals. Your point?

[gideon]

BeaverBill BeaverBill:

The losing side equates to 64% of Canadians. The conservative side, the minority, 36%. They don't reflect all Canadian views, but do reflect just over a third of Canadian's views. The rest don't agree.

The most powerful man in Canada is now a Conservative, and you're claiming that the party lost?! Au contraire my friend, this is the beginning of the end for the Liberals. The Canadian people have seen the light.

[bootlegga]

gideon gideon:

I guess you voted for "against us."

Thank God your side lost.

If Jesus was alive today, he would be a liberal, not a conservative...

[Yank-in-NY]

bootlegga bootlegga:

gideon gideon:

I guess you voted for "against us."

Thank God your side lost.

If Jesus was alive today, he would be a liberal, not a conservative...

Yep, he was a Liberal.

He would feed the people fish as opposed to teaching them how to fish for themselves (he's done it before, what the heck).

and

He would also reiterate "love the enemy", actually implying to neglect the military.

and

He would take from the rich (expropriate) and give to the poor (social programs)

Yep, sounds pretty Liberal to me.

[Wullu]

Yank-in-NY Yank-in-NY:

bootlegga bootlegga:

gideon gideon:

I guess you voted for "against us."

Thank God your side lost.

If Jesus was alive today, he would be a liberal, not a conservative...

Yep, he was a Liberal.

He would feed the people fish as opposed to teaching them how to fish for themselves (he's done it before, what the heck).

and

He would also reiterate "love the enemy", actually implying to neglect the military.

and

He would take from the rich (expropriate) and give to the poor (social programs)

Yep, sounds pretty Liberal to me.