[Rev_Blair]

The Canadian physicists have just weighed in on Paul Martin's apparent willingness to allow Bush's insane Star Wars crap on our soil. The Star

[Indelible]

i can't agree more.

now what we need is the other people in canada to speak up.

[Rev_Blair]

Check on-line, Indelible...there are plenty of petitions going around and a couple of form letters to the PMO. You can write your letter too. The addresses/e-mails of your MP and the PMO are easily available.

[Rosco]

I don't see what's wrong with a limited missle defence system, and I don't see why basing components of a system here would put us at increased risk. This is a defensive system designed to stop nuclear tipped ICBMs no less than the Avro Arrow was designed to nuclear armed bombers.

[AdamNF]

Missle defence doesnt work, never has.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

AdamNF AdamNF:

Missle defence doesnt work, never has.

Of course it never will either when you have idiot Russians working to do everything they can to make sure the American missile defense system doesn't work. Did you hear the news about how Russia is working on or has created missiles that they say would make the missile defense system never work. Let's just hope that missile defense does work someday....

[Short]

What they are negotiating isn't Star Wars, it is a much more practical, and less ambitious plan. Basically, it would consist of long range radar sites.

[nonrev]

When the technology has risen (?) to the point that a small nuclear device can be made about the same size as the monitor you are looking at, then incoming Missles are not what the western world should be looking to defeat - it's the guy with an overly fat briefcase you should be worrying about...
remember, thats how the Germans almost got Hitler in July of 1944; just an innocent briefcase under a table.

[Rev_Blair]

$1:

What they are negotiating isn't Star Wars, it is a much more practical, and less ambitious plan. Basically, it would consist of long range radar sites.

Actually it is the first step of a space-based weapons program, Short. The first phase doesn't include that, but the US government has made it very clear that their long-term plan for the program does.

The Martin government has been skirting that issue, denying it exists even while they release statements against the weaponisation of space. The problem is that the US is very clear on where this is going.

It also is neither practical nor unambitious. Physicists keep saying that it won't work very well if at all. It addresses a minimal threat with a maximum response because, as nonrev pointed out, briefcases are easier to carry.

[AdamNF]

During the first gulf war, and the second the patriot missile shot down a total of two enemy missiles and shot down 4 friendly planes I think. I know the patriot is a little different but the technology is all base on the same thing.

[Rosco]

Radiological devices are extremely easy to detect, a small handheld unit as used by the U.S. Coast Guard can detect a small amount of radioactive material buried inside of a supertanker just by travelling past in a runabout, and that was for older technology detectors appearantly. I think it would be a lot tougher to smuggle in one of those suitcases in than it seems, also only a handful of nations have the know-how to produce small nuclear devices like that.

The Patriot didn't do well against ballistic missles because it originally had inherent limitations designed into it NOT to do too well against that type of target, so it wouldn't be seen as being in violation of the ABM Treaty.

When the Soviets were designing their equivalent system, the S-300, they designed it so it would be as effective as possible against ballistic missles and some versions of the S-300 may well be in violation of the Treaty.

The thing I'd be most worried about is a cruise missle.

[AdamNF]

60 minutes did a special on the patriot system how it its a total failure and has never worked but they still pump billions into the program.

[Rev_Blair]

It doesn't have to be a tiny nuclear device though Rosco. It can be individual components for a larger, simpler device. It can be parts of a dirty bomb. You can float one in on a tanker and destroy New York from the harbour. Those are all, according to the world's intelligence agencies, far more likely scenarios then an open and easily traceable attack. The concept of MAD still works.

[Rosco]

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

It doesn't have to be a tiny nuclear device though Rosco. It can be individual components for a larger, simpler device. It can be parts of a dirty bomb. You can float one in on a tanker and destroy New York from the harbour. Those are all, according to the world's intelligence agencies, far more likely scenarios then an open and easily traceable attack. The concept of MAD still works.

That's the thing, ships are now scanned before they enter a major harbor, especially New York Harbor I would imagine. A ship comiing in with a bomb on board would very likely be sunk or boarded quite quickly.

Like I said I would be more worried about someone launching a cruise missle from hundreds of miles away from the sea or from the land in a neighbouring country, cruise missles are hard to defend against and the technology is now widely enough available that all but the most backward states could manage to build one.

What's more is that unlike ballistic missles, cruise missles can be derived from readily available weapons that don't raise much suspiscion, for example the Israelis slightly modified a common antiship missle {one that's available to the likes of Iran, among others} and turned it into a nuclear cruise missle.

[Johnnybgoodaaaaa]

The patriot system might be a failure, but I remember seeing something about using a laser. The US has something that shoots a laser that is capable of blowing missles apart, or they are working on it I think. Only problem is that after 1 shot the laser overheats....