Canada and the Anti-Missile program

[B~E]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ile050222.html

Today, our PM, Paul Martin, announced that he will reject the missile defence system. Personally, even if I was in favor of this project, I am glad that for once we are ahead in our decisions, and didnt waited for the last minute.

I am in favor of this system because, a) M.A.D, (mutualy assured destruction), isn't an effective strategy that can be used to reason with islamic extremist groups, even if they manage to take over the government of their country, like it could very well be the case with pakistan.

B) Those islamic groups dont have bases or cities that can be aimed at in order to be destroyed. They move around. They are an ideology. An ideology that prone self-sacrifice for the good of their belief. You cannot take the chance of reasoning with an ennemy like this.

C) Finaly, assuming one day that a nuclear power launch its limited nuclear capacity at us, how our leader will be able to justify the fact that they didn't bothered to invest in a system that could have had prevent this, or at least helped limit de damages ? Why take the chance ?

[₪Zeratul₪]

Then you can let your people die by an "ideology"

[B~E]

I beg your pardon ?

[Red Sanctuary]

I believe the missile defense program is there to protect America should Canada be taken over. I don't think it has anything to do with warheads.

[amrtin77]

How exactly would an anti missile defense help us if Canada was.. taken over... Not to mention a force large enough to take over Canada would have a difficult time reaching Canada. Sattellites would easily pick up the force in the Atlantic or Pacific or wherever the hell it came from and we could take it out before it ever touched the coastline.

And I'm fairly certain that the United States has no intentions of invading Canada We'd be protecting ourselves from ourselves according to your assumption anyways... I better stop rambling, and just say I have no idea what your talking about. Please clarify.

[Tipsy]

I'm not sure if this is how the United States government sees it, but I would be happy if we got this anti-missile system up. Think about it, no matter how hard we try, the odds are we aren't going to be able to stop countries from developing nuclear weapons, look at North Korea as an example. If anything this is going to be helping the United States in the future when we no longer have the internation support, intelligence, and just public support to be able to stop countries that will not stop their nuclear programs by diplomacy, or even have their nuclear programs known to the international community at all.

As for the terrorists, your absolutely right that it won't help the United States (unless it is an odd case).

[Lizardbreath]

I think it is alright that canada didn't join the missle defense program. Who says every country has to do what the U.S wants it to do? The missle defense program is not even perfected yet. It has failed twice. So I can see why other country's don't want to join in.

[Snagg]

Paul Martin was an absolute idiot to reject the missle project.

It does not cost Canada a penny. The US is still going to go ahead with the project. At least if Canada was with the missle defence, Canada would be part of the planning. Now Canada doesn't know what the heck US is trying to do. It is completely stupid. The missles aren't even built in Canada territory. US is stilli going to shoot down missles whether we are part of the project or not.

[Kamikaze]

Originally Posted by Snagg

Paul Martin was an absolute idiot to reject the missle project.

It does not cost Canada a penny. The US is still going to go ahead with the project. At least if Canada was with the missle defence, Canada would be part of the planning. Now Canada doesn't know what the heck US is trying to do. It is completely stupid. The missles aren't even built in Canada territory. US is stilli going to shoot down missles whether we are part of the project or not.

do we really want to be associated with anything george bush is a part of?
why be drug down with the us into it's new cold war.

[Laharl]

I, for one, am glad that Canada stayed out, and I'll tell you why.

First of all, we are defending our reputation as peacekeepers - not fighters. Yes, it may be "free" (no money of ours goes into it) but it will be making hypocrites out of us, and that is far, far more expensive.

Second of all, it's doing horribly (statistically). There is less than a 1% accuracy record (so far), and those MISSiles don't vanish. They hit the water, and lots of unpleasantness occurs. Even worst is if they hit land.

[CelestialBadger]

Has an NMD test ever actually worked? I don't believe it has...

[Undead Cheese]

http://www.kauaiworld.com/articles/2...ews/news02.txt
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148677,00.html

First two sites a quick google brought up. These aren't the land-based ones, but it illustrates that having a missile shield isn't impractical. Five out of six is pretty damn good. And I believe the land-based interceptors are five for eight.

[B~E]

The shield missile program isn't that different from other anti-mikssile system like the Patrio misil, and they had a pretty good 90 % chance of hitting the target in action.

Dont forget, this is the early test. It isn't a good sign, but it doesnt mean they should quite now.

[CelestialBadger]

I wish I still had my NMD research paper. I think I deleted it. Anyway, here goes (please excuse typos, I'm typing these from periodicals):

No risk that terrorists will use WMD technology
Waltz, Kenneth N. Proffeser of Political Science Columbia University. 1995.
"If terrorists should unexpectedly decide to abandon tactics of disruption and harassment in favor of dealing in threats of wholesale death and destruction, instruments other than nuclear weapons are more easily available. Poisons are easier to get and use than nuclear weapons, and poisoning a city's water supply is more easily done than blowing the city up"

September 11 emperically proves.

Rouge State Missile Threats Don't Justify BMD
Harold Feiveson, Princeton University, The Nuclear Turning Point, 1999
"With respect to N. Korea, Iran, and Iraq, it is not clear how soon a combined threat to the United States from ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction could arise. However, the use of such weapons would be strongly deterred by the threat of retaliation."

Added into this, the entire theory of nuclear deterrence is ruined by an NMD. In the status quo countries are kept in check by the fear of retaliation. If a sucessful NMD were deployed, the threat to the "deployer" would be removed, giving them unprecedented hegemony. I'll go into the disadvantages of a United States hegemony later if anyone is interested. To expand on deterrence:

NMD Makes Deterrence Seem Less Necessary
Camille Grand, arms control analyst and lecturer, Institute in Studies of Politics, 2000
"NMD could also generate a false sence of security and create the illusion that deterrence is less necessary. It might be unwise to assure the public that it is protected from the dangers of WMD proliferation - and even less wise for a state to behave as if this were true - when a missile defense could be easily overcome simply by a larger number of missiles or by other means of delivery"

Also you haven't analyzed alternate causality. Refering back to my first piece of evidence, it would be much easier for a rouge nation/organization to attack with say...and airplane, or a dirty bomb. NMD only guards against ballistic missiles yet gives us a false sense of security. It effectively makes us less safe. And again, 9/11 empirically proves. Keep in mind that the only (correct me if I'm wrong) use of nuclear weapons has been initiated by the United States. So where are these "rogues"? And that segues nicely into:

NMD Has Opportunity Cost of Dealing With Alternative Threats
Andrew Sessler, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2000
"...deploying an NMD system would preclude the large expenditures required to defend against non-ICBM modes of delivery, while simultaneiously increasing the likelihood that an attacker would choose one of these alternative modes, then an NMD system would leave the United States more vulnerable to attack."

With spending estimated at one trillion dollars I'm sure there are better things we could be doing...

No Technology - All Tests Have Been Rigged
Timothy Snyder, historian, Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies, Philip Snyder, physicist, General Atomics, 2001
"No known technology could protect Americans from a missile attack. Every test so far has been rigged: even so, nearly every test has been a failure. Physicists largely agree that the technology to build effective [NMD] does not exist."

Granted, this statement is 4 years old, but it still calls into question the validity of testing.

And finally, Russia and China disadvanteges:

Russia and China Would Shift to Dangerous High Alert Status
James Lindsay and Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings, 2001
"Moscow and Beijing would likely retaliate against a decision to build robust defenses in ways that would reduce American security. They could put their missiles on hair-trigger alert, in the case of China, or keep them on high alert as Russia does today, to guard against the possibility of a surprise attack, meaning that the chances of accidental launch would be uncomfortably high. Both might also refuse to cooperate on issues that matter to Washington, such as taking further steps to secure Russia's poorly protected nuclear stockpiles and curbing nuclear and missile proliferation."

As a source I cited earlier states, against large barrages of missiles (such as those posessed by China and Russia) the NMD is useless. So how will increasing Russia/China missile alert keep us more safe? The answer, of course, is that it won't. Also cross apply the alternate causality argument brought up previously. Securing Russian nuclear stockpiles and reducing proliferation is the biggest step to decreasing the chance of nuclear terrorism (as much as I hate to quote Bush, both he AND Kerry admitted during debates that dirty bombs are one of the biggest terroristic threats in today's world). So why is spending a trillion dollars on something which may not even work, will increase global tension, increase nuclear proliferation, and not even solve for alternate causes of terrorist attacks a good idea? Again, the answer is that it's not.

[Snagg]

Originally Posted by Big-Fat-Homo

I, for one, am glad that Canada stayed out, and I'll tell you why.

First of all, we are defending our reputation as peacekeepers - not fighters. Yes, it may be "free" (no money of ours goes into it) but it will be making hypocrites out of us, and that is far, far more expensive.

Second of all, it's doing horribly (statistically). There is less than a 1% accuracy record (so far), and those MISSiles don't vanish. They hit the water, and lots of unpleasantness occurs. Even worst is if they hit land.

Err you're missing the point. If Canada stayed out. US will not stop the program because Canada doesn't agree... they just won't be at the planning table when a missle is there... therefore, will not know when a missle will hit near us. It is foolish to think if Canada stayed out, US will not continue with the missle program.

[CelestialBadger]

I'm never debating on a forum again.

[B~E]

NMD Makes Deterrence Seem Less Necessary
Camille Grand, arms control analyst and lecturer, Institute in Studies of Politics, 2000
"NMD could also generate a false sence of security and create the illusion that deterrence is less necessary. It might be unwise to assure the public that it is protected from the dangers of WMD proliferation - and even less wise for a state to behave as if this were true - when a missile defense could be easily overcome simply by a larger number of missiles or by other means of delivery"

But statisticly, according to the patriot missile defence system, at best a NMD would protect from a maximum of 90 % of attacks.
With that in mind, assuming a miscalculation happens and a country is indeed attacked by a large number of missiles, how can its leaders justify their renouncement, not their inability but indeed their pure and simple refusal,t, to protect its citizens when they had the chance to build a system that could have at least protected some of them ?

Also you haven't analyzed alternate causality. Refering back to my first piece of evidence, it would be much easier for a rouge nation/organization to attack with say...and airplane, or a dirty bomb. NMD only guards against ballistic missiles yet gives us a false sense of security. It effectively makes us less safe. And again, 9/11 empirically proves. Keep in mind that the only (correct me if I'm wrong) use of nuclear weapons has been initiated by the United States. So where are these "rogues"? And that segues nicely into:

NMD Has Opportunity Cost of Dealing With Alternative Threats
Andrew Sessler, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2000
"...deploying an NMD system would preclude the large expenditures required to defend against non-ICBM modes of delivery, while simultaneiously increasing the likelihood that an attacker would choose one of these alternative modes, then an NMD system would leave the United States more vulnerable to attack."

I do not understand your use of the term "more vulnerable" and "less vulnerable". How is it that to be totaly and completly vulnerable to an attack from missiles will discourage terrorists from using easier means ? If there is an easy, impossible to prevent mean of attacking the country, I dont see how total vulnerability will prevent this from happening.
Lets not forget here that the NMD is intended to deal with small nuclear powers who would be incitated to blackmail the USA by exploiting its total vulnerability window. It isn't meant to deal with group like Al Quaeda and events like 9/11.

With spending estimated at one trillion dollars I'm sure there are better things we could be doing...

With the likelihood of more and more nuclear powers emerging, this is still arguable. But a good point nevertheless.

No Technology - All Tests Have Been Rigged
Timothy Snyder, historian, Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies, Philip Snyder, physicist, General Atomics, 2001
"No known technology could protect Americans from a missile attack. Every test so far has been rigged: even so, nearly every test has been a failure. Physicists largely agree that the technology to build effective [NMD] does not exist."

Granted, this statement is 4 years old, but it still calls into question the validity of testing.

I'm certain that 4 years latter this is now debatable. We are still at the preleminary testing, so failiurs is still excusable. After all, do we quite karate at the first sign of problem ? Plus, this argument is refering to technological problem that will most likely be resolved with time, not the ethic or strategical worth of the program.

And finally, Russia and China disadvanteges:

Russia and China Would Shift to Dangerous High Alert Status
James Lindsay and Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings, 2001
"Moscow and Beijing would likely retaliate against a decision to build robust defenses in ways that would reduce American security. They could put their missiles on hair-trigger alert, in the case of China, or keep them on high alert as Russia does today, to guard against the possibility of a surprise attack, meaning that the chances of accidental launch would be uncomfortably high. Both might also refuse to cooperate on issues that matter to Washington, such as taking further steps to secure Russia's poorly protected nuclear stockpiles and curbing nuclear and missile proliferation."

Agreed.
But hey, China and Russia feeling of vulnerability is a good indication of the fesability of the project.

As a source I cited earlier states, against large barrages of missiles (such as those posessed by China and Russia) the NMD is useless. So how will increasing Russia/China missile alert keep us more safe? The answer, of course, is that it won't. Also cross apply the alternate causality argument brought up previously. Securing Russian nuclear stockpiles and reducing proliferation is the biggest step to decreasing the chance of nuclear terrorism (as much as I hate to quote Bush, both he AND Kerry admitted during debates that dirty bombs are one of the biggest terroristic threats in today's world). So why is spending a trillion dollars on something which may not even work, will increase global tension, increase nuclear proliferation, and not even solve for alternate causes of terrorist attacks a good idea? Again, the answer is that it's not.

China and Russia can be delt with with principle such as MAD. Emerging nuclear powers may not.

I wish I still had my NMD research paper. I think I deleted it. Anyway, here goes (please excuse typos, I'm typing these from periodicals):

No risk that terrorists will use WMD technology
Waltz, Kenneth N. Proffeser of Political Science Columbia University. 1995.
"If terrorists should unexpectedly decide to abandon tactics of disruption and harassment in favor of dealing in threats of wholesale death and destruction, instruments other than nuclear weapons are more easily available. Poisons are easier to get and use than nuclear weapons, and poisoning a city's water supply is more easily done than blowing the city up"

September 11 emperically proves.

Indeed, there are easier ways to cause mass destruction than by delivering a nuclear war head with an ICBM. Everyone will agree on that one.

Rouge State Missile Threats Don't Justify BMD
Harold Feiveson, Princeton University, The Nuclear Turning Point, 1999
"With respect to N. Korea, Iran, and Iraq, it is not clear how soon a combined threat to the United States from ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction could arise. However, the use of such weapons would be strongly deterred by the threat of retaliation."

Added into this, the entire theory of nuclear deterrence is ruined by an NMD. In the status quo countries are kept in check by the fear of retaliation. If a sucessful NMD were deployed, the threat to the "deployer" would be removed, giving them unprecedented hegemony. I'll go into the disadvantages of a United States hegemony later if anyone is interested. To expand on deterrence:

- Concerning the threat of retaliation as a detterent, MAD, this theory isn't aplicable anymore due to a group - muslims- who's most fervant militant truly believe that dying in the name of God is a good thing. 9/11 demonstrated how far they can go.
Now, I know that the current leaders of Pakistan, Iran, or, for the sake of conversation, Irak if they had nukes in early 90s, would have never used them to their full potential, because MAD is applicable to them.
But with the globalisation of nuclear material, coupled with fanatical militia present financed by Saudi Arabia and present in Pakistan, it is always possible that such a group can pull out a successful coup d'état, and change Pakistan into a fundamentalist state. And with Pakistant, they would win a formidable war machine who's fanatical leaders couldn't be dealt with principle such as MAD.

So my case agaisnt MAD boils down to the danger of a nuclear power faling into the hand of a fanatical group who do not have to fear retaliation. If you can counter this, I guess I have nothing else agaisnt it.

When your saying that it is bad that threat of retaliation doesn't exist in a country who has a working missile shield, what do you mean ? My guess on this is that it will increase the chance of the leaders of said country to do something really, really risky, which could be desastrous. Another pissibility is that like any other technology, a country with hostile intention will eventualy get its hand on it.


===

So all in all, my two main argument in favor of the shield is that the world will see an increased number of emerging nuclear powers, not all of them friendly or resonable. They might whant to coerce the United States by exploiting its window of total vulnerability.
Another argument is that as the leader of a democracy, how will you be able to justify to your citizen, in the event of a nuclear attack, that you refused to protect them. Not that you didn't have the will or the technology, but that you simply refused. I believe that our leaders have the moral duty to protect use whenever they have the opportunity. Unless of course its impossible and will only serve to waste trillions of dollars....

What I dont understand of your post is how a workable shield could be nefaste for the United States, and how is it that a "false" sense of security would automaticly arise and force us to do stupid mistakes. Is it right in this case to automaticly assum the worst of our leadership ?

Other than that, I dont see any reason that justify a NMD.

[amrtin77]

i dont see why there would be any ethical or moral problems wth the program whatsoever. if we can effectively put up a sheild against missiles, we arent hurting anyone. we are simply protecting ourselves from possible nuclear attacks. and if canada is sitting out only because they feel we are trying to "bully them into it" then they need to reconsider their choice. what would it hurt? its not like were putting nukes in canadian territory, we were asking if they wanted in on the discussions of a sheild from nuclear warheads.

whether or not it wil prove possible to consistantly hit and eliminate threats in the form of missiles is still queastionable. but this is not a moral problem, its a money problem. do we want to invest so much money into something we are not sure will work? how sure are we that it will work?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7143660/

the problems seem to be programming errors, or easily fixed problems. its just trial and error. if it doesnt work, find out why, and fix it. you may find another problem, keep fixing the problems you find. eventually you will ahve a working anti missile program, and i think that would be very good. no one wants to see san diego or LA or san fransisco to get wiped off the planet, that would kill alot of people. but why canada would not want to be part of the talks is beyond me. i think thats pretty childish.

[CelestialBadger]

I'll finish this thread and then stop debating. Only because this is an issue that I feel prepared to debate.

i dont see...

Did you read the entire thread...?
B~E: The first two points that you addressed aren't meant to be attacked seperately. First piece of evidence explains that the NMD gives us a false sense of security, and the second expands upon that by explaining alternate causality. The evidence that terrorists don't use conventional nuclear weapons expands on alternate causality. Basically the argument is that our biggest threats are non-conventional methods of delivery, yet we give ourselves a sense of security by preparing for conventional methods. Hence the questioning of spending trillions of dollars on something that won't protect us from our real threats. What is one trillion dollars of progress towards non-proliferation? We'll never know.

China and Russia can be delt with with principle such as MAD.

Wrong. As stated, MAD doesn't work if the US develops the NMD and it makes a preemptive strike more imminent.

Concerning the threat of retaliation as a detterent, MAD, this theory isn't aplicable anymore due to a group - muslims- who's most fervant militant truly believe that dying in the name of God is a good thing. 9/11 demonstrated how far they can go.

So you're conceding that there are easier ways for rogue nations or terrorist organizations to deliver "mass destruction" but you're saying that they would choose ICBMs anyway?

What I dont understand of your post is how a workable shield could be nefaste for the United States, and how is it that a "false" sense of security would automaticly arise and force us to do stupid mistakes. Is it right in this case to automaticly assum the worst of our leadership ?

Yes, I am, but that has nothing to do with the validity of my arguments. Are you telling me that our leaders would say something like "Look, America. We're preparing to install a National Missile Defense shield. It probably won't protect us against our self-admitted biggest threat of nuclear terrorism, and you won't feel any more secure once we install the shield." Of course a false sense of security will arise.