It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Canada opts out of U.S. missile defense - poll

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Article

OK, Canada has made their feelings known. Now, in the following hypothetical situation:

A missile (may be nuclear) launched from a rogue state is detected heading towards Canada (guidance was faulty). What should the U.S. do?

A) Shoot the missile down
B) Just let it go
C) Ask Canada what they want us to do (not much time to decide)
D) Pretend we tried and missed (damn!)



[edit on 2/25/2005 by centurion1211]




posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
The Demand For Defenselessness


Originally posted by centurion1211
A missile (may be nuclear) launched from a rogue state is detected heading towards Canada (guidance was faulty). What should the U.S. do?

Based on what I have read about Prime Minister Martin's position, I believe he would choose Option C: Ask Canada what they want us to do, so I'll go with what the PM wants.

The reasoning behind the stance doesn't make a lick of sense to me. There is already an arms race, and space will be weaponized whether Canada, the U.S. or anyone else likes it or not.

Canadians may also want to consider their place in a nuclear strategy that they may not like, but may affect them anyway. Canada is a major U.S. trade partner.

Damage to Canada's economy would have grave consequences for the U.S., and would cripple our economy at a bad time: right after a nuclear attack.

If Canada is not shielded, a rogue state could accomplish a great deal of harm to the U.S. by simply bombing Canada's major cities. What would Canada do, retaliate?

As an American, I'm concerned by this decision on Canada's part. If I was a Canadian, I would be outraged.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   
Let it hit Canada, its the only way to open the eyes of a close minded liberal. Unless its heading for Western Canada, who voted for the Conservative Party which supported the missle defence 100% but lacked enough seats to take on the liberals & NDP combined.
Don't listen to Dues-Ex or Sardion2000, they need serious psychological help for their growing mental dis-order of "liberal la la land the world is a warm & fuzzy place" condition.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:25 PM
link   
See, I MUST be a liberal if I'm not a conservative. No, battoche, I'm a centrist. I've got a better idea than investing in a missile shield that will, in all odds, never be used. How about we encourage development and investment from OTHER foreign powers? Why not distance ourselves from that southern bullet magnet? We would take a hit because NAFTA turned us into a parasite on the back of America, but I'm sure that with a few incentives, the Chinese, Russians, and Europeans could be drawn into investing in Canada. See, then everyone wins!

DE



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 05:27 PM
link   
My BattleofBatoche, could you get any more childish .... Instead of trying to back up anything you say with anything approaching a rational argument
Keep it up



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:13 PM
link   
No country would ever see to launch a missile attack against canada, so I sure as hell don't want to waste my tax dollars on such a bloated penny squeezing project. I just don't see how this concerns canada. But in the unlikely event that a missile finds itself flying over canada on a collision course with the states, then by all means, shoot her down .



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by centurion1211
A missile (may be nuclear) launched from a rogue state is detected heading towards Canada (guidance was faulty). What should the U.S. do?


That's a pretty long shot, it would be more accurate if a missle was intended for the States and happened to find it's way to Canada.


In which case, we don't stress. If a missle is off course, no problem. It'll has a 99% chance of landing no where near a populated area.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:38 PM
link   

as mentioned by Intrepid
That's a pretty long shot, it would be more accurate if a missle was intended for the States and happened to find it's way to Canada.


If I am not mistaken, the reference could imply a/an ICBM/missile that is traveling or has to travel (flight path) through Canadian airspace to strike the US.





seekerof



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:40 PM
link   
First of all you will not let it go, unless you can determine its trajectory is so off course that fallout on America is not likely. But let us say that is the case anyway, that it was way off target, leave it alone.

We may not like the fact that we have been erroneously bombed, but as with that mantra sounded so often by America as in when our soldiers in Afghanistan were at the receiving end of a 500lb bomb, or Brit fighters were patriotized,...oops accidents happen. At least this one would have logic behind it. Diplomatic messaging would be swift, and if Canada determines it was a mistake, then it was a mistake. We have a choice at that time to decide which side we will back.

The other choices are dependent on many factors.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
If I am not mistaken, the reference could imply a/an ICBM/missile that is traveling or has to travel (flight path) through Canadian airspace to strike the US.



seekerof


Yup, you're right. And this relates to another soveriegn countries policy? How?

Starting to sound like the USSR.


Damn, now I know how people in the Ukraine felt during the Cold War. Not OUR war but............. #, we're implecated.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
I understand how Canada's stance can be frustrating to Americans, but consider this...

The U.S. is asking us to go along with what is basically a fait accompli - it'll happen whether we agree or not. So the question is, do we condone it or not? Sovereignty demands that Canada make its own decision, and at this point it's much more a stand on principle than anything else.

But deciding that we don't agree with the missile defense project, if it doesn't change the outcome - that the system will be there - also doesn't mean that we forfeit whatever sovereignty we have on our airspace. I believe that's the concept Paul Martin is defending - that no matter whether Canada goes along with the U.S.' project or not, it changes nothing to the fact that any use of Canadian airspace should be made in consultation with Canada.

I know that the stance "We won't support missile defense, but we want to be consulted when the U.S. wants to use our airspace for it" sounds strange, but how does the stance "If you don't support our missile defense system, we're going to start using your airspace whether you like it or not" sound?



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:48 PM
link   
.
.
.
If a missile was headed towards Canada, which is hughly unlikely there is a system already in place that actually works.


NORAD North American Missile Defense Home Page



.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:55 PM
link   
Umm, NORAD is an American venture with Canadian assistance. Also, NORAD is a early warning radar detection system, not a ICBM/missile shield. NORAD uses fighters to intercept other nations bombers and fighters, as indicated in the link when it mentions "enforcing control of the skies over the United States and Canada", not ICBM/missiles.





seekerof

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Its a good move. Canada distances itself from the controversial (to some) missile shield yet will sleep well knowing that any missile lobbed in the direction of North America will get knocked down my the system.

No the U.S. will not allow a rouge missile to strike Canada. Aside from the political fallout of such an event, its the right thing to do. Not to mention any strike in Canada has the potential to contaminate huge tracts of both countries depending on winds and yield etc.

Now, what if its a transpolar shot? And the U.S. missiles shoot it out of the sky but the material falls and contaminates Canadian soil?

So the declination to participates makes perfect sense to me, Don't have to pay a high monetary and political cost, but enjoys the benefits.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:13 PM
link   

as posted by Intrepid
Yup, you're right. And this relates to another soveriegn countries policy? How?

Starting to sound like the USSR.


Wow. Didn't realize I hit a nerve so hard by making a clarification that it prompted you to then curse...sorry, Intrepid.

As was discussed previously here:
Canada to reject missile defence

Concerning Canadian air space sovereignty, its a matter of a hostile nation sending ICBM/missiles to hit the US through Canadian air space. As such:

as posted by seekerof
Does Canada or Mr. Martin wish notification/consultation before it is intercepted over Canadian territory or after a US intercept is in progress?

(posted on 24-2-2005 at 09:35 PM).

You are well aware that the US will look to intercept such incoming missiles before they detonate. That being the case, an intercept would and could take place over Canada. You also are aware that the missile shield would have not cost Canada "a dime," again as quoted in the link above. You are then further aware that most of Canada's major sities are within 150-200 miles of the US and its northern cities. The US will have no choice but to protect Canada, whether she joins in or not on this venture. Why? Because it is in the US's best interest to do so. This, too, Canada and Martin is aware of, despite many Canadian's not mentioning this or knowing it. Its like getting something that you never paid into for, and hey, thats cool, is it not? Protection for free. Goal accomplished.




seekerof

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Umm, NORAD is an American venture with Canadian assistance. Also, NORAD is a early warning radar detection system, not a ICBM/missile shield. NORAD uses fighters to intercept other nations bombers and fighters, as indicated in the link when it mentions "enforcing control of the skies over the United States and Canada", not ICBM/missiles.






The fighters are equipped to intercept missiles. I've talked to numerous people wo've observed the tests and training runs, which purportedly occur daily. Most recently, a tradesman described to me this week tests he had witnessed.



.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Our Prime Minister's position - if one could even call it that - is ridiculous. He stated over a year ago that he was in favour of participating. And it should be obvious that if we are any kind of friend or ally to the US that we should help them to be more secure. In addition, by allowing the US to protect itself, Canada gains protection as well.

You can argue whether the system is necessary or if it will work, but that doesn't affect the decision of whether to act as an ally or not.

Martin's stand is solely due to political/polling considerations because 1. he leads a minority government and 2. for some reason the Canadian public became infected with the European anti-Iraq disease and so now opposes anything remotely to do with the US military - whether it makes sense or not. In fact, Martin's decision is a mark of political cowardice, because he won't defend what he himself believes. Its a failure of leadership.

To really point up the deceit, our new embassador to Washington just the other day publicly admitted that the Canadian Government had already provided most, if not all, the cooperation the US needed through NORAD.

The argument about sovereignty is a red herring. Requiring consultation when a missile is minutes from target simply will not happen, and Martin knows it. The US will defend itself - with us or without us. We'd gain far more respect for ourselves and our sovereignty by recognizing the reality of the situation.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:21 PM
link   
soficrow

Im not sure where you are getting that? The F-15's based in Alaska are equiped with the ESRA radar that can be used for cruise missiles as will the F-22 Raptor and the F/A-18 E when it gets the radar as well. At one time the F-15 had a limited Anti-Satelite capacity as well. However, nothing that NORAD has can intercept an ICBM at this stage in the game other than the interceptors at Ft. Greely and Vandenberg. THAAD has some promise but is still waaaay in the developmental stage. The 747 laser project is behing schedule and has not fired at a target as of yet either.

[edit on 2/25/05 by FredT]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:22 PM
link   
And what you refer to is still in the experimental and testing phases, soficrow. Fact. Just like the missile shield program. The difference is that those fighter missiles you speak of will come out of your pockets. The missile shield would not have costed you "a dime" (as linked to the article in my last posting). Furthermore, no missiles would have been on your soil.

You want to rely on fighter missiles to intercept incoming ICBM's/missile's, do so. Thier percent to destroy is nearly less than that of the current missile shield program, till the advent of laser usage. As stated previosuly, it does not matter anyhow, Canada is and will be covered because it is in the best interests of the US to protect Canada. To top it all off, its all free. What a bargain, eh?




seekerof

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexofSkye
Our Prime Minister's position - if one could even call it that - is ridiculous. He stated over a year ago that he was in favour of participating.


yup...

April 27, 2003: "I certainly don't want to see Canada isolated from any moves that the United States might take to protect the continent. If there are going to be missiles that are going off over Canadian airspace ... I think that we want to be at the table" before that happens. — Paul Martin, CTV News

May 10, 2003: "I think our sovereignty depends on us being at the table when discussions are taking place about the defence of North America. I don't think that for us to live in some silo away from that would make sense. ...But that also doesn't mean there shouldn't be a national debate on the issue." — Martin, after a leadership debate in Whitehorse

May 10, 2003: "This is not Star Wars nor is it Star Trek. This is in fact a land-based missile system. And it's important that Canada be at the table when it fact the examination is being done. But ... I do not believe that important policy such as this should be taken unless there is the full input of Canadians from every part of the country and that all points of view are felt." — Martin in Whitehorse

May 12, 2003: "This is a land-based or sea-based missile system that the Americans are talking about. Our sovereignty as a nation means we've got to be at the table. We've got to make sure nobody is sending missiles over Canadian airspace to protect land somewhere else." — Martin, Vancouver town hall


more

[edit on 25-2-2005 by parrhesia]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join