POLITICS: US Threatens Canada's Airspace: Ignores International Law

*sits in his duck blind and wonders how long it's gonna take for the yanks to get here cuz it's getting pretty damn chilly and that Lee Enfield is heavy*

*watches a moose walk by*

*bob is shifting around cuz he wants to start a fire, but Steve won't let him cuz he figures the marines are almost here*

*suspiciously eyes the contrails from a 737 flying outa T-dot*

Deus,

By many accounts on this thread and the near identical other one, many have said Canada is already a target because of the United States. So how would the missile shield make you a bigger one?

People are confusing this with the Reagan era system which envisioned a total shield from a massive Russian attack. Brilliant Pebbles, particle beams et al.

The current systems is really only going to protect against a rouge state like North Korea. Even China with its limited number of ICBM's would saturate the system.

In that context I fail to see how it makes Canada a bigger target??? If Kim lofts a missile I doubt highly that it is headed for Vancouver eh? SF, LA, San Diego, and Seattle are move liekly targets as the U.S. as you all assert is the 800 pound gorilla here.

The other aspect that people are forgetting a nuke popped off anywhere in Noreth America, be it Canada or the US is going to effect the other to an extent with fallout etc.

Originally posted by FredT
Okay guys which is it????

I don't know about anyone else in this thread(as I have not the time nor patients to read the whole dam thing) but I have been pretty consistant in my reasoning for opposing this system.

1. Morally and Ethically I am opposed to the weaponization of space

2. It would be useless in the zero sum game of Mutually Assured Destruction AND it could easily be defeated through the use of dummy missiles even by "rogue" states.

and

3. it is a distraction on the War on Terror bleeding funds away that could have been used to further debilitate Al Queda and possibly catch Bin Laden, or is that off the table now?

[edit on 26-2-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 26-2-2005 by sardion2000]

Hmmm how is it weaponizing space? The interceptor is based in silos in Alaska and California. The interception takes place outside of the atmosphere that is true, but there are no explosives on the intercepts hence the term kinetic kill.

If you are defingin the passage of US interceptors into space as weaponizing space, then we have been there for years as almost every ICBM must travel through space to get to its target. Also of note, the AIM-54 also skirts the top of the atmosphere on the way to its target.

Originally posted by sardion2000
2. It would be useless in the zero sum game of Mutually Assured Destruction AND it could easily be defeated through the use of dummy missiles even by "rogue" states.

Do you know this? Amazing how people are so sure that Crazy Kim and his merry band can build an effective counter, just as sure that the United States cannot make the system work or adapt to the fake targets etc.

Yes getting OBL and the war on terrorism is important, but so is what is going on in North Korea etc. Take you eye off of one ball is a good way to get clobbered by the other eh?

Common FredT. You of all people know the USA is working towards Global Reach capabilities, and that includes space based weaponry. I find it hard to believe that this "Star Wars" program is not looking at deploying Space Based lasers like during the Reagan era.

I agree the first stages are only ground based, but the ultimate goal is to Weaponize space, its pretty obvious to me at least.

EDIT: Fighting 2 battles at once is also a good way at getting blindsided too....

[edit on 26-2-2005 by sardion2000]

Originally posted by Phoenix
Yeah, study your own map a bit more and you might just notice the 100 degree longitude at the top right over Russia and then work your way left where that same 100 degree longitude comes down over Canada - that is the shortest distance for a missile flight. (over the north pole)

No you study it! You can stand on the shores of Alaska and wave hello to the Russians 3 miles across the way. It doesn't take a genius to understand that they know Alaska would have to be nuked to take out your installations, but maybe you think they would be doing so from the western end of Russia. Furthermore, you're sitting up there in your Greenland bases, if Russia were to launch over the Acrtic, and missiles heading to D.C come into Canadian airspace, your Greenland and your Alaskan installations have failed to protect you. Finally regarding Russia, if they decide to unleash their thousands of nukes, you'll be meeting your maker even with anti-missile shields set up on every Canadian street corner.

It was convenient for you to choose Russia because you think they are somehow threatening you to this day. So why did you choose to forget Korea and China sitting just mere degrees longitude of NY or D.C? What possible reason would they have to launch missiles over the Arctic to get to you? And by the time any of them cross into Canada, they would have travelled through U.S territory or be travelling over open water heading for your your coast.

Originally posted by namehere
being that canada is part of norad, any threat coming over canadian territory automatically is our responsibility if canada cant handle it, unless you want to violate our defense agreements by denying our access in such a situation as an icbm coming?

Really? So what happens when some trigger happy person misreads the data, fires and shoots down a non-hostile aircraft? It is not like this has not already happened the Brits can attest to picking up the pieces of their fighter, just as we have a few dead soldiers for such mistakes.

You just don't get it do you? Canada has no enemies, but you do, many, and every single one of them is because they see you as aggressive and a threat. Canada does not need to become their enemy also just because your government is busy scaring the bejesus out of you. Rather than continue this aggression and make more enemies, try the olive branch and make allies.

To place those systems in Canada will mean that Canada has relinquished control of her soverign space, because I can guarantee you that the person making the decision to press the button will not be a Canadian, we will have no say. And as I have said before, there is no stopping the annhilation of North america if Russia decides to launch, so to argue for an anti-missile shield using them is pointless.

The ungodly truth behind this whole issue is that the U.S wants to build this massive protective shield everywhere it can in the hopes that it would be so tight not a damn country it decides to attack would have a counter. and just as the U.S will launch over us anyway, so too will Russia launch its anti-missiles over Canada. In other words, Canad will be annhilated by our allies. So does this mean because we have no beef with them either, we have to give them the right to install their defense in the Queen Elizabeth Islands?

I can well imagine how our so-called ally to the south would yell and scream and rant and rave if Canada were to decide to get into the nuclear arms race. You would be bemoaning the fact that we are no longer a nation of peace.

I do not have access to a globe but looking at a world map it appears that the only 2 countries that would have nukes fly over Canada to attack the US would be Greenland and Canada itself.





[edit on 26-2-2005 by cryptorsa1001]

Originally posted by FredT
Deus,

By many accounts on this thread and the near identical other one, many have said Canada is already a target because of the United States. So how would the missile shield make you a bigger one?

Collaberation. Simple as that, you put us under your aegis, we aren't so much an independent nation as another colony. Ol' Kim, he sees that, he says "Oh Crap! Canada's in with those bloated capitalist pigs. "

We go from being a potential fallout victim, to being a direct target. I would see Kim launching one nuke at each of us, and I'm guessing the one headed towards your soil gets priority.

DE

I seriously doubt Russia would have any anti-missile defense system. Also, I seriously doubt there'd be an "trigger-happy" person at the controls of such a system. Furthermore, a missile travels far, far, fare faster than any "non-hostile" aircraft.

As for if any missile flies in over Canada, if they cannot stop it, I don't see really why anyone would care about "international law," if another country can fire something into your airspace to stop the missile, they should do so. If a nuclear blast went off in the U.S., Canada would feel it too in the long run.

But a nuclear blast kills a lot of people; the United States doesn't give a crap if it has to fire a missile over Canadian airspace to protect itself. And I doubt in such a case Canada would either. A nuclear blast is just too big a deal.

Let's say Canada also has a missile defense as well. And let's say a missile is heading over the U.S. to hit Canada. The U.S. I am sure would try to shoot it down. but let's say the U.S. misses. I seriously doubt the U.S. is going to say, "wait until it enters Canadian airspace, then fire on it."

Canada can be sucky to the U.S. all it wants; everyone knows Canada and Mexico would not be the countries they are if it wasn't for the United States to protect them. And they both know the U.S. would protect them, because if either of them fell, it would pose too large a threat to the U.S.

Though I can understand Canada not wanting to play a part in a missile defense possibly. Maybe the U.S. should try to make its missile defense able to launch from within the U.S.

Bush's belief I think is legit. You never know if some little dictator might decide to launch a nuke. Look at how crazy that Kim Jon II is. Of course everyone says a missile defense is a pipedream, because the technology is still in development. Plenty of people 50 years ago said much of the military tech we have to today is a pipedream too.

People say an missile defense is a waste of taxpayers' money. Just like the Wall Street Journal ran an article back in 1980 stating how AWACS aircraft were a total, utter, complete waste of taxpayers' money as well.

If you don't spend money to develop the tech, you won't have it. But if you do, and do get the tech, you have a big advantage over the opposition.

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Broadsword20068]

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Broadsword20068]

as posted by soficrow
D I P L O M A C Y.

The art of resolving conflict without violence.

It's what civilized nations and people do. Beyond many in the current administration, obviously, and explains why the US is no longer a super power - reduced to spitting over it's neighbors fences.

I guess it was good that I did sign off when I did, eh, soficrow?
Cause if I had been on, the above 'soficrow lesson" on "diplomacy" would have bit the dust, and quick.

History, not history, reveals that "diplomacy" is about as effective as using a fighter to shot down an ICBM. Bet.

Seems that History, not history, also records that despite "diplomacy" of "civilized" men and nations, that again, it was and is about as effective as using a fighter to shot down an ICBM.

As such, the US is and will be the reigning "superpower" for the next conceivable 20 plus years, if not longer, whether you admit or acknowledge such, deficit or not.





seekerof

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by soficrow
D I P L O M A C Y.

The art of resolving conflict without violence.

It's what civilized nations and people do. Beyond many in the current administration, obviously, and explains why the US is no longer a super power - reduced to spitting over it's neighbors fences.

I guess it was good that I did sign off when I did, eh, soficrow?
Cause if I had been on, the above 'soficrow lesson" on "diplomacy" would have bit the dust, and quick.

History, not history, reveals that "diplomacy" is about as effective as using a fighter to shot down an ICBM. Bet.

FYI - Canada does not have ICBMs. If the US acted civilized and talked to Canada about using her airspace, and negotiated an agreement about it - that's diplomacy.

When Paul Cellucci informed the world that Canada had given up her soveriegnty by not signing on to US plans - that's incompetence, or bullying, depending on your take.



.

as posted by soficrow
Don't cry masqua. Canada is NOT alone. The world loves Canada. The USA is alone, without friends or real allies - and now there's no more money to buy loyalty. Woe is ME. What shall we do, what shall we do?

Typical all bark no bite, soficrow.
You may wish member within thsi board to believe your "spiel," but be assured, you are mistaken in what you assert.
Hmm, let see, "friends and allies" of the US:
Japan
South Korea
Philippines
Australia
UK
Ireland
Poland
Thailand
Georgia
Albania
Romania
etc., etc.

The list can go on and on.
You can refute as you will, but the point of the exercise was simply to disprove what you asserted, with belief.



seekerof


[edit on 26-2-2005 by Seekerof]

as sposted by soficrow
FYI - Canada does not have ICBMs. If the US acted civilized and talked to Canada about using her airspace, and negotiated an agreement about it - that's diplomacy

Unknowing to you or I, I'm sure that these discussion were brought up. How long before Mr. Martin passed on his decision that he would not join the program that the US talked with him about this?

You can be virtually assured that Mr. Martin is playing "Mr. I Know Nothing Of The Such" over this and acting as if no such talks took place. He is full of crap. The US has always had close ties with Canada. Such discussions would have taken place. Obviously, the liberal side will wish to refute, contest, and keep quiet on this acknowledgement. Bet.




seekerof

[edit on 26-2-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof

as posted by soficrow
Don't cry masqua. Canada is NOT alone. The world loves Canada. The USA is alone, without friends or real allies - and now there's no more money to buy loyalty. Woe is ME. What shall we do, what shall we do?

Typical all bark no bite, soficrow.
You may wish member within thsi board to believe your "spiel," but be assured, you are mistaken in what you assert.

I was joking around with masqua - not making assertions. Context is relevant.

And FYI - I don't have a "spiel." Quit trying to pick fights with me - you're a mod not a troll. Get one of your lapdogs to do it. Looks better that way.



.

Originally posted by Broadsword20068
I seriously doubt Russia would have any anti-missile defense system. Also, I seriously doubt there'd be an "trigger-happy" person at the controls of such a system. Furthermore, a missile travels far, far, fare faster than any "non-hostile" aircraft.

I call this burying your head in the sand and underestimating the rest of the world. You must think the Russians are content to sit back on their haunches and watch the US develop systems they cannot counter. It is nice to be able to sit here and presume to know what goes on over there I guess. Or maybe they put out a monthly publication to the world on the state of their military capabilities. I recall just a few years ago, it was doubted that NK had the bomb too.

As for if any missile flies in over Canada, if they cannot stop it,..

Exactly, so why is the US being a crybaby about this, if not to get onto our soil and establish bases?

Let's say Canada also has a missile defense as well. And let's say a missile is heading over the U.S. to hit Canada. The U.S. I am sure would try to shoot it down. but let's say the U.S. misses. I seriously doubt the U.S. is going to say, "wait until it enters Canadian airspace, then fire on it."

Let us not, as we do not, and we have no enemies, especially one south of the US with missiles to fire at us just because they might hate the fact we have lots of snow. It is a pointless hypothesis.

Canada can be sucky to the U.S. all it wants;

The way I see it, the US is the sucky one, they don't get what they want and whine about it.

everyone knows Canada and Mexico would not be the countries they are if it wasn't for the United States to protect them...

Now this really intrigues me. Which nations do Canada and Mexico need protection from? What are the facts to back your position that we would not be what we are because you think you have protected us? From where I sit, it is the opposite, Canada would not be what it is today if we had not won that attempt at invasion from that southern neighbour. Please protect us from you.

Though I can understand Canada not wanting to play a part in a missile defense possibly. Maybe the U.S. should try to make its missile defense able to launch from within the U.S.

So you think that a missile shield would stop russia from redesigning your landscape? If not, tell me which countries would have missiles crossing over Canada?

Bush's belief I think is legit. You never know if some little dictator might decide to launch a nuke.

True, very true, and the only dictators mad enugh to do that today are Jong Il and Bush.

If you don't spend money to develop the tech, you won't have it. But if you do, and do get the tech, you have a big advantage over the opposition.

We don't want it and we don't need it.

Originally posted by Seekerof

as sposted by soficrow
FYI - Canada does not have ICBMs. If the US acted civilized and talked to Canada about using her airspace, and negotiated an agreement about it - that's diplomacy

Unknowing to you or I, I'm sure that these discussion were brought up. How long before Mr. Martin passed on his decision that he would not join the program that the US talked with him about this?

Really seekerof - you need to read the article at least, if not the links. As a mod, you should at least pretend to adhere to ATS principles.


"On top of threatening airspace invasion, it turns out that the USA has never informed Canada what the controversial missile defense system actually entails. Bush is bullying Canada to sign a blank contract."

Canada is still in the dark about everything a ballistic missile defence agreement with the United States would involve, Defence Minister Bill Graham said Friday. ...He said that's part of the reason why Prime Minister Paul Martin announced Thursday that Canada won't sign on.

"One of the problems was, before you could get to an understanding of exactly what was on the table, you had to sign the memorandum of understanding, which they provided," Mr. Graham told this newspaper's editorial board.

"In other words, you had to sign on to missile defence before you could find out what you were likely to get."

Mr. Graham, who was in Halifax as part of a post-budget tour, said it didn't make sense to sign on in those circumstances.

"Why would we sign on first and find out what we were going to get later?"


U.S. mum on missile details

.

as posted by soficrow
And FYI - I don't have a "spiel." Quit trying to pick fights with me - you're a mod not a troll. Get one of your lapdogs to do it.

When a mod gives an opinion, many of you are quick to cry foul.
How interesting.

I have an opinion and will state such, mod status or not. I need nor require no "lap-dogs" here. The members of this community are not someone's "lap-dogs," though you may feel and contest otherwise (i'm sure that you will assert that this too was all in jest).
As to your assertion that I'm picking a fight, I find it quite subjective: not to me, but to you. You may and will percieve it as you wish. i simply see it as directed communication, all in the name of debate and contestation.




seekerof

Originally posted by SomewhereinBetween
No you study it! You can stand on the shores of Alaska and wave hello to the Russians 3 miles across the way. It doesn't take a genius to understand that they know Alaska would have to be nuked to take out your installations,

The flight paths of ICBM's are a bit more complicated that. And paths also have to be computed based on the sheer mechanics of getting them where you want to go. You have to factor in launch point etc etc. An object launched at the equator requires less energy for a given payload that a launch at higher latitudes. Thats why Boeing invented SeaLaunch (using a Russian booster) to float its launch pad at the equator then return home after.

Really? So what happens when some trigger happy person misreads the data, fires and shoots down a non-hostile aircraft? It is not like this has not already happened the Brits can attest to picking up the pieces of their fighter, just as we have a few dead soldiers for such mistakes.

Cute but not really relevant, hard to mistake a 17,000 mph inbound with a Cessna eh? Planes do not fly that fast yet and most do not flyin a balistic path through space with a point of oragin being some rouge country