Missile Defence System

[compman_55]

whyyyyyyy??????the.only.people.going.to.attack.us.is.the.USA.if.wedon't.sign

this.deal

 

arrrrggggggggg

[calgarydave]

You wanna know why there is so much pressure on us to join? It's because the system wouldn't protect shit w/o being able to place the system north of the 60th parrel and Alaska just doesnt cover enough longtitude.

 

Think about it, where is the most likely place a missle would be launched from? Either a boat off of either the eastren or westren seaboard, and the US Navy is covering that. Or from somewhere in Europe.

 

Okay if it comes from Europe its going to go over the artic cause thats the shortest route. However this presents 2 problems for the US, 1 lack of miltiary forces up there cause yeah thats Canadian territory and secondly lack of satilite coverage. Granted there is some but not enough to ensure detection. So if we dont allow them to put the missle banks there the system falls apart. Its the same reason they put presure on us to scrap the Arrow program in favour of NORAD. Its not whats good for us and them its whats good for them.

 

Frankly if someone nuked us I belive the US would send aid and false platitudes of sympathy but however I belive from a strategic sense they'd actually like it as it would put us in a postion where we would actually need them.

A little scary thought but...

[Sparq]

During the Cold War, Canada hosted a network of high arctic radar stations known as the DEW line. Distant Early Warning...apparently so the US could get their own nukes in the air before the Russian attack turned them all into crispy critters.

 

In this case, it's interception instead of retaliation they need, but the concept is the same.

[Tati]

I don't like it, I tell you. I don't like it one bit!

 

Polls show only 52% are against it. What the hell is going on? Prime Minister Martin looks like he's into sucking up to the deal.

 

Where have all the hippies gone, man?

 

Oh well, I've got Near Fantastica cranked right up. Time to go bliss out.

[calgarydave]

The problem is too many of us Canucks think that we need the US more than they need us, while I belive in fact its the other way around. After all the BS of the last few years (soft wood lumber, Beef, missle d) I'm strongly in favour of lessing our ties w/ them.

[Sparq]

Indeed. And with the success rates of the missile interceptor tests I've seen so far, coupled with the fact that if they DO hit anything coming over the pole we'll potentially have explosive/chemical/biological/radiological debris raining down on Canadian soil...it'll definately be helping the States alot more than it helps us. We already hosted their nukes in the Cold War...if they want a defence shield, they can intercept over their own airspace as far as I'm concerned.

 

It's time to send a few more 'you can't tell us what to do' denials of cooperation, methinks...

 

PS: Yes, we too had nukes until 1984.

Edited November 5, 2004 by Sparq

[calgarydave]

PS: Yes, we too had nukes until 1984.

Really??? NUKE HAMILTON!!! ;) :angry: :angry:

[Sparq]

Heh...you'll have to haul out an old Genie missile...don't suppose you've got a plutonium core lying around anywhere do you?

[Tati]

It's time to send a few more 'you can't tell us what to do' denials of cooperation, methinks...

Yes, Sparq. You're so right.

 

And I'm assuming everyone here knows about ceasefire.ca but if not go there join up and sign the letter, k?

[Crusader]

A missile defence system is stupid. How would you like having radioactive material orbiting around our planet?

[calgarydave]

I dunno radioactive material in orbit might be cool if it some how gives me super powers!

[Crusader]

Impotence and infertility is more likely lol. Think about the ozone too.

[Daedalus]

The point of the curent deffence system is not to put nukes in orbit. The whole idea is for them to use smaller interseptor missles or lasers (hense star wars project) to shoot down nukes from orbit where they will do no harm when they are destroyed. This is a good idea in principal but it is not possible for them to work. About 3% of the time you will actially intercept an ICBM. The current thinking of installing missle defence platforms on the ground is even more useless. Sure 25% of the time they can hit a small battelfield missle or plane but it is absolutely immpossible for them to hit a nuclear wepon. An ICBM carries up to 7 or so bombs which can each target an idevidual city, travels most of the way in orbit and moves about 3 times as fast on approach as the best interceptor missles, a missle defence based on eath will never ever work. The only means i can see of downing a missle is by use of a powerful laser or particle beam which travels at the speed of light, the most powerful of which fall far short of the required punch and take up the size of a large house. Not something you can put in space where it would do any good as a laser cant shoot through clouds. The whole thing is fundamentally obsurd from a political and scientific stand point.

 

 

It is just to give an added false security blanket so that at some point in the future they can actually put the big guns in orbit and give the president a big red button that says "end the world with no chance of stopping it".

 

Just like lisa simpson and the rock that keeps tigers away. If they build these defences and never get nuked, well i guess it worked so why not spend more money to put orbiting platforms of death up there because they would be even better.

 

 

The whole idea is misguided, if the USA ever gets attacked with a nuclear bomb it will be in a suitcase in a subway. The only countries that have ICBM's are the USA, Russia, and china is rumered to have them. Russia's dont work and noone knows if China's exist in any numbers (although i'm sure they do).

 

Canada has no business getting involed with this, but in the end as long as we dont have to pay a dime for it and backout the second wepons are being put in spce it is not a terribel thing. If we are involed we have a say in teh use of such wepons, if we are not we cant control a thing.

 

sorry for the rant ;)

[calgarydave]

Impotence and infertility is more likely lol

Oh no! not that okay no super powers for me then lol

 

 

You're absoultly right the chances that US will be attacked by an ICBM is small, much more likely like you said are the smaller suitcase ones. OR even more likely than that is a dirty bomb, put some plutonium or uranium in a smaller bomb that wont cause the material to fisson but it'll still spread lots of nasty radioactive stuff all over the place.

[Tati]

None of this fucking missile bs makes any sense to me. It's exactly like Deadalus says.

1. The only country that can target the US with an ICBM realistically is the US itself.

2. They don't even have it working properly yet.

3 (this is just my opinion) Who gives them the right to be the gods of earth? I don't trust them at all. They invaded a country against the wishes of the United Nations. And lied about it blah, blah, blah we all know about that.

And did you know that Bush tried all he could to ensure that his soldiers could not be tried for war crimes in world court? That would have given them carte blanche to do what ever the fuck they wanted no matter how horrifying or cruel. Look at Vietnam to see what soldiers are capable of doing. I just shake my head. Thank god anyway because he was denied, so American soldiers can be held responsible if they commit crimes against humanity.

I say no to the missile shield. Thay can't have their way in everything. They should grow up.

[Sparq]

Nautilus laser, heart of the Thermal High Energy Laser system (THEL)

 

They've got the prototype chemical lasers mounted on the nose of a 747 already...designed primarily for Air Force One. Ground baseing the system would be even easier...the problem is aiming the damn thing.

 

The US has already conducted joint tests of a ground based mobile antimissile laser system with Israel in White Sands. They managed to locate and track the missile, but failed to destroy it - called it a partial success, for some reason. Sounds to me like they want to push this through no matter how well it works.

Edited November 6, 2004 by Sparq

[Daedalus]

Those lasers are very cool, but are not any where close to small enough to be put in orbit, a 747 is a very big plane. If the bomb is in range of the plane it is pretty much too late.

 

The laser works well destroying howitzer shells on a known tragectory but has to track it for several seconds before it is destroyed as even being that large it does not have much power in it. A nuke is different than a howitzer, it will not just detonate harmlessly in the air. A nuke is very hard to set off prematurely, it is easy to disable it but then you have a load of radioactive rock slamming into the ground. But i gues that is better than the alternative. The only use a laser would be is for it to be high in orbit where it can disable the main ICBM and not the bomb causeing it to go off course and burn up in the atmosphere. We are centuries away from making a wepon that can actaully disintigrate the bombs which would be the best way to deal with them.

 

As neet as the 747 version is, it is useless against nuclear arms as the most efficient way to destroy them is to take down the missle before it reaches its apex and releases its payload, that is not possible from a plane as there would be no line of site due to the round earth. Unless of course the plane is above the lauch site, but in that case the site could just be bombed by a much faster plane. Or you have hundrds of planes in the air all over the wolrd every hour of every day of the week.

[calgarydave]

lol yeah doesnt the fact that they can hit less than half the missles during the highly scheduled tests give you comfort?

 

Oh and with the chemical lasers dont they have a limited use on them? So they can only be fired a couple times and then need to be replaced?

 

*edit* oh and another flaw in the system, the US is building it to take out conventional missles however Russia (and someone else cant remember who right now) are working on varible velocity ICBMs these are like regular ICBM's cept they dont follow a linear tragectory and thusly are a lot more difficult to intercept.

Edited November 6, 2004 by calgarydave