25-02-2005 22:17									#61
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai No democratic government would survive if it decided to launch an unprovoked attack against an insignificant country that posed no threat.

Sorry, but are you ironically refering to Iraq?

	26-02-2005 00:32									#62
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai No democratic government would survive if it decided to launch an unprovoked attack against an insignificant country that posed no threat.

you're being silly now.

In most people's eyes, conventional war is considered acceptable, nuclear war is not.

	26-02-2005 00:38									#63
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

That was his best attempt at wit, with predictable results.

	26-02-2005 00:48									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Dissident you're being silly now. In most people's eyes, conventional war is considered acceptable, nuclear war is not.

I know what you mean, but the US's system is different than most countries. Which isn't to say the US isn't democratic, I think thats silly.

But most democracies have a parliamentary system which have multiple parties holding seats. The majority party in the house usually doesn't have too huge of a lead on their nearest competitor, so if they slip up there's a good chance an election will be called and they will lose the majority, and thus the Prime Minister's office. I know if the PM of Canada and his party were to mess up horribly ala Iraq, there would be no way in hell he would be around next election as leader of the majority.

I think this is what Tingkai was getting at. Although correct me if I'm wrong.

	26-02-2005 00:48									#65
	Inflate your Upload Space

To be fair, I took it he meant a nuclear attack, not just any attack. Perhaps I'm wrong, though.

	26-02-2005 01:15									#66
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: You seem to think the Yanks are a bunch of idiots most of the time.

Their record does not speak well, especially in the last 5 years.

quote: Why do you bet so heavily there will never be any idiots elsewhere with a few crude super-V2s?

Because it won't make a difference. North Korea is developing nuclear weapons for one purpose only, to deter the United States from attacking it.

The problem is that no-one capable of putting a nuke on a medium range missile will ever find that it is in its interest to launch a pre-emptive strike on the USA. Anyone with that ability necessarily has too much to lose from retaliation.

For the umpteenth time, nuclear weapons are defensive in nature. You cannot use them for fear of retaliation.

The usual response to this is stories about lunatic dictators ignoring their own interests and accidental launches. The probability of an accidental launch is very very low, and the possibility of a serious lunatic getting his hands on nuclear weapons is even lower.

If Kim Jong Il went completely potty and ordered a launch on the US, he would be quickly removed from power by his own associates, as would Bush or any other leader. Every ruler requires the co-operation of subordinates and they always have the power to remove him.

If "terrorists" got their hands on a nuclear weapon (even though no-one has provided a reason why any state would spend billions on acquiring nukes, only to give them to an unstable bunch of lunatics) they wouldn't use a missile anyway.

Right wing paranoiacs need to get real and stop speculating about what is possible, start dealing with the real probabilities, and get rid of the insane assumption that their enemies are lunatics.

	26-02-2005 01:29									#67
	Get a bigger avatar today!

What Bush is worried about is this (from Wikipedia)

quote: Nuclear blackmail is a term used in nuclear strategy to refer to the threat of use of nuclear weapons to force an adversary to perform some action. It is generally regarded as ineffective against a rational opponent who has or is an ally of someone who has assured destruction capability. In this situation if the opponent refuses to respond, then one's choices are either surrender or suicide. Hence during the Cold War, the explicit threat of nuclear warfare to force an opponent to perform an action was rare in that most nations were allies of either the Soviet Union or the United States. The United States issued several nuclear threats against the People's Republic of China in the 1950s to force the evacuation of outlying islands and the cessation of attacks against Quemoy and Matsu. The unwillingness of the Soviet Union to respond to these threats was one of the major factors in the Chinese decision to develop an independent nuclear arsenal. Interestingly, nuclear blackmail is considered most effective when the person making the threat is not rational and is willing to commit suicide. (See game theory). The prevention of these threats by irrational actors is the stated purpose behind the National Missile Defense program undertaken by President George W. Bush of the United States.

If missile defence is to be worthwhile, its proponents have to show that a suicidal gambit is sufficiently probable among those who have the means to deliver ballistic missiles to warrant the costs.

So far, no-one has shown that.

	26-02-2005 01:33									#68
	Increase Your PM Length

Even if I were to accept your analysis of the situation today Agathon (and that is a big "if"), what about tomorrow? Or ten years from now? Maybe 20 years?

Can you see the future to KNOW this country will face no such threats in the future?

	26-02-2005 02:09									#69
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Even if I were to accept your analysis of the situation today Agathon (and that is a big "if"), what about tomorrow? Or ten years from now? Maybe 20 years? Can you see the future to KNOW this country will face no such threats in the future?

That's just my point. It is insane to make policy based on mere possibilities. You have to work out as best you can the probabilities.

Too many people say, "Well someone might....", but that is bad policymaking.

	26-02-2005 02:12									#70
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Not something you would want to be wrong about. I prefer to err on the side of caution.

Beside, look at the R&D possibilities will will lose out on now.

	26-02-2005 02:13									#71
	Tired of ads?

Agathon - does it matter? WTF is wrong with letting us set it up in some godforsake place like Northern Canada?

	26-02-2005 02:16									#72
	Full PM-box? Change here!

"might"

Policy is based on what something "might" happen. This is why we have a tsunami warning system on the west coast.

But the probablity of that happening is far greater than someone launching a nuke at us. But that doesn't mean we should wait until it's too late to develop the technology.

I'm for developing the technology, I'm against these large scale plans to put up radar towers and such for something that does not work yet.

They need to spend some more time in the planning stages, before they start spending billions on hardware.

go back to the drawing board and come up with a better solution. That's all I ask.

	26-02-2005 02:44									#73
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Agathon - does it matter? WTF is wrong with letting us set it up in some godforsake place like Northern Canada?

How about Canada swaps the Yukon for Florida?

quote: Policy is based on what something "might" happen. This is why we have a tsunami warning system on the west coast.

I disagree. Policy is based on probability, not mere possibility.

	26-02-2005 02:45									#74
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: Agathon - does it matter? WTF is wrong with letting us set it up in some godforsake place like Northern Canada? How about Canada swaps the Yukon for Florida?

Deal!

	26-02-2005 05:22									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Deal!

You keep the Cuban emigres, though.

	26-02-2005 05:23									#76
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Deal!

all sales are final fyi.


please sign here ________________.

	26-02-2005 05:23									#77
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

X

	26-02-2005 07:55									#78
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I am for the most part for a missle defense system, I would prefer to get rid of all nukes, but that is a long shot, missle defense is the next best thing. My only qualm is that what they are working on now is a worthless, ineffective POS designed to line the pockets of defense contracors (Ike must be rolling in his grave) rather than keeping North America safe from a loony dictator, or prehaps a possible Taliban-clone in Pakistan, in the future.

	26-02-2005 08:02									#79
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I challenge you Canadians to find an American that really cares about this, by the way. Even our ambassador couldn't muster more than a scratch of the head and a shrug of the shoulders.

Strange Canadians...

	26-02-2005 08:13									#80
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Agathon I disagree. Policy is based on probability, not mere possibility.

First, military planning and policy is often based on the possible. This is because you often won't have time to develop a countermeasure once a possible threat in general becomes 'probable' from a specific source.

Second, anyone who has even a passing knowledge of human history who put the 'probability' of a rogue launch of a nuclear weapon at 0 is an imbecile.

The more these weapons proliferate (both warheads and missiles) the more likely it becomes that someone will use one in anger. We no longer live in a world with two super powers governed by groups who could be counted on to behave rationally for the preservation of their friends, families, and nations. Pretending that the future will go as the past did is folly. If you want to know what sorts of catastrophes such thinking can lead to, have a look at French military history 1820 to 1940.

	26-02-2005 08:56									#81
	Remove this text

quote: Why would a "rogue state" (whatever that is) go the length of trying to make ICBMs, when far simpler methods of delivery are available?

I don't know. Why is North Korea making ICBM's when far simpler methods of delivery are available?

As for the topic of the thread, who cares? It's not like we really need Canada anyway. Not that I approve of free-riding, but we're a decent country and shooting down missiles headed for Canada would be the right thing to do. Maybe...

	26-02-2005 09:01									#82
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: I don't know. Why is North Korea making ICBM's when far simpler methods of delivery are available?

Because what other method would they use?

	26-02-2005 09:04									#83
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither The more these weapons proliferate (both warheads and missiles) the more likely it becomes that someone will use one in anger.

Missiles don't proliferate, not in the sense that a terrorist organisation could get their hands on one. It's not something you can put in the back of a pickup truck and drive away.

	26-02-2005 09:51									#84
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: I don't know. Why is North Korea making ICBM's when far simpler methods of delivery are available? Because what other method would they use?

submarine, and have a couple of disposable guys dropped off in San Fransisco bay. and to detonate it manually.

although the warhead may be too heavy to move manually. And you wouldn't be able to use a crane without suspician.

an even easier solution is just to detonate the nuke inside the sub while it's surfaced . and yes they do have diesal subs that can reach the west coast.

no missile shield can protect against that.

	26-02-2005 11:04									#85
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Missiles don't proliferate, not in the sense that a terrorist organisation could get their hands on one. It's not something you can put in the back of a pickup truck and drive away.

The technology to blow up cities with a single warhead, and the means to deliver them via missiles, is proliferating among states.

We are, of course, speaking of states and not terror cells.

	26-02-2005 11:09									#86
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Dissident submarine, and have a couple of disposable guys dropped off in San Fransisco bay. and to detonate it manually. although the warhead may be too heavy to move manually. And you wouldn't be able to use a crane without suspician. an even easier solution is just to detonate the nuke inside the sub while it's surfaced . and yes they do have diesal subs that can reach the west coast. no missile shield can protect against that.

And it's not a viable strategy in the midst of a crisis. It would take weeks to put into motion and realise the target.

An ICBM takes max 2 hours from decision to large kaboom.

Which one do you think your favorite martian would prefer?

	26-02-2005 11:15									#87
	Full PM-box? Change here!

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/nati...in-missile.html

quote: U.S. must not intrude on Canadian airspace: Martin Last Updated Fri, 25 Feb 2005 16:26:39 EST CBC News OTTAWA - Prime Minister Paul Martin said Canada must be consulted before the U.S. decides to fire on missiles that enter Canadian airspace, despite Ottawa's refusal to participate in America's missile defence program. "I don't think that anyone expected that there would be any other finger on a button than the Americans," Martin said Friday, a day after his decision not to join the program. "But in terms of Canadian airspace, yes we would expect to be consulted. This is our airspace. We're a sovereign nation. And you don't intrude on a sovereign nation's airspace without seeking permission," Martin said. Martin also rejected claims by U.S. ambassador to Canada Paul Cellucci that Canada has given up its sovereignty by saying no to the missile plan. Cellucci had said the U.S. was surprised by Martin's decision, saying "we simply cannot understand why Canada would, in effect, give up its sovereignty, its seat at the table, to decide what to do about missiles that might be headed towards Canada." "We did not give up sovereignty," Martin responded. "We affirmed sovereignty." Martin repeated that the nearly $13 billion allocated for the military in Wednesday's budget proves Canada is committed to taking its share of responsibility for national and international security. "I think the other important thing is the other affirmation of sovereignty is the very large defence budget, which is designed to protect our coast, borders and Arctic sovereignty and also make sure we can play a role in the world. That is also an affirmation of our sovereignty," he said. When he first took office, Martin suggested he supported joining the plan, saying he believed Canada should be at the table when it comes to any discussion of the defence of North America. "I think our sovereignty depends on us being at the table when discussions are taking place about the defence of North America," Martin said in 2003, before becoming the Liberal leader.

... or we'll huff and we'll puff and we'll... insult you an additional time.

	26-02-2005 11:21									#88
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yeah, I don't think we'll be doing that...

	26-02-2005 11:35									#89
	Inflate your Upload Space

Sir, there is an inbound missile from But****istan, what should we do?!

Where is it?

It just passed Alaska and seems headed for Seattle!

Well, let's see if we can get the PM on the line so we can ask permission to shoot it down...

What do you mean the PM has gone fishing and can't be reached?!!

...

Aside from the fact that not even the PM has the individiual authority to authorise any such thing at the drop of a hat. He needs cabinet or parliamentary approval to wipe his ass if the wiping involves a decision being made.

	26-02-2005 12:02									#90
	Get a bigger avatar today!

To be nice, I think we should ask for permission to shoot down any missiles heading towards Canada.