01-03-2005 14:07									#151
	Put an end to popups!

It's over there, behind the curtain you continually refuse to admit exists.

	01-03-2005 14:12									#152
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I haven't seen it. Please repeat it for my benefit. I so wish to be enlightened by you.

	01-03-2005 14:25									#153
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Well, Aggie. You may say that no one is ever going to hit Canada. Say I grant that, and I do as far as nuclear weapons are concerned. Also say I grant that every missile that could ever be launched against the US will be accurate and Canada would never be bothered. What should Canadians do about the possibility of someone wanting to hit Seattle, Los Angeles, or Chicago with a nuclear weapon? We are friends and neighbours. Wouldn't it be neighbourly to lend a hand that cost us nothing to prevent bad things happening to our friends?

To which you said,

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: What should Canadians do about the possibility of someone wanting to hit Seattle, Los Angeles, or Chicago with a nuclear weapon? We are friends and neighbours. Wouldn't it be neighbourly to lend a hand that cost us nothing to prevent bad things happening to our friends? No. Because the US already has a defence against this sort of thing - it's called MAD. Missile defence is not about defence, it's about giving the US the power to conduct offensive operations against smaller nuclear powers without fear of nuclear reprisals. It makes war more likely, and not less. Canada does not support that.

Do you have a ****ing clue? MAD only works between roughly equal states. NK has no MAD vis-a-vis the US.

If the US were so inclined, NK would be a smoking hole on the face of the globe before dear leader had any idea what was up. He wouldn't have a chance to change his shorts, let alone check his missile.

How is BMD supposed to protect the US against retaliation from a smoking hole?

BMD is intended to protect the US (and Canada if we let it) from a rogue launch of a small number of weapons. How hard is it for you to understand that? Is there some specially shaped brick that could get that through to you?

Can you actually formulate an argument that doesn't borrow from the Globe and Mails knee jerk reactions to the Yanks?

	01-03-2005 14:34									#154
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Do you have a ****ing clue? MAD only works between roughly equal states. NK has no MAD vis-a-vis the US.

Correct, but you miss the point entirely. The point is, since the US has a huge stockpile of nuclear warheads, DPRK will not want to fire nuclear warheads at the US due to fear.

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither If the US were so inclined, NK would be a smoking hole on the face of the globe before dear leader had any idea what was up. He wouldn't have a chance to change his shorts, let alone check his missile. How is BMD supposed to protect the US against retaliation from a smoking hole?

I don't know what you are trying to get at, but it is not an argument that supports the "missile shield."

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither BMD is intended to protect the US (and Canada if we let it) from a rogue launch of a small number of weapons. How hard is it for you to understand that? Is there some specially shaped brick that could get that through to you?

You have been harping the same broken tune for years, NYE.

The facts are:

1. The "missile shield" doesn't work.
2. No "rogue nation" (whatever that means) has ICBM or verified nuclear capability.
3. Most importantly, as it was pointed out repeatedly, there are far simpler ways to deliver nuclear warheads into the US.

	01-03-2005 14:37									#155
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Then why are your so opposed to BMD, UR?

Why not let the Yanks quietly waste their money while you snicker?

And then I could inot why you are wrong on other points, but those are good questions to start with.

	01-03-2005 14:47									#156
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Do you have a ****ing clue? MAD only works between roughly equal states. NK has no MAD vis-a-vis the US.

It has effective deterrence. How many American Presidents would consider the price of two or more major American cities worth regime change in North Korea?

Anyone who did, would end up hanging from a lamp post after it was all over.

And the US has effective deterrence over North Korea, since it could destroy that country.

Result: peace of a sort.

quote: If the US were so inclined, NK would be a smoking hole on the face of the globe before dear leader had any idea what was up. He wouldn't have a chance to change his shorts, let alone check his missile.

Why isn't it? It's not as if they don't want to. One reason is that NK could flatten Seoul in a matter of hours, and another is that NK now has effective deterrence.

quote: BMD is intended to protect the US (and Canada if we let it) from a rogue launch of a small number of weapons.

From who? According to your logic, not North Korea, since it would be a "smoking hole in the ground".

Again, from who? You show me a single regime in which it is in the interest of to conduct a small scale nuclear attack on the USA.

quote: How hard is it for you to understand that? Is there some specially shaped brick that could get that through to you?

It would be if you actually provided a reason that this is likely to happen. So far you've said that someone could go nuts. This demonstrates astonishing ignorance of the power structures even in tyrannical regimes.

And you still haven't shown why anyone wants to nuke Canada.

quote: Can you actually formulate an argument that doesn't borrow from the Globe and Mails knee jerk reactions to the Yanks?

I don't read that right wing rag.

You must do better NYE.

And UR was right on the rest.

	01-03-2005 15:00									#157
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: Do you have a ****ing clue? MAD only works between roughly equal states. NK has no MAD vis-a-vis the US. It has effective deterrence. How many American Presidents would consider the price of two or more major American cities worth regime change in North Korea? Anyone who did, would end up hanging from a lamp post after it was all over. And the US has effective deterrence over North Korea, since it could destroy that country. Result: peace of a sort.

How desirable is that peace if NK tanks were parading through Seoul? What sort of peace is that?

quote: quote: BMD is intended to protect the US (and Canada if we let it) from a rogue launch of a small number of weapons. From who? According to your logic, not North Korea, since it would be a "smoking hole in the ground". Again, from who? You show me a single regime in which it is in the interest of to conduct a small scale nuclear attack on the USA.

Why do you insist on ignoring that regimes of all sizes are vulnerable to instability, and smaller ones especially?

How the hell do we know who is in control during the dark hours when NK changes leadership?

We didn't know what was going on in large parts of the nuclear armed Soviet Union for significant periods of time.

Uncertainty and nukes do not make good partners.

quote: quote: How hard is it for you to understand that? Is there some specially shaped brick that could get that through to you? It would be if you actually provided a reason that this is likely to happen. So far you've said that someone could go nuts. This demonstrates astonishing ignorance of the power structures even in tyrannical regimes. And you still haven't shown why anyone wants to nuke Canada.

And you continue to ignore that it isn't Canada Candians need be concerned about. The Americans are our friends, no matter how much that burns your shorts, and we should not turn a blind eye to their legitimate desires for safety.

It might be a stupendously stupid idea that will never work. Fine! It is their stupendously stupid idea and their stupendous amounts of money that will pay for the pink elephant.

But telling them we don't care if they burn down is not a way to keep friends and build bridges.

	01-03-2005 15:18									#158
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: How desirable is that peace if NK tanks were parading through Seoul? What sort of peace is that?

Um... why aren't they already? The answer is because the costs to North Korea of invading South Korea are too high. American retaliation would be one. Kim Jong Il knows this.

He already has nuclear weapons and missiles that can reach the US coast. Why hasn't he done so already? Now would be the perfect time.

quote: Why do you insist on ignoring that regimes of all sizes are vulnerable to instability, and smaller ones especially?

Instability usually means factional infighting. Why would that lead to an attack on a foreign country? What would there be left to fight over but a smoking hole in the ground if said nation attacked the US.

quote: How the hell do we know who is in control during the dark hours when NK changes leadership?

Whoever it is has their own interests. Whoever it is probably doesn't have dying in a thermonuclear explosion as one of them.

quote: We didn't know what was going on in large parts of the nuclear armed Soviet Union for significant periods of time.

Good example. Nothing happened, did it?

quote: Uncertainty and nukes do not make good partners.

It's our uncertainty, not theirs.

quote: And you continue to ignore that it isn't Canada Candians need be concerned about. The Americans are our friends, no matter how much that burns your shorts, and we should not turn a blind eye to their legitimate desires for safety.

You assume that their desires are legitimate. There appears to be no reason for BMD other than to give the US leverage over countries it doesn't like.

That unilateralism is against everything Canada stands for.

quote: It might be a stupendously stupid idea that will never work. Fine! It is their stupendously stupid idea and their stupendous amounts of money that will pay for the pink elephant.

Their stupendous idea may well start yet another arms race. It will waste resources that would be better spent elsewhere.

quote: But telling them we don't care if they burn down is not a way to keep friends and build bridges.

Nor is demanding that your "friends" do everything you say, especially when they have a moral objection to your unilateralist foreign policy and can clearly see that your missile "defence" program is offensive in nature.

	01-03-2005 15:26									#159
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Aggy, you sound like all those who said that there could never be another war after 1918.

Well, guess what? **** happened that nobody ever figured. It was insane, yes, but it happened.

Insanity happens. The Yanks want an assurance against it. It is decidedly unfriendly to tell them to go stuff themselves on the issue.

	01-03-2005 15:29									#160
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

And actually, a majority of Canadians seem to be in favour of North American defence, just not with the Yanks.

What's that sound the idiot makes?

Ebabblebabblebabblebabble...

If you can make any other sense of it, I'll welcome the scenario.

	02-03-2005 03:50									#161
	Tired of ads?

quote: Aggy, you sound like all those who said that there could never be another war after 1918.

Not this tired, fallacious crap again.

quote: Well, guess what? **** happened that nobody ever figured. It was insane, yes, but it happened.

Let me explain this to you very slowly.... when people bring up examples like this, they make the mistake of assuming that the people in the original situation could have known better. Sorry... they couldn't.

It is always rational to go with the preponderance of evidence than to assume some wild and unproven scenario - even if the wild scenario comes to pass.

quote: Insanity happens. The Yanks want an assurance against it. It is decidedly unfriendly to tell them to go stuff themselves on the issue.

Again, you have provided nothing other than some vague Hollywood scenario that someone might go nuts. If you want to base your knowledge of international relations on James Bond movies, that's your problem.

And you forget the costs - an arms race for a start.

I'd tell them to **** themselves anyway. The US government are worthless ****heads who belong on a gallows.

	02-03-2005 04:27									#162
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by St Leo quote: Originally posted by notyoueither What should Canadians do about the possibility of someone wanting to hit Seattle, Los Angeles, or Chicago with a nuclear weapon? Advise the US to not waste money on porkbarrel nonsense. Buying a rock will not keep tigers away, even if it is a trillion dollar rock. quote: We are friends and neighbours. Wouldn't it be neighbourly to lend a hand that cost us nothing to prevent bad things happening to our friends? We are lending our hand. Canada is investing in practical defenses like an active foreign service, not pipe-dream crap that no physicist not on the payroll of Uncle Sam military would take seriously. And if the US thinks it's our friend, it should stop suckerpunching us.

just to be quite clear. when did the US sucker punch Canada?

1812?

	02-03-2005 04:32									#163
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: MAD is no defence against an irrational opponent. The existence of an irrational opponent (meaning someone irrational enough to use nuclear weapons in a first strike) is extremely unlikely in a nation capable of affording or constructing nuclear weapons. Both require a large degree of central organization and diffusion of power from one individual. In the case where a leader went mad and ordered a first strike, it is far more likely that he would be removed by his subordinates than that the strike would take place. There is really no such thing as a dictatorship - there are only oligarchies of various sizes. Can you please point to a country where this is actually likely. quote: Can you guarantee that there never will be an irrational opponent or chaotic situation in some small state with nuclear weapons? I don't have to. You are the one wanting to make the change, you have to show how this is likely or likely enough to warrant doing something about it. "Mental people might come to power", is not an answer.

if that were all true it seems odd that nobody in Iraq deposed Saddam.

	02-03-2005 04:52									#164
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I think the 'suckerpunching' comment referred to Celucci's recent statements and Rice's recent petty snub.

	02-03-2005 07:25									#165
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I don't get how we should see her snub as petty when it is the lives of (potentially) millions of Americans that we just told the US we don't give a damn about.

	02-03-2005 09:20									#166
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither NK is as far North as China, and KH already said Chinese missiles would go through Canadian airspace

I said Chinese missiles in the north of china would go through Canada

NK missiles would go through Canada only if they were trying to reach the Eastern US, which they cannot do for at least two decades.

	02-03-2005 09:25									#167
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Then why are your so opposed to BMD, UR?

Can't I be opposed to stupidity, just based on principles?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Why not let the Yanks quietly waste their money while you snicker?

It's dangerous and a destablising influence throughout the world.

	02-03-2005 09:32									#168
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Geronimo if that were all true it seems odd that nobody in Iraq deposed Saddam.

Simple - that's because Saddam isn't mental. Or rather, he isn't into killing himself. Anybody with such tendencies doesn't rise up to the top in these deadly power struggles.

	02-03-2005 09:32									#169
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: NK missiles would go through Canada only if they were trying to reach the Eastern US, which they cannot do for at least two decades.

I'm curious about the reasoning behind your "two decades" figure.

quote: It's dangerous and a destablising influence throughout the world.

So is the buildup of China's military, but that doesn't give me the right to criticize China for doing what they believe is in the best interests of their security.

	02-03-2005 09:41									#170
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither I don't get how we should see her snub as petty when it is the lives of (potentially) millions of Americans that we just told the US we don't give a damn about.

What a red herring. We don't give a damn about that particular threat because:

a) It's of low order of probability

b) The chances of their Star Wars doing **** about it is not a guarantee by any stretch of the imagination

c) What they're attempting to do about it has greater negative consequences than there are probable benefits

So **** 'em. And **** Celluci. And **** Rice. And **** Bush. They can yap all they want to. They're not getting our support or our appearance of support on such a dumbass idea.

No **** the US would fire a missile over our heads if they saw one coming at them whether or not we said they could. Do you really think any reasonable person would think otherwise? Do you really think Martin thinks otherwise? Doesn't mean that we have to give them prior permission or access to our territory for tests etc.

This is a question of appearance and nothing else. Permission to use Canadian airspace is a tacit approval of missile defence, something I think we should send a strong message of not supporting.

The fact is that the need is almost certainly not going to arise while MD is in any form we recognise. If the need did arise I wouldn't even be pissed to see the Americans shooting down a couple of missiles in our airspace. It would be nice if they asked first, but whatever.

The major problem is that the US needs to seem less isolated on this issue and so they want a public display of support from us. When they didn't get it they decided to send a public display of annoyance. Let them whine. This is a damn tempest in a teacup. The real problem is China's very real and very reasonable fear that if the US were to manage to build a credible MD system then their relatively small number of delivery platforms would be unable to provide a credible deterrent against US nuclear (or conventional, for that matter) attack. This could easily prompt the PRC to up their fleet dramatically, something with definite negative consequences for nuke (and missile tech) proliferation. The fact that the US is so concerned about the polar route for ICBMs is also very worrying because it sends a different message to China than are their public proclamations.

We can't stop them from building MD. We can't stop them from planning to fly missiles over our heads if the need arises. We can withold public support and make it harder for them to try it. This, IMO, will be doing our part (or at least as much as we can do) toward promoting a safer world by alleviating pressure on China to arm itself more aggressively with nuke-equipped ICBMs.

So I can live with the Yanks huffing and puffing on a nonissue as long as they want to if it means we're doing the right thing.

	02-03-2005 09:45									#171
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten quote: NK missiles would go through Canada only if they were trying to reach the Eastern US, which they cannot do for at least two decades. I curious about the reasoning behind your "two decades" figure.

Based on their current capabilities and a reasonable rate of development (if they manage to keep up their progress over the last few decades, which is a nontrivial assumption).

I'm not a weapons expert but I have some idea of what is required. I'd be highly suspicious of anybody who told me they could get such a capability in less than 15 years.

	02-03-2005 10:01									#172
	Support Apolyton

As far as I know, the Taepo-Dong II is a 2-stage ICBM with the capability to add a third stage (North Korea is rumored to be developing this already). As such, it doesn't seem that unlikely that North Korea could field an improved Taepo Dong II capable of hitting American targets farther east (maybe not New York, but Chicago at least) in less than 15 years. I'm no expert, though, so maybe there are technical issues I don't understand. Any information would be appreciated.

	02-03-2005 10:02									#173
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

DP

	02-03-2005 10:04									#174
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse So I can live with the Yanks huffing and puffing on a nonissue as long as they want to if it means we're doing the right thing.

I'm glad you can live with it.

Now ask yourself what the average resident of San Fransisco can live with or without with regards to Canada when we've just told their government we don't care to help with the system that may save his or her life.

I wouldn't want to be asking any favours in Washington over diseased cattle for the next long while.

	02-03-2005 10:14									#175
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse What a red herring. We don't give a damn about that particular threat because: a) It's of low order of probability b) The chances of their Star Wars doing **** about it is not a guarantee by any stretch of the imagination c) What they're attempting to do about it has greater negative consequences than there are probable benefits So **** 'em. And **** Celluci. And **** Rice. And **** Bush. They can yap all they want to. They're not getting our support or our appearance of support on such a dumbass idea.

In your OPINION, not theirs.

	02-03-2005 10:25									#176
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten As far as I know, the Taepo-Dong II is a 2-stage ICBM with the capability to add a third stage (North Korea is rumored to be developing this already). As such, it doesn't seem that unlikely that North Korea could field an improved Taepo Dong II capable of hitting American targets farther east (maybe not New York, but Chicago at least) in less than 15 years. I'm no expert, though, so maybe there are technical issues I don't understand. Any information would be appreciated.

Rocketry isn't a question of merely drawing up a design and fabricating the parts. the testing required is the most time-consuming and costly part of the process. Somebody once said that any such a complicated engineering venture was a question of making X thousand mistakes. The NKs have tested only one or two missiles with a range of something like 1500 miles IIRC.

They can claim to have built an ICBM capable of hitting Chicago in 5 years if they want to. The first dozen they try to launch will blow up on the pad or splash into the Pacific, though.

Unless they get enormous technical help from the Chinese in building a true ICBM over the next few years, their capability can only progress so quickly. They're trying to do some pretty complicated stuff with a very small technical industry (compared to other space-capable nations). They have only so many resources to throw at the problem. The US could have progressed to ICBMs within 5 years of WWII if it had wanted to. NK can do no such thing (again, assuming no massive foreign boost, and if the PRC is willing to feed NK such advanced technology then the US has real problems). NK is already developing such tech as quickly as they can. Their progress will not get any faster.

	02-03-2005 10:28									#177
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither In your OPINION, not theirs.

And we're supposed to be responsible for their opinions?

We each have the responsibility to act in the manner which we see as being right. When there are differences of opinions we must act as we see fit. Not as somebody else does. If they don't understand that and want to act like spoiled children then too bad for them.

	02-03-2005 10:35									#178
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither I'm glad you can live with it. Now ask yourself what the average resident of San Fransisco can live with or without with regards to Canada when we've just told their government we don't care to help with the system that may save his or her life. I wouldn't want to be asking any favours in Washington over diseased cattle for the next long while.

The way you act when it comes to stuff the US wants is the way a prison ***** acts when it comes to what his husband wants. You roll over and hope it means that he won't beat you up today.

If the US wants to tie in our entire relationship on every issue which we disagree over then the relationship is untenable as one between equals. We bend a lot further toward what they want than they do toward what we want already. We don't make it our business to tell them their business. We don't spend our time pressuring them on domestic issues such as drug policy, and we often hold our tongues when it comes to their foreign policy. We already do our best to be a good neighbour, but they've been pushing us pretty hard lately.

	02-03-2005 10:36									#179
	Got spare money?

I still don't see the downside for Canada in participating in missile defense. They aren't expected to invest any money or do any of the research and yet they would reap all the benefits of a missile defense system if it ever becomes a reality. Seems pretty silly to waste a good opportunity just to prove you aren't American...

	02-03-2005 10:37									#180
	Increase Your PM Length

I really don't react well to bullies, and right now the US is acting like a bully toward us.

Let them holler all they want. They can't have our lunch money.