February 25, 2005

• I was trying to avoid the newsfilter critique but I was sorely tempted to post this, myself. Now, McKenna has been criticized as a man with business ties in America -- lots of them. And he comes out and says that Canada has already signed on in that we've agreed to provide NORAD radar support for the project, which no one has been good enough to mention. This puts the PM in a bind and -- thank you thank you thank you -- he publicly announces that we will not participate. Was this planned so that PM could back out? Does McKenna have some other reason? Either way, I'm delighted.
• woohoo!
• This is a tough question to answer: Is Canada part of the missile defence program? Yes, insofar as they are still part of NORAD and will continue to monitor and report to the US any activity in the skies. No, when it comes to development and implementation of an anti-missile system, or any space-based weapons system.
• Mr. Martin has made it clear that Canada will not participate in this latest idiocy from the U.S., thankfully. Of course, the ignorant fool Paul Cellucci has stepped up to make absurd, typically arrogant and preposterous statements to help increase misunderstanding south of the border. Yet again, I'm glad I made the move to a sane society from one swirling ever closer to the drain.
• Frankly, I'm not sure backing out of missile defense was the best plan for Canada at this point. Yes, missile defense is a highly questionable idea with horrendous implementation, but a lot of it would theoretically take place over Canada's airspace. Seems dumb not to want to have some inside track as to what's going on with the program. I always thought the best strategy for the Canadian gov't would be to sign up, then plead poor and play Doubting Thomas as much as possible. Delay, stall, and show a threadbare wallet. Unfortunately, that's not a plan you can announce to the public, and the Canadian public was overwhelmingly against missile defense.
• Well looks like we're going to have to fucking invade Canada now. Oh, Canada, way to go. You just had to defy the United States and have vast amounts of oil at the same time. I can't say you shouldnt ahve seen this coming. On the bad side, a war might disrupt the production schedule for the Red Green Show, so you fuckers better surrender quit.
• Showing a threadbare wallet is absurd, considering the surplus we have up here. The best strategy is to say "Get lost, you warmongering twits" and to stick by that statement. Good grief, even the members of the Conservative Party think that the missile defence idea is stupid, and they're the most gullible and pro-U.S. nitwits in Canada. The rest of us would have rejected the Liberals immediately, resulting in an abrupt end to the minority government we currently have, and Paul Martin would have lost any hope of a continuing political career. The best plan for Canada is to do what it's already doing: withdraw from as much involvement with harebrained U.S. schemes as it can and to reject the outdated idea that missiles are likely to come flying across our airspace unless we do something impossibly stupid like support the U.S. military.
• Good idea, Bruise. It's about time the White House got burned to the ground again.
• withdraw from as much involvement with harebrained U.S. schemes as it can Unless Canada manages to develop a massive replacement trade surplus with Europe or Asia, it has to play friendly with the goofballs it's stuck on an indefinite car trip with. Unless, of course, you want to see the Canadian economy go in the tank while Washington treats every trade issue with the same sort of 'equity' it has showered on softwood lumber.
• It's good news that we're not supporting missile defense. It's surprising it's taken Martin this long to decide, given the poll figures. But one funny thing about the debate is that those arguing against anti-missile defense often make a strange inconsistent argument. It's repeated in the link posted above at gauntlet.ca. The problem is that they claim a) missile defense won't work and then b) missile defense will destabilize the strategic balance of the world. This is a contradiction. Because if it doesn't work, how is it going to destabilize the strategic balance? Can you imagine Russia saying , "gee you guys have spent $100 billion on a non-working defense, that totally non-screws up my whole attack plan, now i am strategically destabilized." Personally i think a missile defense is as useful as digging holes in the ground. Actually, no, digging holes in the ground is more useful.
• Bruise, why that's outrageous! To counter an invasion, we will activate our massive fifth column. We didn't send Peter Jennings and Jim Carrey down there for nothing you know.... Oops, did i give something away? move along...move along... nothing to see...nothing to see...
• The argument about missile defence not working and destabilizing world politics at the same time does make sense: missile defence may not work in practice (i.e. it won't be able to shoot down missiles) but if other countries think it might work, then they'll start to develop new kinds of weapons and more of them in order to get around the perceived missile defence shield. Not to mention, since they assume we all have a shield they might start lobbing missiles over to us to "terr'ize" us based on the assumption that their missiles will get blocked. Only they won't... and then boom!
• The technology of shooting missiles out of the sky doesn't work *now*, but the program involves massive R&D to make it work. Dismissing the idea because it doesn't work would be like dismissing the manned moon mission when Kennedy first presented it. Have some faith in thechnological ingenuity. Besides, there are plenty of other reasons to dismiss this foolish idea, like the prospect of triggering a new arms race, and the massive costs that could be better spent elsewhere..
• Or the fact that terrorists don't own ICBMs. A missile defense system doesn't stop suitcase bombs.
• I think the whole of the United States should be covered with plexiglass. It would like, let light through, but nothing else. And it would only rain when you wanted it to.
• I got lots of faith in technological ingenuity. I also got lots of faith that people overestimate what technology can do. One reason why missile defense isn't the same as the moon mission is that the moon didn't take evasive action when Apollo went up. The missile defense guys want to build an automated software system that's supposed to work without knowing exactly the kind of evasive actions/tactics deployed by the attackers. If you try to write software without the full spec, i can give it to you in five words: "It ain't gonna work, buddy".
• Thanks storybored. That was great! Why does Martin hate Amurika? :0 Sounds like Canada doesn't want to retain sovereignty is what I'm hearing from the White House.
• 606: Why would it arise that enemy states would think our system works, while we think it doesn't?
• I wasn't aware that ICBMs employed evasive maneuvers. I thought they were just big rockets. I think MD could be made to work, but shouldn't be.
• Evasive maneuvers or tactics would include any or all of: Chaff Infrared-flares and aerosols Decoys (dummy warheads shaped exactly like real ones) Maneuverable warhead (Russians are supposedly working on this). Pre-emptive EMP blast to knock out radar. Note that without getting their hands on a real enemy decoy, the missile defense designers have no clue how to distinguish the real warheads from the dozens of fakes. Again, writing sofware without full specs is just wasting billions of dollars. To software folks, this is jaw-dropping dreaming in technicolor. (Some evasive maneuvers are even unintentional. During the Gulf War, one reason the Patriot missiles failed to hit Iraqi Scuds was because the Iraqis had overstressed their missile design. Their Scuds went at such high speeds they would break up on descent, confusing the Patriot radar systems.)
• My sincere apology to Paul Martin. Thanks for rejecting the stupid scheme and proving me wrong! The next step is to increase trade with Europe and Asia so we don't rely on America too much economically. Please surprise me again, Mr. PM. the moon didn't take evasive action when Apollo went up The moon does move around. In an orbit, or so I've heard.
• Yup the moon's in an orbit alright. And you can predict exactly to a cm where it'll be at any point in time. Which it means it isn't evasive from the military perspective. Evasive means it uses some technique to escape detection, thru stealth, jamming, camouflage. In others words, maximize uncertainty for the defender. The moon's orbit on the other hand is minimally uncertain.
• Were we able to calculate the moon's orbit and a rocket's trajectory accurately (enough for a rendezvous) a century ago? Two? A millennia ago people have ridiculous notions of the moon's distance from earth, never mind its orbit. That's rocket88's point. What's beyond our reach now won't necessarily remain so forever. Our current software isn't sophisticated enough to catch the current breeds of missiles, but one day it may be. ... which presumes that we improve our software faster than our imagined enemies do their missiles. Which leads to competition and better weapons for all. Which is why I despise the missile defense scheme so much.
• That's rocket88's point. What's beyond our reach now won't necessarily remain so forever However, that's not a point of most of the other commenters', nor one of mine. It is perfectly obvious that technology will eventually catch up with this problem, though it might well take much longer than people expect. Sane people object to missile defense as unworkable because they are currently fielding a system, at a cost of billions of dollars, that has no hope of functioning. It's just plain broke. While missile defense is being developed and tested, it's purely a political argument - will it destabilize international relations and promote a new arms race? When it's being fielded at enormous cost and it's nowhere close to working, it enters the realm of horrendous corrupt boondoggle.
• I don't think they're currently fielding a system...I think they're currently developing a system. If enough money and resources were poured into it, I think a workable defence system could be in place within ten years (assuming nobody developed "stealth" missiles in the meantime). Strictly as a concept, I like the idea of missile defence. If the technology worked as promised, and it was available to every country (never happen, I know) it would render all offensive missiles useless. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Of course, in reality, it would only be used to further tip the balance of world power toward the US, who would use that power to bully and effectively take over the rest of the world.
• If the technology worked as promised, and it was available to every country (never happen, I know) it would render all offensive missiles useless. See: spam. By 2015 you may have a defense system that renders all offensive missiles of 2015 useless. By 2017 someone else may have developed missiles that can outwit your system. So you build a better system by 2020...
• I doubt it'll be ten years even with improvements in software technology. What we're basically talking about is a software system that would have to figure out the evasive behaviour of incoming missiles on the fly and then act on it. Uh, actually this is more than super artificial intelligence (AI), its pretty close to AC, artificial clairvoyance. They say never say "never". So i won't say they're never going to be able to build it. But this doesn't let missile-defense fans off the hook. Because in a future where technology has reached the point of AC, an ICBM would be a quaint worry. No, now you're probably going to have to protect yourself against nano-uber-wurms, DNA phage attacks or induced gamma-ray bursts.
• Hey, I guess what i'm saying is that the missile defense system is not a defense system, it's a mindf*ck. Technology as placebo.
• another point is that toward the end of their route, incoming missiles have limited choices for evasive behavior if they're going to hit a true target. in this context (every incoming missile has a definite target) it should be possible for a defense system to intercept the missiles. the problem is that it would only be reliably possible at altitudes that will still entail many civilian casualties; there are too many extraneous variables related to wind currents and air density. the further from the defense system you try to intercept the missile, the more likely it is these variables will cause you to miss. but nobody wants to pay billions of dollars for a system that limits the damage caused by incoming missiles, a missile sort-of defense system. anyway, why not just be nice to china?
• I don't think they're currently fielding a system You are incorrect. They have currently deployed the missiles in Alaska for a system that has proved remarkably unsuccessful. Further, the current deployment does not include the rader systems, which are an essential component even if the system did function successfully...which it does not. They have a design for a fancy new car that plain doesn't go, and they decided to build it anyway, but leave out the engine. Rocket, really, between this and the depleted uranium...try harder to keep up to date.
• I'd just like to point out that any suggestion that we could participate and just get the U.S. to pay for it is an invitation to disaster. You *know* they're going to want American soldiers guarding any locations (they already want personnel at our ports) and every new security concern would up the pressure. Talk about erosion of sovereignty.
• Nal: If you had quoted the whole sentence you would see that I said "They're currently developing a system" From the Missile Defence Agency: The BMDS program is structured in two-year “blocks,” with fielding opportunities occurring throughout the blocks. The first period, Block 2004, represents calendar years 2004-2005. Block 2006 represents 2006-2007, and so on. The work done in each block will build upon the capabilities and development of previous blocks. Over time, this block approach will yield a fully integrated and layered BMDS, capable of defeating ballistic missiles of all ranges and in all phases of flights. • Block 2004 Objective: Field an initial capability to provide a modest defense of the United States • Block 2006 Objective: Increase the depth and breadth of our initial capability by adding interceptors, adding “deployable” radars, and integrating these systems to maximize their performance • Block 2008 Objective: Enhance our ability to protect our deployed forces and coalition partners, and add an initial capability to defeat the threats in the boost phase Blocks are currently defined up to 2014. In other words, the system being fielded now is not the final system. And if you have an issue with something I said in another thread, deal with it in that thread.
• Wow. I guess now we get to have an argument about the meaning of the term 'fielding'.\ Good night.
• Current effort at Missile Defense in all its iterations have really been woefully inadequate, and despite all the efforts otherwise. In the intercontinental front, trying to shoot down ICBMs has not proven successful, and though continuous technological advancements are continuing to be made, proof-of-theory generally have failed. And against a real ICBMs that split apart upon reentry into multiple warheads? Not to mention that it would likely be multiple ICBMs incoming as well? It will be a VERY long time before a single missile can be consistently be knocked down, let alone multiple simultaneously. Mind you, it really only takes one to slip through to render the 'shield' worthless...the target will be quite thoroughly destroyed. Shorter range missiles, and cruise missiles of the sort are even more problematic. Instead of stopping a "sniper bullet" midair with another "sniper bullet", you now need to stop something more akin to a semi-automatic rifle by shooting all its bullets down with another semi-automatic rifle. Patriot missiles fired off in the Persian Gulf War against SCUDs were heralded at the time, but military review later showed that they actually very ineffectual, with studies ranging from a 10% hit rate, down to 0%. Yes, 0%. If such a 'successful' missile defense system proves to be so mediocre, what can we say of the current system that is 'unproven/unsuccessful' at best? I'm not saying that this can't improved, and I'm sure constant technological innovation will change this. But it 2004, and we don't have anything close to 'moderate defense.' It's a long road until anything solid comes together, if ever. And until then, it'll certainly be a bumpy one, for both us and everyone else who tries to keep up with this Missile Defense race.
• This is a good question - by not joining the project, has Canada reliquished sovereignty over it's airspace? Or, is that a moot point? One wonders whether, if we had joined, the US would actually follow Canada's wishes in regards to Canadian airspace or just do what they wanted to anyways, which would also lead to a loss of sovereignty, and a more expensive one.
• That said - I am glad to know that the current government is concerned about Arctic sovereignty (link above), which is a more immediately pressing issue.
• It seems to me that the only real possible defense against nuclear missile attack, and it's only a partial one, is to reduce the density of the major cities. It'd be disruptive and expensive, but it would help reduce casualties from *all* types of mass destructive attacks from nuclear bomb-in-a-suitcase to biological/chemical attacks. I think i remember reading that Edward Teller did some studies on this. Anyone know of any other studies on urban dispersal? The irony is that no one is even contemplating this now but if ever there was a nuclear terrorist attack on US soil, they would.
• StoryBoard, that's still not much help. Enough nukes - a small fraction of the big powers' arsenals, in fact - could give the nuclear winter scenario, in which case everyone's fucked, no matter how spread out we are.
• Rodgerd, i was thinking more along the lines of a limited attack by rogue nations or terrorists which seems to be the most likely scenario today. You're right, anything that's more than that would mean big trouble. Funny how no one talks much about "nuclear winter" anymore. Haven't heard the term used widely since the 80s. The odds of a large nuclear exchange still exist though they are smaller than they were then I suppose.
• I read a good book about the aftermath of nuclear winter. It was called the Winter of Magic's Return - it's very good, I should reread it.
• We’re all in trouble if Russia follows up on its threat to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty in reaction to America's attempt to construct missile defense bases in Eastern Europe.
• 'Star Wars' Turns 25, Eats $120 Billion; Worth It?