The big state up north
October 1, 2004 12:41 PM Subscribe
Canada's participation in the U.S. missile defence program will not be voted on by Canadians. The Liberal government believes George W. Bush will win the US election and "given the potential for negative consequences" wants to do whatever it takes to make him happy. 7 out of 10 Canadians oppose participation in the program.
The Polaris Institute is on crack, big time. It should tell you something that they have to put the word "honest" in the title of the brochure...
Anyway, what I came here to say is that 9.9/10 Canadians oppose the United States itself, but that doesn't mean they don't want the border to stay open. The average Canadian doesn't really have any idea of what would happen if we opt out of MD (and NORAD would go soon after) so it's not truely a case of the people having any idea what's right for them.
posted by tiamat at 12:55 PM on October 1, 2004
Anyway, what I came here to say is that 9.9/10 Canadians oppose the United States itself, but that doesn't mean they don't want the border to stay open. The average Canadian doesn't really have any idea of what would happen if we opt out of MD (and NORAD would go soon after) so it's not truely a case of the people having any idea what's right for them.
posted by tiamat at 12:55 PM on October 1, 2004
Say what you will about Chretien - at least he wasn't kissing ass for an invitation to the ranch in Crawford. I'd gladly suffer the consequences of Bush's ill-humor if it meant that we weren't selling our souls. Besides - does anyone really think we're going to buy ourselves preferential treatment? Is Bush going to suddenly cut us a sweet deal on softwood lumber or the West-coast salmon fishery, at the possible expense of votes?
posted by stonerose at 12:58 PM on October 1, 2004
posted by stonerose at 12:58 PM on October 1, 2004
Cretin.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:06 PM on October 1, 2004
posted by ParisParamus at 1:06 PM on October 1, 2004
9.9/10 Canadians oppose the United States
Total nonsense. I can think of few other neighbouring sovereign countries that are as similar. Almost every Canadian I know has friends, relatives, or travels extensively in the US.
posted by Stuart_R at 1:11 PM on October 1, 2004
Total nonsense. I can think of few other neighbouring sovereign countries that are as similar. Almost every Canadian I know has friends, relatives, or travels extensively in the US.
posted by Stuart_R at 1:11 PM on October 1, 2004
7 out of 10 Canadians oppose participation in the program.
So it's not only the UK that has its citizens' will overriden by a government eager to get in Dubya's good graces... big news.
Maybe this situation should be known as "the Blair Syndrome".
posted by clevershark at 1:26 PM on October 1, 2004
So it's not only the UK that has its citizens' will overriden by a government eager to get in Dubya's good graces... big news.
Maybe this situation should be known as "the Blair Syndrome".
posted by clevershark at 1:26 PM on October 1, 2004
Apparently, everyone needs a boogeyman. George Bush seems to be a "good" one for many.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:34 PM on October 1, 2004
posted by ParisParamus at 1:34 PM on October 1, 2004
Something still in the R&D stage isn't a "fraud" I'm not sure how much of the PR surrounding missile defense is exageration to keep a good idea funded, how much is intended to dissuade NK, etc., and how much (if any amount) is fraud.
But somehow, I doubt many people in this thread are lucid enough to tell me.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:42 PM on October 1, 2004
But somehow, I doubt many people in this thread are lucid enough to tell me.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:42 PM on October 1, 2004
I think people are referring to statements, like the one made by Ted Postol, a physicist and MIT professor, saying things like "The system will have no military capability at all."
Postol said there is no way to tell the difference between an incoming warhead and a decoy, even a balloon. In space, the balloon and the warhead would plummet at the same speed on the same path and not even the most sophisticated radars will be able to tell which is the deadly bomb and which is the decoy.
"This is a system that can never work."
The Americans plan to deploy the first handful of interceptor missiles in Alaska and California this fall. While test results have been mediocre, supporters of the plan say improvements can me made as the system matures.
That's a fantasy, Postol said.
Personally, I don't think it's a fraud... I do question breaking the treaty to develop it though, and it is something the majority of Canadians opposed, but will not get an opportunity to vote on.
Hopefully, that's lucid enough for you. ;-)
posted by Stuart_R at 1:56 PM on October 1, 2004
Postol said there is no way to tell the difference between an incoming warhead and a decoy, even a balloon. In space, the balloon and the warhead would plummet at the same speed on the same path and not even the most sophisticated radars will be able to tell which is the deadly bomb and which is the decoy.
"This is a system that can never work."
The Americans plan to deploy the first handful of interceptor missiles in Alaska and California this fall. While test results have been mediocre, supporters of the plan say improvements can me made as the system matures.
That's a fantasy, Postol said.
Personally, I don't think it's a fraud... I do question breaking the treaty to develop it though, and it is something the majority of Canadians opposed, but will not get an opportunity to vote on.
Hopefully, that's lucid enough for you. ;-)
posted by Stuart_R at 1:56 PM on October 1, 2004
The merits of the project itself are irrelevant. 70% of Canadians are opposed to their country being used to support this system and they are deliberately being ignored by their government.
This is the very sort of situation Canadians voted Liberal to avoid. No one would be in the least surprised if a hypothetical Prime Minister Harper (shudder) had done the same. However we expect a little more independence of action from someone who is not of the Conservative party.
Perhaps those expectations were entirely unjustified after all.
posted by clevershark at 2:23 PM on October 1, 2004
This is the very sort of situation Canadians voted Liberal to avoid. No one would be in the least surprised if a hypothetical Prime Minister Harper (shudder) had done the same. However we expect a little more independence of action from someone who is not of the Conservative party.
Perhaps those expectations were entirely unjustified after all.
posted by clevershark at 2:23 PM on October 1, 2004
Stuart R, the premise is not to defend against massive attrack, but a few Iranian or North Korean missiles. While decoys may "look" like the real thing, said nations will not, any time soon, be capable of even launching that many decoys (not on ICBM trajectories).
So I'm not sure how much of real problem you paint. Any addtional thoughts?
Personally, I suspect the only hope for North Korea is a massive attack by the West. And soon.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:31 PM on October 1, 2004
So I'm not sure how much of real problem you paint. Any addtional thoughts?
Personally, I suspect the only hope for North Korea is a massive attack by the West. And soon.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:31 PM on October 1, 2004
Balloons in space? Huh? Don't think that scientists are apolitical sages....
posted by ParisParamus at 2:35 PM on October 1, 2004
posted by ParisParamus at 2:35 PM on October 1, 2004
9.9/10 Canadians oppose the United States
This attitude, though thankfully not as prevalent as suggested above, is juvenile, delusional, and unproductive, as are those who voted Liberal solely because Martin campaigned on anti-American rhetoric.
posted by Krrrlson at 2:36 PM on October 1, 2004
This attitude, though thankfully not as prevalent as suggested above, is juvenile, delusional, and unproductive, as are those who voted Liberal solely because Martin campaigned on anti-American rhetoric.
posted by Krrrlson at 2:36 PM on October 1, 2004
Balloons in space? Huh? Don't think that scientists are apolitical sages....
Insisting that everyone who presents contradictory evidence to your world view is plotting against you is a sign of schitzophrenia.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:42 PM on October 1, 2004
Insisting that everyone who presents contradictory evidence to your world view is plotting against you is a sign of schitzophrenia.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:42 PM on October 1, 2004
Personally, I suspect the only hope for North Korea is a massive attack by the West. And soon.
No response, just thought I'd let that hang there again.
posted by Space Coyote at 2:43 PM on October 1, 2004
None of this would be happening if we'd voted in Jack Layton. I'm just sayin'.
posted by Hildegarde at 2:48 PM on October 1, 2004
posted by Hildegarde at 2:48 PM on October 1, 2004
Space Coyote: we''re talking about outer space; not the kind you specialize in....
posted by ParisParamus at 2:57 PM on October 1, 2004
posted by ParisParamus at 2:57 PM on October 1, 2004
Paris -- I do think the missile defence system WILL eventually work in exactly the way you describe. The problem is that in breaking the international treaty, other countries (Russia, France, Pakistan, etc) might feel the need to develop ways to counter the shield... "just in case"... and before you know it, there's a new arms race. The defence shield would also be of little use in protecting from attacks not based on using an ICBM. As seen on Sept 11, a non ICBM attack seems to be more of a concern in the "war on terror" than it was during the cold war.
posted by Stuart_R at 3:02 PM on October 1, 2004
posted by Stuart_R at 3:02 PM on October 1, 2004
70% of Canadians are opposed to their country being used to support this system and they are deliberately being ignored by their government
Did you not read the article? It did not say that Canada would be leaping into wholehearted participation in some missile defense scheme no matter what its citizens think as Martin gazes stonily through his monocle and twirls his Official Villain Moustache.
All it said is that any such participation would involve a treaty, and treaties aren't submitted to the Commons for approval. To what extent that second part is actually true, I have no idea.
Any sort of real participation by Canada would require money to be spent or other enabling legislation, which would mean -- guess what -- a vote in Parliament.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:07 PM on October 1, 2004
Did you not read the article? It did not say that Canada would be leaping into wholehearted participation in some missile defense scheme no matter what its citizens think as Martin gazes stonily through his monocle and twirls his Official Villain Moustache.
All it said is that any such participation would involve a treaty, and treaties aren't submitted to the Commons for approval. To what extent that second part is actually true, I have no idea.
Any sort of real participation by Canada would require money to be spent or other enabling legislation, which would mean -- guess what -- a vote in Parliament.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 3:07 PM on October 1, 2004
...as are those who voted Liberal solely because Martin campaigned on anti-American rhetoric.
I doubt many voted for Martin based on his "anti-American rhetoric", as were repulsed by the Conservative Party's "Let's turn Canada into 'USA Lite'"-type schtick.
posted by clevershark at 3:51 PM on October 1, 2004
I doubt many voted for Martin based on his "anti-American rhetoric", as were repulsed by the Conservative Party's "Let's turn Canada into 'USA Lite'"-type schtick.
posted by clevershark at 3:51 PM on October 1, 2004
There seems to be an argument that attempting to create a ballistic missile shield is impossible, and yet at the same time that this would encourage other nations to build ballistic missile that could overcome such a shield. One way or the other, this represents a failure in logic.
In addition, the assumption that ballistic missiles are the ultimate weapon as far as weaponry is concerned is also questionable. So you are either at the cutting edge of discovering the next weapon, or the next defense, or you have to be willing to be under the sway of whoever does.
posted by kablam at 4:56 PM on October 1, 2004
In addition, the assumption that ballistic missiles are the ultimate weapon as far as weaponry is concerned is also questionable. So you are either at the cutting edge of discovering the next weapon, or the next defense, or you have to be willing to be under the sway of whoever does.
posted by kablam at 4:56 PM on October 1, 2004
So you are either at the cutting edge of discovering the next weapon, or the next defense, or you have to be willing to be under the sway of whoever does.
Or, you know, sign (and, you know, keep) non-proliferation treaties.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:01 PM on October 1, 2004
Or, you know, sign (and, you know, keep) non-proliferation treaties.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:01 PM on October 1, 2004
Something still in the R&D stage isn't a "fraud"
1. Hasn't this been in "the R&D stage" since like 1980?
2. Aren't we essentially talking about the same people who got lazy and let the Space Shuttles get old and prone to blowing up making something that's supposed to protect us from nuclear weapons? That does not make me feel very safe.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:17 PM on October 1, 2004
1. Hasn't this been in "the R&D stage" since like 1980?
2. Aren't we essentially talking about the same people who got lazy and let the Space Shuttles get old and prone to blowing up making something that's supposed to protect us from nuclear weapons? That does not make me feel very safe.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:17 PM on October 1, 2004
There seems to be an argument that attempting to create a ballistic missile shield is impossible, and yet at the same time that this would encourage other nations to build ballistic missile that could overcome such a shield. One way or the other, this represents a failure in logic.
....wait, where is the failure of logic? In building a missile shield, or in making those statements? Most likely both are true. All it takes is an announcement that you will be building an ABM defense system to cause those entities capable of building intercontinental ballistic missiles to start designing ways to get through it. There's no requirement for it to actually work for that to happen. That just seems like common sense.
It's far easier to find ways to get through it than it is to find ways to improve the shield to prevent them, so the defensive side is at a distinct disadvantage in that race. It won't work unless there is nobody who cares to join in that race on the other side, which seems unlikely in the long run. Assuming then that attacks capable of defeating the missile shield do get built, why would they be any less likely than ICBMs are in the first place to fall into the hands of people who would use them?
I guess the thinking of those in favour of this missile defense system goes along the lines of "Well, maybe we can have a chance to stop at least one missile some day. That alone makes it worthwhile. Better yet, we can use it to build a political and technological platform for other space weapons we've been wanting to build anyway. And if we end up starting a new arms race in space, well we're the USA! If we put enough money into it, nobody will be able to keep up."
I think Canadians don't like it because it just seems way too much like one of those movie plots where the bad guys want to revive the cold war.
posted by sfenders at 6:40 PM on October 1, 2004
....wait, where is the failure of logic? In building a missile shield, or in making those statements? Most likely both are true. All it takes is an announcement that you will be building an ABM defense system to cause those entities capable of building intercontinental ballistic missiles to start designing ways to get through it. There's no requirement for it to actually work for that to happen. That just seems like common sense.
It's far easier to find ways to get through it than it is to find ways to improve the shield to prevent them, so the defensive side is at a distinct disadvantage in that race. It won't work unless there is nobody who cares to join in that race on the other side, which seems unlikely in the long run. Assuming then that attacks capable of defeating the missile shield do get built, why would they be any less likely than ICBMs are in the first place to fall into the hands of people who would use them?
I guess the thinking of those in favour of this missile defense system goes along the lines of "Well, maybe we can have a chance to stop at least one missile some day. That alone makes it worthwhile. Better yet, we can use it to build a political and technological platform for other space weapons we've been wanting to build anyway. And if we end up starting a new arms race in space, well we're the USA! If we put enough money into it, nobody will be able to keep up."
I think Canadians don't like it because it just seems way too much like one of those movie plots where the bad guys want to revive the cold war.
posted by sfenders at 6:40 PM on October 1, 2004
ParisParamus:
A balloon is the oldest and crudest form of ICBM decoy. Imagine, if you will, a missile. The missile has multiple stages, as all ICBMs do. The final stage is a delivery vehicle -- essentially, the warhead. But imagine if, between the last rocket motor and the warhead, you were to place a deflated (but sealed!) mylar balloon. In the atmosphere, the balloon would be deflated, and add essentially zero mass and volume to the missile. In fact, it would be easy to have the single missile carry a half-dozen deflated balloons.
Anyway, you fire your missile. It rises through the atmosphere, and into space. The last motor separates from the delivery vehicle, which is now on a ballistic trajectory. Your balloons, which were deflated at sea level, have a much higher pressure internally than the emptiness of space, and so they expand. They are now large metallic objects flying with no friction along the same ballistic path as the warhead.
Do you understand now?
posted by Ptrin at 8:04 PM on October 1, 2004
A balloon is the oldest and crudest form of ICBM decoy. Imagine, if you will, a missile. The missile has multiple stages, as all ICBMs do. The final stage is a delivery vehicle -- essentially, the warhead. But imagine if, between the last rocket motor and the warhead, you were to place a deflated (but sealed!) mylar balloon. In the atmosphere, the balloon would be deflated, and add essentially zero mass and volume to the missile. In fact, it would be easy to have the single missile carry a half-dozen deflated balloons.
Anyway, you fire your missile. It rises through the atmosphere, and into space. The last motor separates from the delivery vehicle, which is now on a ballistic trajectory. Your balloons, which were deflated at sea level, have a much higher pressure internally than the emptiness of space, and so they expand. They are now large metallic objects flying with no friction along the same ballistic path as the warhead.
Do you understand now?
posted by Ptrin at 8:04 PM on October 1, 2004
I have two questions for ParisP:
1) Do you understand that for Canadians this issue is not mainly about whether the program is scientifically viable?
2) Are you so keen to defend the policies of the Bush administration on any and all fronts that you feel the need to lecture Canadians on their foreign policy too?
And I have one question for Krrrlson:
1) What exactly constitutes a delusional attitude, anyway?
posted by gompa at 10:24 PM on October 1, 2004
1) Do you understand that for Canadians this issue is not mainly about whether the program is scientifically viable?
2) Are you so keen to defend the policies of the Bush administration on any and all fronts that you feel the need to lecture Canadians on their foreign policy too?
And I have one question for Krrrlson:
1) What exactly constitutes a delusional attitude, anyway?
posted by gompa at 10:24 PM on October 1, 2004
This attitude, though thankfully not as prevalent as suggested above, is juvenile, delusional, and unproductive, as are those who voted Liberal solely because Martin campaigned on anti-American rhetoric.
I, too, am confused. How is it "juvenile, delusional and unproductive" to wish to maintain the sovereignty of your country against a powerful neighbour who does not always hold your best interests in mind? Or indeed, why it was at all "juvenile, delusional and unproductive" to vote for a party who supports instutitions, such as health care, which have made the standard of living in Canada, a poorer nation, higher than in that powerful neighbour's?
We have no problem being the ally of the the United States, but the majority of us have no desire to be its client in military, or any other, matters.
But it is amusing to see Americans become offended when people in other countries disagree with their policies. If you are Canadian, fine, but you're in the minority. The rest of us would rather that our soil is not used for ill-advised sabre rattling by another country.
posted by jb at 11:24 PM on October 1, 2004
I, too, am confused. How is it "juvenile, delusional and unproductive" to wish to maintain the sovereignty of your country against a powerful neighbour who does not always hold your best interests in mind? Or indeed, why it was at all "juvenile, delusional and unproductive" to vote for a party who supports instutitions, such as health care, which have made the standard of living in Canada, a poorer nation, higher than in that powerful neighbour's?
We have no problem being the ally of the the United States, but the majority of us have no desire to be its client in military, or any other, matters.
But it is amusing to see Americans become offended when people in other countries disagree with their policies. If you are Canadian, fine, but you're in the minority. The rest of us would rather that our soil is not used for ill-advised sabre rattling by another country.
posted by jb at 11:24 PM on October 1, 2004
gompa, for at least this Canadian, the issue of whether or not the missile shield plan is scientifically--or, more to the point, strategically--viable is at least a hefty chunk of the issue. The way I see it, there's three basic options here: either it's a good idea (scientifically and strategically), in which case it's worth implementing, or it's a shitty idea, but one with fringe benefits that make it worth playing along, or it's a shitty idea with no point to implementing it. I've though about this myself of late: Even if it could stop 100% of all ICBMs, I foresee terrorist groups and small rogue nations with nukes using something like container shipping or the like as a delivery method. So either we can let the Yanks have their nuclear Maginot Line in exchange for some economic perks (maybe some R&D contracts for Canadian firms, or an end to the softwood lumber or beef trade sanctions?), or the PM can say to Bush, "You're an idiot for thinking this will work." And hope he listens, but he won't.
This is the very sort of situation Canadians voted Liberal to avoid. No one would be in the least surprised if a hypothetical Prime Minister Harper (shudder) had done the same. However we expect a little more independence of action from someone who is not of the Conservative party.
Funny, I recall Martin stating his support for the missile defence plan during the debates. Maybe you ought to have voted based on what the candidates actually said, rather than what you expected of them?
Having said that, though, Martin oughtta be smart enough to realize that a minority government doesn't equal a Klein or Chretien-style mandate to govern by fiat for four or five years.
To those who support this plan: What exactly is a high-tech space based missile defence gonna do that good ol' mutually assured destruction won't? Even after all the late- and post-cold war disarmament treaties, I assume the US has enough nuclear weapons to turn any country that tries a nuclear attack into a heap of radioactive slag.
(on preview) Bravo, jb.
posted by arto at 11:47 PM on October 1, 2004
This is the very sort of situation Canadians voted Liberal to avoid. No one would be in the least surprised if a hypothetical Prime Minister Harper (shudder) had done the same. However we expect a little more independence of action from someone who is not of the Conservative party.
Funny, I recall Martin stating his support for the missile defence plan during the debates. Maybe you ought to have voted based on what the candidates actually said, rather than what you expected of them?
Having said that, though, Martin oughtta be smart enough to realize that a minority government doesn't equal a Klein or Chretien-style mandate to govern by fiat for four or five years.
To those who support this plan: What exactly is a high-tech space based missile defence gonna do that good ol' mutually assured destruction won't? Even after all the late- and post-cold war disarmament treaties, I assume the US has enough nuclear weapons to turn any country that tries a nuclear attack into a heap of radioactive slag.
(on preview) Bravo, jb.
posted by arto at 11:47 PM on October 1, 2004
How is it "juvenile, delusional and unproductive" to wish to maintain the sovereignty of your country against a powerful neighbour who does not always hold your best interests in mind? ...to vote for a party who supports instutitions, such as health care, which have made the standard of living in Canada, a poorer nation, higher than in that powerful neighbour's?
Clearly, that is all implied in the statement "9.9/10 Canadians are against the US" - the statement I was responding to. It is juvenile, delusional, and unproductive to ignore the fact that Canada is dependent on the States in many key way; that were the US to collapse, Canada would quickly follow. But don't let that get in the way of twisting my words.
If you are Canadian, fine, but you're in the minority.
I guess that makes me wrong then.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:36 AM on October 2, 2004
Clearly, that is all implied in the statement "9.9/10 Canadians are against the US" - the statement I was responding to. It is juvenile, delusional, and unproductive to ignore the fact that Canada is dependent on the States in many key way; that were the US to collapse, Canada would quickly follow. But don't let that get in the way of twisting my words.
If you are Canadian, fine, but you're in the minority.
I guess that makes me wrong then.
posted by Krrrlson at 11:36 AM on October 2, 2004
Besides which why would we want to turn the skies of Canada into a battle ground. NK et. al. isn't pointing ballistic missiles at us. It is unlikely that the US will reimburse us for any damage caused by their anti ballistic missle system.
posted by Mitheral at 4:25 PM on October 2, 2004
posted by Mitheral at 4:25 PM on October 2, 2004
« Older Meh-tuhl | RIP Richard Avedon. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Stuart_R at 12:46 PM on October 1, 2004