Bush is coming to Ottawa

[is_dead]

He's here he's here! I saw him this morning. Man that guy has a lot of security!! He trotted out with PM Paul Martin and chatted privately for 2mins, then took off. Then I watched CNN and they were talking about it too! They actually mentioned Canada without reference to cold air fronts moving in

[DD]

"Magic lasers shoot bad things out of the sky! Super fast missles destroy the bomb before it gets ya!"

Giant metal machines carry people through the sky! Moving pictures appear on a glass screen - with NO WIRES! Sick men are healed with mechanical organs!!

:rolleyes:

[LawBeefaroni]

"Magic lasers shoot bad things out of the sky! Super fast missles destroy the bomb before it gets ya!"

Giant metal machines carry people through the sky! Moving pictures appear on a glass screen - with NO WIRES! Sick men are healed with mechanical organs!!

:rolleyes:

Anti-missile defense is being pimped as near future. Not some dreamer's notion of 40 years from now. With the tech known to us (the public) it seems far-fetched indeed. Add to that inevitable development of counter-counter measures and it smacks of the Cold War, spending money to force the enemy to spend more money ad infinitum or until one side cries uncle.

I'm no aerospace engineer or warhead delivery specialist or anything like that, but I would have to believe it is easier to defeat a defense than it is to mount one. Ever play Missile Command? You eventually lose. Multiple warhead ICBMs, sub-launched warheads, and pre-emptive electronic warfare are a knockout combo unless one side controls all of NEO space and can stop you on launch. To that end, we get bullshit promises of a Mars mission when we can't even take care of one of the finest pieces of orbiting equipment, Hubble. Meanwhile, the Chinese are prepping for moon missions.

Even Regan admitted that SDI was just a ploy to keep the Ruskies on edge and up the economic ante.

[DD]

Well, if Reagan said that SDI back in the 80's, that is, a workable system to defeat thousands of Soviet ICBMs, was just a ploy to keep the Commies at bay, then I can fully understand that we should completely ignore 20 years of technological advances that could (and actually, have) led to a defense system capabable of intercepting a missile or missiles launched by a nation such as North Korea or Iran. Perfectly logical.

I'll assume you're trading in the old Toyota Prius for a 1984 Plymouth Reliant.

[The Mad Hatter]

Well, if Reagan said that SDI back in the 80's, that is, a workable system to defeat thousands of Soviet ICBMs, was just a ploy to keep the Commies at bay, then I can fully understand that we should completely ignore 20 years of technological advances that could (and actually, have) led to a defense system capabable of intercepting a missile or missiles launched by a nation such as North Korea or Iran. Perfectly logical.

I'll assume you're trading in the old Toyota Prius for a 1984 Plymouth Reliant.

Of course, the chances of a missile launch from a "rogue nation" are just about nil - since said launch would lead to the immediate annihilation of that country.

[DD]

And so were the chances of people deliberately flying airliners into buildings. Ever think that maybe someone crazy enough to lob a missile wouldn't be rational enough to worry about the consequences?

[gbasden]

From the perspective of 2004, it sure doesn't look like Osama needed to worry about the consequences, does it?

Besides, we're a hell of a lot more likely to get hit by a nuke smuggled in on a container ship than a dictator actually firing a missile that would be instantly traced back to him.

[LawBeefaroni]

Well, if Reagan said that SDI back in the 80's, that is, a workable system to defeat thousands of Soviet ICBMs, was just a ploy to keep the Commies at bay, then I can fully understand that we should completely ignore 20 years of technological advances that could (and actually, have) led to a defense system capabable of intercepting a missile or missiles launched by a nation such as North Korea or Iran. Perfectly logical.

I'll assume you're trading in the old Toyota Prius for a 1984 Plymouth Reliant.

Reagan said it later. Point is, critics called SDI unworkable back then and they were right. If you want to selectively ignore history, be my guest. Call up the doom and gloom of 2001 and forget every cock and bull scheme sold to the public in fear.

But maybe you're right, we should spend billions on a defense system that will stop nukes from North Korea or Iran. Or we could just sit and watch them fall thousands of miles short of the US. You see, neither country, or any other of the "rogue nations" have the capability to deliver a warhead to the continental US via ICBM.

But maybe you're proposing a system that would protect Israel and South Korea as well. How generous. Seeing as how it is impractical to physically intercept a full strike from Russia or China maybe that's the plan after all. God bless America.

And so were the chances of people deliberately flying airliners into buildings. Ever think that maybe someone crazy enough to lob a missile wouldn't be rational enough to worry about the consequences?

Again, how many of those "crazy enough" have the capability to hit the US? How many have nukes at all (of the type the "shield" would be designed to stop)?

See, here's where selectively ignoring history and facts gets a bit sticky. They flew airliners into buildings because they couldn't detonate a nuke over New York. It wasn't a shot over the bow, it was their strike. But sure, it is perfectly logical to fight terrorism by defending against a state-of-the-art threat posessed by a handful of superpowers while tens of thousands of containers are being dropped in our ports daily. While our porous borders are undermanned and largely unpatrolled. Because they went with airliners last time, it is obvious they'll resort to conventional means of 21st century warfare.

No doubt a workable missile defense would be a nice thing to have in the future. But painting it as a front line of defense against terrorism is just stupid.

[The Mad Hatter]

And so were the chances of people deliberately flying airliners into buildings. Ever think that maybe someone crazy enough to lob a missile wouldn't be rational enough to worry about the consequences?

Not even remotely comparable. If Afghanistan had launched a nuclear missile at New York there would have been no three week delay, no pretend diplomacy at getting Bin Laden turned over to the US, no working through third party armies. The bombers would have been leaving the runway before the missile impacted. Kabul would have ceased to exist, and American forces would have invaded and occupied the country in a matter of days. Mullah Omar would not have escaped, he would have been killed. They all would have been killed, and no one would have quibbled about international law. Any nation launching a direct nuclear attack on the US can expect to be smashed and occupied, and its leadership wiped out. That's what would keep any Stalinist or radical Islamic regime from doing so, not a missile defense system.