I was viewing the Toronto Star headlines and one read that support for missile defense is dropping, but I don't subscribe so I couldn't read the whole article. I was wondering if someone out there has the numbers.

54% - oppose
34% - support or strongly support (down from 37 %)

More women than men oppose Missle Defense (59 - 50 %)

All free registrations, like the Star, can use Bug Me Not.

Article in Question

54% against missile defense shield.

quote:

---

I don't think the system will work 100% right away...

---

In Canada it is the Parliament that will decide on whether or not we participate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RED STATE REPUBLICAN:
I am wondering what is the common arguments from the people opposing BMD?

---

#1: It encourages other nations to develop the means to defeat the system to maintain a balance of power. Arms race, anyone? Russia has already announced the development of missiles travelling at hypersonic speeds (5 times the speed of sound) with the express intent of defeating missle defence systems.

#2: It doesn't work against its intended target, and likely never will. The only successful tests have been fired against missiles that were "lit up" so that the interceptor could see where they were. Very small changes in delivery technology such as mid-course adjustments in speed or trajectory of incoming missiles make intercepting infinitely more complicated.

#3: It doesn't work against any kind of attack that does not involve missile delivery. Think suitcases, car trunks, shipping containers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve:
Another Missile Defence test took place on Valentine's Day. Can anybody guess what the results were?

CBC

---

quote from your CBC link:

"The program had succeeded five out of eight times in previous attempts to intercept a target."

No mention of all the unrealistic things they had to do to "make the tests 'succeed'!

For most of my life the CBC was THE source of info for me. IMHO it has been turned into a propaganda machine on just about any issue.

Manufacturing consensus.

Would you accept and use a weapon that the British says works fine before your own government, the Pentagon and finally the USMC investigates to ensure that it will work and is what is needed?

Think carefully because I know that the Marines would not just take a weapon and deploy it without internal testing and approval process.

Why would you ask anything else of Canada than you would do yourself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve:

#1: It encourages other nations to develop the means to defeat the system to maintain a balance of power. Arms race, anyone? Russia has already announced the development of missiles travelling at hypersonic speeds (5 times the speed of sound) with the express intent of defeating missle defence systems.

#2: It doesn't work against its intended target, and likely never will. The only successful tests have been fired against missiles that were "lit up" so that the interceptor could see where they were. Very small changes in delivery technology such as mid-course adjustments in speed or trajectory of incoming missiles make intercepting infinitely more complicated.

#3: It doesn't work against any kind of attack that does not involve missile delivery. Think suitcases, car trunks, shipping containers.

#4: There is much suspicion and some evidence suggesting that BMD is a cover for the weaponization of space, with delivery systems located in space for taking out other targets in orbit, or on the ground. Canadians have long been opposed to weapons in space.

---

1) An arms race with the United States of America???? That is fine with me; no country has the resources to keep up with America in an arms race... The last time a country tried that, they're economy collapsed.

2) I just don't buy the "it doesn't work". We have seen doubters proved wrong on things far more ambitious than this in the past 50 years. Granted, no one does know for sure, but saying "it doesn't work" is a poor argument for abandoning tech advances. Imagine what people thought about an airplane in the mid 1800s

3) Yes and it is not intended to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnpauljones:
Would you accept and use a weapon that the British says works fine before your own government, the Pentagon and finally the USMC investigates to ensure that it will work and is what is needed?

---

Let me be clear, i am more less a mechanic, not an engineer, or in charge of using weapons. Having siad that, we are not asking you to buy some weapon we have produced. We are asking Canada to join with us in the process of creating a defence system.

quote:

---

Anyways, i am not questioning why Canada's government has not signed on yet. I am wondering why Canadian people are so opposed?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RED STATE REPUBLICAN:

1) An arms race with the United States of America???? That is fine with me; no country has the resources to keep up with America in an arms race... The last time a country tried that, they're economy collapsed.

---

But it's even worse now that they've got gangster-capitalists entrenched in the economy. And no, you people can't really afford Star Wars either. Not with nurturing the developed world's worst child poverty and infant mortality rates. Your roads are full of potholes, Olympic sports complexes are falling apart, inner city schools run down, passenger rail sux and almost every State is in budget deficit. And all the while you taxpayers are funding oil wars and corporate welfare handouts for the rich. It's upside down socialism for the super-wealthy while America hemorhages jobs to China and India.

quote:

---

That is fine with me; no country has the resources to keep up with America in an arms race... The last time a country tried that, they're economy collapsed.

---

Let's see, the Soviet Union collapsed because they spent too much of their collective wealth on the military, starving their basic needs as a society. Today, despite having "won" the Cold War and facing no comparable technological threat, the US spends more of its national product on the military than the next 15 nations combined, while its infrastructure and social supports decay and disintegrate. But I guess in the new Bush Reality, history never repeats itself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
And in case you Yanks didn't know it, gulag state not a social policy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
[QB...
I'd be stocking up on Vodka and bread if I were you, comrade Red State.[/QB]

---

more like coca cola and pizza pops.

you're so right jingles. khrustchev didn't want an arms race, and tried to stop it, knowing what it would do to his economy. the US administrations also knew what it would do, bankrupt communism. yes - the US is number 1. yahoo.

RSR is nothing other than an outer party indoctrinated "my vote for bush counts" automaton. he isn't here to learn, he's here to exercise his bully-debate tactics, and tell his buddies at the missile factory how riled up he gets these northern pinkos.

quote:

---

Whether or not Canada signs on this will be operating throughout North America. If i were a Canadian i would certainly want to be at the table.

---

you're not a canadian, you won't understand. but this you might understand:

"yes, RSR, we are all fearful canadians who frame this topic thinking americans are war-mongers and want to install star wars over our country." satisfied?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:
Today, despite having "won" the Cold War and facing no comparable technological threat, the US spends more of its national product on the military than the next 15 nations combined, while its infrastructure and social supports decay and disintegrate. But I guess in the new Bush Reality, history never repeats itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RED STATE REPUBLICAN:

1) An arms race with the United States of America???? That is fine with me; no country has the resources to keep up with America in an arms race... The last time a country tried that, their economy collapsed.

---

And making countries' economies collapse is just what we want to do to increase world security, right? Thinking of which, have you noticed that the US has massive budget deficits even in a time of low interest rates, a massive balance-of-trade problem (as in, you import WAAAY more than you export, which suggests you're not making stuff the rest of the world wants any more), and a negative savings rate? What makes it a good idea right now for the US to start spending races with people who aren't currently their enemies?
How idiotic can you be that mention of new arms races which are already beginning just makes you reflexively puff out your chest? It's not like they're challenging you. You're pushing them, and they're responding. And arms races are not good. They eat money, they increase instability, and they increase the chance that the world will go poof. And your response to the problem is "bring it on"? What is this, end times crap?

quote:

---

2) I just don't buy the "it doesn't work". We have seen doubters proved wrong on things far more ambitious than this in the past 50 years. Granted, no one does know for sure, but saying "it doesn't work" is a poor argument for abandoning tech advances. Imagine what people thought about an airplane in the mid 1800s

---

Yeah, yeah. But in the mid 1800s the technology that became the basis of planes wasn't there. On their terms, people in those days who said heavier-than-air flight couldn't be done were dead right. A massive program to create airplanes in the 1800s would have been a worthless boondoggle, 'cause you ain't gonna get a plane off the ground using steam engines.
If and when basic technologies come into existence that make such a thing practical, BMD would be a natural outgrowth of whatever it is. When they invent the phaser, I'm sure it will quickly be realized that it's now practical to shoot down missiles. But there are no such technologies today. Today, it's way way cheaper and easier to defeat defenses than to create them, and masses of independent scientists agree.

quote:

---

3) Yes and it is not intended to.

---

quote:

---

4) Your guess is as good as mine as to whether or not this is true. However, if weapons are going to be put in space, Canada not signing on will not change a thing. Perhaps, even make it easier; if Canada was a partner they could make clear that they signed on under the pretense the U.S. agreed no to weapons in space, and make it more difficult for the U.S. to do this by exposing the flip-flop.

---

Yeah, right. I'm sure they'd care. Geeze, you Republicans seem awfully flexible on your principles when it comes to getting your way. You come all over self-righteous about moral this-and-that when it comes to stopping other people from getting married, or making sure people trying to stop the spread of AIDS can't get condoms, even though it has nothing to do with you. Principles must be absolute when applying them only hurts other people. But when you're doing something that's dead wrong and someone is considering not joining out of principle, you're all "Oh, what's a little cheating among friends. Nobody'll know the difference. If you didn't do it, someone else would."
You know, it doesn't make any difference that I didn't express my support for Clifford Olson serial-murdering people, but I'm still not gonna do it. Murder is wrong. This BMD bullshit is wrong, it's dangerous, and there's a principle here. So, do you understand the concept of "principle" when it's someone else's?

quote:

---

Originally posted by RED STATE REPUBLICAN:
If China invades Taiwan, guess who the Taiwanese will look to for help? If North Korea attacks the South, guess who the South will depend on?

---

Um, best polish up on your geopolitical and military capability research, RSR.

The Taiwanese would look in vain. If you think the U.S. would intervene in a mainland v. Taiwan conflict, you are dreaming. That has not been a U.S. foriegn policy position for several years.

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:

Um, best polish up on your geopolitical and military capability research, RSR.

The Taiwanese would look in vain. If you think the U.S. would intervene in a mainland v. Taiwan conflict, you are dreaming. That has not been a U.S. foriegn policy position for several years.

---

Hmmm. So would you call April of 2004 "several years" ago?

quote:

---

US officials with state and defense departments were quoted as saying that the United States would continue to sell defensive weapons to Taiwan in accordance with the Act. If the Chinese mainland used force against Taiwan, the United States would inevitably get involved.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:

The South Koreans would have no opportunity to look to anyone for help if the Nort attacked, as by all credible military surveys, most of Seoul and other highly populated centres would be flattened with the initial artillary barrage. Yes, the U.S. would respond, but it would be nothing more than post facto retalliation.

---

No one to look for to help? I guess those 37,000 Marines, Patriot Missiles, B-1 Bombers, F-117A Stealth Fighters, and US Aircraft Carriers located throughout S Korea, Japan, and Guam would not constitute "help"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
...I really have to wonder why American taxpayers are such suckers.

---

quote:

---

Why do we give consent to a government and a system of violence we no longer believe in? The United States is involved in an immoral and illegal war in the Middle East. The invasion and occupation of Iraq and the indiscriminate killing of civilians are outlawed by international law.

Of every tax dollar paid, more than 50 cents goes to pay for past, present and future military expenses. The military budget for the Department of Defense alone for 2005 will be close to $500 billion. Our willful payment of federal taxes enables our government to carry on a continuing program of illegal military activities...

---

[ 14 February 2005: Message edited by: RED STATE REPUBLICAN ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:
Once you have made all the conventional methods of self defence or resistance useless, then I guess all "deplomacy" with the USA will have to be through "terrorism".

The irony of ironies will be that your mad rush to fight terrorism will simply lead to a world where the only option for self defence against Amerika is exactly what you're fighting to eliminate.

---

Very perceptive, No Yards.

quote:

---

At its heart, a riot is the cry of the unheard.
— Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

---

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edited to fix error in the quotation.

[ 14 February 2005: Message edited by: Hephaestion ]

quote:

---

As for saying they have been at this for "30 years" that is such an overstatement. The program was started by Ronald Reagon in the mid 80s, and for the most part, abandoned when the Sov union fell. ONly since GWB was elected has it recieved much attention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by James:

The Taiwanese would look in vain. If you think the U.S. would intervene in a mainland v. Taiwan conflict, you are dreaming. That has not been a U.S. foreign policy position for several years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RED STATE REPUBLICAN:
HA HA HA HA HA HA!
I don't give a damn what those war resistors want.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Obligatory rim job for the stupidest Head of State the US has ever had in its entire history.

---

Nice to see how you're "learning" things during your time here, RSR. Some babbler above said it *sooo* well.

quote:

---

You implied that the U.S. support for Taiwan was something of the past. However, my point is that is factually untrue, GW Bush is a strong supporter of it, and the Taiwanese Straits Act requires the U.S. to intervene militarily if China attacks Taiwan.

As for the Korea example, i never claimed the South would escape unscathed. However, the North is well aware that the day is attacks the South will be the day is ceases to exist, courtesy of the U.S.

---

If you think any US administration would get into a nuclear war over either Taiwan or Korea, you're dreaming.

They can't even make up their minds of what to do with North Korea today faced with its nuclear weapons.

Add China's nuclear weapons into the mix and there is no doubt the US would opt for 'diplomacy'.

By the way, it wasn't US military spending that destroyed the economy of the Soviet Union. It was specifically US support for Islamic fundamentalist groups in Afghanistan.

First the 'Islamists' decimated Soviet troops causing a huge tide of internal dissent within the Soviet Union itself, then they moved on to the Central Asian republics and the Balkans. They did so with full US support, which continued even after 9/11.

It was President Reagan that provided US$6 billion in aid to a variety of Islamic groups within Afghanistan, as well as a large number of stinger missiles (which they are currently trying to buy back!!!).

It was the Reagan administration, complete with the cadre of neo-cons that currently occupy the cabinet (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc.) who decided to show the Afghan resistance how to tax the opium farmers for money to fund themsleves.

It was also the Reagan administration that provided the indoctrination these groups used. Specifically that the the Soviet Union was officially an atheistic state in a terminal war with Islam. Therefore, the only way Islam could be preserved was by the overthrow of the Soviet Union.

Now, of course, everyone would like to forget that little adventurist episode because it turned Afghanistan into a narco-state which is currently providing 75% of the world's heroin.

It was also terror central, where a variety of marginalized Islamic groups were taught how to terrorize local populations by a strategy of assassinating local politicians and police, blowing up infrastructure, and intimidating local Muslims into joining the battle.

It is not a stretch at all to say that Osama Bin Laden was the godchild of Ronald Reagan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RED STATE REPUBLICAN:
HA HA HA HA HA HA!
I don't give a damn what those war resistors want. The people voted Nov.2 and made their choice. We know damn well Bush is going to spend on the military, and we support it. The majority of Americans elected Bush our leader because we support our military, and support his policies. If the peaceniks don't like the American people's choice, they are welcome to move. But alas, they won't. Most of them could care less about the Iraqi people; i did not hear them protesting while Saddam Hussien was terrorizing his own people.

---

You mean, back in the eighties when most of the slaughters were happening? Us pinkoleftypeaceniks were the *only* people protesting back then. You pro-war types were all "Well, maybe he's a bastard, but he's OUR bastard" at the time.

But OK, you guys are big into military spending, the American people have trumpeted their stupidity, you're gonna do all this stuff no matter how counterproductive it is. In ten, fifteen years you may be looking back at this attitude and wishing you could take it back, but that's not my problem. But guess what? Your question was, why are *Canadians* not on board. I'll give you an answer that relates to your attitude in this post:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:

Gee. What a shock. You have no clue what you're talking about: Them pesky facts. Safeguard is generally acknowledged to have been the precuror to SDI, and it was an abject failure too. Unless pork barrel is your yardstick for success.

---

Your link is refering to Missile defence in general. That does not equate BALLISTIC Missile defence. Ballistic Missile defence aims to shootdown ICBMs. Any conventional missile launched from across either ocean and heading towards to United States would have to be airborne so long that a patriot missile could easily take it out. A conventional missile is essentially a fast moving jet that cannot turn or change its path. We already have many ways to deal with those, and they are not an issue.

quote:

---

This is nothing compared to the space shuttle, a-bomb, internet, stealth aircraft, etc, that most would have siad "it doesn't work" 15 years before their time.

---

You're not actually using the space shuttle as an example of a success are you?

In fact it has been a very expensive failure, with the US now having to rely on Russian rockets to get back and forth to the space station. Some success.

Or to put it another way, the last time I looked, the space shuttle was burning a hole across the sky, leaving toxic residue and body parts over a large part of continental United States.

Oh yes, and the space station, another of Reagan's fantasies. Originally planned to house 8 occupants, the costs rose so dramatically, and the technology was so fragile, that it was scaled back first to 4 occupants then to 3.

In fact it takes 3 people just to run the damn thing, so it is pretty much completely useless in its present form.

Apparently, if they manage to get the space shuttle operating again without too many more spectacular burn-ups, they'll be able to finish the space station (in it's truncated form) just in time to decommission it.

So much for technology. By the way, you might ask someone in the know how many of those faulty shuttle fuel tanks were in existence as of the last failure.

According to my count, there were twelve. So are they going to try use the same tanks again, or are they building new 'safer' ones?

In which case, if I was an American taxpayer I'd want to know who pays for the faulty ones that sit on the shelf.

They were manufactured by Lockheed-Martin, and so far as I know, no one has asked them to pay for their deadly failure.

And what now, a few hundred more billions to establish a base on the moon. For what? Of course, to send humans to Mars, 'cause there's nothing on the moon worth going there for.

Yes, technology has limits. Of course, amongst the neo-cons, science is a faith-based endeavour.

[ 14 February 2005: Message edited by: RED STATE REPUBLICAN ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RED STATE REPUBLICAN:
If you want to have a debate about whether or not the Space Shuttle was a success why don't you start a new thread? My view differs from yours, but arguing about what we think of the Space Shuttle is not relevant to missile defence.

---

uhh...you brought up space shuttles, putz!

[adding: flag-wavin', gun-totin', red-blooded, stated red-american...you wanted to know why canadians aren't "on board" the missile defense program. you don't like the answers. what's left to discuss? why you don't like the answers? we don't care, you've let us know what you think, and it ain't much.]

[ 14 February 2005: Message edited by: unmaladroit ]

1. We have NO IDEA how the American people voted on November 2nd. The faux-opposition folded before the dodgy voting machines' results could be verified. Maybe a slim majority of Americans are so brainwashed and lazy that they voted for the AWOL draft-dodging coke-head coward who stole the last election, or maybe they didn't. The electoral process in your country is pathetically corrupt, and, more sadly, most of you don't care.

I hope I'm not repeating some else's link, but EKOS has released a PDF with more information on that anti-BMD poll in the Star.

Oct 04:

Strongly Oppose: 24
Oppose: 29
Support: 28
Strongly Support: 9
Don't Know/No Response: 9

Feb 05:

Strongly Oppose: 29
Oppose: 25
Support: 24
Strongly Support 10
DK/NR: 12

These numbers suggest opposition to BMD in Canada is growing and becoming qualitatively more fierce. Support is dwindling and there is hardly any "strong support" for BMD in Canada.

Jack Layton (who we all hope will recover quickly) has it right in the Hill Times:

quote:

---

"We think Canadians are becoming more and more concerned about it over the months. Certainly, when President [George Bush] came here, there was a whole lot of attention to that question. We think that Canadians' awareness of dangers of this policy is growing rapidly. So, we think in that sense it's more likely to become more significant issue in the next election," said Mr. Layton.

---

More knowledge=more opposition to BMD.

Link to Hill Times.

[ 14 February 2005: Message edited by: sgm ]

[ 14 February 2005: Message edited by: sgm ]

Missile shield test fizzles out
Interceptor fails to launch, Pentagon says

quote:

---

WASHINGTON - A test of the national missile defense system failed Monday when an interceptor missile did not launch from its island base in the Pacific Ocean, the military said. It was the second failure in months for the experimental program.

A statement from the Missile Defense Agency said the cause of the failure was under investigation.

A spokesman for the agency, Rick Lehner, said the early indications was that there was a malfunction with the ground support equipment at the test range on Kwajalein Island, not with the interceptor missile itself.

If verified, that would be a relief for program officials because it would mean no new problems had been discovered with the missile. Previous failures of these high-profile, $85 million test launches have been regarded as significant setbacks by critics of the program.

more in link

---

[ 14 February 2005: Message edited by: knuckles ]

Michael Krepon of the Stinson Institute lays some of them out in this PDF from the Stinson Center's Space Security Project:

Link to PDF (15 pages).

Note the mention in this document of NFIRE and other, microsatellite technology--both programmes with dual-use potential as space weapons.

Both NFIRE and the microsatellite technology programmes are part of the MDA's plans for Ballistic Missile Defense System.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal_Bull:
Patriot missiles working? I've heard stories from people who served in various conflicts and they were mighty scared when you guys brought out those suicide rockets. The Patriot missile system believes that a human on foot is a scud. I really doubt that it would be able to recognize a Russian cruise missile and respond...At all.

---

A Russian Cruise Missile travels at 740 Miles an hour. A Cruise missile flying across a vast Ocean would stick out like a sore thumb on a radar. It would be airborne for quite sometime before it would reach the US. We would have plenty of chances to shoot it down with a Patriot missile. If all else fails, we have fighter jets than can fly much faster than 740 miles. Do you honestly think a US fighter jet would not be able to hit a comparitively slow moving object that cannot turn or manouver in any way?

[ 15 February 2005: Message edited by: RED STATE REPUBLICAN ]

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/missiles-04zzx.html

Can you provide a credible scenario under which Russia would launch a single cruise missile at the United States?

The PAC-3, moreover, is really more of a terminal-stage weapon aimed against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles.

There is some information from CDI on tests of PAC-3 Patriots against both ballistic and cruise missiles. The results are mixed:
Link to PDF.

I am myself skeptical of claims made about capabilities demonstrated under controlled test conditions, whether of Patriot or other systems. Patriots, for example, have taken out friendly planes as well as missiles.

This PDF, to cite another example, critically evaluates the results of the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense System tests of the overall BMD system. For instance: a 1999 test counted as a "successful" intercept happened, among other reasons, because the "kill-vehicle" had been pre-programmed with the Infrared Signature of the true target vehicle, and so it was not "fooled" by the single decoy target co-deployed with the dummy warhead, which decoy had an IR signature 6 times hotter than the "true" target--the dummy warhead.

A potential enemy is unlikely to supply the US with the IR signatures of its warheads, or any of the other data BMD testers plug in prior to their "successful tests."

One can't absolutely rule out a semi-functional BMD system. The existence of such a semi-hemi-demi-functional system, however, would likely produce real-world choices far more horrifying than those faced by someone manning a Patriot battery, who is unsure if that radar blip on his screen is a missile or a friendly plane.

Imagine an even partially functional system that could hit, say, 25% of the time in real-world conditions. In an essay called "Deploying Missile Defense: Major Operational Challenges," Elaine Bunn of the National Defense University raises disturbing possibilities.

Low confidence about the "success rate" of interception might force launchers to choose how to expend their limited resources against multiple incoming targets. Knowing the low success rate, do they fire four rockets at the first, single incoming missile? How many more missiles might the enemy have in reserve? Could they be aimed at even more important targets, military or civilian? Does defending civilian or military targets take precedence? If multiple civilian areas are targetted, on what basis does "defence" proceed with its limited arsenal of interceptors?

Bunn, in my opinion, is optimistic that 20 interceptors might defend against a "handful" of incoming missiles. She says defenders will face "tough," and "excruciating" choices in some possible scenarios.

Unlike independent technologies, like inventing an airplane or landing on the moon, BMD is a technology that must out-compete other technologies that will seek to foil it in order to be successful. Counter-measures to the defense sheild will obviously be developed and, we can assume, not shared with the US beforehand, leaving them trying to not just stay ahead of the innovations they know of, but also the innovations they can only imagine might exist. You could never really be sure that your technology is sufficiently ahead of the technology of your rival that it will provide the defense you seek.

There seems to be some puzzlement to Canadian opposition.
Is the questioning by Americans in favour of this system directed toward:

a- Questionable capabilities of the system?

or

b- Why is Canada disinterested continental defence?

edited for a typo

[ 15 February 2005: Message edited by: binky ]

[ 15 February 2005: Message edited by: binky ]

[ 15 February 2005: Message edited by: binky ]

quote:

---

As for the Korea example, i never claimed the South would escape unscathed. However, the North is well aware that the day is attacks the South will be the day is ceases to exist, courtesy of the U.S.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:

All witness the Madness of King George!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
RSR,

Can you provide a credible scenario under which Russia would launch a single cruise missile at the United States?

---

The Patriot Missile is hardly "patriotic", given its tendency to think that friendlies are deadly, deadly empty SCUDs.

quote:

---

it is ICMBs that we are vulnerable to.

---

The declining ballistic missile threat

Some gems:

quote:

---

By January 2005, the total number of long-range ballistic missiles in the world (including
those of the United States, the United Kingdom and France) has decreased 51 percent to
1,967 from the 4,040 deployed in 1987.16 More significantly the total number of long-range
missiles potentially threatening the United States has declined from 2,400 fielded by the
Soviet Union and China in 1987 to 943 fielded by Russia and China today. This is a decrease
in the number of ICBMs that threaten U.S. territory or interests of 61 percent.

---

quote:

---

The number of countries with ballistic missile development
programs has also decreased from the number of countries pursuing missile programs during
the Cold War. In addition to the five recognized nuclear-weapon states, countries such as
Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, India, Iraq, Israel, Libya and South Africa had programs to develop
long-range or medium-range missiles in 1987. By 2005, Argentina, Brazil, Egypt and South
Africa had abandoned their programs. Libya’s remains largely defunct. Furthermore, Iraq’s
threat has been eliminated

---

quote:

---

Today, the nations pursuing long-range missile development programs are also smaller,
poorer and less technologically advanced than were the nations with missile programs 18
years ago. U.S. threat assessments such as recent National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) on
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace 8
the Ballistic Missile Threat note that Iran and North Korea currently possess active
programs. Syria and South Korea have active short-range ballistic missile programs, but have
not yet demonstrated interest in or the capability to produce MRBMs. Thus, even with the
inclusion of U.S. allies India and Pakistan, the recent NIEs highlight the limited nature of the
missile proliferation threat, one that is confined to a few countries whose political evolution will be a determining factor in whether they remain threats to global security.

---

quote:

---

Thus, the most accurate way to summarize the existing global ballistic missile threat is:
1. There is a widespread capability to launch short-range missiles.
2. There is a slowly growing, but still limited, capability to launch medium-range missiles.
3. Most importantly, there is a decreasing number of long-range missiles from the levels of
the Cold War and this number will continue to decline dramatically over the next fifteen
years.
4. There is some possibility that one or two new nations could acquire a very limited
capability to launch long-range missiles over the next two decades.
5. The likelihood of any nation attacking the United States or Europe with a ballistic missile
is exceptionally low.
In short, the ballistic missile threat today is limited and changing relatively slowly. There is
every reason to believe that it can be addressed through diplomacy and measured military
preparedness. Officials during any year of the Cold War would have gladly traded the
dangers they confronted then for today’s limited threat.

---

The fact that top military brass "support" them isn't surprising, Raytheon is probably driving dump trucks full of US tax payer dollars to them to keep them buying it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ronb:
Just to remind you, this is a 30 year trial that has yet to produce a single positive result.

---

quote:

---

The performance of Patriot battalions in OIF was closely scrutinized, and it was not just the news media that was watching. Potential future enemies occupied front row seats -- as they had during the first Gulf War -- and were taking notes. Friendly or allied countries that the United States hoped to persuade to invest in cooperative missile defense systems were also observing.

The salvo of three GEMs that D/5-52 ADA unleashed at the missile bearing down on the Screaming Eagles’ tactical assembly area scored a direct hit.

A reporter on the scene wrote that the soldiers of the 159th Aviation Brigade, 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault), gave the Patriot soldiers a standing ovation. Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, the division’s commander, later stated, "Patriot saved the 101st!"

The initial intercept was just the beginning of a string of successes. U.S. Central Command credits U.S. and Kuwaiti Patriot units with downing every Iraqi missile fired into Kuwait or against coalition field forces except those that fell outside the Patriot’s protective engagement envelope or crashed harmlessly into the ocean or empty desert. In one of the war’s most dramatic engagements, a Patriot missile salvo fired by C/6-52 ADA was credited with saving the coalition forces land component command headquarters from a possible direct hit.

Operation Iraqi Freedom answered the Patriot lethality question. Patriot soldiers dramatically demonstrated that their new generations of Patriot missiles are highly lethal against tactical ballistic missiles. The Army is expected soon to release a report confirming that Patriot missile interceptors were successful against all nine Iraqi missiles they engaged.

---

What? Patriot never produced a single positive result?

They have shown themselves as being pretty adept in taking them over economically. All the money in Asian Pacific is flowing into China trying to do business there. Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea are all big investers despite two having shaky emotional relationships with China (Japan is not popular amongst Chinese). Taiwan has little choice but to do business with China, and they are doing it rather briskly.

At some point its going to be in Taiwan's best interest to move politically closer to China (if economics are everything). And that means away from the US. It has already begun to happen. China doesn't need tanks, fighter jets or cruise missiles to take over Taiwan. They have all they need - the world's largest market and impressive economic growth. The rest of the military pawn moving is very much to the sideline of the politics of the region. And I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the cooling between the US-SK US-Taiwan relation has been in direct opposite to growing China-SK China-Taiwan relationships. I don't think Washington has the same ear in Taipei as it did, and its because of the emerging Chinese powerhouse.

quote:

---

Originally posted by black_dog:
RSM! Care to address the fact that your claim that "it is ICMBs that we are vulnerable to" is false, given teh declining ballistic missile threat?

---

I think many states recognize that war is becoming rather futile on the scales that we used to see it on. The only countries that can be safelly attacked are the ones too poor to adequately defend themselves. Small professional forces work best for that kind of "threat" (to capitalism). Meanwhile the rest of the world seems content to chip away at American hegemony in a different way: economically. Has the US cut of the pie actually grown since the Clinton years (did it even grow then)? The truth is the US has been on a steady decline. And all it requires is states to spend on the capitalist market. Americans are even content to send their state down the river in this way.

Maybe the American government should be working on an anti offshoring defense shield? How about supersonic trade surpluses?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawkins:
How about the fact that the rest of the world is decreasing their military spending while the US is increasing theirs?

---

Asia East

North America

South America

Other Regions

Above are in US dollars.

quote:

---

While military expenditure is also rising in several other major countries, these increases are much smaller, and there is little indication that the strong increase in US military spending is resulting in an equally strong tendency for other countries to follow suit. It is difficult to assess the importance of US influence relative to more basic drivers of military spending – such as changing threat perceptions, increased global responsibilities and force projection, and the dynamics of military technology – in particular, since these factors are often strongly interlinked with the relevant countries’ relations with the USA. While all countries accept that no nation is currently able to match the USA in military power, there are other types of response that could have an impact on their military spending.

---

The point to illustrate is that US spending is outstriping other countries by a massive amount.

Of course there has been an increase in all states in military spending (unfortunately those do not compare cold war spending to present spending nor is there a good GDP chart on the site) since 9/11. But in the main economic competitors of the US, EU , Japan, and China the rise has been way behind the US (Japan and China) or almost nonexistent (EU). Arguably what is happening in China is more a reflection of their growth in wealth than actual persuing of military capabilities (though China is likely conserned about providing a credible modern counter to American hegemony in the region and across Asia). Likewise for India. Japan has been trying to exert its own military presense of late but their increases may be due to requests by the United States.

We know its social security not the American government that is going broke .

quote:

---

However, it is going to take a long time, many years, before our BMD system is fully operational.

---

If it ever becomes operational, it will still never be effective, as I said. Those many years give other countries ample time to develop technologies to counteract it, technologies that are much simpler than the nearly impossible task of creating a foolproof shield.