I pit some Canadians for making me want to defend Bush administration...

[QuickSilver]

I'm sure the comment in this article (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=517&e=1&u=/ap/20050302/ap_on_re_ca/canada_us_setback) doesn't represent the sentiment of all Canadians:

"The U.S. administration is trying to peddle a system that doesn't work," said Robert Bothwell, a professor at the University of Toronto who specializes in U.S.-Canadian relations. "If Bush and Condoleezza Rice want to stamp their little hoofies, well that's tough." :rolleyes: :wally

But dammit... we're looking more and more like a bunch of petulant fucking children.

Okay, before you accuse me of being a Bush supporter, or worse... appologist... let me assure you I'm neither. I don't agree with many policies of this administration but surely, there is better rhetoric than insinuating that Bush and Rice are some kind of livestock or demons incarnate.

Fellow Canadians... if we want to maintain our good image, we better start acting like we've got some class and some sense of proportion.

[thewombat]

When did American- and Bush-bashing become our national hobby? I'm so sick of going into work and hearing people whine and complain about those "stupid Americans" (and yes, I take a trick from the "How to Be a Canadian..." book and ask them what the capital of New Brunswick is, and when they can't answer, launch into a full-fledged "Yah, those dumb Americans, don't know anything about us... probably don't even know our provincial capitals" rant).

I do feel bad for Martin - he's in a damned if you do - damned if you don't situation. He can't get too close to the US, or people will complain about the end of the 'Canadian identity' and the annexation of Canada by the US and yadda yadda yadda (though at least Macleans will have something to write about). He can't back too far away, or he'll be hearing it from the left, right, and center about beef and lumber imports.

And "little hoofies"? That's just embarrassing for all of us.

[InkBlot]

When did American- and Bush-bashing become our national hobby? I'm so sick of going into work and hearing people whine and complain about those "stupid Americans" (and yes, I take a trick from the "How to Be a Canadian..." book and ask them what the capital of New Brunswick is, and when they can't answer, launch into a full-fledged "Yah, those dumb Americans, don't know anything about us... probably don't even know our provincial capitals" rant).


OK, so what IS the capital of New Brunswick?

InkBlot
:eek:


p.s. I'm Texan, so I'll also have to ask, which bit is New Brunswick?

[FinnAgain]

I don't see what's wrong with that. All tests of the missle defense system have shown that it's too wildly flawed to have any pragmatic use, at least in the forseeable future.

As such, we are indeed trying to peddle a system that doesn't work and being bullies about it. Honestly, Condi opting out of a diplomatic engagement because y'all wouldn't kowtow to our ridiculous and unnecessary demands? I knew she was going to be much worse than Powel in her role as Sec' of State, but this is just nuts.

And, as for stamping their little hooves ~shrugs~.
They're being petulant whining bullies.
If the worst you Canadians do is to make some mild barnyard slurs, ah well.

Y'all should visit Gotham, then you'd at least have better insults to throw at us. :D


P.S. This ridiculousness about having a chance to 'restore US/Canadian relations' strikes me as, well, beyond the pale. So, we're allowed to bully you and expect you to go along with us even when we're wrong, and you're not allowed to stand up to us? This is a very strange situation in international politics, and is, in my mind, much closer to imperium or hegemony than a world of sovereign states.

[QuickSilver]

Right you are thewombat.

Seem to me that the entire substance of a Canadian Identity has become the act of bashing America at every turn. Nice. :rolleyes:


BTW: Fredericton... What do I win?

[Kythereia]

*hugs FinnAgain. Just because*

Yeah, that comment was pretty immature and silly (from a UofT professor? *hangs head in shame*). But I am glad we opted out of missile defence.

[FinnAgain]

*hugs FinnAgain. Just because*


Yay, hugs!

[QuickSilver]

*hugs FinnAgain. Just because*
See, now that's a Canadian thing to do!


Yeah, that comment was pretty immature and silly (from a UofT professor? *hangs head in shame*). But I am glad we opted out of missile defence.

Look it's not so much that Canada opted in or out - though I think it should have been in. It's that we've got to attach some kind of Canadian Identity message to this and make it into a national drama. Fuck! When did we become such huge whining attention whores?

I miss the days of P.E. Trudeau. Now there was a statesman! At least when he told someone to go fuck themselves he made it sound like they'd enjoy the trip.

[Kythereia]

*smooch to FinnAgain*

QuickSilver: Because we have to let the U.S. know that nobody's the boss of us and they're being meanies and we'll tell if they keeps picking on us, right?

:smack:

[FinnAgain]

Look it's not so much that Canada opted in or out - though I think it should have been in.

This boggles my mind, my should Canada have been in?
The system doesn't, and won't, work.
Should Canada also join Finn's Slingshots For Missle Defense Pact?


It's that we've got to attach some kind of Canadian Identity message to this and make it into a national drama. Fuck! When did we become such huge whining attention whores?

Well, with the US trying to steamroll your sovereign decision making process and force you into compliance, wouldn't identity politics be a natural outgrowth? I mean, even if identity isn't at issue, from what I understand of the political climate between our two nations, it makes sense to me.

[FinnAgain]

*smooch to FinnAgain*

Smooches now? This seems to be my lucky day.
What do I get if I can sing Canada's national anthem? ;)

[QuickSilver]

This boggles my mind, my should Canada have been in?
The system doesn't, and won't, work.
Should Canada also join Finn's Slingshots For Missle Defense Pact?

No, it doesn't work too well. Yet. Hence the TES-TING. I'm pretty certain they've got some fairly smart folks tinkering with the bits that need solving.



Well, with the US trying to steamroll your sovereign decision making process and force you into compliance, wouldn't identity politics be a natural outgrowth? I mean, even if identity isn't at issue, from what I understand of the political climate between our two nations, it makes sense to me.

I don't see a single steamroller in sight. If you mean the delay of the diplomatic visit by the US, well, it's diplomacy: the act of saying "Good dog" while you search around for a bigger stick.

Identity politics doesn't make any sense to me at all. It smacks of extreme nationalism. I grew up and lived in Canada and have spent many years in the US. We're not so different from one another as some Canadians like to believe.

[mhendo]

Smooches now? This seems to be my lucky day.
What do I get if I can sing Canada's national anthem? ;)That's easy.

Oh...


































...say can you see

:D

[FinnAgain]

No, it doesn't work too well. Yet. Hence the TES-TING. I'm pretty certain they've got some fairly smart folks tinkering with the bits that need solving.

Brilliant, brilliant folk working when they can make the lowest bid on a government contract, and can't even get ther missiles off the ground. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6968453/)

Remind me again exactly why we need Canada to sign onto a project that, currently, doesn't even have a solution in sight?

Evidently, by the way, this is the second time in almost as many months when we couldn't even fire the damn missile (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/02/14/missile.defense.ap/)


I don't see a single steamroller in sight. If you mean the delay of the diplomatic visit by the US, well, it's diplomacy: the act of saying "Good dog" while you search around for a bigger stick.

So, you don't have a problem with the US exerting pressure on your nation to take a course of action for which there are no forseeable benefits in the near future and which require you to give up sovereignty of your airspace, because we say so?


Identity politics doesn't make any sense to me at all. It smacks of extreme nationalism. I grew up and lived in Canada and have spent many years in the US. We're not so different from one another as some Canadians like to believe.

Identity politics deal less with nationality than 'group identity'.
Trust me, after close to six years now in the ivory tower, I'm well versed in most modern theoretical frameworks.

[Harborwolf]

And what do I get for being a rabid hockey fan? :)

Anywho, Canada is right to not want in on this "missile defense" crap. The system is bunk. It has problems passing tests that are essentially rigged on the side of passing iirc, and is very easy to get past on the cheap; i.e. it doesn't take a whole lot to modify a missile to fool the defense system.

And the phrase "little hoofies" is just to gosh darn adorable to be classless.

[mhendo]

No, it doesn't work too well. Yet. Hence the TES-TING. I'm pretty certain they've got some fairly smart folks tinkering with the bits that need solving. Fuck that shit.

The whole missile defence shield thing is one big fucking pork barrel of a dud that hands over hundreds of millions in public money for a system that has not yet even looked like working, and that probably would never have anything to defend against even if it did work.

[Mehitabel]

I thought it was St. John's. Got a great-grandma from there, and besides it's the only city I know in NB. Except the one where the Bay of Fundy is. Unless that's Dt. John's too.

Anyway, if I had a massive neighbor to the south that was affecting me as much as the US was, I might get a little tetchy too, although I agree the more childish statements don't help a bit. The only time it bothers me, though, is when Canucks forget there's more than one big state down here. "America" doesn't have the death penalty (I've lived in two of the biggest states in the country, and they stopped executions decades before Canada was still stringing 'em up). "America", in some places, has strict gun laws. And so on.

But we are so blessed to have a peaceful, prosperous giant to our north, and it's shaped so much of our optimistic, can-do, welcoming character, that I'll never believe things will ever go seriously wrong with the relationship. C'mere, you pot-smokin' puck shovers! <noogie noogie noogie!>

[World Eater]

Finn said it perfectly, so I'll add my usual little worldeaterism......

Bush and Condi are a bunch of morons, and the missile shield is the biggest waste of money in the history of mankind.

[mhendo]

I thought it was St. John's. Got a great-grandma from there, and besides it's the only city I know in NB. Except the one where the Bay of Fundy is. Unless that's Dt. John's too. Er, St Johns is, i believe, in Newfoundland.

[the Lady]

Correct.

Saint John is in New Brunswick.

[MrFantsyPants]

Er, St Johns is, i believe, in Newfoundland.
St John's is indeed in Newfoundland. Perhaps you're thinking of St John?

Little hoofies, heh. A bit tactless, but not too far off the mark.

[Mehitabel]

Aha! It's St. John's in NF, in NB, it's Saint John, and while the city is close to the Bay of Fundy, that's a huge bay that forms the southern border of the whole province. Saint John has got its own river and harboUr.

Heh, there's also a Negro Point across the river.

[QuickSilver]

Brilliant, brilliant folk working when they can make the lowest bid on a government contract, and can't even get ther missiles off the ground. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6968453/)

Remind me again exactly why we need Canada to sign onto a project that, currently, doesn't even have a solution in sight?

Not sure where the bidding thing comes in here. Should the US gov't gone with a higher bidder? Seems a case of: You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

BTW, the article clearly states they've identified the problem. Software. Yup. The devil's in the software.


So, you don't have a problem with the US exerting pressure on your nation to take a course of action for which there are no forseeable benefits in the near future and which require you to give up sovereignty of your airspace, because we say so?

Not what I said. It's how Canadians are dealing/responding to this pressure. We seem to be fumbling and whining more than we are rising to the challenge.
Plus, I don't think the US is asking for permission to do fly by's of the Capital building.

[
Identity politics deal less with nationality than 'group identity'.
Trust me, after close to six years now in the ivory tower, I'm well versed in most modern theoretical frameworks.
So we let them test this silly missile system and we automatically lose our national identity? I find the US television programming flying through Canada's air space far more harmful to Canadian identity. In fact, we as Canadians are so concerned about our national identity that an entire black market TV satelite dish industry has evolved because regular cable programming just doesn't have enough US content for the average Canadian viewer.

[QuickSilver]

Finn said it perfectly, so I'll add my usual little worldeaterism......

Bush and Condi are a bunch of morons

That would be a pair of morons. A bunch would imply more than two, you m.... oh, just forget it....


and the missile shield is the biggest waste of money in the history of mankind.

:rolleyes:

Really? The entire history?

What about the pyramids? I bet they cost a pretty penny and look how useful they turned out to be!

[Rysler]

So, the Canadians diplomatically opted out of a flawed, stupid system that has never worked, is politically improper to begin with, and when they do, the U.S. begins openly and rudely shunning them...and this is the fault of Canadians?

What exactly is the proper response to Condi's in-very-bad-taste action? Submission to U.S. demands? Nuclear anniliation? I think a well-spoken, calm, "Uh, hey, you guys are dorks" statement is an appropriate response, myself.

[World Eater]

That would be a pair of morons. A bunch would imply more than two, you m.... oh, just forget it....

According to the American Heritage dictionary, bunch is a group, and group is "a number of people", and last time I checked 2 is a number.

Really? The entire history?

What about the pyramids? I bet they cost a pretty penny and look how useful they turned out to be!

More useful then the missile defense system, which I'll wager will never see full operation. Might as well fill the Grand Canyon with the cash and light it on fire, at least that would be fun to watch.

Adjusting for dollars and all, what would be a bigger waste of money. (Don't say Iraq war) :p

[Hamish]

Thanks FinnAgain and other Americans for pointing for going to bat for us on this. It's a good reminder that relations are not breaking down as certain American "diplomats"* and certain Bush-worshippers in the Canadian government would have it.

I think most Americans realize that a) the system doesn't work, b) nothing Canada's military contribution could do would make it better, and c) we're a different country, and that's okay.

*These days, this word, in this context, seems to need scare quotes

[BrotherCadfael]

I miss the days of P.E. Trudeau. Now there was a statesman! At least when he told someone to go fuck themselves he made it sound like they'd enjoy the trip.Yeah, 'cause usually it was his wife who was takin' 'em for a ride...

[Polycarp]

Smooches now? This seems to be my lucky day.
What do I get if I can sing Canada's national anthem? ;)

C'mon, that's easy! I've posted this before, but:

Guide for Americans to the Canadian National Anthem:

There are only eight lines to the Canadian National Anthem, but they make them do a lot of work.

The one line that isn't repeated that you need to know is:
The true North, strong and free
That one has to be belted out.

Otherwise, you work with four short passages that together make an iambic pentameter line:

"For thee," "O Canada," "on guard," and "we stand."

These are sung together in various orders during the song, the order apparently being determined by flipping a loonie three times before commencing singing.

The actual lyrics are

O Canada, mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm...and
Mmmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm...and
Mmmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm...ard
Mmmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm...ard
Mmmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm mmmm, the true North, strong and eee
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee!

It is inadvisable to sing, "O Canada, I have an infected gland" as someone trying to remember the actual words may hear you.

Alternatively, sing portions of the Marsellaise to the "O Canada" tune, and haughtily explain to anyone who looks askance at you that you are "singing the French lyrics; don't they support bilingualism?"

[QuickSilver]

Yeah, 'cause usually it was his wife who was takin' 'em for a ride...

Yeah, Maggie was a crazy tart.... syphilis will do that to you! :D

[QuickSilver]

So, the Canadians diplomatically opted out of a flawed, stupid system that has never worked, is politically improper to begin with, and when they do, the U.S. begins openly and rudely shunning them...and this is the fault of Canadians?

What exactly is the proper response to Condi's in-very-bad-taste action? Submission to U.S. demands? Nuclear anniliation? I think a well-spoken, calm, "Uh, hey, you guys are dorks" statement is an appropriate response, myself.


Okay folks... what's the point of repeatedly insisting that the missile defense system currently doesn't work? It's an over statement of the obvious. The first airplane the Wright brothers built also didn't work so good. It took a little time. A little patience. Seems to me flight wasn't an entirely fruitless pursuit.

You know, MS Windows didn't work that great at first either.... and now... well, okay... bad example... but still, what's 80% of you using?

Look, Martin (and previously Chretien) didn't handle it well and embarassed the Bush administration with these overly dramatic rants on how evil the US is. If you talk smack, expect to get slapped in the mouth. Martin et all just need to improve their diplomacy skills.

[World Eater]

Okay folks... what's the point of repeatedly insisting that the missile defense system currently doesn't work? It's an over statement of the obvious. The first airplane the Wright brothers built also didn't work so good. It took a little time. A little patience. Seems to me flight wasn't an entirely fruitless pursuit.

Even if they got the system working 100% it's still fucking useless, that's the point. All someone has to do is shoot two missiles. We should be dumping the money into actual threats, like securing shipping containers or something.

Martin et all just need to improve their diplomacy skills.

I think it's Bush and Condi that need to improve their "take it or leave it" diplomacy.

[QuickSilver]

Even if they got the system working 100% it's still fucking useless, that's the point. All someone has to do is shoot two missiles. We should be dumping the money into actual threats, like securing shipping containers or something.

Damn it... we expected one Spanish Inquisition but not two! :rolleyes:

And once again, it's not a 'this or the other' scenario. We should be doing both and then some.



I think it's Bush and Condi that need to improve their "take it or leave it" diplomacy.

Why? It's working. They're winning. Look at Europe.... they're all kissing and making up. If you've got the upper hand, why do you need to negotiate from a position on you knees?

[Merijeek]

When did American- and Bush-bashing become our national hobby? I'm so sick of going into work and hearing people whine and complain about those "stupid Americans" (and yes, I take a trick from the "How to Be a Canadian..." book and ask them what the capital of New Brunswick is, and when they can't answer, launch into a full-fledged "Yah, those dumb Americans, don't know anything about us... probably don't even know our provincial capitals" rant).


Offiical American Reponse:

Who gives a fuck?

:)

-Joe

[FinnAgain]

Hamish and World Eater: thanks much .

Not sure where the bidding thing comes in here. Should the US gov't gone with a higher bidder? Seems a case of: You're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

No, it's not a case of damned if you do, etc...
I'm simply pointing out that outside the public sector, especially where government porkbarrel projects are concerned, there is little accountability. Remember the weapons systems that Cheney cut? Those were in development for a long time, sucking down millions of dollars, but they were simply axed. The government isn't accountable to anybody, so you don't get the highest standard of work from them.

Remember the M-16? When we sent it to Vietnam it jammed so often and so horribly that many American soldiers lost their lives due to substandard weaponry. This obviously didn't work out as planned.


BTW, the article clearly states they've identified the problem. Software. Yup. The devil's in the software.

Actually...


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 in the Marshall Islands, not with the missile interceptor itself.

If verified, that would be a relief for program officials because it would mean no new problems had been discovered with the missile

So, they're not sure what went wrong, something similar has gone wrong before and they didn't fix it, and whether it's hardware of software, it still doesn't work.


Not what I said. It's how Canadians are dealing/responding to this pressure. We seem to be fumbling and whining more than we are rising to the challenge.

Okay, so you don't believe you should acquiesce to the demands of the US government, but what you're doing is still somehow wrong. How do you advise your government go about it, other than refusing to play ball and calling us out when we act like petulant children?


Plus, I don't think the US is asking for permission to do fly by's of the Capital building.

No, simply to have carte blanche in your airspace when we declare an emergency situation. Do you think it was wrong for your government to ask that if we were going to use your airspace, we at least obtain permission first?


So we let them test this silly missile system and we automatically lose our national identity?

If you let America set your policy, use your airspace as we see fit, control your defenseive posture and policy, and do all of this for a questionable, at best, system...

It's not so much about losing national identity as becoming an American lapdog. Countires are allowed to act in their own best interest, and our attempts to bully you into doing our bidding are, quite frankly, beneath us.


I find the US television programming flying through Canada's air space far more harmful to Canadian identity.

Except international law does not restrict the projection of radio or telivision signals. It does grant soverignty of airspace in regards to aircraft being flown in said airspace.


In fact, we as Canadians are so concerned about our national identity that an entire black market TV satelite dish industry has evolved because regular cable programming just doesn't have enough US content for the average Canadian viewer.

I don't see this as a question of identity, but I do see how people could see that. There is, of course, a difference between people choosing to watch the TeeVee they like, and with a country being bullied into giving up its soverign rights to its own airspace.

[smiling bandit]

Identity politics doesn't make any sense to me at all. It smacks of extreme nationalism. I grew up and lived in Canada and have spent many years in the US. We're not so different from one another as some Canadians like to believe.

Identity politics themselves aren't a problem. It's when your identity becomes an expression of self-superiority that it becomes extreme nationalism. The US, despite frequent accusations to the contrary, is awesomely tolerant of and assimilative of foreign cultures and peoples.

The real problem with Canada is that its defined by what it is not: America. And these sorts of wars of words will always be with us until they either assimilate totally or find a positive idenitity.

I don't personally support the misile system, as god as it mgiht be for promoting certain space-oriented technologies. I favor the laser-defensive system. :) Already much better. However, Bush and his staff do believe in the technology, and they may be correct. And there's nothing morally or ethically wrong with them trying to stump, plead, or prod for others to join them on it. That is the entire point of having diplomatic corps.

[FinnAgain]

Smiling Bandit: International treaties prevent the deployment of orbital weaponry, which is most likely the only way a pragmatic laser defense net would work.


And once again, it's not a 'this or the other' scenario. We should be doing both and then some.

There are only so many dollars, so many people, and so much time. We can focus our resources on fixing problems which need to be fixed, and can be fixed. Or we can focus our resources on a problem which most likely doesn't exist, and which right now we can't even figure out how to fix.

Personally, I'm much more worried about suitcase nukes or a nuke loaded aboard a ship and detonated in a harbor. There currently exists only one nation that I am aware of which would post a neuclear ICBM threat to us, and we appear to have them contained currently.


Why? It's working. They're winning. Look at Europe.... they're all kissing and making up. If you've got the upper hand, why do you need to negotiate from a position on you knees?

It's not working.
The nations of Europe know that if Iraq goes to hell, the middle east will most likely be close behind. It is, in a very realpolitik sense, in their best interest to help us clean up our messes, before the fallout lands in their front yard.

Moreoever, our power-grabbing right after we toppled Sadaam's regime and the fact that we wouldn't share bidding on reconstruction (and indeed gave Halliburton no-bid contracts), alienated our allies.

Hell, the Spanish government fell because they were seen as too buddy buddy with us. Unless I'm mistaken, most European citizens distrust Bush, his motives, and his policies. In recent polls, Europeans actually listed Bush as the greatest danger to world peace, bar none. I do not think our unilateralism and absolutism is 'working'.

[World Eater]

Damn it... we expected one Spanish Inquisition but not two! :rolleyes:

Huh? That comment makes no sense.

Anyway, launching multiple missiles is a rather quick way to get around the system. It's almost like we're dealing with a modern day Maginot line. It's geared to do one thing, and that can be circumvented about 100 different ways.

And once again, it's not a 'this or the other' scenario. We should be doing both and then some.

Lucky we have unlimited money.......oh wait a minute.

Spend the money on securing the ports, then if some is left over, secure the borders, if some is left over buy our cities some hazmat gear, if some is left over.....etc, etc. After we've solved jaywalking, then put it towards missile defense.

What's the more realistic scenario?

a) Country launches ICBM and the whole world knows who launched it.
b) Country quietly helps terrorists smuggle nuke into US "real quiet like"

Why? It's working. They're winning. Look at Europe.... they're all kissing and making up. If you've got the upper hand, why do you need to negotiate from a position on you knees?

Lip service my boy, lip service. Only in your insane world would years of damage to global diplomacy is erased by a three day visit. Btw it doesn't look like Putin was kissing any ass.

[QuickSilver]

This may be the first Pit thread that gets moved to GD! :)



No, it's not a case of damned if you do, etc...
I'm simply pointing out that outside the public sector, especially where government porkbarrel projects are concerned, there is little accountability. Remember the weapons systems that Cheney cut? Those were in development for a long time, sucking down millions of dollars, but they were simply axed. The government isn't accountable to anybody, so you don't get the highest standard of work from them.

Remember the M-16? When we sent it to Vietnam it jammed so often and so horribly that many American soldiers lost their lives due to substandard weaponry. This obviously didn't work out as planned.

But now the US military has some of the best weaponry, no? Things changed for the better, yes? Technologies improved.


So, they're not sure what went wrong, something similar has gone wrong before and they didn't fix it, and whether it's hardware of software, it still doesn't work.

No. <sigh> You're right. As of the last test and post on the subject... it still doesn't work. Time to trash the lot and send everyone home.



Okay, so you don't believe you should acquiesce to the demands of the US government, but what you're doing is still somehow wrong. How do you advise your government go about it, other than refusing to play ball and calling us out when we act like petulant children?

No, we should not have refused on the grounds of a national identity crisis and the US being the boogie man trying to control Canadian sovereignty.


No, simply to have carte blanche in your airspace when we declare an emergency situation. Do you think it was wrong for your government to ask that if we were going to use your airspace, we at least obtain permission first?

Tell you what, if we can get the aggressors lobbing the missiles to ask our permission to enter our airspace first and then we'll insist that the US do the same.

Permission or not, do you really think for a second that the US will hesitate to enter our airspace due to a perceived threat? They'll do it and if anybody is still around and living, they'll extend their sincere appologies. What's Canada going to do? Declare war? How fast was Canadian airspace shut down on 9/11? Seems that whenever the US sneezes, Canada catches a cold anyway.



If you let America set your policy, use your airspace as we see fit, control your defenseive posture and policy,

The US military is our defensive strategy, policy and posture. Canada would shit the minute a single missile came accross the norther cap.


It's not so much about losing national identity as becoming an American lapdog. Countires are allowed to act in their own best interest, and our attempts to bully you into doing our bidding are, quite frankly, beneath us.

No it's not. I'd rather we were bullied by the US than say, the former Soviet Union or some other unfriendly regime du jour. Diplomacy is a negotiation not a bullying match. Canada has not done a great job of it, is all I'm saying.


I don't see this as a question of identity, but I do see how people could see that. There is, of course, a difference between people choosing to watch the TeeVee they like, and with a country being bullied into giving up its soverign rights to its own airspace.

Yeah, but let us not be hypocrites about it. We like most US culture. We just don't like to admit that we like it.

[Bryan Ekers]

Canada!

Fuck, yeah!


I'm glad we opted out of an idea that was gonna cost megabucks with limited, if any, return. I can vaguely imagine a laser-based system 20 years from now if the Americans throw a trillion or two at it, but how that's going to protect anybody against terorrism escapes me.

[Starving Artist]

Identity politics themselves aren't a problem. It's when your identity becomes an expression of self-superiority that it becomes extreme nationalism. The US, despite frequent accusations to the contrary, is awesomely tolerant of and assimilative of foreign cultures and peoples.

The real problem with Canada is that its defined by what it is not: America. And these sorts of wars of words will always be with us until they either assimilate totally or find a positive idenitity.

I don't personally support the misile system, as god as it mgiht be for promoting certain space-oriented technologies. I favor the laser-defensive system. :) Already much better. However, Bush and his staff do believe in the technology, and they may be correct. And there's nothing morally or ethically wrong with them trying to stump, plead, or prod for others to join them on it. That is the entire point of having diplomatic corps.Very well said. Reasonable, balanced, insightful.

What's a guy like you doing in a forum like this?

;)

[QuickSilver]

Very well said. Reasonable, balanced, insightful.

What's a guy like you doing in a forum like this?

;)

Stop that. Just ignore him. You're just going to encourage more of that kind of behaviour.

;)

<sheepish> I agree smiling bandit but I resent the fact that you're able to express it in less posts than I. </sheepish>

[FinnAgain]

Pre scriptum: I cleaned up spelling in Word, but I may have accidentaly changed some of Quick's text by correction spelling errors... I'm not quite sure if I did though ,and I just wanted to alert you that I may have accidentaly and superfically changed some text.


But now the US military has some of the best weaponry, no? Things changed for the better, yes? Technologies improved.

After a good deal of time, and death, and only after it was painfully obvious that it wasn't working. Yes, things get worked out eventually. But there is no indication that the missile defense system is anywhere near that point.


No. <sigh> You're right. As of the last test and post on the subject... it still doesn't work. Time to trash the lot and send everyone home.

Well, let's see.
A) Missile defense is not a priority, it's not even anywhere near the top of the list.
B) It's not currently working, and doesn't look like it will any time soon.
C) We're asking you to sign onto a project that's both unnecessary and impotent.


No, we should not have refused on the grounds of a national identity crisis and the US being the boogie man trying to control Canadian sovereignty.

We are trying to control your national sovereignty. Or do you claim that wanting carte blanche to use your airspace for a project which may never get off the ground is not a violation of your sovereign right to use your airspace and allow access as you see fit?

And, I'm curious. Upon what grounds should you have objected?


Tell you what, if we can get the aggressors lobbing the missiles to ask our permission to enter our airspace first and then we'll insist that the US do the same.

Pray tell, which aggressors, exactly, are we defending against?

You wouldn't have a problem with US jets and missiles being in your airspace, and perhaps damaging civilian populations, as long as another country struck first? Let's say North Korea lobbed a nuke at us and for some reason it passed over Canada (I think the geography for this is all wrong, but anyway...) America chooses to shoot it down near a major Canadian population center. The warhead detonates.

General prognosis: many megadeaths. No blame.
(My ass no blame!)

Doesn't Canada have the right to dictate US terms of engagement within it's sovereign airspace?


Permission or not, do you really think for a second that the US will hesitate to enter our airspace due to a perceived threat?

Yes, I think we would hesitate, because your airspace is sovereign and we have to ask permission before flying into it. If we can enter your airspace whenever we want, and do whatever we want, it becomes our airspace.


They'll do it and if anybody is still around and living, they'll extend their sincere appologies. What's Canada going to do? Declare war? How fast was Canadian airspace shut down on 9/11? Seems that whenever the US sneezes, Canada catches a cold anyway.

Did the US, or Canadian government shut down Canadian airspace? Did we ask your government to cooperate, or did we simply, via fiat, declare that no Canadian jets would fly?


The US military is our defensive strategy, policy and posture. Canada would shit the minute a single missile came accross the norther cap.

If you tie your country's safety to US foreign policy, you may very well be in for a rude awakening. There's a reason why Al Queda targeted New York and not Quebec.

Besides, your country is your own. I don't expect you to act in strictest concert with our wishes, or our strategies, or our alliances.


No it's not. I'd rather we were bullied by the US than say, the former Soviet Union or some other unfriendly regime du jour

So you're giving your nation a choice between cancer and AIDS, and you think that's a good thing?
Personally, I'd rather that no countries were bullied, by the "good guys" or the "bad guys". I'd also rather that my nation, in my name, did not sully our national honor by being a global bully.


. Diplomacy is a negotiation not a bullying match. Canada has not done a great job of it, is all I'm saying.

Right... so we bully you, how are you supposed respond? Honestly, you're taking issue with it, but what should you do instead? Why is Canada expected to bow and scrape when we forgo diplomacy and tell you "Our way or the high way!"


Yeah, but let us not be hypocrites about it. We like most US culture. We just don't like to admit that we like it.

To me these seem like totally different concepts. American cultural imperialism =/= a violation of sovereignty. Asking for carte blanche to your airspace is a violation of sovereignty.

[World Eater]

I'll also add to Finn's fine post that our bullying is starting to lose it's luster. Take of course this thread with Canada telling us to shove the MD up our ass, and also recently, Putin signing up with Iran. I suspect that more of this will happen as the world, finally sick of us will find more ways to wrok around us instead of with us.

[World Eater]

I'm having a bad grammar week, sorry.

[QuickSilver]

Finn, this is fun but our posts are getting ridiculously long with the back and forth quotes.

I don't know if anybody is going to be lobbing missiles at the US any time soon, if ever. If nobody does then the entire issue is moot. How the US chooses to spend their military budget is not Canada's issue to decide or dictate. We just hope they'll save our asses if ever that time comes.

Look, all I'm suggesting is that Canada doesn't rise to the very bating of which you critisize the Bush administration. We can make a case against participation but we've got to show some leadership and class by saying we have doubts about the efficacy of the proposed defense system and NOT call the US an imperialist pig and it's leadership a bunch of hooved cattle. This entire airspace issue is just a red herring, btw.

What ever happened to the sense of proportion in politics and life in general.

[FinnAgain]

Finn, this is fun but our posts are getting ridiculously long with the back and forth quotes.

I know that long drawn out quote fests can get bothersome... but I see no other way to respond to specific bits of text. If you'd like, every few posts we can provide a 'summary' post?


I don't know if anybody is going to be lobbing missiles at the US any time soon, if ever. If nobody does then the entire issue is moot.

The issue isn't moot, becuase if it should ever happen, we've demanded the right to use your airspace however we see fit, without asking you first. The demand is still there whether or not it actually happens.


How the US chooses to spend their military budget is not Canada's issue to decide or dictate.

True, as an American I feel that it's a ridiculous outlay of money on a ridiculously unnecessary and ineffective project.

But the issue isn't whether or not Canada wants us to develop MD, but whether or not Canada has the right to control its own airspace.


We just hope they'll save our asses if ever that time comes.

Just curious, but what enemies on the global stage does Canada have? I'm honestly curious... I've always thought of y'all kinda like Switzerland, but with more snow. Please clear up my ignorance.


We can make a case against participation but we've got to show some leadership and class by saying we have doubts about the efficacy of the proposed defense system and NOT call the US an imperialist pig and it's leadership a bunch of hooved cattle. This entire airspace issue is just a red herring, btw.

Why is it a red herring? To me, your airspace's integrity is a soverign right of your nation whether we have MD or laser defense or giant flying birds with microchips in their brains who can disarm missiles in flight. Even if MD worked flawlessly, it's still your nation's right to allow or disallow other nations to use their airspace.


What ever happened to the sense of proportion in politics and life in general.

Our ports aren't secured, the borders aren't secured, homeland security is inefficent and under funded, the war in Iraq was based on cherry picked intel, the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act is limiting civil liberties, the Iraq campaign has consistenty been mismanged, Halliburton has (if we're being very kind) "accidentally" overcharged our government, we've had Haliburton and others make money on foreign goods when Iraqis themselves can produce what they need and paying them would help their economy and society, we've violated the Geneva Convention and torture innocent civilians as a matter of policy, nine billion dollars just went 'missing' somewhere between the American tax payers and Iraq... but gays want to marry!!!

Ahem, I mean, I have no idea.

[World Eater]

True, as an American I feel that it's a ridiculous outlay of money on a ridiculously unnecessary and ineffective project.

Someone once said it's the most expensive solution to the lease likely scenario.

we've had Haliburton and others make money on foreign goods when Iraqis themselves can produce what they need and paying them would help their economy and society,

speaking of this, re we still [/i]importing[/i] oil into Iraq?

[FinnAgain]

speaking of this, re we still [/i]importing[/i] oil into Iraq?

Most of the cites I've been finding are from 2003, I'm looking for something more current re: oil imports.

Here is something else, however (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/industry/halliburton.htm)

# In December 2003, a DCAA draft audit reported that Halliburton overcharged the Defense Department by $61 million to import gasoline into Iraq from Kuwait through September 30, 2003.
# On December 31, 2003, a DCAA “Flash Report” audit found “significant” and “systemic” deficiencies in the way Halliburton estimates and validates costs. According to the DCAA audit, Halliburton repeatedly violated the Federal Acquisition Regulation and submitted a $2.7 billion proposal that “did not contain current, accurate, and complete data regarding subcontract costs.
# On January 13, 2004, DCAA concluded that Halliburton’s deficiencies “bring into question [Halliburton’s] ability to consistently produce well-supported proposals that are acceptable as a basis for negotiation of fair and reasonable prices,” and it urged the Corps of Engineers to “contact us to ascertain the status of [Halliburton’s] estimating system prior to entering into future negotiations.
# In a May 13, 2004, audit, DCAA reported “several deficiencies” in Halliburton’s billing system that resulted in billings to the government that “are not prepared in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and contract terms.” DCAA also found “system deficiencies resulting in material invoicing misstatements that are not prevented, detected and/or corrected in a timely manner.” The report emphasized Halliburton’s inadequate controls over subcontract billings. The auditors “identified inadequate or nonexistent policies and procedures for notifying the government of potential significant subcontract problems that impact delivery, quality, and price” and determined that Halliburton “does not monitor the ongoing physical progress of subcontracts or the related costs and billings.
# On June 25, 2004, the CPA IG found that, as a result of poor oversight, Halliburton charged U.S. taxpayers for unauthorized and unnecessary expenses at the Kuwait Hilton Hotel. According to the IG, the overcharges would have amounted to $3.6 million per year.
# A July 26, 2004, CPA IG audit report found that Halliburton “did not effectively manage government property” and that the company’s property records “were not sufficiently accurate or available to properly account for CPA property items.” The IG “projected that property valued at more than $18.6 million was not accurately accounted for or was missing.
# In July 2004, GAO found ineffective planning, inadequate cost control, and insufficient training of contract management officials under LOGCAP in Iraq. GAO reported that, when Halliburton acted as a middleman for the operation of dining halls, costs were over 40% higher.
# In an August 16, 2004, memorandum, DCAA “identified significant unsupported costs” submitted by KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary, and found “numerous, systemic issues . . . with KBR’s estimates.” According to DCAA, “[w]hile contingency issues may have had an impact during the earlier stages of the procurements, clearly, the contractor should have adequate supporting data by now.” When DCAA examined seven LOGCAP task orders with a combined proposed value of $4.33 billion, auditors identified unsupported costs totaling $1.82 billion.
# On November 23, 2004, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (formerly the CPA IG) examined a $569 million LOGCAP task order and found that Halliburton “did not provide . . . sufficiently detailed cost data to evaluate overall project costs or to determine whether specific costs for services performed were reasonable.” The IG concluded that the Army “did not receive sufficient or reliable cost information to effectively manage” the task order.

Here's one from 2004 (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/iraq.html)

At the present time, problems with Iraq's refineries -- stemming largely from post-war looting and sabotage, plus power outages -- continue to force the country to import gasoline, diesel, liquid petroleum gas (LPG), and other refined products from neighboring countries (Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Syria, and Turkey). As of October 2004, Oil Minister Ghadban said that Iraqi gasoline imports were running at around 40,000 bbl/d (mainly by truck), costing the country $60 million per month in direct costs. This does not include the additional cost steep government subsidies on the consumer price of gasoline, which runs at under 10 cents per gallon. It is estimated that, overall, direct and indirect oil subsidies cost Iraq $8 billion per year, with no indication as to when this problem might be resolved.

[FinnAgain]

This is a big ol' hijack, but I think we're also importing concrete into Iraq while their own factories can produce it.

Maybe we should open another thread to discuss it?

[World Eater]

Holy shit! :eek:

[QuickSilver]

I hear what you're saying about the airspace issue. I'd be more inclined to agree with you if we were talking about a similar agreement between say... Russia and Ukrain. Two nations that have a fundamental distrust of one another but still have deep economic ties and long history. But we're talking of Canada and the USA. Two nations with a deeply similar history and culture, to say nothing of our trade agreements. And then there is the issue of NORAD. We have a precedent of mutual military co-operation deeply related to objects entering national airspace.

I don't think Canada needs to fear any unwarranted airspace incursions by the US. More importantly, the US asked for co-operation for testing within Canadian airspace. I don't recall anyone demanding it.

Again, not sure what US military budget (mis)spending and Halliburton related issues have to do with any of this.

[Orbifold]

Look, Martin (and previously Chretien) didn't handle it well and embarassed the Bush administration with these overly dramatic rants on how evil the US is. If you talk smack, expect to get slapped in the mouth. Martin et all just need to improve their diplomacy skills.

Wait a fucking minute. I thought your rant was about this guy at U of T with his "stamp their little hoofies" comment. When did Paul Martin ever deliver an "overly dramatic rant on how evil the US is"? When the hell did Paul Martin ever "talk smack"?

[FinnAgain]

I hear what you're saying about the airspace issue. I'd be more inclined to agree with you if we were talking about a similar agreement between say... Russia and Ukrain.

The principle involved is not one of maluse, but misuse. We don't have a right to your airspace, even if we use it to drop fluffy teddy bears on your major cities.

We have a precedent of mutual military co-operation deeply related to objects entering national airspace.

Agreed, but you're still allowed, as a soverign nation, to opt out at any time.

. I don't recall anyone demanding it.

Of course we're demanding it, and Condi won't even visit your country unless you do what we tell you to.


Again, not sure what US military budget (mis)spending and Halliburton related issues have to do with any of this.

Well, you asked about proportion so I answered, and then I realized it was a hijack so I stopped.

[World Eater]

More importantly, the US asked for co-operation for testing within Canadian airspace. I don't recall anyone demanding it.


Well they asked and the answer was no, so Condi goes storms off and pouts about it.

[QuickSilver]

Wait a fucking minute. I thought your rant was about this guy at U of T with his "stamp their little hoofies" comment. When did Paul Martin ever deliver an "overly dramatic rant on how evil the US is"? When the hell did Paul Martin ever "talk smack"?

I didn't mean to insinuate that Martin did any such thing.

Martin didn't. Neither did Chretien directly (I don't think). But various gov't members have maid some dumbass comments and have been called on the carpet for it. Sometimes not sternly enough.

But I get the distict feeling that a general lack of civility towards America among the Canadian gov't echelons of late has stirred an aplified knee jerk reaction mentality among some Canadians, not unlike this UofT prof.

[FinnAgain]

I don't understand why it's a knee jerk reaction... I mean you agree that the US shouldn't be able to set your policies for you without your consent. And the US has become increasingly unilateral and absolutist in it's decrees.

I know you view the airspace issue as a red herring, but isn't the the central focus? The US presumes to tell you what to do with your soverign possesions, and if you disagree, we essentialy cut off high-level diplomatic contact.

[World Eater]

But various gov't members have maid some dumbass comments and have been called on the carpet for it. Sometimes not sternly enough.

This can be said for every govt on the face of the earth.

But I get the distict feeling that a general lack of civility towards America among the Canadian gov't echelons of late has stirred an aplified knee jerk reaction mentality among some Canadians, not unlike this UofT prof.

Asshat bigotry in govt picked up by the populace, say it ain't so! Wasn't there something with "Freedom" fries a few years back or was that my imagination?

[World Eater]

I know you view the airspace issue as a red herring, but isn't the the central focus? The US presumes to tell you what to do with your soverign possesions, and if you disagree, we essentialy cut off high-level diplomatic contact.

This is the crux of it right here.

Imagine if someone pulled this shit on the US. We wouldn't have harsh words, we'd probably say they had connections with AQ and invade their asses.

I'm surprised there isn't more outrage in Canada.

[QuickSilver]

I guess my reluctancy to try and convict the US as a brutal imperialist is due to the fact that a good half of the country voted against this administration. The pendulum will swing back and things will go back to a more "reflective" stance in the next election (or two).

In the meantime, Canadians need to tone down the anti-American rhetoric because it's just making us look like we're jumping on that bandwagon with the rest of the half baked lunatics around the world.

[QuickSilver]

Asshat bigotry in govt picked up by the populace, say it ain't so! Wasn't there something with "Freedom" fries a few years back or was that my imagination?

I'm not suggesting that the US always takes the high road. Are you suggesting that this justifies the Canadian gov't sinking to the same level?

[World Eater]

I guess my reluctancy to try and convict the US as a brutal imperialist is due to the fact that a good half of the country voted against this administration. The pendulum will swing back and things will go back to a more "reflective" stance in the next election (or two).

The US has been brutally meddling with other countries for a long, long time. If 9/11 didn't make us reflect on things, nothing ever will.

[QUOTEI'm not suggesting that the US always takes the high road. Are you suggesting that this justifies the Canadian gov't sinking to the same level?[/QUOTE]

Maybe it's nuance, but I don't feel that calling out the US is sinking to their level. I see a big difference between renaming french fries to freedom fries and calling someone out for trying to pull a stunt with their soverignty.

[World Eater]

What was that?

I said real post coding.

Now try it again, with me!

-----------------------------------------------------------


I guess my reluctancy to try and convict the US as a brutal imperialist is due to the fact that a good half of the country voted against this administration. The pendulum will swing back and things will go back to a more "reflective" stance in the next election (or two).


The US has been brutally meddling with other countries for a long, long time. If 9/11 didn't make us reflect on things, nothing ever will.


I'm not suggesting that the US always takes the high road. Are you suggesting that this justifies the Canadian gov't sinking to the same level?


Maybe it's nuance, but I don't feel that calling out the US is sinking to their level. I see a big difference between renaming french fries to freedom fries and calling someone out for trying to pull a stunt with their soverignty.

[QuickSilver]

The US has been brutally meddling with other countries for a long, long time. If 9/11 didn't make us reflect on things, nothing ever will.
I don't think I want to go down that road in this thread.


Maybe it's nuance, but I don't feel that calling out the US is sinking to their level. I see a big difference between renaming french fries to freedom fries and calling someone out for trying to pull a stunt with their soverignty.

If I'm not mistaken, Canadian and French officials have thrown childish and rude insults at various members of this administration in public venues. In my books, it shows poor diplomacy and class. A far cry from "freedom" fries. And, yes, there has also been a wealth of negative comments about France by American media. But I don't recall anyone actually singling out French politicians. I may be wrong. Please correct me.

Anyway, it's been fun but I'm tired and ready for bed. :o

Tomorrow is another day.

:D

[Uzi]

What about the pyramids? I bet they cost a pretty penny and look how useful they turned out to be!

The gun registry would be the biggest waste of money ever. The pyramids are at least a good tourist draw.

[mks57]

You wouldn't have a problem with US jets and missiles being in your airspace, and perhaps damaging civilian populations, as long as another country struck first? Let's say North Korea lobbed a nuke at us and for some reason it passed over Canada (I think the geography for this is all wrong, but anyway...) America chooses to shoot it down near a major Canadian population center. The warhead detonates.

General prognosis: many megadeaths. No blame.
(My ass no blame!)

Doesn't Canada have the right to dictate US terms of engagement within it's sovereign airspace?


Your scenario is not plausible. Nuclear weapons do not detonate like conventional explosives. The system that arms and detonates a nuclear weapon is complex, relatively delicate, and requires precision timing. Any significant damage to that system would effectively disable the weapon.

[Uzi]

You wouldn't have a problem with US jets and missiles being in your airspace, and perhaps damaging civilian populations, as long as another country struck first? Let's say North Korea lobbed a nuke at us and for some reason it passed over Canada (I think the geography for this is all wrong, but anyway...) America chooses to shoot it down near a major Canadian population center. The warhead detonates.

General prognosis: many megadeaths. No blame.
(My ass no blame!)

Doesn't Canada have the right to dictate US terms of engagement within it's sovereign airspace?

I'm not interested in arguing the merits of this missle defense system as I don't think a missile is going to be the delivery system used to get a nuke to the US. But, if someone did launch a nuke using a missile and if the US did have an effective method of destroying that missile in flight, then it would be naive to think that the US would wait until that missile was over its own territory before detonating it if it could do so sooner. Actually, I think it would be downright criminal of whoever would be in charge in the US at the time. Your government should be defending you, not worrying about how others might feel about it after the fact.

Frankly, you only have as much sovereignty as you have the ability, or willingness, to defend. It is only by the good will of the US that we have any say in the matter at all because there is little we could do if they decided to get ornery (Waiting for the usual War of 1812 reference at this point...).

[World Eater]

I'm not interested in arguing the merits of this missle defense system as I don't think a missile is going to be the delivery system used to get a nuke to the US. But, if someone did launch a nuke using a missile and if the US did have an effective method of destroying that missile in flight, then it would be naive to think that the US would wait until that missile was over its own territory before detonating it if it could do so sooner. Actually, I think it would be downright criminal of whoever would be in charge in the US at the time. Your government should be defending you, not worrying about how others might feel about it after the fact.

So if Canada gets intel that a hijacked airplane is headed for Toronto they can fly into US airspace and shoot it out of the sky right?

[Uzi]

So if Canada gets intel that a hijacked airplane is headed for Toronto they can fly into US airspace and shoot it out of the sky right?

A mouse living next to the elephant does what the elephant wants unless the elephant agrees otherwise, not the other way round. I'm not saying it is right, but it is reality. Read what I said about ability and willingness.

[World Eater]

A mouse living next to the elephant does what the elephant wants unless the elephant agrees otherwise, not the other way round. I'm not saying it is right, but it is reality. Read what I said about ability and willingness.

The US violates Canadian airspace to save lives, but Canada can't do the same?

Just asking

[Gorsnak]

So if Canada gets intel that a hijacked airplane is headed for Toronto they can fly into US airspace and shoot it out of the sky right?
Well sure. You've heard of NORAD, right? North American air defense is coordinated under a unified command.

[World Eater]

Well sure. You've heard of NORAD, right? North American air defense is coordinated under a unified command.

The same thing can be said for missile defense.

[Uzi]

The US violates Canadian airspace to save lives, but Canada can't do the same?

Just asking

I'm not saying they couldn't. I'm just saying that if Canada violated US airspace, the consequences to Canada could be far graver than the reverse. What could Canada do if their airspace was violated other than bitch about it? The US could do many things if they wanted to. Again, I'm not saying it is fair, or right, but it is the reality. If you are being picked on by a larger neighbour you can always call the cops to stop it, but what do nations do? Call the UN <snort...chuckle...BwaHAHAHA!>?

[Gorsnak]

The same thing can be said for missile defense.
Except that the NORAD agreement doesn't cover missile defense, where it does cover all manner of fighter interception of aerial threats. Pesky things, those treaty things. You keep having to live up to the stuff that's in them, but not the stuff that's not. It's just so unfair.

[World Eater]

The US could do many things if they wanted to. Again, I'm not saying it is fair, or right, but it is the reality. If you are being picked on by a larger neighbour you can always call the cops to stop it, but what do nations do? Call the UN <snort...chuckle...BwaHAHAHA!>?

I dunno, someone could fly a few planes into some buildings, or detonate a nuke in DC. Who knows? Spending all our money chasing ghosts (ICBM missile defense) in lieu of taking actual precautions (securing shipping ports) might even make that easier to accomplish. Not acting like some raging global asshole probably doesn't help either.

[FinnAgain]

Your scenario is not plausible. Nuclear weapons do not detonate like conventional explosives. The system that arms and detonates a nuclear weapon is complex, relatively delicate, and requires precision timing. Any significant damage to that system would effectively disable the weapon.


I do not believe you're correct, and evidently some others agree.

The Airborne Laser was conceived by the U.S. Air Force as the most effective near-term defense against the growing threat of tactical and theater-range ballistic missiles. The ABL will consist of a 747-400F jet equipped with extremely precise targeting systems and a powerful chemical oxygen-iodine laser capable of shooting down ballistic missiles during their vulnerable "boost" phase shortly after launch. The ABL's laser is designed to cause ballistic missiles to break apart or explode while they and, more importantly, their warheads are still over the enemy's territory. Thus, the fear that nuclear, chemical or biological warheads might detonate within a rogue regime's borders could deter the launch of ballistic missiles armed with such warheads. (http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/defense/ablaser.htm)