Star Wars: A New Hope
According to Question Period today, it looks like the Liberals will back out of missile defense. This will mark a sharp contrast (notice the avoidance of the term flip-flop) to Martin's position during the leadership race when Sheila Copps shouted about missile defense and Paul said we "had to be at the table". This was significant since Paul's time during the leadership "race" consisted of grandiose statements such as "I support puppies, sunshine, and lollipops...except without the skin cancer, rabies, and tooth decay." In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the only two concrete promises made by Martin during the leadership race was that he'd say "yes" to Star Wars, and "no" to Bob Nault's very good Native governance bill.
Don't get me wrong. I'm very glad we'll be backing out of missile defense - it's a stupid idea that will never work. But for a guy who promised better relations with the provinces and better relations with the States, Paulie's not exactly coming through.
According to Question Period today, it looks like the Liberals will back out of missile defense. This will mark a sharp contrast (notice the avoidance of the term flip-flop) to Martin's position during the leadership race when Sheila Copps shouted about missile defense and Paul said we "had to be at the table". This was significant since Paul's time during the leadership "race" consisted of grandiose statements such as "I support puppies, sunshine, and lollipops...except without the skin cancer, rabies, and tooth decay." In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the only two concrete promises made by Martin during the leadership race was that he'd say "yes" to Star Wars, and "no" to Bob Nault's very good Native governance bill.
Don't get me wrong. I'm very glad we'll be backing out of missile defense - it's a stupid idea that will never work. But for a guy who promised better relations with the provinces and better relations with the States, Paulie's not exactly coming through.
posted by calgarygrit at
9:35 p.m.
11 Comments:
1. Sure if the system had even the slightest chance of being successful and didn't cost billions of dollars, requires the breaking of international treaties, and the primary security threat was ballistic missiles then maybe an ABM system wouldn't be stupid. However, every single test has demonstrated that the current technology isn't up to the task of a skin on skin hit, which is required for the destruction of a re-entering warhead (given that they travel at a greater rate than the propagation of an explosion). Also, there really isn't a risk of nuclear war in the modern era. The money that's going to Star Wars would be better spent on ferreting out and dealing with terrorist organizations (if your primary concern was security) or a ton of other things.
2. I'm not an aerospace engineers but I know a couple and I've asked them about their opinions. None of them thought that an ABM system would be effective. As for whether this is the business of Canadians, how is it not? The US are asking to build weapon facilities on our sovereign territory. We shouldn't just give them carte blanche, we should consider what they're proposing before we acquiesce.
Also the issue isn't about money, it's about whether Canada wants to join the US in breaking the anti-proliferation treaties and the international ban on ABMs. An analogy is would you accept free heroin? Sure it doesn't cost us anything and it might be kind of fun. Sure it might be illegal but who cares about that anyways. Stop asking so many pesky questions.
By
Unknown, at 3:57 a.m.
Tell me, Charlebois.. how is the ABM system (even if it IS successful in shooting down stuff.. which certainly isnt proven yet) going to stop another airplane attack a la 9/11.. or a terrorist slipping thru a border or thru a port with a suitcase bomb...
Answer: It wont.
Why should Canada endorse a pie-in-the-sky system that is a waste of resources?
By
Oxford County Liberals, at 12:17 p.m.
"Why should Canada endorse a pie-in-the-sky system that is a waste of resources?"
Because it's no skin off our teeth if they want to waste their money on the program, BUT saying no, along with many other foreign affairs "slights" toward the US are adding up. Sometimes you have to take a position that you may not agree with wholeheartedly, simply because your friend asks you to take the position.
Besides, what's the harm to Canada for taking part? If the costs of supporting the program are cheaper than the costs it would take to defend Canadian airspace properly (which we may just have to shoulder if NORAD changes due to us staying out of BMD), then why shouldn't we take advantage of all opportunities to protect Canada?
By
The Hack, at 12:41 p.m.
I dont agree: If my friend tells me the right thing to do is jump off a cliff with him.. I'm going to tell him he's doing it on his own, no matter how much of a friend he is and no matter how many times he asks me, and no matter how angry he gets that I wont follow him.
By
Oxford County Liberals, at 2:53 p.m.
But this isn't jumping on the cliff, something that harms Canada. If anything, if this eventually works, we're actually making Canada safer by using the most up to date technology.
I just don't understand the logic.
Saying "No" further hurts the ties as "allies" that we are supposed to have.
Saying "No" quite possibly threatens the existance of NORAD. And you know as well as I do that Canada doesn't bear the full burden of those costs now.
Saying "No" means that if it DOES work in the future (and really, there's no scientific evidence to suggest that it will always fail), that we don't wish to protect the country using the best technology availible.
What does saying "No" really earn us as a country? I just haven't heard one good argument. Even if it never works, what are we being asked to contribute by signing on? Saying "yes" to BMD eases the sting of saying "no" to troops in Iraq.
We are too dependent on the USA to continually piss on their requests. As allies, we've got to step up eventually. Otherwise, let's be honest about our relationship and accept the consequences.
By
The Hack, at 4:52 p.m.
CharLeBois,
I never said that Canada shouldn't get involved. I just said that Canada should question the United States on their plan. I think economic issues are still live if your friend was going to waste his money doing something utterly stupid wouldn't you question him about it. However that wasn't my main point. If you read my original reply to your comment I made a much bigger deal about the illegality of an ABM system. It contravenes anti-proliferation and anti-ABM treaties that both Canada and the US have signed. As such if we want to remain internationally credible we should have very good reason to get involved with Star Wars before we jump to do it. I don't think there is such reason. Money isn't the major issue and I never said it was. The issues are legal and practical. Moreover, the legal and practical issues should lead Canada to question the American position quite vigorously. Which is why I think even if the missile system is free, as you suggest, that we shouldn't just wholeheartedly accept it, as you suggest.
By
Unknown, at 5:43 p.m.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
By
Oxford County Liberals, at 5:46 p.m.
Canada already gave the US permission to use NORAD to track incoming missiles for the so-called ABM if it ever managed to work... and they dont seem to particularly want much else from us other then "moral approval".. something I and a lot of other Canadians are not prepared to give to that Administration.. they've earned none of that.. and because of that, I'm willing to sit out 3 1/2 more years of Bush and hope the next guy and administration is more reasonable.
I'm not telling the Americans they cant research this stuff.. .. it certainly has merit..and maybe one day the technology will have the capability to be useful... but as far as I'm concerned, it isnt right now.. Bush is rushing this ABM technology without proper testing, and he's got a 45% failure rate so far with even the most scripted of conditions.
Plus.. this Adninistration is likely to do what Paul Martin claims he doesnt want - the weaponization of space. I see this Admnistration having no bones about doing that.. I'm not prepared to give them a blank cheque to do that.
As for the so-called threat of ending NORAD or not being able to be "at the table" in decision making if a missile does come up.. get real... does anyone here think that even if Canada was at the table and involved... that the US would listen to any of our objections over say an incoming missile that the US deemed needed to be shot down over Canada?
Of course they wouldnt.. they'd be coming over our airspace and trying to take it out whether we were at the table or not.. their interests (and their cities) would come first... and they view Canada as nothing but a big empty space for the missile to fall into.
This is a plan that needs to be not touched with a 39 1/2 foot pole.
By
Oxford County Liberals, at 5:50 p.m.
What a wonderful invention it is, this thing we call the Internet!
By
Anonymous, at 7:46 p.m.
Hey, you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you!
By
Anonymous, at 11:05 p.m.
2015-12-22keyun
uggs boots for women
adidas originals store
michael kors outlet clearance
north face jackets
ugg boots
jordan shoes
ray-ban sunglasses
nike air max uk
michael kors outlet
louis vuitton outlet stores
marc jacobs outlet
ugg boots
michael kors outlet
cheap ugg boots
prada handbags
canada goose jackets
ugg boots on sale
louis vuitton purses
ugg australia
gucci handbags
kids lebron shoes
michael kors outlet online
timberlands
adidas superstar shoes
uggs outlet
louis vuitton purses
beats by dre
michael kors outlet
canada goose
ray bans
nike running shoes for men
canada goose sale
cheap rolex watches
ugg outlet
michael kors outlet sale
discount jordans
oakley store
hollister
uggs sale
jordan 11 concord
By
柯云, at 8:08 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home