Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:27 pm    Post subject: anti missle shield? who needs it, not me i'm invincible Reply with quote

I remember a few yers back, back just about when harper was just starting in power. Canada (liberals, ndp, bloc) voted down haveing a anti missile shield! :?

Now you tell me one good reason why protecting youself against nukes could be bad?



ps: sorry for putting this one in the totally wrong section :oops:
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sat Dec 13, 2008 6:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I hope you don't mind... I moved your thread to the Military forum.

The decision to vote against cooperating with the Americans on missile shielding came down to cheap visual politics mixed with concerns about sovereignty.

-Mac
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac
do you think that the concervatives should push the deal through if they get a majority in the near future? The only reason I can think of for not pushing it through is because apperantly Quebecers hate the idea, that might of just been a spin though.
Mac





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 5500
Reputation: 104
votes: 35
Location: John Baird's riding...

PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
Mac
do you think that the concervatives should push the deal through if they get a majority in the near future? The only reason I can think of for not pushing it through is because apperantly Quebecers hate the idea, that might of just been a spin though.

It would depend on the deal. If Obama offers a better arrangement, I could see the Conservatives making it happen, whether in majority or minority.

Quebec isn't pacifist by a long stretch. The Van Doos are one of our most celebrated and feared regiments and they're based in Quebec.

-Mac
Big Tuna





Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 368
Reputation: 15
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:12 pm    Post subject: Re: anti missle shield? who needs it, not me i'm invincible Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
I remember a few yers back, back just about when harper was just starting in power. Canada (liberals, ndp, bloc) voted down haveing a anti missile shield! :?

Now you tell me one good reason why protecting youself against nukes could be bad?



ps: sorry for putting this one in the totally wrong section :oops:


Well, starting another arms race with the Russians might be bad for starters...
ezbeatz





Joined: 09 Oct 2008
Posts: 1140
Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5Reputation: 49.5
votes: 10
Location: Vaughan, ON

PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac wrote:
Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
Mac
do you think that the concervatives should push the deal through if they get a majority in the near future? The only reason I can think of for not pushing it through is because apperantly Quebecers hate the idea, that might of just been a spin though.

It would depend on the deal. If Obama offers a better arrangement, I could see the Conservatives making it happen, whether in majority or minority.

Quebec isn't pacifist by a long stretch. The Van Doos are one of our most celebrated and feared regiments and they're based in Quebec.

-Mac


You're right about the Van Doos. But they're based in Quebec city. Quebec city is fortress Tory/ADQ. It's the most Conservative part of Quebec. It's hardly the bell weather area of the province.
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 9:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big tuna

By building an ANTI-missle sheld we are effectivly rendering Nucular War heads useless. So why would the russians build arms to shoot a a country that they would have no effect on?

This is what bothers me about the don't get a missle shild argument. If we have a sheld, it does not matter who we provoke by defending ourselves because there warheads will be useless. Rendering Nukes useless should be a good thing!
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 11:37 pm    Post subject: Re: anti missle shield? who needs it, not me i'm invincible Reply with quote

Big Tuna wrote:
Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
I remember a few yers back, back just about when harper was just starting in power. Canada (liberals, ndp, bloc) voted down haveing a anti missile shield! :?

Now you tell me one good reason why protecting youself against nukes could be bad?



ps: sorry for putting this one in the totally wrong section :oops:


Well, starting another arms race with the Russians might be bad for starters...


First of all, Russia failed the last time they tried, and that 'arms race' probably played a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. I don't think anyone will deny that as a good thing.

Second, it's a red herring - the BMD program does not and will not have the capability to defend against a full launch from Russia. It is intended as a defense against a limited number of ballisitic missles that might be launched by a smaller nuclear nation (North Korea, Pakistan, Iran), or even by a non-state actor. Russia's protestations have nothing to do with the program itself and everything to do with preserving their 'turf' - they consider some included countries like the Ukraine to be 'theirs'.
Big Tuna





Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 368
Reputation: 15
votes: 6

PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 7:20 am    Post subject: Re: anti missle shield? who needs it, not me i'm invincible Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
Big Tuna wrote:
Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
I remember a few yers back, back just about when harper was just starting in power. Canada (liberals, ndp, bloc) voted down haveing a anti missile shield! :?

Now you tell me one good reason why protecting youself against nukes could be bad?



ps: sorry for putting this one in the totally wrong section :oops:


Well, starting another arms race with the Russians might be bad for starters...


First of all, Russia failed the last time they tried, and that 'arms race' probably played a role in the collapse of the Soviet Union. I don't think anyone will deny that as a good thing.


Or it could have ended in a Nuclear war..

Not to mention that if you fail at something once does not mean you'll continue failing.

FF_Canuck wrote:

Second, it's a red herring - the BMD program does not and will not have the capability to defend against a full launch from Russia. It is intended as a defense against a limited number of ballisitic missles that might be launched by a smaller nuclear nation (North Korea, Pakistan, Iran), or even by a non-state actor. Russia's protestations have nothing to do with the program itself and everything to do with preserving their 'turf' - they consider some included countries like the Ukraine to be 'theirs'.


You think the Russians will sit back and ignore the BMD program? They won't develop other weapons that cannot be defended with the BMD? Do you think tension between the US and Russia is good for the world?

Nothing to worry about for now anyway. The BMD technology doesn't even work. :)
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Tue Dec 16, 2008 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

big tuna wrote
Quote:
You think the Russians will sit back and ignore the BMD program? They won't develop other weapons that cannot be defended with the BMD?


Well to me your just saying why defend ourselves against nukes, even if we do they will just develop something stronger. Well duh, but this mentality did not stop tanks or machine guns from being made and used. And by the time they make a stronger weapon we could have made a stronger defence.

I still fail to see why trying defending yourself agaist nukes is a bad thing.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 11:36 am    Post subject: Re: anti missle shield? who needs it, not me i'm invincible Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:
I remember a few yers back, back just about when harper was just starting in power. Canada (liberals, ndp, bloc) voted down haveing a anti missile shield! :?

Now you tell me one good reason why protecting youself against nukes could be bad?

ps: sorry for putting this one in the totally wrong section :oops:


I am against this idea for two reasons. One it doesn't work. Research never hurts, but what they have right now ain't good enough.

The second reason I am opposed is that if you are a "rogue state" looking to attack the US, firing a missle at them is probably not your best bet anyway. The US would know exactly who you are -- and that would be then end of you.

If I were a "rogue state". I would simply put the bomb in a shipping container and have it explode when someone opened it. Panic spreads, the economy is destroyed, the US has much less ability and interest in interfering with your goals.
Rusty Bedsprings





Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 1629

votes: 5

PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fiscal con wrote:
Quote:
I am against this idea for two reasons. One it doesn't work. Research never hurts, but what they have right now ain't good enough.

The second reason I am opposed is that if you are a "rogue state" looking to attack the US, firing a missle at them is probably not your best bet anyway. The US would know exactly who you are -- and that would be then end of you.

If I were a "rogue state". I would simply put the bomb in a shipping container and have it explode when someone opened it. Panic spreads, the economy is destroyed, the US has much less ability and interest in interfering with your goals.


Even if it does not work why shouldn't we develop defencive weapons? We won't develop them by not using their first forms.

As for your second reason their may be better ways to attack us but you saying "oh this way of attack probably won't happen so we don't have to worry about it" is foolish. This is a suicidal thought pattern because what you are saying is why bother protecting ourselves? We will still just be attacked anyway. :roll:
FF_Canuck





Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 3360
Reputation: 73.4
votes: 17
Location: Southern Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:11 pm    Post subject: Re: anti missle shield? who needs it, not me i'm invincible Reply with quote

fiscalconservative wrote:
I am against this idea for two reasons. One it doesn't work. Research never hurts, but what they have right now ain't good enough.


I get that this is a really important point for people who are trying to cover for Obama, but it's not true. It does work, and is constantly being improved with new research and technologies. Here's one recent example report: LINK

I do agree that it should be researched further, but the system is workable right now. Probably not for much longer though, if Obama has his way.

fiscalconservative wrote:
The second reason I am opposed is that if you are a "rogue state" looking to attack the US, firing a missle at them is probably not your best bet anyway. The US would know exactly who you are -- and that would be then end of you.

If I were a "rogue state". I would simply put the bomb in a shipping container and have it explode when someone opened it. Panic spreads, the economy is destroyed, the US has much less ability and interest in interfering with your goals.


'Rogue states', practically by definition, are teetering on the edge of stability and run by paranoid lunatic dictators. It would be unwise to assume they will always act in what we percieve as the most rational manner.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:03 pm    Post subject: Re: anti missle shield? who needs it, not me i'm invincible Reply with quote

FF_Canuck wrote:
fiscalconservative wrote:
I am against this idea for two reasons. One it doesn't work. Research never hurts, but what they have right now ain't good enough.


I get that this is a really important point for people who are trying to cover for Obama, but it's not true. It does work, and is constantly being improved with new research and technologies. Here's one recent example report: LINK

I do agree that it should be researched further, but the system is workable right now. Probably not for much longer though, if Obama has his way.



You have to differentiate between "successful test" and something that will work in the real world. Its fine and dandy the US can now shoot down their own rockets in carefully controlled tests (this is real progress). Its another thing to shoot down something that does not want to be shot down. If a country can make a nuke, it should be able to do simple counter measures (decoys, radar avoidance etc)
Not to mention simpler ways of delivering a bomb

For me, there has been way to much bull shit on this topic. Remember a much grander scheme that was supposed to be operational under Regan ? How many billions went down that hole. ?(though, the Russians appear to have bought the lies).

How about the lies about the Patriots during the first Gulf war. The earlier tests where it turned out the rocket being targeted was fixed with a tracking device to aid the killer missle ?


fiscalconservative wrote:
The second reason I am opposed is that if you are a "rogue state" looking to attack the US, firing a missle at them is probably not your best bet anyway. The US would know exactly who you are -- and that would be then end of you.

If I were a "rogue state". I would simply put the bomb in a shipping container and have it explode when someone opened it. Panic spreads, the economy is destroyed, the US has much less ability and interest in interfering with your goals.

FF_Canuck wrote:

'Rogue states', practically by definition, are teetering on the edge of stability and run by paranoid lunatic dictators. It would be unwise to assume they will always act in what we percieve as the most rational manner.


I think most of those rogue states behave in a rational way - if you consider their goals. The North Koreans would face collapse without all the aid they get from the west. Much of that aid is tied to the fact it has the bomb. Certainly they starve their people and have a very crappy economy, but its leaders don't care as long as they have there luxury goods. Whine about Kim all you want, but how many other communist leaders are still around ?

Also, I don't think these countries really have lunatic dictators. The leaders of Iran and North Korea are not dictators in the classic sense. Neither one has absolute power, they are more the faces of a Junta.
fiscalconservative





Joined: 08 Dec 2008
Posts: 1043
Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9Reputation: 49.9
votes: 6

PostPosted: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Bedsprings wrote:


Even if it does not work why shouldn't we develop defencive weapons? We won't develop them by not using their first forms.


I have nothing against developing them. I would rather they spend the money of research instead of building something that does not appear to be effective at the moment.


Rusty Bedsprings wrote:


As for your second reason their may be better ways to attack us but you saying "oh this way of attack probably won't happen so we don't have to worry about it" is foolish. This is a suicidal thought pattern because what you are saying is why bother protecting ourselves? We will still just be attacked anyway. :roll:


To make another WW2 analogy (I know you like them), before WW2, France spent a small fortune building a massive system of fortifications called the Maginot Line. It was built on the German border and was designed to stop a German assault.
The Germans never directly assaulted. They simply went around it because it did not cover the border with Belgium.
Had the French spent all that money on tanks and airplanes, WW2 might have turned out different.

To give another analogy, you could put a bank vault door on the front of your house. It does not make your house that much more secure though...a determined thief would simply break a window.

What I am trying to say here is that the money would be much better spent on research, to increase the technology gap between the Americans and their enemies.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3

Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


anti missle shield? who needs it, not me i'm invincible

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB