We are a collective of people who believe in freedom of speech, the rights of individuals, and free pancakes! We share our lives, struggles, frustrations, successes, joys, and prescribe to our own special brand of humor and insanity. If you are looking for a great place to hang out, make new friends, find new nemeses, and just be yourself, WTF.com is your new home.
I differentiate between offensive and defensive weapons/equipment. Like many people, the proliferation of fission/fussion bombs bothers me. However, I like the idea of systems and technology designed to stop them. I like Canada, they're a good nieghbor. I like the idea of joint defensive operations with them. If they get nuked nuked, where will America get affordable perscription drugs and how will the NHL survive? I wish we had a descent administration in office that Canada wouldn't mind cooperating with. Nuke defense is important!
The question of missile defense isn't really wether or not we should try and defend ourselves (I hope the answer to that is obvious), but whether or not it is actually feasible. First of all, any nuclear warheads that are coming toward the mainland US are going to be extremely advanced. We're talking, most likely, shit from Russia or China (and perhaps in a decade or so from North Korea). Typically a ballistic missile will carry multiple nukes (I believe in a range of 5 - 10, but "multiple" is the operative word here). Also, they will be carrying a number of decoys as well. As of 2001, the most sophisticated anti-missile technology could not distinguish between the actual nuclear bombs and the decoys. This means that inorder to even hope to take down one rocket's worth of bombs, we'd have to send like 20-30 anti-nuclear missiles.
Then comes the question of detonation. There are really only two feasible methods of disarming incoming nukes as of the last time I read up on the issue. One is my detonation with a warhead of our own. The other method utilizes an EMP to disable the tech onboard the missile and warhead, thus turning the entire thing into a giant, flying paperweight. The problem with the EMP approach is that what goes up, will obviously come back down and the question is, where? Great, so know we've saved millions in a major metropolitan area while leveling half a city block with the reckage and in turn we still have to recover the Uranium/Plutonium to make sure that we don't have radiation issues. Try running that one past the public. "Sure, ladies and gentlemen, it could be YOUR house that gets a nuclear warhead as an uninvited house-guest, but I assure you, it is completely harmless." So then we look at the other option, remote detonation. Well, it we detonate it too close, sure we can avoid the blast, but now we just multplied the area of effect of the radiation ten-fold. Ok, well the easy solution to that is to blast these things as close to enemy territory as possible. I'm going to go ahead and gloss over the fact that it would be nearly impossible to detect a missile launch early enough to detonate overhead of the enemy country and just get to the ballistics/foreign relations issue. Imagine that we are worried that a country is going to shoot nukes at us, so we put in place anti-nuclear defense. Well, if we want these nukes to be remote detonated as close to their territory as possible, we will be using rockets with a ballistic range capable of hitting their country. Now, these rockets will always be aimed at said country to minimize response time in case of an attack. Well, these are the same kinds of missiles that they are aiming at us, only for some reason they´re supposed to actually believe us when we say that they aren't carrying a payload of nuclear weapons. What do you think they're really going to think? Wait... Isn't this how the Cold War started?
Nukes can be stopped, Skitch. We do have the technology and resources to derail a nuclear attack. I believe Canada's opposition to the proposal is not based on the feasibility of stopping a Nuclear strike, but the ethics and diplomatic ramifications of involving itself in space-warfare, as well as cooperating with the Bush administration.
I'll say it again: I think countries pointing nuclear weapons at each other is bad, but defense against nuclear weapons is good. I think the Bush administration is bad. Canada is in the awkward position of getting an a good offer from of good country with a bad administration.
I think Canada made the right choice in not participating in the missle defense system. Since well, Canada has a low chance of being hit with a nuclear missle. The chances of a nuclear missle launching are low as it is...maybe not in the future, but hey, we'll wait and see I guess. What bugged me was..."Cellucci noted that Washington would simply deploy its anti-missile system over Canadian airspace anyway, and expressed puzzlement over Canada's decision to "in effect, give up its sovereignty."" That statement alone is was really fries me. Wouldn't Canadians display their own sovereignty by refusing pressure from the world's superpower? Meh, whatever. Overall, the decision to not participate in a missle defense system was a good decision by Prime Minister Paul Martin.
If a nuclear war breaks out we're all dead due to M.A.D. anyway so why put money into what other nations already are. They plan to strike untill they call off the war. Members of the NHL also respond to light like roaches although it has to be red and blues. They are hopeing this is enough to allow them to survive the blast.