Bush warns Canada could be a target of North Korean missiles

[paracowboy]

Talibans are not Pakistani, they are Pashtu, however, they were supported by Pakistan.

The Taliban movement began in the madrassas of Pakistan, and spread north. The original students who took up arms were from Pakistan.

The Iranians,Jordanians,Saudis,Kuwaitis......I hope you're not referring to the countries. If you meant individuals, then you proved my point.

the nation of Iran, certainly. The original point was that terrorists can obtain the missiles, move into a nation that supports their aims, or will shelter them for money, and lanch from that nation. You have proven Wes's, Infidel's, and my point.

No soverign nation would want to involve itself in a losing battle against the US. Even N.K. regime knows that very well. All what they want is more money, money and money.

the N.K. regime is desperate to maintain their power, and they can only do so by keeping their population down-trodden, and keeping the democratic powers out via fear and intimidation. Communist nations' activities are all entirely aimed at keeping their own people under control. They can only do so by severely restricing interaction with other nations. If they feel threatened enough, they WILL launch missiles in order to maintain their own power.

Such nations might use bulley tactics to try and provoke the US, but they'd not dare to directly attack the US with missiles.

if they have nukes that can reach, they certainly would. But the actual attack is not necessarily the aim. They hope that by gaining long-range nukes, they can keep the US out of the local area through fear, while they continue with their illegal activites. You ain't looking at the bigger picture. Or, you're choosing to ignore it.

Most tyrant regimes in the mid-east or south east-asia do not care about their people, but they care ALOT about the power they have over these people.

exactly.

 

[tamouh]

The original point was that terrorists can obtain the missiles, move into a nation that supports their aims, or will shelter them for money, and lanch from that nation.

Fair, they'll supply them with money and technology but no country interested in having them launch missiles against the US from their ground. They might as well launch the missiles themselves (the hosting country)!

How many Arab nations have launched missiles against Israel in the past 20 yrs ? None, except to Iraq during the gulf war and there were obvious political motives for it. We're talking about Israel here, the most hated country in the whole Arab world. Lets even look closer, how many Arab nations have provoked all out war with Israel since 1973 ? None.....it is a simple equation that IDF proved capable of winning the war.

If they feel threatened enough, they WILL launch missiles in order to maintain their own power.

I agree, but we disagree on what is the definition of "threatened enough", This is not 1950s with USSR and Commun China, post-WWII where everyone is busy rebuilding.

They hope that by gaining long-range nukes, they can keep the US out of the local area through fear, while they continue with their illegal activites.

Absolutely! They're not seeking to initiate the war, but rather secure their ambitions. Hence why I believe no country will allow terrorist organizations to launch the rockets.

 

[paracowboy]

North Korea is a paranoid nation reeling from famine to plague and back to famine. Their infrastructure is a shambles, they are surrounded by perceived enemies, and they know, better than we, that their entire government is about to collapse. They no longer listen to their Chinese "allies" because they know they are on their deathbed. And you expect logical reasoning from them? They prefer to have their population eating each other than cooperate with another nation. If you expect them to behave like a rational human would, you are as crazy as they are.

I prefer to disarm lunatics, lock them away, or kill them than trust to their good faith.

As for your argument that no host nation would "allow" a terrorist organization to launch an attack, who says that the host nation has that much control? Syria had little control over what the various Palestinian terrorists did in Lebanon. Yemen had none whatsoever over the various training camps on their soil. And we've already established that these groups have no concern for the welfare of the civil populations of the nation they are hiding in.

Again, I prefer to disarm lunatics.

You are trying to put a reasonable face on unreasonable people. I still haven't decided if you are an apologist quisling, or simply deluded. Either way, you can stop trying to 'educate' us, and let us carry on with preparing for the worst, in order that it cannot come about.

 

[Enzo]

"Russia has the ability for an adequate response to the countries that orbit their weapons,'' Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said during an official visit to China in late August 2005. ``Both Americans and Russians are actively using space for military purposes. However, they have been observing certain limits so far, deploying only communications, targeting, intelligence and other (defense-related) spacecraft. These are not weapons. But the deployment of weapons in space will have unpredictable consequences.''
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/opinion/14302555.htm

That was basically the view I shared when I enquired of a_majoor as to whether he advocated the militarization, i.e., weaponization of space. The political and social position maintained in Canada for the past 30 odd years is that the weaponization of space is a policy that should not be supported. Until the current government announces otherwise, it is a position that has not changed and my stance was reflected in the same.

I was caught off guard by prior statements in this thread. My personal distaste for nuclear weapons notwithstanding (this a technology that I wish mankind could un invent), the idea of arming space with certain weapons was a chilling proposal due primarily to the unforeseen. It is the unknown factor that I found to be disturbing, i.e., accidents or poor communication from a lack of information leading to catastrophic mistakes, etc.

Space systems in any form are not my area of expertise. I (like many) have had opinions that were shaped more so on ideology than facts. This topic has kept me up for the past few nights researching and I have to say; I am more than a bit fatigued by this, but somehow, I've remained open-minded. I have read enough essays, articles and reports, from both sides of this debate (including a very long manifesto published by the Chinese government stating their position on the matter) to have arrived at a more reasoned position on this subject. Two resources proved to be particularily advantageous:

This one clarified the current realities of the militarization of space and the redundancy of the argument; a position that has found support on this thread, it's worth a look.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4244

This was the essay (more like a small novel, have at least :30 on hand for this one) that swung me into the favourable camp.
http://www.gwu.edu/~spi/spaceforum/Dolmanpaper%5B1%5D.pdf

After reading these, I arrived at a supporting position on the future of the military in space. The types of weapons systems will be determined in due course and I have to be optimistic; just as the policy of MAD led to the overall success of the Cold War, one has to believe that a secure presence in space utilizing a defensive posture will also lead to further future stability.

BMD as is currently proposed doesn't interest me beyond a theatre defense role, due primarily to lack of efficiency vs. overall expendure of resources and funds. I'd prefer to see the pursuit of an initial response technology that eliminated the threatened missile system in it's launch phase. The advantages of a system that could remain in stationary orbit over the threat (as in NK for example) are evident when compared to regional BMD. NKs current and future abilities notwithstanding, there is no reason to not pursue peaceful alternatives to reducing NKs adversarial position in concert with the development of such technologies.

I'm still not in favour of nuclear weapons however, in any strategic form, but that isn't limited to space; I'd just simply prefer that these things were made obsolete as soon as possible. I'm very much in favour of conventional warfare, it's just that until someone invents "nuke-away"; radiation and fallout are experiences I would prefer to continue to live without.

Bear in mind, this is just one "hippies" opinion.

 

[a_majoor]

The laws of physics constrain what can and cannot be done, including missile defense. A device in stationary orbit would be quite far from the scene of the action and very constrained in how it could respond. A sensor satellite could be in stationary orbit and see about 1/3 of the globe (a constellation of three is the minimum for global coverage), and in any event, a stable stationalry orbit is only possible over the equator.

Low altitude interceptors like G-PALS or earlier incarnations of the idea have short response times since they are closer to the launch site in that portion of their orbit, have additional kinetic energy since they are already moving at Mach 25, and by default cover the entire globe, so can cover regions, theaters and even continents. Mobile launchers, SLBMs and other ideas to disguise the launch site are not effective, an interceptor satellite is always only a few minutes away, and even if the enemy should choose to use aircraft or cruise missiles, the sensor systems on the ABM satellites can assist the defenders with real time information. They could probably assist to a certain extent against terrorists as well. Ground based point defence will also have a much better chance with the G-PALS cutting down the number of targets they have to deal with.

 

[Old Guy]

Occupying the high ground has been a military axiom since General Og's lads discovered the efficiencies inherent in throwing or rolling rocks downhill at General Ug's men.

But, the term 'high ground' does not mean just terra firma.  Airplanes took us to a more nebulous high ground.  Satellites took us even higher.  The military has been using near-space for military purposes since the Germans launched the first V2 rocket.  Surveillance satellites merely raised the level.  The Moon and Mars are steps in the ladder.

The question is: Who do you want on the high ground?
Hint: The answer can't be 'nobody'.
Just as it isn't feasible to uninvent nuclear weapons, the question of who will militarize space is more relevant than the militarization itself.

Jim

 

[Armymatters]

North Korea is a paranoid nation reeling from famine to plague and back to famine. Their infrastructure is a shambles, they are surrounded by perceived enemies, and they know, better than we, that their entire government is about to collapse. They no longer listen to their Chinese "allies" because they know they are on their deathbed. And you expect logical reasoning from them? They prefer to have their population eating each other than cooperate with another nation. If you expect them to behave like a rational human would, you are as crazy as they are.

Add to that the fact that the Chinese don't give much of a damn about North Korea. It has been like that for the past couple of years, since Hu Jintao came into power. One of the bigger reasons the Chinese aren't openly hostile to North Korea is that that they don't want to be blackmailed like Japan, South Korea, and the US.  They just don't want North Korea to collapse: if the North Koreans collapse, the Chinese will have a major refugee crisis on their hands as millions of starving North Koreans will pour over the border into China. The Chinese in short see the North Koreans as a liability to their interests. The North Koreans need the Chinese more than the Chinese need the North Koreans, and the Chinese in short know it.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Bear in mind, this is just one "hippies" opinion.

Feh.  Half a page of posting space to say "I changed my mind after I did some reading".  Try to get past the hippie thing.  If the truth hurts, it's because it's supposed to.  If it doesn't, then don't sweat it. 
Were nukes in space ever a plan?  Other than in the plot line of "Space Cowboys"?  Space based weapons were always supposed to be laser or particle beam, were they not?  Not my area, so I'm not making a stand either way.
Of course, if you look at the video I found on a Russian military web site, they seem to have some sort of prototype of something:
SECRET RUSSIAN PROTO TYPE










  Of course that isn't real.

 

[a_majoor]

The facts:

Yes, both the United States and the USSR examined many possible weapons systems which could be employed in space, starting in the 1950's when it became apparent that rocket science had advanced to the point large payloads could be sent into orbit.

Nuclear weapons in orbit were a serious possibility, in the United States it was investigated as the "Fractional Orbital Bombardment System", and reference to this idea can be found in many SF stories in the 1950's and early 60's. Of course, basing weapons in orbit has its own problems (space is a very tough environment for men and equipment), so basing weapons on the ground made more sense. Soviet systems were also under study, and occasionally rumored to have been put into service. The USAF was also very big on ideas like space "bombers" like the X-20 Dynasoar, but the technology just wasn't there.

Space based interceptors were also studied starting in the 1950's, Google BAMBI, G-PALS and "High Frontier" for some American examples. These systems actually fired missiles at enemy ICBMs, the laser and particle beam stuff was always considered (by engineers, who know how things work) to be second and third generation systems to be launched in the 1990's and 2000's is SDI had begun during the 1980's as planned. The USAF also had an ASAT program tested in the 1980's based on missiles fired from an F-15, but the fact satellites move at Mach 25 gives you an idea of how mismatched the systems were. The USSR had an active ASAT based on ground based rocket boosters, and has a deployed ABM system since the 1960's called GALOSH. Some of the Soviet AA missile systems are suspected of having limited ABM ability as well.

One common denominator seems to be that the US has studied all kinds of weapons systems to deploy in space, but the USSR was the only nation to deploy operational military hardware (as opposed to support systems) in space.

People bleating about the "Militarization of Space" are almost half a century behind the curve (even farther when you consider German scientists were looking at the "America Bomber" AKA "Silverbird" near the end of WW II).

 

[Enzo]

Feh.  Half a page of posting space to say "I changed my mind after I did some reading". 

I originally asked a question, I hadn't established a position for myself prior and if I had stated as such without an explanation or the use of any supporting evidence, then I could be viewed as some sort of a waffler, thereby leaving myself open to criticism and ridicule.

People bleating about the "Militarization of Space" are almost half a century behind the curve (even farther when you consider German scientists were looking at the "America Bomber" AKA "Silverbird" near the end of WW II).

Having now stated "my" position on this (because it isn't relevant until I acknowledge it... yeah right  ;D); I believe I see where the misconception of this argument lies within the general population. First is the misuse of the word militarization, it has been established above that the military has been active in space for well over 50 years. As Majoor pointed out, it is a little late to question that one. The upset appears to lie within the weaponization of space, specifically, the use of nuclear materials.

The public doesn't appear to be fond of nuclear technology and is much less accepting of radiation issues; the threat of accidents is paramount in this regard. Whether the technology in question utilizes nuclear warheads, destroys others warheads, or is powered by nuclear fission, that is most likely the primary motivator of the fears of such technologies. As as example, look at the resistance against the launch of the Cassini deep space probe; in particular, fears of the plutonium carried onboard for fuel irradiating the atmosphere if a launch failure were to occur. Until these fears can be allayed, this appears to be the primary resistance to the implementation of proposed defense systems.

So there is the task at hand. How best to develop a spaced based defense apparatus that is friendly to the environment and doesn't pose a risk to humanities quality of life, etc. Bear in mind, this is soley for the sale of the system to the public, i.e., taxpayer. The diplomatic issue is to have such a system without creating another arms race or returning to a "Cold War" environment and then there is the final matter of destabilizing the balances of international power through the abandonment of the MAD theory.

 

[GAP]

This just received:

Missile Defense Element Successfully Flight Tested
By Steven Donald Smith      American Forces Press Service
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2006/20060712_5641.html

WASHINGTON, July 12, 2006 – The Missile Defense Agency successfully completed a developmental flight test of a major element of its ballistic missile defense system today at White Sands Missile Range, N.M., agency officials said. 

quote from inside article:

The THAAD components include truck-mounted launchers, interceptor missiles, radars, and fire control and communications management.

Today's test aimed to demonstrate that the THAAD system could follow a trajectory required to hit a target -- in this case, a Hera target missile -- just inside the earth's atmosphere. In doing so, it successfully locked onto, intercepted and destroyed the missile, officials reported

also:

The mobile THAAD system can be airlifted to almost anywhere in the world within hours and is designed to defend against short-, medium- and long-range ballistic missiles during the critical final minute of flight, according to a Missile Defense Agency news release. Its ability to operate at higher altitudes provides more protection of larger areas than lower-tier systems, officials said.



More on link

 

[zipperhead_cop]

So there is the task at hand. How best to develop a spaced based defense apparatus that is friendly to the environment and doesn't pose a risk to humanities quality of life, etc. Bear in mind, this is solely for the sale of the system to the public, i.e., taxpayer. The diplomatic issue is to have such a system without creating another arms race or returning to a "Cold War" environment and then there is the final matter of destabilizing the balances of international power through the abandonment of the MAD theory.

At such time a country launches a nuclear warhead at our continent, I for one will have absolutely no qualms about some space based weapon causing it to detonate over it's own country.  To whit; if you launch it, you are nuking yourself.  If that makes the people from that country a little glowy, then I guess it was a bad day to be in that country.  What sort of system do you think can be created?  A giant Mickey Mouse glove comes out of the clouds, gently pinches the missile and redirects it into the sun? 
And why are you worried about a "Cold War".  I think there are thousands of troops overseas that would love us to get into a cold war.  Sadly, most of the developed countries are all fairly actively engaged in hot wars. 
We are the good guys.  We are supposed to have the best toys and the soul-quailing advanced technology.  If one of these systems can take out an incoming ICBM, it would probably be able to take out missiles shot at our ships and overseas bases if need be. 
As for the arms race, when did that stop?  Seems to me that someone forgot to tell Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and China.  Maybe mention it as well to Germany and Russia who haven't seemed too shy to share their tech to those other countries. 
It seems to me common sense that if we have the tech advantage, we would forever press it and stay ahead of the rest of the planet.  I'm sure it will be a very warm and fuzzy kum-bay-ah moment when we all beat our swords into plowshares,  but until that point, we still have to be the Baddest MF's in the valley of the shadow of death.

 

[1feral1]

I think that scenario is far fetched. They could possibly sell it to a country, a region, a nation. but it is not the missile only that terrorists will need, they'll need the missile, the equipments to launch it, the fuel , the launch pads or vehicles, and a very well know-how. In addition to that, the US already has a system of early detection for any missiles around the world launched or prepared to launch.

Well Mr Tamouh, opinions are like arseholes everyone has one and thats mine. We all know whos side you are on. I grew up in the cold war years, air-raid sirens and drills as a child, and the US ATGM missle ring was just 11km south of the Saskatchewan border, and still is!

Should that US technology of shooting things down before it hits the CONUS be used, just take a small guess were it is going to land? One does not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out.

 

[Spr.Earl]

Even if we did sign on the crap is still going too fall over our country even if the Yank's could shoot one down.
So why waste the money.
Fear mongering again I suspect.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Even if we did sign on the crap is still going too fall over our country even if the Yank's could shoot one down.
So why waste the money.
Fear mongering again I suspect.

I'm no NBC sme, but wouldn't it be better to have chunks of plutonium crap falling down that could potentially be recovered and disposed of, as opposed to a big ass mushroom cloud, which is notoriously difficult to clean up after?

 

[Enzo]

How about this; we seem to agree that holding the high ground is a priority, but what about a little bit of old school? Interdiction after launch of a missile is a great technology to have and hopefully it works whenever it comes online (and also manages to negate the escalation of a misinformed nuclear retaliation by the superpowers, etc.). Continuing the diplomatic, economic and social pressures are all to be pursued in course. That leaves some good old fashioned espionage. Encouraging defection, planting misinformation, bribing individuals and a little bit of sabotage, etc. Anything wrong with that? Isn't the ability to disrupt operations by subterfuge a course to be quietly endorsed? Defeat the threat before it can actually become one, etc.

Seems that history has taught us that an over reliance upon technology has a habit of creating an atmosphere of overconfidence, and this can bite one's arse.

 

[Centurian1985]

Unfortunately, our government doesnt work that way...at least not as far as we know...  ;D