Canada has now said "no" to even moral and political support for a missile defense shield. No money required, no weapons on Canadian soil. All Bush was looking for was political support for a system that, should it work, would protect Canada from misile attack. I guess we're on our own now.

Have we lost our collective minds?

Take that, bitches.

imagine that....canada is taking the liberal stance of not adding to nuclear missle proliferation...

i say good for them....

"Us: What is a missle defense shield and how does it work?

Them: Well, since you REALLY wanna know. Quite simply...a missle defense shield is..a net...made of magic...held in place by pixies. That's what it is. We have 70 pixies ready to go. There all wrapped up in a special Kevlar lining there in a bunker in Colorado ready to go up there and defend our country. And that's how it works.

And it cost a lot of money folks. It doesn't cost a hundreds bucks. I mean, that's what a box cutter shield would cost. That's what you guys seem to be wanting".

-David Cross

honestly, bush asking for political support is akin to asking your neighbor if he minds if you cut down one of your trees. it's courteous and nice, but you don't really care what the answer is, you're gonna do it either way.

I'm just glad this missile defense shield makes us all safe again and we can live without fear and there will be no more terrorist threat and we get back all those rights and civil liberties we've lost lately.

(Whisper: It doesn't actually work very well but don't let the baddies know that)

i really dont see the point of the whole thing. who is going to be stupid enough to try and fire a missile at north america? it would be absolute political suicide. and who has the technology to fire one that can reach north america? there are a few countries who have nuclear weapons, but they dont have missiles that can reach na. i dont get what use this is going to be, in the short term and the long term.

it'll cost a lot of money and conscript us to using military consultants and contractors for years to come, thus ensuring their profitability and jobs. war is good for business.

If they want to hit us with a nuke they don't need a missile - a shipping container and a lax port-of-call is all that is required.

The missile shield system is nothing more than a huge handout to the Aerospace industry.

exactly. then why bother spending all the money on missile defence???

Sensible canucks. Here's the thing: right now, several countries feel that wielding a nuke threat is necessary to their security for whatever reason. Right now, it only takes a few for them to have their minds at ease. With a shield with 95% success (way better then we have the tech for now, but we would be fools to implement with less) at knocking 'em out of the sky (to where? dunno... somewhere else), they need loads and loads to get that same feeling. The more folks have shields of some sort, the more nukes. And nukes are not something to fuck around with, kids. Remember all those movies from the 80s? All right then.

another thing to consider: tech projects absolutely do not (read: never) work right the first time, and this thing more or less HAS to work right the first and every time. although maybe i should get myself hired as a consultant and tell them that for a cool billion.

I like the fact that the US administration seems perplexed and exasperated by our government. If we confuse them by our careful "thinking" and "debate" on "issues", then I think we're doing okay.

Exactly. One of the many reasons I didn't vote for the Shrub.

fp

With no missile defense shield, we'd all better prepare for this...



I JUS KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEENG!

patrick swayze and charlie sheen??? my god, we're worse off than i imagined.

do you really consider this a slap to the face? not wanting to take part in our invisible space net for missiles?

From the National Post a few days ago.

Our refusal to participate in the U.S. ballistic missile shield, a project that would protect Canadian and American cities alike from immolation, is perhaps the best example yet of how thoroughly fantasy and reality diverge in Ottawa. On Thursday, our government declared it would have nothing to do with the shield -- a foolish gesture meant to placate the pacifists in the Liberal caucus. But the next day, our PM advanced the conceit that the Americans would still have to consult with us before activating the system. One can practically hear the howls of laughter emanating from the few Washington officials who still bother to inform themselves of Ottawa's pronouncements: Can anyone seriously imagine that the President would ask our PM for permission to shoot down a missile heading for a U.S. target?

Actually, it's a smart move by Canada. Whether or not a missile exploding over Canada or the US is a fantasy or not this allows the Canadians to continue to play their role of "sensible" North Americans while still retaining the decades long protection of the US. I mean, if we see a missile heading towards Canada, what are going to do-NOT attempt to intercept it.

Steve

WOLVERIIIIIIIIIIIIINES!!!!!!!

well, it's all well and good to assume - rightly - that a stateless actor like a bin Laden or Zarqawi would employ non-traditional methods of aggression against US soil. however, as a proven method of expanding a traditional state's offensive capabilities (which in turn provide leverage in other arenas), continuing to extend the range of a missile is clearly high on the list of reachable goals for the so-called rogue states of Iran and N. Korea. Iran could hit central Europe, N. Korea Alaska, etc.

i agree, the missile defense shield backs away from the accepted and essentially successful strategy of detente, thereby potentially legitimizing a nation state's quest for nuclear power status (e.g. "hey, we can defend ourselves with this shield, but we won't employ other means to keep you from attaining nuclear power status"), and as such, could be opening the door to a new era where nuclear missiles are in fact launched, rather than dealt with diplomatically.

what i fail to understand is this: the "star wars" program was initiated as part of Reagen's strategic goal for spending the USSR out of existence and this absolutely worked. without that foe present, why continue to employ this particular strategy and not redirect the (sizable) funding for this program towards combatting independent, non-state aggressors, who present a clear and present danger?

sorry for the jumbled, slightly incoherent writing here...

KPH

Excellent points.

so what America says, Canada should do right?
sure, whatever.

The only real reason the Bush camp really wants Canada on board is that eventually as the missle based are put together to counter attack missles, they'll want to put some up in Canada.

Second, regarding the National Post. It is a Conservative paper. So that view is obvious.

Third (which this is fact)
Since early 1990s many countries have tried to put in place a straight out world band through the UN on arming space. The only country to opose it was the United States of America. It's even gotten to the point where the US has double vetoed the motion which means the subject is NOT to be brought back to the table.

The US has also opted out of various Anti-Nuclear treaties, warhead treaties and balistic missle treaties which has opened the door for other countries to follow (China, Russia, North Korea ect.)

It's simple, America will win the race to up the arms race into the space world which will open the door for other nations to follow. Russia is already at work on a system that would defeat (try) the Space Shield.