Theater & Continental Balistic Missile Defence . . . and Canada

[tomahawk6]

In doing some research I found this paper from the Canadian Forces College.

http://wps.cfc.dnd.ca/papers/csc29/exnh/smit.htm

 

[old medic]

"Hard evidence" of a future threat? Right.

Yes. If your talking about it, you must have some proof Dare.  You must have some documents from
some reputable strategic think tank that shows the threat of privately controlled ICBMs. 

Don't think it's any more than that, because they have the resources, money and will to operate an ICBM.

Once again Dare, show some proof for your claim of personally operated ICBMs.

What makes you so sure you know where this ICBM is in the first place?

Dare, do you seriously think there are privately controlled ICBM's wandering around, and that you can
hide an ICBM launch?  I urge you to do some more reading on this.

Framed in the proper context, our "leaders" could have easily put it through but instead they allowed
the media to chew on it for years on end, without actually showing any leadership. Not only that, why
do you think that NMD would not be run by the military?

Absolutely not. There was no way to push this through.  It would be political suicide.
and who said anything about NMD not being run by a military?

As for your earlier claims that ICBMs a the biggest threat, I quote you Former Defence Minister Paul Hellyer from
The Globe and Mail (Saturday February 26th 2005):

" ...  Canada could also play a lead role in helping to orchestrate a massive search for the missing
Russian "suitcase" bombs, which pose a more imminent threat to the Unitied States than rogue
missiles.  ..."

 

[48Highlander]

Ok hypothetical scenario...what if we did sign on to the BMD (as I think we should have). 2 missiles are launched from the Rogue nation of Iceland, one is targetted towards Washington and one is targetted towards Ottawa, for what ever reason only one interceptor is available, which city would be saved? I think you already know the answer. So whats the difference, we sign on or we don't sign on we would never have that much of a say irregardless.

A hypothetical 2 missiles are launched, hypothticaly targeting the two North American capital cities, and hypotheticaly only one missile is available?   Isn't that a lot of theorizing?   If only one missile were available, someone would have royaly screwed the pooch.   And, ofcourse, we'd end up blaming the Americans and their evil imperialistic policies.

What it comes down to is that it would cost us next to nothing to participate, and could potentialy be very beneficial.   You can make up all the hypothetical scenarios you want, but they don't change anything.

 

[JBP]

What it comes down to is that it would cost us next to nothing to participate

You cannot say that, it will definately cost us A LOT. But, the US has also suggested they'd cover about half the cost, just so we'd do it!!! Your next statement is more then on the ball though... Even if you just counter in the wages of the soldiers/people manning those stations in Canadian borders it would be a lot of money. Let alone any other factors.

and could potentialy be very beneficial

5 hits out of 8 while it's in it's test phase sounds DAMN beneficial to me!

You can make up all the hypothetical scenarios you want, but they don't change anything.

HA! The whole idea of BMD is based off a "hypothetical" scenario in reality. That "hypothetically" we'll have a "rogue" missle(s) sent towards us... So basically it does change a lot. Regardless though, the scenario he suggested would never come to pass. I'm sure eventually the eastern coast will be protected also by BMD but the priority is obviously the other side at the moment and probably in the future also.

We will be apart of BMD in the next 3-7 years at most.

 

[48Highlander]

You cannot say that, it will definately cost us A LOT. But, the US has also suggested they'd cover about half the cost, just so we'd do it!!! Your next statement is more then on the ball though... Even if you just counter in the wages of the soldiers/people manning those stations in Canadian borders it would be a lot of money. Let alone any other factors.

uhhh....what?  half the....half of WHAT cost?  half of zero is zero last time I checked...I think you should double check your research.  They don't want to base any missiles on our soil.  What wages for what people on what stations are you refering to?  All we'd be responsible for providing is radar data from stations that already exist, and are manned on a regular basis.

 

[FastEddy]

In doing some research I found this paper from the Canadian Forces College.

http://wps.cfc.dnd.ca/papers/csc29/exnh/smit.htm

Some Reading Tomahawk, every body who thinks he/she knows whats happened or going on should read this paper, it may not change their opinion, but definitely give them a lot more insight.

 

[old medic]

In doing some research I found this paper from the Canadian Forces College.

http://wps.cfc.dnd.ca/papers/csc29/exnh/smit.htm

An interesting read, but the conclusions are off base and unjustified.

I will quote a recent article from David Rudd, President of the Institute of Strategic Studies :

" Will U.S. relations be plunged into the deep freeze? Probably not.
Will they remain harmonious at all levels? Hard to say.
Anyone who claims to know precisely how this will affect Canada - U.S.
relations over the long term is a fool, a charlatan, or both. "

 

[Dare]

Yes. If your talking about it, you must have some proof Dare.  You must have some documents from
some reputable strategic think tank that shows the threat of privately controlled ICBMs. 

Once again Dare, show some proof for your claim of personally operated ICBMs.

Dare, do you seriously think there are privately controlled ICBM's wandering around, and that you can
hide an ICBM launch?  I urge you to do some more reading on this.

Firstly, I don't need proof of any kind nor did I say there *are* privately controlled ICBM's. It's simple logic. If you can't follow simple logic and differentiate between future and present tenses, it's a waste ot time even talking to you. As more and more nations aquire nuclear weaponry and multistage rocketry, it's simply a matter of time. Supply and demand. The terrorists want them, there are many factions that want to sell to them. The only thing preventing it now is the eagle in the sky, and that has it's limits.

Absolutely not. There was no way to push this through.  It would be political suicide.
and who said anything about NMD not being run by a military?

Well you 'seem' to be worried of it cutting into the militaries budget. If it's run by the military and staffed by the military. I should think it to be a bonus to the military.

As for your earlier claims that ICBMs a the biggest threat, I quote you Former Defence Minister Paul Hellyer from
The Globe and Mail (Saturday February 26th 2005):

" ...  Canada could also play a lead role in helping to orchestrate a massive search for the missing
Russian "suitcase" bombs, which pose a more imminent threat to the Unitied States than rogue
missiles.  ..."

Yes, yes, yes. I'm getting awfully tired of the whole suitcase bomb strawman. We already have defence systems in place to screen and prevent entry of nuclear material via plane/boat/truck. We are upgrading these defence systems and screening procedures regularly. We do not have a defence system to prevent entry of nuclear material via a missile. We need one.

End of story.

P.S. I respect ret. Maj-General Lewis MacKenzie's opinion far more than what Paul Hellyer has to say.

 

[Thirstyson]

The terrorists want them, there are many factions that want to sell to them

ICBMs are a logistical nightmare to launch. Terrorists cannot control them. It takes about he level of sophistication to launch these things that only governments/militaries have, and they do not qualify as terrorists (well, maybe they do by someone's vernacular).

Bottom line, it takes a dedicated missile silo or permanent LARGE launch facility to launch these things. They don't shoot out of the back of a truck.

 

[dutchie]

It takes about he level of sophistication to launch these things that only governments/militaries have, and they do not qualify as terrorists.

Bottom line, it takes a dedicated missile silo or permanent LARGE launch facility to launch these things. They don't shoot out of the back of a truck.

Of course, we'll just have to trust you on that. No need to have safeguards.  

Wait a second.....if Mathew Broderick can launch one, anyone can!

 

[Mad Max]

Wow! This is amazing- PAUL HELLYER's name has been used to futher an argument in defence of a position which demands NO MISSILE DEFENCE! Talk about shooting yourself in the foot! My God! Paul Hellyer is THE MOST disreputable MND in a LONG, LONG line of disreputable MND's! The real reason you people are opposed to BMD is because you don't like Bush,you didn't like Reagan, and you can't STAND the Americans telling us what we should be doing! Well, I'm no Yank, but if it comes to a choice between supporting the defence initiatives of a man with balls and a smart team around him (like Bush), and supporting the LACK of defence initiatives from someone WITHOUT balls and a team of Socialist, anti-American DUMMIES around him (like Martin), I'll choose W any day of the week!

 

[badpup]

Hello all,
I just have to weigh in on this with * MY OPINION*
I do believe that we as a nation have made a mistake in not signing on with BMD. The program makes perfect sense for many reasons, not all of them Military in nature.
Economics: This political decision by the Liberal government will cost Canadian jobs, contracts for systems , engineering, and hardware will likely go to "friendly" countries, spin offs from this decision will also likely have an effect on other trade issues, such as softwood lumber, fishing, and energy.
Military: A greater and more influential presence in continental defence would come from BMD.Years of budget hacking, lack of material procurement, and under-staffing of the CF, has given this country a poor international image.

Current budget promises are light on detail, and most of the "New" cash will have to be spent on fixing old problems.( Iltis, CF-18 , SAR , Airlift)

I do think that people are a bit off base just talking about ICBM's, a greater threat of terrorist, or rogue nation use of a nuke exists from MRBM's, and Cruise missiles. Medium range missiles, can be fixed, or truck based systems, Cruise missiles can be launched from just about anywhere, and any platform. We already know that two potential "threat" nations have subs,LR Aircraft, Nuclear weapon and cruise missile technology. Other rogue states are also attempting their own nuclear, and MRBM programs.Terrorists have the cash to purchase these systems, from former Soviet arsenals, and rogue nations.
Nukes are also not the onlything to have concern for, BIo, and Chemical weapons may already be in the hands of those who dislike our cultures, and countries, as well any attack on our continent, or any of our other allies nations, will have a direct impact on us.

I salute our American allies for their learning a lesson from Pearl Harbor and 9-11, to prepare for the worst in hopes that the preparation is not required. 

Enough of my inane  and insane rambling
TC all

 

[old medic]

The real reason you people are opposed to BMD is because you don't like Bush,you didn't like Reagan, ...

Mad Max, I wouldn't make assumptions like that.  Nor should you presume to to tell people what they think.

Personally, I liked Nancy just fine 

 

[Mad Max]

Well, you're turning in the RIGHT direction, anyway! Nancy has bigger balls than Martin OR Hellyer, without question!

 

[Dare]

ICBMs are a logistical nightmare to launch. Terrorists cannot control them. It takes about he level of sophistication to launch these things that only governments/militaries have, and they do not qualify as terrorists (well, maybe they do by someone's vernacular).

Bottom line, it takes a dedicated missile silo or permanent LARGE launch facility to launch these things. They don't shoot out of the back of a truck.

Terrorists are perfectly capable of controlling an ICBM. Do not underestimate your enemy! While the rabble fighting on the streets may be undereducated, there are many amongst their controlling ranks that are highly educated. As for your bottom line, they can, in fact, shoot out of the back of a truck. Here's a particularly nasty one I dug up. Russia's favourite sticks to threaten the west with.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-2pmu.htm

Intercontinental, MIRV and mobile.

 

[a_majoor]

The question is not: can terrorists get an ICBM; but rather, can they gain access to existing ICBMs? In strong states like Russia, China and the United States, the answer is "probably not".

What about North Korea, India, Pakistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia to name some less stable states which already have IRBM/ICBM capabilities? Terrorists might not even be the worst of it. What happens when the "Dear Leader" of North Korea or the House of Saud are about to be consumed by an internal revolution? What would stop them from doing a launch to take down their enemies as a final, vindictive gesture?

BMD will make it harder for nations like these to carry out their plans, and add more elements of uncertainty to the planning calculus for the agressor, which is reason enough.

Canada had the potential to join, and the technological ability to add greatly to the system with spaceborn sensors and C4I systems, capabilities which would greatly enhance a lot of other military and governmental work as well. Since Boeing and Lougheed Martin will be doing the work now, I suppose there will be another exodus of talented engineers from Canada to join in the work "over there"; net benifit to Canada=0.

 

[The Bat]

The Canadian Military is losing Equipment of all sorts by the day first the guns and then the tanks and soon planes and dont for get the ships that are falling along side. we need something to protect this fine and wonderful country we live in and if the Government will not let the Military do it, then stand down and let somebody do it, soon we will not have an army and we will be a bunch of hitch hikers and get a ride to the next world war or for that matters the next Peace making deployment.

 

[big_johnson1]

Terrorists are perfectly capable of controlling an ICBM. Do not underestimate your enemy! While the rabble fighting on the streets may be undereducated, there are many amongst their controlling ranks that are highly educated. As for your bottom line, they can, in fact, shoot out of the back of a truck. Here's a particularly nasty one I dug up. Russia's favourite sticks to threaten the west with.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/icbm/rt-2pmu.htm

Intercontinental, MIRV and mobile.

You see, this is what I would be worried about. Completely mobile, capable of firing from anywhere, inertial guidance (cannot be jammed and with a good computer can plot it's own course from anywhere to anywhere), solid fuel (low, low maintenance for the beginning of it's life), can use maneuverable warheads, low heat signature for detection.. All of this is what the US should be afraid of, as once the technology is there it's only a matter of time before it disseminates to other countries. I'm sure the Russians protect these things with their lives but if terrorists were to get ahold of one? BMD or not it's going to make a big crater out of a city somewhere.

Another thing that needs to be brought up though is that BMD is designed to protect the continental US (and Canada).. But what about US interests elsewhere? Israel, Taiwan, Iraq (now anyways)? Why hit the US at home where they are more protected? A strike against their allies or their assets overseas could be just as psychologically damaging as homeland assault, although not in exactly the same manner (I wonder if air flights are still down from 9/11, can anyone answer this?). The US has had close ties with Israel for years, and many terrorists consider Israel as much of a target as the US. A stolen nuke (suitcase or ICBM I don't think it matters much) would hurt both countries. And as I was reading in the newspapers this morning (something about unions being pissed about possible mandatory criminal record checks on dock workers), when you tighten one avenue of attack up, it just means that your enemy will probably try another route while you're sitting happy thinking you've cut them off.

Just my thoughts.

 

[a_majoor]

Another thing that needs to be brought up though is that BMD is designed to protect the continental US (and Canada).. But what about US interests elsewhere? Israel, Taiwan, Iraq (now anyways)? Why hit the US at home where they are more protected? A strike against their allies or their assets overseas could be just as psychologically damaging as homeland assault, although not in exactly the same manner (I wonder if air flights are still down from 9/11, can anyone answer this?). The US has had close ties with Israel for years, and many terrorists consider Israel as much of a target as the US. A stolen nuke (suitcase or ICBM I don't think it matters much) would hurt both countries. And as I was reading in the newspapers this morning (something about unions being pissed about possible mandatory criminal record checks on dock workers), when you tighten one avenue of attack up, it just means that your enemy will probably try another route while you're sitting happy thinking you've cut them off.

BMD is only part of the puzzle, there are theater missile defense systems in the works or already deployed, for example the Standard "Block 3" for ships and the Patriot "Block 3" and above missiles on land. Isreal has demonstrated the "Arrow" BMD interceptor, so there are already some tools in the Western toolbox. Russia has deployed and sold the SA-10 and 12 systems, which are similar in some ways to late versions of the Patriot missile.

In the future, you can expect upgrades to existing platforms, as well as new kit like surface and airborn laser platforms. The logic of missile defense, both theater and strategic will demand the interceptors end up in space, along with the sensors and C4I systems, with the older systems acting as extra layers to improve the effectiveness of the shield.

 

[big_johnson1]

BMD is only part of the puzzle, there are theater missile defense systems in the works or already deployed, for example the Standard "Block 3" for ships and the Patriot "Block 3" and above missiles on land. Isreal has demonstrated the "Arrow" BMD interceptor, so there are already some tools in the Western toolbox. Russia has deployed and sold the SA-10 and 12 systems, which are similar in some ways to late versions of the Patriot missile.

In the future, you can expect upgrades to existing platforms, as well as new kit like surface and airborn laser platforms. The logic of missile defense, both theater and strategic will demand the interceptors end up in space, along with the sensors and C4I systems, with the older systems acting as extra layers to improve the effectiveness of the shield.

Yeah there was another thread in equipment that mentioned surface laser platforms capable of taking out artillery shells. I doubt it would be much trouble for a system like that to eliminate tactical short range surface to surface missiles of the SCUDs and old Soviet SS- model surface to surface missiles, since they move at a much slower rate than ICBMs.

As the current ground based technology is not showing a lot of promise, it seems like we'd just be throwing money away that could be better used for health care and other social programs that have suffered around here recently. Even the US Armed Services Committee has it's doubts:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A700-2004Dec15.html

I also just happen to believe that there is no need to weaponize space until ET comes knocking. Although it'd be hella cool to have the X302 and X303 from Stargate