India and Nukes

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by White Doors

They may get one, but the technology itself will hamper their ability to actually be able to have it hit North America. But there is a chance down the line that they will be able to do so.

Now see why the USA is wanting to build a missle defence shield. Nuclear weapons in the hands of stable democracies do not represent any threat.

And yes, there always seems to be many men on the grassy noll.
haha

I think that any nuclear attack by terrorists in N. America will happen from a nuclear device snuck in. No missile defense system or lack of technology on behalf of the terrorists will stop that.

A report came out a while ago that said the U.S. still only checks about 5% of freight coming into the country because it would be too expensive to check everything.

Don't you think that the billions used for missile defense system (that likely won't work) should be used for defense against technologies that terrorists do have already? They have the technology to sneak into the U.S., and by your own admission, a nuclear attack by a nation with actual ICBM technolgy is unlikely since the U.S. would destroy them in a counter attack.

The missle defense sounds like a big waste of time that doesn't actually target the real threats.

[White Doors]

Yeah, I agree - but the technology and knowledge gained from a missle defence shield will be HUGE and it while it doesn't work now, it is just a matter of time before it does.
I know at ports they have radiation detectors that checks ALL cargo that comes in, I think they are referring to actually opening up things and looking, but a nuclear device gives off radiation that is easily detectible with the proper equipment.

[mykalberta]

India is a closer ally these days to the US than Canada is. They have a better immigration policy and are closer to the action than other allies. India will have the nuke in a few years if for nothing more than to be a go-between between Iran and the US. Also, the US wont be "invading" Iran unless Iran starts to attack one of the US allies (ie Isreal) - strange how Iran and Venezula seem to have been separated at birth, both talk but dont walk.

You obviously dislike the US with their "hidden agendas". I wonder what "hidden agendas" you refer to. I can see some very plain jane agendas: Ensure the US remains the top power in the world, Ensure the US economy doesnt go down the drain because of arbitrary commodity prices.

Those seem pretty clear, the way they accomplish them may be hidden but the agendas are crystal clear. Those agendas or derivatives of such are the same for every country, right now the US is the only one with the capabilities to effectively act on them though.

MYK

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I think Nukes are a great thing. Do you think if humanity didn't have them the cold war wouldn't have gotten hot? It's what keeps civilization going.

What a weird thing to say. We've only had nukes for 60 years. I'm pretty sure civilization could have kept going had they not been invented. I'm also pretty sure that civilization would have a better chance of continuing on from here had they not been invented.

I've never come across another person who believes that this newfound ability to kill everyone and everything almost instantaneously is a "great thing".

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by White Doors

The States GDP grew by 3.4% last year. Enough said. The only other intelligible thing you said was the deficit and debt of the USA, but that debt as a % of GDP (which people who know about these things use) is still lower than alot of other countries. Our GDP grew by almost 3% last year, healthy growth all around. The rest of your post is pure claptrap of someone who watched too much news and has little economic knowledge or historical perspective.

Then please enlighten me, oh great yogi.

What were the drivers of the GDP growth in the US and Canada in 2005?

How stable are those drivers?

What is the % debt as conmpared to GDP for the G7 nations? Which way are these figures moving for each nation? What would be considered an acceptable % to be carrying?

And just for kicks, please tell me what knowledge a missle defense shield would bring to the west.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Here's the reason why the United States has struck the deal with India.

The United States has to keep Pakistan in line. The mechanism that allows the United States to keep Pakistan in line is India. The United States greatest fear is that Al Qaeda acquires a bomb. Pakistan is the country most likely to pass along a weapon to Al Qaeda. To prevent this, India must be considered a threat to destroy Pakistan, forcing the Pakistanis to hold their weapons in check.

Now Pakistan is the country the States fear the most about selling a bomb to Al Qaeda. A lot of people have said that it is one of the Soviet countries, but that is not true. Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan the United States struck deals with Russia, and "stans" (Kyrg, Turk, and Uz) that allowed the US access to their nuclear facilities for purpose of audinting and securing the weapons. The same deal has been struck with both Pakistan, and now, India. This removes the potential of a thermonuclear device coming into possession of Al Qaeda.

Pakistan is very much a wild card for the United States. While President Mussarif is a supporter of the US, the vast majority of the country is not. What is very troubling is that the military is also against the support of the Christian United States, and the intelligence body (the ISI) is on the side of the Islamists. US support in Pakistan will last only as long as Mussarif does. The United States striking a deal with the long term ally of Russia tells me things are not well in Pakistan. The United States is hedging its bets by making sure Pakistan remains unified by a more immediate threat, a billion indians.

BTW... does anyone else realize how close India and Pakistan were to an nuclear exchange in late 2002 and early 2003? This region is a tinderbox. It could go up at any minute, especially if the Iranians keep playing games and exacerbating the anger within certain sects of Islam.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by White Doors

They may get one, but the technology itself will hamper their ability to actually be able to have it hit North America. But there is a chance down the line that they will be able to do so.

Now see why the USA is wanting to build a missle defence shield. Nuclear weapons in the hands of stable democracies do not represent any threat.

And yes, there always seems to be many men on the grassy noll.
haha

Wow. Just wow. A missile defense shield is such a pipe dream. That shield only protects you from ballistic missiles. Since most threats will come from smuggled in weapons, or even submarine based weapons, a missile defense shield is useless. If I wanted to take out a couple of American cities I'd just send the nukes through the port of Los Angeles in shipping containers and have them trucked to where they need to go. The odds of a weapon getting through US ports are very high. As well, you don't need to spend billions on developing rocket technology. Just call FedEx. If its not there before 10:00, its free!

Question: What grade are you in?

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

India is a closer ally these days to the US than Canada is. They have a better immigration policy and are closer to the action than other allies. India will have the nuke in a few years if for nothing more than to be a go-between between Iran and the US. Also, the US wont be "invading" Iran unless Iran starts to attack one of the US allies (ie Isreal) - strange how Iran and Venezula seem to have been separated at birth, both talk but dont walk.

You obviously dislike the US with their "hidden agendas". I wonder what "hidden agendas" you refer to. I can see some very plain jane agendas: Ensure the US remains the top power in the world, Ensure the US economy doesnt go down the drain because of arbitrary commodity prices.

Those seem pretty clear, the way they accomplish them may be hidden but the agendas are crystal clear. Those agendas or derivatives of such are the same for every country, right now the US is the only one with the capabilities to effectively act on them though.

MYK

Yep! Only thing, India already has Nukes.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

What a weird thing to say. We've only had nukes for 60 years. I'm pretty sure civilization could have kept going had they not been invented. I'm also pretty sure that civilization would have a better chance of continuing on from here had they not been invented.

I've never come across another person who believes that this newfound ability to kill everyone and everything almost instantaneously is a "great thing".

It's the only reason that there has not been another world war since Hiroshima.

them's the fact's thats all.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by White Doors

It's the only reason that there has not been another world war since Hiroshima.

them's the fact's thats all.

Well you've convinced me. Where would we be without this wonderful destructive power?

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Wow. Just wow. A missile defense shield is such a pipe dream. That shield only protects you from ballistic missiles. Since most threats will come from smuggled in weapons, or even submarine based weapons, a missile defense shield is useless. If I wanted to take out a couple of American cities I'd just send the nukes through the port of Los Angeles in shipping containers and have them trucked to where they need to go. The odds of a weapon getting through US ports are very high. As well, you don't need to spend billions on developing rocket technology. Just call FedEx. If its not there before 10:00, its free!

Question: What grade are you in?

Ahhh Lanny. how are ya?
Read my other post on detecting radiation. There is no fool proof way to defend, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't try.

And what about Rogue nations? I'd sure like an effective missle defence against N. Korea when Kim starts losing it even more.. How about if Iran get's them. Having a missle defence shield will even have the effective of making the expensive and long term develpment of Blaiistic missles unfeasible for many smaller, rogue nations. If the USA has a credible defence mechanism, it makes their position at the bargaining table that much more powerful. You have heard of Geo-politics right?

"Lanny!! Supperrrr!!!!"

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Well you've convinced me. Where would we be without this wonderful destructive power?

Russian balet?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Russian balet?

Come on now!

Do you really think that the USSR could have invaded North America without nuclear weapons? They couldn't even successfully invade and occupy Afghanistan in a conventional war.

I realize Canada is not a super-power, but give us some credit.

And not having a World War in 60 years isn't a big thing really. It's a blink of an eye, and the threat is still there, as much as it ever was.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Ahhh Lanny. how are ya?
Read my other post on detecting radiation. There is no fool proof way to defend, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't try.

If international terrorist can move to the U.S., live there for years, go to flight school, and crash planes into towers; then I doubt that getting some of their guys working at ports would be that difficult - I mean, it's not rocket science.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Russian balet?

Do you actually believe that? I suppose it's within the realm of possibility. So is the World Series being played in Moscow.

Whatever. The point is that nuclear weapons aren't something to be celebrated.

You think it's great that we have the capability to kill everyone. I don't. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

[RedMan12]

Originally Posted by White Doors

It's the only reason that there has not been another world war since Hiroshima.

them's the fact's thats all.

Thats terrible, America only dropped bombs and killed countless innocent people because, the American Armed forces where spinless cowards and did not want to risk their own lives and invade Japan on land. Nuclear weapons are a cowards weapon. Whatever happend to facing your enemy face to face on the battlefield. Now its just some government lakey told to push a button.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Ahhh Lanny. how are ya?
Read my other post on detecting radiation. There is no fool proof way to defend, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't try.

There is a full proof way in defending versus nuclear weapons. Make sure they are not used. Those controls are called treaties. As long as you have mutual inventory and audit control, you know what you're up against. Not participating in these treaties is exceptionally dangerous. Oh, and guess who pulled the United States out of all the strategic arms treaties? You guessed it, old dunderhead in the White House.

And what about Rogue nations?

What about them? Didn't you toss out MAD onto the table? You just nuked the whole rogue nation concept, thank you very much.

I'd sure like an effective missle defence against N. Korea when Kim starts losing it even more.. How about if Iran get's them. Having a missle defence shield will even have the effective of making the expensive and long term develpment of Blaiistic missles unfeasible for many smaller, rogue nations.

A couple of things. For a missile defense shield to be effective the enemy has to use vehicles that leave the atmosphere. Neither North Korea nor Iran have this technology. A missile defense shield does not protect against a non-orbital target. As well, the missile defense shield has yet to produce a single successful test. The whole concept is a pipe dream, dreamed up by neo-cons who watched too many Star Wars movies.

Secondly, a nuclear threat is more likely from a smuggled in device, or from one launched off shore. The only ones with a serious military capability to do this are presently American allies. Iran does have a submarine fleet, but they are old and noisey like the Canadian subs. They would be easy pickings for the American Atlantic and Pacific defense nets. The greatest threat is the one where someone puts a nuke in an oil taker and floats it into New Orleans or Houston and then detonating it.

If the USA has a credible defence mechanism, it makes their position at the bargaining table that much more powerful. You have heard of Geo-politics right?

Geo-politics? You haven't even touched on geo-politics yet. You want to see an example of geo-politics look at my post in regards to the India deal and how the United States balances the region by playing one countries fears against the other. That is geo-politics in action. A defense shield is not a bargaining chip because it affects no one in the region. There are a handful of countries that a defense shield would guard against, and they are America's allies or biggest customers. Geo-politics has very little to do with the military and systems they put into place, its all economics and political power. Because of the world economy, the greatest weapon the United States has in its geo-political arsenal is access to the American consumer marketplace. A missile defense shield means nothing in the geo-political arena.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I know at ports they have radiation detectors that checks ALL cargo that comes in, I think they are referring to actually opening up things and looking, but a nuclear device gives off radiation that is easily detectible with the proper equipment.

That is a bold faced lie. Presently only 2% of all cargo containers are inspected in any fashion.

"Cargo inspection is an area of great concern today to the Department of Homeland Security, since currently only about 2% of the over 9 million cargo containers entering the United States from foreign ports each year are screened."

http://mae.pennnet.com/Articles/Arti...ICLE_ID=174310

Depending on the shielding used, these scanners are useless.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by RedMan12

Thats terrible, America only dropped bombs and killed countless innocent people because, the American Armed forces where spinless cowards and did not want to risk their own lives and invade Japan on land. Nuclear weapons are a cowards weapon. Whatever happend to facing your enemy face to face on the battlefield. Now its just some government lakey told to push a button.

Why shoudl the Americans have spent thousands of their soldiers lives in battle to invade japan?" Many more Japanese civs would have dies too if they had of invaded the home islands too not to mention.

Japan started it, America finished it. Because they dropped it, the world saw how destructive it was, and there has never been another one dropped thank goodness.

[White Doors]

"What about them? Didn't you toss out MAD onto the table? You just nuked the whole rogue nation concept, thank you very much." not to a dictarship rulked by a mad man or a country full of fanatics thinking that they will each have 72 virgins. fanaticism is the breakdown of MAD.