[Rev_Blair]

Well, most physicists say that it won;t work until we've made major advances in technology.

Besides, we wouldn't even have to ask...radioactive oil is no good to you guys at all.

The real question is would you ask us before invading our airspace with your missiles? You are required to under internatonal conventions.

[Streaker]

$1:

But how can you know that they won't get it working eventualy? Wouldn't that be a great asset to defend ourselves from potential threats?

There is no potential threat from ballistic missiles, warhawk.

[WarHawkster]

Freaker Freaker:

$1:

But how can you know that they won't get it working eventualy? Wouldn't that be a great asset to defend ourselves from potential threats?

There is no potential threat from ballistic missiles, warhawk.

But what about in the future? Are you that naive as to think that Canada won't make any enemies in the near or distant future?

[WarHawkster]

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

Well, most physicists say that it won;t work until we've made major advances in technology.

Which is inevitable.

[Streaker]

$1:

But what about in the future? Are you that naive as to think that Canada won't make any enemies in the near or distant future?

Not at all, warthog. Obviously there are those who want Canada to have enemies ...

...but none who will bother nuking us. They'll be too busy trying to nail the big kahuna to the south... with something other than a ballistic missile...

[WarHawkster]

Freaker Freaker:

$1:

But what about in the future? Are you that naive as to think that Canada won't make any enemies in the near or distant future?

Not at all, warthog. Obviously there are those who want Canada to have enemies ...

...but none who will bother nuking us. They'll be too busy trying to nail the big kahuna to the south... with something other than a ballistic missile...

But how can you know for sure?

[The_Libertarian]

Rev_Blair Rev_Blair:

The real question is would you ask us before invading our airspace with your missiles? You are required to under internatonal conventions.

That's not the "real question". But to answer we would violate it for our own survival. Who would not?

And again, this thread was not about such topics. I ask you start your own for those hypotheticals. I am wondering if you would ask for our missile defense shield if someone shot a nuke at you?

So far i got one begrudgingly saying they would want our MDS to attempt to shoot the nuke down.

[Streaker]

$1:

But how can you know for sure?

That's the frustrating part, isn't it? There's no way of predicting the future with 100% certainty. But circumstances don't warrant Canadians wallowing in fear and paranoia over this.

If Americans want to wallow in fear and paranoia, that's their business...

[WarHawkster]

Freaker Freaker:

$1:

But how can you know for sure?

That's the frustrating part, isn't it? There's no way of predicting the future with 100% certainty. But circumstances don't warrant Canadians wallowing in fear and paranoia over this.

If Americans want to wallow in fear and paranoia, that's their business...

I don't see how it is "wallowing in fear", there is nothing wrong with wanting to prepare yourself for the worst, and there is certainly no fear in that.

[The_Libertarian]

Must not be any boyscouts in Canada.

[CamCKA]

OK, Libertarian, I hope this answer will be clear:

In MY opinion:

- IF a country was angry enough at Canada to attack us,
- and IF that country wanted to do so by launching a missile
- and IF such a missile were ballistic
- and IF the U.S. had a working anti-ballistic missile defense system

Would we ask the U.S. to shoot it down? Hell yes. Of course. No reasonable person wouldn't.

I'm not saying that begrudgingly, it is absolutely true in my opinion.

(Now, feel free not to read the following "tangent" which I believe is pertinent to the discussion, since it gives what is called "CONTEXT" to the above answer, and pretty much everyone considers that statements taken without their context are quite pointless)

So how can I say that and still be against supporting a ballistic missile defense system? I'll try to explain my reasoning.

There are lots of things that we COULD do to be totally ready for any danger. Is it possible that with future technology advances, a country in the oriental-hemisphere could burrow straight through the earth's crust and magma mantle, and attack us from below? Why not? But that remote possiblity doesn't mean that I would support building a huge 10-foot thick Kevlar-Titanium plate under the North-American continent to protect us from potential underground attacks. Could we be attacked with satellite-generated microwaves? Yup. But I'm not going to propose tinfoil jumpsuits for everybody to bounce their rays back into space just in case.
More likely, could they just send someone over with a custom designed airborne virus that they developed a vaccine for, and decimate anyone they didn't like? It's possible. But that doesn't mean that I support having every arriving person on the continent strip-searched and x-rayed in case they are transporting a vial of suspicious-looking liquid.

If a ballistic misslie defense system was free, of course I would rather have it than not. But it's not free, and the bottom line is that every country needs to make their own decisions about what is important enough to spend money on.

Saying that "I would prefer to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it" is true, but simplistic. If that was the criteria used to make major decisions, we would try to do everything at once, and nothing would get done.

So I for one, am happy that we don't have boyscouts running our country, because reasonably informed adults know that you can't "always be prepared" for everything, so you need to make choices, and not everyone will agree on which choices to make.

- CamCKA