With a friend like this...
- Thread starter cbenoi1
- Start date
Is the current administration bound and determined to alienate every other country in the world? And if so, to what end, for God's sake. This is just insane. Where is Coventry when you need it? The whole lot should be escorted there, forthwith.
Basically, if Canada gets hit with a NK missile, they're on their own; don't count on the red-capped eagle swooping in to help.
The answer to the first question is apparently yes. Bigly.
As to the second... either the entire administration is on the take to cripple the country's influence (enabling other world powers to gain dominance, economically and militarily), or they really are all a bunch of ignorant, short-sighted greedmongers who would rather withdraw from (or destroy) a world that's changing too fast for them than adapt to it. But I'm not a politician or an analyst, nor have I ever played them on TV... I'm sure there are Reasons that look good enough, from their POV, to justify selling the country, planet, and future down the river.
Is it the gay marriage, or the healthcare, or just the fact that we're not Americans and so we're lower forms of life?
The link is about USA not wanting to help Canada in case of nuclear attack.
Which is rubbish, because Canada is a NATO member and can simply invoke Article 5, meaning an attack on one is an attack on all. I would expect the US government and military to understand this.
The USA have received help after 9/11 according to Article 5, when it was invoked for the first time in history. It can thus be expected that the USA would help any other NATO member that came under attack.
What they're saying is basically that they're ready to ignore NATO article 5, making NATO obsolete. Another slap in the face of their partners.
Which is rubbish, because Canada is a NATO member and can simply invoke Article 5, meaning an attack on one is an attack on all. I would expect the US government and military to understand this.
The USA have received help after 9/11 according to Article 5, when it was invoked for the first time in history. It can thus be expected that the USA would help any other NATO member that came under attack.
What they're saying is basically that they're ready to ignore NATO article 5, making NATO obsolete. Another slap in the face of their partners.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,128
- Reaction score
- 10,900
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
He didn't say the US wouldn't help, he just said not to count on it.
Talk about hedging your bets.
This is cold treatment of a "sister" country with which we've been extremely friendly for most of our history. It's also rather stupid. We're far more likely to be the target of a nuclear attack than Canada is, and with our "everyone for themselves" attitude, why would they want to help up out in that event? If someone attacks both our countries, wouldn't we be stronger together? In the unlikely event someone does attack Canada and not us, what would we have to lose, really, by assisting them? Would we be safe if a hostile power conquers our next door neighbor?
I assume this is a game someone is playing in order to get something from Canada (and the entire NATO community), but what? Is it a dominance ploy? Does Trump and his administration think they can play manipulative games where the US withdraws something that's needed or expected, then wins concessions or adulation for offering to return it under terms? That might work in abusive relationships, maybe even in business, but do countries fall for it?
Talk about hedging your bets.
This is cold treatment of a "sister" country with which we've been extremely friendly for most of our history. It's also rather stupid. We're far more likely to be the target of a nuclear attack than Canada is, and with our "everyone for themselves" attitude, why would they want to help up out in that event? If someone attacks both our countries, wouldn't we be stronger together? In the unlikely event someone does attack Canada and not us, what would we have to lose, really, by assisting them? Would we be safe if a hostile power conquers our next door neighbor?
I assume this is a game someone is playing in order to get something from Canada (and the entire NATO community), but what? Is it a dominance ploy? Does Trump and his administration think they can play manipulative games where the US withdraws something that's needed or expected, then wins concessions or adulation for offering to return it under terms? That might work in abusive relationships, maybe even in business, but do countries fall for it?
Last edited:
I find it generally easier to assume self-centered greed than outright malice, so I'm leaning toward the bolded option. Though I would say, if they're trying to cripple the country's influence, I think they're aiming to give that influence to corporations, not foreign powers. But then, I'm a cynic of the highest level and my most recent nonfiction book was Elizabeth Warren's THIS FIGHT IS OUR FIGHT, which pretty much lays out the case that the GOP is doing exactly that.
Looking a little further:
U.S. may not defend Canada from ballistic missile attack: General
Then we find out what's behind it:
One has to go back in history to the debate over Reagan's infamous money pit called "Star Wars". The US was not unanimous on Reagan's Star Wars either. Perhaps with N Korea's missile game we'll all get to dump more tax dollars into the military industrial complex. Yippee.
Some background on the Canadian political debate about the missile defense alliance.
U.S. may not defend Canada from ballistic missile attack: General
So far sounds like sloppy Trump governing by rumor and lack of clarity.
Then we find out what's behind it:
One has to go back in history to the debate over Reagan's infamous money pit called "Star Wars". The US was not unanimous on Reagan's Star Wars either. Perhaps with N Korea's missile game we'll all get to dump more tax dollars into the military industrial complex. Yippee.
Some background on the Canadian political debate about the missile defense alliance.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2009
- Messages
- 147
- Reaction score
- 21
You know, at the rate things are going, I kind of expect two things to happen at some point in Trump presidency: 1) another nation will launch a devastating attack on us. 2) the rest of the world will stand back and let it happen, because by that time the general consensus will be that the US is a bigger threat that whoever attacked us. I hope not; I'd rather that sentiment was just my own helplessness and anxiety talking, but I feel like i can't afford to assume that.
It suddenly occurred to me that 1) any decision about this is in the hands of Congress, unless the response would be by executive order, 2) Congress is ineffectual, 3) Something in this thread made me think the U.S. isn't all the different from N. Korea (and that is a mighty weird thought). Oh, and 4) Is the issue that someone(s) just want to hasten the arrival of the apocalypse in some odd logic that it will hasten whatever follows?
Both are (now) led unstable, immature spoiled brats who got handed everything by nepotism and who don't care one whit for their own people.
We, however, are the same 'nice' people we always were.
In case of emergency in US airspace a la 9-11, U.S. planes will be accommodated at our airports, just as they were back then.
Except Air Force One. Keep flyin', big boy, your buddy in Russia is just on the far side of the North Pole.
In case of emergency in US airspace a la 9-11, U.S. planes will be accommodated at our airports, just as they were back then.
Except Air Force One. Keep flyin', big boy, your buddy in Russia is just on the far side of the North Pole.
Yep. And when oil prices will make trading with Asia and Europe cost-prohibitive, we'll let the light on for ya.
-cb
Lt Gen Pierre St-Amand may be stationed at NORAD, but he isn't US Military. He's Canadian.
Something seems a bit off about this news story. It could well be true, but it lacks any detail to explain what the general meant. There's nothing here corroborating the general's testimony, especially in light of NATO Article V
I suspect the BBC has left something out of their reporting. I'm not sure that the Toronto Sun article clarifies.
If we are talking about shooting down a ballistic missile, that technology isn't fully actualized. Not that I know of, anyway.
Something seems a bit off about this news story. It could well be true, but it lacks any detail to explain what the general meant. There's nothing here corroborating the general's testimony, especially in light of NATO Article V
I suspect the BBC has left something out of their reporting. I'm not sure that the Toronto Sun article clarifies.
If we are talking about shooting down a ballistic missile, that technology isn't fully actualized. Not that I know of, anyway.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,779
- Reaction score
- 4,983
- Location
- Green Country
- Website
- www.bobmuellerwriter.com
I didn't see anything in that article that suggested this was a policy issued by the White House. The general is on NORAD staff, but he's Canadian, as Luciferical pointed out. That article isn't clear if he's speaking as a NORAD deputy commander or what.
And yes, we can shoot down ballistic missiles. We've been able to since Desert Storm actually (cf MIM-104 Patriot), and the tech is improving on a regular basis. The US 7th Fleet has 6 destroyers available as part of the Aegis missile defense system.
Of course, Fitzgerald and McCain are two of them. I'm sure it's just a coincidence that those ships were both part of the shield system.
See my post above for the background that will make sense of the whole affair.
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 25,582
- Reaction score
- 3,785
- Location
- New Hampshire
- Website
- madhousemanor.wordpress.com
No need for elaborate thought-patterns here.
Trump is far too crude to come up with a clever plan; he's Tony Soprano (without the psychiatrist).
"Nice country you got there. Too bad if it burned down one night. That might happen unless you agree to end NAFTA."
Trump is far too crude to come up with a clever plan; he's Tony Soprano (without the psychiatrist).
"Nice country you got there. Too bad if it burned down one night. That might happen unless you agree to end NAFTA."
"I see you got the White House all fixed up real nice. Is it still flammable? There's probably enough oil left in Alberta for one last blaze for old time's sake."
The defense system doesn't work anyways, so as a Canadian I'm not worried. http://http://www.rideauinstitute.ca/2016/07/11/40-billion-and-missile-defense-still-doesnt-work/
If North Korea goes on the attack they will be sending up multiple missiles not just one and some will be duds and some will be armed. The missile defense testing has been limited and only when the system knows the trajectory and according to experts even with trajectory knowledge its successful only 50% of the time.
Again...if a missile was headed towards North America I'm sure the USA will use the system to shoot it down, however the idea of a lone missile headed our way is ridiculous. In the case of numerous missiles with unknown trajectories we would all be sitting ducks and of course I would assume at that time the USA would counter attack and then we have massive nuclear war and we all know where that leads.
However I would like to add, when 9/11 happened and the USA was in lock down and all air traffic diverted we opened our doors and provided whatever assistance we could provide, it was a terrifying time especially for those in the air and we laid out the welcome mat. I consider the USA to be our closest allies and would expect if we were in a time of crisis they would come to our aid. That being said of course if the USA and Canada were simultaneously being attacked of course the USA would focus on itself that would be understandable.
As for this new huppla and recent comments from the USA about not defending Canada...this isn't a "Trump" thing....its been said for the past decade, but people like to blame it on his office when in fact that has been the position from the USA for a very long time.
If North Korea goes on the attack they will be sending up multiple missiles not just one and some will be duds and some will be armed. The missile defense testing has been limited and only when the system knows the trajectory and according to experts even with trajectory knowledge its successful only 50% of the time.
Again...if a missile was headed towards North America I'm sure the USA will use the system to shoot it down, however the idea of a lone missile headed our way is ridiculous. In the case of numerous missiles with unknown trajectories we would all be sitting ducks and of course I would assume at that time the USA would counter attack and then we have massive nuclear war and we all know where that leads.
However I would like to add, when 9/11 happened and the USA was in lock down and all air traffic diverted we opened our doors and provided whatever assistance we could provide, it was a terrifying time especially for those in the air and we laid out the welcome mat. I consider the USA to be our closest allies and would expect if we were in a time of crisis they would come to our aid. That being said of course if the USA and Canada were simultaneously being attacked of course the USA would focus on itself that would be understandable.
As for this new huppla and recent comments from the USA about not defending Canada...this isn't a "Trump" thing....its been said for the past decade, but people like to blame it on his office when in fact that has been the position from the USA for a very long time.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,128
- Reaction score
- 10,900
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
I doubt North Korea will have the resources to launch a strike with multiple armed and unarmed missiles for quite some time, if ever.
The scariest thing at the moment is that we have a POTUS who is incapable of dealing with the threat with the restraint and maturity possessed by most older children, let alone a world leader.
The scariest thing at the moment is that we have a POTUS who is incapable of dealing with the threat with the restraint and maturity possessed by most older children, let alone a world leader.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,779
- Reaction score
- 4,983
- Location
- Green Country
- Website
- www.bobmuellerwriter.com
There are two components to the system; one is land-based and the other is sea-based. I'm fairly certain the sea-based aspect of ballistic missile defense does work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System
Interesting. Now that I look back, I don't recall this being reported as a Trump-originated policy.