OT: Canada Agrees to be Missile Target

"Dave" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

It would not be the first piece of radioactive stuff that's fallen in Canada.(Soviet RORSAT)

Yet another reason for the canucks to freak out about this whole thing. An airburst would take out every computer, TV, radio, and telephone within 100 miles, while letting the stupid V2 the koreans would probably be using fly through to SF unscathed.

Actually, the best (only good?) idea to come out of star wars was "brilliant pebbles", which are impact devices, thousands of them, which swarm at anything they are aimed at. They are small enough to burn up before they hit the ground. It was squashed by the Clinton gang in 93, but was the frontrunner for missle defense under GHWB. Sure was nice not to have anybody major gunning for us.

http://216.239.63.104/search?q=cache:SEVKodRyajAJ:

We need a defense system to deflect incomming insults.

to

I humbly request that you stand in the middle of a street and don't move when a car comes toward you.

If you suggest that you would never do this unless forced to do so, then I will accuse you of belligerence because you are requiring me to use force.

Seconded.

Al

Spehro, Glad someone pointed out that it was not a withdrawal from any existing agreement, just a decision to not join the new one. So much for knowledgeable comments. Now if we could only get that big irregularly shaped bulls-eye below the 49th to move we could be threat free and not need any defense except for those instances we take upon ourselves willingly.

-- Sincerely, Brad Velander

American

NORAD.

that he

His

is 3 to

that.

Stick to what you're good at.

The US would get pretty hot under the collar if anybody fired missiles over their territory, whether or not it was 'in defence'.

Such defence is more correctly conducted under current NORAD.

RL

Thirded, and seconded Gregg's and especially xray's comments.

Tim

-- "California is the breakfast state: fruits, nuts and flakes." Website:

That has been the intended defense tactic since 1950, though you seem to have the effective radius and means of damage delivery a little confused.

I don't think this method works well on ICBMs, for a number of reasons.

RL

Hey guys, you missed the point !

In order to Hit Mainland USA, North Korea MUST violate Alaskan airspace before it gets to CANADA to get to mainland USA. Unless they have figured out how to move North Korea or gotten around some of Newton's Laws of Physics. Or USA doesn't object to having North Korean missiles passing overhead, in Alaska on it's way to mainland USA. Otherwise they (NK) would would have to launch on a reciprocal bearing, and then Florida would be the nearest US target. In which case it isn't Canada's problem anyway. SPACE INVADERS always was a stupid game anyways ! NB the old DEW line is pointed in the wrong direction, in the wrong place for this scenario.

Yukio YANO

appropriate

Hey! I represent - er, resent that! :-)

Please, oh please, someone add a fourth and a fifth, etc., so we can get this political BS to stop.

I was QUOTING someone else's nonsensical sentence back to them. Was that you ?:-)

...Jim Thompson

The original post had a different header than you used, it had was most definately marked "OT" it was your choice to get involved at that point.

Jim

You seem to have confused discussion with insulting.

The damage depends on the radius; ionization, vaporization, pulse heating, radiation detonation of onboard explosives, seu damage/scrambling of electronics, emp, stuff like that. It has a lot higher probability of kill than impact.

It allows miles-range kills (instead of meters-away misses) and helps the decoy situation immensely. The whole point of ABMs is to sustain deterrance.

John

Yep, Canadian cities.

Actually we should just send all the beef back, quoting Spehro, that's the way democracy works ;-)

...Jim Thompson

So we should sacrifice entire cities to Canada's political sensitivities?

John

Nah, to the extent they may work, they are a scheme to gain first-strike capability over other countries, and thus make it easier to threaten them with a first use of nuclear weapons or subject them to conventional attack.

Submarines provide guaranteed survivable and robust response to an enemy first strike, so the ABMs are most certainly not required for that.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Only if you send all the money back first!

What percentage of our gross energy consumption would that be?

...Jim Thompson