Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
User Journal

Journal tomhudson's Journal: Something to think about in the New Year 27

Journal by tomhudson

We're coming up to al election here in Canada next month, and the latest SDI ("Son of Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative) has barely made a blip on the electoral radar.

It should, because this is something that affects us directly, as well as our relationship with the United States.

There are a few fundamental flaws in SDI, which I won't bother going into here, because they have been addressed ad nauseum elsewhere. What I will question is the proposition that Canada is safer under the "shield".

The argument at the political level is that we lose more than we gain if we don't "help out" the US. Current nuclear warhead failsafes will ensure that, if a weapon is knocked off course, it doesn't detonate. The premise of the SDI is that, once you knock a weapon off course, you've neutralized it.

The obvious response to this is to decouple the trigger from the guidance system once the "bird" is out of friendly skies. In other words, instead of requiring that it be over the target to explode, once its far enough away it just has to be at the programmed altitude - wherever it explodes is "good enough". A more advanced tactic would be to adjust the detonation height so that, if it was originally programmed to have a maximum blast effect, it detonates at a lower altitude and has a maximum fallout effect instead.

Lets use the cold war "limited USSR launch" scenario. Originally, the USSR launches a limited first strike targetting strategic cities or facilities. Say, 5 launch vehicles, with 25 warheads. If the SDI manages to divert 4 launch vehicles, then only 5 warheads make it to target and detonate. The rest fall in corn fields, forests, ice floes, etc., and the failsafes keep them from detonating.

The response to this tactic is to "fix" the triggering mechanism so that they detonate regardless of whether they made it to the target or not. Now we have to deal with the full complement of 50 nukes detonating; 5 "on target" with maximum blast effect, and 45 "off target" with maximum fallout effect.

This is the cheapest, quickest way to defeat the SDI, so it doesn't take much brains to see that it will be the inevitable next step if the SDI is deployed.

So, where would some of these nukes fall? Canada, obviously, since we're "in the way". There is no disincentive for an opponent of the US to ensure the nukes don't go off if they end up being diverted to Canadian soil - quite the contrary. The thinking would be that a few diverted nukes would cause Canadians to demand the SDI be shut down immediately as a threat to our own citizens.

Its not just Canadians who are threatened under this scenario; Americans are as well. Some of the diverted "birds" are going to make it to US soil, and, with the failsafes compromised, there's going to be more fallout than from the "clean" strikes.

Now let's look at the "3rd nation" strike scenario. One of the reasons for the Patriot missile's complete failure during the Gulf War was that the Scuds were so erratic that they were impossible to target with any accuracy. Any 3rd world country that wants to "make a nuclear statement" instead of the more ambitious goal of total destruction isn't going to be worried about accuracy, so their warheads will be set to trigger wherever they land. The SDI is ineffective in such cases. That it "got through" and exploded is sufficient sabre-rattling. There's no need for a "surgical strike" capabiity; even the crudest guidance systems from WW2 will work. All the SDI does in such cases is encourage an aggressor to launch a few extra birds, just to "be on the safe side" that at least 1 makes landfall.

SDI was an attempt to sidestep MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. Unfortunately, the law of perverse consequences once again rears its ugly head; the SDI makes the problem worse, not better, for everyone, but it makes it MUCH worse for Canadians, because we are now the primary buffer zone, expected to absorb a nuclear strike that wasn't even directed at us.

Any Canadian political party or candidate who advocates that Canada cooperate with the SDI is guilty of treason, not just against Canadians, but against everyone.

trea·son

1. Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.

2. A betrayal of trust or confidence

It's something to think about as we leave the old year behind; maybe it will goad us to be better peace-brokers in the new year.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Something to think about in the New Year More

Something to think about in the New Year

Comments Filter:
  • Two ways to look at this...

    First, Canada is the approach route from the former Soviet block, but would not neccessarily be the approach route for a third nation attack. This mitigates your argument to some degree, depending on your estimation of the likelihood of an attack from former Soviet territory. I believe that this sort of attack is increasingly unlikely. It is more likely in estimation that the route will be trans-pacific, and the diverted warhead will fall into the Pacific.

    Second, the vast major

    • The northwest passage is now pretty much a year-round route. As the polar caps disappear, a polar attack becomes more likely, not less, especially considering how much harder it is to cover the poles by satellite (no geosynchronous orbit has a decent view). Circumpolar attacks are the favoured route in all cases, because of the lousy satellite coverage, and the difficulty of putting weapons into effective polar orbits.

      Unless the delivery system is destroyed during the initial boost phase, its going to la

    • A Canada that participates, even in only token ways, is more likely to be influental than a Canada that does not.

      If you truly believe that, I have a bridge to sell you...

    • Second, the vast majority of the Canadian population is within kilometers of the US border. A diversion of an over the pole attack would likely cause the warheads to fall in the far north.

      And loads of radioactive fallout in the far north is good because...?

      • Second, the vast majority of the Canadian population is within kilometers of the US border. A diversion of an over the pole attack would likely cause the warheads to fall in the far north.

        And loads of radioactive fallout in the far north is good because...?

        "Good" is all relative in these cases. I believe that more Canadians would be affected by a nuclear strike against Seattle, Chicago, or Detroit than by an attack that fell on Canadian territory near the Arctic circle.

        • We'd all be affected - including Americans and Europeans. The jet stream does some pretty wild meanderings. Look at what happened with TMI - miscarriage rates doubled in the immediate area. Or Chernobyl.

  • There is no disincentive for an opponent of the US to ensure the nukes don't go off if they end up being diverted to Canadian soil - quite the contrary. The thinking would be that a few diverted nukes would cause Canadians to demand the SDI be shut down immediately as a threat to our own citizens.

    So you believe that any country, having just been attacked by a foreign power, will shutdown their only defense against such an attack due to foreign opinion? Why would an American President commit treason in th

    • No, an attack against the US that ends up killing Canadians would result in OUR demanding that the system be shut down, and we would be required by our constitution to take every measure possible to do so.

      A state of war is not automatic. We're not at war with Iraq. We've been trading for decades with Cuba, Russia and China. There is no way that a Canadian Prime Minister is going to agree to participate in escalating a nuclear exchange. That would be a crime against humanity. Nobody wins a nuclear war, s

      • A state of war is automatic if any nation attacks the United States, Canada, or any NATO country. Canada did (and continues to) participate in Afghanistan as a result of 9/11. Canada certainly has the right to opt out of Iraq as well as several other conflicts that are not provoked by a direct attack on a NATO ally.

        • The problem is, the US is just as likely to be the inital aggressor. We saw this with Vietnam - that the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident was manufactured from whole cloth. We saw this with Iraq, that Colin Powell deliberately lied to the UN by presenting evidence that had been completely debunked the day before on TV (you probably didn't get to see it if you were living in the US). We see a similar pattern with the "demonization" of countries like Venezuela. As oil supplies get tighter, we'll probably see it wit

  • I believe military planners will still think of it in terms of hitting targets.

    The radiation pulse of a nuclear explosion prevents nuclear devices from being exploded at the same time on the same target; this will work to decrease the number of warheads targetted at a single spot, so that an SDI defense that leads to explosions elsewhere will still be thought of has having missed, despite the fallout.

    SDI defenses will be so expensive anyway that they will probably be only able to hit a small number of incom

    • I remember reading one study that proposed exploding nukes around launch silos just before launch to prevent any incoming nukes from successfully targetting the silo - mess up their optical/ground recognition, their electronics, and give them an unsurviveable fireball to ride through before getting "on target".

      However, EMP won't take out the WW2-style clockwork and timer guidance systems used in the V1 buzz-bomb. Similarly, the russians used tubes long after the west turned to transistors because while t

  • thanks (Score:1)

    by http ( 589131 )
    i hadn't thought of it that way - i'd had enough reasons to oppose canada's involvement in sdi, and now i have one that i can explain to other people in less than one minute.
    thank you.

    • You're welcome. Sometimes the obvious needs to be stated, because its so obvious it gets overlooked.

      Like, "Okay, they shoot the nukes down - so they land on us instead of the US. And you want us to help PAY for that privilege?"

      That any party could propose this without thinking through the consequent relaxing of restrictions on triggering the devices to punish us if we cooperate in SDI is a sad statement on realpolitik, and the eagerness of some politicians (hello, Harper) to stick their heads even furt

  • its spelled "eam" not "eum"...pay no attention to my screenname....someone took the real spelling already :(
  • Your editorial is good, but it fails to address one key point: The USA will develop this system, with or WITHOUT Canada's help. i.e. the risk is that weapons may fall on Canada either way.

    However, were Canada to participate in the program (even if in only a token way) there would be many "soft" benefits to Canada, such as a warming of our relationship, greater respect within NORAD etc. The fact is that Canada needs the USA much more than they need us (or the rest of the world, for that matter). Damaging

    • The same rationale could have been applied to Iraq.

      The same rationale could have been applied to Cuba.

      The same rationale could have been applied to Viet Nam.

      The same rationale could have been applied to the Soviet Union.

      The same rationale could have been applied to the Public Debt.

      The same rationale could have been applied to Health Care.

      We could go on ... just because your neighbour wants to jump off a bridge is no reason for you to, just to preserve "the warm fuzzies."

      The fact is that, long

      • The same rationale could have been applied to [snip]

        Not really. You central thesis is "we shouldn't participate because deflected missiles might fall on our head."

        Doesn't really apply with the examples you've given. In fact, some of them don't even make sense, i.e public debt?

        just to preserve "the warm fuzzies.

        If they were just warm fuzzies you would have a point, but these are warm fuzzies that have tangible effects. Where is the incentive for Bush to go to bat for softwood lumber if Canada do

        • Not really. You central thesis is "we shouldn't participate because deflected missiles might fall on our head."

          No, my central thesis is that it is just plain stupid. Yes, some will fall on us. That is one of my points. But also, the failsafes will be degraded so that even if they don't reach their intended target, they will still detonate. How does that make the US more secure? Also, that more missiles will be launched. Again, how does that make the US more secure? It doesn't.

          Doesn't really apply with

          • "they have to stop their population increase;" I agree with the other things we have to stop, but our population increase is entirely due to immigration. We, like most of Europe would be in a population decline if we stopped all immigration. Of course I can just imagine the outcry on doing that.

            • The population increase is due to what is known as "population momentum" - even when you hit zpg rates, you still have people "in the pipleline" who haven't yet reproduced. Even if all immigration to the US were stopped tomorrow, they would still end up with an unsustainable population of a half-billion. What is needed to prevent this is a birth rate well under the zpg rate of 2.1.

              Voluntary population decline is a good thing for everyone at this point, before the ecological disasters and resource shortag

          • No, my central thesis is that it is just plain stupid.

            No, to use your own words, your central thesis is "Okay, they shoot the nukes down - so they land on us instead of the US. And you want us to help PAY for that privilege?"

            Your thesis has nothing to do with Vietnam, softwood lumber or the national debt.

            I simply don't believe that your reason stated above is a sound reason to stay out of SDI.

Slashdot Top Deals

Garbage In -- Gospel Out.

Close