Posted on 09/16/2017 10:23:58 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
the attitude of the clueless snowflakes up here is: good, we want to distance ourselves from Trump anyway.
They are too stupid to realize that a great circle missile flight from NKorea to Manhattan goes right over Canada.
If it falls short it looks like it will hit Douchebag Central - Ottawa, Ontario.
On a positive note: if Kim Il Sung’s missile is a little offline, it might hit either Montreal, or Toronto.
However, it would be in the best interests of defending the United States not to have nuclear fallout drifting across North America.
So while it may not be policy to defend Canada, it is policy to prevent damage to the US, particularly nuclear damage from that whack-job in NK.
Now, I understand that there are a limited number of very expensive interceptors available. There are no-where near enough (nor will there ever be enough) to deter or counter a strike from Russia. There *may* be enough to deter/counter a strike from China. There are more than enough to deter/counter the few IRBMs or ICBMs NK could loft at us...well. launch on us before all their launch sites, development/assembly/test sites are destroyed.
This is at best misleading NEWS.
What the article is actually saying is that “Canada has long avoided joining the US ballistic missile defence programme, under the assumption that the US would shoot down a nuclear missile heading for its northern neighbour anyway.”
Dear Canadians, you know what the say about ASSUME! It makes an ASS out of “U” and ME.
What should be said is that Canada can't count on the US shooting down missiles headed toward Canada. It can count on the US defending Canada once it has been attacked, but If Canada wants the USA to shoot down missiles aimed at it, then Canada will need to join the ballistic missile defense program.
Yeah. They want to freeload on US defense spending.
The Beeb is trying their hand at “community organizing” on an international scale using their “news” publication.
I think if NK lobbed a nuclear weapon into Canada, we would almost certainly retaliate in kind. The real question in my mind is will China and/or Russia retaliate in kind if we lob a nuclear weapon into North Korea. The Russians, in particular, have some civilization ending sized nukes and they aren’t crude.
Aren’t they a NATO member? Aren’t we obliged?
The story of the little red hen comes to mind...
If by “veritable shit storm” you mean interceptor missiles, then you’d best hope that Lil’ Kimmy has only a few. Policy would be to launch 3-4 interceptors to be sure of a kill for each inbound NOKO ICBM. Leaving 16-17 interceptor missiles for the rest of the incoming ... you do the math, and, on the way to your local fallout shelter, thank 0bama for gutting the program so we have only 20 interceptors.
There are 20 missiles - good for stopping 4-5 incoming with multiple launch for each incoming. China would overwhelm as would NOKO.
“Canada is a founding member of NATO. It would be unthinkable of the U.S. not to cone to it’s aid.”
Depends; Canada needs to belly up to the bar and contribute to missile defense funding instead of expecting a free ride from big brother. Canada should follow Australia as an example. Both countries are similar in key demographics such as population, land mass, GDP, etc. However, the Aussies fund defense and military far greater than Canada and thereby punch considerably above their weight.
The NorK’s - starving their people for 50 years in their insane hatred of SKorea and the US and a long racial war with Japan - don’t care about the radiation “returning” from the blasts that hurt their enemies.
The Russians - and Chinese for what it was worth then - in the Cold War were rational. They wanted to defeat and conquor the US and West. They did not want to destroy it. (They DID need to destroy its Christian culture. And succeeded in that very very well.)
It might be important to remember who was trading with North Vietnam during that conflict overseas.
I wonder if Canada trades with NK?
Washington D.C. - 4 April 1949
Article 5
The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.
Regards,
Not to mention they are our partners in NORAD!
The fact that Canada is not part of the missile defense system may mean that there are not any anti-missiles in position to defend Canadian territory. Vancouver and Windsor would probably be OK because of their proximity to Seattle and Detroit.
We may not have a formal agreement - likely because Canada doesn’t really have a lot to offer in return and her “National Pride” gets in the way. Best guess is we would defend her with vigor. The General is either rabble rousing or sees an opportunity for increasing the might he helps command.
The Canadians were offered the opportunity to opt-in to the U.S. strategic defense program back in the 1990’s. Just about the only thing that was potentially asked of them land for siting radars or missiles. They chose to opt out for purely political reasons. This complicates the U.S. technical challenges.
The U.S. recognizes that in an emergency, the North Koreans might threaten Canada as a counter-value threat, under the assumption that Americans would view an attack on Canada as nearly as distasteful (for lack of a better word) as an attack on the U.S. When the Canadians spurned the U.S. offer, the defended areas were pulled south closer to the U.S. border. Windsor Locks might benefit from a U.S. strategic shield, Newfoundland will not.
I was working system engineering on the National Missile Defense radar network in the late 90’s and I vividly remember the boundaries of the defended area being pulled south. It saves the U.S. very little money, but preserves Canadian pride.
You mean unless Canada agrees to grant citizenship to all of the illegal aliens that have invaded the USA.
Sounds like BS to me.Simple logic shows that we would go to very great lengths indeed to prevent anything like a major attack against Canada...particularly a nuclear attack.Apart from being our friend and ally an attack against them would put us in increased jeopardy.
I don't know anything about this general but given his name I wonder if he might be a secret (or not so secret) supporter on an independent Quebec and,as such,he might just be trying to stir up trouble.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.