Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2009 October
2009 September
2009 April
2009 March
2008 November
2008 October
2008 September
2008 July
2008 June
2008 May
2008 April
2008 March
2008 January
2007 December
2007 November
2007 October
2007 September
2007 August
2007 July
2007 June
2007 March
2007 February
2006 October
2006 September
2006 August
2006 July
2006 June
2006 May
2006 April
2006 March
2006 February
2006 January
2005 December
2005 October
2005 September
2005 August
2005 July
2005 June
2005 May
2005 April
2005 March
2005 February
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
My Links
Canadawide
Juan Cole
TPM
Daily Dish
CanucksCathie
E-Group
vanramblings
peace order and good government
Calgary Grit
True North
Gwynn Dyer
Public eye
declan
Sean
Progressive Blogs
Voice in the Wilderness
Tilting at windmills
sec 15
tyee
one damn thing after another
Antonia Zerbisias
Buckets of Grewal
Blank out Times
Accidental Deliberations
Heartlands
Rick Mercer
buckets too
Amazing wonderdog
The Maple Three
The Hive
Cindy Silver 7
Cindy Silver 6
Cindy Silver 5
Cindy Silver 4
Cindy Silver 3
Cindy Silver 2
Cindy Silver
Cindy Silver Sum
Cindy Silver 9
Cindy Silver PR
Cindy Silver (blogs Canada)
Cindy Silver (Blogs Canada 2)
Liberal Blogs
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
| US "War Mongering" a reason for Canada to join missile Defense? |
| 01.11.05 (11:12 pm) [edit] |
|
As I said, I find the traditional rationales for MD unconvincing. The notion that any nation, “rogue” or otherwise would attack the US with ICBM is MAD. To repeat, a more likely justification, that fits in nicely with the newly minted doctrine of preemption, is that the purpose of the shield is to prevent "rogue" nations, such as Iran with limited nuclear and missile technology from setting up a nuclear umbrella, which would deter the US from attacking. In this sense the purpose of missile defense is not defensive per say, but offensive. The purpose of the system would be to prevent some “rogue” nation from firing off a missile when it has nothing to loose, or to remove the ability of such nations to threaten such actions should the US threaten it. In order to serve such a purpose, it certainly could not be limited to protecting just the US. A “rogue state” could still target other countries in order to indirectly hurt the US. A natural point of attack would be the Saudi Oil fields. Another natural point of attack would Canada. Canada is not only the US’s largest trading partner and its biggest suppiler of oil, we are also its neighbor. A rogue state could potentially cause a great deal of environmental harm to the US by targeting Canada. Targeting the Alberata tar sands would also have immense stratgic considerations for the US as well. Laid out as such, whether one supports such a program may ironically come down to just how provocative one thinks the US will be with “rogue states” with nuclear capability in the future. Factored into this equation is Al Qaeda. The willingness of the States to become aggressive with nuclear “rogue states” will depend on part on whether the US feels not doing so constrains their ability to deal with the group. |
| 0 Comments |