Canadawide

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.

I have never been a Randy Moss fan. However, the controversy surrounding his pretending to moon Green Bay fans rates just above the reaction to Janet Jackson’s "wardrobe malfunction". In fact in many ways it was worse. Current Colts coach and former TB coach Tony Dungy put it into context. According to Dungy, GB fans traditionally moon the opposing team’s bus as it pulls away from the stadium after games. That being the case, what Moss does was clever. (Dungy’s response was a far cry from what happened a month a bit ago. During a Monday Night game pitting the Cowboys against the Eagles an ad ran that showed Terrell Owens being seduced by one of the stars of the hit TV show Desperate House Wives. Social Conservatives, being idiots, cried foul as only they can. However, they were not alone. Dungy called the ad “racist” forgetting that the “racist” script called for an African American to attack a virtuous white woman when the opportunity presented itself. The woman from the Desperate House Wives was by no means virtuous and the fact that Terrell needed to be seduced is entirely inconsistent with the racist rape script)

The ironic thing about such outcries is that they encourage the very act they are trying to discourage. Take Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction. Janet Jackson must have been talking with Karl Rove before planning her little stunt – yes I think it was all a big publicity stunt. She correctly understood that her stunt would cause a media and cultural storm that in the end would see her boob garner more attention then the game itself and that in so doing it would jump start her stalled career. Nothing sells better than rebellion and Red America provided the perfect cultural foil.

Returning to Moss, what do you think the chances of the feigned moon will be fodder for some commercial involving Randy? Pretty good I would say.

The purpose missile defense, should it ever gets up and running, is not to defend against Russian missiles, or Chinese missiles. The idea that such a system would work against the Russians is absurd. The purpose 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. There is no nation on earth that would ever attack the US first. The purpose of the system is 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.

With regards to the war on terrorism, it would also do something else. Minus a nuclear umbrella, such nations would be detered from allying with the likes of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda would not be able to set up a base of operations under someone’s nuclear umbrella let alone carry out an attack on the US and then be able to scurry back under such an umbrella.