DFAIT logo partnership The logo for the by design elab, an independent research development and production think tank specializing in online forums for policy development, incubated in 1997 at the McLuhan Program at the University of Toronto
DFAIT Home Site Map Help Policies Partners Feedback Netcast Français
 
Welcome
Message from the Minister
Dialogue Paper
Answer Questions
View Answers
Discussion Forum
 
FAQ | Newcomer tips | Civil Rules | Participate

Security

Thank you for participating in the Dialogue on Foreign Policy. The interactive web site is now closed. The Minister's report will appear on this web site once it is released.

This Forum is bilingual, and participants post messages in their language of choice.

Previous Topic |  All Topics |  Start Topic  | Next Topic

Missile Defence Shield

Contributor: Barretm82

Date: 2003-03-08 14:37:55


I do not want to belittle the discussions however from my perspective if we get to the point of Inter continental Ballistic Missiles launched in anger…

…perhaps we should duck and cover then kiss our butts good bye.

We don't call these weapons city killers for nothing... I think the energy from 1/2 kiloton thermal nuclear ICBM is equal to 25 Hiroshima blasts. Some of the larger ICBM is 8 Kilotons in energy or 400 times the Hiroshima blast.

I could be a bit on the low side (conservative estimate) on the energy conversion as I would have to refresh my memory on it. If someone has time to check that would be welcome.

Reply to this message

Show in topic

Missile Defence Shield

Contributor: Barretm82

Date: 2003-03-08 22:26:08


That should be 8 megatons not kilotons.

Reply to this message

Missile Defence Shield

Contributor: Vox

Date: 2003-03-09 21:00:38


"…perhaps we should duck and cover then kiss our butts good bye."

Yes, I agree and that's why I believe an ABM system can only deter a small strike from a rogue source. This is also the argument from the US.

ABM systems do not make any sense when considering a massive strike from the major powers because it would likely only be capable of intercepting some the warheads and even the fall-out from the intercepts alone would destroy the planet. The ABM system would not change the outcome of such scenarios. I also don't think any of the players can even consider the insurmountable costs of trying to "perfect" an ABM system designed against a massive strike.

I believe this is the argument why the proposed ABM system does not really change the global power balance between the big players. Perhaps this is also one of the reasons why the Russians no longer have a problem with it.



Vox Canadiana

Reply to this message

Previous Topic |  All Topics |  Start Topic  | Next Topic
 
Top of page ^ | Contact Us | Privacy | Printable Version | Email to a friend