Washington Post: HOLMES: U.S. backtracks on missile shield

Stan Shannon

Mike Mullikin wrote:

Canada doesn't have 100's of thousands of troops and billions of dollars of equipment spread all over the world defending ungrateful weasels and they seem to be getting along just fine.

That's because they no longer have the financial ability to field an army thanks to their social welfare state.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Ilion

Nor, at present, snuggled right into Uncle Sam's armpit, as Canada is, the need.

Lost User

This, Stan, probably causes you some displeasure US health system is plagued by high cost and waste: experts [^]. In light of that article, perhaps Canada isn't all bad.

Lost User

How about things like this Pine Gap[^]?

Lost User

If it's truly a joint venture then let the Aussies buy our half and run it themselves. If they refuse, we should take our half of the equipment when we leave. It is long past time for the US to get out of the "World Police" business.

Lost User

Nor do we with our growing welfare state.

Lost User

Mike Mullikin wrote:

"World Police" business

I rather suspect it is for the same reason that BMEWS at RAF Fylingdales exists. Not as a "World Policeman" but as a means for mutual defence. But since the end of the cold war, it is arguable that a need still exists, those Russians have not yet reached IMO the status of trustworthy friend.

Lost User

Mike Mullikin wrote:

If it's truly a joint venture then let the Aussies buy our half and run it themselves. If they refuse, we should take our half of the equipment when we leave. It is long past time for the US to get out of the "World Police" business.

I'm not aware of who owns which assets there but the point I wanted to make is that there must be some advantage to the US in having access to that facility. I can't imagine that the US presence there is solely for the benefit of Australia. Surely the ability to control satellites from the southern hemisphere is an important part of your national security? We also have the Parkes Observatory[^] used by NASA

Lost User

Josh Gray wrote:

Surely the ability to control satellites from the southern hemisphere is an important part of your national security?

Does Australia require the control of satellites from the Northern hemisphere for proper defense? If we aren't defending/policing the world our requirements are significantly reduced.

Lost User

Mike Mullikin wrote:

Does Australia require the control of satellites from the Northern hemisphere for proper defense?

Probably

Mike Mullikin wrote:

If we aren't defending/policing the world our requirements are significantly reduced.

Oh FFS

Stan Shannon

I agree completely. But thats an argument againt the welfare state, not the military.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

This is as true today as it was when Britain militarily protected its interests around the globe in those Empire days.

Oh, back then both countries and at least half of Western Europe practiced gunboat diplomacy.

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

if you are not seen to be protecting your foreign assets then those assets may be seized with you being unable to suitably respond to rectify the seizure.

For better or for worse, neither country is self-sure enough these days to reclaim assets taken by jolly jumpup Beloved Leaders. Venezuela, Mexico and Saudi all own oil production facilities started by the UK and US and we have done thing about it.

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

if that company is a source of revenue that your government can tax then protection of that revenue stream could be as important to the American Government as Hong Kong (Opium Wars) was to the then British Empire

These days the largest corporations seem to be costing us money, not providing it. However, if they need protection, I am sure Blackwater would be glad to provide it. Many of their employees are ex-Green Beanies or SAS and are paid commensurately with the risk involved. Better their blood be spilled, if blood must be spilled, than that of some 19 year old pimple-face who thought he'd make a little extra dough by joining the National Guard.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

Stan Shannon

Which is an argument for returning to a true free market health care system.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Oakman

Stan Shannon wrote:

That's because they no longer have the financial ability to field an army thanks to their social welfare state.

It's also because they are almost totally dependent on the US for defense against any serious threat.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

Oakman

Mike Mullikin wrote:

Does Australia require the control of satellites from the Northern hemisphere for proper defense?

Of course not, they expect us to do it for them and pay them for the privilege. I'm not faulting the Aussies. They've got a good thing going, but we're the ones who set it up and we're the ones who act like it's a matter of national security to police the entire world.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

Oakman

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

Not as a "World Policeman" but as a means for mutual defence.

With all due respect for the UK, exactly how much defending of the US can we count on?

Richard A. Abbott wrote:

those Russians have not yet reached IMO the status of trustworthy friend.

They haven't yet reached the status of civilized nation, have they? The new Russia seems to be ruled by thugs from the NKVD who were smart enough to become crime lords before their friends did.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface Algoraphobia: An exaggerated fear of the outside world rooted in the belief that one might spontaneously combust due to global warming.

Lost User

Oakman wrote:

Venezuela, Mexico and Saudi all own oil production facilities started by the UK and US and we have done thing about it

I'll not comment about Mexico, but, if it wasn't for the influence of the then Soviet Union (and now Russia) I'm pretty sure that Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and other countries that continue to taunt, would be suitably controlled. And Britain would still have ownership of the Suez Canal. But with a policy to permit independence for the former Empire countries to manage and rule themselves, we can't now really complain if they so choose to form friends elsewhere and stick up 2 fingers to their former colonial masters.

Oakman wrote:

Blackwater

Wild Geese never really solved anything, not in real life nor in the Richard Burton film of the same name. They just created more problems and complicated issues.

Lost User

Oakman wrote:

Of course not, they expect us to do it for them and pay them for the privilege.

Do we? Can you actually show some evidence of this or it is just an assumption? Seems to me there is a lot of mutual benefit in us sharing access to the Pine Ridge installation. A few highlights from the Wikipedia article Pine Gap was set aside for the United States Air Force's control station for Defense Support Program satellites that monitor heat emissions from missiles, giving first warning of ballistic missile launches. He described the CIA-run facility as the ground control and processing station for geosynchronous satellites engaged in signals intelligence collection, outlining four categories of signals collected: * telemetry from advanced weapons development, such as ballistic missiles, used for arms control verification; * signals from anti-missile and anti-aircraft radars; * transmissions intended for communications satellites; and * microwave emissions, such as long distance telephone calls. My personal favorite In 1999, with the Australian Government refusing to give details to an Australian Senate committee on treaties, Intelligence expert Professor Des Ball from the Australian National University was called to give an outline of Pine Gap Seems to me its important to someone. Trust me, not many people would want to live out there by choice. If you guys dont want it we could always give it back to the "Traditional Land Owners" :)

Stan Shannon

Oakman wrote:

It's also because they are almost totally dependent on the US for defense against any serious threat.

Absolutely. It should be interesting to see what happens after the US social welfare state eliminates that protection for them. I suspect the "Original Nations" or whatever they call their Indians up there, will just kick their asses and take over again.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

Lost User

From what I can see that ship has already sailed.