[Kory Yamashita]

Well, I haven't actually SEEN the Star Wars movies. So I can't make those comparisons, but in terms of good ol Ronald's Star Wars, I can't see how this is any different. If you take a satellite with a laser on it capable of shooting down an ICBM, how is that not a weapon in space? If it can blow up that missile, how can anyone believe that it won't do massive damage if misfired? And if they're putting these things up in space, do you really trust the US military to give us full details on their capabilities? Oh sure, right now they're just there for "defense", but what happens if that laser IS fired at a city. Or used to assassinate unwanted foreign leaders. Obviously the pentagon's going to tell us that's not possible. But lets be honest here. If you were the pentagon laying billions and billions into this new "defense" system, would you reveal it's full technological capabilities? This isn't just some make-work US military project. This is the weaponization of space, this is the beginning of a new arms race. So is this Star Wars? Just because it looks, sounds, operates, and serves the same purpose as Star Wars, and will lead to the same eventual outcome (the casual usage of nukes), it's NOT Star Wars. And why not? Well, cause Bush, Cheney, & co. say so, obviously. -KY

[sthompson]

Actually, like I said I think Bush, Cheney et al are being pretty straightforward about this one. Remember, in the US people seem to like military stuff like this (or at least a significant enough block of people like it to make it worthwhile to try to get their votes). It's the CANADIAN politicos who are trying to say it's NOT Star Wars. David Pratt, Paul Martin etc. Otherwise, yeah, I agree, if you're putting lasers in space, that's Reagan's Star Wars, just the sequel. And hasn't China said if the US weaponizes space, they will too, to prevent US dominance?

[whelan costen]

I agree Kory and we will never be told the entire truth, until it slips out by some reporter by accident! Why are they going to Mars, at this point in history, when their economy is going down the toilet, they have no health care and they are in so much debt because of their wars? Haven't we done enough damage to one planet why do we need to weaponize the entire galaxy?

[whelan costen]

Susan, the thing about the U.S. is they like using hollywood type expressions, 'shock and awe' etc so they like that 'star wars' is a glitzy term for their destructive ways. Canadians aren't taken in by the hollywood syndrome and our leaders know it, so they are downplaying the term, it's 'defence' it's just another tool in our North American toolbox...it's sick. You can't get a straight answer out of Martin or Pratt on this issue, probably cause they aren't even told the whole truth!

[Kory Yamashita]

Actually, I think the missions to mars may serve to offset environmentalism. I get the feeling that there's actually a disgustingly large number of people who believe that it's fine for us to ruin Earth if we can migrate to Mars. It's an unpublished opinion that I've gotten around campus during a few discussions. And just a note on that: It's easier to make a biodome on earth than on Mars. And has anyone else noticed the disappearance of the term "shock and awe" from media?? I guess no one is shocked or awed by the US's inability to establish a peacefully accepted pupped government. Imagine that. Heck, it's almost as though we've been through this one before. Whelan, do you think that the missions to Mars are primarily for military purposes? And one comment on Star Wars... you think CNN is entertaining NOW? Just wait until we have light sabers and battles and melees in outer space. The public will HAVE to support that. But wait, what's Star Wars going to cost? (I haven't seen the figures... but a fair number of billions, I presume). You can produce a LOT of Hollywood effects for the same price tag. Maybe we should just invest heavily in movies instead of wars for entertainment. At least that way no one dies. -Just a thought. -KY

[Dr Caleb]

I don't know Kory. I don't think the prime motivation to colonize mars is because then we can have 2 planets to expoit. When you think of the dinosaur extinction, is it wise to have all humanity in one basket? To answer your question, I think 'shock and awe' was replaced with 'wardrobe malfunction' for a while, now it's back to 'sponsorship scandal'.

[whelan costen]

I don't think the only reason they are exploring Mars is military, I think it's also about perception, the 'we are the greatest mentality' we will conquer any and every country on this planet, plus we can dominate another planet if we want to! I think it's a few people with very 'grandiose' ego's that have lost touch with reality. They don't care how they do what they do, just that they do it; no matter if people are starving, dying and basically living in conditions that animals wouldn't tolerate...that is totally irrelevant to these 'megaegos'. It isn't just greed it's their perception of reality, it reminds me of Kings of the past, gone mad and out of control. I also have a problem with the entire process of putting something made on earth into the Mars atmosphere, has anyone considered what we may have introduced to that planet, and when it or the pieces they bring back enter our atmosphere what will it bring back; new germs, new life forms, etc. I think the prospects for corrupting the earth are huge, I also think the mindset is about controlling ALL, controlling people, planets, the environment everything; because they think they can! I don't believe that the Canadians involved know much about the process they are just so happy to be sitting at a table with the U.S.; it reminds me of the boobs that said they didn't read the Free Trade agreement, they just signed it, WHY?

[Reverend Blair]

I thought that Bush wanted to go to Mars because he was reading the World Weekly News and saw that the face on Mars belonged to Jesus. No disrespect to the WWN, of course...I think Batboy was the greatest invention of the last century. I think Star Wars is a perfectly correct characterisation of Bush's plan to weaponise space. It has lots of glitz, costs a lot of money, and the version being presented publicly lacks real substance. George Bush (or which ever puppeteer is controlling him) wants to run the world, so he's building a Death Star. What really gets to me is that it likely cannot be made to work for its stated purpose. It is too easily defeated by too many means, too complex to count on, and addresses an unlikely threat in the post-Cold War world. So why the push to weaponise space? Back to the whole Death Star scenario. On the bright side, if the US ever does come to its senses the technology developed will very likely be beneficial. If we don't die first.

[Kory Yamashita]

Dr Caleb made an important point, I think, about all our eggs in one basket. Especially if you consider that earth is has a theoretical liveability time limit. Obviously the X billion years we have left before the sun burns out is longer than humanity will be around if we stay on one planet, but maybe that feeling of inevitable extinction fuels this drive to Mars (and eventual colonization, presumably). </p> If someone told me "hey, lets live conservative lifestyles while sitting around on a rock waiting to die", I might not respond favorably. I think if you take into account the human psyche, the colonization of other planets is inevitable. </p> But back to Star Wars. I haven't heard any arguments that the "National Missile Defense" is any different from Reagan's Star Wars. But Star Wars didn't go through because it was technologically unfeasible, or at least that's my comprehension of the events. And sure, we've made a lot of progress since then. But are we capable of producing something on the kind of scale that it could shoot down the requisite 10000 missiles in an hour or however long it will take to fire them, and do it with the kind of accuracy necessary to actually insure defense? I mean, is it feasible now? </p> Does anyone have links to any type of site that might suggest how this could be carried out, or even a rough model of what the Star Wars system would be composed of?

[sthompson]

Kory, missile defense is definitely NOT feasible now. It remains incredibly hard to basically hit a bullet with a bullet, and test results have been poor or fudged, which has been the subject of some good documentaries such as on CBC. Even if they can make it work, it will be easily fooled by decoys and other simple tactics like, oh I don't know, box cutters on planes or sending a row boat with a bomb on it--ie terrorism. Ditto probably for anything along the lines of lasers in space etc. Do a site search on missile defense and I'm pretty sure we should have some info on that on Vive already. If not, I'll post some when I can.

[Dr Caleb]

[QUOTE BY= Does anyone have links to any type of site that might suggest how this could be carried out, or even a rough model of what the Star Wars system would be composed of? [/QUOTE] <a href='http://www.fas.org/ssp/bmd/index.html'>FAS Missle Defense</a><p> FAS is a great resource for military systems, almost as good as Janes Weekly. Janes is a worldwide scope, compared to FAS's US focus. [QUOTE BY= sthompson] it will be easily fooled by decoys and other simple tactics like, oh I don't know, box cutters on planes or sending a row boat with a bomb on it--ie terrorism. [/QUOTE] Can't stop the donkey cart full of semtex

[4Canada]

(until I learn how to apply the smily faces)Just imagine the big eyes-EEK face here okay? Kory, Have this large number of people that think they can ruin Earth and then go to Mars seen Mars? If they keep on as they are Earth will likely look like Mars in their lifetime. And they'll be able to wear the space suits and have to use breathing apparatus as well. Nice.

[KevinGagnon]

Susan,

I personally think that Jack Layton and the NDP have done a bad job in protesting against this. They keep on saying "star wars", but the opposition are always ready to argue that in the house of commons. They have no problem arguing it cause its not really what their talking to the U.S about They say its only land their talking about. Well at least that's what they want us to believe. I think for many Canadians the liberals are doing a good job in making them think that they are opposed to the weaponizing of space. I've heard them say it many times in the house of commons.

What we have is the Liberals saying that they are opposed to the weaponizing of space. The Liberals keep on repeating that the negotiations are only to discuss land, it has nothing to do with weaponizing space. So for many Canadians watching these Liberals in the house of commons and talk in interviews with the Media. Many Canadians are believing that these talks won't lead to actually weaponizing space. I know I'm repeating myself, sorry

What Jack and the NDP need to do is educate and argue in the house of commons, using some evidence, at least some kind of proof that these negotiations will lead to weaponizing space. They need to find a way to show how the Liberals know very well that these talks will come to the weaponizing of space. They need to let Canadians know that these Liberals are actually in agreement with the "star wars" plan. Currently for those who don't see through the Liberals will believe that the Liberals will be totally opposed to the weaponizing of space. They even almost have me convinced.

Jack/NDP are getting nowhere by saying Liberals support weaponizing of space, and then the Liberals say their opposed to the weaponizing of space. With this approach people are obviously going to fall for the B.S of the Liberals before they decide to start listening to a party that is lacking real support in Canada.

Kevin Gagnon
http://www.kevingagnon.ca

[Milton]

The Liberals had a red book full of promises that would be carried out when they were elected, like getting rid of the GST. Did they? No! You can't trust politicians, a Canadian judge said they were expected to lie during campaigns and that verbal contracts that they made were therefore not enforcible. Star Wars is just another way to divert billions of dollars to defense contractors and to force other countries like China to do the same thing. If they are spending their money on guns they are not buying butter. Obviously Earth will have weapons placed in orbit around it and if the Liberals give any assistance of any type then they have helped to weaponize "space". The correct response for them to make would be introducing a Bill which bans any production or research facilities from being built, situated or operated within Canada. If they won't introduce a Bill to ban then they are full of bull.

[KevinGagnon]

There you go. If the Liberals are saying they are opposed to the weaponization of space. Does that mean their already willing to accept a bill that would stop any future plans of Canada being involved in this 'star wars'? It would show their really true colors if they refused this bill idea. Kevin Gagnon