If it were designed to do that, it could. The technology developed for it could be used for that purpose. However, we already have less expensive technology that could do that, and using missile defense technology for that purpose would be a bit of overkill, not to mention a waste of taxpayers' money....

I know you're kidding, I know the point.

--------------------------------------------
Anti-Missile Defense System Fails, say US Military Officials.

U.S. Defense Department officials say an anti-missile defense system test failed early Wednesday when an interceptor missile shut down on its launch pad in the Pacific Ocean.


By VOA News
15 December 2004

A statement from the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency says a target missile with a mock warhead was successfully fired from Kodiak, Alaska. But the interceptor scheduled to launch 16 minutes later from a site in the Marshal Islands shut down for some unknown reason and failed to fire.

The agency says the exercise was a test of a missile defense system President Bush had hoped to have partially operational by the end of this year. Wednesday's test of the anti-missile shield was the first of its kind to be conducted in nearly two years. Previous tests have met with sporadic success.

Some information for this report provided by AFP and Reuters.
http://www.voanews.com/english/Anti-...-Officials.cfm
-----------------------

__________________
.




"When I'm in command, every mission is a suicide mission!" -Capt. Zapp Branigan
The United Church of the Latter Day Tangential Tarts

So it wasnt that the missile failed to hit the target, it was that it was unable to fire for some reason. That problem is a lot easier to fix.

Sure hope they aren't getting their software from microsoft.

Better luck next time.

We have a finite amount of resouces to spend. That's reality. There are various ways we could choose to spend our money to provide for our defense. Missle defense is wasteful, a poor choice.

The big danger in today's world is not from another country launching a nuclear strike that could be (theoretically) intercepted by a missle defense system. The big danger is from non-state actors who must be "intercepted" by different means.

Better, more effective, more practical ways that the money devoted to missle defense could be spent:
~ nuclear non-proliferation measures
~ securing borders, airports & seaports
~ intelligence-gathering, infiltration and destruction of terrorist cells and leaders

This isn't the Cold War era anymore. Wake up, people.

__________________
Yo, how can I get me one o' them White House press pass thingies?!

Here are a few variations on that sentence:

"attempting to invent a 'light bulb' is an expensive distraction from reality"

"attempting to put a man on the moon is an expensive distraction from reality"

"Joining WW2 is an expensive distraction from reality"

I guess every great feat needs its detractors to remind us who we should not listen to. North Korea is developing nuclear capabilities. That is a fact. Iran is not far off. These are nations who hate us. Did you know that according to Robert McNamara Castro urged Kruschev to attack us in 1962? If it were up to Castro we would all be incinerated. That is the truth. The issues you mentioned are important but so it this. It will happen. It will be perfected.

__________________
lambaste me not

We have absolutely no defense from missile attack other than the threat of retaliation...thats reality.

Missile and nuke technology will eventually fall into the hands of people who may not care if they are retaliated against, assuming it has not already. Thats reality as well.

We already have defenses of some kind against all other forms of attack. We have no defense against missile attack. Therefore, no, it is not a poor choice.

Securing borders and seaports will not allow us to prevent a missile attack from the outside.

Nuclear non-proliferation treaties require the consent and cooperation of our enemies. North Korea anyone?

Intellegence gathering/infiltration/destruction is not effective enough to 100% guarentee that these weapons will never fall into the wrong hands. Do you disagree?

All of the measures can still be persued in parallel with the national missile defense system. They are not mutually exclusive. If they fail we will at least have some hope of preventing disaster.

I agree...there are fanatics in the world that do not have the inhibitions of the USSR and may not care if we retaliate against them. You liberals need to wake up.

And I'd be more than happy to buy any of you a cup of coffee if it will expedite that awakening process.

Catz

__________________
I'll get nicer when you get smarter.

I have heard Bush claim this is for protection from Rogue states.

Reagan claimed it was for defense against the Russians

Let's face it, this ICBM missle defense is just a plain dumb idea leftover from the cold war.

Let's look at the facts. The Missile defense program costs Billions fo dollars. Ability for a rogue nation to put a bomb on a boat and sail it into one of our harbors and complete bypass the system... undettered.

Duh, that makes a lot if sense.

That's where the Navy and Coast Guard come in.