Today's huge waste of time and money by the administration...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/08/mis....ap/index.html

Why is it a waste of time and money?

Every administration since Regan has had the opportunity to dissolve this program...including Clinton. None of them have chosen to do so. Dont try to push this on Bush in any event.

A. It costs a lot.
B. It doesn't work.

I don't care what administrations have had the chance to cut it, it's a waste. Show me numbers showing Clinton put as much money toward it as Bush wants to.

There's a long list of various technologies that didn't work when first tried. Let's start with flight. It is expensive, but I personally don't see how you put a price tag on the ability to stop a nuclear attack by Iran or NK.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

it says that they are testing basic aspects of it to make it operational by later in 2005.

Catz

__________________
Catz Meow
Badly behaved.
Hedonistic Lemming.

************************************************** ***
JW Frogen, my new favorite noob poster:

If you are such a weak jellyfish you can be bullied on a forum where you can ignore any poster you do not want to read than I suggest you move to Tibet, convert to Buddhism, protest the Chinese occupation, be killed as you will by the Chinese and hope you come back with some form of backbone.

It doesnt work at all?

Cost is irrelevent where defense is concerned. How much are the lives of several million people worth to you?

Five out of eight. Thats about 60% effective. Far from perfect, but also far better than the 0% protection we have now. Wouldnt you agree?

If a missile was coming at your city, would you prefer a 60% chance of survival or a 0% chance?

That may be, the testing must be done to see if it works. But even if it does, the exact results of the tests won't be made available. Can it hit 100% of its targets (I would venture to guess no)? What's the cost of producing/maintaining the system? Are the costs justified? I don't think that a missile defense system is practical nor cost efficient. I think the money could be spent elsewhere.

__________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Please define "cost efficient" in this context. Do you have a better suggestion of how to defend against a missile attack?

It's called national security folks, and a clear deterrent for nuclear missile attack (even if it doesn't work).