You said it. If anyone launches a missile at us, we would know where it came from and that country would be demolished. And, more importantly, that country knows it.

Hmm, what other reason could possibly be behind dumping billions into the deployment of dubious toys? Is it mere coincidence that our trusty leaders are heavily tied to the "defense" industry?

Here's a tip: invest in Lockheed Martin.

When war is such a big part of a countries history and still is today of course there's going to be a little paranoia. One thing I never understood about the U.S. is how much fear of terrorists there are. More people die from getting shot alone every year then theres been people die from terrorism in the states history. I guess that's part of the reason Iraq seems unjustifiedm, I would consider the people of the US there own worst enemy as I would with almost every country.

__________________
It is more patriotic when you don't ask questions

We have already had successful tests on the interception part. Not all the tests were successful, but enough to show it is possible to make it work.

Here are the results from the PAC3 tests - http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/tests-pac3.cfm - several showed successful intercepts of tactical ballistic missiles.

Check out my link and see for yourself.

Variables such as bad weather can be compensated for eventually.

I'd like to see your source on that. I have never seen any tests that state that the missile paths were predictable.

The tests probably assume that the missiles know the direction the opposing missiles are coming from. That is what would happen in a real-world situation though...there would be advanced warning of some kind, even if it is only a minute or two.

How much is a city worth to you?

At least for the moment...what about a year from now? 5 years? 10?

A system like this requires a great deal of preparation...it isnt something we can throw up overnight. It is conceivable relations with the PRC or Russia could deteriorate quickly.

Or we've just been lucky.

If the chance is only 1% is it still worth the risk to you? Why take chances?

Really? What about this?

Explain to me why they would think it would undermine the effectivness of their nuclear deterrent if they did not believe it could work.

Is it possible that non-elected leaders might consider the tradeoff acceptable? Do you think Kim Jon Il cares how many of his own people he loses?

If he invaded South Korea tomorrow (for example), and threatened to nuke LA if we interfered...do you think we would call his bluff?

NMD has been supported by both Democrat and Republican administrations. Are they all involved in the conspiracy?

Potentially, far more people could die from terrorism. More people died on 911 than did at Pearl harbor. A single nuke would make 911 look like a picnic by comparison.

That's the Patriot, isn't it? That's not what we're talking about. At least, it's not what I thought we were talking about. I thought we were talking about GMD -- intercepts of ICBMs, not Scuds.

__________________
Man up.

Once again, in bizarre-o demo world, only bad news is considered good news. You people never cease to amaze me! But keep it up! I've grown very accustomed to Republicans winning elections, and I certainly do not expect any change so long as demos stay true to their game plan.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Wrong question.

The deal is, say you've got $1 trillion to spend. What do you spend it on? An event that, while catastrophic if it occurs, hasn't ever occurred and isn't likely to occur in the future? Or stuff that's actually happening?

Even if I follow your logic, I don't arrive at the same answer. Is LA worth $1 trillion to protect? Maybe. But if I had $1 trillion to build a shield, I'd build an asteroid defense instead. The odds of an asteroid strike are much smaller than a nuke in LA, but the effects would be far, far worse. Possible extinction of the species is worth a trillion to me, easy.

Or look at it another way. The assessed value of all property in Los Angeles county was $781 billion at the end of 2004. Let's double that to include tax-exempt properties, plus the value of the contents of those buildings and the residents. So LA is worth about $1.5 trillion.

If there's an annual 1% chance that a nuke will hit LA, then LA is worth $15 billion a year to protect. And that's break-even. In other words, in 100 years you'll have spent as much protecting LA as you would lose if LA were, in fact, nuked.

Unless you think LA will be hit by a nuke every 100 years, you'd need to spend less than $15 billion to have such a decision make economic sense.

I'm no statistician, but I suspect the annual chance of a nuke hitting LA is much, much smaller than 1%. First, a nuke would have to be fired; second, it would have to be fired at us; third, it would have to reach us; and fourth, it would have to land in LA as opposed to somewhere else.

So let's break that down:

Chance of nuke being fired: 0.1% per year
Chance of nuke being aimed at U.S.: 50%*
Chance of nuke reaching us: 90%**
Chance of nuke hitting LA: 0.1%***

*If it's accidental, the chance is almost zero; if it's intentional, the chance is higher. This is an intermediate and IMO generous assumption.
** I'm assuming that if anyone aimed a nuke at us, they would only do so if it could reach us. So I'm allowing 10% for bad shots or mechanical problems.
*** Based on area of LA County and the United States.

So protecting LA from a nuclear strike is worth $675,000 a year. Protecting the entire country (assuming the gross exaggeration that the entire country is as built-up as LA County) would be worth $675 million a year.

I value my country highly even against unlikely threats, so let's increase that fivefold and spend $3.4 billion a year on research into a missile defense — but only deploy one when the technologies have been proven to work. Meanwhile, spend another few billion a year on other measures -- diplomacy, port security, strike aircraft, commando teams -- that can reduce the likelihood of such an attack until the missile defense is ready.

__________________
Man up.

Sadistic-Savior

Quote:
Think how much wind power we could get for 9 billion dollars!

Why...are you thinking we might be able blow incoming missiles away with windmills or something?

Making America energy independent is an important part of defense. Especially regarding terrorism. If we stop giving oil money the middle eastern countries that they become weaker and we become stronger.

This missile defense system might help if North Korea sent a lone ICBM at us. But it won't help if a short rang nuclear missile is launched from a ship or a sub at close range which is the much more likely scenario. No county is likely to launch a single ballistic missile from their homeland at the US because then we will know who did it and we would nuke them of the face of the planet.

In the future the treat will probably be a cruise missile launched from a sub at close range. The Israelis are working on such a system with subs purchased from Germany. I expect Iran, India and Pakistan to go in the same direction within the next several decades.

"Israel has acquired three diesel submarines that it is arming with newly designed cruise missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, according to former Pentagon and State Department officials, potentially giving Israel a triad of land-, sea- and air-based nuclear weapons for the first time."
http://www.converge.org.nz/pma/cra0532.htm

"Three 1,925 ton Type 800 Dolphin class submarines have been built in German shipyards for the Israel Navy. Modern submarines with the most advanced sailing and combat systems in the world, they combine extensive sophistication with very easy operation. The purpose of these submarines is to enable the Israel Navy to meet all the tasks faced in the Mediterranean Sea in the 21st century. The submarines cost $320 million each, and are twice as big as the aging Gal-class submarines that the Israeli navy has relied on to date.

The submarine has the capacity to carry anti-ship missiles, mines, decoys and STN Atlas wire-guided DM2A3 torpedoes. The surface-to-surface missiles may include the submarine-launched Harpoon which delivers a 227 kilogram warhead to a range of 130 kilometres at high subsonic speed. It is generally agreed that these submarines are outfitted with six 533-millimeter torpedo tubes suitable for the 21-inch torpedoes that are normally used on most submarines, including those of the United States.

Some reports suggest that the submarines have a total of ten torpedo tubes -- six 533-millimeter and four 650-millimeter. Uniquely, the Soviet navy deployed the Type 65 heavy-weight torpedo using a 650-millimeter tube. The four larger 25.5 inch diameter torpedo tubes could be used to launch a long-range nuclear-capable submarine-launched cruise missile (SLCM). According to some reports the submarines may be capable of carrying nuclear-armed Popeye Turbo cruise missiles, with a goal of deterring an enemy from trying to take out its nuclear weapons with a surprise attack."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/sub.htm

"Whether Israeli 200 kilogram nuclear warheads containing 6 kilograms of plutonium are mounted on longer-range Israeli-developed Popeyes (up to 1,500 kilometers) or shorter-range, advanced/modified US Harpoon SLAM (stand-off land attack) missiles is not known."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EJ21Ak02.html

"The Ukrainian prosecutor-general Svyatoslav Piksun created a major international flap Friday, March 18, when he admitted to the Financial Times that 18 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, also known as Kh-55, had been "exported" - 12 to Iran and 6 to China in 2001. He could not explain how the "significant leak" of technology from the former Soviet Union’s nuclear arsenal occurred, but said the missiles had been sold without nuclear warheads.
The X-55 has a ranged of 3,000 km and is capable of carrying 200 kiloton nuclear warheads. It puts Japan, all of Russia and Israel within range. Piksun’s admission is the first official confirmation of the Ukrainian missile sale that was first made public last month by a Ukrainian parliament member."
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1365649/posts

__________________
Classic American liberal

while defense is needed, i can see that the government is also feeding it's friends well. Regardless of an occasional miss. It's part of the military industrial complex. they help each other. Nothing can stop it. why complain.

__________________
At least we have each other to talk to.

Everything from the atomic bomb to the stealth fighter to the Patriot took many tests, misfires, and retests before success. I see no reason why this will be any different, I do believe the technology is workable and eventually useable.

__________________
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.

We dont know how unlikely it is, because it has not happened yet. Contrast that with, say, Asteroid strikes which CAN be predicted reasonably, because they have happened before.

All it takes is for it to happen once, and there is a reasonable chance it could occur. It HAS almost occurred in the past, several times.

If I have a choice, I am unwilling to take that risk.

We already have defenses against existing threats. We already have ways to deal with existing problems. By contrast, we have ZERO defense against missile attack.

An Asteroid strike would be easier to defend agaist because we would have months of warning (probably more).I t is an act of nature, so we do have a defense; we can predict it.

By contrast, missiles can be launched within minutes by human error or deliberately, and we have no defense against it.

So the property damage alone is 1.5 trillion. Now factor in the economic damage to the nation and the number of lives lost (or ruined through radiation poisoning). How much are those worth? Also factor in the medical bills for the hundreds of thousands (or millions) of survivors.

If you are coving the property damage alone, I agree. See above.

What are you basing that figure on? If it happens even once in the next 40 years or so, the figure goes above 1%.

If you ignore the economic fallout and the loss of millions of lives, then yeah.

I agree. I dont think it should take the place of NMD however. NMD > Energy Independence...although I dont see why the two need to be mutually exclusive.

Terrorists are not the only threat with regards to missile attack.

You are wrong. Actually, you have it reversed. Cruise missiles and medium range ballistic missiles are EASIER to defend against than ICBMs. The hardest part of NMD will be defense against ICBMs.

- http://www.cdi.org/missile-defense/tests-pac3.cfm - The PAC3 already defends against cruise missiles and TBMs fairly well. And it will be the first part of NMD to go live.

What if it was a mistake? And mistakes HAVE occurred before...on both sides. Without NMD, our only recourse is to kill millions of innocent people or start a war. Are you ok with that?

Sub-launched missiles are not new...we've had them for decades. America has some of the best, but lots of other nations have them too.

Sub-launched missiles are either medium-range Ballistic missiles or are cruise missiles. Both types are what the PAC3 (the 3rd generation patriot) was designed to defend against.

Yes, it will be expensive. There is no way around that. The alternatives are worse.