re: #423 avanti

A effective shield against a massive attack by a superpower is pipe dream, and Iran and North Korea are decades away from being a threat. To spend money now against a threat many years down the road just means we’ll be using old technology meeting a potential future attack.

It’s a whole lot closer than you’re willing to give the scientists credit for, and if it is really the concern, why are the Russians so damned opposed to the missile defense system (which is against ICBM, not IRBM and short range tactical missile defense systems that are already operable - Patriot PAC-3). They know something you don’t. Further, the missile defense system that we have now and that Obama took off the table in Europe would protect against Iranian nukes fired by missile - a bolt from the blue. Such a system would also concurrently reduce the likelihood of the need for a massive retaliation should someone get their hands on an ICBM and launch without authorization. It’s an additional failsafe against limited nuclear attacks - and prevents a full-out war.

The missile defense system doesn’t need to protect against a superpower-sized strike at present, only to protect against a rogue nation launch.

Iran and North Korea may be decades away from having a superpower-status nuclear arsenal, but are far closer to having sufficient weapons to make any attempt to eliminate those regimes far too costly, and can engage in nuclear blackmail at a moment’s notice. The missile defense systems in the works also defuse that threat too, since they can protect against a missile launch from those rogue regimes.

Taking missile defense off the table is a huge strategic mistake, and it opens up the door for the rogue regimes to take advantage.