re: #6 Glenn Beck’s Grand Unifying Theory of Obdicut

As I see it a lot of the false optimism comes from the critics. The part from the proponents comes from the description of what you will (or think you will) be able to do after your development program. Sure that is always optimistic by nature. But the critics play up the inability to do what even those guys do not claim it will do-Defend against a swarm of warheads.

Each and every expensive aerospace / military program gets caught in the “what if we feed the poor instead” argument. About that supposed false dichotomy you mentioned…? Is this not another case of multiple options? I’d like to know what options we have besides BMD in the case of an actual launch against us or our allies. Or why or ability to stop a limited attack is not a further deterrence against such an attack.

We are not at the apex of missile defense. We are at the beginning. The replacement for kinetic defenses is energy beam, or lasers of some kind. Also in it’s infancy. But then look at the infancy of aerospace and see where we are now. Unless they get rail gun warheads to guide somehow. That stuff is what is years away. So are sophisticated ICBM’s from rogue states.

Have you noticed this is the second topic in which we seem to disagree on the “fighting chance” at defense? Twice now I’m more in favor of the fighting chance tools being available when you oppose them mostly. That’s an interesting peek at a difference in our world views.

BBL