Re: Should the United States Focus its Resources on Building One might think so...but then, a) we are unable to protect ourselves from our own airplanes being flown into/bombers driving up to public buildings and murdering thousands, b) any government choosing to attack this nation with so much as ONE missile would, probably, be reduced to dark gray ashes and little else in less than 30 minutes (so long as we still had any electricity with which to operate systems) and, c) evidently our government's enemies have found it unnecessary to go to any other elaborate technological extremes in order to have very destructive effects on us. So, what would be the point of building a "Missile Defense System" again? Don't we need to do be doing some other far more "focused" important and longer neglected work with those not-endless tax dollars?
Just thought I'd ask the enthusiasts out there...
Bluehawk

Re: Should the United States Focus its Resources on Building

One might examine the history of SAC, with a massive expenditure of capital and effort to maintain a position of strength against the Soviet Union. We will probably never know if it was the diligence of SAC, the paranoia of the Soviet military heirarchy, or the mutually assumed destruction that was ensue from any nuclear exchange that prevented this type of Armageddon. A missle defense system might never be used, but I'd much rather have a weapon system and never have to use it than to suffer an attack, and wish we would have had some defensive mechanism in place. And we should not ever apologize to anyone if we want to build one. Nor ask permission of anyone either.

Re: Should the United States Focus its Resources on Building Certainly NOT. Let's wait (like all the pundits relate) until we see the first missle coming at us, "AND THEN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WILL HAVE THE PROOF" that seems to be the hue and cry, of today.
SF
NC