DougR

very quick synopsis on "missile shields".

1. Technical With the best technology the US and the West can mount there is no such thing as even 80% accurate bombing and this is childs play compared to the problems in hitting a missile. Problems include detection, identification, accelaration and targeting, that even before the sneaky other lot try and fool your system with MRV's, decoys etc. 2. Financial It cost a LOT of dosh and despite GWB Jnr tax cuts I've not seen any improvement in the health, education, poverty etc stats for the USA. I would suggest a lot of people could think of better things to do with the money. 3. Political For the USA to even try and make itself immune from attack is inviting everyone else to gang up on them. I remember during the "Cuban crisis" there was great derision over American horror at the thought of missles being that close to their cites, something Europe had lived with for twenty plus years. 4. Practical. If I wanted to nuke the USA it would probably be easier and a lot cheaper to send a few containers of "fluffy bunnies" to key cities, I would think the chances of them being caught by customs would be relatively low. 5. Military There is no such thing as a "defensive" weapon. If it can traget an incoming missile it can be targeted at anything else within range, and the motive of the person authorising luanch doesn't invalidate it.

As Eisenhower originally pointed out, and Macnamara implemented, the entire Western economy is based on military spending. To change this would require a total change in the corporate / military / political structure. That doesn't mean its not a good idea.

Pete M