"Our current missile defense technology is not effective and therefor a waste of money."

False. In TESTS, which are not expected to always work, the USN has a success rate of 12 out of 14 attempts- prior to the intercept and destruction of the recent dead satellite ( which was successful in spite of being beyound the parameters of the system.



"Bush and his cronies are antagonizing the Russians for no better reason than to drive up the price of energy. "

False. The attempt is to provide those nations with some degree of security from the KNOWN IRBMs that are in the region.



"Certainly building missile bases in former Soviet satellites has no value in protecting United States soil."

So you believe that if a goup launches a nuclear misslie, we should just destroy the entire world? IF we have treaty obligations to a country ( such as we have with NATO) we should take those steps needed to protect them from a expected risk.



"Given the retaliatory capability of the US and difficulty of building an accurate ICMB without a full fledged space program the odds of serious damage to you or anyone else from such and attack is infitesmal. "

1. And who do we wipe out, if a rebel group or political party launches a missile? The entire nation that they are in? Everyone who looks like them? The entire world?

2. Difficulty????????? You need to read up- the IRBMs that are the expected targets of the anti-missile system are presently in operation in a number of countries, and have been available for a number of years. Iran just launched a satellite: ANY country that can put up a satellite can use that vehicle as an ICBM.

3. Far from being infinitesimal, the danger is great.