"It can't prevent the scenario I described, and for this reason, we know it can't prevent the incineration of babies by the millions. It can only prevent it from being accomplished by a missile strike. This is why it is not defensive in nature, but rather, is for the purpose of creating a first strike capability. This system cannot prevent someone with the desire to nuke this country from doing so if they are determined. The only thing this system can to is ensure that if the US nukes another country first, that other country won't be able to nuke us or the part of Europe covered by our system in retaliation, using a missile. "
So I presume you never bother to lock your door, since it cannot prevent someone who wishes to rob you from breaking into your house.
You state that we are vunerable ( true, but not significant to the poit here) because it cannot stop ather means of delivery, then claim we are developing it as a " first strike " weapon, because it is so effective.
please pick one- If it is such a good first stike weapon, there must be some threat that it DOES prevent. I never claimed it will solve all the problems of the world- just the use of IRBMs, or ICBMs by a terrorist or splinter group, or accidental launch by human error.
The LIMITED nature of the planned installations prevent it from ever being a "first strike" weapon: It can neither deal with large numbers of missiles, nor can it attack those missiles until they have been lainched- at which point I for one would consider them to be fair game, and to NOT try and intercept them would be stupidity of a greater order than I can imagine.