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.

I definitely lock my door. But that cannot ever be perceived by my neighbors as a sign of an intent to behave aggressively toward them. If I had a rocket thrower and I put up a shield that would allow me to lob rockets at them while being able to block rockets that they were lobbing at me, my neighbors would take that as a sign that my intentions toward them were not peaceful, and they would probably ratchet up their defensive capabilities, and then I would ratchet up my own, and that would make us all less safe rather than more safe. So even if I could, I would not do something like that.

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.

According to you, it is effective in preventing the delivery of a nuclear weapon via a missile. If it is effective in doing so, then it would give us 'first strike' capabilities because a country that we were attacking with a nuclear weapon would most likely respond with a nuclear armed missile, being the quickest way to respond. Since the country we were attacking could not do that if we have a missile defense shield, we would have the ability to wage a first strike without having to worry about such a response. It prevents other countries from being able to defend themselves if we attack them, and we do have a history of attacking other countries. Assymetrical warfare is another thing, and that is something the US government is not trying to prevent. In fact, it is doing everything it can to try to encourage such activities. It gives them an excuse to wage their endless "war on terror".

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.

You say that it would prevent the deaths of millions of babies because it would prevent the need for us to respond to a nuclear attack with one of our own. If it can't deal with all of the nuclear armed missiles that another country sends our way, how can you possibly say that it would prevent the deaths of millions of babies? Please pick one.