"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, "
I STATED "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."
Since I state that our abm system IS NOT DESIGNED to stop more than a few missiles, and any country that has them legitimately has more than a few. There is NO effect upon other countries being able to defend themselves. IT IS ONLY USEFUL against terrorist groups, rogue countries in violation of the UN, and accidents. WHICH OF THESE are YOU supporting???
If an ICBM is launched because of a technical failure, do you really want the ONLY option to be a nuclear war?