Should America spend whatever it takes to have a reliable missile defense system?

Question

What you Think?

Answer 1

So far, the results of the missile defense system have been sub-par, to say the least. Most of the successful interceptions by test missile defense systems involved targets with homing beacons on them, IIRC. Suffice to say, enemy missiles won't have homing beacons on them, and the systems in development right now are easily thrown off by easy-to-build countermeasures. And no tests have been successfully done in simulated battle conditions. All this despite spending $60 billion over the last 15 years on the systems.

And truthfully, being attacked by a missile is less likely by terrorists than a suitcase bomb, or a biological weapon, or small-scale attacks on U.S. infrastructure or chemical plants. North Korea is the closest thing the U.S. has to an enemy that's likely to attack the U.S. mainland with a missile. I'm not convinced that North Korea is a bigger threat to the U.S. than Al Qaeda or other state-less terrorist organizations.

Spending "whatever it takes" is a recipe for disaster when it comes to military spending. Remember the Osprey? The Navy's A-12 program? How about the F-22, the fighter jet we're paying billions for now that was designed to fight a Russian jet that was never built? Why is it that, to some politicians and pundits, "throwing money at a problem" is never the solution when it comes to education, health care or poverty, yet it makes complete sense when it comes to defense spending?

Answer 2

Here we go again. The world held hostage without reliable missile defense system. This sure sounds like a question for the wealthy. and a story most boys have heard and said. My dad can beat your dad. and not if I have anything to say about it, and thus, the missile defense system was born, because the other daddy might actually be stronger and win, That would really break the heart of a child looking up to father image as strong and reliable.

Answer 3

I worked peripherally on the missile defense program.
I think it is better to research and keeping working on it.

The analogy is the French Maginot line in WWII. They build a
huge expensive system that with changes in war technology
was overcome by the Germans in no time and that had no
future worth.

So, we research it, and monitor the threats, for example North
Korea, and compare what we have with the threat and the
neccessity of having missile defense.

We should only build it if we have to, but we should keep
engineering how to make it better and cheaper and more
flexible and more secure ... and most importantly not able
to be fooled cheaply by decoys.

Answer 4

No. Cyber terrorism is what we as an economic power should be concerned with. The acts of a cyber war could bring this nation to a stand still. We already have missiles postured to counter attack.

Answer 5

Yes.
And if the programs initially result in little success that is OK. As long as the system performance improves over time.
But, to throw away technological edge in the name of diplomacy when crazy Islamic and primitive Stalinist regimes are looking to develop nuclear weapons and the means by which to deliver them would be too TRUSTING.
And Suicidal.

Answer 6

We've got one, they just don't want the enemy to know about it. I'm thinking over 1/2 the missile silos that used to house ICBMs are now keeping intercepter missiles.

Answer 7

Star Wars is a good idea because we can detect things, and maybe have not so many people over in other countries. Things may fail at first, but with technology it will get better. Just look at the automobile.

Answer 8

with all that is going on in this world today, I say a resounding yes!

Answer 9

god yeah between Korea and Iran we are gonna get messed w/ soon enough

Answer 10

No, just give me the money