Hey everyone, Chris here. Long time reader, first time poster.
In regards to the following statements, if they have been overmentioned, I apologize, I tried to read the entirety of the posts beforehand.
The US shield as it is being proposed, is turning into the fabled white elephant, just as the Maginot Line of WWII. Even if the missile tests yesterday (sorry if that date is incorrect) were successful, what would that prove? That it was capable of hitting the least sophisticated of missiles in ideal conditions? Please. Any missile, especially the SCUD, if it had the range, deploys certain counter measures, to confuse the missile trying to target it, for a fraction of the cost, compared with shooting it down. As stated, most nations with nuclear capability would either a) Have enough assets to overrun the system, or b) Be swayed by the prospect of being turned to glass themselves in a retaliatory strike. Al Qaeda, or any other terrorist group is not going to attack with a ballistic missile. Dirty bombs, in suitcases, would be their tactic. In my belief, this is their only option. They proved that missiles are unnecessary, when their manned, slow moving ones hit the WTC. What the US needs, or we need, for that matter, is a system to destroy missiles in launch phase, not mid flight where it is like shooting a bullet at a bullet. From what I have gathered, launch phase operations would be much more successful.
Tactics are being developed all the time to overcome defenses. Every known defense has only been able to be instituted for so long. The Soviets had their complex SAM network, which was continually beaten progressively, in the intricate cat and mouse game with American spy planes. This too, will be beaten.
I am sorry, but we have so many more priorities within the CF before we can even think of this one.
PS. Again, if I just re-iterated too many other posts, just say.