I find it very interesting that they are moving so fast with his, when the concept hasn't even been proven really yet, didn't they even fail one of the major tests last year? or has becoming a parent fried my memory?

I guess US can face all fronts at the same time. All those actions are just pushing Russia and China together.

I thought that our last test had the anti-ballistic missile crash intot he ocean?

If we are so set on building them that means one of two things.

We have credible evidence of a mass attack via missile on the US and US intrests.

Or we have finally perfected the missile system and are now rushing to get it in.

you sound as if you think a full russo-chinese alliance is actually possible

While I think some kind of defense against ICBMs is a wise idea, thats all this sheild will protect against. Somehow I think a low flying cruise missile would zip right through the sheild and manage to strike its target. Given that a Tomahawk has a range of about 600 miles, thats quite a vulnerable area from the seas. Definately a good start but I think they also need to think about our costal areas a bit more in terms of defence from sea-launched cruise missiles.

Originally posted by alternateheaven
While I think some kind of defense against ICBMs is a wise idea, thats all this sheild will protect against. Somehow I think a low flying cruise missile would zip right through the sheild and manage to strike its target.

This is a defence oriented towards ballistic missles nothing more. You are correct to say its not protection from other methods of attack such as low trajectory SLBM's nor low altitude cruise missiles and saturation attacks by those able to do it. And it definitely won't stop a smuggled weapon which is the most likely form of attack due to difficulty in retaliating in kind.

What it does do is stop a mistaken launch (plausible) by either side. It stops a small nuclear power from instigating a far larger conflict via the use of ICBM's.

Other technologies are in the works for these problem areas such as high powered lasers.

I doubt this system more than I doubt Bush's IQ. My reasoning behind this is:

1) In order to be an EFFECTIVE anti-missile system, they will have to be more easily produced than a nuke itself. Considering that pic, the size of the missile alone gives it away that it will not be an effective counter because it will consume valuable resources and may not even take less time to produce/take less resources than an actual nuke.
2) It must be able to differentiate between a cruise missile, IRBM, and ICBM.
3) It's a missile. It can be flooded. If I launch two nukes and they launch one anti-nuke...well, you get the idea.
4) Supporting the nuke flood theory, so many nukes have already been produced. If anti-nukes are to just now begin production (highly doubtful), there is likely never going to be enough anti-nukes in dire situations.

Just my thoughts on the matter. I wouldn't trust this at all if I were you. Heck, building a fallout shelter in your backyard is safer than this . Besides, I don't trust the government .

[edit on 13-7-2004 by Blackout]