Quote:
Originally posted by Cletus Miller
1. True
2. True, but much, much harder if for no other reason than the difficulty of maintaining accuracy over the much greater distances iinvolved.
3. Of course the technology can be improved. I don't doubt that, with sufficient resources, a system can be developed to shoot down a single (maybe even a handful of) ballistic missles. Although it isn't your principle concern now, I do doubt the feasibility of the Reagan-era star wars program--i.e. a missile "shield" capable of shooting down hundreds or thousands of ballisitc missiles launched nearly simultaneously.
I only noted the article in relation to the question of why Rumsfeld and Cheney aren't making hay about it--suggesting that perhaps the results were not as overwhelming positive as "successful 7 out of 8" would imply.
|
I don't think the shield against the Soviet Union was ever realistic. Every time we improved our technology they would have found ways around it. But now we are competing with powers that are not our technological equals. Any missile they come up with will be rudimentary and not have MIRV capabilities. And that one technologically obsolete missile can do a lot of damage when an WMD is attached to it.
Right now we are very reluctant to get into a shooting match with North Korea because of all the artillary aimed at Seoul. The North Koreans know this and it seriously hampers our negotiating ability. Just think how much our negotiating ability will be compromised when they can hit San Francisco or LA (Hi Gattigap).
