Interesting points. Nobody knows the answers or the best paths to take. But some must be taken, to various degrees where needed. Wish I knew. But let me lay out the following possibilities, be they likely or just possible.


CdubU, you are right that using Israel today to make a comparison of what our US home atmosphere could become like in the future may not have been the best example to use. But the point has some validity.

As for your take on the potential of world arms escalation in the wake of the US coming up with an effective balistic missile defense system, I dont agree with your predictions. But I dont claim to know, the following are just my educated opinions. If what you are saying were true then we currently would not be without military peer in this world, as we clearly demonstrated we are. The other regimes and/or countries of concern did not have the money to develope their militaries to be anywhere near our capabilities. They all saw what happened back in 1991 during our liberation of Kuwait. They've all had a dozen years to do what you have posted they will,, keep up with the Jones. Obviously they havent, or even gotten to the ball park. I dont think any of them have even developed similar defensive technology to the '91 Patriot anti-missile system we deployed in that conflict, let alone the much improved versions we deployed recently! So why do you think they would or could jump so many times further than that to develop what Congress and defense specialists are contending we need and can make? Which is a far more comprehensive and accurate system that these other countries cant afford to match. They dont have the funds or technology to do that. So I dont agree with your leap frog predictions. However, if you re-read the original post atop this thread you will see that author Peter Brown of the Orlando Sentinel considers rogue countries as the biggest reason to spend the dough for the proposed balistic missile defense system. He could be right, but I think its even more needed for the radical factions of elaborate terrorist networks bent on destroying America. And deliverable nuks are not out of their reach!! You've stated yourself how many regimes already have them. So my analogy of the crazed gunman stands. This all doubles the usefulness of a better defense system.

Besides, what is being proposed is for DEFENSE. Not OFFENSE. Even if these other countries/regimes would or could follow suit as you contend, then wouldnt it be pretty cool if all countries had missile defense systems that would render balistic nuks unusable? Seems so to me, if possible.

But for now I would be willing to forego upgrading to a more expensive boat in order for our country to have certainty of the first effective system in place. BEFORE crazy influential guys like Osama and Saddam aquire the deliverable nuks. Unlike regimes and countries such as N. Korea, who still "want to be here tomorrow" and thus are detered as you say, many of these radical factions dont care if they are here tomorrow. Our missiles are not a deterant to them. Some of them say, with scary credibility, that they would die a 1000 times in order to destroy America. And they ultimately can aquire the nuks! In fact, doesnt Iran already have them?

Regardless of the oil benefits of this recent liberation of the Iraqi people, taking Saddam out of the strong possibility of aquiring deliverable nuks was the main reason for the US to go in and take his regime out. Liberation and oil were secondary. And Ill say it again, there is going to be no shortages of Osamas and Saddams during this millenium (century). Most of us will live thru about half of that and our children thru most of it! Now, would you rather face those gunmen that want to pull the trigger with the bullet proof glass in front of you, or not?

As for 20, I dont know if he has his head in the sand or has a real valid point, about his seeming contention that we simply are not in any danger of missile attacks. I do know that he likely was shocked to see many intelligent radicals sacrifice their lives to take down two huge complexes with thousands of Americans inside of them on 9/11/01. So 20, if they would go to lengths to accomplish that feat, how far do your think they would go to push "the button"? Heck, they wouldnt even have to die for that, because we cant respond back with nuks at a hidden enemy among throngs of innocents! I dont think this thing with the experts and Congress calling for appropriate defense in relation to potential risks is a "chicklen little crying about the sky falling" deal here. Hope Im wrong about that though. But like this thead said,, better safe than sorry? They are taking into consideration the real possibility, however strong it may be, that some day you could wake up and see arial TV shots of a couple big eastern cities sitting in a pile of smoke and rubble,, a much bigger version of what you woke up to see on 9/11. A few million killed. A country essentially destroyed, with total economic and social chaos for many decades to follow. "Chicken little"? Maybe. But there is no "maybe" about the fact that those crazies over there live to completely destroy America. How long can we keep the radical ones from getting the nuks? Who knows, but not forever.

Someone posted that our greater concern is terrorism within our borders. Both are the same thing. Except currently an "air mailed" big one cant be stopped. And after seeing that our guys have apparently stopped many attempts at similar acts to blow up parts of our country for close to 2 years since 9/11, Im more confident that terrorists wont be able to smuggle in a large nuclear weapon to blow up one of our cities. Homeland security still needs improvement, likely in an ongoing evolutionary scenario for an untold amount of time. Both risks need to be addressed properly in my opinion.

Ah screw it. It will never happen, right?

Im going fishing now.