🚀 go-pugleaf

Neill Harris (Neill.Harris@ab.com) wrote:
: birdhaex@cais3.cais.com (David Birdsey) wrote:
: >Similary, what nation would launch a single missile when the result would 
: >be to turn (Insert enemy du jour here) into rubble?  Ultimately, in days 
: >of shrinking resources, I would rather see my defense dollars go 
: >elsewhere where they might actually do some good.

: If I may, part of the point is that BMD gives an option in a 'single
: missile' situation.  The US can stop the attack without being forced into
: deciding whether the loss of Newark is worth frying North Korea.  Once 
: the missile is stopped we can say ( effectively ): "Tsk-tsk!  Play nice 
: or Mama will spank next time!"

Checking this thread, I think there will be a lot of redundancy from the 
old "Why Star Wars Won't Work" thread, as well as repeating the arguments 
of the rational actors already at work here;)  Nonetheless, . . .

Is the probability that "single missile scenario" so great that it 
justifies expenditures on more BMD?  In addition, and this in my mind is 
the major point, do you think that the DPRK (using your example) would 
not be _deterred_ by the knowledge of certain U.S. retaliation?  The 
capability of our forces matched with what I think would be fairly 
resolute action by our leaders (IOW, credibility) I think suffices. 

--
David Birdsey | "Don't rejoice in Victory. For while you've killed the
              |  Beast, the bitch that bore him is in heat again." 
                                                      -Bertholt Brecht
http://turnpike.net/metro/birdhaex/index.html