"The ONLY people"? On what planet? What about those who might think it's (as currently proposed) not likely to be a cost-effective defense policy?
Like many, I'm FOR SDI... so long as it works to a high degree of reliability, and it's cost-effective for that purpose. (In other words, it's not cheaper / easier for offensive programs to evade with decoys, or simply overwhelm with more MIRVed warheads, or work around with 'suitcase-type' bombs... or short runtime sub-launched strikes... or work around by some other stratigem (such as a 'keg of nails' type preliminary attack to remove our satellite 'eyes in the sky' (necessary for boost-phase counter-strikes), prior to the actual offensive nuclear strike.
Presumably, all this 'effectiveness' data will be developed over the next decade before we commit to deploy, (the data isn't there yet).
But if the data winds up not supporting the planned designs as highly effective and more cost effective than the 'other teams' game plans, than I'm not going to be a fan of deploying a modern day Maginot Line, nor, I think, should any other rational American.
... by the way, good post on the Chinese response. Sounds like there may be a political imperative for them to reign-in the Koreans... and perhaps the entire nuclear club may be able to turn back 'rogue nation' ICBM deployment, thus negating any need for the US to actually deploy a massively expensive defensive system. This would be in many nation's interest.
This entire brouhaha may turn out to be another Reagan-inspired hat trick. |
