<<My rationale for missile defense is this:
Let C = Cost of losing a city roughly the size of say,
Charlotte
Let N = Percent Likelihood of a rogue State acquiring
a nuclear-tipped missile with range to reach the USin
10-20 years.
Let L = Percent Likelihood that said rogue State would
launch said missile at the US.
Let B = Cost of Building Missile Defence in next 10
years.
In my estimation: C * N * L > B>>
An interesting analysis. (Honest!) :)
Two points, bordering on nitpicks, but this seems to presume a missile shield is the
only way to prevent rogue nations from developing nuclear missiles. Or, rather, make
them irrelevant.
But I'd think the CIA, Tomahawk missiles and stealth bombers could do something useful
about a rogue missile program. They won't be 100% effective, but neither will a
missile shield.
Also, wouldn't a rogue nation, its ICBM program foiled by our missile shield, just
have someone lug a nuclear bomb into the US in their car or something if they are
_really_ determined to nuke a city and suffer our wrath?
Patrick Sweeney
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
