"John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >If missile technology is feasible, it should >be deployed. If the technology is not feasible, then we should be >devoting a good deal of our energies to developing the technology to make >it feasible. What's your maximum cost/time equation for this? If it'll take $100 Trillion, not be ready in 100 years, and only defend against circa-2001 ICBMs, do you still advocate it? Will the same mechanism designed to defend against ICBMs or SRBMs work against an autonomous solar airplane guided by GPS (the sort the kids at MIT put together over the weekend these days) packed with anthrax or nuclear waste and kilo of C4? Or how about micro- or nanotech devices likely to be the weapon of choice 40 years from now? Joshua _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
