Darryl Shannon wrote:
>Likewise, a NMD doesn't have to be perfect to be worthwhile. A system
>that shoots down 90% of the missiles is better than a system that
>shoots down 0%, right? We're blithely ignoring cost for a moment here.
> And anyway, the purpose of the missile screen isn't so much to shoot
>down nuclear missiles as to convince people that it isn't worthwhile to
>try to shoot nuclear missiles at us, since they are liable to get shot
>down.
It may discourage enemies from shooting the missiles they have, but their
missile supply is not fixed. People may build *more* missiles in response
to a missile shield: if they used to need 10 missiles, now they need to
build 100. That's a nasty unintended consequence.
Another point: who are we defending against? If it's big countries like
Russia or China, they can certainly build more missiles. If it's
terrorists, they're not likely to use a missile at all. They'll just drive
up in a truck. A missile shield is a lousy defense against either of these
kind of enemies.
[BEGIN PARANOIA] But a missile defense is an excellent way to transfer
money from tax payers to defense contractors. [END PARANOIA] :-)
