> Nick wrote: > The MIRV is an issue, I agree, however the purpose of the missile defense > would be to destroy the missile prior the re-entry, before the split occurs, > with the theory being that the individual warheads would burn up. >
On the MIRVs, I thought the SDI, or whatever it's called, was meant to hit the ICBM after reentry, not before. I thought they'd determined that the only way to hit the missile before was with space-based lasers, which proved unworkable. (which, for the DOD must mean REALLY unworkable). If you have some data on that please pass along a link or 2. In any event, keep in mind that anyone who REALLY wants to launch an ICBM against the US would also launch 10s or 100s of decoy missiles that would be impossible for any system to hit. That means that any type of SDI system would only be effective against a single ICBM fired by a entity not capable of a competant ICBM attack. Almost without a doubt that means a terrorist or North Korea. It seems we could take care of terrorists by accounting for the missing nukes - I did read there are over 400. As for North Korea, I suggest either Clinton or Bush's approach. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:148696 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
