[TexGuy]

That’s great, good technology, wonderful development efforts supporting the defense technological infrastructure. Too bad it is more likely that the next bombs will be delivered by truck.

[happinesswithoutpeace]

bkmarked for later. thanks.

[theDentist]

Sorry, but I’m told by Dems and Liberals (I know, redundant) that it CAN NOT work and the money would be best spent elsewhere.

[CholeraJoe]

Good Job, Coneheads!

[null and void]

In point of fact, the system works better than it has to.

It only needs to work well enough to induce uncertainty in the mind of a potential attacker.

[johnny7]

If they had as much zeal with missile defense... as they do with socialized health-care... it would already be deployed.

[2001convSVT]

If the democrats take control even a successful system is on the chopping block. The democrats truly believe that weapons in the hands of the US military is what creates an unstable world, therefore the dems have never meet a weapons system that they couldn't cut. After all it for the children.

[painter]

Ultimately, the reasons missile defense systems will not be easy to kill, dismantle, and put away are both their progress, and there are very good reasons to develop them. As such, the missile defense system is probably not going to stop until the United States has completed it, rendering the ICBM obsolete. ­

THANK YOU Ronald Reagan.

[Southack]

"...the fact that the total of ground-based interceptors will increase to 38 by the end of 2009, and that's enough to kill all of the Chinese ICBMs with some GBIs left over. This does not count Navy SM-3 missiles on three Ticonderoga-class cruisers and fifteen Arleigh-Burke class destroyers (a total of 55 by the end of 2009)."

We've gone from 20% hit/kill probability per interceptor to over 90% hit to kill ratio probabilities on the SM-3's and GBI's with 93 of those interceptors deployed under President Bush...but that doesn't count the Aegis SM-2's that are currently deployed...and it doesn't count our airborne laser, either.

Which is to say, our deployed missile defenses can handle a first strike of over 100 ICBM's...and a larger ICBM attack would meet some resistance from our additional PAC-3 missile defenses, as well.

One should consider that fueling and opening the launch silo doors to more than 100 ICBM's would be a challenge for an enemy to keep secret from the U.S., too. Fail to keep those operations secret from us and our air assets will be hitting those silos with long range cruise missiles and other precision munitions.

The author of this article states that the ICBM may be obsolete. In my opinion, that's only an overstatement by a small amount.

The U.S. has an effective missile defense, strategic intel, and the ability to pre-empt a first strike against us.

Thank you President Reagan for the vision, and thank you President Bush for the courage and determination/dedication to deploy these abilities.

...also, it should be noted that so many radiation detectors have been placed at sea, in the air, and on security personnel at every entrance to the U.S. that Free Republic had to invent new idioms (stunned my beeber!) when one of our own FReepers was detained by agents while returning from radiation treatment for cancer.

The notion that enriched uranium can sneak into the U.S. by ship or truck is long ago outdated. There are news articles on the web about security stopping Mexican trucks carrying potting soil (Mexican soil, tiles, and bananas all contain detectable amounts of natural radiation), and there are other articles about security finding a briefcase left on a street corner that contained a brick made from Mexican soil.

We should also remember that back during the Cold War that both the U.S. and CCCP would "tag" interesting people with trace amounts of radiation so that satelites could track their movements. One has to wonder if such crude technology has improved 40 years later.

[Steely Tom]

Iran is another country often sited, and Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's statements since assuming office raise the question of what he might do with ballistic missiles as well.

Shouldn't that be "cited?"

Or, maybe, "sighted?"

[PapaBear3625]

Perhaps we should deploy a GBI site to a base in Japan, and use the next North Korean “test” as our test as well?