[Bobby777]

I'll be honest, they haven't convinced me that our current ABM hit-to-kill works. I'm all for an ABM, but I'd like to know that the target doesn't have to emit a tracking signal to hit, as in one of the few successful hits.

[risk]

Don't you think it's worth the risk that it might fail? There was an argument that a USSR could overwhelm anything we could develop. But our biggest risk now is a rogue ICBM.

[Robert A Cook PE]

It isn't perfect, but getting better.

What do you realistically expect? 100% percent hits right off the bat?

But seriously, I'd rather be able to get 80% chance at destroying a single "unintended" or "accidental" or "sabotaged" (terrorists take over a Soviet missile site) Soviet launch rather than lose a US city!

Also, anti-US "scientists" keep claiming how "easy" it would be to create moving targets, chaff-equivilents, and changes in movement to dodge an interceptor.

But nobody has built those yet, except us.

So, do you refuse to build and test a machine gun that PROBABLY CAN kill the two terrorist running up the hill at your school playground with a hand grenade just because they "could" buy a tank that couldn't be destroyed by a machine gun?