“You are aware by the way of the difference between a shield and a sword right?”
It isn’t quite that way. In strategic missiles, when someone builds a shield, the other side has to face a glaring possibility. That is that safe behind their shield, that nation will launch a first strike in relative safety from retaliation. The way of overcoming that is to build more nukes in order to overcome that, or to develop new weapons that bypass that system.
So a shield is not always a shield.
Also, when that system was built in eastern Europe, it was advertised as protection from Iranian missiles, intended to hit them in their burn phase as they launched ona polar rout to the USA. If this was the case, then we should have included some Russians into that operation and into the umbrella in some capacity.
We didn’t, so they see it as a threat to them and we are headed back to a 4 minute hair trigger in Europe, and another Able Archer. Not saying it would have been a fantastic idea, BUT Russia has a very justified fear of European invasion and the devastation that follows. What we see as a great game, they see as an existential threat. This especially when we have people like Hillary trying to launch a color revolution there in 2011.
No telling how this cold war II ends, but we normal people in America will either be nuked to death, or taxed to death to pay for a new cold war (in addition to paying for 20 million Mexicans)
I'm aware of all the capabilities of the Aegis system...are you?