So enlighten us. Let us see your cost-benefit analysis, weighing tens of thousands of dead Americans and a hollowed out metropolis against the prospective cost of the NMD system. Please. This is the same revisionist bullshit you posted on the last page, to which I responded with: I'll correct you again: The threat is far more salient now than it ever has been, and will only continue to grow as the Soviet-runoff ICBM technology proliferates and the global threat climate evolves into something more homogeneous than what we have now. Now we are accelerating the effort because times have changed. Ever since 1998, when North Korea demonstrated a nascent capacity to build and launch indigenous TBMs and ICBMs, we have been looking for a countermeasure. Iran has recently, in 2004, followed suit and demonstrated the capacity to lob an ICBM 2,000 kilometers, which puts the better part of Europe within its reach. And of course, both regimes are also either in pursuit or in possession of nuclear weapons. Here are the facts: There is a growing IRBM/ICBM threat. It originates in nations with ill will toward the United States. We currently have no mode of defense against such an attack Such an attack, if successful, would be devastating Do you dispute any of these facts? NMD is designed, when fully operational (in other words sometime between 2007-2009) to be able to mitigate around three incoming effectors at once. The ideal engagement ratio of interceptors to effectors is 3:1. So if there are two incoming birds, we launch at least six interceptors. Three yields nine, and so forth. Most ABM systems function this way, such as the PATRIOT missile system. Decoy discrimination is different though. The conflation of data from the ground-based X-band radar and the interceptor's onboard infrared telescope is enough to filter out all modes of countermeasure and allow the interceptors to attack the actual target. We've covered this in tests several times and it works impressively well (IFT-8 and IFT-9, in March and September of 2002, specifically). Basically, the XBR can penetrate mylar balloons, while the I2R telescope onboard the EKV can pick effectors out of clouds of chaff. The sensors employed are more than accurate enough to burn through decoys. Don't worry about the numbers, I agree with you on this point. It's a red herring argument though. Like I said, this thing won't protect our cities from surreptitious delivery any more than a flak jacket will protect you from a baseball bat to the face. The real argument is whether or not NMD will function in its designed role - interception of ICBMs outside of the atmosphere - and none other. Every other mode of delivery/threat is tangential. Not the number one expert by far, but I try. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Don't take my word for it. I'll bring to the table what facts are in my possession and not classified. That's all. It is not my goal to change anybody's mind, and I have no illusions of being able to do so, especially on an internet message board. However, this being a high intensity, complex technology, it is necessarily difficult to explain to the public. So there are a lot of popular myths and distortions surrounding it. This obfuscation is only exacerbated by the fact that the entire program is also highly politicized. And we all know that science falls to shit when politics come into play. So, I will offer what facts I can, and what my security clearance allows, and you can draw your own conclusions from them. Actually, I don't either. If the government has to spend billions on things, I'd prefer it be something like fusion research or expanding the space program. I don't really see this happening though, because unlike the Cold War, the unsavory regimes sporting ICBM programs are not at a technological or economic parity with the United States, and therefore cannot compete in an arms race.