Why not? I did.:biggrin1:I'm not stepping into the "hate-all" arena. (wtf?)
Same for me.I'm certainly no expert on events here, overseas, or anywhere, but I do pay attention.
You're correct about packaging the warhead. Even if N. Korea has an operational nuke, they're still years from having one that is light enough and rugged enough for launch. Maybe even 10 years out. Likewise for Iran once they have a nuke.Even if N.Korea or Iran had missles with the needed range they are years away from producing a package small enough to fit into a nose cone of a missle.
BMD is for the future. Even though they have declared it "operational," there's still a lot of work to do. I estimate it will be 5-10 years before it's plausible, 10-20 years before it's viable. What will the world be like then?
A future threat.So it must be to defend against Russia's missles or a percieved future threat.
I'll say again: 100 ABMs is no defense against Russia's ~2,200 warheads. It's actually less than the numbers suggest because multiple ABMs will be shot at each warhead so that if one misses the next one will take a shot. Assuming all of Russia's missiles launch -- and there's doubt about that -- over 2,000 warheads could rain down upon USA. It would temporarily solve the global warming problem.:biggrin1: Think: nuclear winter.
Their governments do. I don't know about their citizens.Poland and the Czechs don't want this missle sheild?
Actually we've offered to share the technology. Most of it isn't "classified". X-band radar isn't an innovation. Three stage rockets aren't an innovation. They can do it. Of course I simplying it, but a lot of it is old stuff.Give them a few "missle sheild kits" so they'll stop acting like we owe them something.