GrandAdmiral
Deity
betazed said:For the same reason I do not need a untested anti-aircraft gun to defend my apartment
- an anti-aircraft gun will not defend my apartment because the people likely to attack it cannot be attacked with an anti-aircraft gun.
- the gun is untested so even if i do fire it it may not work
- the gun is very very costly. I will be far better off buying a small pistol to defend my apartment
- if I get an anti-aircraft gun there is a possibility that my would be opponent (currently all he has is sticks and stones) will get a bazooka to attack me. Then not only will be anti-aircraft be useless against a bazooka I also end up with a deadlier opponent
The first few responses in this thread are typical too. To most people it is like a switch that you can throw that will make all enemy missiles targetted at US vanish into thin air. I wish it were so. I ask them to first read up on missile defense and understand how it works. Then try to understand what it takes to make it work. Then try to understand if there are other ways to reach the same objective. Then try to understand if those other ways are cheaper.
Then back the missile defense shield if you still are in the mind to do it.
Well I already knew plenty about the missile defense shield thats why I responded. To say it hasn't been tested is a lie. It has been tested although not under the widest range of conditions. The number of warheads intercepted was 5 out of 8 and amazingly enough the interceptor has no fuse or warhead aka hit to kill. It collides with the enemy warhead at high speeds completely destroying it.
Most people don't have a clue as to the effectiveness of any weapon systems during test phases but I garauntee you they are never 100% in any real world situation. Even the famed Aegis system wasn't tested against supersonic drones before it was deployed even though supersonic anti-ship missiles are its most likely adversaries. This is how some of the finest weapon systems are developed. Many great weapons systems were developed in haste with less then adequate testing. Thats how they are improved and thats how you stay ahead. Deploying them is the best way to find their flaws and improve them.
As was stated it was designed to defend against a small arsenal. The argument against the shield is not that it can't take out a few missiles as it was designed to do but that it can be easily overwhelmed by MIRVed weapons and decoys. Currently the nations under that category don't have any MIRVed weapons or integrated decoys. Could they develop them? Someday sure the same as we will continue to develop defenses against them. So right now we are ahead.