A Missile Defense System

"How do you know that a missile defense project would get great publicity. Arguably the biggest project in US history, The Manhattan Project, was top secret had very little, if any publicity. I no that was a different time back then, but we could still keep it top secret. Some of the proposed locations, aren't even in the mainland. Also, one is in Greenland. We could build these without anyone knowing. Look at what goes on in the CIA or Area 51 we don't know. THe government can make it top secret. " The most potent sites for construction of Missile Defense (Anti-Missile Systems) would have to use mostly foreign land. It becomes of great publicity whenever 1) Congress passes its annual budget and the Missile Defense Project is given an increased revenue from the prior year under Defense spending 2) Foreign nations report our activity 3) The New York Times peaks its little eyes and noses into it. I see where you stand, that the US could do most of the domestic spending and construction secretly, however, if the US cannot keep the identity of a CIA operative secret in the 21st Century, I highly doubt this country's ability to do the same with missile defense. "You say multiple times that a bomb couldn't hit the US now. I know that a nuke couldn't reach the US right now, but what about in 5 10 20 years? How do we know the resources won't be available to make that statement true. IN 5 10 20 years, both sides (US Missile Defense and NK) will both have way more technology than now. " The US closely tracks the progress of its enemies in developing technologies that would harm or threaten the US. If NK was able to perfect its technology and acquire nuclear capabilities within the next 30 years (which is very highly doubtful), then the US should intervene economically, politically, or with the military to prevent the missile from being launched, instead of risking it rendering damage while in the sky. The original purpose of missile defense was to give the American people personal security and safety against a USSR that was able to covertly build up its capabilities through alliances and an underdeveloped US spying program. Because the US' current rise to power came virtually at the same time as the USSR, they were able to match our abilities and threaten us. Now, however, the US is far ahead of enemy countries who wish to build up and rival the US. Before they are able to do this, such as in the case of Iraq, the US can use its military and political powers to prevent that country's threats from proliferating. "SO what about the cost? We our putting a price on our safety. That's just stupid. " It's not stupid, it's pragmatic. I evaluated the cost as an opportunity cost, an economic analysis. It holds to the theory that when one makes a decision, in this case spending on missile defense, it must not take into account the ACTUAL cost, as in number of dollars spent, but the opportunity cost, that is the next best available option for spending this money. Because missile defense has a high opportunity cost while comparing the long-term investment to funding the War on Terror, improving domestic security on the ground, AND improving the US economy all coincidently instead of developing missile defense, it is much more rational to choose the latter.