A Missile Defense System

"Where has the identity of of a CIA operative been known. I found 1 incident. So what? One person out of 50,000? workers for the CIA (couldn't find a number). We still don't know exactly what they did, how they got there, etc. It is one piece in a 1,000,000 piece jigsaw puzzle. The government has the resources to keep it secret." Yes, the example is not definitive, but was used as a comparative for America's short history with missile defense technology. The government may have the supposed resources to keep a project secret, however, noting the ability of the press and public to learn of its government's operations, this is an impractical assumption. "What if we lose all touch with NK. We don't know exactly what goes. It would be possible that we could wake up one day and there is a bomb in the air headed for us. We don't have a defense system, now what do we do? Try and fire something at it? That sounds like a missile defense system." If this occurs, then the CIA, Department of Defense, FBI, and Federal Government have all failed simultaneously. With the extensive amount of the budget devoted to spying and counter-intelligence, your scenario is once again possible but certainly improbable. Regardless, if the US were to fully resume its missile defense projects today, an imminent nuclear threat from NK couldn't be countered. It's much more likely, under this argument of suppositions, that NK won't launch an unknown nuclear strike against the US within the next few years, making missile defense dispensable. "How is putting a price on our safety. Let's just say that 300,000,000 pay an extra $20 to fund the missile defense system. It would cost $10,000,000,000 a year. SO in one year, the citizens of the US would pay have to pay a whopping $33.34 to fund it. Whew that is a real stretch. I would pay that extra $33 for a couple of people, and would be happy to." The US government puts a price on safety annually when the Congressional Budget Office releases its budget proposal for the next fiscal year. The dollar amount does not matter, but the opportunity cost of that dollar. First, a "minute" $33 from each citizen would charge the 180 million working citizens, because not all 300 million Americans are employed or even old enough to be employed, would garnish 5,940,000,000; about half of the number you proposed. Taking into account the net share of tax returns, exemptions, tax evasion, and operation costs for the IRS would change that number to about 130 million Americans, making the new total $4.29 billion. I will argue, however, that the amount of money given to the project doesn't matter, because the technological process comes with time and money. Addressing my argument about the opportunity cost, the total of $4.29 billion could be used for much better projects to protect America. Using this tax hike over a period of 5 years, funding a total of $21.45 billion, could fund alternative energy research to successfully eliminate US foreign dependence on oil, alleviate the national debt to stimulate the US economy, and improve the state of public schools. These three together would strengthen the US dollar, reduce US dependence, and improve America's quality of life. The battle against the enemy can be won by improving domestic policy. The objective of US defense should be to prevent the missile from existing, not to shoot it out of the sky.