Is the US Missile Shield a waste of time and money?

I was doing some readin today on Russia's newly devloped ICBM called the RS-12M1 Topol-M. Apparently it is capable of evading America's missile shield, here is an excerpt from an article:

"because of the missile's small powered flight phase (the engine does not operate for as long as the Satana's) it was harder for missile attack warning systems to intercept it. In addition the Topol-M travels at high speed, that is it leaves the launch site more rapidly and reaches its target more rapidly."

"The latest test has shown other possibilities for the Topol-M...Launched from the Kapustin Yar test range, the missile aimed its nosecone in the direction of Balkhash (Kazakhstan)... the maneuvering had not worsened the warhead's precision specifications but had misled the missile defense system -- making its interception and destruction virtually impossible. The likelihood that the Topol-M will strike its target has been increased to almost 90%."

www.defesanet.com.br...
en.wikipedia.org...

I think considering the billions spent on the system and constant delays they should perhaps scrap the idea and just stick to the old MAD maxim.

I think you will find that the next generation of ICBM's with maneuvering warheads will almost certainly justify the expense of the U.S. missile shield. Offensive technologies always develope faster than their defensive counterparts. Like it or not, we now live in a century where missiles matter more than did before.

But let's be completely honest, do you feel it is worth the expense?

I do think the U.S. missile shield is worth the expense. It will eventually work, and it will eventually be needed. I'd much rather start the long and slow development curve NOW rather than LATER. I stand by what I said in earlier posts.

It's definately worth it. It's fairly new when you consider how difficult it is to develop a system like that. It's in it's baby stages basically. As it progresses and more research is done, tweaks made, better technology is invented, I'm almost sure that it will get much better. Of course, the ICMB's will get better right along with it, but if you scrap this idea, then you leave yourself wide open.

Keep in mind, this could be the Russians just BLAH BLAH BLAH running their mouth. They've never test fired it against the U.S. missile defense system. They don't know what can get through and what can't. You can do all the research and analysis in the world but unless you test it in real life combat, you will never know for sure.

I would be worried about the things you just mentioned, but, today's computer modeling makes a lot of things possible. According to what I've read about the latest gneration of U.S. kill-vehicle, we should be capable of dealing with a maneuver threat soo enough.

Okay, then. I guess we're done here. This was a good discussion, and I hope to see this topic come up again. Given what we seem to have in our future, this technology may be more important than we now realize. I hope that our government will continue to pursue it. I hope that we will never need it.

Even if it does block only 1 in 10 missles, that could still save a few hundred thousand peoples lives per missle.

yes , it IS worth the expence , for several reasons

first - it renders an entire generation of missiles obsolete - this means that if an enemy power wishes to lanch a missile attack -- he cannot rely on old cheep missiles .

second - it promotes an arms race -- which the US is best suited to both win , and benefit from [ cf the cold war -- where soviet attepts to out gun the US and nato doomed thier ecconomy -- as soviet style comminism could not support the level of defence spending required -- where as the american ecconomy could ]

third - the military cutting edge research needed has important and valuable " spin off technologies " which trickle down into civilian developement .

lastly -- as noted MAD [ mutually assured destruction ] is no longer assured - as the enemy cannot guage the likley sucess of its attacks -- and if they have zero missile defences -- they face doom with the spectre that their enemy could survive an attack .

slightly off topic -- but many of the " arguments " against a missile defence system , do not even adress the actual system or its capacity .

arguments that have amused me recently include " it cannot protect against suitcase nukes " or " it cannot protect against CBW [ chemical biological warfare ] attacks .

these are farcical red herrings .

missile defence protects against missiles -- its pretty self evident from the title .

we have seperate and dedicated security systems and programs to protect our nations against CBW and the infilitration of suitcase bombs etc .

Definately.

Not having one just invites trouble.

I mean its highly UNLIKELY a nation is going to launch ICBM's at the US Continent
Because there goes the whole freakin ball game if that happens.

Not having it there leaves too much of an OPEN door should something become serious.

Plus, its todays world of greed and lawyers.. if it wasnt there.. and somethign did evenatuate.. I can imagine all the worthless greedy lowlife citizens who would hire fancy shmancy lawyers and sue the bajee'zaz outta the US gvt becuase they didnt properly protect htem.

The missile shield is not a waste of money. Do your research the last test was very successful. The U.S.'s ICBMs are very capable.