MISSILE DEFENCE SHIELD IN EUROPE IS UNNECESSARY WASTE OF MONEY

The Bush administration's proposed missile defence shield in eastern Europe is a total waste of money.

The chances of the system actually stopping a missile attack are extremely small. This is simply common sense ballistics
when you consider how ICBMs are constructed, how they function, velocities, probability and effects of a hit.

It is also true that the system is essentially redundant and that the placement of actual intercepter missiles
in Europe is a political rather than a strategic move. Mostly meant to anger the Russians. We can only guess why.
To promote another Cold War ? Seems the only likely explanation. The practical purpose of the system is serioulsy
in doubt if you consider the science.

In terms of existing anti ICBM defence systems the only advantage that could be gained is the placing of
more sophisticated monitoring systems, sensing devices in effect, to watch for missile launches that satellites
might fail to see. The placement of additional devices of that type, which are fairly large and complex
installations, in Eastern Europe may have some strategic merit, but can the cost be truly justified, in regards
to any realistic probability of an actual hostile ICBM launch originating from within the range being monitored
by that type of ground based system, which is far more limited in range than a satellite system of a similar type.

While we cannot discuss the technologies available that are capable of intercepting an actual ICBM missile
launch and delivery to target, we can say that there are extremely effective systems developed, deployed,
and available.

Missile to missile hits are simply political jabberwocky and anyone really believing that crud should see
their psychiatrist for a reality check.

Cheers.

Robert Morpheal

pentagon might have to give up some of its toys.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_line

The legacy of the Line
Generally considered one of the great failures of military history, the term "Maginot Line" is now sometimes used as a metaphor for something that is confidently relied upon, but in the end proves ineffective. External observers came to believe the French propaganda: the Line would make France impervious to invasion. When France fell in only a month, the blame was squarely laid upon the Line for preventing the French military from developing modern warfare and equipment - choosing to instead rely on bypassable fortification


Stop a missle and all you have to do is float a tugboat into NYC with a nuclear device.

I thought the biggest threat was terrorists? What terrorists are going to launch ICBMs at Germany?!

Is meant, plainly and simply, to give the US first strike capabilities over Russia. They know it. If we think about it, we know it.

It's a cold war relic from a bunch of other cold war relics.