Actually, Putin has said for a long time that he favors a reduction in the number of nuclear weapons that Russia maintains. First this reduce both maintenance and security expenses. Second, it allows Russia to simplify its modernization program for its nuclear force in terms of both cost and time. As for His agreement on discussions of a missile shield, He does not have too much to worry about. First, even an expanded system with up to one hundred interceptors, would do little against the current and possibly reduced Russian force of 1000+ warheads. Second, their missiles can already circumvent any system within the next ten-year development cycle excluding the ABL. Third, if the truth were known they have violated the ABM on multiple occasions. Finally, the idea that the US does not need a missile shield is a bit preposterous. North Korea already has a missile capable of hitting portions of the US. China has made it clear that their strategic weapons are to be used as a coercive tool of diplomacy, in the event of military action in the Taiwan Straits. Iran is expected to have a missile capable of striking the US by 2010, Iraq by 2015-2020, not to mention those nations with covert weapons programs. Ironically, the most common argument against building a missile shield is the idea of the suitcase nuke. This is a difficult technical project to be pulled off. Few nations have enough of a developed nuclear program to build such a small devise that would still be capable of any significant damage. Yet, at the same time it does nothing to refute the need for building a shield. It merely points out a possible alternate means of attack. When this and other arguments are put fourth, all it says to me is we need to develop other detection and counters in addition to a missile shield to deal with as many contingencies as possible. Including but not limited to: ballistic missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, biological weapons, conventional weapons, and Information warfare. Remember a mixture of fertilizer and diesel fuel pulled of the worst incident of terrorism in US history.

Have you ever heard of J.R.Nyquist and his book, "Origins of the Fourth World War," not not, I think you would find it very interesting based on your post. I just retired out of the Army on 31 Dec 00 and created a website focused on all the issues you bring up. If you go to the Testimonial Section of the site you'll see my military background which included assignments with MI units and INSCOM. Here's my site: http://www.TheFinalPhase.Com Aloha, "William Wallace"

Interesting question... Who says that the first missle fired at the US will have a nuke on it? Chem. warheads work just fine. Who says a missile defence system can only be used to protect the US? It can be used to protect our friends and allies as well.

I think your forgetting that as of right now there is no way to stop a missile (nuke, chem, whatever) from being fired at the US. Once its launched you can't stop it, you can't call it back, you can only wait until it hits its target and then people die. Your only option left is to melt the lauching country, which means that even more innocent people will now die.

Hey HiloBill, I'm confused about your website. What exactly are you trying say? Can you please clarify...thanks.

Ok I took me way to long, but essentially HiloBill is a devotee of James Jesus Angleton. Angleton was the FAILED head of CIA Counter Intelligence during the first half of the Cold War. Many will disagree but the following make it true for me. 1. Trusted Kim Philby for 12 years (until the day Philby showed up in Moscow) 2. Believed in Flying Saucers (w/ Soviet Pilots) 3. Could not run a domestic CI unit without Hoover's cooperation (thus destroying its usefulness) 4. Beleived in long range plots that were multi-generational and thus proved that the Soviets would ALWAYS outthink the Americans. (is that defeatist or what)