Its not just about OUR country stopping a nuke missile. Its also about protecting our friends and allies, no matter who or where they are. Its also about developing the technology. The tech needed for a missile shield also makes for an excellent antiaircraft system. We've had the capability to build a missile shield since the late 60's or early 70's; its only been a matter of cost and accuacy. Remember that the soviets built one around Moscow and its still operational.

One Problem with the shield around Moscow is that all the missiles are tipped nuclear warheads, and would likely level the city if they were used. The US was allowed to build a similar system in North Dakota and around D.C. under ABM but decided against placing a gun to our heads.

Ummmm....well it's a good idea we're looking at HE missiles and lasers and not using nuclear tipped missiles then.

About nukes on ABMs Not quite true. The Spartan and Sprint missiles (and the soviet ones) could use conventional and nuke warheads (like the Genie rockets and Bullpup missiles, both were for air-to-air use). The nukes, if they used them, were tac-nukes.

I agree with Jay and Themba. Also, its not Kim Il jong's sanity but rather his maturity that I'd worry about.

I agree that we should work on a missile defense system -- for numerous reasons. However, what I do not agree with, was the notion that building it would protect us from "rogue" nation lunatic leaders. That was the premise of my last post regarding the "backpack" or "boat-load" nuke.