Are we talking about flair and chaff dispersment? Or stealth technology on the warhead shroud. Or a break away shroud that splinters to give multiple warhead images. the big concern with the MDS system is stopping a mirv'd system which its not designed to take out. Its designed to take out a single warhead on a simple bus. The only nations that are currently in possesion of Mirvs are the U.S. and Russia. China's warheads are all single entry warheads as are Isreal's, Pakistans, India and the others. Most of the Nuclear clubs weapons are designed around either short range theatre rockets, or artillary rounds, or bombs from planes.
The 'cheaper' countermeasure technologies I have heard about that are the break away types. Also missiles with decoys that can be launched from them. Regardless the tests now are proving how hard it is to hit a small moving target through three dimensions. All the enemies missile has to do is land. The MDS missile has to intercept an oncoming missile flyng at great speeds in three dimensions high enough and early enough in it's flight that it doesn't cause harm. Any countermeasures to help the attacking missile get through are going to come faster and be more effective than the measures needed to catch up to those technologies because they are far simplier and far cheaper than interception technology. It's a catch up game they can't really hope to win.
I'm not all of that concerned about Al Queda thinks, I'd rather build a defense to counter what they could do as oppossed to trusting them at thier word that they won't attack us. Besides Al Queda has already named Canada as a target of thier ire.
We're certainly a lot lower on their list since we decided not to attack Iraq. And I don't think we should have opted out from fear of attack (I think we opted out cause it was wrong) but distancing ourselves from the U.S. projects will probably keep us safer. Especially since these projects don't work anyway. I mean 'Fortress' America was hit, Spain was hit, Bali was hit. If they wanted to hit Canada I think they could have by now. We disappeared of their top 10 or 20 after we refused to enter Iraq.
I've always thought it should be the Russians reponsibility to dispose of thier weapons systems. . . call me nuts
True enough, but if they aren't doing it, and you can, wouldn't you want to ante up for you safety in the future? It doesn't matter who's right and who's wrong or who should have paid for it when it hits a city.
|