In response to:

Our Fruitless Quest for Missile Defense

Stuart Koehl Wrote: Mar 21, 2013 9:54 PM
All I can say (because of what I know) is Chapman is blowing gas out of his nether fundament. It might interest people to know, however, that most of the criticism he directs against missile defense can ALSO be directed against nuclear-armed intercontinental ballistic missile systems, for in all the years since we first deployed such weapons, there has been only one end-to-end test (involving a Polaris A1 submarine-launched ballistic missile) involving a live warhead in an operational reentry vehicle (it worked!). That test was just as sterile and artificial as the missile defense tests that Chapman condemns, but it was good enough to base sixty years of deterrence on it.
Ress Wrote: Mar 21, 2013 10:39 PM
The comparison is ridiculous. Getting a nuclear warhead to function after a ride on rocket is a trivial problem compared to shooting down an incoming warhead accompanied by a bunch of decoys.

Foreign policy is often a form of theater, with elaborate rituals and pretenses that no one takes too literally. But rarely have the gimmicks of stagecraft been as obvious as in the latest standoff between North Korea and the United States.

Lately, even more than usual, the Pyongyang regime has been a picture of belligerence, threatening to hit the U.S. with a nuclear strike. A foreign ministry spokesman announced that "we will be exercising our right to preemptive nuclear attack against the headquarters of the aggressor in order to protect our supreme interest."

Sure you will. Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear arms...