No, there haven't. Read Arthur Hadley's The Straw Giant for a detailed description of what happens during an ICBM test launch. It's not a live-fire exercise by any means.
When you say live fire, you must mean a live warhead launched thousands of miles. Well, as everyone would surely know, systems are tested in pieces.
When I say live-fire, I mean LIVE FIRE.
If all you do is fire concrete blivets from an artillery piece, and you never fire an actual shell with real explosives...how do you know the damn thing will work as advertised?
Witness the US Navy's torpedoes of early World War II for an example of this issue.
There have been hundreds of non-nuclear ICBM tests over the last decade.
In other words, no live firings, with a live warhead in the nose, on an operational trajectory, and the missile has been "groomed" (which means that it's gotten a lot of maintenance and repair work that a combat missile would NOT get).
These tests are meant to determine ways in which to deter enemy radar and to trick infrared systems into mistaking dummy warheads for real ones.
They're engineering tests; they aren't combat readiness tests by any stretch of the imagination.
The missiles are given extensive refit and repair work prior to the test. In the field, missiles do not get this level of maintenance, so their reliability will be MUCH lower.
And in these tests, US missiles fail about 1 time in 5. Russian missiles fail 1 time in four.
Think about it. Missiles that have been checked out and repaired far more than their operational counterparts are will fail 20-25% of the time.
But if you read the open strategic planning literature, missile reliability is ASSUMED to be 90-95% under operational conditions.
What interests me is why nobody notices this disconnect between reality and theory.
These tests are ongoing in Russia who have developed the most advanced systems in the world and are deploying them as we speak.
It still says nothing about their combat performance.
As for nuclear testing-- the U.S. conducted its last test in September of 1993 and Russia's last was in October 1990.
Blowing up a "device" underground is NOT the same as detonating a nuclear warhead zipping along at 15,000 MPH.
Your assertion that "folks in charge" consider nuclear weapons as "less useful in combat" is actually quite funny. Nuclear weapons are considered strategic weapons and Russian military doctrine considers them VERY useful as a little research would point out.
Declarative doctrine and what gets practiced in reality are two very different things, as one can readily observe.
If ICBMs were actually used as doctrine demands they be used, then the USSR launched a massive nuclear strike on the US in 1979.
In case this escaped you...they didn't.
Something is restraining the Russians from employing their nuclear arsenal. Most likely, the fact that all those ICBMs would not work as advertised.
Okay.. you stated an opinion about NMD. You stated in such a way as to indicate you are informed about it.
I've studied up in the issue since Reagan's speech of March 23rd, 1983.
... exactly how and why is it inadequate? You must have some understanding about the science of KKV technology to draw an opinion.
Simple numbers: 1,000 or so warheads against 200 midcourse interceptors.
Even if the interceptors have a 100% hit rate, that leaves 800 warheads inbound.
Any ideas about the specific plans for deploying the system world wide? How does the system deal with dummy warheads?
The best means of dealing with dummy warheads is to either use some means of boost-phase interception (kill the archer, not the arrows) or use terminal defenses (the atmosphere does a fine job of screening lightweight decoys out--and full-weight decoys means that you lose a significant fraction of missile payload.