Respectfully, I disagree. American ABM's will never become operational. They will always be in the R&D stage.==
What if you mistake on it?
Russia will decrease her nuclier forces anyway since as those big and huge missiles will retire soon (in 5-6 years) and won't be rebuild. When it happened if America will build her ABM then russian smaller forces may not overhelm that ABM as can today.
So now Russia need new warhead which in smaller amount may penetrate so it just insurance that there no possibility that Russia may be threaten from behind those shields.
There's no mistake. The US population is too ignorant of its exposure to incoming missiles today. The American public would never go along with spending the money to have an effective missile shield. Also, Washington DC lacks the political will to either inform the voters of their peril from IBM's, or vote for an ABM system anyway. My personal opinion is that a land based system is too much of a compromise to be effective. It would be more akin in actual performance to the US Border Patrol.
I favor satellites for detection and tracking and submarines for intercepting missile platforms, as well as missiles intercepting with nuclear warheads. This model takes the Continental US geography out of the defense system and nuclear warheads reduce the need for impossible accuracy. The Nike Hercules used nuclear warheads to increase its kill probability, as well as insure the destruction of the incoming warhead with nuclear heat and pressure.
Nevertheless, arguments to the contrary, America will never have another missile defense system again.