[Robert A Cook PE]

The thing is,, we need enough of these to shoot down waves of thousands of missiles. Whenever a representation of an attack is shown, it is always of a few missiles. What would happen should they lob hundreds hour after hour. I never bought into this “first strike” thing. We need millions of these interceptors all over our nation.

Not really true: IF (big IF) Russia were shooting thousands of missiles at us, yes we would need (incoming missiles + 1) counter missiles.

But, North Korea has only a handful of long range missiles, and none are successfully tested. Yet. Only 2-6 nuclear weapons - and they would come from a very limited area under most reasonable circumstances.

So only one counter battery CAN remove most of the threat. Which is better than the democrats tactic: Surrender immediately because WE can’t be trusted with NAY defensive weapon, while THEY can be trusted NOT to develop ANY offensive weapon.

ONE counter battery means that NK needs

[freemike]

I like to prepare for the worse. I figure,, if I can think it, so can the enemy. Yes,, these tests are centered on shooting down a missile from a rogue nation. That is the main threat we face today. And certainly, something is better than nothing. But, in the long term,, we need to prepare for a massive major attack from the likes of China or Russia. And we can and should deploy these interceptors, or whatever other defenses we can imagine, in millions around our nation or in space.

[Doohickey]

Don’t think missiles, think warheads. This was a good test against an attack from the likes of North Korea, but China has MIRVs.