The primary reason that NMD is a waste of money is because it is not being developed to meet real-world conditions. Every test conducted, and every test planned (including post-"deployment") do not include the types of countermeasures that any ICBM-capable state would deploy as part of a missle attack.
You would think that conducting these tests under such simplified and unrealistic conditions would at least result in a good testing track record, right? Wrong. Even the last successful test was rigged by putting a homing beacon in the simulated attack vehicle.
Another major problem with the proposed NMD solution is that it is only designed with the existing missle states in mind, and is geared to be specifically effective against their warheads. But the supposed threat is against so-called "rogue" nations who are still developing their own technology. NMD, as proposed, will not be able to intercept those weapons.
Overall, the program has another major flaw. There is no independent review process with any authority to address problems with the value and validity of the tests conducted. The program is not based on science, it is based on wishful thinking that ignores the real-world variables. After moving from an R&D scenario to a develop-to-deploy scenario, this problem only intensifies.
You cannot conduct effective research if the only people who can call the shots are advocates of the technology, or companies that stand to make a buck (actually, billions and billions of bucks) by building it.
Perhaps I did overstate my case slightly, in the sense that NMD might conceivably work is allowed to be developed as technology should be -- with scientific principles. But developed as government pork, the system has as much chance of working as a national health plan.
NMD is a black hole fiscally, and maybe a black hole technologically. As recent events have demonstrated, this may not be the time to squander money on pipe dreams and contractors who have -- I repeat -- defrauded this country on missle defense programs in the past.
Check your facts. The latest test was of the interceptor's terminal guidance package only. Do you understand? The terminal guidance package ONLY. The beacon was used to get the interceptor in the ballpark so that the terminal guidance package could take over and hit the missile, which it did. The interceptor did NOT use the beacon to hit the missile.
Another major problem with the proposed NMD solution is that it is only designed with the existing missle states in mind, and is geared to be specifically effective against their warheads. But the supposed threat is against so-called "rogue" nations who are still developing their own technology. NMD, as proposed, will not be able to intercept those weapons.
Totally illogical. How can you say NMD won't work against a type of missile that you admit doesn't exist yet? Do you have the design specs for them?
No kidding.
in the sense that NMD might conceivably work is allowed to be developed as technology should be -- with scientific principles. But developed as government pork, the system has as much chance of working as a national health plan.
Your categorical statement is one of faith, not fact. What evidence do you have that the current NMD program is NOT being conducted scientifically? Rigged tests? We are at a very low state of technical readiness -- one must crawl before one walks. Just because countermeasures exist now that are not accounted for in potential NMD architectures does not mean that such measures cannot be envisioned or developed. If by "independent scientific review" you mean NRC committees or "experts" from the Federation of American Scientists, don't make me laugh -- these guys are nothing but political ideologues, dressed up as "technical experts." If there's one thing we should have been taught by the twentieth century, it's that the phrase "it can't be done" ought to be used with extreme caution. A smarter move might be to avoid using it all together.
As for your comments on government "pork," they might be applicable to numerous, failed social mega-programs, but such "pork" has had some considerable success in the technical arena -- the Manhattan Project, Apollo, and the Panama Canal, to give just a few examples.
The simple fact is that the Constitution charges the federal government to defend the country against ALL threats. We should prepare for the terrorist threat -- chemical, biological, nuclear -- and future missile attack threats. And NMD (despite the claims of even some of its advocates) will not be deployed solely against the threat of "rogue nations," unless you include the PRC in that category.
And I do.