Sorry about the picture load, being used to DSL and Broadband tends to make one take these things for granted....
But as to whether a thing has been 'battle tested' I might remind that a LOT of systems were never battle tested before having to be used but came through with flying colors. The F-14, the F-15, the F-16, the A-10, the M1-A1 and the Bradley. The Hummer. JSTARS. AWACS. The Prowler, the TOW, etc. The list goes on.
And we have TOTALLY DEPENDED for national strategic deterrence on systems such as the Minuteman III, The Peacekeeper, and the Trident D-4/D-5 missles WHICH HAVE NEVER been 'battle tested'. And thank God they haven't been.
But deterrence has shown weaknesses depending on the enemies assessment of our national strength of will to actually do anything in response to their aggressions. Hence 3-4 decades of proxy war, transforming into terrorism of the last decade currently. And with the most artless practitioners basically calling our 'bluff' that we either can or will stop them from blackmailing us and our allies (after having Clinton spending 8 years telling them they could get away with said blackmail). We need to make it clear that we are indeed possessed of the resolve to do whatever it takes. The deployment of the Aegis sea based missile defense is both a real defense...and a message. WE WILL PREVAIL. WHATEVER IT TAKES. SO DON'T MESS WITH US.
A picture of the USS Lake Erie berthed at VancouverBut as to whether a thing has been 'battle tested' I might remind that a LOT of systems were never battle tested before having to be used but came through with flying colors. The F-14, the F-15, the F-16, the A-10, the M1-A1 and the Bradley. The Hummer. JSTARS. AWACS. The Prowler, the TOW, etc. The list goes on. i might remind you in turn that all of these systems had severe problems which were corrected in subsequent production runs. In particular, the 105mm cannon on the Abrams was far too small for it's use. The Abrams was also supposed to be designed with a turbine engine that proved to be far too difficult to maintain. The Abrams gets 12gal/mile, and needs a part replaced every 50 miles on average. It's real advantage is in it's fire control system, and the fact that there is no portable anti tank weapon effecive against it's armor.
The first flight Bradley was called (rightly so) a flaming coffin by such men as Lt.Gen Henry "Gunfighter" Emerson (it cost Emerson his career, but he was vindicated when the Bradley was redesigned due to the difficulties he mentioned).
It is also inaccurate to say that many of these these systems were not battle tested. The Israelies were responsible for a great many of those battle tests. In many cases they came up with modifications that we adapted, particularly with the F-16.
Getting back to my area of concern though, did NORAD spot the launch? If not, why not? Why didn't the US respond? After all, we would have had no way to know if it was a test or a strike. When was this supposed launch? Why did it take so long to find the "warhead".
The whole Alaskan missle find story smells funny. Why did the story come from CIA and not DoD? Has there been any comment from DoD? In light of recent CIA blunders concerning WMD in Iraq in any substantial amount (some traces of chemical weapons have been found but no weapons), how reliable is this information?
While i do believe that Kim Jong Ill has nukes, i question how many, and whether he has adequate means of delivery. It would probably be in the nation's best interest to load some nuke warheads on some Tomahawk cruise missles aboard a couple of Ohio Class subs just in case we need to take out some command and control facilities.