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.