<i>Franks, asked whether the country could afford it, replied: “What is national security worth? It’s priceless.”</i><p>So let's see, Congressman Franks, if you really believe that security is priceless. Do you wear a Kevlar vest at all times? Ride only in an armored Maybach? Keep a dozen bodyguards at your home? Line the walls of your house with depleted uranium? Scan every object entering your house with a T-wave explosives detector and a Geiger counter?<p>Of course not. Security is not "priceless"; it is subject to cost/benefit analysis like everything else. I can do no better at this point than to quote President Dwight Eisenhower:<p><i>Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.</i> [0]<p><i>In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.</i> [1]<p>I think it's a safe bet that the big defense contractors like Lockheed Martin have been lobbying for a resumption of Star Wars ever since the Reagan years. Looks like they finally found a moment when we were all thinking about other things.<p>[0] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_for_Peace_speech" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chance_for_Peace_speech</a><p>[1] <a href="http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm" rel="nofollow">http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm</a>
An interesting move. One that incoming Trump administration would find politically hard to neuter, and which is likely aimed to deteriorate Russian defence first and foremost.<p>Russia is not economically and technologically positioned to meet the challenge, but would unavoidably have to try anyway.<p>Could be the "appropriate answer" to the hacking Obama hinted before.
Why would a nation like Russia or the US give in to total nuclear disarmament without a missle shield like this? A nuke free future is impossible without a shield like this available to all. All countries serious about disarment should be jointly contributing to this effort.
In such a globalized world, where economics are so linked that many countries, including the US, couldn't survive without the others, this type of stuff just sends society backwards. Not like we don't have enough guns pointed at the world, why not spend an exorbitant amount of money to point an even bigger one. You may be able to get someone to listen to you by pointing a gun at them, but never their respect.
> <i>Leading defence scientists said the idea that a space-based system could provide security against nuclear attack is a fantasy</i><p>Does someone have more detail on this?