[Ronn_Bman]

We aren't breaking the treaty. It has a legal out, for either side, if six months notice is given. This hasn't come out of the blue either. The negotiation has been going on for a year with Russia to make an ammendment which would satisfy both sides regarding testing, not implementation, but an agreement couldn't be reached.

The money spent in the early 80s developed technology which is in use today, including the patriot missle. There are many more benefits to this than just shooting down nukes, but if the program shot down one nuke, it be worth the cost.

I don't believe this will start a new arms race. The idea any program, in the near future, could shoot down a massive nuclear launch by anyone isn't realistic. Keep in mind that the Chinese aren't restricted by this treaty and are free to build as many nukes as they please and to improve their delivery systems.

Working towards a defensive deterant instead of an offensive one should be applauded, but people don't like change. It's said the ABM treaty works, but it didn't stop the nuclear stockpiles from growing during the following years to the point that all of the nuclear arsenals can no longer be accounted for.

The idea "we can kill them, so they won't kill us" has never made much sense to me. We don't want a missle defense shield so we can begin using nukes, but instead, so that if one is ever fired at US we can knock it down.

Is it unlikely a legitimate nation would launch a nuke? Yes. Is it impossible? No, but what if there was an unauthorized launch from such a country? Wouldn't it be better to be prepared than to try to evacuate a city? No one thought September 11th could happen either, but when it did people said, "We knew the possibility was there, so why weren't we prepared?" Can you imagine what they would say if we were hit by a nuke?