http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/07/....ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Flight tests of the nation's missile defense system will not resume until this fall at the earliest as the military revamps the program following two failures in the past seven months, a military official says.

The agency would need 20 or 30 more developmental tests before it will be ready for realistic testing, Coyle said.

"If it takes two or three years to get a success, at that rate, those 20 or 30 tests could take them 50 years. They obviously need to improve the pace as well as the realism, but they haven't been able to do it," he said

Ok, this is my question. If the Missile Defense Sys doesn't work well. What could we use to defend missile attack in recently 50 yrs.

wut do u mean by recently 50 years. like the recent 50 years? and if the gov was to stop tests now that means like a few billion dollars gone down teh trash can. huge waste of money. its possilbe to use an Aegis cruiser and take a ballistic missile down. but thats all technical. the patriot missile system works. but i believe is somewhat unreliable

They need to see his point of view. if we dont have one of these, arent we kind of like sitting duckys? and how is the patriot unreiliable?

Originally Posted by FULLMETALJACKET

They need to see his point of view. if we dont have one of these, arent we kind of like sitting duckys? and how is the patriot unreiliable?

The Patroit can deal with cruise missiles and tactical ballistic missiles like the SCUD, but isnt designed for ICBMs. A ICBM flies near the the edge of the atmosphere (sub-orbital) as good as the Patroit is, it could never reach one. It has neither the range or the required altitude.

The Missile Defense shield is a program that needs canceling, it doesn't work, its obscenely expensive, and it cannot protect against a full scale attack. Which means its useless against possible foes like China.

The best protection is, and has always been MAD. Any nuclear attack on the US would bring the immediatle and complete destruction of attacking nation. Its worked for the last 50 years against foes much more dangerous than N.Korea or Iran and I see no reason to change it.