Again you produce lots of word and no actual evidence. Of course more testing is required its a continually developing system.

You are so desperate and pathetic that you seem to be suggesting that the US start a war with North Korea to prove to you that a system that has already intercepted ballistic missiles can intercept ballistic missiles.

At least I am not rude, arrogant and pig headed sir. Your opinion is not fact. Your opinion is simply that….opinion.

I have cited multiple statements from reputable sources like the agency developing the actual system under debate (the US Missile Defense Agency)that state that there has not been enough operationally realistic testing. I have cited government reports and congressional testimony that state that significant quantities of the technology already deployed are not mature and will not be so for a number of years. That you have consistently shown no interest in even addressing them speaks to your lack of understanding of the arguments those on the other side of the article are making.

And all you can come back with are insults and statements that you cannot prove. It works you say. it has worked you say. it will work you say. The North Korea example you cite proves that you can read but not comprehend what you read as well as you claim.

But at the end of the day you will lose this argument. Obama will do the sensible thing and kill this boondoggle. You and the NeoCons can cry all you want but it is a flawed technology that does not work as advertised.

The technology is feasable. I have never disputed that. Read closer. But feasable and operationally effective are two completely seperate and two vastly different things. Somebody of your apparent knowledge about this topic should see the difference between possible and practical.

Saying that the technology is feasable is like saying that Minuteman’s warhead WILL hit within 100 metres of a target versus saying it has a circular error probable of 100 meters, where it has a probability of hitting within said distance. The first claim is a wild boast. Sure you might get lucky and hit the bullseye so to speak. The second example comes from rigorous independent testing proven under operational conditions using representative kit. The Director of the MDA himself states that they still need to do this kind of testing in order to confirm that this whole thing will work.

Your rubbish has been debunked by multiple members of this forum. The technology is proven as is shown by the numerable successful tests.:rolleyes:

Silly troll.

American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Dec. 17, 2008 – Anticipated budget constraints and the growing threat posed by rogue nations make it more important than ever that future U.S. missile defense tests be operationally focused, the commander of U.S. Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, General Renuart said today.

This implies previous tests were not operationally focused….from the horses mouth.

Daryl G. Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association, which publishes the monthly journal Arms Control Today.

He states in the Washington Times on November 20th 2008:

“…The interceptors since 1999 have only scored seven hits against targets in 12 highly scripted tests; only two of those successes have occurred since the initial deployment of the three stage inteceptors…”

and he goes on to state:”… A decision on new deployments of strategic missile interceptors can be deferred until the system is proven effective through realistic tests and has the full support of U.S. allies. Meanwhile, the Obama administration should engage in serious talks with Russia’s leaders to explore alternatives or, at a minimum, achieve a mutual understanding on the eventual size and capability of U.S. strategic missile defenses. The two sides also should launch a joint diplomatic strategy to curb global missile proliferation. A more balanced, nonideological approach to U.S. missile defense policy is long overdue….”

The Government Accountability Office report number GAO-08-467 SP, “Defense Acquisitions: Assessments of Selected Weapon Programs,” was released on March 31, 2008.

It stated that only 1 of the 16 KKV critical technologies is mature.

And in Government Accountability Office Report Number GAO-08-506T, “Defense Acquisitions: Assessment of DOD Efforts to Enhance Missile Defense Capabilities and Oversight” was released on February 26, 2008, it was stated that:

In the past year, MDA has fielded additional and new assets, enhanced the capability of some existing assets, and achieved most test objectives. However, MDA did not meet the goals it originally set for the block. Ultimately, MDA fielded fewer assets, increased costs by about $1 billion and conducted fewer tests. Even with the cost increase, MDA deferred work to keep costs from increasing further, as some contractors overran their fiscal year 2007 budgets. Deferring work obscures the cost of the block because such work is no longer counted as part of Block 2006. The cost of the block may have been further obscured by a way of planning work used by several contractors that could underestimate the actual work completed. If more work has to be done, MDA could incur additional costs that are not yet recognized. MDA also sets goals for determining the overall performance of the BMDS. Similar to other DOD programs, MDA uses models and simulations to predict BMDS performance. We were unable to assess whether MDA met its overall performance goal because there have not been enough flight tests to provide a high confidence that the models and simulations accurately predict BMDS performance. Moreover, the tests done to date have been developmental in nature, and do not provide sufficient realism for DOD’s test and evaluation Director to determine whether BMDS is suitable and effective for battle. GAO has previously reported that MDA has been given unprecedented funding and decision-making flexibility. While this flexibility has expedited BMDS fielding, it has also made MDA less accountable and transparent in its decisions than other major programs, making oversight more challenging.

Numerable successful tests you say? Your own government states that they are too few in number and the General in charge of the program overtly states that many of the tests to date have not been reasonably realistic and need to be more so going forward.

At the end of the day it is America’s money, security and credibility. If you wish to deploy something that has not been operationally certified to any significant degree admitted to by even the General in charge of the program, it’s all good.

Because you have yet to make any reasonable suggestion why a relatively minor change to already proven technology will fail. All you have is your own repeatedly debunked nonsense.

Debunked by whom??? You??? Spare me…..

Two stages from three and integrating new radars for a start are not a “…relatively minor change…”. And when have the Fort Greeley missiles suddenly become “…already proven technology…”??? Proven because they are deployed? You simply do not get where the skeptics are coming from. The original technology was deployed in lieu of proper testing and threat assessments for ideological reasons. Try as you might it can’t be spun any other way. This is the least tested and proven significant weapons system to be deployed by the American military in a generation. And because you so love the last word sealordlawrence I await your slagging with baited breath.