A quick question.
This topic was a regularly discussed on these boards but as since fallen off the radar, so to speak.
I’ve barely heard anything in the mainstream press in the last year, which is not surprising given events.
Is the missile defence project still being pursued? What progress has been made? Is the project and the nations that it was targetting still considered the centre piece of the long-term defense strategy of the Bush administration?
I’m afraid I don’t know about the NMD, but you’ve certainly set off my PPA (Pet Peeve Alarm).
I really hate it when people use the word “wherefore” (even spelt right 
) as if it meant “where”. It doesn’t, it means “why”.
Juliet wasn’t asking where Romeo was – she was asking why he was Romeo, ie why he had to be a Montagu and therefore off-limits.
Right, rant over. Anyone know the answer to the Q?
There were three major missile defense programs: Sea based and land based theatre defense, and National ballistic missile defense.
The Navy program’s been cancelled. Apparently even massive cost overruns couldn’t force it to work.
The Army’s program is in deep trouble. Their interceptors don’t work either.
The National (NMD) plan for ballistic missile defense is moving ahead. For example, there was a test flight this summer. Unfortunately the administration has decided to go all secretive about the program, so it’s hard to tell if the program is advancing or stagnating.
Israel has something going on now as well.
Much appreciated squink
And ** r_k **, your point is noted. Would it make you feel better if I said I don’t know why the US needs to have a NMD? 
Woolly, I agree with your point.
Given the current state of the world --that is, little possibility of an all-out massive exchange of ICBMs, but some possibility of small numbers of missiles coming from “rogue” states-- it would seem better politically to allow potential enemies to take their one or two good shots so as to justify the massive “regime change” response.
Milton De La Warre Sorry but while I have been critical on these boards of the US policy , particularly of this administration, on the basis that I’d like to see something that is good become even better, there no way that the US should risk a pot shot on any scale and then use that as justification for “democracy from 40,000 feet”.
I’m of that unreconstructed and depressingly optimistic philosophy that engagement, rather than unilateralism, will bear positive results for all parties.
My main interest in the OP was that China was particularly aggitated at being targeted by NMD. I was wondering whether to ensure their support in the war on terrorism, this project had been put on the back burner.