Peter,

PMFJI but I got to put my $.02 in. I once subscribed to the philosophy that you do. Then I joined the military and began studying defense strategy and I found out something. I used to be wrong. You develop a system to defend against missles because if you don't that becomes a vulnerability. And as far as I know(and I could be wrong) You can trace any nuclear explosion by the signiture of the radioactive primary. As to why North Korea would choose a missle over a boat..well lets see one reason would be that everyday the amount of satellites that we have in the air that can detect a radioactive footprint grow. It can only be assumed that if they can read a license plate from space they can monitor elements that are highly volitile and very visible. The next reason would be that "sneaking" a nuke onto a vessle that is considered "trusted" by the Us navy is no small feat. I am very much for the development of antimissle systems AND improving border and port vulnerabilities, but I believe firmly in placing the first priority on Anti missle systems. The patriot started life as one of these systems and what it gave us was a viable means to knock ballistic missles from the sky. The threat to ground troops from Nuclear as well as chemical and biological weapons is a heck of alot higher then someone who happens to live near a port city. I was always taught Protect your front line first cause if it goes border patrol and customs aint going to save you. Sorry for the Windy response but you hit a nerve.

We're in greater danger today than we were the day after Pearl Harbor. Our military is absolutely incapable of defending this country.


~ Ronald Reagan