The Logical Non-Sequitur of "Missile Defense"

Much has been made lately of Canada's decision to stand aside from BushCo's much vaunted "Missile Defense" program. (It is interesting that they've dropped the Reaganesque "Star Wars" designation...)

It occurs to me that the whole notion of attempting to shoot a ballistic object out of the sky from high altitude is mostly nonsensical.

Technically, anything can be achieved if you throw enough dollars at it. (and I'm sure that there's some really cool technology development in the various projects that are associated with the Missile Defense program) So, the notion of targeting and destroying an inbound missile while it is en-route to its destination is quite conceivable. (Of course, anyone who has been paying attention will have observed that the related technology involved has a very long distance to go before it is anywhere near "ready for prime-time use")

To be sure, the "Spy-versus-Spy" world of arms escalation guarantees the evolution of countermeasures ranging from mixed-warhead delivery to devices that change their trajectory with a last burst of rocket burn, or high altitude release of individual warheads. The point being that weapon systems all have a 'trump' card that can be played against them.

The reality is that the best "missile defense" in the world is to be a good citizen of the world. A country that is feared is a target, a country that is respected is not. Perhaps, BushCo. should do a little reflection about their conduct on the world stage, and ask themselves just why they might be targets - if they answer honestly, they might just surprise themselves with the answers.