redsoulja, well that's something of an oversimplification, but partially true. Any defensive system can be overwhelmed by sheer numbers, so if a country with a large enough arsenal were to fire everything, undoubtedly some would get through. Even so, it's better to intercept some than none.
The US isn't too worried about responsible countries that posess these weapons. They understand the consequesces of using them, and they are not threatening anyone with them. It's the rogue nations that we are most concerned about, those with unstable governments or governments that may think they "have nothing to lose".
In the case of nations that are hostile to the US, like North Korea or Iran, the idea is two-fold. The obvious goal is not just to be able to intercept a missile fired at the US or another nation, but also to deter these nations from going down that path to start with. If a country knows that such weapons can be countered, they may choose not to develop them in the first place, because their strategic value becomes questionable. These weapons are primarily blackmail weapons. If you take away the effectiveness of the weapon, you eliminate the ability of the regime to engage in the blackmail (see NorK's recent threats to Japan).
What I think we are going to see in the future, unfortunately, is a buildup of nuclear weapons in the Mid East, Korean peninsula and Japan. The US has 40,000 troops in South Korea, and these troops are very much in the line of fire. If North Korea does not come in line with the International community, the US will pull these troops back, which means that South Korea would need a nuclear deterrent to NorK. The same goes for Japan. I believe Saudi Arabia already has a couple Chinese nukes to counter Iran. And we all know about the Pak-India sutuation.
NMD is not just "National Missile Defence" anymore, in fact the acronym has been changed to GMD, which stands for Ground Based Missile Defence. It's really a global shield, not just restricted to North America. Most of the energy has gone towards boost phase interception, with THAAD, SM-3, and ABL getting the most attention. These systems would be employed far from US soil, and possibly even in situations that do not necessarily directly involve the US (such as Iran-Saudi Arabia or Iran-Israel). If the US detected a nuclear missile heading for any city in the world, and had the ability to stop it, I have no doubt we would.
The US isn't too worried about responsible countries that posess these weapons. They understand the consequesces of using them, and they are not threatening anyone with them. It's the rogue nations that we are most concerned about, those with unstable governments or governments that may think they "have nothing to lose".
In the case of nations that are hostile to the US, like North Korea or Iran, the idea is two-fold. The obvious goal is not just to be able to intercept a missile fired at the US or another nation, but also to deter these nations from going down that path to start with. If a country knows that such weapons can be countered, they may choose not to develop them in the first place, because their strategic value becomes questionable. These weapons are primarily blackmail weapons. If you take away the effectiveness of the weapon, you eliminate the ability of the regime to engage in the blackmail (see NorK's recent threats to Japan).
What I think we are going to see in the future, unfortunately, is a buildup of nuclear weapons in the Mid East, Korean peninsula and Japan. The US has 40,000 troops in South Korea, and these troops are very much in the line of fire. If North Korea does not come in line with the International community, the US will pull these troops back, which means that South Korea would need a nuclear deterrent to NorK. The same goes for Japan. I believe Saudi Arabia already has a couple Chinese nukes to counter Iran. And we all know about the Pak-India sutuation.
NMD is not just "National Missile Defence" anymore, in fact the acronym has been changed to GMD, which stands for Ground Based Missile Defence. It's really a global shield, not just restricted to North America. Most of the energy has gone towards boost phase interception, with THAAD, SM-3, and ABL getting the most attention. These systems would be employed far from US soil, and possibly even in situations that do not necessarily directly involve the US (such as Iran-Saudi Arabia or Iran-Israel). If the US detected a nuclear missile heading for any city in the world, and had the ability to stop it, I have no doubt we would.