Postol has been pissing on missile defense since the Reagan days. While he has some good points, the fact remains that some kind of defense, probably a combination of layers, has to be deployed, even if it isn't at 100 percent.

It just dead nuts common sense that even a defense that only works sometimes is going to give you a better chance than no defense at all. A bulletproof vest won't keep someone from shooting you in the head, but that doesn't mean you're safer if you don't wear one at all.

Postol's view of strategics puzzles me:

"If you build a missile defense that is so fragile almost anything an adversary does will cause it to collapse, then you invite a weak adversary to (attack)," Postol said.



"If people believe this thing works, this (misplaced trust) could lead to God knows what in terms of catastrophes."



I am stumped as to why a "weak" defense would invite an attack more than no defense. Why the hell would an enemy fire missiles at us if we had a defense, but wouldn't if we didn't?

The Maginot Line didn't work, but I fail to see how the lack of such defenses would have made a German invasion any harder. It's a bad analogy. There are other alternatives to fixed fortresses for repelling a ground attack. There is NO other alternative to missile defense systems to stop missiles.

The choice isn't Maginot Line vs. mobile infantry defenses. The choice is missile defense systems or no defense at all.