"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

That depends. How long is THAAD suppose to be in service? Who's to
say China wouldn't try to hit a staging area with an ICBM?

Where? You'd have to posit China lobbing an ICBM at a target being used
by
the US during a third-party operation? I don't think that is realistic
enough to worry about--somewhere in the same category as say, "Protect
against RN Trident attack against US target". As to staging areas where
we
would be operating against the PRC, maybe Australia? But that is in IRBM
range. Anything in their own periphery they could hit with a shorter
range
missile. Which IMO takes you back to the "only US-proper targets have to
be
defended from ICBM".

Hard to say. Let's not forget two things: 1. China isn't the only
country out there of questionable status who is trying to develope
ICBMs (Iran, India, etc.)

So what? I have seen nobody (other than you) postulate any potential ICBM
threat to US forces deployed outside the US; the ICBM threat is being
considered against the US proper.

and 2. THAAD isn't the result of a "we
need terminal defenses against ICBMs for the entire US" but a theater
defense missile *that happens to have some anti-ICBM capability*.

And we do need a defense capability against TBM's for contingency forces--no
argument there. But again, nobody is claiming there is an ICBM threat
against deployed US forces, are they?


snip



http://www.orbital.com/MissileDefens...tors/KEI/index.
html



I don't do the "go to links" bit unless it looks like it is something
worth
bothering with--a sysnopsis of the pertinent info is usually given with
the
link.


Too good for it or does it strain your brain too much? My guess is
you want an abstract with the link so you can not go to it anyway and
still pretend like you did.

No, I just find playing a simple "battle of links", with no abstract, a bit
tedious and basically lazy on the part of the naked-link poster. Now look
here, paisan--I have tried to be reasonably nice to you, to include
acknowledging that I did misinterpret some of your earlier postings in this
thread and apologizing for same. Why don't you make the same effort towards
civility that I have?

Just on this thread there have been
numerous times in which you have missed what has been written or saw a
big paragraph so didn't read it at all. And it shows. My point in
providing those links (if you've read this far) is to enlighten you on
the BPI issue. Where's the harm in going to the link and reading? It
can only help you have a better undertanding of a subject you
apparently take an interest in.

OK, enough is enough. You got an apology, so what the hell else you want is
beyond me. I suggest you read Orvil's post and take heed--he apparently
knows quite a bit more about this than either you or some AvLeak writer (and
more than me as well). You'll note that his conclusions are generally in
linne with what I have been telling you. If you want to conduct further
discussion of topics, be energetic enough to at least indicate what your
links are saying and provide them "for further reference", and get off your
high horse, OK?

Adios.

Brooks

snip