Thanks to the BBC, the missile defense debate can be greatly simplified.
Here's what Bush proposed and what the neocons are hyperventilating over the ending of plans for:
And here's the coverage of the AEGIS ship-based system proposed by Obama:
As you can see, coverage against actual, rather than imaginary, threats is marginal at best, and under the Bush plan was almost non-existent - unless you're worried about Russian missiles. "A better missile defense for a safer Europe," my ass. Contrary to both Bush and Obama's statements, the Russians were right to be "paranoid" about missile defense all along.
Recall, too, that Iran has no current nuclear weapons program according to both the IAEA and US intelligence. It would take at least three to five years for it to develop a nuclear-tipped missile from the day it kicks IAEA inspectors out, if it ever does.
We should be asking whether we need such a multi-billion boondoggle at all.
Crossposted at Newshoggers