hobitbob wrote:Sigh. joe, you know better than to confront the rightard's with questions like this! Now they are going to be confused and their feelings will be hurt. It isn't a matter of it actually stopping missiles, its about providing welfare fo the poor starving CES's of the aerospace companies.
![Wink](https://cdn2.able2know.org/images/v5/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)
I realize that it's impertinent to ask these sorts of questions. After all, if we build a missile defense shield, there
must be someone out there who has missiles that need to be defended against -- otherwise, the shield would be a complete waste of money. And if no one currently has those kinds of missiles, well then by the time we finish the shield there ought to be plenty of "crazed dictators" out there with huge stockpiles of missiles. Of course, we could just take the money earmarked for the shield and
give it out as foreign aid, so that there would be fewer countries that might want to fire missiles at us.
But then that's bad foreign policy. Better to antagonize as many nations as possible, and then build a shield to protect ourselves against all the enemies that we've made. That's the Bush Doctrine.