SOLVENCY: NMD SYSTEM IS NOT COST PROHIBITIVE
MISSILE DEFENSE IS CHEAP IN TERMS OF LIVES PROTECTED
Lloyd Gish, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, October 16, 1999, SECTION: EDITORIAL, Pg. 32 HEADLINE: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR : DEFENSE SHIELD: THE FORCE IS GOOD // ln-10-29-99-acs
As for economic feasibility, try approximately $ 6.17 per person cost for the $ 10.5 billion deployment. This is a small cost to defend against nuclear attacks from terrorists or hostile governments.
MISSILE DEFENSE IS A BARGAIN WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE RISKS OF NUCLEAR ATTACK
The Columbus Dispatch, October 11, 1999, SECTION: EDITORIAL & COMMENT, Pg. 10A, HEADLINE: ON TARGET TESTS PUT ANTI-MISSILE SHIELD A STEP CLOSER // ln-10-29-99-acs
A single missile armed with a nuclear or biological warhead could wipe out a major American city, killing hundreds of thousands of people and causing not billions, but trillions of dollars in damage. In that light, $ 14 billion of prevention looks like a bargain.
NMD IS WELL WORTH THE COST
David Warren February 22, 2001 The Ottawa Citizen SECTION: NEWS, Pg. A18 HEADLINE: Up with your missile shield //VT2002acsln
Given this very real threat, in a dangerous, power-obsessed, real world, you make what defences you can. If it is possible to devise an anti-missile defence that could intercept surprise launches, you do it. You would be crazy not to. It is worth a very large amount of impounded tax money; and worth running risks that the technology can work in practice as well as theory.
Why is it worth tens and hundreds of billions? Because tens and hundreds of millions of people stand in the way of being gassed or incinerated. That is not an abstract idea: we know precisely what the consequences would be of missile attacks on major cities.