S. deputy secretary of defense, and former director of central intelligence, says that the most likely threat is from terrorism not ICBMs:.
However, ICBMs are hardly the only "or even the most likely "threat to U.S. security. The United States remains vulnerable to nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks delivered by various means. Potential attackers enjoy a wealth of options: cruise missiles, aircraft, short-range ballistic missiles launched from a ship or submarine, or surreptitious transfer by truck or suitcase. Not only are these alternatives credible and cheaper to develop than ICBMs, but they are easier to deploy covertly than ICBMs, which require long-range testing and are more .
identifiable by intelligence. Sub national terrorist groups, which many analysts consider more likely to attack the United States than rogue countries, are liable to use these alternative delivery means. (Deutch et al. 2) That is a far more likely threat than that some rogue nation would actually achieve access to an ballistic missile. Since Regan billions has been spent on national missile defense and none it has ever passed a realistic operational test (Nelson 1). Why spend billions on a system that will not defend against our biggest threat? .
Getting past the constraints of nonmissle means of attacks you then get to the question: Is it worth it? A missile defense system is the most costly solution to the least likely threat that America faces. What should happen is reallocation of funds away from missile defense and put it towards the improvement of theater missile defenses to protect U.S. personnel in combat situations from short range and cruise missile attack and for counter-terrorism programs (Deutch et al. 4-5). This alternative is more sound and will be more beneficial in the long run. If a National Defense System was to be deployed it would cost billions, this money could be better spent elsewhere.
