Well, the rogue spy satellite was destroyed. It looks like a fantastic success for the anti-satellite system/anti-missile system.
Which is a problem, of course. How much harder will it be to kill this program once Obama or Hillary are in office? Now that it has had great success recently, won't it be hard to justify shutting it down?
This event just shows that the US may in fact have the capacity to shoot down ICBM's, or at least a realistic shot at it. The US Navy did a phenomenal job, and for those who were laughing at the fact they needed calm seas, the military has already installed a bunch of these same missiles in Alaska.
So now the US might be able to shoot down incoming nuclear missiles. Great, just what we need. Now the Warmongering Bush administration will feel even more eager to go into Iran or sell this stuff to Israel to protect them from missile attacks.
What's a good way to look at this? Be grateful that American's are demonstratively safer from rogue missile attacks, or be upset that American's are demonstratively safer from rogue missile attacks?
And what happens if once Obama or Hillary get into office and they cancel this program, like Bill tried to do in the 1990's, and suddenly North Korea chucks a nuke at San Fransisco?
I guess, the question is--is the missile defense system objectively a good or bad thing?