I quite agree that a system as proposed by Dr. Postel (IHT, Nukes, 13.3.09) is
a better, cheaper and probably for effective alternative, than the
grandious Bush scheme, with its untested system components. But I beg to
differ strongly about the threat picture.

North Korea's nuclear arms program is limping, with its only test of a
weapon a monumental fissile. If they put a warhead on a rocket, the threat
to itself and Japan would much greater than to the US. In the case of
Iran, the material for warheads, at the right enrichment level is still
quite a while away, and whether the Iranian government would consider a
missile the best means to get it to Israel is another matter.

The real present an grave danger/threat is, in my humble opinion,
somewhere else. What is needed, and Postel's system or other alternatives
could be adapted to this, is a defense against short range rockets and
mortar munitions that rain down upon Israel, both from Gaza and Lebanon.
Such a solution would take the thunder out of Hamas's and Hizbollah's
rants, and eliminate the main argument for Israel's hawks to keep pounding
both areas and only helping to recruit more terrorists. Who knows if
something like this will occur in the Afghanistan/Pakistan border too,
soon.

To paraphrase a rumsfeldien idea, better to deal with what we know than
that which we're not very sure about yet.