Quote Originally Posted by davidbfpo View Post
So the US government has had no contingency plans for homeland defence against a long predicted, possible threat? If true then someone needs to explain.
Not to the Dr Strangelove era level of Civil Defense. To wit,
http://www.mauinews.com/opinion/lett...ld-be-helpful/

Commentary by LTG Dan Leaf (Ret) worth reading -

Comprehensive missile defense for the homeland
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/...nd-commentary/

Summation -

Having the strategy is not enough. The government must have supporting policies including assigning operational responsibility and clearly defining engagement authority. Ballistic and cruise missile defense are two different challenges technically and tactically. The authorities for missile defense are divided piecemeal between multiple commands and agencies. If there was ever a situation where unity of command matters, this is it. In the event of a missile attack, there will not be time to decide who is going to decide.

North Korea and terrorism are clear and immediate dangers, but the missile threat to the homeland must be a long-term concern countered with a comprehensive homeland missile defense plan from the Department of Defense and supported by the administration and lawmakers. This CMHD should be a key element of the follow-up to the new National Defense Strategy.