Like I said I agree with the points made here but since this is a self defense issue against losing a U.S. city I do not believe this is a Neocon issue. There are conflicting reports on Iran's capability but forgetting them for a minute it could be Pakistan or Russia that loses a nuke to a terrorist group or rogue region. A not all that far out scenario considering instability in Pakistan where they have had to repel direct attacks on thier nuclear installations.
I also vaguely remember something about possibly including Russia in the shield and involving them in command and control. I am not sure if that was ever presented or it just did not fly with Russia or with the Pentagon. If we are involving them at that point it negates all the points made above and gives legitimacy to fear of such a rogue launch.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/world/europe/19iht-nato.4.7966307.html
You can make that same sensationalist argument (the Jack Bauer scenario) of losing an American city and apply it to any neocon policy.
Torture, wiretapping, extraordianary rendition, limiting free speech, shuttting down the internet, and any power grab by the government all become fair game. Afterall we are talking about millions of people.
The whole premise is a false premise, that we are more safe by interfering with Russian affairs, and encircling them with NATO troops, etc.. We are much less safe.
I'm going to repeat it again. Installing the missle shield is an act of war as stated Russian policy. This is no different than our policy if the situation was reversed. Do you want to go to war with Russia? Do you know how friggin dangerous that is? That is what is going to set off a nucleur war.