How does one define space-stalker?

Is the threat limited to space stalkers?

Can space weapons protect US satellites?

see:
http://thebulletin.org/can-space-weapons-protect-...

Reality check: Baker says -- "An earlier architecture, proposed by the George W. Bush Administration, would have provided for a defense of U.S. as well as European territory by fielding ground-based midcourse defense interceptors inPolandand an accompanying radar in the Czech Republic."

Really? There were to be a grand total of 10 interceptors. That is what you and Heritage want? 10?

OK.

Also, the test record of the GBIs is abysmal. Not that the SM-3 record is any better -- none of the midcourse systems have ever worked against countermeasures, even our known signature CMs.

BTW, an "interim capability" is what's going to be there for the next 60 years. Anyway, what does it mean? Is it like being half-pregnant? With any kind of interim capability NK or Iran (whenever it gets nukes/ICBMs) will still be able to hold Europe/US at risk.

Here is a good overview of missile defense:
http://www.salon.com/2012/05/19/missile_defense_i...

I guess Ms. Bendikova knows more than the CIA which said more than ten years ago:
https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-tes...

"Many countries, such as North Korea [and] Iran … probably would rely initially on readily available technology … to develop penetration aids and countermeasures. These countries could develop countermeasures based on these technologies by the time they flight test their missiles."

It is good to see the Heritage Foundation now backs the Obama missile defense program. Every other day the Foundation appears to change their position. A faith-based missile defense program is probably not a wise choice for the country.

Space based missile defense has -- repeatedly -- shown to be a fallacy. e.g. an ex-Air Force officer:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1212/1