No "Weaponization of Space"?

My question is, and maybe I don't know enough about high-tech stuff to ever understand how this missile defense system, that will cost billions, will work but I want to know how it will be safer than no missile defense system for everyone in the world. I don't know why politicians are complexifying the issue and splicing hairs by saying it's missiles supposedly meant to shoot other missiles are not considered missiles. This system, as far as I understand, would not stop nuclear weapons from Russia or the US but in theory would stop other missiles coming in from "secret enemies."

Bush used some historical rhetoric that Mackenzie used when talking about WWII when Canada gave it's support to fight Nazi's. Now Bush seems to be suggesting that we either get on board with a system he's building regardless of our support to fight the cause of terrorism, or we're "against him." I really think it's not fair to force us to make a decision about something that requires a very good understanding of before it's implemented. Perhaps this system can deter further war or maybe it'll just re-open the opportunity for an arms-race. In my opinion, it's not good to jeopardize our earths life with automated systems that have the power to destroy.

see article on Bush's little visit