As @noonespecial alludes to, some of the comments on the WSJ site and (less so) here are made incognizant of the complexities of the systems and timelines of pr

As @noonespecial alludes to, some of the comments on the WSJ site and (less so) here are made incognizant of the complexities of the systems and timelines of procurement, testing and deployment. @tsally the DEF CON suggestion is a good point. Because of ITAR, it is unlikely that the actual "toy" will be provided, but a comparable subsystem wouldn't be out of the question. E.g. The DoD regularly operates rapid reaction challenges with a simulated problem from theater - see http://www.kirtland.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123120737 http://www.kirtland.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123120737 Something similar could be done with DEF CON. I think it is important to maintain perspective when stories like this come out. Contrary to some of the comments, defense contractors and researchers/engineers at gov't R&D labs do put the priorities of the warfighter first. Consider that many of the engineers/contractors/researchers/etc working on technology development are combat veterans themselves. The issue is that we face adaptive adversaries.