No it is fact. An observation of the repeated and intentional failure to acknowlege logical cause and effect whilst being determined to generate friction against even the simplest of concepts. It does not "speak ill" - it's phrased very carefully as to not be detrimental and sticks purely to the facts. If you don't like this being pointed out, then try not to make it so obvious.
Weapons have never been designed to "bring about peace" - another retarded claim - having the sole function of causing harm, destruction and or death. Commonly resulting in a competition of penile size with compensatory efforts placed into the weaponry involved. Something quite stupid to encourage, and that's before you consider "space". Almost as retarded is your definition of "peace" this would bring - basically destroy them so they cannot be bothersome. The sort of mentality that lead to the usage of nuclear weaponry on civillian targets. To take that statement on face value, this implies the very presence of weaponry - being designed specifically to achieve peace - should result in a much more peaceful environment. Lets look at some "real world" models of this very principle. By extension of the design for peace and the proliferation and availability in the USA then this must surely be one of the most peacefilled places on the planet. I wonder why the actual data doesn't match.
The conflict can only continue if both sides are willing to fight - which is precisely why we shouldn't be, and be focused purely on defense. The other end will eventually not even bother once the futility has been consistently demonstrated, and only the really hard of thinking would of made the certainly doomed attempt in the first place. Attempting to cause this via damages just effectively results in neighbour throwing grenades over his wall because someone threw one over his, with steady escalation into larger destructive capacities. Growing up absented a father due to a grenade appearing over the wall doesn't do much for that child growing up with peaceful intent. You can't do much about initial intent, but you can do plenty about not giving any more.
"Weaponry" for "asteroid defence" is again, retarded, and likely to generate a lot more problems in the attempt. Deflection by imparting kinetic energy is a tactic so poor it would only be considered if there are literally no plausible alternatives. Like speeding up or slowing down 1m/s to avoid impact. Can't confess to seeing anything "millions of kilometers" in diameter but there are certainly some large rocks up there - turning them into lots of slightly smaller rocks with the same momentum as something several times it's mass isn't going to solve this problem. What would make sense is targetted intercept with propulsion and steering it, and this is certainly viable if it's intercepted early enough.
Just as retarded is the concept of Earth nations attacking - as previously covered multiple times in this thread and the ones similar. There is no viable way this cannot be made result in massive cost and 0 gain. The best case senario of a successfull attack being the destruction of large facilities which is likely to take out all surface life with the impacts.
And as previously mentioned, an advanced civilisation would likely of done away with retardations such as weaponry and if they do possess some the energies required by the propulsion technologies required to cross these vast distances in a sensible timeframe suggest that these weapons are going to be significantly advanced to the point their defences are not even going to acknowlege our primative weaponry. The best I can offer to placate such relentless and unfounded fear is that should they be able to cross such vast distances and intend for harm, you'd already be dead. I don't think you entirely understand the concept of "dimensions".
The entire purpose of a military is not to provide for deterrant - the entire "deterrant" method of thinking was demonstrated as insantity decades ago. The entire purpose of a military is an offensive force that can take the fight to the enemy. Any defensive potential is a fringe benefit and an afterthought. Even with this "deterrant" in place this does not mitigate attack, as proved countless times in countless places across the entire history of military conflict. It just allows for return of the same destructive potential.
Humans are irrational, it's difficult to ingore this consistently present fact - one could successfully argue this entire topic is born from this precise irrationality. Acting irrationally upon it isn't going to make the situation any "better", instead it will simply add to and compound the problem. This is not a "silly idea" it is logical cause and effect.
The concept of an "extremist group" gaining access to a launch site - somewhere that stores enough rocket fuel to damage a significant area and the ability to place this literally anywhere on the globe - quite amusing. How would you really expect that to happen? if outsmart or overpower was an option the target would of been far too juicy to ignore, attempts would of been made. Just like if "religion" was a primary factor in "terrorism" things they hate - like disney - would become far too juicy targets able to cause the most ammount of damages to the most amount of people in the shortest possible time. Just like if disruption was the real goal, a few random attacks would be replaced by a co-ordinated effort on the incredibly fragile power grid, followed rapidly by the communications infrastructure, then the transport solutions.
"My plan" doesn't require previous information to succeed, the core principle being the attack is expected regardless. You can plan ahead of time for things, even if you don't know when/where it will happen. There is much evidence of this happening, in fact, quite a lot accounts for the "unknown" factor of time and location. In the example of Police, most forces are currently ACO or migrating into.
The "disenchantment" with humans would be the examples presented by folks like yourself consisting of irrational fears and poorly thought out arguments that result in a output far less than optimal and commonly of the quality that no sane thinking individual would want any association.