Hey guys, what are your opinions on ballistic missile defense? Waste of money, worthwhile investment, or potentially destabilizing? Missile defense general I guess.
Also, who's down for blowing the shit out of one another to pass the time?
N-no h-homo.
http://global.thermonuclearwar.org/
>>27799666
I don' think it's destabilising.
Either it works which means ICBMs and SLBMs are ineffectual which makes attacking impossible, or it doesn't work and we still have the status quo.
I agreed with the ABM treaty however in the 70s. Not because I thought the concept was a good idea but rather the technology wasn't mature enough at the time preventing an enormous amount of money being dumped into it. I'm all for it now.
>>27799677
It's not destabilizing at all. Like with any system, there's no such thing as a 100% success rate. MAD, or at least extreme damage, is still a threat since some warheads may still get through, and then for any high value targets there would be enough warheads coming in to overwhelm any ABM system in place.
>>27799702
The term you're looking for is counter-value.
Even a ABM system with a 99% success rate would still be ineffectual against counter-value attacks.
Counter-measures vs ABM are cheaper.
>>27799702
>>27799677
It's destabilizing because it's a tremendously expensive and sophisticated technology that massively degrades the effectiveness of a country's atomic weapons.
The value of atomic weapons is in the certainty they offer. That certainty is threatened by anti-ballistic missile systems.
It's scary for Russia because much of the external policy and national security is based on being able to threaten the world with Armageddon, and frankly if Russia had counter missile systems able to seriously degrade a first strike and knew nobody else did they'd use it as leverage to force serious concessions.
>>27799743
>atomic weapons
What's this? The 50s?
My point still stands. The system is either perfect (lets call >99.9% "perfect") or it's not. If it's perfect then there is no point attacking because you don't achieve anything militarily, if it's not then a counter-value strike is still possible and deterrence is maintained.
>>27799738
Technologies and costs change.
Russia is more scared about the inevitable new bases filled with extra military personal protecting/operating the ABM rather than the ABM itself.
>>27799753
The system can not work in the reality, but decision makers will be convinced of the opposite, and can authorize a first strike.
>>27799666
It's not destabilizing. It simply means that planners have to pick out more important targets than random military bases out in the middle of nowhere that do nothing other than administrative functions or old national guard armories and and send warheads that were destined there for the important stuff. As OPpenheimer said, ABMs aren't there to guarantee a perfect curtain, their primary threat is that they could intercept a MIRV bus and ruin an entire strike plan on a site, thus necessitating the doubling of warheads for every target to ensure destruction, thus limiting the amount of targets one can attack.
>>27799738
Penetration aides aren't new and have been planned and worked against since they became a thing in the 70s.
>>27800751
The primary threat is that they'll have 90% hit rate in tests, but 10% hit rate in real life
desu
>>27800766
the primary threat is that you'll actually read a post instead of being a cukd faggot
>>27799753
If only one side has it and it works essentially 100% of the time then they can launch a first strike and have no fear of retaliation much like if only one side had nukes
