Shields Up!

[KrazyHorse]

Okay. That was different that what I'd recalled the answer being. Thanks, Dan

Still, "untested" in rocket lingo means it's going to explode on launch, especially as far as a country like NK goes.

I have no doubt that they could fix the problems that I'm sure are going to plague it, but I really doubt it's less than 3-4 years away from realisation.

My major argument against bmd however, is not that there are no valid threats which could be countered by it but that the probable benefits are outwighed by the costs, especially where China is concerned.

[MRT144]

Kuciwalker, surely these countries know that the missile system doesnt work.

[DanS]

This isn't aimed at China. They are already in the nuke club and could overwhelm any deterrent reasonably easily, if they decided to do so.

[Kuciwalker]

That's why it's in development. Duh.

And obviously, any argument for ABM is going to assume that it's possible. Again duh.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Last time this issue came up, the argument for it basically boiled down to the fact that it deterred 3rd-world countries (like Iran or NK) from even trying to develop ICBM's, because they'd have to build a lot more for the missiles to be a useful deterrant - basically, it raises the bar for joining the nuclear club.

No, it raises the bar for joining the ICBM club.

Nuclear weapons are payload. ICBMs are delivery systems. They are not one and the same.

[Kuciwalker]

you knew what I meant

Another point from that thread was that a FBoD can't really be used as a strategic deterrent...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
This isn't aimed at China. They are already in the nuke club and could overwhelm any deterrent reasonably easily, if they decided to do so.

And now they're going to decide to do so.

China's arsenal includes a relatively small number of missiles capable of reaching the US.

This is a distinct threat to their deterrent capability, and you can bet your ass that they're now in the process of increasing the number and range of their ICBM fleet.

That's not good for anybody.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
And obviously, any argument for ABM is going to assume that it's possible. Again duh.

Whether this assumption is reasonable is quite another issue all together.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
you knew what I meant

Another point from that thread was that a FBoD can't really be used as a strategic deterrent...

Yes it can.

[DanS]

KH: While true, why would we care about ICBM's if they didn't have nukes attached to them?

[MRT144]

if anything i would try to develop something before this system comes to work, if it ever does.

[DanS]

That's not good for anybody.

I think that's relatively benign for everybody. It would be maybe 50 or 100 extra nukes. Nothing to worry about.

[MRT144]

DanS, behold the feared fungal payload!!! it will increase insurance rates 10 fold!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Yes it can.

What's Iran going to do? Say "capitulate or we'll unleash the fishing boats of doom?"

A deterrent, a threat, requires that there be some way to announce the impending attack (and that the attack actually is threatening). A stealth delivery method doesn't exactly lend itself to that.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by DanS
KH: While true, why would we care about ICBM's if they didn't have nukes attached to them?

You're going the wrong way:

I'm saying that this guards against the least likely method of delivery of a nuke to the US.

Even NK isn't going to lob a nuke at the US unless Pyongyang was being overrun.

ICBMs are the exclusive property of relatively advanced states. Nukes are not, necessarily.