4 ms·

Ballistic missile defense doesn’t have to actually work. It just needs to be credible to the opponent. Just like with nuclear ICBMs, you are only using it as l

Ballistic missile defense doesn’t have to actually work. It just needs to be credible to the opponent. Just like with nuclear ICBMs, you are only using it as long as you don’t use it. And you stop using it the moment you use it.

rmbyrro 5y ago
I'm not sure it's really the same. The US dropped the two bombs over Japan and that was it for nukes, true. But Israel continually uses its missile defense systems, and seem to keep creating more layers of it. Maybe, in this case, despite defense missiles being quite expensive to Israel, they can bankrupt opponents faster, due to a huge wealth gap. But, anyway, it shows that missile defense systems aren't something you use once and "can't continue to use after you decide to use it".
- candiodari 5y ago
  Missiles in the Israeli-Palestine conflict are not a "real" threat. Even if they were unstoppable they wouldn't be able to damage Israel in any significant way. Likewise, any real military effort that would credibly end Palestine would get any political party in Israel booted out of power, or frankly, thrown in jail. Hell, Israel has a bit of a habit of throwing ex-politicians in jail even now. Missiles in that conflict are "ads". They have to do something that will attract attention for less damage to either side than can be expected in donations(/sales) it delivers for both sides and apparently, missiles it is. By that I don't mean that Palestinians or Israeli are at war for attention-for-donations. Of course there is a real conflict there. But this way of "running" the conflict can exist (for any length of time) because the value of the donations/weapons sales > the value destroyed by the actual conflict. It's not the cause of the conflict, it's just a Nash equilibrium in the conflict.
csee 5y ago
> Ballistic missile defense doesn’t have to actually work. It just needs to be credible to the opponent. How does this resolve the problem of the arms race described above?
- freemint 5y ago
  It doesn't but it makes selling overcoming the engineering challenges a lot simpler.

rmbyrro 5y ago

I'm not sure it's really the same. The US dropped the two bombs over Japan and that was it for nukes, true. But Israel continually uses its missile defense systems, and seem to keep creating more layers of it. Maybe, in this case, despite defense missiles being quite expensive to Israel, they can bankrupt opponents faster, due to a huge wealth gap. But, anyway, it shows that missile defense systems aren't something you use once and "can't continue to use after you decide to use it".

candiodari 5y ago
Missiles in the Israeli-Palestine conflict are not a "real" threat. Even if they were unstoppable they wouldn't be able to damage Israel in any significant way. Likewise, any real military effort that would credibly end Palestine would get any political party in Israel booted out of power, or frankly, thrown in jail. Hell, Israel has a bit of a habit of throwing ex-politicians in jail even now. Missiles in that conflict are "ads". They have to do something that will attract attention for less damage to either side than can be expected in donations(/sales) it delivers for both sides and apparently, missiles it is. By that I don't mean that Palestinians or Israeli are at war for attention-for-donations. Of course there is a real conflict there. But this way of "running" the conflict can exist (for any length of time) because the value of the donations/weapons sales > the value destroyed by the actual conflict. It's not the cause of the conflict, it's just a Nash equilibrium in the conflict.

csee 5y ago

> Ballistic missile defense doesn’t have to actually work. It just needs to be credible to the opponent. How does this resolve the problem of the arms race described above?

freemint 5y ago
It doesn't but it makes selling overcoming the engineering challenges a lot simpler.