Nice to tuck primarly argument against ABM in the footnote - it incentivizes others to increase stockpiles to reestablish mutual vunerability, and missile excha

Nice to tuck primarly argument against ABM in the footnote - it incentivizes others to increase stockpiles to reestablish mutual vunerability, and missile exchangfes / economics favours attacker. >1. Assuming, of course, that the number of warheads remains constant. This was probably the best argument against missile defense during the Cold War, when it was at least theoretically possible that the Soviets could double their arsenal in response to the threat. It’s a lot less feasible today, given arms control treaties and the shaky state of the Russian economy. It’s plausible that China could pull it off, but they’ve long taken a rather more minimal approach to deterrence than Russia has, which means a reasonable missile defense system probably wouldn’t worry them too much. Also worth noting that yes, it’s possible to overcome a 50% effective system by shooting two warheads at each target, but the number of targets is cut by 50% either way. ⇑