4 ms·
Why do you think that "ABM is likely to be more effective against a second strike"? Do you think the ABM systems are usually deactivated in times of peace? What
by nickff 4y ago
Why do you think that "ABM is likely to be more effective against a second strike"? Do you think the ABM systems are usually deactivated in times of peace? What about in times of tension? Even if I agree ad argumentum, ABMs would encourage first strikes from out of the blue and discourage strikes in times of tensions.
- gpderetta 4y agoThere are simply less missiles to intercept in a second strike as the primary target of a first strike is the nuclear arsenal of the opponent.
- nickff 4y agoYou are assuming the first strike successfully destroyed some fraction of the target's arsenal (without the opponent launching before being hit). I am not sure that nuclear strategists would make that assumption.
- aerostable_slug 4y agoIt would, that's the whole point. That's why we develop ever-more-accurate missiles, and why we quasi-openly advertise their CEP. If you had missiles with lousy accuracy, you'd never consider a counterforce strike. Do as the Chinese did until recently, and target cities and industrial centers. Counterforce targeting is a cheap and effective strategy. OTOH, look at the United States: Trident D-5 is more accurate than the stock MMIII (it's not openly known how MMIII with AIRS from the MX fairs). We can land RVs so accurately that they may as well have conventional warheads. That's destabilizing — but we tend towards the exceedingly rational in our decisions.
- aerostable_slug 4y agoLet us imagine you are a nuclear power A. You do not have ABMs. Nuclear power B does, and you believe they are effective (key point). Logic dictates that you will end up the guaranteed loser on an exchange where A fires first with ABMs backstopping their second strike. Now, you might not lose when B fires first, so game theory says you fire first. Whoosh missiles fly and everyone loses.
- nickff 4y agoThe first strike is always advantaged, in that it may destroy some fraction of the opponent's arsenal; I'm not sure how much ABMs change that.
- aerostable_slug 4y agoThe advantage is with the clean-up. First strike takes out some amount of launch vehicles. ABMs have a prayer against x-y warheads, where y is the attrition from the first strike (which is nonzero unless you're dealing with a launch-on-warning opponent, which neither the US nor Russia nor China is). Few powers are really ready to perform launch-on-warning. The consequences for a false positive are too dire to consider, and we all also have a survivable second strike capability (with the possible exception of China, whose submarines are boiled crap run with an Evinrude outboard). And in my estimation, even China would ride out the first wave.