5 ms·
I see. We do have good systems, but too few to be of practical relevance in most threat situations. The North Korea case shows that the step from having one mi
by jupp0r 3y ago
I see. We do have good systems, but too few to be of practical relevance in most threat situations.
The North Korea case shows that the step from having one missile to having 100 is extremely short compared to going from having no missiles to having one missile.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> We do have good systems, but too few to be of practical relevance in most threat situations We somewhat intentionally lack defences against MAD salvos. Our defenses will likely remain adequate for defending against the likes of Pyongyang.
- perihelions 3y agoI don't think that's a consensus view? Jeffrey Lewis says the opposite, - "The point is that North Korea is clearly aimed at overwhelming the US missile defense system in Alaska... At that cost, I am pretty sure North Korea can add warheads faster than we can add interceptors." https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/1315005031075123202 https://twitter.com/ArmsControlWonk/status/13150050310751232...
- actionfromafar 3y agoCan someone explain - even if they got one through, wouldn't North Korea basically be a wasteland 30 minutes later?
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago> even if they got one through, wouldn't North Korea basically be a wasteland 30 minutes later The idea is if to have a credible threat to keep us from acting first, as well as giving many countries a vested interest in the stability of the regime: if the Kims go, North Korea goes, and so does somebody else.
- jojobas 3y agoCongratz, you grasped the facet of MAD that is unacceptable losses - for the US a single warhead getting through is too high a price to destroy pretty much anyone.
- onion2k 3y agoThe danger is that an unstable leader would do it anyway to martyr themselves and their country.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]