3 ms·
> But if the issue is merely scale, all you need to do is make more interceptors, which is a finite and predictable expense, as opposed to developing a new tec
by MichaelZuo 3y ago
> But if the issue is merely scale, all you need to do is make more interceptors, which is a finite and predictable expense, as opposed to developing a new technology which could be a massive money pit that ultimately fails.
Except it costs many times more to make an anti-ballistic-missile interceptor then the original ballistic missile.
There's a fundamental asymmetry here, because interceptors have to be extremely high performance to be useful but the launching missiles can be as cheap as possible as long as it can throw enough penetration aids into the approximate trajectory.
So regardless of how much is spent on such a program, any country could spend a small fraction to fully defeat it, maybe as little as 10%.
- ALittleLight 3y agoUnless we gradually produce enough interceptors over many years to disarm MAD. Then we could notice some other state building a lot of ballistic missiles and preemptively strike.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoHence why countries carefully monitor breakout capabilities, including interceptors.
- vkou 3y agoOr, if the other country is not ran by fools, they'll notice that you're building enough interceptors to break MAD and pre-emptively strike you.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ALittleLight 3y agoI would think unnecessarily invoking MAD would make the other country fools.
- bigyikes 3y agoThe alternative is that MAD ceases to exist, with one country having a stockpile of interceptors. That makes the other country fools anyway. Since they’re fools (read: potentially getting nuked) either way it could appear rational to invoke MAD with a preemptive strike.
- vkou 3y agoYou've just described a situation that follows from building interceptors, where the country building interceptors unnecessarily commits genocide.
- ajross 3y ago> Except it costs many times more to make an anti-ballistic-missile interceptor then the original ballistic missile. That doesn't sound correct to me. They're both rockets, one is much larger than the other and has a payload (in the case where we're looking at a failure of deterrence) made out outrageously expensive material. I mean, you can construct an argument that one is already built and paid for, or that 70's/80's technology was cheaper inherently, etc... But from first principles, no. An ICBM is more expensive than an ABM.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoDo you have any idea what your talking about? The launching missile can carry dozens of penetration aids, each one needing an interceptor warhead. Plus, the physical structure and fuel are by far the cheapest parts, it's everything else, guidance systems, maneuvering systems, etc., that make up the majority of the cost. Which each interceptor warhead needs but which dumb penetration aids don't.
- ajross 3y agoMaybe you could cite a reference on the costs of these things instead? I'm just saying I don't buy it. They're both extremely expensive, but ICBMs, even accounted per warhead, are more so.
- sephamorr 3y agoTHAAD interceptors look to be ~$100M each from a google search. I remember seeing a leaked document that suggested up to 3 interceptors would be fired at each target to guarantee a kill, but I can't find the document now, sorry. A Trident-D5 missile is $30M, and can carry up to 14 (small) warheads (which would likely be a mix of larger warheads and penetration aids). Trident is still in production, but note that it's an economical US missile. So given this very approximate math, ~$2M on offense could soak up ~$300M on defense. The cost comparison would look worse for the defense if you don't assume the (high) cost of a US offensive missile for parity.