|
Furthermore, it's not going to be about stopping 60% of all missiles launched at the US. It'll be about introducing such uncertainty in the minds of our enemies that THEY stop all missiles...by not shooting in the first place.
Keep in mind that a main-force nuclear strike entails a catastrophic decapitating hit on your enemy's C2 and counter-strike capabilities, NOT city-busting. All that will get you is annihilated by the inevitable counter-strike.
Think about a bullet-proof vest, and your mortal enemy is wearing it. You MAY choose to shoot at him, and you may actually be able to kill him, but you're going to have to be lucky, good, or be able to fire so many bullets that the odds of a fatal injury on the 40% that is un-armored is better than the chance he's going to kill YOU first.
So missile defense is extremely valuable even if it only theoretically can stop some unknown percentage of enemy weapons. Because the nature of a planning staff will only accept so many unknown variables in their calculations for success when the stakes are national survival.
Build it, pay for it, and improve it, and let's get the Department of Defense back in the business of DEFENSE of the nation, and stop relying on diplomats, our enemies' concepts of 'acceptable losses' and the tenuous notion of MAD to keep us safe.
__________________
"The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory."
- George Orwell
|