Yes and no. It really is based on how many missiles they claim they can stop and who's missiles they cant stop. Right now the US supposedly has about 20 ABMs. That's not even enough to stop North Korea even without misses.
But the cost might might make sense if you're looking at only stopping North Korean missiles. Even with a 5 for 1 rate that might be enough to knock every North Korean nuke out of the sky (if they can reach us). Certainly not enough for Russia and probably not enough for China. Though maybe enough to give China pause if they wanted to do an exchange.
Realistically, in a realm of Mutually Assured Destruction doctrines, you only need enough countermeasures to stop one volley, and you need enough in one volley to overcome their countermeasures in turn.
Anything beyond this is likely wasteful spending, though a bit extra for unforeseen situations is probably wise in this kind of thing. Maybe double at most, to account for two countries doing synchronous volleys.
Two reasons. MIRVs rendered them mostly obsolete since the system could be overwhelmed. Also the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty was signed which limited the number of ABMs to a hundred for both the US and Soviets.
Sounds like we should get them back up and running. Obviously not the same missiles, but there's no reason not to start with the same kind of logic of putting missile defense sites up across the country.
That's... very suspiciously cheap.
Yes and no. It really is based on how many missiles they claim they can stop and who's missiles they cant stop. Right now the US supposedly has about 20 ABMs. That's not even enough to stop North Korea even without misses.
But the cost might might make sense if you're looking at only stopping North Korean missiles. Even with a 5 for 1 rate that might be enough to knock every North Korean nuke out of the sky (if they can reach us). Certainly not enough for Russia and probably not enough for China. Though maybe enough to give China pause if they wanted to do an exchange.
Realistically, in a realm of Mutually Assured Destruction doctrines, you only need enough countermeasures to stop one volley, and you need enough in one volley to overcome their countermeasures in turn.
Anything beyond this is likely wasteful spending, though a bit extra for unforeseen situations is probably wise in this kind of thing. Maybe double at most, to account for two countries doing synchronous volleys.
Bro, what happened to the old Nike sites? We had over 2,000 of them scattered across the US.
Two reasons. MIRVs rendered them mostly obsolete since the system could be overwhelmed. Also the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty was signed which limited the number of ABMs to a hundred for both the US and Soviets.
Sounds like we should get them back up and running. Obviously not the same missiles, but there's no reason not to start with the same kind of logic of putting missile defense sites up across the country.