re: #5 Political Atheist

What answer do you have for the relative effectiveness of having nothing in place to stop those missiles in flight? I prefer a fighting chance that does not point to first strike aka preemptive options. Which do you prefer?

First of all, that’s a false dichotomy. Those aren’t our only options. Second of all— the cost really does matter. The billions and billions and billions we’ve spent on these systems, systems that may not work if the day ever comes that a nuke is launched at us, that definitely will not work if a multitude of nukes is launched at us— that money may all be wasted.

The systems are getting better. We can now, just about, have a moderate to middling chance of success of intercepting the absolutely rock-bottom in missile technology, created by a completely broke state with a crippled scientific and engineering culture. There is no reason, absolutely no reason, to believe we will stay ahead of the technology curve on this even vs. North Korea, because intercept systems are so much goddamn harder to develop than systems that will defeat the interceptors.

In regards to the dummy warheads, sure, they are an added level of complexity, and as I said, I doubt the North Koreans will even be able to hit Alaska, and if they do, they’re not going to hit anything important. I’m not touting North Korea’s capability, but when our missile defense is based on the idea that whoever’s shooting at us won’t use a certain technique— that blows. In addition, as I said, the separation on its own functions as a dummy warhead, if you don’t know cold the separation profile. And we don’t.

Still, this might possibly be the apex of the missile defense program. In the ‘best’ scenario, North Korea fires a single nuke with a missile that we correctly guess the separation profile of, and an untested site that has never fired an interceptor successfully launches multiple interceptors at the same time (which is far, far, far more complex than launching one) and we manage to take out a nuke that would have otherwise hit Anchorage. In that one, slim scenario case, the money spent on the program would be worth it for this one moment. There is a much higher chance that the money has been wasted, the billions and billions and billions spent over the years, money that could have been spent saving American lives in a million other ways, has been completely wasted.

With the same amount of money, how many hungry people could be fed, how many people could get medication they desperately need, how many people could be educated? The system is never going to protect against a significant nuclear exchange, it has no chance against a submarine-borne nuke, it has no chance against a nuke carried in a cargo ship. The only possible protection it gives us is against an incompetent and insane regime that’s technologically crippled.

And I don’t think the guys who work on missile intercept are incompetent in the least. I just think what they’re trying to do is incredibly hard.

And I hate the false optimism given by the missile defense idea.