Yes, I know its not really that feasible.
Edit: If a nation does not fear retalliation due to this protection. Then the second strike capability is dramatically weakened. Thus making nuclear weapons a real option for the country available again
Yes, I know its not really that feasible.
Edit: If a nation does not fear retalliation due to this protection. Then the second strike capability is dramatically weakened. Thus making nuclear weapons a real option for the country available again
Actually, this is somewhat feasible and also literally happening …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty
The end of that treaty was one of the major triggers for developing hypersonic glide vehicle and autonomous nuclear torpedoes.
This is gambling not feasible. It only takes one.
What? Maybe if you’re Lichtenstein.
But if a large country like the US could guarantee that it would only take a single nuke in return for a lunching a first strike, that’s a pretty good incentive and would definitely undermine MAD completely.
Are you serious? You know how many warheads exist? Its going to be more than 10 they call it MAD for a good reason. No defense system can block a sky full of missiles.
Yes and so is every major nuclear armed country. That’s why they are developing new delivery systems to counter the more modern and proficient anti-missile systems.
Sure, for now a few hundred warheads on cold-war era missiles will still do the trick, but they might not in 20 years. That’s what makes it a continues arms race (which is exactly what the treaty was trying to prevent).
We won’t have a civilization in 20 years. Think about tomorrow with these short term oriented goals.
That’s news to me.
But it’s not really a topic that leads it self to short term goals, most weapon development projects take decades by itself already.