It's the same deal as people who watch Judge Judy and think they know how to handle a courtroom (or think they know everything about business negotiation because they watched "Shark Tank" a whole bunch of times).
Yes, that's the chief argument against strategic missile defense; that it's actually destabilizing because a defended nation can survive a counterstrike and therefore has no incentive not to attack (or, more correctly and as the story points out, it makes the undefended nation think that the defended nation could survive and therefore has no incentive not to attack, and that the only logical responses are immediate capitulation or an immediate all-out attack in hopes of catching the defended nation before its defenses are fully operational.)
The same criticism on a smaller scale was applied to Israel's Iron Dome, the idea being that the only thing stopping Israel rolling over Gaza was the threat of a mass rocket attack, and that Iron Dome negating that rocket attack meant it was only Israel's daily choice to not attack that kept Gaza in existence. (which...yeah, turns out that was exactly how it worked!)
Like, if Trump were announcing "we're going to develop a missile defense system and we're also going to eliminate our strategic nuclear arsenal", that's one thing, but he is very much not saying that.
(I'm not super worried because the reasons Strategic Missile Defense didn't work in the 60s and didn't work in the 80s still apply, and all Trumps' idea will do is spend another few billion dollars confirming it.)
The commenter archive features may be temporarily disabled at times.
was that actually Kim?!
It's the same deal as people who watch Judge Judy and think they know how to handle a courtroom (or think they know everything about business negotiation because they watched "Shark Tank" a whole bunch of times).
Yes, that's the chief argument against strategic missile defense; that it's actually destabilizing because a defended nation can survive a counterstrike and therefore has no incentive not to attack (or, more correctly and as the story points out, it makes the undefended nation think that the defended nation could survive and therefore has no incentive not to attack, and that the only logical responses are immediate capitulation or an immediate all-out attack in hopes of catching the defended nation before its defenses are fully operational.)
The same criticism on a smaller scale was applied to Israel's Iron Dome, the idea being that the only thing stopping Israel rolling over Gaza was the threat of a mass rocket attack, and that Iron Dome negating that rocket attack meant it was only Israel's daily choice to not attack that kept Gaza in existence. (which...yeah, turns out that was exactly how it worked!)
Like, if Trump were announcing "we're going to develop a missile defense system and we're also going to eliminate our strategic nuclear arsenal", that's one thing, but he is very much not saying that.
(I'm not super worried because the reasons Strategic Missile Defense didn't work in the 60s and didn't work in the 80s still apply, and all Trumps' idea will do is spend another few billion dollars confirming it.)