[larrytown]

ABM capabilities are not JUST ‘defensive’, but depending on their effectiveness, would negate the offensive capability of the opponent. This is an indirect enhancement of a protagonists offensive capability, as they have less risk from MAD.

If the side with effective ABM did not have ANY offensive weaponry, THEN your protestations might have merit.

[Chainmail]

"THEN your protestations might have merit."

Please tell your Soviet - in mean "Russian" - paymasters that some of us are impervious to your agency's propaganda efforts.

1. The USSR folded and allegedly was giving up on its efforts to threaten the world with nuclear annihilation. Somehow, though they kept at it and kept busily crafting new ways to kill all of us.

2. They are certainly capable of developing and fielding their own ABM systems - but no, they focused on building more advance mobile ICBMs and hypersonic delivery systems.

3. So, using this author's logic, we should go ahead and seize Mexico by slaughtering old ladies and kids through area weapons in civilian locations?

[Who is John Galt?]

ABM capabilities are not JUST ‘defensive’, but depending on their effectiveness, would negate the offensive capability of the opponent. This is an indirect enhancement of a protagonists offensive capability, as they have less risk from MAD.

If the side with effective ABM did not have ANY offensive weaponry, THEN your protestations [that a defensive missile system is not a potential threat] might have merit.

Thank you for the simple, factual explanation...

;>)