What I’m suggesting is that a massive first-strike might be a waste of warshots (due to the aforementioned ‘fratricide’ problem). Nobody really knows, but that is considered a strong possibility, if not a likelihood.
If it works that way then the defender’s (second shooter) strike could actually have more weight.
Then you have to consider that Russia & China are far too remote for boost-phase intercept (unless a space-based system is developed). That means that you need enough mid-course & terminal missiles to handle the MIRV bus & individual warheads (& decoys) respectively. Given the probabilities of intercept, that’s a massive number of interceptors.
Don’t misunderstand, I’m entirely in favor of ABM Systems. I’m just suggesting that we need a space-based system if we’re going to have any chance at stopping even a mid-size attack from a 1st or 2nd rate nuclear nation.
IOW’s we see the same threats, it’s just that I think earth-based hit-to-kill systems are not the answer for a full-up missile defense.
Well, I basically agree with everything you are saying. It is also too bad that we have not further explored a moon base. President Bush had talked about this,, I have wondered if much has happened. This has been a great missed opportunity.