>Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
In theory, a small smart defensive weapon should be less
> > expensive than an intercontinental weapon that is much larger and
> > requires expensive radioactive material handling to put together.
> > However, my comments are based on historical anaylsis of the
> > cold war MAD approaches and previous efforts to develop anti-ballistic
> > missle systems. Perhaps the costs in the equation have shifted
> > enough to require a re-examination.
>
>Billy Brown wrote:
>These days they are much easier, so ABM systems are becoming
>feasible. In another decade they will be fairly insignificant problems,
>thanks to continuing improvements in computers, sensors and
>telecomminications.
>
the
>future looks pretty dim for the ICBM.
>
>Of course, there are lots of ther ways to deliver a bomb. However, most of
>the militarily usefull methods (cruise missiles, stealth bombers, etc)
>require considerably more advanced technology than ICBMs, and they are all
>vulnerable to interception by various other defenses.
>
>The days of MAD are numbered...
>
This is a dangerous statement. H-bomb tecnology in the hands of religious
nuts means that MAD is no longer enough. The USA needs to set a new balance
of power that says "forget Mutually Assured Destruction, we can actually win
an all out strategic nuclear war with excellent survive vectors!" An
orbiting "station of death" fully stocked with Nuclear Missiles and all the
ABM and defense systems it needs is the way to go. The world must take the
religious threat seriously and I think the new ABM developments are exactly
that - good on them.
OM.