> On Wed, 13 Oct 1999, Spike Jones wrote:
> Commenting on my comment that defensively one cannot compete against
> someone of similar economic capacity who puts the funds into offsense.
> > Oh ye of little faith Robert. Looks to me like we
> > could defend ourselves against a hellishly determined
> > nuclear attack, given enough THAAD missiles and support radar.
What I don't understand is why anyone bothers with delivery systems for nukes anymore.
Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper to just assemble massive arsenals of bombs which are exploded in-situ? After all, once you blow up enough of them, the whole world is stuffed, including your would-be agressor. In a decent sized nuclear war, the effect would be exactly as devestating to all parties as if you had dropped the bombs on your opponent.
How about this: What happens if your nuclear-armed ICBMs are designed to blow up if they are about to be hit by a THAAD? So, even if your 5000 THAADs do effectively take out 1000 nuclear missiles, the lot of them explode in the atmosphere. That can't be good.