Space-based ballistic missile defense: a multidimensional analysis (1985)
dspace.mit.edu
dspace.mit.edu
Assuming the cost gap narrowed, one side could theoretically outspend the other (by a little), forcing the other side to make more missiles, including them dummy missiles, which are much cheaper than nukes.
In response, the missile defense side would need to make more missile defense systems, and the cycle would continue.
Basically, it creates a situation where the Nash equilibrium leads to one side going bankrupt, and being vulnerable to a first strike.
Rather than break the mutually assured destruction equilibrium, the US and USSR ultimately decided not to build these systems.
Of course, weapons manufacturers keep trying to revive the idea, as it leads to infinite military expenditures...
Just like with nuclear ICBMs, you are only using it as long as you don’t use it. And you stop using it the moment you use it.
The US dropped the two bombs over Japan and that was it for nukes, true.
But Israel continually uses its missile defense systems, and seem to keep creating more layers of it.
Maybe, in this case, despite defense missiles being quite expensive to Israel, they can bankrupt opponents faster, due to a huge wealth gap.
But, anyway, it shows that missile defense systems aren't something you use once and "can't continue to use after you decide to use it".
Missiles in that conflict are "ads". They have to do something that will attract attention for less damage to either side than can be expected in donations(/sales) it delivers for both sides and apparently, missiles it is.
By that I don't mean that Palestinians or Israeli are at war for attention-for-donations. Of course there is a real conflict there. But this way of "running" the conflict can exist (for any length of time) because the value of the donations/weapons sales > the value destroyed by the actual conflict. It's not the cause of the conflict, it's just a Nash equilibrium in the conflict.
How does this resolve the problem of the arms race described above?
"It might be possible to generate as many as 100,000 independently aimable beams from a single x-ray laser module, each of which could be quite lethal even to a distant hardened object [e.g., an RV] in flight. " https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1988/eirv15n44-19881104/e...
This was due to an imagined gain of 10^6 to 10^12 over the xray output of a single device. In the PDF it is given as fact that they were able to achieve these gains, where as it was found that there was never any evidence of any x-ray lasing gain found in any nuclear test.
I've had experiences working with different agencies and teams in the federal government that I wouldn't trade for a spotted hog.
1) Hard work is considered fascist
2) Everyone is gung-ho about mental health and yet no one can define what precisely it is
3) Racism, gender identity and climate change dominate discussions
4) Authoritarian views (No free speech, cancel culture, struggle sessions)
And we have CIA ads where the ideal person is only concerned with themselves, never mentions they are American and never look up to something beyond their own self-identity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X55JPbAMc9g
We're doomed. I am an immigrant to America and my folks back home are saying "What happened!?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink#Military_capabilities
Also interesting bio on Elon's friend: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin#Career
> These various programs and policy recommendations came to a head in President Reagan's March 23 "Star Wars" speech. Reagan had been interested in high-tech defense systems from the years he was Governor of California. his interest in this area grew during the 1980 Presidential electoral primaries with the advice of Dr. Edward Teller (Lawrence Livermore Laboratory). In late 1981, Teller met with Lt. Gen. Daniel Graham (US Army, ret.) and Karl Bendetsen (Hoover Institution) at the Heritage Foundation, where the three formed a small group on space policy and continued to offer advice to Reagan.
Consider, for instance, that there is no way in hell you could touch North Dakota with Status-6. If Russia wanted to attack missile silos in North Dakota, they would need to use their own ballistic missiles for it. Ballistic missile defense reduces the chance that they could succeed in any sort of decapitating preemptive strike. That it can't also stop a nuclear-powered torpedo is irrelevant; that's simply not what it's meant for. Other threats are/will be countered by other systems.
Hypersonic cruise missiles are not in the purview of ballistic missile defense, unless they have a ballistic stage, in which case they might be. Hypersonic boost-glide vehicles, having a ballistic boost-stage, are countered by some forms of ballistic missile defense, but not all.
Ballistic missile defense is a defense against ballistic missiles. Not torpedoes, cruise missiles, artillery shells, nukes smuggled in shipping containers, frogmen going up a river with a SDV, or anything else. Pretty much just ballistic missiles, or at least weapons with a ballistic boost stage.
I was responding to this, specifically, but did not elaborate enough: "in North Dakota, they would need to use their own ballistic missiles for it"
There are a lot more ways to fly a nuclear weapon to North Dakota than just ballistic trajectories. Bombers, cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, etc.
No. That only means ballistic missile defense is not sufficient.