Your .5 reliability scenario assumes two things
I said clearly, on two tests it's point 5. I think I made it quite clear that I would expect the final system to be signficantly higher, but it will never be high enough to give any one any comforting feelings of security.
Given a massive attack you don't lose 250,000,000 you lose 4,000,000,000.
But BMD isn't supposed to be a massive attack, it's supposed to be a rogue nation, half dozen warheads. There's a decent chance one will get through. Can't calculate "decent" without knowing the exact system. But I'll contend that the better and more reliable option will be to do a pre-emptive non-nuclear strike. And it's a lower cost option than a BMD system.
You might be able to take out a few silos at Minot with suitcases
Hell with Minot. This is rogue state terrorism; they'll go after DC, San Franciso, Cleveland, Chicago, New York.
You can't do a significant nuclear retaliation, because you can't contain the retaliation. The mushroom spreads. If you hit blast N. Korea away, Japan will take a hit; China will take a hit.
Time to bet what China will do.
What do you suggest [for delivery system]?
The Chevy Suburban was the suggestion.
They [Russia] will oppose ANYTHING that decreases our vulnerability to their weapons.
Of course they will. That's exactly why they will pursue parity. If you can take out six, they have to add 6; if you take out 10; they have to add 10. Then China can't be left out of the game; they have to add 6 and then 8.
And then Ben Laden comes in with the Chevy Suburban.
jttmab |
