Who said the missiles to be intercepted *need* be nuclear for shooting them down to prevent newsworthy events?Let's look at your scenario, and look at the alternate realities. Let's say there's a rogue actor who would have launched at the US but for THAAD. Given that they have access, you don't think they have a list of non-US targets they'd like to hit if they can't get the US? They'd still have launched, just at a different target. But there hasn't been rogue nuke launches. So there have been no rogue actors yet that have access to nukes plus the willingness + capability to launch them. So THAAD hasn't stopped this, nor has GDI or the rest of the anti-missile capabilities in the US.
Hence these aren't a threat in being vs stuff that isn't actually used. They are, one could say, a threat in being vs ordinance that is used.
As for the stuff of value we got from SDI, and crediting all of the PAC-3's success to the SDI, No. Most of it was not from SDI.
Yeah, most of it wasn't from SDI, but what's the point here? Some SDI work would have to be replicated to make them, and that in turn means SDI did contribute.
And i'm saying no one could know how much needed it will be, possibly we don't even know it made itself unneeded by merely existing, and these systems may well be before half their operational lifetime now.Yes. The point I'm asking about is return on investment, which is how much of it was used against the enemy. This is a fine tool to use for analyzing past decisions using the benefit of hindsight. Note I said tool. It's not perfect, but it's a good tool. And I'm not using it in places it doesn't work, like choosing what should be developed in the future.
The return on investment for an home insurance policy is -100% if your home is fine. It doesn't mean that the home insurance policy wasn't worth it, but one can still say that the Home Insurance didn't benefit you. And that's good.
I'm not saying that THAAD wasn't worth buying. I'm saying that so far, we've barely needed it.
Which is an utterly ridiculous way to rate any military systems. You cop-out with nuclear systems by "deterrence", it's even funnier when you apply it to boring conventional stuff like humvees or fighter jets.My claim is a simple one: the SDI has a very, very low Americans saved/$ spent rate. So low that even just counting the Americans saved by it is small. It's primary purpose was as a money pit (also apparently a spy trap), and it was incredibly good at it.
Counterpoint: Pakistan. Not communist either, but with partially similar issues, and nuclear arsenal roughly within the ambitions of current or future development of missile defense tech.Literally why I italicized it, I know that can change, I specifically pointed attention at it for that reason. In fact, I expect Iran's ability to nuke to grow beyond our ability to stop it, rather than us being able to catch up to any state that wants to nuke us.
Iran has an actual economy. It's a hamstrung one, but it's not communist. They can afford to do research. And attacking is a lot easier than defending.
In contrast, I think North Korea is going to fall further and further behind in the nuke vs shield race, as they simply can't afford many missiles.