> Likewise, a NMD doesn't have to be perfect to be worthwhile. A system
> that shoots down 90% of the missiles is better than a system that
> shoots down 0%, right? We're blithely ignoring cost for a moment here.
> And anyway, the purpose of the missile screen isn't so much to shoot
> down nuclear missiles as to convince people that it isn't worthwhile to
> try to shoot nuclear missiles at us, since they are liable to get shot
> down.
Blue builds Missile Defence, at 90% effectiveness.
Red has 1000 warheads, say 10 for Blue's 100 biggest cities.
On average, one of those warheads will reach each city, despite the defence,
sterilising a 5 mile radius in most of the target cities. Millions die.
Your analogy works better the other way round. Red doesn't have to shoot
Blue perfectly. 10% effectiveness is just as effective, because the damage
will be almost as much. Nuclear strikes are designed to be overkill in the
first place...
Better no system and no provocation, IMO.
Charlie
