Agreed, a functional missile shield would render enemy nations' nuclear threat impotent.
However, the question is whether or not U.S. will give the defensive technology out into the public domain so EVERY nuclear missile will be rendered useless?
No, they will not. As it is, a functional missile shield would give U.S. the possibility to use nuclear threat without fear of retaliation, and as such will with every reason be seen as a greatest threat of the age by others nations.
The missile threat faced by the U.S. actually has declined in recent decades. Two-thirds of the nations cited by Cheney have only short-range ballistic missiles with ranges under 1,000 kilometers. This is always ignored when he cites the 30 countries with ballistic missile capability. The long-range missiles threatening the U.S. have shrunk by 71% over the past 20 years. Five nations have developed medium-range missiles over this period — China, India, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan.
Agreed, a functional missile shield would render enemy nations' nuclear threat impotent.
However, the question is whether or not U.S. will give the defensive technology out into the public domain so EVERY nuclear missile will be rendered useless?
No, they will not. As it is, a functional missile shield would give U.S. the possibility to use nuclear threat without fear of retaliation, and as such will with every reason be seen as a greatest threat of the age by others nations.
jdahlbom 3 years ago
The missile threat faced by the U.S. actually has declined in recent decades. Two-thirds of the nations cited by Cheney have only short-range ballistic missiles with ranges under 1,000 kilometers. This is always ignored when he cites the 30 countries with ballistic missile capability. The long-range missiles threatening the U.S. have shrunk by 71% over the past 20 years. Five nations have developed medium-range missiles over this period — China, India, Iran, North Korea and Pakistan.
getplaning 3 years ago 2