It is also not hard to envision a situation where some group within those regimes during such instability fires off a missile.
It's much less likely than nukes falling into the hands of terrorists, because even during periods of instability those with access to nukes are more inclined to preserve their position than to randomly attack us for no reason. Furthermore, even in states with weak safeguards, a Dr. Strangelove scenario is unlikely. Launching a nuke on a missile (especially in a country that is relatively new to them) requires coordinating the actions of many people.
Demon of Light said:
As of yet only with North Korea would this be a direct threat to the United States, but in a decade or two it will likely be a very real threat with all of them. Of course, you should not discount the potential for violent instability in other nuclear powers with ICBMs that could lead to missiles being fired. However, your position is ultimately rooted in the naive notion that there will never be a great power conflict ever again in the history of the world, which is just plain stupid and reckless to assume.
I'm not saying that there will never be a nuclear conflict between nation-states. The probability of one occurring between India and Pakistan is frighteningly high, for example. But no nation threatens the United States with nukes. Could that change in 20 years? I suppose. But it's far less likely than terrorists getting ahold of a nuke. While international wars are not quite obsolete yet, they are rapidly being replaced by wars between nation-states and smaller groups of militants.
Demon of Light said:
For ****'s sake even if we assumed all your absurd notions had validity to them it does nothing to prevent a mistake by a foreign military and in such a situation it would be better if the mistake was dealt with through surface-to-air missile intercepts than nuclear retaliation.
Again, we can't have everything we want. There isn't enough money to guard against every possible threat, so we need to focus our resources where they are most effective.
Demon of Light said:
Except they wouldn't be wiped off the map and anyone with any understanding of the situation would know this. A government is liable to have any unconcealed nuclear infrastructure and military facilities destroyed by nuclear means,
OK, so we might not wipe out their capital city with nukes. But all of that infrastructure you just mentioned would be, major government sites located in cities would undoubtedly be bombed by conventional means, and one way or another the offending regime would be deposed.
Demon of Light said:
but that just gives the party launching the weapons all the more incentive to make sure their first blow is as devastating and destructive as possible so as to minimize the damage of the counter-strike, or diminish the likelihood altogether. Nuclear war is not some act of reciprocal genocide.
There is no nation on earth that has the capability of launching a nuclear first strike so devastating that it would in any way hinder the United States' ability to destroy anything and everything it wanted. Not even Russia.
Demon of Light said:
Really? Do you have any ****ing clue what the costs would be if you are wrong about your naive little notions regarding the potential for nuclear war? Are you willing to bet your own life on it? You don't even allow the possibility that you might be wrong at the expense of potentially millions of innocent lives.
I think this is where I'm gonna bow out of the thread. Your last paragraph perfectly illustrates the fact that this is a topic that people become emotional about, instead of employing a level-headed analysis of the costs relative to the actual risk we face.
So far I haven't seen anyone in this thread make an argument along the lines of "Missile defense is more cost-effective at preventing casualties than increasing our port security or improving our intelligence-gathering" which is the kind of rational, calculating response I was hoping to respond to. Since I don't see any indication that that's going to change, I think I'm gonna call it quits in this thread.