The old "High Frontier," the old "SDI," "star wars," "brilliant pebbles," "a nuclear umbrella," etc. are all odd, ambiguous, confusing, misleading terms for modern military defense. The strangeness of the current military terminology--which mirrors the strangeness of the current military reality--significantly perverts, subverts, and disenfranchises the concepts the phrases ostensibly represent. These words all make it seem that self-defense today is impossible and evil.
The fact is, however, that nuclear defense and modern ABM systems are quite possible. And any semi-civilized nation-state without them is something akin to helpless, hopeless, pathetic, fundamentally out-of-control, and profoundly immoral. Western governments today are abjectly failing at their second most important responsibility: protecting their people from destructive enemies without. (They also fail at the first: not being themselves a destructive enemy within.)
These days, there's basically only one military issue anywhere on earth: anti-missile missiles. Both expert and popular opinion says that stopping an incoming ICBM is "like hitting a moving bullet with another bullet." Universal and conventional wisdom says this is virtually inconceivable and essentially beyond even hope of success.
But, in fact, precious little research has been done on this in the past 55 or so nuclear years. And this is quite shocking, inexplicable, and unconscionable. But outrageous and criminal MAD theories, strategies, and treaties expressly forbid it. And most of the research that has taken place since Ronald Reagan began it all, only semi-seriously in 1983, has been done by a hilariously motley crew of boondoggling, incompetent, blood-sucking, grant-hungry, pseudo-scientific con-artists who see the current various crucial defense projects as some kind of giant scam and government welfare program. These company and research heads mostly neither believe in nor support serious atomic defense; they, like almost everyone today, find a kind of 'security' in insecurity. (What fools we all are! I wonder what price we'll have to pay?) For all of these reasons, offensive missiles nowadays have a huge and unnatural advantage over their potential nemesises.
And yet, despite it all...there's the Patriot missile. Even the bankrupt and highly corrupt Raytheon corporation--using poorly adapted and 30-year-old technology--does a pretty good job with its ABM batteries. This defensive system would be far better still if it used "smart" guidance technology (untried) or satellite tracking technology (prohibited). It would be even better if modern computers and competitive bids were employed.
Never in the history of man has military attacking ability seriously outrun military defending ability. A good formula and truism is "Offense equals defense always." Nature and reality forbid the two from ever getting significantly out of balance. Nuclear weaponry is no exception.
If anything, the thrust of recent civilization--such as it is--suggests that the societal scale is permanently tipping toward virtue and justice(!). This means the at least semi-dominance of atomic defense in the world.
Admittedly ICBMs today seem invincible and horrific beyond compare. But at one point in the past the "Macedonian Phalanx" was a truly awe-inspiring military offense which let the relatively small army of Alexander the Great conquer most of the known world. But eventually it was thoroughly defeated. And at one point in the past a tiny and isolated medieval castle was a truly awe-inspiring military defense which whole massive armies couldn't breach. But eventually it was thoroughly defeated.
Nuclear missiles are no different. They can be neutralized. The West just has to try.
Anti-missiles missiles have many natural advantages over their rivals. They have to travel much less distance, can be much less explosive, and make the enemy come to them. Moreover the alternative of low cost particle, beam, lazor, or ray technology seems just around the corner.
The fact is the West can defend itself against incoming atomic warheads. High-tech defense from rich countries can defeat low-tech offense from poor counties. To not even try to protect itself--the current stance--subjects the West to massive blackmail, intimidation, terror, and horror. This is an outrageous, profound, and unwarranted evil.
Of course, not preemptively and unilaterally initiating a massive nuclear first-strike now against these dreadful "rouge states" and communist tyrannies is a far greater one.
