Say you develop dead cert protection from nuclear missles..

Generally, you're not going to get 100% reliability against a peer that's actively trying to lower that reliability rate.

>>33208441
how many nukes do you think could be launched simultaneously by either the US or Russia

>>33208495
probably a couple hundred.

>>33208430
The Russians got antsy about SDI in the 80s because they rightfully saw it as destabilizing to the security of MAD. MAD only works if both sides lack effective defenses to mitigate a nuclear counter-attack, thereby keeping a strong incentive for everyone to keep it conventional.

If one side can establish a reliable and effective nuke shield, the strategic incentive to *not* use nuclear weapons for them is decreased because they can do so without fear of nuclear counter-attack.

>>33208495
Up to 1,000, but they'd want to keep a reserve around

>>33208430

If push comes to shove, it'll do the opposite. Nukes will get upgraded to circumvent defences thus rendering MAD effective again.

>>33208430
Whoever develops it first could just nuke every military facility in every other country and declare conquest of the Earth.

>>33208966
>If one side can establish a reliable and effective nuke shield, the strategic incentive to *not* use nuclear weapons for them is decreased because they can do so without fear of nuclear counter-attack.
While this is true in absolute terms, it should still be noted that even with a 100% effective nuclear interception barrier (extremely unlikely considering how many ways they might be delivered), there are still enormous geopolitical and other costs to using nuclear weapons. Especially in anything but a desperate, existential threat situation.

>>33208430
You will start the very nuclear war you are trying to prevent, because your opponent will strike you before you render his arsenal ineffective.

>>33212371
>(extremely unlikely considering how many ways they might be delivered)
To expand on this, no one system could possibly intercept and neutralize all possible variations or deployments of the following:
>silo or mobile land based ICBMs
>low-deflection SLBMs from SSBNs
>air, sub or ship launched VLO cruise missiles with nuclear payloads
>gravity bomb nukes from VLO bombers
>covert/terrorist applications for "dirty bombs", "suitcase bombs" or other widespread dissemination methods for toxic, persistent radiological isotopes in the food, water and air supplies of counter value targets
>larger covert delivery methods including civilian charter airliners, shipping and ground transport
>supercavitating or nominal nuclear torpedoes being deployed against counter force targets like surface navy formations or counter value targets like harbors
etc.

If you put a system into place which, for example, has the numbers, coverage and pK to intercept 99% of all incoming ICBM and SLBM nuclear weapons, the other nuclear powers will simply shift to concentrating on delivery systems with a higher success rate. Granted, it would significantly set them back, but in delivering nuclear weapons, as in most things, there are more than a few ways to skin a cat.

>>33208495
Missiles.. roughly 500 / 700 ICBMs, which are MIRV'd with about 3 warheads average.

And that's not all of them, that's just active duty ICBMs; not the ICBM reserves, not the subs, not the cruise missiles, not the free fall bombs..

A total nuclear exchange would see roughly 8 to 10 thousand nukes of all yields and nationality being flung around.

MAD is already obsolete, it's really just mass ignorance and governmental hyperaltruism that prevent the widespread use of tactical small-scale Nuclear strikes against countries with no access to retaliation weaponry (various countries in the Middle East, and of course North Korea).

As the danger of Nuclear Proliferation builds in these regions I suspect we will begin to see a push towards limited nuclear first strike strategies centered around complete area denial against radical dangerous groups who would prove infinitely dangerous to all civilized society should they acquire nuclear weaponry - especially radical Islamic groups for whom fear of retaliatory strikes would be nonexistant. In a case where we are forced to choose between complete nuclear destruction and long-term radiological impact to a limited foreign military-controlled site, and the same fate for an unknown number of potential domestic and allied civilian settlements, we would be foolish to hesitate in striking first.

>>33214050
Except that every major first-strike and retaliation plan involves destroying enemy missile silos, storage points and manufacturing facilities first. In all reality the world would likely blow up all the stationary launch points very early, and then just be left with Subs to contend with.

>>33214100
I suspect this is why certain interest groups oppose the US and Russia cooperating on any geopolitical issue. With no real risk of a counterattack, "just nuke them :DDD" becomes a viable option for dealing with, say, North Korea or ISIS, or even China if they try to start shit.

>>33214122
I'm 100% sure it is as well, really obfuscates the whole Shekelstein Oil Scheme (OPEC) and so they get their Useful Idiot libtards to drone on and on about how nukes took err jerbs, Islamic Extremists dindu nuffin and etc.

NK on the other hand is just a fucking joke

>>33214122
>>33214175
You idiots do way, way too much Alex Jones watching. Take off the tin-foil jock strap and let your nerds breath a little.

>>33212460
Opp?

>>33214332
No.
This is Oppens post >>33212396

>>33214050
Your numbers are way off.