Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Jake McGuire" wrote:

:ICBMs cost a lot of money - apparently much more than their warheads.
:Even the US can't justify putting conventional warheads on them because
:it's too damn expensive.

And yet we're talking about doing PRECISELY that very thing. The
problem isn't just the expense of the things. It's the accuracy at
the terminal end. When the best you can do is hundreds of meters, you
want to be throwing BIG bombs.

Conventional ICBMs have been talked about for a long time. They
haven't happened. They're being talked about now in certain
specialized roles, mainly as a political effort by ICBM types to gain
relevancy, but it's not happening now either.

You may argue that this is for a bunch of minor reasons that are
different every time, or you may argue that it's just an inherently bad
idea.

A hidden weakness of NMD, it's not.

-jake