Last modified on May 9, 2008, at 17:17

Talk:Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MargeryCampbell (Talk | contribs) at 17:17, May 9, 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Return to "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" page.

I'll do some major work on this later. I still have to cite my sources.

I've added a lot and cited it, but I've kept the Km measurement style because A) its how the actual treaty is written and B) I'm not converting it cause I am lazy.--Elamdri 20:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Preventing the preventable

From the article: The idea was to prevent either nation from having a nationwide defense system against strategic nuclear weapons.

This is true as far as it goes; but the idea behind it was much broader and a bit more subtle.

If a nation could achieve an anti-ballastic missile system then that country would work towards that goal: this is destabilizing in two ways:

  1. Nation 1 has such a system in place, it can launch a "first-strike" to debilitate some of Nation 2's ballistic missiles...the respondant's launch of its remaining ICBMs is then "taken care of" by the ABM system.
  2. Nation 2 knows that Nation 1 has an ABM system in place, in order to avoid being caught in such a scenario Nation 2 launches a pre-emptive "first strike" of it's own using some of it's ICBMs. Nation 1 deploys it's ABM system knocking out a majority of the first salvo, but is then overwhelmed by a second and much larger salvo of Nation 2's remaining ICBMs.

The entire ABM Treaty relied on both powers to live by MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction), taking the idea of a "winnable nuclear war" off of the table. MargeryCampbell 13:17, 9 May 2008 (EDT)