[bryanlarsen]

In any all-out war between two nuclear nations there will be no winner, just two losers.

[tokenizer]

Actually that's naive. Missile sites, response times, stockpiles, missle tech, defensive shields Nuclear submarines.

I get discouraged talking strategy with people who have no clue about modern capabilities.

Russia VS US would be game over. Pakistan VS India would decimate 50-70% of World Population - but not game over.

China has a very small stockpile of missiles. Also, All of them would get shot down, while Nuclear Subs of the coast of China would destroy every population center.

Not to mention, first strike with this capability by the US could mean no war... Just absolute and total victory.

So again, per my original point. Trade will be restructured. China KNOWS this!

[protomyth]

Well, we better get pretty good at shooting down missiles because North Korea has a bit of the crazy and nuclear weapons. I get the feeling that someone has looked at the Aegis combined with XR standard missiles.

I'm not worried about China. I'm worried about the last days of a dictator.

[mikeash]

Shooting down one missile is a lot easier than shooting down a hundred. The US has had the ability to defend against an attack from North Korea since the W Bush administration. That capability would barely dent a Chinese attack.

[protomyth]

I wasn't talking about China, just the "any" nuclear power is hopefully becomes a false statement given NK's instability.

Do you have a source on the "The US has had the ability to defend against an attack from North Korea since the W Bush administration." for ballistic missiles?

[mikeash]

This is the system in question:

https://www.mda.mil/system/gmd.html

The interceptors are expensive, so there aren't very many. That's why it can defend against a country like North Korea but not China.

[protomyth]

Ok, but why do you keep mentioning China, I said I wasn't worried about China. I'm worried about the crazy folks (e.g. NK) with limited launch capability. China is pretty stable.

[mikeash]

Because the overall context here is China, the potential for war with China, and the devastation that would result. I want to be clear that our defenses would not prevent that.

[m3ta]

Not necessarily. It depends on defensive capabilities. It's very possible that two countries get into a conflict thinking it is a mutual assured destruction scenario, only to find out one country is better at neutralizing attacks in-transit.

[rybosome]

As a resident of Seattle, I'd really rather not have the US' missile defenses tested.