[timthelion]

"It's just going to encourage more launches" - no it won't. The current missile defense systems do not have a deterrent effect. They are expensive to launch and the 3rd world missiles that they intercept are much cheaper. Even a successful interception is a victory for the agressor.

[dsfyu404ed]

On some level it's a statistics game. Even in the absence of a defense system X/Y missiles will hit the target depending on the details. A defense system reduces that number further.

Better to get the system refined when the stakes are low. When the Houthis miss the airport and they're a lot more likely to hit sand than city. When NK misses some city in SK (not necessarily Seoul because they can hit that with conventional artillery) they're much more likely to hit something we don't want them to hit. Now, the latter situation may not be relevant within the lifetime of this system but having the system be "battle tested" serves to make it even less likely.

This sort of scaled to all defensive and deterrent systems. The more successful they are the more the generals in the war room will say "We can't just do $offensive_thing because it's not likely enough to be effective in the face of $defensive_thing"