[SiempreViernes]

> but does not even attempt to explore the game theory behind keeping it intact

As you say, the Pentagon theory is basically "we needed them in the past for technical reasons" followed by a firm plugging of the ears as people try to point out that the old technical restrictions no longer apply.

For the last two decades there hasn't been a coherent reason for the GBSD, which you can tell by how people say that the "GBSD is needed", that "China is building ICBMs", but never saying that the GBSD will be used to deter China. The reason only the most careless fools would explicitly say the GBSD is to be used against China is pretty simple: you would need to launch all your missiles toward Russia and pray really hard they don't interpret it as a first strike.

[jjk166]

You'd have to launch all your missiles towards middle of nowhere Siberia. Combined with the inevitable back and forth in the lead up to a nuclear war between the US and china, it would be pretty obvious where the nukes were headed. And China's ICBMs would need to overfly the same territory.

Frankly, there are two realistic possibilities with regards to nuclear war: the US is facing both Russia and China, or one of them has agreed to stay out of it. In either scenario, the presence of one shouldn't prevent deterrence of the other.

[jessriedel]

I'm mildly skeptical that GBSD that makes sense, but the sorts of silly popular-level arguments you're describing on both sides are cartoons of the serious, careful arguments that do exist on this topic if you seek it out.