Originally Posted by
bjornhall
That is one argument I have never understood. A single missile, even with a few warheads, won't take out anyone's ability to strike back. Yes, you can certainly afford to wait! Why would anyone adopt a launch on warning strategy against a single inbound missile?
It really depends on which end of the ball court you are.
you can certainly afford to wait
This presupposes an element of rationality by both, or all, players.
In the US they had a system called NUDETS. Any strike in the Continental US would be detected an a lamp would illuminate, and I guess a klaxon sound, in the SAC Bunker. What happened next would have been carefully scripted and pre-planned.
Now, suppose as a result of a bit of WMD activity on some of our property our leader decided that a CBM delivered some 30 minutes later to their MOD would serve as a suitable chastisement and warning. The enemy might assume it to be, a dud, then on the principle of use it or lose it they may launch a nuclear counter-strike.
There have been many instances of power play where in cold analysis afterwards the play was irrational.
Ballistic missiles are hard-wired in our psychic as deliverers of doom and gloom. If the enemy has the means then you cannot assume a rational "let's sit and wait." Look at the tensions in Israel when they did just that; it took lots of cajuns and lots of persuasion when Scuds started to drop in.