WEBF,
While I accept your argument is valid I am yet to be convinced that deterrence would be a factor.
Our rogue state may not be deterred sufficiently to not use WMD. I use that term as deterrence is not supposed to deter only a nuclear threat. Suppose our rogue state or terrorist sponsor state is deemed to have used WMD, how would be retaliate?
A perpetrator of a terrorist attack may be difficult to identify in the traditional 15 minute window. We cannot lash out at State A, if we do not know, beyond all reasonable doubt, that State A was the sponsor.
Supposing we did identify State A as such a rogue state, do we obliterate its population because of its rogue leadership? There are many states where the leadership is not representative of the populace.
In either case there is no call for a high-technology solution. One would expect that there would be an appeal to the UN Security Council, supposing such still exists after an attack on NY. The rogue state would be called to account etc etc. In the cold light of day it is decided that the rogue state is beyond redemption so we agree to lob in a couple of Trident missiles?
I think not.
In the 1960s it was clear cut. 'Every American' distrusted 'every Russian and Russian ally' and Armagedon would be wholly justified. Fifty years on . . . ?
Douglas Hurd came to that conclusion in his 70s and years after he left office. Dennis Healey has said he would NEVER have pressed the button and that was when he was SecDef.
Deterent forces are a nice to have and a wholly useless weapon in the 21st Century.
PN
ex-targetting officer etc etc