22-11-2010, 02:56 AM
My understanding of the strategy involved in building a missile shield is that its presence is valid only as an enabler of a first-strike by the people who erect the shield. Any kind of purposeful nuclear attack by a major nuclear-capable entity cannot hope to be defeated by a shield. The shield could and would be overwhelmed by the attack and the physics involved in the attack. The shield's purpose is simply to mop up and provide some (but not total) protection against the few missiles that were launched quickly enough or which survived the first-strike attack. Any first-strike strategy has to accept some losses; the only question is where, and how many. The shield's purpose is to minimize damage after the first strike has landed.
As for the ground-level diplomacy involved in the allegiances (actual, proposed or decoyed), that's another matter. Early diplomacy could be a bluff, a door through which further intelligence might be derived, or as part of some other diplomatic strategy. Watch, too, for the possibility that some parts of the shield might be, at the last moment, disabled by hidden technological means.
As for the ground-level diplomacy involved in the allegiances (actual, proposed or decoyed), that's another matter. Early diplomacy could be a bluff, a door through which further intelligence might be derived, or as part of some other diplomatic strategy. Watch, too, for the possibility that some parts of the shield might be, at the last moment, disabled by hidden technological means.
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"