Re: Bye-bye INF treaty?

On Feb 23, 9:06 pm, Alan Jones <ala...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 19:17:56 GMT, h...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

(Actually, lest we forget how this discussion started, the *safe* thing to
do is to equip yourself with the means to *intercept* small attacks, so
you don't *have* to make such a choice based on inadequate evidence under
intense time pressure. Avoiding the problem is better than solving it.)

Intercepting a missile solves nothing.

It stops it from hitting whatever it was aimed at. Surely this is
better than having it strike its target?

A full nuclear retaliation
solves "it" quite effectively.

What prevents one from intercepting an enemy strike, in part or in
full, and _then_ retaliating?

- Jordan

.