@JK
will the defense systems against non-nuclear ballistic missiles are actually conceptually complete. the implementation of one such system is much more of a fiscal issue than anything else.
radiation shielding is a much more potent problem for nations to face, and what we need to focus on.
furthermore, the "next weapon's system" is an interesting and very vague threat. dos you mean rail gun technology? which is definitely to be feared, but not NEAR nuclear bomb level of terrifying.
frankly biological and chemical warfare are the only two that rival nuclear arms in any respect here
but onto your claim about the accelerating arms race: i believe you're reading the paradigm wrong.
let's look at the history cryptology for one second. we have had a constant struggle in-between codemakers and codebreakers for centuries... millennia in fact. ignoringing steganography and focusing purely on cryptography: we had the mono alphabetic cipher created, and there was widespread security in code. then letter frequency analysis was created. then we had the polyalphabetic cipher, and then we had the Babbage/Kasiski analysis
and then the game changed, the One Time Cipher pad: a TRULY uncrackable code. no analysis by even a Quantum computer can break it. the problem with the OTCP was the distribution mechanism. and the game changed as Turing, in cracking the enigma machine that tried to address distributive problems, created the electric computer and brought us into a new age. we were an interconnected world with no truly secure codes, until PGP. after PGP and public key cryptography, code makers have won, and this has allowed the commercialization of much of the internet to exist.
the defense won in this case. most "hacks" you see now are done by bad programming or other human errors. try rarely do you see a truly inspired piece of malware break through encryption anymore. there of course have been slight variations since, but until someone breaks Riemann's Sum, we have a secure system.
Arms have progressed very similarly to cryptography, the sword was met with the shield, met with the catapult met with the castle (a ridiculous progression line, but the advancement of weaponry in terms of defensive and offensive capability are linear over time, though many times only in quality of ore and craftsmanship). gunpowder ruined war, and machine guns demanded trenches. but these things merely replaced the pen with the typewriter: to get to the internet-level of war: we needed Oppenheimer.
we have always known how to defend against or reasonably avoid a weapon, but with nuclear technology this is not the case. Reagan's star wars was the first attempt to address the problem directly. much of the left has demanded nuclear disarmament, a short term solution, that men of malice and ill will are sure to ignore. once the idea is created it CANNOT be buried, and the same goes for things in the physical realm all the same.
your reading of the paradigm is that currently we are in a state of balance because the aggressors are winning, i'm saying if we create an effective nuclear missile defense system: it's going to be a defensive race, not an offensive one.
but clearly i've put zero thought into this issue. and let me take your advice "Read between the lines. Or get some wisdom."
and i have some wisdom:
what would happen if north korea got an effective nuclear defense system operational?
imagine that. soberly.
we would have NOTHING on them. nobody would. our defensive capacities cannot and SHOULD NOT be dismissed out of turn simply because some folk on the left simply want to hide the reality of nuclear arms away and pretend that scientific advancement can march on without it ever being a problem for them again.
WWIII may never come to fruition, but if it does it will not be won by the side with the most nukes, it'll be won by the side who can defend against them.
this can be done by the hacking into our own nuclear missiles, or the creation of a nuclear defense system.
so how bout you get some wisdom. we've ignored this problem for too long, and nuclear disarmament is a lazy lazy attempt at a long term solution