Of course it has ethical issues. This could throw MAD strategies out the window. If a country can suddenly legitimately defend itself against an ICBM attack while still being able to destroy the opposing country, nuclear war strategies become "interesting". You just have to teach Joshua that even if one country survives, the planet might not remain habitable for the people living in that country. "Learn goddamnit, learn!"

MAD only lasts until it doesn't. I don't think someone like Trump would have handled the Cuban Missile Crisis well.

There's also the risk that these systems fail. Even if they blocked half the ICBMs, it costs too much to let the others in. But it also costs too much to not invest in such a system.

>And unlike bombers and tactical missile launchers, there's no ethical issues, because this saves civilians.

Tell it to sanctions against Iran which blocked acquisition of the S-400 anti-aircraft system. Stronger defense capabilities can totally change balance of power. This is why Russia is very nervous (and rightfully so) about deployment of the US air-defense systems in Europe, since strengthening of defensive capabilities over a certain threshold can transform preemptive nuclear strike against it from incredible stupidity to just a difficult decision.

TBH, I think Israel is within spitting distance of being able to do as well as the US. Iron Dome is so good that the US has bought a few and will probably wind up buying more. And that’s the low end of their missile defense options.

And then they scrapped them, because Israel would not allow the US access to the source code so they could fully integrate it in the the US battle network:

https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-army-scraps-1b-iron-dome-pr...