Whatever your weapon of choice, the counter is AI <something>. We test this theory every day with Bots vs Humans in any number of computer games. Bots will kill you every time, as long as they can recognize you. Hence AI Vision (and sensing in general) being the last hurdle.
Not at all. You can't hit an ICBM with an ICBM. All you can do is retaliate.
> The counter for a bomber is another plane.
Realistically, the counter is RADAR. Once you see the bomber, you can use any number of tools against it, including aircraft, SAMs, surface-to-air artillery, blacking out cities, etc.
> missiles are simply rocket-based drones
For an incredibly specific definition of a drone, sure. But in that case, so are bombs, satellites, and steerable ballistic projectiles.
> and they will have to become smarter too.
They have.
> the counter is AI
Not at all. An AI still has to operate a craft within the bounds of physics, and an aircraft flown at any speed will still follow a predictable path. Getting close enough with hypersonic shrapnel has proven effective throughout the years.
> We test this theory every day with Bots vs Humans in any number of computer games.
Bots in games don't need to follow the laws of physics. Their performance doesn't degrade with damage or environmental conditions. They have perfect information beyond just their vision.
Also, bots in games that require more information than "see avatar shoot avatar" - i.e. RTS games - have to cheat to outwit humans.
The Six Day War was won by an inferior fighting force when Israel used bombers to attack bombers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Focus
> nor do we fight ICBMs with ICBMs
Our only viable methods of defense against ICBMs is ABMs, which are basically the same thing in every way except the targeting systems and maybe payload.
An ABM is not a ballistic missile - which is to say it does not travel in a ballistic trajectory. It's a specialized SAM designed for attacking ballistic missiles. In addition to the targeting systems and payload other thing that's different is the motor - providing a greater propulsive force with a shorter overall range - which is basically the entire missile.
It does not require the development and realization of a technology to create a defense against that technology. We don't fight bombers with bombers, nor do we fight ICBMs with ICBMs, nor nukes with nukes (OK, perhaps not the best example, but only because MAD is a political deterrant against rational actors (which one can argue Putin is not)).
> Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons, that did not bring them peace. Arguably if they had nukes, they would not be at war.
Only if they were depraved enough to use them. At which point they have to concede that they too will be annihilated. The threat of nukes alone does not prevent a country from being attacked - especially by madmen.