In the 1983 movie WarGames, a computer is taught to be skeptical about the winnability of nuclear war by playing an endless succession of tic-tac-toe games. Yet with the advent of anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems, a future nuclear war may be fought — and won — by blocking the enemy missiles from reaching the homeland.

ABM systems are currently in a primitive stage of development, after decades of refinement and practice and billions of dollars spent. There has never been a real urgency about developing these defenses, however. The doctrine of MAD (mutually assured destruction) was strangely comforting to decision-makers in every nuclear-locked-in country, from the USA and the USSR to Pakistan and India. Yet it is precisely the ongoing proliferation of nuclear weapons that makes nuclear defensive measures so vitally necessary and immediately important. We simply cannot afford to twiddle our thumbs anymore on the engineering or cost involved. We must act now.

Rogue states like North Korea are willing to starve and sacrifice their own citizens for a chance at striking at the heart of the West — the United States. Who’s to say a desperate North Korean leader of the future — or Iranian, or Egyptian — doesn’t lash out in an emotionally charged moment of time when all the cards look stacked against him? Even 50 nuclear missiles hitting North America would be a fatal blow, and 50’s not a large number of nukes to possess.

It seems obvious that the best form of ABM would involve a directed energy weapon of some sort, like a laser sword or particle saber slashing across the sky. Missiles are too expensive and subject to counter-measures. A beam weapon could be used again and again at minimal cost.

Even if a missile is made stealthy, its supersonic passage through the atmosphere leaves traces of where it has been and where it is going. A system sensitive to the environment, namely the air, can detect this and act to counter it. There is hope in the ABM measures being developed or yet-to-be-developed. Hope.

One must expect that in any large-scale exchange of nuclear weapons between major powers, a handful will get through. This is part of the cost of “doing business” in the future. A few lost cities is a small enough price to pay for a civilization as a whole that is salvaged to go on and fight again another day. Consider that.

It is likely that satellites will be involved in any future ABM setup. The satellites will have to be shielded from incoming missiles themselves, like chess pieces vulnerable to attack from any direction by a rook or queen. Protecting all your assets becomes a mandatory affair, rather than a “nice-to-have.”

It is clear in the 75-year history of nuclear weapons that some countries are too irresponsible to be entrusted with nukes. I’m thinking specifically of Russia here. The Russians should have never been allowed to get their grubby hands on the ultimate weapon of power. America has been a trusted avatar of nuclear swordplay, only using the nuke in the dying stages of the Pacific war in a time when it was necessary to demonstrate the power of the junior nuke (a small number of kilotons) to the world. As tensions escalated in the Korean peninsula and Vietnam, pressure was put on America to use its awesome force. It declined, and in so doing proved both its responsibility and sense of nobility to history itself.