We are not capable of truly reinforcing Eastern Europe, math is not on our side

[Kelvin Mace]

130. I am highly dubious of the 99.9% claim

Some sources other than a Wikipedia page are going to be needed for such a claim.

The "Patriot Missile" was touted by Bush the Older as 97% accurate, when the real number was between 25%-33%.

Also, let us assume that the U.S. ABM system is as effective as you claim. It is still easily defeated by the use of decoys. For the same price of a single ICBM, I can also build 2 missiles that look and act just like a nuclear weapon, but do not have a war head. So, if I launch 100 missiles at you, but only 1 in 3 has an actual warhead you still have to destroy ALL of them.

Using a Fermi estimation would mean that at least 10 missiles would get through, which mean at least 3 actual warheads would reach it's target.

Russia has 3,000 "strategic" nukes. If we assume an initial launch of half that arsenal along with decoys we have 4,500 missiles in the air. If we assume even your best case scenario of 99% interception of ALL missiles and their decoys, that still leave 45 missiles, 15 with actual warheads arriving on target.

Bush the Older claimed the Patriot system stopped 97% of incoming SCUD missiles (far less sophisticated devices than Russian ICBMs), that would mean 45 warheads on target.

If we take the best real world estimate of 33% accuracy of the Patriot system, then double it to be charitable (by assuming tech improvements have increased accuracy). 495 warhead land on target.

So, even using your 99% number, 15 nuclear missiles are going to land on target, and that is a LOT of dead people. Using a more realistic number means possibly more deaths than at any other time in history. Damage to the world economy in these scenarios would range from catastrophic to apocalyptic.