Is The America’s proposed ‘Golden Dome’ system a good idea? If so, why don’t more countries invest in this?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy33n484x0o

Posted by Fando1234

22 comments

  1. 1. Cost.

    2. Distrust (maybe we’ll get the one that’s 80% effective).

    There are more but these are the two main issues.

  2. Technical feasibility. This is bleeding edge technology that isn’t guaranteed to work 100% of the time. It involves shooting down hypersonic projectiles, which isn’t easy in the first place, from space.

  3. HW Bush tried this back in the mid-2000s and apparently they were somewhat successful when shooting down test ICBMs. Shortly there after everything became secret and they stopped talking about it it’s usually means it worked. If we’re going to blow money on things I’d rather they try to shoot down incoming missiles then just give endless tax breaks to rich people.

  4. “US officials had previously said that the Golden Dome will have the aim of allowing the US to stop missiles at various stages of their deployment, including before they launch and while they are still in the air.”

    Ah yes, the continental anti rocket system that stops the north korean missile even before it launches. AND while they are in the air, even better than stopping them whafter theyve hit, right?
    Bigger, better, and golden! WOW!

  5. I mean why not, add it to the budget deficit, its not like it has a pay-by-date. 

  6. The US spend more and more money on weapons they have no will to use.

    Better focus on “Vladimir STOP” system.

  7. If two people are aiming a gun at eachother in the open and one og them say “im gonna go stand at the concrete wall corner” then the other might decide to shot to not lose the stand off.

  9. It’s not a new idea, Trump just rebranded it. The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has been working on concepts like this for decades. It’s not as easy as just “the president signs something.” The technology is extremely complicated. Covering a nation the size of the continental US with missile defense is very different from a country the size of Israel (which is about as big as New Jersey). Also, the Israelis have lots of real-world experience with people actively launching rockets at them all the time. Nobody launches rockets at the US, and if they did they would be nuclear missiles which are a totally different ballgame than Hamas’ bottle rockets.

  10. This is a pipe dream lived by the older generation of Republicans under Reagan. Good idea for the states ? nope, Us does not have any adversary that will try to harm her home territory unless Us does it first. It would be seen by China as way of arming for oncoming conflict.

    A great way to fund Trump’s Plutocrats funders like Bezos and Musk. Musk only has the present satellite capability to help such a system, I would not even trust him. He overblows every time what he is capable of doing and down right delusional.

  11. It’s an offensive weapon disguised as a defensive one.

    The ability to hit missiles before they launch using interceptors based in space means the US can hit any land target from space. That is the capability they want.

    Remember when the US whined that China is weaponizing space? Every accusation is a confession.

    I sincerely hope Canada does not sign onto this. The defensive benefits are obvious, but the second it is used offensively, Canada becomes a legitimate target even if Canada does not maintain operational control over the system.

  12. Why does the US need this? It can only be because our glorious leaders expect to be in some sort of war in the near future.

  13. The fact that China has come out publicly against the DEFENSIVE US missile protection system should tell you everything you need to know.

  15. It’s not a good idea by any means

    Mainly because y’know…….. nobody’s actually shooting missiles at the US?

  17. its probably not the best idea. if it worked, it could cause the russians to decide to take more territory befor the technology can be spun off and sold elsewhere. if it doesnt work, it could create a false sense of security.

    honestly with this administration I’d be worried about implementing something they claim works, doesnt really, and they wind up cutting other missile defense programs that do have a decent track record

  18. This is a bad use of taxpayer dollars. The pursuit of absolute security will come at an astronomical cost. After the cost overruns, is this going to cost us 300B? We already boast the strongest military in the world and spend more money on defense than the next 10 countries combined. What incremental value does this “golden dome” add? There is no threat to us. All this does is further an arms race. This potential imbalance of power will in turn encourage our potential adversaries to further develop their counters to our golden dome which will eventually negate it.

    A better use of our limited funds is to secure our immediate threats to our national security: infrastructure, healthcare, science, and education.

  19. Doesn’t seem like it needs to even work. They only need to provide enough plausible doubt that MAD could possibly not happen

  20. Because they don’t have the money or the technology to do so.

  21. Funnily enough building a stronger missile interceptor usually has the opposite effect and forces your adversaries to build better missile technology and invest in nuclear proliferation.

  22. Why doesn’t anyone else try?

    Because literally no one else has the tech, know-how, and resources to even attempt it. China/EU could probably get to where the USA is at right now with concerted effort and tons of resources, but it’d take time.

    And most likely, the golden dome will fall short.

Comments are closed.