Those 70's missiles were good looking, but in real action they probably wouldn't work very well :/ It took a long time for the technology to handle interception in mere seconds. Like, 15 years ago?
The "Tomahawk" missile interceptor had a nuclear bomb on it, massive "area of effect" eh? Better than the dirty bombs Russia was sending.
but in real action they probably wouldn't work very well
They did work well. The system wasn't shut down because of any lack of capability, it was shut down due to an arms treaty with the soviets that limited the number of anti ballistic missile sites.
We would have a network of ABM sites across the entire country by now if we hadn't signed that treaty, meanwhile other countries like China don't bother trying to de escalate their military capabilities. This is going to bite us in the ass in the near future when they inevitably decide to take Taiwan and completely cut us off from microchip manufacturing.
Yes and no. It really is based on how many missiles they claim they can stop and who's missiles they cant stop. Right now the US supposedly has about 20 ABMs. That's not even enough to stop North Korea even without misses.
But the cost might might make sense if you're looking at only stopping North Korean missiles. Even with a 5 for 1 rate that might be enough to knock every North Korean nuke out of the sky (if they can reach us). Certainly not enough for Russia and probably not enough for China. Though maybe enough to give China pause if they wanted to do an exchange.
Realistically, in a realm of Mutually Assured Destruction doctrines, you only need enough countermeasures to stop one volley, and you need enough in one volley to overcome their countermeasures in turn.
Anything beyond this is likely wasteful spending, though a bit extra for unforeseen situations is probably wise in this kind of thing. Maybe double at most, to account for two countries doing synchronous volleys.
Two reasons. MIRVs rendered them mostly obsolete since the system could be overwhelmed. Also the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty was signed which limited the number of ABMs to a hundred for both the US and Soviets.
Sounds like we should get them back up and running. Obviously not the same missiles, but there's no reason not to start with the same kind of logic of putting missile defense sites up across the country.
Back then, the Media went along with the bluff to help America defeat the USSR.
Now the Media will attack it endlessly, which only helps Trump & thus America.
Trump's greatest skill: tricking the Media into doing his bidding :>
I mean, we had something like the iron dome back in the 70s called the SPRINT missile.
It went from 0-Mach 10 in 5 seconds in order to intercept nuclear ICBMs. It worked great, and then it got scrapped due to a treaty.
Those 70's missiles were good looking, but in real action they probably wouldn't work very well :/ It took a long time for the technology to handle interception in mere seconds. Like, 15 years ago?
The "Tomahawk" missile interceptor had a nuclear bomb on it, massive "area of effect" eh? Better than the dirty bombs Russia was sending.
They did work well. The system wasn't shut down because of any lack of capability, it was shut down due to an arms treaty with the soviets that limited the number of anti ballistic missile sites.
We would have a network of ABM sites across the entire country by now if we hadn't signed that treaty, meanwhile other countries like China don't bother trying to de escalate their military capabilities. This is going to bite us in the ass in the near future when they inevitably decide to take Taiwan and completely cut us off from microchip manufacturing.
I love that he called it the "Golden Dome". Funniest president for real.
It'll be huuuge! 😁
Also: a slam on Islam? Their mosque in Jerusalem (Dome of the Rock) had that feature added in 1960.
That's... very suspiciously cheap.
Yes and no. It really is based on how many missiles they claim they can stop and who's missiles they cant stop. Right now the US supposedly has about 20 ABMs. That's not even enough to stop North Korea even without misses.
But the cost might might make sense if you're looking at only stopping North Korean missiles. Even with a 5 for 1 rate that might be enough to knock every North Korean nuke out of the sky (if they can reach us). Certainly not enough for Russia and probably not enough for China. Though maybe enough to give China pause if they wanted to do an exchange.
Realistically, in a realm of Mutually Assured Destruction doctrines, you only need enough countermeasures to stop one volley, and you need enough in one volley to overcome their countermeasures in turn.
Anything beyond this is likely wasteful spending, though a bit extra for unforeseen situations is probably wise in this kind of thing. Maybe double at most, to account for two countries doing synchronous volleys.
Bro, what happened to the old Nike sites? We had over 2,000 of them scattered across the US.
Two reasons. MIRVs rendered them mostly obsolete since the system could be overwhelmed. Also the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty was signed which limited the number of ABMs to a hundred for both the US and Soviets.
Sounds like we should get them back up and running. Obviously not the same missiles, but there's no reason not to start with the same kind of logic of putting missile defense sites up across the country.
We've been letting Israel test the technology for decades, so we just need to pay for the actual system.
I'd prefer if Israel actually paid for the damn thing, rather than us constantly giving it to them for free.
As we've learned over the last few months there are much worse things to spend money on.
It's Reagan's "Star Wars" all over again!
Back then, the Media went along with the bluff to help America defeat the USSR.
Now the Media will attack it endlessly, which only helps Trump & thus America.
Trump's greatest skill: tricking the Media into doing his bidding :>