This idea being pushed by the Trump administration is a worthwhile endeavor or will be a colossal waste of money? estimates are being thrown out there from $175 billion to $500+ billion to build plus $40 billion per year after that to maintain

Who are the corporations that would most profit from this? How is this different than Reagan's SDI which was an enormous waste of money? What are the chances that this would be a money black hole that any savings from efforts by that DOGE department would simply disappear into?

Why isn't MAD enough to deter shooting missiles at the continental USA?

Reagan set up the foundation for a missile defense program that ended mutually assured destruction for the US side. Wouldn't say that was a complete waste.

Why isn't MAD enough to deter shooting missiles at Israel?

Seems like a waste…

Let's build a $250B high speed rail in California instead…

/sarcasm

What military assets could we retire/reduce with such a defense system? Something tells me we could easily reduce costs across many departments with a defense system that protects the homeland similar to the Iron Dome.

Because several countries don't give a **** about MAD.

Iran and N. Korea just off the top of my head as they're the most 'advanced' amongst our enemies that don't care about MAD.

chickencoupe16 said:

---

Why isn't MAD enough to deter shooting missiles at Israel?

---

Israel has a much different regional threat profile plus is a tiny area compared to the continental USA.

A rogue launch defense might be reasonable but a comprehensive defense would be unworkable and incredibly expensive and probably not able to reliably stop a major nuclear power's arsenal.

Gaeilge said:

---

Because several countries don't give a **** about MAD.

Iran and N. Korea just off the top of my head as they're the most 'advanced' amongst our enemies that don't care about MAD.

---

How do you know they don't have any self preservation instincts and don't care about MAD?

Pumpkinhead said:

---

How is this different than Reagan's SDI which was an enormous waste of money?

---

Seriously? How old are you? SDI caused Gorbachev and the Soviets to finally capitulate which allowed us to drastically cut defense spending….so much so that Clinton was able to run surplus budgets which no one thought was ever going to be possible. End of Cold War was a huge economic benefit. Would golden dome do the same?….i doubt it, but SDI was great for reducing govt spending.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

A rogue launch defense might be reasonable but a comprehensive defense would be unworkable and incredibly expensive and probably not able to reliably stop a major nuclear power's arsenal.

---

These are my thoughts. Agree. I am skeptical and have a lot of questions. I would like to know exactly what the defense goal is, how feasible, who is making money building it, and who is going to be making the money maintaining it year after year. The USA has a huge deficit and paying for something like this is a huge expense, so I think many voters feel similar as I do.

HarleySpoon said:

---

Pumpkinhead said:

---

How is this different than Reagan's SDI which was an enormous waste of money?

---

Seriously? How old are you? SDI caused Gorbachev and the Soviets to finally capitulate which allowed us to drastically cut defense spending….so much so that Clinton was able to run surplus budgets which no one thought was ever going to be possible. End of Cold War was a huge economic benefit. Would golden dome do the same?….i doubt it, but SDI was great for reducing govt spending.

---

Yes, I know the USSR went bankrupt trying to compete in the arms race but the fact remains that a successful and deployed SDI system was never implemented. It was too damn hard and costly and they finally killed it in favor of focusing on theatre ballistic missile defense (Israel's Iron Dome would fit under that category).

my biggest concern with this type of defense system is not how much it costs, or whether it should be done. my biggest issue is how effective will it be, in light of the costs. i say this because at the warp speed technology and war tactics are changing, by the time it is finished it would probably be obsolete?

News is that Musk and SpaceX are favored to win the contract. But do they know how to hit a bullet with a bullet like Lockheed and Raytheon?

I assume Trumps will give his buddy satellite contracts though

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

my biggest concern with this type of defense system is not how much it costs, or whether it should be done. my biggest issue is how effective will it be, in light of the costs. i say this because at the warp speed technology and war tactics are changing, by the time it is finished it would probably be obsolete?

---

To me the cost is everything. If it cost $1 and goes obsolete then no harm no foul. If it costs $500 billion and goes obsolete then f***!!!! And I have read reports that such a system would need a constant stream of satellite replacements to perhaps a tune of $40 billion a year. Sounds like a nice steady revenue stream for the companies making and launching those replacement satellites.

If this was an initiative about improving ballistic missile defense over specific areas or theatres like bases, then okay. But if the goal is the same goal as SDI was….the continental USA…as I said, I would have lots of questions. I hope there is some significant pushback on this and not a blank check just handed over.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

my biggest concern with this type of defense system is not how much it costs, or whether it should be done. my biggest issue is how effective will it be, in light of the costs. i say this because at the warp speed technology and war tactics are changing, by the time it is finished it would probably be obsolete?

---

To me the cost is everything. If it cost $1 and goes obsolete then no harm no foul. If it costs $500 billion and goes obsolete then f***!!!! And I have read reports that such a system would need a constant stream of satellite replacements to perhaps a tune of $40 billion a year. Sounds like a great idea and guaranteed revenue stream for the companies making and launching those replacement satellites.

---

I think the Golden Dome is like the Maginot Line. Great for the prior wars but obsolete by the time it is deployed.

NormanEH said:

---

News is that Musk and SpaceX are favored to win the contract. But do they know how to hit a bullet with a bullet like Lockheed and Raytheon?

I assume Trumps will give his buddy satellite contracts though

---

Leaders are thought to be a grouping of SpaceX, Palantir, and Anduril.

Golden Dome; Ike Dike of the sky

This is my issue with it. The miniaturization of warfare (drones) and cyber warfare makes this already obsolete.

Might as well build battleships again.

Who are we protecting ourselves from with this. The Russians already know if they attack they too will be destroyed . Who else ?

In my readings of apocalyptic scenarios(non fiction) even if the vast majority of Americans survive the intial exchange, most will die within 2-3 years due to famine, disease, and natural disasters. Only the very wealthy, doomsday preppers, and politicians will survive and prosper.

An iron dome model for the Us does seem unwarranted at this point. It would be interesting to know what future threats are being discussed for context. Launches would already be detected and tracked and at that point MAD is in effect.

Drone swarms around power generation/grid in CONUS seem like a more likely threat and could be delivered a number of different ways.

YouBet said:

---

This is my issue with it. The miniaturization of warfare (drones) and cyber warfare makes this already obsolete.

Might as well build battleships again.

---

tbis is kind of what i am hinting at. i don't know that this type of defense would be better than having a multi pronged approach. all that said by far our biggest threat is already inside the gates.

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

YouBet said:

---

This is my issue with it. The miniaturization of warfare (drones) and cyber warfare makes this already obsolete.

Might as well build battleships again.

---

tbis is kind of what i am hinting at. i don't know that this type of defense would be better than having a multi pronged approach. all that said by far our biggest threat is already inside the gates.

---

We are much better off hardening infrastructure than this idea. This is Trump over stretching.

Hard to know enough about the specifics, but we should be thinking outside the box with regard to our defense. We need to stay a step ahead of Chyna.

clw04 said:

---

NormanEH said:

---

News is that Musk and SpaceX are favored to win the contract. But do they know how to hit a bullet with a bullet like Lockheed and Raytheon?

I assume Trumps will give his buddy satellite contracts though

---

Leaders are thought to be a grouping of SpaceX, Palantir, and Anduril.

---

Going to be great for Peter Thiel and Andurils IPO…

K2-HMFIC said:

---

clw04 said:

---

NormanEH said:

---

News is that Musk and SpaceX are favored to win the contract. But do they know how to hit a bullet with a bullet like Lockheed and Raytheon?

I assume Trumps will give his buddy satellite contracts though

---

Leaders are thought to be a grouping of SpaceX, Palantir, and Anduril.

---

Going to be great for Peter Thiel and Andurils IPO…

---

Glad I at least got into PLTR at $27 last year. Currently sitting at $123.

These types of weapons don't have to work as advertised everywhere. It is enough for our enemies to believe they MAY work anywhere, so.it greatly magnifies the perceived risks and complicates actions needed to ensure a successful strike. One does not want to have their nation ruined in a failed blocked attempt to strike the king.

A poor analogy but similar idea is placing exploding coal into coal piles as the British did very briefly in WWIi. The threat alone had an oversized impact on the adversary.

The idea alone that this has begun to be implemented causes major issues for Iran,N Korea and Russia at a time when they have many other expensive and pressing issues.

Pumpkinhead said:

---

Detmersdislocatedshoulder said:

---

my biggest concern with this type of defense system is not how much it costs, or whether it should be done. my biggest issue is how effective will it be, in light of the costs. i say this because at the warp speed technology and war tactics are changing, by the time it is finished it would probably be obsolete?

---

To me the cost is everything. If it cost $1 and goes obsolete then no harm no foul. If it costs $500 billion and goes obsolete then f***!!!! And I have read reports that such a system would need a constant stream of satellite replacements to perhaps a tune of $40 billion a year. Sounds like a nice steady revenue stream for the companies making and launching those replacement satellites.

If this was an initiative about improving ballistic missile defense over specific areas or theatres like bases, then okay. But if the goal is the same goal as SDI was….the continental USA…as I said, I would have lots of questions. I hope there is some significant pushback on this and not a blank check just handed over.

---

A vast majority of future satellite constellations are going to a proliferated architecture, this wouldn't be unique to golden dome. The days of huge complex systems that are giant targets is coming to an end.

Also part of the solution has to be defeating hypersonics which mda's gbi doesn't currently address.

YouBet said:

---

This is my issue with it. The miniaturization of warfare (drones) and cyber warfare makes this already obsolete.

Might as well build battleships again.

---

How does drones and cyber make a multi megaton nuclear weapon that's an existential threat obsolete? While those are certainly very valid threats they're not mutually exclusive.

Jock 07 said:

---

YouBet said:

---

This is my issue with it. The miniaturization of warfare (drones) and cyber warfare makes this already obsolete.

Might as well build battleships again.

---

How does drones and cyber make a multi megaton nuclear weapon that's an existential threat obsolete? While those are certainly very valid threats they're not mutually exclusive.

---

Because we already have MAD for big ol ICBMs.

We need to harden infrastructure against smaller threats and cyber. That's the future.

MAD is a theory/strategy that works until it doesn't. If there's a viable material solution that significantly reduces or eliminates the threat posed by both nuclear IC/SLBMs & hypersonics I'll take that over a theory/strategy any day.

That's not to say that anti drone and defensive & offensive cyber capabilities aren't critical as well.

Jock 07 said:

---

MAD is a theory/strategy that works until it doesn't. If there's a viable material solution that significantly reduces or eliminates the threat posed by both nuclear IC/SLBMs & hypersonics I'll take that over a theory/strategy any day.

That's not to say that anti drone and defensive & offensive cyber capabilities aren't critical as well.

---

I hope there are congressional hearings asking to explain how this thing would be worth the huge cost.

The Russians for example have been developing systems in space that could take out satellite networks. So if the worst case scenario comes down and Russia no longer cares about MAD, they simply first take out the Golden Dome satellites, and then they launch? And then everybody including them dies? So how are they going to protect this Golden Dome itself supposedly protecting the entire continental USA?

https://english.elpais.com/international/2024-12-02/new-russian-anti-satellite-weapon-revives-fears-of-nuclear-conflict-in-space.html?outputType=amp

Gotta make sure this is a viable idea and not an expensive boondongle back scratching by Trump admin throwing Musk and others a nice paycheck.

That's why I said viable. And there are defensives that have been developed, to include pLEO which I mentioned earlier. Also, that's far from Russia's only ASAT threat, just the one that's been in the news lately. The remnants of the chicoms pla SSP have a significant (and growing) ASAT (both kinetic and non kinetic) threat as well.

But the only ones that can reach us with ICBM's other than maybe some parts of the west coast are the Russians . The Russians know any nukes lobbed at us will be the end of them which i feel like is deterrent enough with regard to them.

So if we are concerned about the Chicoms perhaps something smaller to address a west coast threat might make sense but why would the rest be needed? Even then , the same applies to the Chicomms. If they nuke what they may be able to reach on the west coast they are radioactive toast.

At the end of the discussion i just don't see the case for the golden dome . Deterrence should be sufficient .

What am I missing here?

Well I'd start with the fact that the PLARF can absolutely reach beyond the west coast and the fact that they continue to build out their ICBM & hypersonic capabilities at an alarming rate.