Golden Dome for America

Chambered said:
Can you tell me what these interceptors are, please? Do you have any test data from these super-duper interceptors? Or is this all just a make believe word salad of missile tech buzz words that are the flavor of the month? What do you think is going to happen to the strategic satellites of the county who launches said interceptors? They better have one hell of a quick launch ability, and dozens of satellites ready to launch, or they're going to be completely blind. It would be a "cut off your nose to spite your face" scenario that would cost said country hundreds of billions of dollars, and an insurmountable amount of man power to be successful.
Click to expand...

www.esa.int

Hypervelocity impacts and protecting spacecraft

The consequences of meteoroid and debris impacts on spacecraft can range from small surface pits due to micrometre-size impactors and clear-hole penetrations for millimetre-size objects, to mission-critical damage for projectiles larger than 1 cm.Any impact of a 10 cm catalogue object on a...
www.esa.int

Small objects, without any propulsion, solely relying on their momentum have enough kinetic energy to severely damage if not outright destroy spacecraft, that's a literal (and well known) fact. As such, it's easy to see how such concepts can be weaponized. If Trump is hell bent on creating his super duper space interceptors (most likely economically unachievable), then you can be sure that other countries will not only deploy similar capabilities but also develop countermeasures to it.

In a thread about hypothetical thousands of US satellites meant to counter ICBMs, the idea of anti-satellite satellites is the least outlandish and quite frankly the most brutally realistic one. I wouldn't be surprised if there are already satellites able to deorbit other satellites. And if one thing is easy than it's getting some sort of projectile or launcher that can maneuver in orbit, track a target and dispense a neat little cluster of tungsten or some other dense material traveling at several kilometers per second towards your shiny anti-ICBM satellite, completely shredding the thing. And the debris shreds it's neighbor, and so on until you have a large debris cloud that has carved a huge rift into the satellite population within that specific orbit as a whole. And when you do that a couple different times you can see why at the end the ability of that orbital missile defense would be degraded when only half of them are operational.

Now would such large scale orbital warfare cause incredible amounts of debris and lead to a cascading effect which hurts everyone? Most likely. Would any country consider this a worthy trade off in the face of being able to defeat a hypothetical US ICBM defense and thus make them susceptible to retaliatory strikes with the own arsenal? Yes, almost certainly.

So the stupidest and most unrealistic bit about 'Ze Golden Dome' isn't what potential countermeasures there would be (and they'd be plentiful), but the entire idea itself is ridiculous, badly written science fiction.

At that trajectory the US government will announce plans to station nukes in orbit lmao.
 
Last edited:
Chambered said:
A lot of them are rural farmers that travel to the cities for work.
Click to expand...
Do you know what "living in urban areas" means? As in, do you know what living somewhere means. It doesn't mean to commute there just for work, lmao.

BTW, from the same article you linked:

China's rural population as a percentage of total population fell to 40.42 percent in 2018 from 89.36 percent in 1949, according to the National Bureau Statistics (NBS). This means the nation's current rural population is less than 600 million.
Click to expand...

Maybe read the whole thing next time?
 
Why would you argue against a full-on missile defense? MAD hinges its whole existence on clarity and reliability. Which is not dependable on. The US strategic missile force is limp in one arm and would take years to fix. Russia has violate treaties before and undoubtedly is developing key capabilities in secret, something the US doesn't have the luxury to do. And so is China, Iran, NK. The world is not some pony fantasy where both sides sign a truce and go on to sleep. Where there's a weak spot the adversary will exploit.
 
Ed's statement about how Trump imposing sanctions and reducing exports to the US will hollow out their economy is also wrong I think. Check what percentage of China's output goes to the US - its nowhere near as much as you probably imagine There are 184 other countries in the world outside the US walled garden of imagined superiority, several of them with more people than the US. China can weather the tariff storms fine.
 
Last edited:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Ed's next statement about how Trump imposing sanctions and reducing exports to the US will hollow out their economy is also wrong I think. Check what percentage of China's output goes to the US - its nowhere near as much as you probably imagine There are 184 other countries in the world outside the US walled garden of imagined superiority, several of them with more people than the US. China can weather the tariff storms fine.
Click to expand...
Not to mention that China is controlling world supply of essentially all basic products - steel, aluminum, plastics, chemical, mechanical and electrical components. In many areas, they are close to 80% of world total production. And those aren't essy to replace. No industrialization is possible without cheap steel.

To put it simply - hthe world could manage without USA. Economical consequences would be severe, but as long as real production is working, world would be able to recover fast. But without China? It would took likely decades to even start to recover.
 
overscan (PaulMM) said:
Ed's next statement about how Trump imposing sanctions and reducing exports to the US will hollow out their economy is also wrong I think. Check what percentage of China's output goes to the US - its nowhere near as much as you probably imagine There are 184 other countries in the world outside the US walled garden of imagined superiority, several of them with more people than the US. China can weather the tariff storms fine.
Click to expand...

Good point, China also made sure since the last time around to start to decouple from the US and started reducing its exports to the US considerably, expanding into various other markets globally.

Currently China is exporting around 12% of its goods to the US, 2016 it was over 20%.

China’s total export value was $3.58 trillion in 2024. the US accounted for $438.9 billion. So, if China and the United States completely ceased trading with each other, China’s foreign trade exports would still exceed $3 trillion.

Dilandu said:
Not to mention that China is controlling world supply of essentially all basic products - steel, aluminum, plastics, chemical, mechanical and electrical components. In many areas, they are close to 80% of world total production. And those aren't essy to replace. No industrialization is possible without cheap steel.
Click to expand...

Exactly the US does not really understand how much they really need China.

The other obvious point to this thread is where is the money coming from, US debt clock is about to tick over to 37 trillion and counting.

Regards,
 
Dilandu said:
To put it simply - hthe world could manage without USA. Economical consequences would be severe, but as long as real production is working, world would be able to recover fast. But without China? It would took likely decades to even start to recover.
Click to expand...
Sorry but what? Seriously? That 30% of the world's total GDP would move on just fine.
 
The coming weeks and months are going to be interesting....
The US economy is not doing great: The US costumer is losing faith in their government fast and hard...
Small businesses, the core of the US economy, are closing down in an alarming rate because most of them relied on cheap imported products from China. Most of them are unable to cough up the tariffs and are defaulting... At a much higher rate then during the previous administration.. Shops are being visited less often because the average American can already see the empty shelves..

Another fun fact is that a lot of foreign investors are now looking at the Yuan as the more ( or even most) stable coin to use to trade. The dollar is losing its prestige and is pretty much being dumped in favor of the Yuan and the Euro... This will of course make it more difficult for the USA to trade with its partners and will it cause more inflation, which will drive up the prices for the average American, who will be spending less money buying things. This could trigger a run-away effect, that causes companies to fire more people because sales are slowing down, which will cause people to spend even less money buying things. Combined with less workers on the fields who all harvest the produce that end up in the stores, being sold at higher prices, because the supply is limited, will further decrease the buying power of the average American. The USA is in a deep depression, but doesn't know it yet.... But the president gets to shit on a golden toilet in his new plane, so at least there is some good news.
 
BAROBA said:
The coming weeks and months are going to be interesting....
The US economy is not doing great: The US costumer is losing faith in their government fast and hard...
Small businesses, the core of the US economy, are closing down in an alarming rate because most of them relied on cheap imported products from China. Most of them are unable to cough up the tariffs and are defaulting... At a much higher rate then during the previous administration.. Shops are being visited less often because the average American can already see the empty shelves..
Click to expand...
To summarize - by doing basically nothing, Chinese managed to drive America to suicide?
 
Suicide is maybe a bit over the top... It is also not China who started the trade war... They just are a random bystander.
China has still a lot invested in the USA ( 600+ Billion dollars of US treasury bonds, they want that money back).
It is more like a bondage thing going wrong, slowly....
 
Live Golden Dome announcement:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2Xd-3s8IqM&ab_channel=DefenseNow

Trump:
"We have selected an architecture"
"Space-based interceptors and sensors"

Hegseth:
"protect the homeland from cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, ballistic missiles, and drones"

General Guetlein:
"It's a great day for America"

Trump:
"We have some photos of some great people on the wall here in the Oval Office"

Various Senators
"[my state] will be very important for Golden Dome"

Reporter:
"Mr President, have any military leaders asked for this?"
Trump:
"There's nothing like this in the world, it's gonna be tremendous"
Reporter:
"but did any military leaders ask for this?"
Trump:
"they loved the idea when it was suggested"

Reporter:
"What companies are going to be involved in building this?"
Senator:
"In Indiana we make all the satellites with L3 Harris, the tariffs are going to be great for us in Indiana"
Other Senator:
"The beauty of your vision Mr President is that it's layered and it goes up into space... it's unimaginable how much lower the cost is... our technology sector is going to be a key part of this"
Other Other Senator:
"The new autonomous space-age defense ecosystem is more about silicon valley than it is about big metal, and so what's exciting about this is that it makes it available for everyone to participate and compete, but the Space Force general will figure it out."

So basically, no details were provided, but they did have a nice little picture on an easel with a picture of a digital-looking golden dome over the top of America, so that part was pretty cool and exciting.
 
Last edited:
joshjosh said:
So basically, no details were provided, but they did have a nice little picture on an easel with a picture of a digital-looking golden dome over the top of America, so that part was pretty cool and exciting.
Click to expand...

Well, they stated that they agreed on space-based interceptors.
 
Dilandu said:
Well, they stated that they agreed on space-based interceptors.
Click to expand...
This entire thing is still conceptual at this point. Trump basically confirmed it was his idea, not military leadership's idea. They might figure out later that space based interceptors are actually more costly due to higher required quantities, but I have no idea.
 
joshjosh said:
This entire thing is still conceptual at this point. Trump basically confirmed it was his idea, not military leadership's idea. They might figure out later that space based interceptors are actually more costly due to higher required quantities, but I have no idea.
Click to expand...
Frankly, modern American military leadeship doesn't struck me as being decisive or innovative or even secure enough to suggest any idea that might challenge the impression of status quo.
 
As a Chinese, it's quite interesting that I can feel both China and the United States believe their own demands are just and reasonable.
 
Dilandu said:
Its basically same for every major conflict in history; both sides believed their demands to be just and reasonable.
Click to expand...
I think this is actually true. The Thucydides Trap will always occur, but I still pray for peace.
 
Halcyon66 said:
20 yrs and 500 bil, my pricing model has always been double it and add 20% :cool:

Regards,
Click to expand...

Yep, that's a lotta haulin' indeed.

Space-Truckers-Debi-Mazar-Stephen-Dorff-Dennis-Hopper.jpg

The variables of the threats this system faces need to change only a little to inflate the costs tremendously, manyfold. Just on the face of it any figures should be treated as extremely notional and I'm afraid this is not a design bug but a design feature. Due to the nature - even presupposing only the best of intentions - of the endeavor I would've liked it to be called (and allow me to be somewhat philosophical here) "the Shield of Damocles" but now I'm wondering whether it could rather become "the Great Orbital Pork Barrel" or something albeit that doesn't really fit the current US regime's MO definitionally speaking, either. Anyhow due to my vagaries I am now reminded about the imagery (and even themes) of one of the more unlikely Sci-Fi films having been made i.e. "Space Truckers" (1996). Orbital diners, square pigs, and such.

space-truckers-square-pig.jpg
 
pagliacci said:
As a Chinese, it's quite interesting that I can feel both China and the United States believe their own demands are just and reasonable.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how you can justify stealing everybody's IP who works with you (and even those who don't, if you can get your hands on it). That's the biggest complaint.
 
Dilandu said:
Looks like that. The interceptor technology is already perfected by kinetic interceptors on GBI, THAAD and SM-3 - and its MUCH simpler to intercept the boosting ICBM than the re-entering warheads. The giant satellites networks with tight-beam non-jammable laser coms were pioneered by Starlink. And modern space launch technology make massive constellations deployment perfectly doable.
Click to expand...
Boost phase intercept is easier in a test when you kow there will be a launch, but few seconds time window instead of minutes time window for decision-making is impractical.

------------------------------------

"Golden Dome" is a self-defeating title for a program. It guarantees a perception of being too expensive. It's obvious catering to the lying moron, but as a program name it's suicidal.

The MAD concern is valid. Moreover, if BMD makes minimal deterrence impractical (the Chinese may already be growing their arsenal for this reason), then the threat will either grow in quantity, in quality (too many too good decoys) or simply use alternative routes (the Russian tsunami torpedo, cruise missiles, clandestine smuggling, non-nuclear attacks that technically crash the economy, continent-wide MEP (the 5 x 1 Mt at 500 kmaltitude scenario that's doable with "satellite launch" and so on).

In the end, the pursuit of invulnerable armour is neither efficient, it will disappoint and it's awfully expensive at a time when decarbonisation, income inequality, fiscal unsustainability, trade balance deficit, MINT weakness, primary and secondary education crisis and much else justifiably are screaming for huge resource allocation changes in the U.S..

That's way above the head of a fourth grader and a TV show co-host, of course.
 
@EmoBirb; IIRC Whipple shields do work on the ISS against micrometeorites.
(Whipple shields are also fantastically weight-efficient HEAT needle disturbers, as the disturbance of the HEAT needle does not depend on the shield thickness; a few layers of aluminium foil from your kitchen would have a measurable effect).

ARES | HyperVelocity Impact Technology | Shield Development | Basic Concepts

One of the main functions of the HyperVelocity Impact Technology is the development of advanced shielding concepts to protect spacecraft on orbit.
hvit.jsc.nasa.gov
 
A system designed to protect large cities and the US's silos could be obtained more cost effectively than a nationwide defense system that protects every square inch of the country, requiring significant R&D of upwards of a trillion dollars to implement. From a politic perspective, in order not to destabilize the MAD theory, that appears to have been adopted by most nuclear responsible nations, a defense system that protects major cities, which are the targets for most bad actors, and the US's silos, using an Iron Dome-type system, and the current ABM systems already in place would be a better all-round system in my opinion.
Considering that the more immediate nuclear threat to the nation is from non-nation state bad actors that could smuggle across an open border a WMD device into a city or cities to create carnage for the benefit of their own radical politics. No space-based system could stop such a threat.
 
Dynoman said:
A system designed to protect large cities and the US's silos could be obtained more cost effectively than a nationwide defense system that protects every square inch of the country, requiring significant R&D of upwards of a trillion dollars to implement.
Click to expand...
Actually no, the cost difference would not be significant.

Dynoman said:
Considering that the more immediate nuclear threat to the nation is from non-nation state bad actors that could smuggle across an open border a WMD device into a city or cities to create carnage for the benefit of their own radical politics.
Click to expand...
Erm... you ever tried to imagine how ridiculously hard would be to smuggle the nuclear device? They aren't exactly small, and they require careful maintenance and handling.
 
I’m with Dynoman. Golden Dome is the wrong answer to only part of the threat spectrum. It’s relatively easy to smuggle CBW agents, either chemical or bio/virus into such a large country, or to import nuclear warheads via an ISO container, targeting the major cities and seaports. By all means try a “do minimum” solution, Iron Dome around a couple of key areas, but anything more is trying to push one particular threat down to well below the spectrum of the remaining threat ensemble - I.e. it’s a waste of effort.
 

Attachments

  • 250px-DavyCrockettBomb.jpg
    250px-DavyCrockettBomb.jpg
    12.4 KB · Views: 4
Flyaway said:
The thing is I imagine China will see this as sufficient justification to push forward on the FOBS system that they appear to have been developing.

news.sky.com

Donald Trump announces Golden Dome defence project - confirming US plans to put weapons in space

The US president said the project - inspired by Israel's Iron Dome - will cost around $175bn. But the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the price will be at least three times higher.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
Click to expand...
All the Russian wunder weapons and China's recent splurge on their nuclear arsenal are a direct result of Bush pulling out of ABM.

The most effective and cheap "Golden Dome" was arms control... But that is dead.
 
jstar said:
'


en.wikipedia.org

Davy Crockett (nuclear device) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
There must be some VERY rich insurgents, if they could afford to spend on miniature device.

You see, there is a big problem with nuclear bombs. They don't scale down very well. The miniature nuclear device is, first and foremost, an inefficient nuclear device with excessive amount of fuel to compensate for accembly inefficiency.
 
Dilandu said:
Actually no, the cost difference would not be significant.


Erm... you ever tried to imagine how ridiculously hard would be to smuggle the nuclear device? They aren't exactly small, and they require careful maintenance and handling.
Click to expand...

The difference is significant if you take into account the anti-cruise missile defence.

The smallest nuclear bomb (powerful enough to devastate Wall Street or an entire oil refinery, comparable to the Beirut blast + radioactive dirt) is man-portable. Add lead shielding and it's not going to be detected if imported inside technical equipment that cannot be x-rayed anyway.

Still, I think the biggest nuclear threat to the U.S. is

- nukes on the island chains around China
- nukes on Hawaii (which is NOT covered by the North Atlantic Treaty)
- nukes on CVBGs at sea

typically by MRBM/IRBM with penetration aids and a little terminal phase preventive evasive manoeuvring.

Non-state errorists simply don't get access to nukes.
 
As far as I am aware this is a mostly accurate description of one of the “golden dome” proposals

Griffin now works with SpaceX employees on an interceptor at Castelion in El Segundo. The weapons are hypersonic glide vehicles that re-enter from low-Earth orbit, maintaining contact with the satellites through phased array communication. Satellites above give continued guidance to the ceramic-coated kill vehicle to descend from space within 2-3 minutes and hit ground targets anywhere on Earth (e.g, to intercept an ICBM soon after launch from Russia). Additional weapons work is developed by Dynetics/Leidos under the multi-use C-HGB program and Lockheed Martin under AGM-183 ARRW.
Click to expand...

www.change.org

Sign the Petition

Declassify Elon Musk's space-based weapons program before Biden leaves the White House
www.change.org www.change.org
 
lastdingo said:
The smallest nuclear bomb (powerful enough to devastate Wall Street or an entire oil refinery, comparable to the Beirut blast + radioactive dirt) is man-portable.
Click to expand...
And very complex and expensive. Smuggling a large amount of conventional explosive (or chemicals) would be order of magnitude cheaper.
 
quellish said:
As far as I am aware this is a mostly accurate description of one of the “golden dome” proposals



www.change.org

Sign the Petition

Declassify Elon Musk's space-based weapons program before Biden leaves the White House
www.change.org www.change.org
Click to expand...

Oh gosh, Mike Griffin again ? :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad: of freakkin' ESAS shame ? not calling for his murder, just thinking he is like a goddamn vampire - and thus somebody should drive a stake through him so that he stops returning again and again.

The ultimate opportunist.

Seriously... reborn SDI + Griffin + Musk = a guaranted trillion dollars boondoggle.
 
Dilandu said:
Erm... you ever tried to imagine how ridiculously hard would be to smuggle the nuclear device? They aren't exactly small, and they require careful maintenance and handling.
Click to expand...

It would actually be quite easy to smuggle a decent nuke into the US. Getting the nuke in the first place would be the hardest part. What you'd want to do is seal it in a barrel, then sink it and tow it underneath a fishing boat. Twenty feet of seawater makes a *fantastic* radiation shield. If you get pulled over by the Coast Guard you just drop the thing, remember where, then come back and pick it up later.

Once in the US, you suspend it inside a tanker truck (filled with water, gas, milk or cement) and make sure you don't go through any border checkpoints. Hire a driver who's not a drunk or a moron and you should probably have no trouble getting it pretty much anywhere.

Modern nuclear warheads: heavy? Sure. Big? No.
imagsdcsdces.jpg
 
This 'golden dome' thing reminds me of those crazy Soviet space weapons from last century. Even today, trying to build a worldwide space missile defense system is completely unrealistic—— just trying to get any country's leader to believe that satellites going around to the other side of Earth would only stop missiles aimed at the US sounds like an unrealistic fantasy.

Regards,
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom