Golden Dome for America

Pardon me, had to read the whole thread and catch up.

joshjosh said:
On the other hand, ICBMs are cheaper to build than ICBM defense, so rather than hit the nuclear armageddon button, our adversaries might just prefer to deploy a few more warheads.
Click to expand...
I do not believe that is true with Starship being able to lift 100 tonnes at a time into LEO. And being re-launched every week or faster.



Dilandu said:
MAD is not workable with more than two nuclear powers in the equation.
Click to expand...
Exactly.



Dilandu said:
Russia already have unconventional delivery systems (like hypersonic gliders, underwater drone-torpedoes and nuclear powered cruise missiles), so our minimal deterrense is assured anyway.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure y'all have that nuclear powered cruise missile figured out yet, but I'll give you the hypergliders.

I also doubt that the Poseidon torpedoes are strategic weapons, there's just way too many issues with using them. Despite their warhead size and nuclear power source, I think they're intended to delete a carrier group, not a port.

But hypergliders alone greatly complicate the working of a missile defense system. Plus hypergliders are not engageable by vacuum-only weapons like an SM3 EKV.



lastdingo said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, it's actually easier than when you know there is a launch coming.

Boost-phase intercept can safely assume that any unknown launch is an attack. Someone launching rockets? They make announcements to the world that they're doing it (or they're supposed to). Which means that any unannounced launch is an attack on someone. So you engage every single unannounced launch. Same raw logic as behind a CIWS computer.
CIWS: IF (constant bearing, decreasing range), THEN engage​
BPI: IF (unannounced launch), THEN engage​

No waiting for permission to engage. Someone launching a rocket without having issued a NOTAM to keep planes out of the flight path is at the very least actively threatening everyone flying, so their rocket needs to be shot down.


Dilandu said:
The main bottleneck would likely be kinetic interceptors production.
Click to expand...
Correct. The US has absolutely bullshit absurd levels of "freight-to-orbit" capabilities now, including re-launching Starships every week or even every few days. Falcon 9s or Heavies can be relaunched every 48 hours or so... Heavies are lifting 50 tonnes at a time, F9s ~17-20 tonnes, and Starships 100 tonnes.




Dilandu said:
I rather doubt that they are made on hundreds-per-month basic.
Click to expand...
They probably aren't right now, but they could be. I'm assuming mass production of the SM3 EKV and 3rd stage, personally, and sticking them into a garage with the longer-ranged sensors and extra pointing motors to get the EKV mostly lined up for the intercept.
 
Scott Kenny said:
No, it's actually easier than when you know there is a launch coming.

Boost-phase intercept can safely assume that any unknown launch is an attack. Someone launching rockets? They make announcements to the world that they're doing it (or they're supposed to). Which means that any unannounced launch is an attack on someone. So you engage every single unannounced launch. Same raw logic as behind a CIWS computer.
CIWS: IF (constant bearing, decreasing range), THEN engage​
BPI: IF (unannounced launch), THEN engage​

No waiting for permission to engage. Someone launching a rocket without having issued a NOTAM to keep planes out of the flight path is at the very least actively threatening everyone flying, so their rocket needs to be shot down.
Click to expand...
You should stop embarrassing yourself.

1)
Aggressor claims civilian space launch gets a big rocket through, 5 1 Mt @500 km alt over CONUS, devastating EMP. U.S. is back in 1890 without 1890 skills and tools.

2)
Nonsense, the intercept altitude is far above 40k ft, no aircraft are there.
 
The only reason China has an ICBM program is because the US deported one highly skilled rocket scientist to China. All of this could have been prevented by a less stupid immigration policy. Considering the current US regime is doing everything in their power to attack universities and drive students away... I don't see anything good in the future.
 
Desertfox said:
The only reason China has an ICBM program is because the US deported one highly skilled rocket scientist to China. All of this could have been prevented by a less stupid immigration policy
Click to expand...
Don't be absurd. They would develope ICBM even without Hsue-Chu Tsien; it would just took them more time. They got all the basics from R-2 missile (the Soviet major improvement of German V-2 design, licensed to China) and they also received at least some data about R-5 IRBM. The Hsue-Chu Tsien contribution was very valuable, of course, but not irreplaceable.
 
joshjosh said:
1. The stable state is the status quo of mutually assured destruction
Click to expand...
You mean mutually assured likelihood of damage. Not destruction. Since we're talking about the US here, the majority of nuclear states do not possess the capability to "destroy" the US through nuclear weapons, regardless of where we put the threshold (e.g. ⅓ or ¼ of population), simply because of factors like number of targets, number of warheads per target, missile/warhead availability, attrition of launchers/missiles, and defense efficiency.
The US is not the only one with BMD (Ballistic Missile Defense) nowadays, and GMD (Ground-based Midcourse Defense) is just one layer in an existing BMD network.

So not all states are assured to be destroyed (in a nuclear strike), and not all nuclear armed states are assured to be able to destroy others.
joshjosh said:
2. It would be destabilizing because there would be no more mutually assured destruction, just unilateral destruction possible by the side with the defense (blue team) against the side without the defense (red team)
Click to expand...
Why would that be destabilizing?
And what would said instability cause?


joshjosh said:
3. Red team would have to threaten to launch a counter-force strike prior to the defense going into effect. The hope would be that the threat of nuclear annihilation would convince blue team not to finish the defenses. As blue team constructs the defenses, red team would eventually reach a point of "use it or lose it" with regard to their nuclear arsenal.
Click to expand...
Assuming your theory about mutually assured destruction is correct,
Isn't that essentially a decision by RED that they'd rather be surely destroyed than for BLU to have a better defense?
How does that make sense?
joshjosh said:
A counter-force strike by red team would be prudent as it would reduce the number of warheads available for blue team to use on red team.
Click to expand...
How? Because BLU would use some of their warheads to destroy RED in retaliation?
Wouldn't that be bad for RED?
1748254426136.jpeg
joshjosh said:
Once blue team has an impenetrable defense, red team is at their complete mercy, and must bend to their will or else take nuclear weapons to the face.
Click to expand...
As clearly was the case for every non-nuclear state...???
joshjosh said:
Let's imagine, however, that blue team constructs the defenses without incident, no nuclear use by either side. Blue team later learns that red team is working on 1) their own defenses, and 2) nuclear delivery systems able to penetrate blue team's defenses.
Click to expand...
Pretty much the status quo right now though.
joshjosh said:
Faced with possible future annihilation, blue team will be incentivized to strike now while it is still safe and effective to do so.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying it can't happen, but so far through every time we've been through this loop - how many times have nations nuked each other?
joshjosh said:
4. In reality, golden dome will never be fully constructed
Click to expand...
Shirley, you can see it's a bit of a reach.
joshjosh said:
China (and perhaps even Russia) will be able to keep MAD intact by keeping their offensive capabilities ahead of any golden dome developments.
Click to expand...
Right.
joshjosh said:
The game theory of MAD has been studied for many many decades. The US and the Soviet Union signed treaties limiting missile defense development, as such development could be destabilizing. We're fortunate that golden dome is merely a grift to redistribute wealth from the average American taxpayer to the Silicon Valley robber barrons, and not an effort with a legitimate chance at acheiving its stated aims.
Click to expand...
I can't argue against trusting the good will of an enemy, so here I conceed.
 
Desertfox said:
The only reason China has an ICBM program is because the US deported one highly skilled rocket scientist to China. All of this could have been prevented by a less stupid immigration policy. Considering the current US regime is doing everything in their power to attack universities and drive students away... I don't see anything good in the future.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. This suggests that someone in authority let this happen. It would be helpful if you named this deported person.
 
I am amazed at some of the replies. During the Cold War, there was "launch on warning." The person in charge had 15 minutes to decide. As submarine launched missiles appeared, launch on warning was more and more justified. HGVs travel rather slowly. Mach 5 missiles can be intercepted by lasers or particle beam weapons.
 
edwest4 said:
HGVs travel rather slowly. Mach 5 missiles can be intercepted by lasers or particle beam weapons.
Click to expand...
1: Hypersonics fly *low* compared to ICBMs, and are thus more difficult to detect and track on long range radar.
2: Flying low, Mach 5 missiles are in the air. Which means ground and air based lasers have to shoot through a *lot* of atmosphere to get them, only to likely encounter an incandescent sheath of air around them: opaque to lasers. And you're not using particle beams in the atmosphere.

Ground_Based_Radar_Detection-1024x512.png
 
Orionblamblam said:
1: Hypersonics fly *low* compared to ICBMs, and are thus more difficult to detect and track on long range radar.
2: Flying low, Mach 5 missiles are in the air. Which means ground and air based lasers have to shoot through a *lot* of atmosphere to get them, only to likely encounter an incandescent sheath of air around them: opaque to lasers. And you're not using particle beams in the atmosphere.

View attachment 771335
Click to expand...

www.gov.uk

Advanced future military laser achieves UK first

A military laser which could boost the UK Armed Forces with greater accuracy while reducing the reliance on high-cost ammunition has reached its next milestone.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk


I'd like to remind everyone that satellite technology has only improved sine 2010. Every inch of China has been mapped. The same with Russia. Space-based radar combined with ground radars will provide adequate coverage. Programs designed to filter out aircraft and civilian rocket launches means whatever's left is a potential threat.

Space-Based Countermeasure for Hypersonic Glide Vehicle

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate the effectiveness of a space-based laser weapon system for countering a hypersonic glide vehicle. Hypersonic glide vehicles are an emerging type of weapon system which combine the range of ballistic missiles with the maneuverability of cruise...
digitalcommons.odu.edu digitalcommons.odu.edu

 
edwest4 said:
www.gov.uk

Advanced future military laser achieves UK first

A military laser which could boost the UK Armed Forces with greater accuracy while reducing the reliance on high-cost ammunition has reached its next milestone.
www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
Click to expand...
While doubtless an adorable little laser, such a thing is unlikely in the extreme to be useful against hypersonics. It might be great against drones or even subsonic cruise missiles, but missiles that flash from horizon to horizons faster than you can mechanically track 'em?
 
Orionblamblam said:
While doubtless an adorable little laser, such a thing is unlikely in the extreme to be useful against hypersonics. It might be great against drones or even subsonic cruise missiles, but missiles that flash from horizon to horizons faster than you can mechanically track 'em?
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Mach 5 is slow. The SR-71 flew at Mach 3.2. "horizon to horizon" is not specific. Select a launch site. Go ahead. Then we can talk.
 
edwest4 said:
Nonsense. Mach 5 is slow. The SR-71 flew at Mach 3.2. "horizon to horizon" is not specific. Select a launch site. Go ahead. Then we can talk.
Click to expand...
Okay, let's try Mach 6 missile (a nice, neat 2 km/s) flying at 30 km directly over the laser site (for simplification). The missile would be visible above horizon at about 670 km range. It would fly straight directly over laser & disappear over the horizon at the opposite side.
 
lastdingo said:
Aggressor claims civilian space launch gets a big rocket through, 5 1 Mt @500 km alt over CONUS, devastating EMP. U.S. is back in 1890 without 1890 skills and tools.
Click to expand...
You're not understanding.

I'm saying that any undeclared rocket is attacked automatically. No human interaction required.

Any declared rocket still gets watched by a human.


lastdingo said:
Nonsense, the intercept altitude is far above 40k ft, no aircraft are there.
Click to expand...
Except for all the planes flying through the launch zone. And wherever the staging drop zones are.

Stop embarrassing yourself.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You're not understanding.

I'm saying that any undeclared rocket is attacked automatically. No human interaction required.

Any declared rocket still gets watched by a human.



Except for all the planes flying through the launch zone. And wherever the staging drop zones are.

Stop embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

You didn't understand either point (presumably bc you didn't read properly), so both our replies are nonsense.
 
lastdingo said:
Aggressor claims civilian space launch gets a big rocket through, 5 1 Mt @500 km alt over CONUS, devastating EMP. U.S. is back in 1890 without 1890 skills and tools.
Click to expand...
You watched too many Hollywood movies. While EMP is annoying, it's nowhere as destructive as shown in movies. Quite a lot of crucial infrastructure is resistant to EMP by definition; put into Faraday cages or grounded metal hulls to reduce their electromagnetic emission (which also protects them from external emission). Modern microelectronic is surprisingly resistant to EMP, due to small size and very short conductors (just no length for the charge to build up). And most of modern data net run on optical cables, which are completely immune to EMP.
 
Actually, that EMP scenario is firmly rooted in science and has been published 40+ years ago already.

Five 1 Mt warheads exploding 500 km above CONUS can affect electronics from so many directions that practically all civilian (computing, not power) electronics would be damaged or destroyed.

related https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA424218.pdf
 
lastdingo said:
Actually, that EMP scenario is firmly rooted in science and has been published 40+ years ago already.
Click to expand...
Yeah, one little detail - technology marched on quite significantly since then. Most of modern commercial electronics is orders of magnitude smaller (and EMP-resistant) than 1980s military tech. Optical data cables in 1980s were novelty; nowadays, they and wireless are the backbone of the data connections. And increasing standards about electromagnetic pollution caused increasingly more efficient shielding over enery-producing and distributing plants.
 
Almost nothing had an antenna in 1980, almost everything worked without intact microprocessors.
Back in 1980 telecom landlines were the issue. Now it's everything. A company collapses if it cannot process invoices, regardless of everything else.
 
lastdingo said:
Almost nothing had an antenna in 1980, almost everything worked without intact microprocessors.
Back in 1980 telecom landlines were the issue. Now it's everything. A company collapses if it cannot process invoices, regardless of everything else.
Click to expand...

We can still get land lines.
 
lastdingo said:
Actually, that EMP scenario is firmly rooted in science and has been published 40+ years ago already.

Five 1 Mt warheads exploding 500 km above CONUS can affect electronics from so many directions that practically all civilian (computing, not power) electronics would be damaged or destroyed.

related https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA424218.pdf
Click to expand...

People knew this 40 years ago and said, "We'll do nothing about it."? I don't think so. So-called "hardened" circuits appeared first on satellites and then military electronics. If "they" can knock out our systems, we can knock out theirs.
 
Desertfox said:
en.wikipedia.org

Qian Xuesen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...

Ah, spelled H. Tsien in formerly classified publications.

I should add that the so-called "Red Scare" was based on actual intelligence. The FBI tried to alert the administration to Communist infiltration during the late 1940s. In the early 1950s, the NSA was doing its best to decode secret Soviet communications. Some of these decoded messages identified some infiltrators, but by the time Senator Joe McCarthy was ready to present indictments, he was told that the release of such information would be "Highly inadvisable."
 
Scott Kenny said:
Pardon me, had to read the whole thread and catch up.


I do not believe that is true with Starship being able to lift 100 tonnes at a time into LEO. And being re-launched every week or faster.
Click to expand...
Starship is currently an experimental system.

There is no guarantee it will operate as advertised.
 
edwest4 said:
I am amazed at some of the replies. During the Cold War, there was "launch on warning." The person in charge had 15 minutes to decide. As submarine launched missiles appeared, launch on warning was more and more justified. HGVs travel rather slowly. Mach 5 missiles can be intercepted by lasers or particle beam weapons.
Click to expand...
No, not enough power.
Even the most powerful lasers right now becomes too weak when the target is dozen or more kms away.

You would require a laser that can maintain track and can have enough power to destroy in few seconds, a hgv flying at 40-70km high altitude, and 100s to 1000s of km away in horizontal distance.

Lasers just made a major come back due to emergence of relatively slow moving and cheap targets that can be intercepted at close ranges.
 
Defense Updates has put out a video about Trump's proposed "Golden Dome" defence system:


In January 2025, President Donald Trump announced a bold initiative to strengthen America's defenses against a new generation of missile threats with the launch of the "Golden Dome"—a comprehensive missile defense system. Drawing inspiration from Israel's Iron Dome and echoing the vision of Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, the Golden Dome is designed to create a layered shield capable of intercepting ballistic, cruise, and hypersonic missiles, as well as potential orbital strike systems.​
Click to expand...
Underscoring the urgency of the mission, President Trump declared that the United States must not fall behind in missile defense capabilities. To lead the initiative, U.S. Space Force General Michael Guetlein has been appointed project head. He will oversee coordination among military and industry stakeholders, including Lockheed Martin, which is targeting delivery of the first defensive systems by the end of next year—mobilizing American innovation and industrial capacity at an unprecedented scale.​
Click to expand...
In this video, Defense Updates analyzes how President Trump’s Golden Dome could provide US with a robust protective umbrella?
#defenseupdates #goldendome #usmilitary
Click to expand...
Chapters:
0:00 TITLE
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:24 SPONSORSHIP - NordVPN
01:58 BACKGROUND
04:02 GOLDEN DOME
06:33 RIVALS CONCERNED
07:24 ANALYSIS
Click to expand...
 
What was the old Safeguard radar plan, wasn't it only like 11 radar stations for the entire US? 1 in Alaska, at least 1 in Hawaii and IIRC 2+, and only like 7 in the Lower 48.

We already have the Alaska radar(s), and IIRC Hawaii has a pretty similar set since they hauled the Aegis test barge out there (effectively giving them Aegis Ashore). So we only need like 7-10 radar sets to cover the rest of the US... Well, maybe more than that, since we'd also need to cover the south and east coast.
 

Hope i did that video right.

But a really good video on why even if space x has made this idea very very hard insted of the impossible it was back in the 80s, the economics still do not make sense, inorder to just gard against north korean missiles you are going to need more missiles in orbit then how many thaad interceptor and sm-3's have been made combined.
 
All these highly advanced systems are fascinating, but if terrorists can launch drones from a truck, or hijack an airliner with a cutter, the dome will be of no use.

Only an effective combination of internal hostile population control, orbital sensing, and interception systems can work, and not always and not in all cases.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom