Golden Dome for America

[Temistocle]

I just read the "top level budget proposal" linked here: https://spacenews.com/white-house-b...-out-sls-and-orion-scale-back-iss-operations/
(it was suggested by Flyaway in post #98 of the thread White House may seek to slash NASA’s science budget by 50 percent).
In the DoD section there is this statement: "makes a down-payment on the development and deployment of a Golden Dome for America, a next-generation missile defense shield that would protect the U.S. from missile threats".
I really not know what Golden Dome for America is, but I think it needs an appropriate thread.

A link from CCN (March 22):
"US arms manufacturers are already seeing dollar signs. The Missile Defense Agency held an Industry Day in mid-February to solicit bids from companies interested in helping to plan and build Golden Dome. The agency received more than 360 secret and unclassified abstracts about ideas for how to plan and execute the system. Lockheed Martin has taken it a step further, creating a polished website for Golden Dome claiming the world’s largest defense contractor has the “proven, mission-tested capabilities and track record of integration to bring this effort to life."

Here the Lockheed Martin website.

Here a link from Routers (April 27):
"... Trump administration and the Pentagon ... would build and launch 400 to more than 1,000 satellites circling the globe to sense missiles and track their movement, sources said. A separate fleet of 200 attack satellites armed with missiles or lasers would then bring enemy missiles down, three of the sources said."

Some other link can be found on Internet; the discussion is open...

 

[Archibald]

Smart rocks & brilliant pebbles; Teledesic, Iridum, Globalstar; OneWeb and Starlink. Three generations of mega-constellations projects. Maybe this time it is doable ?

 

[Dilandu]

Smart rocks & brilliant pebbles; Teledesic, Iridum, Globalstar; OneWeb and Starlink. Three generations of mega-constellations projects. Maybe this time it is doable ?

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.

 

[joshjosh]

Any serious attempt to develop a missile defense layer impenetrable to Russia and China would be destabilizing and could lead to nuclear armageddon. MAD keeps nuclear peers in check. If one side works to escape the confines of MAD, to be able to launch strategic countervalue or counterforce attacks on the other, then the other side will be in a use-it-or-lose-it situation with regard to their nuclear deterrent.

Developing a truly impenetrable missile defense shield for the US, capable of stopping a strategic attack from Russia and/or China, would likely cost trillions of dollars. If America wants to save a buck and get the cost below a trillion dollars in exchange for allowing some small but meaningful percentage of the adversary's warheads to impact, that might be possible.

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.

Golden Dome is either infeasible, financially impossible, or catastrophically destabilizing.

So where did this idea come from? To any sane person, it is obvious that this idea came directly from Donald himself. Perhaps he felt like his friend Bibi had a better toy than he did in the Iron Dome.

If Golden Dome had been an initiative from top brass at the DOD, one would expect said top brass to have some idea of what Golden Dome is meant to be. Instead, they have absolutely no idea.

Here is a HASC Strategic Forces hearing that happened on April 30th. Witnesses included Gen. Guillot, USAF, Commander NORTHCOM & NORAD; Gen. Collins, USAF, Director MDA; Gen. Gainey, Commander USASMDC.

These are the people you would expect to be in the know regarding Golden Dome, and they knew nothing. They testified that they were waiting for direction from OSD on the requirements for Golden Dome. This initiative comes from SECDEF at the very least, but almost certainly directly from Donald's elderly brain.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi2d0XMXMA4&t=1s&ab_channel=U.S.HouseArmedServicesCommittee


Based on reporting, Golden Dome might just be used to embezzle American taxpayer dollars to Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, the robber baron billionaires currently stripping the United States for parts to be sold as scrap to our adversaries.

This is High Treason.

 

[UpForce]

Smart rocks & brilliant pebbles; Teledesic, Iridum, Globalstar; OneWeb and Starlink. Three generations of mega-constellations projects. Maybe this time it is doable ?

https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sdi-brilliant-pebbles.4733/page-2#post-781807

Part art, part science and a lot of tolerance for the quirks of the human condition and you may have something going (relevant Arms Control Wonk podcast beyond the link - Edit: the video has fewer than nine hundred views, given the vast financial, ethical and strategic dimensions of this remarkably few people show any interest in it). Change the parameters and/or preconceptions a little (even merely technological ones) and it swings from rational to absurdly untenable (and back again). Will times capability may equal deterrence but it's not a case of putting your silver bullet up there once, one truly golden aspect of this dome is getting to maintain it. Seems sorta tailor made for sloganistic isolationists enthralled by anything to do with the latter noble metal, or the mere evocation thereof.

 

[Dilandu]

Any serious attempt to develop a missile defense layer impenetrable to Russia and China would be destabilizing and could lead to nuclear armageddon. MAD keeps nuclear peers in check. If one side works to escape the confines of MAD, to be able to launch strategic countervalue or counterforce attacks on the other, then the other side will be in a use-it-or-lose-it situation with regard to their nuclear deterrent.

MAD is not workable with more than two nuclear powers in the equation.

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.

No, this equation did not work for space-based boost-stage defenses, which are much cheaper to deploy than ICBM's.

 

[DWG]

If two nations depend on MAD to keep each other in check, and one develops a technology that would allow them to destroy the other while keeping their own territory intact, then it creates a pressure on the other nation to strike before that technology is in place and the nation with the protective dome can destroy them. This can be ameliorated by the general levels of trust that the protected nation won't launch a pre-emptive strike, but that's heavily dependent on the predictability and reliability of that nation's leadership.

 

[Chambered]

If two nations depend on MAD to keep each other in check, and one develops a technology that would allow them to destroy the other while keeping their own territory intact, then it creates a pressure on the other nation to strike before that technology is in place and the nation with the protective dome can destroy them. This can be ameliorated by the general levels of trust that the protected nation won't launch a pre-emptive strike, but that's heavily dependent on the predictability and reliability of that nation's leadership.

So, they commit suicide by cop, basically? You assume that country has a death wish, and the leader is suicidal. Which, history has shown to be quite wrong. There's nothing those megalomaniac despots ruling Russia and China love more than their own lives, and the power and money their positions give them. Launching nukes is a surefire way to ruin all that, and something not even the most deluded leader would do.

 

[starviking]

So where did this idea come from? To any sane person, it is obvious that this idea came directly from Donald himself. Perhaps he felt like his friend Bibi had a better toy than he did in the Iron Dome.
<SNIP>
Based on reporting, Golden Dome might just be used to embezzle American taxpayer dollars to Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, the robber baron billionaires currently stripping the United States for parts to be sold as scrap to our adversaries.

This is High Treason.

I’m more likely to think that Elon Musk, if not the direct originator of the idea, was the one supporting it the most: mega constellations of expensive satellite, satellites that will need boosting and replenished for a long, long time… I wonder what space programme could be used to do that? Starship.

 

[starviking]

So, they commit suicide by cop, basically? You assume that country has a death wish, and the leader is suicidal. Which, history has shown to be quite wrong. There's nothing those megalomaniac despots ruling Russia and China love more than their own lives, and the power and money their positions give them. Launching nukes is a surefire way to ruin all that, and something not even the most deluded leader would do.

That apparently was the thought processes of the Soviet Union when faced with the Space Shuttle - which they assumed was actually an orbital bomber for decapitation strikes on the SU.

 

[starviking]

No, this equation did not work for space-based boost-stage defenses, which are much cheaper to deploy than ICBM's.

Not having actual experience of space-based boost defences, I don’t think we can definitively state their cost relationship to ICBMs.

 

[Chambered]

That apparently was the thought processes of the Soviet Union when faced with the Space Shuttle - which they assumed was actually an orbital bomber for decapitation strikes on the SU.

And yet, here we are...

 

[starviking]

And yet, here we are...

Risks exist, but do not have to lead to the worst possible case.

 

[UpForce]

satellites that will need boosting and replenished for a long, long time…

Exactly. The premise of those pushing for Brilliant Pebbles 2.0 is that it's now feasible/economical. Quite naturally their calculations are based on the most optimistic and favorable variables which result in a requirement of 2000 satellites on orbit, $3.5Bn/year replenishment cost.

Sizing the constellation is very sensitive to 1) adversaries' missile burn time and 2) kill vehicle release time/OODA loop time (at least). If I understood it correctly (from Arms Control Wonk) even current US adversaries' booster performance exceeds the optimistic scenario, plausibly warranting more like 5 - 6 thousand satellites and an thus more like ~$20Bn/year. Economies of scale may not apply as projected to kill vehicle production, the most costly component ($10M per?). That's before bringing developments in boosters, general proliferation, nukes in space and direct energy weapons into the conversation as countermeasures to missile defense constellations.

It'd require a really deft hand indeed to craft both a system and a contractor structure that's not vulnerable (in a financial sense) to "surprises" and "bloat" - in fact these costly "surprises" might be viewed rather as a feature than a bug of the proposal. How to get the private sector to share in the risks of national security instead of multiplying its profit margin if the risks are realized? The incentives can easily become very perverse, from "private sector friend" to foe alike. Tough procurement job at the best of times and these definitely are not that.

Yet, insofar I can comprehend it, technologically this is now achievable if only viewed in its narrowest sense, in a point of time. That is a reality in itself whether the system is not, is partially, or is fully deployed and will have ramifications.

 

[Chambered]

Risks exist

As do obvious bluffs and saber-rattling.

 

[DWG]

How wasn't that polite?

You accused someone of only having two brain cells and you don't realise that's impolite?

So, they commit suicide by cop, basically? You assume that country has a death wish, and the leader is suicidal. Which, history has shown to be quite wrong. There's nothing those megalomaniac despots ruling Russia and China love more than their own lives, and the power and money their positions give them. Launching nukes is a surefire way to ruin all that, and something not even the most deluded leader would do.

You're failing to understand MAD game theory. The stakes are so extreme that Nation A has to assume Nation B _will_ attack if given the chance to remove the threat they represent, and vice versa. If Nation A now deploys a defensive technology then Nation B has to assume it is facing imminent destruction, and its choices are therefore 1) wait and be destroyed while the other guy sits undamaged under his defensive dome, or 2) attack first and hope you win amid the ruins. There is no other option. 3) Trust the other side's leader not to press the button.

 

[DWG]

That apparently was the thought processes of the Soviet Union when faced with the Space Shuttle - which they assumed was actually an orbital bomber for decapitation strikes on the SU.

It's worth noting that the Soviet Union expected NATO to start World War III and actually thought we were in the lead up to it at least once - Able Archer 83. What seems logical and obvious on one side is not necessarily logical and obvious on the other.

 

[lancer21]

Yeah well, i guess they're sure SDI will work this time. I mean it's not like China and Russia will react in any way to that. So everything will go just as planned, what can possibly go wrong.

Sarcasm aside, israeli's highly advanced missile defences can't even protect them against the moderately advanced iranian/houthi missiles and yet they think an american equivalent will do any better against the vastly more advanced and numerous russian/chinese ones (not to mention the nukes part). An immediate reaction could be a sharply increased nuclear warheads numbers to make sure enough will get through, which gets us back to the insane cold war race where both sides had tens of thousands of warheads.

Maybe Russia possibly might not be able to field enough systems able to 100% counter/evade the new-SDI capabilities (but they will likely aim to have at least a portion of their warheads get through to assure MAD), but China definitely can, they have the economical, technological and manufacturing muscle. Then what, back to square one? China is definitely not USSR of the 1980s economically speaking, rather, it's the US that is in that position imo.

 

[Chambered]

You're failing to understand MAD game theory. The stakes are so extreme that Nation A has to assume Nation B _will_ attack if given the chance to remove the threat they represent, and vice versa. If Nation A now deploys a defensive technology then Nation B has to assume it is facing imminent destruction, and its choices are therefore 1) wait and be destroyed while the other guy sits undamaged under his defensive dome, or 2) attack first and hope you win amid the ruins. There is no other option. 3) Trust the other side's leader not to press the button.

Now, what keeps country C from standing back and swooping in like a vulture when the deed is done, taking over the scraps of said surviving country? You assume country A & B fail to account for country C in their threat equation. Furthermore, you assume everyone involved in the approval of an all-out nuclear strike are on the same page, and will just go along with the launch. You further assume that country B would rather die in nuclear hell fire than lose some relevance and power on the world stage. You also assume that world leaders are retarded and actually believe any country will actually use nuclear weapons preemptively. You do alot of assuming.

 

[DWG]

You do alot of assuming.

No, I'm summarizing 75 years of MAD strategizing, which you don't seem to be familiar with.

 

[UpForce]

Getting into the weeds of deterrence and its subsets like MAD can easily devolve such a conversation into unprovable generalizations, projection and whatnot. The other problem with this of course being that deterrence isn't entirely mechanistic, mathematical, logical or rational but (partly) foundationally based on chance, insecurity and unpredictability. And, say, P***n's relative enthusiasm for entertaining Aeroflot flight attendants (paraphrasing Arms Control Wonk here again).

Deterrence is also empirical and evolutionary, you can't theorize on it to no end but occasionally have to put things into practice. You can talk/write all you want but it becomes part of deterrence only if it interferes (especially confuses) timely decision making. Thus I don't advocate going too deeply into rabbit holes but to listen to experts and preserve and demonstrate capability for action. As dubious as I'm about this coming up in the here and now, with these World "leaders", come up it has. As much inevitably as by ambition, nefariousness or design.

Not up to speed as to what effect space treaties might have on this. Exploring that, maturing the technology as much as needed and arranging for real World demonstrations before full scale implementation would seem like some of the next steps. I can foresee that most NATO/AUKUS etc. countries also won't like to get left out or unconsidered in such designs. As the design targets missiles' boost phase, keeping it wholly national seems like something of a waste or folly, even (C&C structures notwithstanding).

I don't like the name "Golden Dome" though, it's not really descriptive, just politically/psychologically expedient to a silly degree. If I got to name it, I'd go with "the Shield of Damocles". Hard sell, that, I know.

 

[joshjosh]

Missile defenses are such an important factor in MAD, nuclear proliferation, and related topics, that the US and the Soviet Union signed a treaty during the Cold War to limit the size and scope of each other's ABM systems. The Strategic Defense Initiative was also of great concern to the Soviet Union. This game theory is well understood, has been explored for decades, and is easy to understand for even a novice with decent critical thinking skills.

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'll say it again: a missile defense system capable of defeating a strategic counter-force or counter-value strike from Russia or the PRC is either technically improbable, financially impossible, or catastrophically destabilizing. There are only a few outcomes to this:

1. Technical issues: the US is unable to develop an impenetrable defense for technical reasons, if for no other reason than that the probability of kill for any given intercept is not 100%, and a strategic-level attack would therefore have a high probability of some warheads penetrating.
   
   
2. Financial issues: while the technical issues are believed to be solvable, the US is unable to deploy all parts of the kill chain at a scale sufficient to counter a strategic attack from either primary rival. The US might go bankrupt trying, though. A variation on this involves the PRC building its offensive arsenal to stay ahead of ours, constantly moving the goalposts and perpetually keeping the strategic viability of the system unattained.
   
   
3. Catastrophically destabilizing: Russia and the PRC see that despite all the technical and financial challenges, the US is undertaking a credible attempt at building the Golden Dome. They believe the US will succeed at some point, despite their own best efforts to grow their offensive arsenals. They also believe that they do not have the capability to build their own Golden Domes to restore a semblance of strategic balance. They will therefore threaten the United States with nuclear war if the US continues building the Golden Dome. If construction efforts continue, they will be forced to execute a full-scale counter-force strike, and the earlier the better. In this (highly fictitious) scenario, every passing day would see more US interceptors deployed, capable of defeating more Chinese or Russian warheads. The sooner our adversaries press the big red button, the more nuclear forces they can destroy in a first strike, and the fewer they will have to weather themselves when the 2nd strike comes back at them. Not executing a first strike would be suicidal for them, at that point, as allowing the Golden Dome to finish construction would neutralize their own strategic deterrent.

Any complications to this picture, such as China threatening Europe with nuclear war if they do not keep the United States from launching a first strike, occur only at the margin and do not materially change the overall game theory.

 

[Dilandu]

Technical issues: the US is unable to develop an impenetrable defense for technical reasons, if for no other reason than that the probability of kill for any given intercept is not 100%, and a strategic-level attack would therefore have a high probability of some warheads penetrating.

You seems to unable to comprehend, that boost-stage interception is nearly 100% guaranteed, because ICBM isn't exactly the target that could evade well (any evasion maneuvers would throw the warheads off course) or hiding amongst decoys (because it's pretty hard to hide enormous exhaust flame).

Financial issues: while the technical issues are believed to be solvable, the US is unable to deploy all parts of the kill chain at a scale sufficient to counter a strategic attack from either primary rival. The US might go bankrupt trying, though. A variation on this involves the PRC building its offensive arsenal to stay ahead of ours, constantly moving the goalposts and perpetually keeping the strategic viability of the system unattained.

Newsflash: the Starlink already deployed have numbers and infrastructure more than sufficient for the strategic missile defense system.

Catastrophically destabilizing: Russia and the PRC see that despite all the technical and financial challenges, the US is undertaking a credible attempt at building the Golden Dome. They believe the US will succeed at some point, despite their own best efforts to grow their offensive arsenals.

And why shouldn't China just build a Jade Dome of their own? They have tech, they have financial resources, they have ambitions. And they seems to be pretty fine with following their doctrine of minimal deterrence.

And Russia inversted a lot into non-conventional delivery systems, to be assured that deterrence would be achievable.

Not executing a first strike would be suicidal for them, at that point, as allowing the Golden Dome to finish construction would neutralize their own strategic deterrent.

You seems to not understanding the core idea of strategic defense. It isn't to deny the deterrence; it's to deny the efficient first-strike capability. No matter how good strategical defense would be, SOME warheads would always slip through - and this would be enough for deterrence.

The goal of strategic defense system is to ensure that any kind of first strike would inevitably fail to achieve strategic goal. It would still cause SOME damage, of course. But it would not be utterly destructive, would not knock the nation out.

 

[Archibald]

a Jade Dome

How about Vodka Dome, for Russia ? (I'll see myself out)

 

[Desertfox]

The monetary black hole that is MDA is just going to get worse. Golden Dome is the money ticket many are looking at. No one knows what it is but everyone wants a piece of the pie. It might give me extreme job security but it's as stupid as it gets.

 

[UpForce]

Listening to arms control academics and professionals I, at least, haven't come away with the impression that game theory in this application is well understood - often least of all by the "leaders" that were supposedly implementing it. Not that I think game theory doesn't apply at all, is immature or faulty. Yogi Berra is supposed to have said "in theory there is no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is". One of my favorite quotes. There seems to be much survivor bias in believing in MAD as a be all and end all.

Technically I'd prefer only a handful of nukes being able to go off instead of hundreds. Not trying to be flippant here in the face of any humanly and morally unacceptable outcomes but just considering that there are loads of other escalatory paths here independent of the Shield of Damocles. Many have been taken by US's adversaries already, discussed prolifically if necessarily incompletely right here on this site. The financials are - quite literally - taxing and have unsettling ramifications way beyond missile defense and deterrence but even Arms Control Wonk which by creed and purpose tries to allay proliferation didn't present figures (while way greater than those of missile defenses' uncritical proponents) that'd (at least very soon) reach into trillions.

It'd be surprising to me if the "leaders" of Russia and China (trying not to entirely conflate peoples with their leaders here) were so MAD doctrinaire ad absurdum that they'd not explore other ways forward from a potential Shield of Damocles situation than a full strategic nuclear strike. I mean, not that I think much of their (and others') leadership atm but even they've demonstrated more self-consciousness and imagination than that. And it's a process. Like @Dilandu said, a Jade Dome is in the cards. (@Archibald, given some behavior I'm suspecting at least some kind of a "Vodka Dome" has already been deployed. I mean, the jokes from the Pentagon to the Frunzenskaya Embankment kinda write themselves but probably would contravene forum rules.)

I'd also note that it's part and parcel of the evolution and long-term tradition of Russian tactics ("reflexive control" etc.) to gripe, cajole and rage to no end about other alliances' and countries' being able and prepared in any way or form to defend themselves from Russia. To a degree the rhetoric worked and here we are. I'd view that as a weaponization of MAD theory itself rather than subscribing to it (again, given some clear escalations on their part, proliferatory and otherwise), something worthy of at least reflecting upon.

 

[edwest4]

This a necessary step for the United States. Cost vs. annihilation? Anyone? During the Reagan administration, work began on the Strategic Defense Initiative. Some say the technology wasn't there but there is ample evidence that the government can keep secrets. Going back to the Kennedy administration, what happened? The atomic aircraft and X-20 were both cut. I think the Russians would have been very concerned about a space plane that could "inspect" their satellites or drop warheads on them. Today we have the unmanned X-37B and no one can say with certainty exactly what it is doing or meant to do.

I am sure the necessary calculations for a minimum number of satellites that would be necessary to detect incoming hypersonic threats have been made. Like an early weather satellite that was not a weather satellite, such detection satellites could be mixed in with others, along with orbiting space junk. It should not be forgotten that HGVs are not launched from just anywhere. Before the end of the Cold War, the technology to destroy ICBMs and similar during the boost phase was either deployed or about to be. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, defense budgets across the West were cut. But certain threats remained and could not be ignored.

It doesn't matter that some warheads would get through. One or two or three warheads would not destroy everything. Some forget the Terminal Defense System. Imagine a cylindrical container rising from the ground and firing what amounted to spears against a warhead that got through, either detonating it at altitude or diverting it from the target. This in contrast to missiles or HGVs fired against targets in the UK. Churchill recognized the Soviet threat in 1945 and ordered Operation Unthinkable to be drawn up. It appears the Americans stepped in to create a joint reconnaissance system of aircraft to monitor the Soviet threat. This instead of attacking them at the time.

 

[Dilandu]

I'm suspecting at least some kind of a "Vodka Dome" has already been deployed.

Russia already have unconventional delivery systems (like hypersonic gliders, underwater drone-torpedoes and nuclear powered cruise missiles), so our minimal deterrense is assured anyway.

 

[aim9xray]

Here is a HASC Strategic Forces hearing that happened on April 30th. Witnesses included Gen. Guillot, USAF, Commander NORTHCOM & NORAD; Gen. Collins, USAF, Director MDA; Gen. Gainey, Commander USASMDC.

These are the people you would expect to be in the know regarding Golden Dome, and they knew nothing. They testified that they were waiting for direction from OSD on the requirements for Golden Dome. This initiative comes from SECDEF at the very least, but almost certainly directly from Donald's elderly brain.

It would seem incumbent on the Honorable SecDef to signal his intentions.

 

[EmoBirb]

I'm suspecting at least some kind of a "Vodka Dome" has already been deployed.

Isn't that the case since the 70s anyway? With A-35, followed by A-135 and then A-235.

 

[edwest4]

Vodka Dome. I suspect enough vodka bottles could be hurled aloft to prevent an attack by HGVs. Otherwise they would just go into the local tip.

*

 

[EmoBirb]

enough systems able to 100% counter/evade the new-SDI capabilities

What honestly surprises me is that people genuinely assume that such a space based defense system that relies on extremely fragile satellites wouldn't just see large chunks of itself obliterated by ground/air based anti-satellite weapons as well as (and most importantly) other satellites. Especially a country like China which has a sizeable satellite fleet may just sacrifice less important ones to take out such orbital defense systems, creating a cascading effect which would disable portions of such a "Golden Dome". This doesn't even include potential developments of armed satellites by China or Russia which would literally hunt US space based systems. And if a large portion of that rusty half sphere would be disabled, more missiles would get through, making the system just glorified THAAD in space.

The militarization of space beyond intelligence and communication systems is an incredibly slippery slope. And I don't know if the US can afford, let alone win such an arms race. Against Russia perhaps, while still seeing most likely large portions of their own satellites destroyed in such a scenario. But against China? I honestly doubt it. Not with the amount of money and research that goes into missile, rocket and space development in China. That also just covers the kinetic aspect of this ordeal.

 

[edwest4]

A lot of unknowns here. I'm sure U.S. military planners are accounting for all possible scenarios. In the case of China, while it is considered an enemy, the U.S. was sending it billions of dollars. I doubt the peasant farmers could provide for the military or a space program there. Now that trade is being reset by the United States, the flow of monies from U.S. businesses has stopped, for now. With an expectation that a deal can be reached.