Golden Dome for America

Out of interest would such a Golden Dome be able to stop an attack by a FOBS system, being as there is some belief that such a system is being developed not by the US?
 
Flyaway said:
Out of interest would such a Golden Dome be able to stop an attack by a FOBS system, being as there is some belief that such a system is being developed not by the US?
Click to expand...
a terminal phase defense system would work. Alternatively, we could just shoot down the FOBS, which is why I don't think anyone will deploy such a system. If Russia or China wanted to launch a nuclear attack on us with little warning, SLBMs are good for that, and submarines are pretty much invulnerable to preemptive attack.
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
a terminal phase defense system would work. Alternatively, we could just shoot down the FOBS, which is why I don't think anyone will deploy such a system. If Russia or China wanted to launch a nuclear attack on us with little warning, SLBMs are good for that, and submarines are pretty much invulnerable to preemptive attack.
Click to expand...
How hard would it be to start putting miniature nukes on military or commercial satellites and having them rain down when the time is right?
 
exclaimedleech8 said:
Alternatively, we could just shoot down the FOBS, which is why I don't think anyone will deploy such a system.
Click to expand...
Unless you're very lucky with the placement and alert status of ASAT assets, or the opposition is unwise in their weapons allocation, that's a terminal defence problem. If you're tracking it to shoot down on a subsequent orbit, well, then it's not FOBS but MOBS. Which is fundamentally similar, but also actually quite different!
NMaude said:
IIRC the possibility of the USSR developing and deploying a FOBS caused a bit of a flap in the West in the 1960s.
Click to expand...
FOBS only really made any sense as a way of defeating an ABM system. When the US abandoned large-scale ABM (which predated the ABM Treaty), the logic for the USSR to develop FOBS largely disappeared. They deployed it anyway because of inertia in their military-industrial complex, but didn't make any effort to replace it.

Against a generally north-facing midcourse ABM system, FOBS would be reasonably effective. Even terminal defences would be noticably less effective unless they were deployed with 360-degree coverage. You'd want something like the latter for full protection against SLBMs too, ideally. Sending a strategic missile submarine to hang out off the Galapagos would get you similar benefits to FOBS without the need for outsized missiles carrying specialised payloads.
 
The fact of the matter is, our adversaries have been working far longer to defeat a Golden Dome system. We will end up spending a shit ton of money (look at MDA and how effective they've been) for minimal benefits. Diplomacy and nuclear arms reduction had been far more effective and cheaper that what we are doing now, but that died in 2002.

On the plus side I will have very good job security.
 
Desertfox said:
The fact of the matter is, our adversaries have been working far longer to defeat a Golden Dome system. We will end up spending a shit ton of money (look at MDA and how effective they've been) for minimal benefits. Diplomacy and nuclear arms reduction had been far more effective and cheaper that what we are doing now, but that died in 2002.

On the plus side I will have very good job security.
Click to expand...
What's really helped is the ridiculously high cost of nuclear weapons and the improving accuracy of weaponry in general.
 
Desertfox said:
The fact of the matter is, our adversaries have been working far longer to defeat a Golden Dome system. We will end up spending a shit ton of money (look at MDA and how effective they've been) for minimal benefits. Diplomacy and nuclear arms reduction had been far more effective and cheaper that what we are doing now, but that died in 2002.

On the plus side I will have very good job security.
Click to expand...
It would probably be more cost effective and strategically effective to develop more nuclear weapons and delivery platforms than it would to develop defensive capabilities against them.
 
In_A_Dream said:
It would probably be more cost effective and strategically effective to develop more nuclear weapons and delivery platforms than it would to develop defensive capabilities against them.
Click to expand...
It didn't work in modern world - where nuclear bombs is ancient technology, avaliable basically to anyone who seriously wanted them.
 
Yellow Palace said:
FOBS only really made any sense as a way of defeating an ABM system. When the US abandoned large-scale ABM (which predated the ABM Treaty), the logic for the USSR to develop FOBS largely disappeared. They deployed it anyway because of inertia in their military-industrial complex, but didn't make any effort to replace it.
Click to expand...
?

I thought that the USSR did not deploy FOBS, there was some agreement between the US and Soviets about that.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I thought that the USSR did not deploy FOBS, there was some agreement between the US and Soviets about that.
Click to expand...
Nope, eighteen R-36orb (or R-36-O, or 8K69, or SS-9 Mod 3 to NATO) were deployed until 1979. The official US view was that they didn't violate the Outer Space Treaty, largely because the US thought they were less useful than a regular ballistic missile and was quite happy to encourage the USSR to waste its resources.

I'm quite sure that the USSR played similar games in the other direction!
 
FOBS is considered to not be in violation of OST, while MOBS would certainly be a violation. Since the Soviet Union never demonstrated more than one orbit for the R-36orb, it was technically not in violation.
 
Unlike Brilliant Pebbles, DEWs can have civilian use--Breakthrough Starshot...power beaming, etc.
 
Golden Dome missile defense program reshapes military space spending
President Trump’s signature missile defense program is reshaping Pentagon spending priorities and expanding the role of the Space Force, says a new report by the Aerospace Corp.
by Sandra Erwin August 6, 2025


HUNTSVILLE, Ala. — The Trump administration’s fiscal year 2026 defense budget request marks a turning point for U.S. space policy, with the newly unveiled Golden Dome missile defense program reshaping Pentagon spending priorities and expanding the role of the Space Force, says a new report by the Aerospace Corporation’s Center for Space Policy and Strategy.

The administration is proposing about $40.2 billion in fiscal year 2026 funding for the Space Force, driven largely by the space-heavy Golden Dome initiative. The funding comes from two sources: a $26.3 billion appropriations request and an additional $13.8 billion from the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” a reconciliation law passed in July.

Golden Dome, likened by President Trump to the Reagan administration’s Strategic Defense Initiative, includes plans for space-based sensors and missile interceptors to protect the U.S. from peer and regional adversaries. The program accounts for $15.7 billion of the FY26 space-related reconciliation funding and has been placed under the management of Space Force Gen. Michael Guetlein, underscoring its space-centric approach.

“The introduction of Golden Dome is arguably the most important development affecting the defense space budget since the inception of the Space Force,” the Aerospace report states.
Click to expand...

https://spacenews.com/golden-dome-missile-defense-program-reshapes-military-space-spending/
 
Tech Companies Show Off for Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’
Tech companies are displaying A.I., lasers and more as they compete for a piece of President Trump’s ambitious plan for a missile defense shield.
By Sheera Frenkel

Reporting from El Segundo, Calif.
Sept. 8, 2025

In May, more than 100 employees of Varda Space Industries gathered at the aerospace start-up’s Southern California headquarters to watch a real-time feed of a capsule hurtling toward Earth at more than 18,000 miles per hour.

Every few minutes, a voice crackled through the speakers with coordinates from Varda’s partners in Australia, where the capsule was projected to fall. The updates were met with cheers, as Varda’s calculations of the journey proved right. The capsule landed “on target,” or where the company had predicted.

The exercise was intended to show that Varda and its partners could successfully track a hypersonic missile, rocket or drone and calculate its trajectory from space within minutes, so that the object could theoretically be intercepted. The technologies to pinpoint such fast-moving objects are highly coveted, and no military currently has them, defense officials said.
Click to expand...
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/08/technology/space-capsules-ai-lasers-tech-golden-dome.html
 
Flyaway said:
A new paper claims that the actual cost of Golden Dome could be closer to $3.6 trillion over twenty years, and not the claimed $175 billion price tag. And that this will still not deliver the claimed 100% effectiveness.
Click to expand...
I suspect even that figure would balloon significantly once the finer details were worked out and development started. This is just a boondoggle. A far more effective use of money would be to start the diplomatic process for a new Strategic Arms treaty, but involving the Russians, Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis etc etc. It would probably be far easier too.
 
scautomoton said:
I suspect even that figure would balloon significantly once the finer details were worked out and development started. This is just a boondoggle. A far more effective use of money would be to start the diplomatic process for a new Strategic Arms treaty, but involving the Russians, Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis etc etc. It would probably be far easier too.
Click to expand...
Would be kinda hard, if you really think about it. China's entire A2AD network depends on their missile force, at least for the foreseeable future. Russia's maybe easier, Iran's doubtful if they will just lie straight up, Indian/Pakis no tbf.
Regardless, any missile control regime is still just that, weapons control, they can't moderate technology spreading around. You're looking at potential long range armament with Serbs, "unlawful" Iran mad scientists and NK influences/barter. At minimum, the Houthis already have viable mid-range missiles, Vietnam's aiming for a long range MLRS with drop ins for an ATACMS equivalent and Indonesia is probably looking for tech transfers of one too. I suppose the LATAM actors would be more compliant in this regard, but certainly there will be some belligerents. Africa's no-no with China's influence, maybe except SA and some pro-French states.

Once you capped up the costs for all the documents and handshakes, I suppose it would be cheaper, easier maybe maybe not but why do so? Golden Dome isn't about strategic arms, it's a total coverage homeland defense mission. The orbital interceptors are really just more radical GBIs. At the lower levels, it's about CONUS defense in active war and counter terrorisms. Emotive figures are thrown out all the time like trillions and thereof but we are seeing the F-35s running along exactly like that. And pray tell me do you wish you would throw away the F-35s for some security assurances that we'd have constant basings and ally support for the Beagles? Agreements aren't signed between nations they are signed between goverments and it's an entire benefits thing that these are still followed along. Fundamentally people pursue powers even with the greatest restrictions. Russia literally cheated INF and ABM. China sneaky sneaked their way out of any arms control agreement for the time and it's literally a them thing if they want one to happen or not because they have direct industry-military superiority over the US. If they refuse they can still build new nukes like sausages and it's doubtful if DoN can crank out B61s like that much less other weapons. It's simply an opposition issue and what's really matter to them (demographic collapse and shifting of foreign manufacturing to other 3rd world nations) is not something a treaty can balk about.

All in all I really don't think a new START/SALT would help that much tbh. America could be on the brink of a civil war in the next 4 years, Europe is facing a nationality crisis, there's Ukraine right up their butt-end, Russia is closed off, China is stagnating, the Global South is fighting for pieces of the global manufacturing base. Everyday it's looking more like WW3. And a new missile control regime? Russia makes superheavy ICBMs everyday, they could just substitute for lessened silos numbers by building bigger ones, and no way they're aggreing to big warhead cap, so in essence it will just be a rehash of the old negotiations. Ditto for China. MTCR already exists and it's hard enough already tbh, so cruise/mid range missiles is unsolvable tbf. Short range ones like freighter based Scuds/Tochkas or drones needs a robust homeland defense posture, which is what Iron Dome is solving, as is all the other ones when the balloon goes up.

If anyone asks me that do I prefer papers over big funds, answer is that I like both. I like technology because we do it because we can, but I also recognized the atrocious financial decisions to be made about this. I do think a comprehensive R&D support program for CONUS defense is cool because it could reduce duplications along the line. Kinda like a smaller OSD.
The fundamental issue behind any new arms control program is that it's no longer USSR vs NATO. It's missing all the keys. Gorbachev was progressive and pro-reform, the USSR was dialing up their 10 years plan to match NATO in strength before putting the bets back to nation development. It was a win-win for both side because both of them were on the defensive for the length of the Cold War, and cutting back on nuclear mid range missiles means less opposition up their ears and more money for the citizens. Xi is the opposite of Gorbachev, a hardline smartass nationalist who literally wants to buy back Taiwan by influencing the local billionaires and politicians with oodles of money, Putin used the recent seclusion to purge the oligarches and threats toward his influence, Iran is just the epitome of a half-into-it irrational actor and India/Pakistan will duke it out whenever they can.

Irrespective of whether a treaty will be signed or not the balance of power will not change that much. If China builds more nukes they just have more kilotons to plaster CONUS soil with. People thinks Golden Dome is Trump's endgame for face, it is but for all the different reasons. How do you expect to induct that big of a system within 4 years? You can't in modern America, a new tank is taking north of 20 years already. This is about the next generation of Republicans taking office for the next and the after next admins and when they finish Golden Dome they can sing all kinds of praise to Trump and his oh so magnificent plan. Assuming the US doesn't go to civil war in the meantime.
 
Last edited:
yeetmahboi said:
Would be kinda hard, if you really think about it. China's entire A2AD network depends on their missile force, at least for the foreseeable future. Russia's maybe easier, Iran's doubtful if they will just lie straight up, Indian/Pakis no tbf.
Regardless, any missile control regime is still just that, weapons control, they can't moderate technology spreading around. You're looking at potential long range armament with Serbs, "unlawful" Iran mad scientists and NK influences/barter. At minimum, the Houthis already have viable mid-range missiles, Vietnam's aiming for a long range MLRS with drop ins for an ATACMS equivalent and Indonesia is probably looking for tech transfers of one too. I suppose the LATAM actors would be more compliant in this regard, but certainly there will be some belligerents. Africa's no-no with China's influence, maybe except SA and some pro-French states.................................
Click to expand...

Oh it would be a nightmare. However, the main treaty goal for me would be eliminating/reducing the likelihood of nuclear conflict by the means that Golden Dome is supposed to prevent, that is surely the minimum viable plan? As far as the Houthis, and other small Nations' air attack/defence & aerial bombardment capabilities etc etc, I wouldn't consider that as part of a Strategic Arms Treaty (apart from the usual non-proliferation type stuff). The goal should be, at the very worst, something along the lines of where the USA & Russia's capabilities were when Obama and Medvedev signed the last treaty and with China & the other Nuclear states at a relevant level, where MAD (which is still a terrible idea, lets be fair, but its worked so far) can hold the peace. I agree that policing it is difficult, since everyone tries to wriggle around the restrictions, but the good faith aspect would require the usual maluses and threats of sanctions I guess. And yes, getting all the relevant players to the table would be a thankless, nigh on impossible task, but it is an option that should be explored. We owe that much to ourselves really. I personally, while nukes were raining down, would want to be able to look my family in the eye and tell them I tried all that I could to make people see reason.

From my perspective, building Golden Dome initially suggests a show of strength and confidence, but actually strikes me as sending a message to adversaries that the current escalation in arms and their capabilities is OK and so is the headlong rush towards some sort of global conflict. It just seems defeatist really, accepting that war will come, as well as being an invitation to develop something that can beat it. Building a stronger shield will only spur the opposition into making a better sword, this is Human nature. The only thing worse, is saying you'll build a better shield and failing, whilst they do actually build a better sword, then you're in a worse position, and possibly bankrupt, at the mercy of a stronger opponent. MAD isn't a great concept, but at least it helped stop anything terrible happening for a few decades. Tipping that balance was a bad idea in the 1980's, and it still is today. So that multi-trillion Dollar enterprise will become a giant white elephant.

I think more efficient Defense expenditure is to implement robust early detection systems for things like "low" level HGVs/missiles & so on, improve the reliability of launch systems, improve the accuracy/evasiveness of allowable delivery systems (not necessarily easy I know). Then both you and they know you can detect anything and everything in time to launch an all out retaliation, and one which will absolutely strike almost all targets. MAD in play. Peace maintained. Trillions of Dollars not handed wholesale to greedy Defence Contractors and available for crumbling highways, rejuvenating shipbuilding, the wall with Mexico, supporting donkey sanctuaries etc etc. I appreciate this is a very simplified, fanciful idea, but hey, you need a basic game plan.

As far as more "mundane" threats to CONUS, I can't see any other nations actually trying to land boots on soil. Even China does not have a big enough population to attempt to both take and (critically) hold the territory, never mind the logistics involved. And if a sub-launched nuke was fired from just offshore at San Fran, New York, DC etc then nothing is stopping it in time. The F-35 question is a whole other topic on it's own, but agreed the projected cost of the program over its lifespan is eye-watering, but looking at new build "legacy" models instead doesn't compare favourably either. Plus is it economically palatable to spend $2T on the F-35 AND $3-4T on Golden Dome if the latter is not really needed when current systems (for CONUS defense against "normal" threats) are probably adequate for statistically probably defense scenarios?

The Engineer in me thinks its an extremely interesting technological challenge, if one that's actually unnecessary. I'd like to see it built just to see if it can be done, but I hope it isn't since there are too many unknowable downstream implications that I suspect are only bad.
 
It isn't like there are not other weapons systems.
Clementine benefited from SDI...that helped cheaper probes I imagine.

Ann Druyen lamented mil-spending, but the Titans that launched the Voyagers existed due to three different ICBM programs--Titan (of course), Atlas (balloon tankage for Centaur), and Minuteman (solid recipes). Saturn IB could have done the trick--but it was all Redstones and Jupiters below the waist ;)
 
scautomoton said:
I suspect even that figure would balloon significantly once the finer details were worked out and development started. This is just a boondoggle. A far more effective use of money would be to start the diplomatic process for a new Strategic Arms treaty, but involving the Russians, Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis etc etc. It would probably be far easier too.
Click to expand...
Do you remember how much work was involved in the various US/USSR treaties? How it took years and years and years just to get 2 sides to agree? And now you want to add all the nuclear powers?

Not to mention that China has demonstrated that they will not abide by a treaty/convention that they signed (UNCLOS).
 
Scott Kenny said:
Not to mention that China has demonstrated that they will not abide by a treaty/convention that they signed (UNCLOS).
Click to expand...

Any treaty that the PRC signs is not worth the paper it's written on, they ALWAYS break their word when it's convenient for them to do so.
​
publiusr said:
but it was all Redstones and Jupiters below the waist ;)​
Click to expand...

If the Saturn-IB had stayed in production the S-IB first-stage would've been massively upgraded with IIRC its' LOX and RP-1 tanks replaced by a single LOX and a single RP-1 tank of the same diameter as the S-IVB second-stage. Followed by the eight H-1 rocket-motors on the S-IB stage being replaced by a single Rocketdyne F-1A engine (1.8 million pounds of thrust at liftoff) and no doubt to LR101 vernier-engines for roll-control.​
 
Scott Kenny said:
Do you remember how much work was involved in the various US/USSR treaties? How it took years and years and years just to get 2 sides to agree? And now you want to add all the nuclear powers?

Not to mention that China has demonstrated that they will not abide by a treaty/convention that they signed (UNCLOS).
Click to expand...
Oh I fully agree, its a headache of universal proportions, and I don't have a solution for how to police potential participants robustly. But look at it from the other side; all those years of negotiations between the USA and USSR eventually paid real dividends. Nuclear stockpiles dropped by 75% from ludicrous levels to only ridiculous levels.

Anyway, we digress massively, back to the OT
 
The AEI report simply confirms what has been known since McNamara: anti-missile missiles are simply too expensive to be a viable defense strategy. Directed energy weapons are the only way to go.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom