• stoy@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Could have shortened the title significantly, and reuse it daily.

    “Trump speaks, experts say that’s ridiculous”

  • Rapidcreek@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    2 months ago

    There already is one. There are aound 100 Patriot missile batteries in the US. As usual Trump knows nothing about the subject he talks about.

      • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        2 months ago

        People in red states need jobs, it’s a welfare program.

        Also, billionaires get richer and can own colonies, but don’t look behind the curtain.

  • ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    You mean NORAD missile defence system?

    The point of putting it around Canada was so missiles would be shot down over it instead of the US

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    2 months ago

    I can build that for him for a cool 250 billion. I’m willing to guarantee 0% penetration of short range rockets launched by Hezbollah from anywhere in Lebanon.

  • paddirn@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    2 months ago

    To protect us from whom? I thought his love affairs with Putin and Kim Jong would protect us from anyone that might want to attack the US?

  • m-p{3}@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s to keep us pesky Canadians from trebuchet-ing poutine over the border.

  • Blackout@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    2 months ago

    About time! We in Michigan are tired of the moose raids from Canada. They swim across our half of the lake and eat up our maple syrup.

  • Capt. Wolf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Pretty sure we have multiple anti missile systems deployed already.

    Also, who’s shooting missiles at America right now?

    I mean, other than North Korea, but that’s like a 10 year old with a water rocket trying to blow up the school from across town.

  • AItoothbrush@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    Doesnt america already have one??? Also in the current geopolitical environment this may not be the worst idea ever…

  • Rhoeri@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    Trump wants a lot of stupid shit. In the interest of national security, he should not under any circumstances be given any of it.

    And this man is potentially going to be elected to run a country.

    • RegalPotoo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yup - anyone who is likely to try and hit the US is far enough away is going to be using long range ballistic missiles, and it’s been pretty conclusively demonstrated that it’s technically feasible to intercept a single missile, it sure isn’t reliable enough to be a reasonable deterrent or cheap enough to build enough launchers to give you any amount of coverage.

      Iron dome works because Israel is small, with a concentrated population, and is being attacked with small, short range rockets that are easy to spot on radar - that isn’t a likely scenario for the US to face

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        Well, we’re probably working on that with the SM-3. They took out a satellite with it so hitting a mid course ICBM shouldn’t be too hard.

        • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          2 months ago

          The issue with ICBM interception as I understand it is that it’s one of those cases where the economics heavily favor the attacker. An intercept missile requires a rocket just as capable the one launching the target, if not more so. But, you can’t afford letting even a few nukes get through, even one is devasting, so given that the chance of a successful intercept isn’t 100 percent (my understanding is that it’s well below 100% currently, for likely real world conditions), you need several intercept missiles for every missile your enemy has. Any countermeasures that make taking the enemy missile out harder, like deploying decoys or such, increases the needed resources on your end far more than it increases the resources used by them.

          It might be viable against countries like North Korea where the difference in resources is vast enough, but against any serious opponent like Russia or China, it’s not likely to work out.

          • Maggoty@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            There are a couple things working in the defender’s favor. The payload isn’t nearly as heavy or large, so the rocket actually is quite a bit cheaper. This means putting multiples up for each ICBM isn’t impossible. Also countermeasures deploy after re-entry. The SM-3 taking out a satellite was a big deal because it means it can hit stuff before re-entry and the protective covers come off. This also significantly cuts down on the number of intercepts required because Russian missiles actually carry a whole bunch of warheads and decoys.

            So yeah it’s still pretty hard to stop every warhead, but it’s not the same situation as the 1980’s where we’d be living in a post nuclear wasteland with every major city obliterated. Which is the point. We can go on as a country with a few craters. We cannot go on if we eat a thousand warheads.

            To add really quick, it is a lot less missiles than people think. For example the Russians have 5,500 warheads. If all of them were slated for ICBMs then that would be around 500 missiles. Less because their smaller yields fit 15 per missile. And they aren’t all slated for ICBMs either. Their current idea of ICBM defense is actually to send up short range nukes and nuke their own sky. They also have submarine and plane warheads which are dealt with by other missile defense systems. I don’t want to make it sound like nukes are no big deal. I just don’t want people thinking we’re in the same situation we were 40 years ago. It would be a lot less devastating today.