We need satellite defense, not a "Golden Dome".

[Mushroom]

Are you talking big lasers in the sky to shoot down missiles? I heard they are science fiction.

100% science fiction. There are a great many issues that simply can not be resolved, especially thermal blooming.

That was a problem in the early 1980s, and is is still a problem over 4 decades later. And one that is simply impossible to solve. Plus the US has not considered any kind of space based solution since the middle of the 1980s, when they themselves showed how easy it was to destroy a satellite.



Any serious consideration the US had for "space based missile defense" ended in 1985 with that test. That is why in the four decades since then the emphasis has been on ground based solutions. And even more of a non-issue today, as the US has shot down at least two satellites. And Russia, China, and India have all successfully tested ASAT weapons. And even Israel is believed to have one, as the Arrow 3 has all the capabilities, but they simply have never used it as such.

 

[MarathonMike]

Are you talking big lasers in the sky to shoot down missiles? I heard they are science fiction.

View attachment 1127700

No not lasers. Satellite based defense and offensive systems have been in research and development for many years already. Backup systems for our very fragile GPS satellite system is also under development.

 

[Cassandro]

I don't agree with Trump on everything and I disagree with the concept of covering the entire US with an "Iron Dome" like shield similar to Israel. The geographic differences make it impossible to be effective especially with the arrival of hyper-sonic missiles. We need a space based satellite defense system because China is already developing space based weapons that they would surely use to target our satellites. We had better have at least equal capability with China or they could completely cripple us without ever touching US soil.

 

[Leo123]

Acquiring Greenland would help. We already have satellite tracking up there.

 

[Cassandro]

A satellite defense and a "golden dome" are not mutually exclusive. Besides, we need redundancy. Satellites are becoming easier to shoot down than hardened land installations. This is why the US needs Greenland.

 

[MarathonMike]

A satellite defense and a "golden dome" are not mutually exclusive. Besides, we need redundancy. Satellites are becoming easier to shoot down than hardened land installations. This is why the US needs Greenland.

That is why Trump created Space Force. They are focused on space based systems for both defense and offense. A "golden dome" which I assume means guarding all of US air space with a missile interceptor system would cost many trillions of dollars. It would ultimately be ineffective against a bunch of ICBMs flying at us with each carrying multiple hypersonic missiles.

 

[Concerned American]

That is why Trump created Space Force. They are focused on space based systems for both defense and offense. A "golden dome" which I assume means guarding all of US air space with a missile interceptor system would cost many trillions of dollars. It would ultimately be ineffective against a bunch of ICBMs flying at us with each carrying multiple hypersonic missiles.

I think the US space based/missile defense system is much more capable than we would imagine, Mike. I'm not real worried.

 

[Mushroom]

I think the US space based/missile defense system is much more capable than we would imagine

There is no space based missile defense system.

 

[Concerned American]

There is no space based missile defense system.

Apparently you chose to ignore the slash. STFU, moron.

 

[Mushroom]

Apparently you chose to ignore the slash. STFU, moron.

OK, then what exactly are you trying to say?

Don't get all moronic and insulting because you throw out some random words together and think that means something and somebody calls you on it?

 

[Concerned American]

OK, then what exactly are you trying to say?

Don't get all moronic and insulting because you throw out some random words together and think that means something and somebody calls you on it?

I forgot--you're a grunt. I should have stuck to four letter words that you might understand. Go back to school, moron.

 

[Mushroom]

I forgot--you're a grunt. I should have stuck to four letter words that you might understand. Go back to school, moron.

Ah, yet more insults and no actual facts other than your beliefs. Sadly typical.

Care to explain your background and experience in missile defense?

 

[Concerned American]

Ah, yet more insults and no actual facts other than your beliefs. Sadly typical.

Care to explain your background and experience in missile defense?

LMAO, tell what you know about missile defense, ground pounder. If you take the chip off of your shoulder and read the original post, I explained that the US has more defense capabilities than the common man knows--that includes you. SMH

 

[Mushroom]

LMAO, tell what you know about missile defense, ground pounder.

That was actually what I did for many years. Certified in PATRIOT PAC-2, PATRIOT PAC-3, and THAAD. Funny how you keep trying to act like what I did in the military four decades ago is all that matters, and not even thinking about what I did in the military far more recently.

Big hint, the image for my profile is one I had taken at the White Sands Missile Range Museum. During one of several extended periods of time I spent there working on missile defense upgrades.

But if you think you know so much, care to explain when is the best time to use the GEM-T or GEM-C missiles? When is it better to use a PAC-3 as opposed to a PAC-2 missile? And the reverse, when it is better to use a PAC-2 over a PAC-3?

This is the funny thing, air defense artillery is what my actual profession was for many years. You are aware that a hell of a lot in the military will change jobs during their career, right?

But no, sadly all you can ever do is attack others and not actually discuss the actual topic itself.

 

[Concerned American]

Big hint, the image for my profile is one I had taken at the White Sands Missile Range

I thought that looked like the missile park on the main base. I rode those 65 years ago when I rode the bus from the Nat'l Guard Armory in Las Cruces to go swimming at the enlisted pool every day in the summertime. Thanks for confirming that the US has missile defenses as I stated in the post that you moronically took exception too. I also lived in Organ. You do know where that is don't you? It's only 14 miles from where your av photo was taken.

But if you think you know so much,

Listen, moron. IDK what you did with those missiles but your lack of ability to read and understand my original post doesn't build my confidence in our capabilities. Now STFU and go back and READ the original post. SMFH, grunts.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That is why Trump created Space Force. They are focused on space based systems for both defense and offense. A "golden dome" which I assume means guarding all of US air space with a missile interceptor system would cost many trillions of dollars. It would ultimately be ineffective against a bunch of ICBMs flying at us with each carrying multiple hypersonic missiles.

Since they do not exist, a missile carrying a missile, WTF are you blabbering about?

All MIRVs are hypersonic by the fact they are launched by ICBMs.

 

[Mushroom]

I also lived in Organ. You do know where that is don't you?

Actually, yes I do. There was a great little Mexican place we used to go there fairly often just off the highway if we did not have the time to go to LC.

I also know where Orogrande, Chaparral, and Alvarado are also.

And once again, endless attacks and dismissal of actually discussing missile defense. But I've had enough, I have no more interest.

Have a nice day.

 

[Mushroom]

Since they do not exist, a missile carrying a missile, WTF are you blabbering about?

All MIRVs are hypersonic by the fact they are launched by ICBMs.

Most people really have no real idea of how missiles work at all. That is why they are so easily fooled into believe complete bullcrap about them.

A missile carrying missile, interesting concept. Sounds about as useful as an anti-ballistic missile ballistic missile. Or an anti-tank missile missile that could go onto a tank to protect it from anti-tank missiles. Or maybe an anti-missile missile that works with ballistic missiles to shoot down the air defense missiles that are targeting the ballistic missiles. Or maybe about as stupid as launching an ICBM from the back of a cargo plane.

No, wait. The US actually did do the last one at one time.

Most people who hear "Hypersonic" just give it insanely magical capabilities. Not even realizing that there is nothing special about them, the "Hypersonic Missiles" that China and Russia are crowing about are literally a rehash of a system the US developed all the way back in the Eisenhower Administration. Then cancelled by the Kennedy Administration once the Polaris SLBM was put into service.

Yes, the US had that capability first. And only used it for a few years because they realized even then it was a rather silly weapon. And it really is a silly weapon, and was really only useful for treaty purposes because just like sea launched ballistic missiles, air launched ballistic missiles did not fall under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF).

That is the only damned reason Russia started to research them in the first place. It was a way to get around treaty limitations put in place by the INF. "OK Comrade, we can't have short range missile to launch from ground. So what if we put short range ballistic missile on plane? Plane is not on ground when launch so we can do that, no? After all, treaty say nothing about launching ballistic missiles from planes."

 

[Mushroom]

Satellite based defense and offensive systems have been in research and development for many years already.

I wanted to circle back to this once again.

Yes, in the 1980s there was a lot of research by both the US and USSR into satellite defensive weapons. That was a big part of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars). However, any interest in that by the US quickly died in 1985 with the successful test of the ASM-135 anti-satellite missile. From the moment that was first used, everybody in the Pentagon knew that the idea of putting systems in space to destroy inbound missiles was dead.

Because why in the hell would you spend hundreds of millions of dollars to launch a single space based ABM platform (and that would have been one of dozens), knowing that would be the first thing an adversary attacked? In a theoretical "Soviet First Strike", the first warning would not be our satellites and ground based RADAR picking up Soviet launches, it would be all of our expensive satellites intended to defend against them being blown up before the ICBMs and SLBMs were launched.

That is why the US quickly pivoted away from space based and concentrated on ground based systems. Once anti-satellite weapons became a reality, any idea of space based defensive systems became instantly obsolete.

 

[MarathonMike]

I wanted to circle back to this once again.

Yes, in the 1980s there was a lot of research by both the US and USSR into satellite defensive weapons. That was a big part of the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars). However, any interest in that by the US quickly died in 1985 with the successful test of the ASM-135 anti-satellite missile. From the moment that was first used, everybody in the Pentagon knew that the idea of putting systems in space to destroy inbound missiles was dead.

Because why in the hell would you spend hundreds of millions of dollars to launch a single space based ABM platform (and that would have been one of dozens), knowing that would be the first thing an adversary attacked? In a theoretical "Soviet First Strike", the first warning would not be our satellites and ground based RADAR picking up Soviet launches, it would be all of our expensive satellites intended to defend against them being blown up before the ICBMs and SLBMs were launched.

That is why the US quickly pivoted away from space based and concentrated on ground based systems. Once anti-satellite weapons became a reality, any idea of space based defensive systems became instantly obsolete.

Incorrect. Space Force is currently working on maneuverable and weaponized satellites among some other space based capabilities. The beauty of space based intercept is the predictability of the ICBM trajectory and the simplicity of the intercepting projectiles.