Could have shortened the title significantly, and reuse it daily.
“Trump speaks, experts say that’s ridiculous”
the onion should’ve gotten on that a decade 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.
To be fair, they told him about this in dozens of briefings, but he was always distracted by his Happy Meal toy.
What do they need 100 Patriot batteries for? Are they that scared of the Mexicans and Canadians?
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.
To protect the is from rockets from… Canada?
To protect him & his billionaire buddies from his fellow Americans.
TBF if the don gets in power that might eventually become a real concern.
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.
That’s outrageous! I’ll do it for 249 billion!
Honestly, I’ll do it for a hundred bucks.
“I was elected to lead, not to read.”
Number 3!
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.
AND MEXICO WILL PAY FOR IT!!!
/s
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
You are so wrong… the most direct route for a missile attack to US from Russia passes over Canada, hence the location.
They could still put it along the US border but it doesn’t make sense for the US to shoot missiles down on top of themselves
That’s such a stupid take. They put it as far north as possible so they could get as much notice as possible. Even today it takes time to respond and you need as much as you can get. Even today, shooting down a ballistic missile at high hypersonic speeds with multiple warheads is much easier the earlier in flight you can shoot
That is pretty much exactly what they were saying. They put it as far north as possible, so the missiles would be fired upon as far north as possible, which means they would be shot down as far north as possible, and as far away from their targets as possible.
You’re saying almost exactly the same thing as they did, and arguing that they were stupid for saying it.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. You’re saying the same thing as the other guy who replied to you.
If NORAD can keep us safe from Santa they can keep us safe from anything
Dude, nothing can protect us from Santa.
Except for Mrs. Claus! She stomps her foot and Santa gets grounded and goes to his room with his tail between his legs (yeah, they have a separate room arrangement)
Of course that goes without saying.
Totally different. Iron dome is way more extensive.
We don’t need iron dome because we have oceans on our borders. If Mexico collapses, though. Maybe need it.
Maybe if they start launching immigrants across the border with trebuchets ….
Not really different at all, the iron done is just much newer/advanced tech
And you know, far more dense- which is the core of what makes it effective
He must have recently rewatched Reagan’s Star Wars videos.
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.
Isn’t this just Reagan’s “Star Wars” program under a different name?
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
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.
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.
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.
MIRVs also throw the advantage heavily to the offense
They can take out an ICBM. It can’t take out all the ICBMs.
We have more than one of them?
Doesnt america already have one??? Also in the current geopolitical environment this may not be the worst idea ever…
Putin told him Russia could easily bomb the US and orange dump believed him
Do you think he realizes it’s not LITERALLY a dome?
Simpsons did it!
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?
Trump thinks we are in the Middle East
Just East of the Midwest duh.
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.
