Comment on California startup to demonstrate space weapon on its own dime
JillyB@beehaw.org 1 day ago
The second key is, in order for it to be viable, you need enough of them in space to actually have the impact that you need.”
This is the part that makes Golden Dome non-viable IMO. Golden Dome is attempting the holy Grail of ballistic missile defense: boost phase intercept. The idea is that the missile is slowest, biggest, and easiest to detect and track immediately after launch. Golden Dome is attempting to place the launchers in orbit.
The problem is every satellite takes a predictable path, so the launching country could just wait until it’s not overhead and launch. This means you need a bunch of satellites in a spaced out orbit so there’s always one over the launcher. And you need that for every potential launch site. And most nuclear capable countries have road-mobile ICBMs, so you need enough to cover the whole country. The launching country could just knock out a satellite to punch a hole through your defenses and then launch in the brief window. So now you need redundancy. But every redundant satellite you place can be countered by one extra anti-satellite missile. Anti-satellite missiles will always be cheaper to build than satellite-based interceptors. China has 110 nuclear ICBM silos in one field in the desert. Are you going to be able to shoot down 110 missiles launched at the same time from the same area?
The author makes it sound like Reagan-era Star Wars was infeasible but now it’s fine because of technology. I really don’t think the fundamental economic issue has been resolved. It would take these satellites becoming much cheaper to deploy or some kind of counter to an anti-satellite missile.
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 day ago
To be fair, you don’t need it to perfectly counter China and Russia to have value. There are other countries that have nuclear capabilities or ambitions, who don’t have thousands of ICBMs.
JillyB@beehaw.org 1 day ago
North Korea is the only one that could fall under that category. It just seems like a ton of resources to throw behind a tiny fraction of the nuclear threat to the US. Couldn’t we station boost-phase interceptors in South Korea and/or Japan for a whole lot cheaper? An anti-satellite capability is much easier to get than a nuclear ICBM. If they can make a nuke, they can take out a satellite.
Ultimately, Golden Dome is a wunderwaffe. The Trump administration is excited about it for the same reasons the Nazis were excited about their military vanity projects. It’s hard to discuss it purely in it’s own merits without also considering the reason it is being pursued. It isn’t being pushed by top people in the military or Pentagon. It’s pushed because some high up fascists saw the Israeli Iron Dome and were like “we gotta have one of those, but BIGGER, and make it GOLD”. It’s an aesthetic marketing halo project for MAGA fascism.
t3rmit3@beehaw.org 1 day ago
I agree 100%, I’m not arguing it’s a good idea, these are just other arguments than “in order for it to be useful it needs to be able to counter Russia and/or China, otherwise it would be strategically useless and economically infeasible”.
In the status quo, I still don’t think that’s true; India and Pakistan are both nuclear-equipped, but with moderate-to-low warhead counts that could potentially reach the US. Western European countries have nukes (France and UK), and very small land areas to cover. SLBMs are another issue altogether, ofc. If you’re planning to make any of them enemies, it could absolutely be useful.