• floofloof@lemmy.caOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Especially when the USA keeps making clear that it is one of the two countries most likely to conduct hostile actions against Canada.

  • Maverick604@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    “Ever since nuclear-armed intercontinental-range missiles were deployed in the 1950s, the United States (and its potential adversaries) have been vulnerable to nuclear attack. This is very unnerving, and has caused our leaders to search for some kind of technical fix that would change this situation by making it possible for us to defend ourselves against such an attack. Fixing this situation is also very appealing to the public. As a consequence, new systems for defending against ICBMs have been proposed again and again, and about half a dozen have been built, costing large amounts of money, in the hope that a technical fix could be found that would make us safe. But none of these efforts have been successful, because the difficulty of defending against nuclear-armed ICBMs is so great.”

    https://www.404media.co/scientists-explain-why-trumps-175-billion-golden-dome-is-a-fantasy/

        • ddh@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          Oh, the taxpayers will still pay for it. It will just never be built.

        • venusaur@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          Never say never. Somebody like you probably thought going into space would never happen. It’ll happen and it won’t hurt to be at the frontier.

                • venusaur@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  7
                  ·
                  8 days ago

                  Other countries wouldn’t just be shooting down our satellites for the same reason they don’t just blow up our naval or aerial fleets. Moot point.

                  Baby steps. Start small and build it up. Figure out new, more feasible weapons. Other countries are already thinking about and experimenting with space defense. Not just us.

                  When your bones have been repurposed for crude oil and when all of Earth’s resources have gone dry, the people of that time will think of space military the same way we think of the Air Force.

          • Tiger666@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            8 days ago

            Like everything else Drumpf does; this is a scam. Your dear leader will never implement this. It is an obvious protection racket. Reagan had Star Wars and that was never implemented because it would have cost trillions in the eighties. Another conservative grift to increase funds for the military.

  • 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    8 days ago

    Does anyone remember when canada was building one of the world’s most advanced fighter jets and cancelled it because the americans said they would build a missile defense shield that would protect us instead?

    Make the avro arrow great again!!!

  • Akasazh@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    8 days ago

    The current President of the Divided states… a racketeer? A swindler?

    ORLY.bmp

  • perviouslyiner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    If they build something to attack missiles immediately after launch, how do the Americans even know who is the target?

    Like, you’re choosing whether or not to shoot down a missile that launches in the general direction of Canada and America, but at launch you can’t see exactly which?

  • YesButActuallyMaybe@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 days ago

    “I’ve got something for you it is shiny it is clean. Come let me adorn you with my yellow laser beam” — Mac frontalot

    • manxu@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 days ago

      I think it’s because the threat model against which a Golden Dome defends is just not that plausible any longer. Given the distances, a space-based ground defense can only protect from long-range attacks, like ICBMs. Unlike in the 80s, the technology to intercept and destroy ICBMs safely is now probably there, but the threat of all out nuclear war is much reduced.

        • manxu@piefed.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          8 days ago

          We may very well in the future, of course! But maybe at the rate technology develops, it could be smarter to start working on it when the threat becomes visible.

          I venture the uneducated guess that satellite to satellite might be the next space defense frontier ahead of space to ground.

          • venusaur@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 days ago

            Yeah satellite to satellite is definitely feasible and I think already being developed.

            I just wouldn’t want to be late to the party when other countries have already started establishing viable space to ground weaponry. We take for granted that a lot of the domestic stability that the US is privileged to is due to an advanced military. Not saying we shouldn’t focus our money on more important things, but maintaining our status as a military superpower is unfortunately very important.