228
submitted 3 weeks ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] stoy@lemmy.zip 58 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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

"Trump speaks, experts say that's ridiculous"

[-] match@pawb.social 4 points 3 weeks ago

the onion should've gotten on that a decade ago

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 52 points 3 weeks 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.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 35 points 3 weeks ago

To be fair, they told him about this in dozens of briefings, but he was always distracted by his Happy Meal toy.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 45 points 3 weeks 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

[-] dwemthy@lemdro.id 14 points 3 weeks ago

If NORAD can keep us safe from Santa they can keep us safe from anything

[-] Professorozone@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

Dude, nothing can protect us from Santa.

[-] portuga@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

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)

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] tracker@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 weeks ago

You are so wrong… the most direct route for a missile attack to US from Russia passes over Canada, hence the location.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

He must have recently rewatched Reagan's Star Wars videos.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 41 points 3 weeks 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.

[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 15 points 3 weeks ago

That's outrageous! I'll do it for 249 billion!

[-] superkret@feddit.org 7 points 3 weeks ago

Honestly, I'll do it for a hundred bucks.

[-] paddirn@lemmy.world 25 points 3 weeks 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?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 24 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Do you think he realizes it's not LITERALLY a dome?

[-] IphtashuFitz@lemmy.world 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Simpsons did it!

[-] kibiz0r@midwest.social 5 points 3 weeks ago
[-] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

And in the shape of a T

[-] mp3@lemmy.ca 23 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] YerbaYerba@lemm.ee 13 points 3 weeks ago

Are you telling me it's futile to face north, open my mouth and hope for poutine to rain upon me?

[-] Siethron@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago
[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 13 points 3 weeks ago

Keep the cobra chickens at bay. Smort.

[-] mitchty@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 3 weeks ago

Hopefully it’s more to keep the attack geese out. Loons too.

[-] Blackout@fedia.io 22 points 3 weeks 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.

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

10 iron domes would not be enough!

[-] vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 2 points 3 weeks ago

What about 10 Gustav railway guns loaded with WP shells?

[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 19 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

To protect the US from rockets from... Canada?

[-] OhStopYellingAtMe@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago

To protect him & his billionaire buddies from his fellow Americans.

[-] Carmakazi@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

To protect a future, thoroughly fascist America from the rest of the free world should the GOP seize permanent power.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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.

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks ago

AND MEXICO WILL PAY FOR IT!!!

/s

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 14 points 3 weeks ago

"I was elected to lead, not to read."

[-] Tower@lemm.ee 2 points 3 weeks ago
[-] BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Great, just what we need, an even louder Trump

A young Bart Simpson banging on a cooking pot on his head

[-] AI_toothbrush@lemmy.zip 10 points 3 weeks ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Rhoeri@lemmy.world 9 points 3 weeks 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.

[-] MCasq_qsaCJ_234@lemmy.zip 8 points 3 weeks ago

Trump thinks we are in the Middle East

[-] ours@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago

Just East of the Midwest duh.

[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago

That’s Pennsylvania, right? We know that’s the biggest “battleground state”.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 7 points 3 weeks ago

Isn't this just Reagan's "Star Wars" program under a different name?

[-] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks 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 2 points 3 weeks 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 5 points 3 weeks 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 4 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Buffalox@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

I'm sure a tinfoil hat can be arranged.

[-] GBU_28@lemm.ee 4 points 3 weeks ago

It's called the Atlantic/Pacific oceans sport

[-] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

Is he going to occupy Mexico too? Maybe some modern manifest destiny?

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
228 points (97.9% liked)

politics

19082 readers
4711 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS