Could have shortened the title significantly, and reuse it daily.
"Trump speaks, experts say that's ridiculous"
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
226 points (97.9% liked)
politics
19107 readers
2848 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
the onion should've gotten on that a decade 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
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)
load more comments
(1 replies)
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)
He must have recently rewatched Reagan's Star Wars videos.
load more comments
(6 replies)
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.
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?
Do you think he realizes it's not LITERALLY a dome?
Simpsons did it!
His would be gold though
And in the shape of a T
It's to keep us pesky Canadians from trebuchet-ing poutine over the border.
Are you telling me it's futile to face north, open my mouth and hope for poutine to rain upon me?
Not yet?
Keep the cobra chickens at bay. Smort.
Hopefully it’s more to keep the attack geese out. Loons too.
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.
10 iron domes would not be enough!
What about 10 Gustav railway guns loaded with WP shells?
To protect the US from rockets from... Canada?
To protect him & his billionaire buddies from his fellow Americans.
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)
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.
"I was elected to lead, not to read."
Number 3!
AND MEXICO WILL PAY FOR IT!!!
/s
Great, just what we need, an even louder Trump
Doesnt america already have one??? Also in the current geopolitical environment this may not be the worst idea ever......
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
Trump thinks we are in the Middle East
Just East of the Midwest duh.
That’s Pennsylvania, right? We know that’s the biggest “battleground state”.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's called the Atlantic/Pacific oceans sport
I'm sure a tinfoil hat can be arranged.
Is he going to occupy Mexico too? Maybe some modern manifest destiny?
view more: next ›