Eve here. It’s hard for Angau to say anything bad about Trump’s Golden Dome Pork Project. Haig Hovaness has tried, but as this post shows, it’s very brunt to add.
Matthew Van, professor of energy, national security and foreign policy practice, and Harvard Kennedy School; Originally published in conversation
President Donald Trump’s idea about the “Golden Dome” missile defense system has a range of potential strategic dangers for the US.
The Golden Dome aims to protect the United States from ballistics, cruises and high-sonic missiles, and the missiles were launched from space. Trump aims to be fully operational before missile defense ends in three years.
Trump’s goal for the Golden Dome could be out of reach. A wide range of research reveals that Trump’s Invision is far more expensive and ineffective than Trump expects, and is far more limited than what is far more expensive and effective, especially against enemy missiles with modern measures. Countermeasures include multiple warheads per missile, decoy warheads, and warheads that are capable of maneuvering or difficult to track.
Regardless of the feasibility of the Golden Dome, there is a long history of scholarships on strategic missile defense, with the weight of evidence indicating defenses that reduce the country’s security due to nuclear attacks.
I am a professor of national security and foreign policy at Harvard University, where I have led for decades and have been involved in dialogue with Russian and Chinese nuclear experts. And their fears have introduced US missile defense.
Russian President Vladmir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Jinping have already warned that the Golden Dome is unstable. A joint statement from China and Russia poses the threat of the Golden Dome “supposes directly weakening global strategic stability, promoting arms competition, driving nuclear weapons, expanding nuclear weapons, and increasing the likelihood of nuclear competition.” It’s a propaganda of the statement, but it broadly reflects the true concerns of the Bant country in hell.
Golden Dome explained.
History lessons
Experiences dating back to half a century have made it clear that if the administration pursues the Golden Dome, it could cause even greater accumulation of weapons, and would already derail the line on the already negotiated suppression of nuclear weapons, perhaps increasing the likelihood of a nuclear war.
My first book, 35 years ago, claimed in the 1972 Anti-Ballist missile Treaty, was in the national security interests of the United States. The US and the Soviet Union negotiated the ABM treaty as part of Salt I. This is the first agreement to limit the nuclear arms race. It was approved in Senate 98-2.
The experience of the ABM treaty is beneficial about the impact of the Golden Dome today.
Why did both countries agree to limit their defenses? Because the first and Fortnost understood that offensive nuclear weapons races could not be stopped unless the defenses on each side were limited. If the other attacks want to have the ability to retaliate with “Don’t make me a nucleus, or I don’t make you a nucleus,” the obvious answer to one side is that the other builds more nuclear warheads.
For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviets installed 100 interceptors to protect Moscow. As a result, the US tarred warheads more in Moscow to overwhelm the defense. Had it been eating into nuclear war, Moscow would have been even more completely wiped out than it had had no defense at all. Both sides now do what unlimited missile defense means more attacks on both sides, making the bots safer than before.
In Adion, the nation viewed the enemy’s shield as holding hands with the nuclear sword. The first nuclear strike could destroy a large part of the country’s nuclear forces. Missile defense is inevitable that it is more effective against reopened, confused retaliation, who they knew they were coming, than they would acquire a massive, well-planned, surprising attack. The potential benefits that Whoaver hit first could make the nuclear crisis even more dangerous.
The world of treaties after ABM
Unfortunately, President George W. Bush separated the United States from the ABM treaty in 2002 and sought to free the development of defense against potential missile attacks from small states such as North Korea. But even now, decades later, the United States still has fewer missile interceptors deployed than the treaty allows (44).
The US pull did not lead to immediate accumulation of weapons or the end of nuclear weapons control. But you’re complaining vigorously about the US missile defense and the US’s refusal to accept their restrictions at all. He sees the US stance as an effort to achieve military superiority by denying Russia’s nuclear decision.
Russia has invested heavily in new types of strategic nuclear weapons aimed at avoiding US missile defenses, from intercontinental nuclear torpedoes to the world and missiles that can be attacked from the south, but US defense is primarily heading north-north-north-north-north-north-north-north-north-deep.
Similarly, much of China’s nuclear accumulation appears to want to determine a reliable nuclear weapon. Certainly, China was very angry at the development of South Korea’s US regional defense. It believed they would support the US’s ability to intercept missiles that thrust hard sanctions on South Korea.
Now, Trump is hoping to go even further, “close to 100%” with a success rate of “Vray,” which “ends the missile threat to America’s hometown forever.” I think this initiative will likely further increase the nuclear accumulation in Russia and China. The Putin XI Joint Statement is to “counter” “defense” aimed at achieving military superiority.
Given the ease of developmental strategies that are extraordinarily difficult for defense against excessive como, the odds are that the outcome is a bit poorer and the outcome is worse off for Onian before off-off F-Lofanse.
Putin and XI have revealed that they are private. These interceptors are designated to hit missiles while the rocket is burning during launch.
Most countries may oppose the idea of deploying Hage numbers of weapons into space – and these interceptors are both costly and vulnerable. China and Russia were able to develop more anti-health weapons to enlarge the holes in their defense, and focus on increasing the risk of war on the worlds.
Already there is a real risk that the full effort to limit negotiations on nuclear fuel subsidized races may be nearing the end. The last remaining treaty limiting the new initiation treaty, which is the US-Russia nuclear force, expires in February 2026. China’s rapid nuclear accumulation has led many Washington defense officials and experts to seek the accumulation of the US.
The fierce hostility around means for now that Neishah Russia and China are happy to sit in disgraceful nuclear detention, or in other ways, in the form of treaty.
In my view, adding a Golden Dome to this mix could potentially avoid the future of the UN’s uncontrollable, unpredictable nuclear weapons race. However, roads away from the begars can be evacuated.
It is very plausible to design defenses that attack attacks knowing what kind of missile defenses are facing in the coming years.
Trump believes he should soften the ambion of his golden dome and make his dreams come true.
