this post was submitted on 23 May 2025
107 points (99.1% liked)

politics

23602 readers
2117 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. 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.
  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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Earlier this week, U.S. President Donald Trump announced the "Golden Dome" missile defense project, which he claims will protect the entire country from missile attacks using a network of reconnaissance and strike satellites. According to Trump, the system should be completed by the end of his presidential term at a cost of "just" $175 billion. However, we shouldn’t forget the long history of exorbitantly expensive U.S. failures in missile defense.

Since 1962, the U.S. has already spent over $531 billion on various missile defense systems, none of which have proven effective. To date, the only tangible result is 44 interceptors stationed at airbases in Alaska and California—systems so unreliable that the Pentagon had to sign a new $18 billion contract with Lockheed Martin to develop an entirely new replacement.

Trump claims that past missile defense efforts lacked the necessary technology, but now America possesses "super technologies," including advanced computing, miniaturization, and increased weapon lethality. Yet, these advancements are a drop in the ocean compared to the immense challenges of missile defense. A report by the American Physical Society noted that any conceivable missile defense system could be easily overwhelmed if an enemy launched a salvo of missiles instead of a single one.

Notably, SpaceX may become the frontrunner in developing the "Golden Dome" system. But how transparent is this process? A letter sent to the Acting Inspector General of the Department of Defense by U.S. Congressional Democrats raises concerns that Elon Musk may have unfairly gained access to "Golden Dome" contracts—and their worries are not unfounded. Musk previously partnered with two other companies led by Trump-supporting CEOs to lobby for early-stage contracts on the system.

At this rate, Musk stands to make billions by capitalizing on the myth of a technological solution to nuclear missiles—a solution that, so far, does not exist.

Thus, the "Golden Dome" appears less like a viable missile defense project and more like a financial scam by Trump and Musk to siphon off U.S. taxpayer money.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago

"super technologies"

Someone should write a St. Upid vocabulary translation book.