Public sentiment is predominantly critical of the U.S. missile defense systems, highlighting skepticism about their effectiveness, concerns over national priorities skewed towards military involvement abroad, and dissatisfaction regarding the financial implications for domestic issues. Commenters express a desire for modernization and reevaluation of defense strategies, fearing outdated systems and the potential escalation of global military tensions.

U.S. Government

Department of Defense

Military Contractors

You're saying the US has created an opportunity to buy more missiles after approving a budget that expands the government spending by &gt;$3T?

darth_voidptr

""Pentagon Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson said the US military “is the strongest it has even been and has everything it needs to conduct any mission anywhere, anytime, all around the world. If you need further proof, look no further than Operation Midnight Hammer and the total obliteration of Iran’s nuclear capabilities.”"

What a good dodge of a very simple question! She sounds like the DOJ head, the White House Press Secretary and UKW!

Adept-Mulberry-8720

Supply gap?  Everyone already knew about the supply gap.  What about exposing the capability gap?

Adventurous_Web_2181

This is pretty normal. Unlike in video games, real life requires that there be some sort of ceiling on the number of armaments maintained. There isnt an unlimited supply.

kookykoko

If the US wasted 1/4 of it's interceptors (not counting Israel's Arrow and David's Sling stock) in 12 days protecting an area no larger than 200x30km, from 2nd-rate threat like Iran, what chances did it ever had against China or Russia? This should be a wake up call.

BDB-ISR-

somehow this is obama's fault, im sure of it

unfinishedtoast3

The data collected from these barrages were more valuable than the missiles themselves.

dec0y

Kinda gives credence to the fingers getting pointed at the hurried ceasefire was to prevent egg-on-face.

samdave69

Which contractor company makes these?  Asking for my portfolio

Imaginary_wizard

I wonder if there's a hit success rate somewhere, comparing THAD to the Arrow and Iron Dome.

Niceguy955

They've known since 2022 that it's time to start doubling, tripling the supply line for these missiles.  Both Biden and now Trump knew (or should have known) that the day is coming.  Either Russia attacks Europe, China attacks Taiwan - or both.  Oh and they need to be pumping out drones by the thousands, daily.  ...And 155mm shells.

xpkranger

"Europe's had a free ride at American expense for too long now..." 
Oh wait it's the middle east those rules don't apply...

Sure-Record-8093

If the supply is barely sufficient for Israel, I'm pretty sure it won't be sufficient to protect the US in case they're in war.

xAragon_

Why would anybody publicize the inventory levels of their defence supplies?  How can this possibly be sensible or strategically beneficial?

nocturnal_goatsucker

It’s honestly fine that there are fewer bombs

exintel

We have to quit giving away our strategic advantage to Israel.
We get nothing but hate from a billion people in return.

Substantial_Fig8339

Nothing says "America first" like spending a quarter of your interceptor stockpile and hundreds of billions of dollars on Israel

cakedayonthe29th

Spare_Dig_7959

The thing about missiles, is that they're made and sold by companies that hold a monopoly on the missile type.

Governments are getting ripped off. You can build a containership for 114 million, but that'll only get you 25-75 missiles.

Vaulters

So when we send missiles to Ukraine it's a good deed but when we send them to Israel it's a 'supply gap'

69iamtheliquor69

[deleted]

PartyRyan

Good? Let us run low for a while… oh wait, we have a dictator and this is making feel like we need to replenish… fuck trump, he raped those kids.

fumphdik

Define "standoff".  Pooncans are OTH, TASMs are "shoot at anything in the theater".  Of course the Navy's ultimate standoff weapon is a hyperactive kid in a F/A-18 with Paveways

Significant_Tie_3994

Further to add, Burkes primary focus is air defense and ASW rather than ASuW. ASuW is done by subs and aircraft. 

EMSSSSSS

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval\_Strike\_Missile](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile)  
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk\_(missile\_family)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomahawk_(missile_family)) (the ASuW version)   
they are all 2 million+

dwkfym

You have to remember that the U.S. surface navy is very defensive in nature. Most U.S. surface doctrine is defensive. Because the offensive arm of the U.S. navy is aircraft from the aircraft carriers and the surface fleet is meant to defend that offensive arm.

Harpoons were installed on the FLT I and II DDGs and never installed on the FLT IIAs and above. Harpoons at the end of the day are pretty antiquated missiles. And anti-surface TLAMs were removed from the fleet in the 80s and 90s. VLS launched LRASMs and the new Tomahawk MSTs (new anti-surface tomahawks) are very much in the experimental stage, as the navy attempts to bring back an offensive capability to surface ships. Naval Strike Missile (amazing weapon system btw, best missile I ever worked on) is being installed on all the LCSs and future FFGs. It is also being installed on all the DDGs as the harpoon replacement, with USS Fitzgerald being the first and firing one at the last RIMPAC. LCSs though are currently the priority for NSM and DDGs will get them as they become available. So to answer your question, there isn’t much in the U.S. navy because it doesn’t match what we do doctrinally, however it is getting more and better.

Popular-Sprinkles714

The US navy's anti ship missile is the F/A-18.

It has great range and the ability to dynamically react to real world situations.

But the truth is that the US navy has a doctrine that doesn't focus on anti ship missiles.

axloo7

The US navy’s standoff asm is a Harpoon attached to an airplane.

PanteleimonPonomaren

I think i heard the Fitzgerald might carry the NSM

LimpDetective

The anti-ship capability is currently handled by newer Standard missile variants. The Naval Strike Missle has been fit onto a single DDG that participated in a RIMPAC exercise. NSM is the chosen ASuW weapon for the Littoral Combat Ships, but I'm not aware of any official decision for it to widely equip more DDGs.

MalcolmGunn

They're looking into the RGM-184, US Navy designation for the Naval Strike Missile, for LCS, Constellation class and flight 1 and 2 Arleigh Burkes. Past that there are a few things that might count that are Mk41 based, iirc like, LRASM, along with secondary modes on SM-2 and SM-6, but really the counter surface role belongs to carrier air wings and submarines

diepoggerland2

Currently, the ship-based anti-ship missiles for the USN are the Block Va Maritime Strike Tomahawk, the Naval Strike Missile, SM-6, and SM-2, though admittedly, the anti-surface mode is of secondary use for the two SM's. 

The Naval Strike Missile is currently being rolled out by the Navy as the direct Harpoon replacement. So far, it's being first deployed with newly-raised USMC anti-ship missile batteries, and on both classes of Littoral Combat Ship to improve their firepower. However, one Flight 1 Arleigh Burke, the USS Fitzgerald, particpated in last year's RIMPAC with the NSM box launchers installed on a trials basis. Especially with Kongesberg opening up a second US-based production line as well as expanding their current one, more ships will be recieving NSM's in the future. 

As for air-launched ones, currently, the Navy employs three beyond any remaining air-launched Harpoons, the Long Range Anti-ship Missile, the Joint Strike Missile, and the SLAM-ER. Besides missiles, they also have undertaken a program to give existing stocks of JDAMs an anti-ship capability for low-end naval threats, and developed the Stormbreaker glide-bomb with the ability to hit moving land and sea targets. 

Furthermore, there are several other missiles with anti-ship capability under development by both the Air Force and Navy, the two most notable ones being the Extended Range Attack Munition, and the Stand-in Attack Weapon. Though both of these weapons are primarily intended to be air to surface weapons, it's been understood from what information's been realeasd that they both with have a secondary anti-ship role. 

  
Finally, the Army and Marine Corps will in the future recieve another anti-ship weapon in the form of Increment 2 of the Precision Strike Missile, the ballistic missile currently replacing the older ATACMs. Increment 1 is a strictly surface to surface unit, but Increment 2 which is in the prototype stage incorporates a new seeker with anti-ship capability, which will make it the US's first anti-ship ballistic missile. While currently, there are no plans to equip US ships with these weapons, apparently, the missiles are supposed to able to fit inside the Mk 41 VLS, so it's certainly something that might happen in the future.

AnswerLopsided2361

1CCF202

The Tomahawk can be used in this role.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOfNNyvplWk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOfNNyvplWk)

MaelstromVortex

My understanding is that they use the Tomahawk. Why do you think that would be ineffective?

SnooBananas37

Currently the US surface ships carry a restricted variety of AShM, naval strike  missiles in some of the corvettes, SM-2 and 6 in a dual (but not main) role.... When joined by a carrier f-18s with harpoons and LRASMs (also AARGMs can be used to target ship radars).... And when joined by a sub, sub launched harpoons.

The main antinship role in the us combined force is carried out by nuclear subs via torpedoes, carrier based f-18s with harpoons or bombs and the heavy hammer is bomber barrages (b-1, b-52s) of LRASMs

An attack against a surface group would consist of a mix probably
A LRASM barrage from bombers, joined by harpoons to give mass and MALD-Js to aid penetration

No-Show4279

The newest Tomahawk Block V includes an anti ship variant, the Maritime Strike Tomahawk (MST) Block VA, with an estimated range of 310 to 430 miles. The first Block V missiles began delivery in 2021, and all existing Block IV will be upgraded to Block V (older Block III will be retired)
(No word on how many of each MST Va and land attack Vb will be procured)

At least one of the older Flight 1 Destroyers, USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62), was seen fitted with RGM-184 Naval Strike Missile (NSM) launchers at RIMPAC 2024. These were in place of her previous existing Harpoon launchers.

Although they don't appear to be widespread among the Burkes, the NSM is popular, and being mounted to LCS, air launched versions for the F-35, and the Constellation-class Frigates are supposed to be equipped with a battery of 16x NSM (in addition to her Mk 41 VLS)

Going back to the Flight IIIs that don't have a convenient Harpoon launchers to just swap out for NSM... I've seen some talk, or at least speculation, that NSM can/will be adapted to the Mk 41 VLS (tho I don't believe any significant work has been publicly done to that end yet).
Same with the AGM (RGM?) 158C LRASM. Talks here and there of being VLS integrated, but nothing definitive on if they've actually done any work towards that end yet or not

The launchers could probably be retrofitted (maybe, likely?, in a different deck spot so they're not sitting right in front of the rear CIWS, even a SeaRAM launcher would probably feel a little crowded). Such a task is easier said than done, but some Flight IIA Burkes have also seen significant superstructure modifications to accommodate new EW and Radar and other gear, so it's no exactly an insurmountable task to modify a Flight III to have a spot for the NSM launchers (tho it may be easier to get them into the VLS vs trying to get the deck launchers onboard)

Otherwise, long range anti ship strike is currently limited to your various SSN (LA, Seawolf, and Virginia classes) with Mk48 ADCAP torpedoes, and the Air Wing with Super Hornets and F-35s launching Harpoons, SLAM-ER, NSM, LRASM, future hypersonic concepts, etc

JimHFD103

Yes and No.

Partially Yes for surface ships with newer SM and Blk 5a Tomahawk with newer capabilities being added such as NSM as a replacement for Harpoons and LRASM for Aircraft and a multitude of other weapons for much smaller surface combatants.

No simply bcuz the primary standoff anti ship platform of the USN is the SSN nothing says standoff capabilities more than the entire enemy fleet eating a mouthful of Mk.48 everywhere they are present.

gottymacanon

so navy surface ships no longer have ASM ? Ghat never even crossed my mind, wow

dauby09

The point of the vertical launch system on the Burkes is that you have a lot of flexibility on what missiles are carried. One missile that can be carried is this one that entered service about 7-8 years ago.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C\_LRASM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM)

iron82

Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. We are currently under an indefinite moratorium on gender issues, and anti-semitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

Didn't he just make a deal to supply weapons in return for a share of natural resources?! A deal is a deal. Give Ukraine what they're now 'paying' for - if he's unable to supply them the deal should be thoroughly investigated.


If the president is offering things America can't afford - you have a huge issue.

Beneficial_Plate_314

Germany, Ukraine and other European countries have spent huge amounts of money buying Patriot batteries, training troops and getting them into position in Ukraine. If it's impossible to buy the ammunition for them when they are needed to save the lives of Ukrainians from the Russian onslaught that makes it clear this was a big mistake. Europe is spending well over $100 billion a year buying American weapons, moving towards $200 billion very soon many times the $85 billion total that America has provided to Ukraine so far. Providing, at the very least selling but to a large degree supporting Ukraine with, such missiles is key to maintaining American credibility in the weapons market in Europe.

nar_tapio_00

Yes. We should supply as many weapons as we possibly can. 

The "UkRaInE iSnT AmErIcA" people are fucking idiots.

Super simple math. This is a war of aggression carried out against a *US and NATO aligned* neighbor with no casus belli. We've already demonstrated in this decade how we fuck our friends over *waves to Afghanistan*

Putin is literally doing what Hitler did. "Oop! Gotta protect my ethnic people in the Sudetenland!" 

"Oop! Gotta protect my ethnic people in Ukraine!"

Billions of dollars for Ukrainian defense aid and Lockheed can't boost Patriot production over 3 years? Come on.

ThrowawayCop51

Yes.

Given that the stocks are an issue, building up production would be the right choice - as well as taking a hard look at the consumption by CENTCOM in the middle east.

thespanishgerman

Yea, I'm all for sending weapons. Not so much because I love Ukraine (they do have my respect), but because I despise Russia that much and would love to see them get crippled. When your adversary steps on a bear trap, you take advantage.

davidml1023

Yes give Ukraine everything they need to push back against Russia while also increasing our own production of Patriot missile defense systems in America especially that Zelensky said Ukraine would buy them instead of us giving them aid.

Massive-Ad409

Gaxxz

ikonoqlast

We have had 3 years to ramp up production or shells and Patriot missiles - absolutely we should be helping that country defend itself.

hackenstuffen

No, I still don't see Ukraine as an American issue.

kappacop

bones_bones1

soulwind42

GreatSoulLord

Ukraine will keep getting destroyed if we keep enabling the war. 
Trump cant negotiate a ceasefire and the Russians made it crystal clear what their terms are. Zelenskyy refuses to concede, which is a concept throughout human history in war. So there are three main actors in this that refuse to compromise.
Its a mess. I genuinely think the way to end the war is to stop sending weapons. Im all about humanitarian relief and help though. And reconstruction.

Cyo_The_Vile

Shop-S-Marts

ICEManCometh1776

No, forever proxy wars are a mistake, we should push for peace and make a deal.

thoughtsnquestions

No, America has achieved its goals. The political win is peace, and we want those so we can keep winning elections. This proxy war is over and hopefully these types of wars are over. Dismantling USAID will go a long way to keep us out of these situations in the future.

SnooFloofs1778

Don’t think we should supply Ukraine with anything other than humanitarian aid. 

That’s it.

Vindictives9688

No, we should be working towards peace, not prolonging an unwinnable proxy war.

gummibearhawk

Hi Healthy_Shine_8587, Thanks for posting to r/AskAChinese! If you have not yet, please select a user flair to indicate where you are from! 


*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAChinese) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Not Chinese but that doesnt matter because its the same reason. every "opponent" of another country dislikes missile defence systems.

It undermines the idea of MAD if the defence systems become too good

Exciting-Wear3872

As such China would develop our own and would hence lead to arms race

tenzindolma2047

It is explained in plain English in your post.

If the US is no longer afraid of nuclear retaliatory strikes, they can use nuclear weapons on a whim.

Nuclear deterrence is based on a subtle balance, the golden dome would destroy that balance.

Busy_Garbage_4778

The nuclear power balance between great power is based on the fact that no one can 100% defend themselves from nuclear missles. If such balance is broken it could cause another round of arm race.

Evercloud88

Because if you lose the ability to retaliate the other side is free to move offensively. 

They're right to be upset, the US doing this forces everyone else to spend money doing so. Who this really hurts is medium sized players. No amount of defense can prevent a strike from china if they chose to do so. But it could stop what a medium sized power could throw at us. 

  
At its most optimistic you would make a golden dome and then go to iran, north korea, ect and say disarm now or else and end up removing a bunch of nuclear weapons from circulation. 

Thats assuming all this works, which i sure as hell wouldnt want to count on.

Healthy_Razzmatazz38

Because it's an offensive weapon since it uses missile systems to shoot missiles in space. It's more of an offensive weapon than a defensive weapon.

Severe-Ticket-2394

Not a Chinese, but a missile defense system removes the mutually assured destruction threat tied to pre-emptive nuclear strikes. If the US can be completely protected from harm, but able to strike anywhere with world ending impunity then it has no need to deal with diplomatic solutions and can be a belligerent indefinitely.

Its a bit of a silly piece of fiction but Tom Clancy's End War game (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom\_Clancy's\_EndWar) has a strategic missile shield as a large part of what eventually spurs on World War III.

Functionally, imagine if the USSR had been immune to missile strikes but could strike anywhere - how do you think the US/Europe would react?

We currently have people in the US government calling for strikes on the Three Gorges Dam over a trade dispute, something that would kill millions and absolutely demand a nuclear escalation. Why would anyone trust the US to not be an aggressor if it could be immune to reprisals?

ytman

Because "defense system" for America really points to "offense" America is in the business of starting wars and sending troops to fight. America is not a peaceful nation and now under fascist Trump, it even threatens long time ally nations.

hotDamQc

Because China (and everyone with a working brain) know that when the USA finishes the dome they will start wars against anyone. That's Trump's and his crew's obvious dream, why can't Americans see that?

gabrielxdesign

How would you feel if the school bully decides to show up to school everyday with a bulletproof vest

Significant_Apple904

The same reason the US opposes any other country having a Missile Defense program.

However, this quote from FOX News is taken out of context.

Why is the US building a "Golden Dome?"

The US is the only country in the world with nuclear armed submarines off the coast of every major nation.

If a Nuclear War were to break out the U.S. has the best chances of walking out of it with the upper hand. This is a huge card that the U.S. is able to play geopolitically. Everyone with even a basic understanding of IR or Game Theory recognizes this, and all geopolitics that you see unfold in the world are under these constraints.

So if the U.S. somehow makes itself even more impervious to nuclear strikes, while at the same time not scaling back its nuclear attack capability then this is rightfully seen as an escalation by any sane observer.

StepAsideJunior

Chinese foreign ministry on principle is opposed to any military development of the US, just like the US state department "expresses concern" about everything Chinese military does. But of course this doesn't stop Fox News from creating a news story about "the Chinese is panicking about our new project that the only people say is feasible are the defense contractors".

Considering the US declare Chinese garlic a national security threat, the Chinese complaint is hardly out of line.

No-Satisfaction-275

I think China just doesn't want war, and the US is thirsting for war.

sddryan

Because although it’s called a “defence” system, it can also be used start a conflict as well. Plus , it’s a big step towards the militarization of space.

astraladventures

Defense is just a cover up, this system is really designed to strike anywhere in the world with ease.

bro, those "defense systems" literally work by shooting missiles. You can easily tweak them to just shoot at the enemy instead of oncoming missiles.

Bazzinga88

sim16

isn't there a treaty to prevent arming space?

Own_Power_6587

Cause it tampers with MAD and it will do so by putting interceptrs in space both are big no nos, the second is more legitimate than the first thought

ppmi2

BottomlessFlies

HorseWorking

Sad-Arachnid-5166

I asked Google Gemini to explain it like I am five and here is the response 

Okay, imagine you and your friend both have toy swords, right? And you both promise to only play fair and not hit each other with your swords.
Now, imagine your friend suddenly gets a giant, super-duper shield, like a really, really big one that can stop anything. And your friend says, "This shield is just for me to protect myself!"
But you look at that shield and think, "Hmm, if my friend has such a strong shield, maybe they'll feel brave enough to swing their sword really hard, because they know they're safe. And then I'll have to get an even bigger sword to protect myself!"
That's kind of like what China is thinking about America's "Golden Dome" shield. America says, "It's just to protect us from bad rockets!"
But China worries that if America has a super-duper shield, America might feel more powerful and do things that make China feel unsafe. And then China might have to build its own super-duper rockets to make sure they can still be strong.
So, China is saying, "Hey, let's not make super big shields or super big rockets! Let's all just promise to be fair and not scare each other, okay?"

aristocrat_user

As reported by "FOX NEWS".that bastion of reliable unbiased US reporting ? 


Well if it is anything like Israels IRON DOME, it will be far from very effective. And these projects take a long long time to develop to be operationally reliable.


I really don't think China GAF &amp; could easily build its own .RED DOME based on Russian air defence system's, which are some of the best in the world, but probably even more advanced

2GR-AURION

my guess is because US plan to weaponize their satelites as a part of this Iron Dome system

FrozenSkyy

Because the US has made the very same comment a million times on China having a missile defense system for China's Mainland. 

I call it Boomerang effect lol

Fc1145141919810

Ah China is doing reverse psychology to Trump. This project is going to make Americans bleed money faster. Those 170B$ are just the down payment 😂

Nasi-Goreng-Kambing

What “ally” has China provoked into war? If ur referring to Taiwan, they are part of China but I’m sure we’re not goin to agree on that. China has the most advanced radar systems in the world and openly stated that they can detect b2 bombers with the LPIR.

It won't work. If 1 out of 100 mirvs get through the fallout will do the rest.

Well, would the USA have anything against a Chinese version of this Golden Dome flying over the U.S. at all times?

asnbud01

It'll be fun watching Elon try to build it out of materials that the USA doesn't have ready access to, and China (through BRICS) largely controls.

ThatGuy_Bob

ActPrize5556

US also has military bases around every corner of the earth... I think this context matters. 

But I think Fox News is mostly for entertainment.

ParticularVillage146

yawn reported, another day, another ADV type with a bait question

Ill-Penalty-7652

yeah, "protecting from enemies" by setting missile bases right at China's door steps, just like NATO did to Russia

GreenC119

Wouldn’t this give China justification to develop their own Golden dome with interceptor missiles, nuclear warheads mounted on military satellites? Said satellites would circle the globe multiple times a day making it impossible to defend against if they do decide to release those nuclear missiles?

ah-boyz

Nah they’re not - they know it’s a waste of money.  Already tried in the 80s.

EnvironmentalLie3771

Significant weaknesses in U.S. missile defense were revealed during the recent Iran-Israel conflict, raising alarms about military readiness.

US Missile Defense and Supply Gaps

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want