"Prioritized" (i.e., preferential) defense against “countervalue” attacks makes no sense, though. Do they mean counterforce? (Would be good for DoD to get these things right, of course.)
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
That phrasing, and a lot of the other requirements in the memo, were in the EO. They didn’t make sense there, either. Who gets to pick the defended cities? Also the FY 26 budget is due soon. They are going to have cost estimates for the President to review (and understand) before March?
Yeah, that’s true in describing the broader goals, but doesn’t make sense in the context of preferential defense specifically (large area-defenses and SBIs would contribute to the countervalue role, in addition to counterforce).
I don’t think this is actually a core motivator (there’s enough of a pro-MD base around Trump), but Musk and SpaceX very likely do benefit handsomely with launch contracts (and possible R&D).
My impression was that they're not claiming to want cape of blunting a large CF attack, but rather something aimed at riding out a (notional) PRC CV attack. This ofc is kind of at odds with the PRC buildout, seems like chasing a target that will be out of date by the time anything is ready...
But Iron Dome (which it won't be) IS to protect "value". As long as they're fantacizing about missile defense, why not go big and protect everyone, and not just defense installations?
Comments