Ha ha, people keep assuming Trump would protect the full US.

Most likely this would only protect his Sea to Lake home. (Why does he still use the 3rd world language Mar-a-Lago?)

And maybe protect DC. And maybe a favorite golf course or two.

And maybe protect anyone who “donates” to him.

If a golden dome shoots down missiles from above, is it a golden shower?

I thought it was an orange dome

The number of warheads each nation maintains is agreed on in the START treaties, and those levels are determined by stockpile effectiveness. The US is recognized to have superior targeting and guidance systems, so they need fewer warheads to maintain parity with Russia’s stockpile.

The best possible outcome is for SDI and it’s descendants to be a complete waste of taxpayer money. If some clever chap comes up with a practical missile defense system, Russia would immediately generate enough warheads to overwhelm such a system and maintain parity.

Each missile represents a potential fault path to WWIII. We’ve been lucky with at least a couple near misses in our history. I don’t look forward to a future with more.

Grego was part of an independent panel set up by the American Physical Society, which took a look at missile defense. Earlier this year, they concluded a constellation of about 16,000 interceptors would be needed to attempt to counter a rapid salvo of about 10 solid propellant ICBMs similar to North Korea’s Hwasong-18 missiles.

Sounds like Brilliant Pebbles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles

Brilliant Pebbles was a space-based ballistic missile defense (BMD) system proposed by Lowell Wood and Edward Teller of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in 1987, near the end of the Cold War. The system would consist of thousands of small satellites, each with missiles similar to conventional heat seeking missiles, placed in low Earth orbit constellations so that hundreds would be above the Soviet Union at all times. If the Soviets launched their ICBM fleet, the pebbles would detect their rocket motors using infrared seekers and collide with them. Because the pebble strikes the ICBM before the latter could release its warheads, each pebble could destroy several warheads with one shot.

Brilliant Pebbles is named as a play on “Smart Rocks,” a concept promoted by Daniel O. Graham under the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).[2] Smart Rocks envisioned large orbital battle stations equipped with powerful sensors and carrying numerous small missiles. However, deploying at least 423 stations to maintain coverage over the Soviet Union was impractical due to limited space lift capabilities at the time. Edward Teller dismissed the idea as “outlandish”[3] and vulnerable to anti-satellite attacks, a sentiment shared by the SDI Office (SDIO). But after their own project, Excalibur—an X-ray laser system powered by a nuclear warhead—failed critical tests, Teller and Lowell Wood recognized the limitations of directed-energy weapons. The SDIO then revisited missile-based concepts akin to Smart Rocks. Wood introduced “Pebbles,” proposing that advances in sensors and microprocessors allowed missiles to operate independently without central stations.

To intercept missiles promptly, the autonomous pebbles are kept in continuous low Earth orbit near the edge of the atmosphere. This low-altitude placement makes them susceptible to anti-satellite attacks. However, it also reduces the risk of contributing to Kessler Syndrome and space debris, as pebbles decay automatically due to atmospheric drag, re-enter the atmosphere, and are regularly replaced—a form of planned obsolescence. Because of their low orbit, the pebbles must travel at high velocities to maintain altitude, which prevents them from remaining fixed over a single location. Consequently, a constellation of many thousands of pebble satellites evenly distributed around the Earth is necessary to ensure sufficient coverage, making it inherently a global system.[4] Critics contend that this global distribution renders the majority of satellites ineffective during a conflict, thereby making the system less efficient compared to localized or regional missile defense systems.[5]

Pebbles replaced Rocks as the baseline SDI design and in 1991 it was ordered into production and became the “crowning achievement of the Strategic Defense Initiative”.[6] By this time the Soviet Union was collapsing and the perceived threat changed to shorter-range theatre ballistic missiles. Pebbles was modified, but doing so raised its weight and cost; the original design called for around 10,000 missiles and would cost $10 to $20 billion, but by 1990 the cost for 4,600 had ballooned to $55 billion.[3][a] Fighting in Congress through the early 1990s led to Pebbles’ cancellation in 1993, but elements of the concept re-emerged with the Space Development Agency in 2019, and later in 2025.[7]

That can probably do a pretty good number on an ICBM, as the article mentions. But I’m not at all sure how well it’d work against SLBMs launched from near-offshore ballistic missile submarines in a depressed trajectory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_missile#Throw-weight

Depressed trajectory

Throw-weight is normally calculated using an optimal ballistic trajectory from one point on the surface of the Earth to another. A “minimum-energy trajectory” maximizes the total payload (throw-weight) using the available impulse of the missile.[27] By reducing the payload weight, different trajectories can be selected, which can either increase the nominal range or decrease the total time in flight.

A depressed trajectory is non-optimal, as a lower and flatter trajectory takes less time between launch and impact but has a lower throw-weight. The primary reasons to choose a depressed trajectory are to evade anti-ballistic missile systems by reducing the time available to shoot down the attacking vehicle (especially during the vulnerable burn-phase against space-based ABM systems) or a nuclear first-strike scenario.