Trump mocked after GOP pledges to build US Iron Dome despite military experts advising against it

WASHINGTON, DC: As the GOP prepares for their upcoming party convention in Milwaukee next week, the evolving approach to national security within the party signals a significant shift from past Republican policies.

Under the leadership of former President Donald Trump, the Republican party's position on US military capacity and sanctions against Russia has transformed significantly, according to ABC News.

In the past, the party advocated for a military capable of engaging in more than two major wars simultaneously and sought stricter sanctions against Russia.

However, the revamped 2024 GOP platform emphasizes a desire to avoid conflict, citing concerns that "wars breed inflation."

Moreover, it outlines a policy for the creation of an American-manufactured national missile defense system resembling Israel's Iron Dome.

Notably, this proposal is not a request from the military, and experts question its practical utility for the United States.

The 2024 GOP platform underlines the party's new priorities, "PREVENT WORLD WAR THREE, RESTORE PEACE IN EUROPE AND IN THE MIDDLE EAST, AND BUILD A GREAT IRON DOME MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD OVER OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY -- ALL MADE IN AMERICA."

The emergence of this proposal raises questions about the origin and feasibility of the US Iron Dome. Consequently, it is crucial to delve into its origins and assess its viability for implementation in the United States.

Donald Trump wishes for 'the greatest dome of them all'

The Iron Dome was created by Israel to intercept rockets and mortar fire out of thin air, serving as a protective barrier for a nation facing constant threats of short-range and medium-range missile attacks.

This multibillion-dollar defense installment played a crucial role in effectively defending Israel last April when Iran launched around 300 missiles and drones at the Jewish state in response to an Israeli airstrike that killed a high-ranking Iranian commander.

The success of the Iron Dome drew the attention of former President Trump, who had already been suggesting at campaign rallies that the US could develop its own version of the technology, given that the US had contributed approximately $3 billion in wartime aid to Israel in manufacturing and maintaining the system.

The 78-year-old former POTUS's remarks about a US Iron Dome often sparked enthusiastic cheers from his ever-ardent supporters, similar to the reaction in 2016 when he advocated for building a wall at the US southern border with Mexico.

"In my next term, we will build a great Iron Dome over our country, a dome that has never seen before, a state-of-the-art missile defense shield that will be entirely built in America," Trump declared at a rally in Wisconsin, to a round of applause from the audience.

"We're going to build the greatest dome of them all," the 2024 presumptive Republican nominee pledged.

Challenges of implementing a nationwide missile defense system

The United States' geographical position, with allies to the north and south and oceans on either side, means that replicating an Iron Dome system for the US wouldn't be practical. The US does not encounter the same short-range missile threats as Israel.

However, what would a nationwide missile defense system look like that’s similar to the Iron Dome but specifically designed for the US?

According to an anonymous US defense official, US Northern Command, the military combatant command responsible for defending the homeland from foreign missiles, has not shown interest in a nationwide missile defense system.

The military already utilizes multiple systems "that together provide agility in responding to potential threats, which increases available options for the nation's leaders."

One of these systems is the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense program, which was created to intercept long-range missiles from countries such as North Korea.

Nevertheless, its utility would be limited in the event of a large-scale attack from a country with a substantial arsenal, such as Russia.

Expanding this system to cover the entire United States would likely cost billions of dollars, especially as the country is also working to defend itself against cyber and space attacks.

Furthermore, China and Russia are currently developing hypersonic weapons, and US administration officials have acknowledged Russia's pursuit of nuclear capabilities in space.

This greatly complicates the task of ensuring the safety of the US with a single system.

Retired Gen Glen VanHerck, who served as the head of US Northern Command and North American Aerospace Defense Command, stated, "You can't defend the entire United States. It's unrealistic, unaffordable and unachievable."

He emphasized the importance of the White House establishing clear policies on which US assets to defend beyond critical military infrastructure, a stance he advocated for during his tenure as head of NORTHCOM.

"Ultimately, it goes back to policy. What are your priorities? What do you want us to do? And then we can make realistic decisions with the force we have today, and we can then budget and resource for the forces of the future," he asserted.

Shifting priorities in GOP military strategy

The statements made by political parties and in campaign speeches often prioritize pleasing the public over creating practical plans for governing a country.

For instance, in 2016, former President Trump proposed constructing a "big, beautiful" wall along the southern border of the United States with Mexico.

However, by the end of his term, only a fraction of the border had new fencing, mostly replacing existing structures. Donald Trump's call for a border wall essentially symbolized strict immigration policies.

Military analyst Steve Ganyard, a retired Marine Corps colonel and ABC News contributor, noted that advocating for an Iron Dome over the US might not be strategically sensible due to emerging threats from space. He also highlighted the omissions in the latest GOP platform.

For the first time in many years, the party is not advocating for increased spending to expand the military or extend US military influence globally.

Ganyard commented, "It just strikes me as how isolationist it is, particularly in comparison to past Republican platforms."

Former Trump advisors view the shift in US spending toward homeland security positively.

Elbridge Colby, who served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Strategy and Force Development during the Trump administration, described the new GOP platform as “a very strong document with sound common-sense principles, including building up the American military base.”

Colby emphasized that the platform focuses on protecting the homeland, "not looking for monsters to destroy."

Internet mocks Trump after the 2024 GOP platform pledges to build a US Iron Dome

Online critics targeted the MAGA strongman for reiterating his intention to develop an Iron Dome anti-missile system that would establish a protective barrier across the entire United States, potentially costing taxpayers billions of dollars.

One X user remarked, "This is a grift for sure." [sic]

Another user asked, "Missile defense? Defense from who? Canada? Mexico? What a stupid idea." [sic]

Another user said, "We Americans are hurting and this bozo wants us again pay higher and more taxes for military. Is trump smoking a white pipe." [sic]

One user argued, "Until the Chinese take over Cuba... Or another Caribbean nation. Then it will become very useful." [sic]

Another X user quipped, "Right up there with the classic 'Mexico will pay for the wall' in terms of rancid stupidity."

Finally, this user tweeted, "Follow the money... #Republicans."

This article contains remarks made on the Internet by individual people and organizations. MEAWW cannot confirm them independently and does not support claims or opinions being made online.