[ExI] diamandis commentary

[Adrian Tymes]

On Sat, May 23, 2026 at 11:49 AM Gregory Jones via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> John the ballroom doesnt use federal money so that one is irrelevant.

Then why is Congress debating using federal money for it?  See
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp3px2x96eeo among other sources.

>  Regarding ultra expensive battleships, do you know why modern battleships are ultra expensive?

To be fair, most modern large naval ships can be described as "ultra
expensive", and the Trump-class design is projected to cost maybe
1.5-5 times a modern aircraft carrier (the closest modern equivalent)
such as the Ford-class.

...if you believe the initial projections.  One of the complaints is
that they're cramming so many new and unproven systems in, this would
wind up like the Zumwalt-class destroyer: costs ballooning far past
initial estimates, only a very few if any actually get built (3
Zumwalts, vs. the initial design for 32), and if any do they'll get
repurposed to some other mission rather than serve what they were
designed for.

> Why do you suppose modern battleship designs exist?

They generally don't.  Almost all navies have abandoned the concept.

> How do you suppose modern battle drones are deployed and recovered?

In a naval context?  From smaller ships, and/or ones more specialized
to that role.  A ship whose primary purpose is drone carriage and
deployment is not a battleship.

> What defensive systems do you imagine?

Given as it is "Trump" class, minimal.  Not none, but Trump would not
be satisfied with a design that emphasizes active defenses over
offensive capability.

> How do you suppose they can get into places carriers and ancient battleships such as the Missouri cannot go?

Generally, they can't.  Which is part of why the concept has been
largely abandoned.

Gun battleships just don't have the range, compared to missile
cruisers.  Even with railguns or (especially) directed energy weapons
(which are far less capable at over-the-horizon shots), to take an
extremely simplified example: if my missile cruiser stays out of range
of your battleship, I may need to fire a lot of missiles to get past
your defenses but, if I do so, I can eventually sink your battleship,
while your battleship is utterly impotent to so much as scratch my
missile cruiser's paint.

Presumably, Trump's supporters do not actually want an impotent
"Trump-class" ship.  (Trump's detractors might claim it's an accurate
representation - impressive at first glance, utterly weak once you
consider how the rest of the world works - but the ones designing this
appear to be among his supporters.)  But that's what a modern
battleship would be, despite appearances.