Trump’s Golden Dome Is A Continental Defence Recipe That Will Not Fly

When I read this week’s headline that Canada is considering joining the “Golden Dome” Program, I did a double-take. First, Canada has been under attack by the Trump administration with punishing tariffs and threats of annexation. Second, didn’t we see something similar in the Reagan years called the Strategic Defence Initiative (SDI), and by its alternate name, “Star Wars?” When Canada was asked to join then, it politely said no, and nothing came of it. This time, it is not clear whether Canada is asking to participate or being coerced by Trump to be a partner, while others question the effectiveness of the project without Canada’s involvement. If Canada says no, does that mean the Golden Dome is dead? Canada’s no to Star Wars may have been one of the reasons for it never happening. More likely, however, was the ambition represented in Reagan’s vision.

Reagan described Star Wars as a network of satellites equipped with particle beam weapons and interceptor missiles capable of detecting and shooting down a first nuclear strike from Russia or China. At the height of the Cold War, the threat of nuclear war remained real, and a defensive shield sounded like a good idea in principle. However, problems lay in developing the technology as well as the cost. Speaking of cost, Trump’s Golden Dome announcement put the total at US$ 175 billion, with a $25 billion down payment. Trump also announced that the work would be completed in three years. Both the cost and timing estimates are patently absurd, state defence experts, with the more likely a low-ball price being more than $500 billion and as much as several trillion, and the timing of deployment no earlier than a decade from now.

Why so expensive and so late? The technology to make the Golden Dome a reality does not exist, but it’s not for trying. Back in 2014, I wrote about the evolution of anti-missile defence systems and noted then that the technology didn’t work any better than the anti-aircraft artillery and flak used in World War 2 trying to knock bombers out of the sky.

The hyping of the Iron Dome, which the U.S. has been involved as a co-developer with Israel, is overblown. The reality of Iron Dome’s success is probably no more than 50% while being deployed within the limited geography of Israel. Defending Israel’s air and land successfully has had more to do with the bad marksmanship if the country’s adversaries.

What makes shooting down an incoming hypersonic or ICBM missile is speed and the timing between launch and strike. An ICBM launched from China or Russia hits a U.S. target in no more than 25 minutes, travelling thousands of kilometres. Each missile may contain multiple warheads designed to deploy to a range of targets. When are these missiles most vulnerable? Before and at the time of launch. In mid-flight, they are invulnerable, and in descent, it is game over. In my 2014 musings, I noted that the anti-missile defence reality of the future will involve lots of money poured into projects chasing elusive targets with less than satisfactory results.

For the Golden Dome, I fear, based on U.S. Department of Defence efforts to date, at best a less than 50% success rate. Even if the Golden Dome were to achieve better than 50%, let’s say 90% success, it would still mean tens of millions in North America dying.

What other elements than an anti-missile arsenal could be deployed as part of the Golden Dome Program?

The system likely would need a constellation of satellites equipped with sensors to provide prelaunch and early warning launch detection capability. These satellites would need to communicate to other components of the Golden Dome defence providing critical information such as launch coordinates and timing, trajectories and suspected targets.

The Golden Dome defences would likely combine anti-missiles fired from space or smart projectiles launched from thousands of ground-based batteries, a la World War 2. What would be different is the deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) in helping to predict the who, when, where and how of a missile attack. What is less likely to become a reality are particle and laser beam weapons as first envisioned in the Reagan years.

Why is Trump all hyped up about the Golden Dome besides gold being in the name? It is likely the performance of Israel’s Iron Dome defence shield since the Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent missile attacks from Hizbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iran. Iron Dome has gotten lots of positive publicity in defending Israel from incoming missiles. Iron Dome contains 10 anti-missile batteries designed to protect 20,770 square kilometres, an area the size of New Jersey. Even with this small space, the claims of its effectiveness are overblown. The latest Houthi launch from Yemen that struck Tel Aviv’s airport is a case example.

For Trump to create the Golden Dome to defend North America’s 19.8 million square kilometres of space, it would have to be close to a thousand times bigger than the Iron Dome. Even then, deployment would likely protect large urban centres, leaving the rest of the country without a defensive shield.

Nevertheless, Trump is forging ahead. On May 20th, he announced the appointment of General Michael Guetlein, Vice Chief of Space Operations for the U.S. Space Force, as the person to head the building of the Golden Dome. When concerns were raised that the Golden Dome would spark a new arms race, the Trump response was, besides it being a “big and beautiful system,” somewhat muted, noting the system would be deployed purely for defence.

Already, however, China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters on May 21st that the Golden Dome will “expand the U.S. arsenal as a means for combat operations in outer space” and “violates the principle of peaceful use in the Outer Space Treaty.” The Russian response, as reported in the Moscow Times, called the Golden Dome “a sovereign matter for the United States,” sounding like the Trump and Putin administrations were speaking from the same playbook.

As for China’s response, it violated the peaceful use of outer space back in 2007 when it launched a missile to destroy one of its satellites in low-Earth orbit. At the time, the Chinese called it a demonstration of anti-satellite defence capability and stated they were doing no more than what the U.S. had done with a test launch of the Strategic Defence Initiative back in 1985 during the Reagan years.