Experts warn that Trump’s proposed ‘Golden Dome’ defense system won’t effectively shield Americans from potential nuclear missile strikes.
President Donald Trump has unveiled his latest national defense initiative: a massive missile defense system dubbed the “Golden Dome.”
He claims it will shield the entire United States from nuclear threats.
Despite bold claims, defense experts question the Golden Dome’s feasibility, effectiveness, and cost.
A modern take on Reagan’s “Star Wars” strategy
The concept behind the Golden Dome echoes Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s.
That plan aimed to build a space-based missile defense shield but was never realized.
Trump’s plan expands on Reagan’s vision with land, sea, and space-based technologies for a unified defense system, promising near-total protection.
Launched early in Trump’s second term in 2025, the initiative is already sparking global headlines and intense debate.
Although the president calls it a “game-changing shield” with “almost 100%” effectiveness, many experts say that level of confidence is premature and misguided.
Comparison to iron dome raises concerns
The Golden Dome is inspired by Israel’s Iron Dome, a short-range missile defense system effective since 2011.
However, scaling that model to the size of the United States presents significant challenges.
Israel’s compact geography makes Iron Dome feasible; the U.S., by contrast, is roughly 400 times larger.
Nuclear policy experts say deploying enough systems to cover the vast U.S. would be a logistical and financial nightmare.
Experts warn Trump’s ‘Golden Dome’ will not protect the US from major nuclear strikes
A key component of Trump’s strategy involves space-based sensors and interceptors.
His administration cites satellite constellations like SpaceX’s Starlink as proof a space-based system is feasible.
Nuclear expert Jeffrey Lewis warns that launching satellites is easier now, but defending them from attacks remains a major challenge.
Lewis explains that if an adversary launches a nuclear device into space and detonates it at high altitude, it could cause massive damage.
Such an attack could cripple or destroy large parts of the defense network instantly.
Furthermore, the assumption that U.S. satellites can operate freely above hostile territories during peacetime may not hold in a real conflict.
Opposing nations like Russia or China could easily interfere with satellite operations, compromising the entire system.
“You put a high-yield nuclear weapon on a booster, and the split second it gets above the clouds, sure, you might see it—but now it sees you, too, before you can shoot.
“All it has to do at that point is detonate to blow a giant hole in your defenses, and that’s game over.
And by the way, this rosy scenario assumes your adversaries don’t interfere with all your satellites passing over their territory in peacetime.”
Maintenance costs could break the bank
Beyond the technical vulnerabilities, maintaining such a defense system could drain federal resources.
With a satellite network potentially requiring tens of thousands of units, the annual replacement cycle would be intense.
If even 10,000 satellites were needed and each cost a conservative $20 million, replacing just 2,000 per year would require at least $40 billion annually.
This excludes costs for launches, infrastructure, software updates, and personnel needed to maintain the system.
Critics warn this investment could spiral out of control with little assurance of real protection.
Potential for space arms race raises alarms
Lewis and other analysts believe the Golden Dome could inadvertently ignite a new arms race in space.
If the U.S. begins building interceptors and deploying weaponized satellites, adversaries are likely to follow suit.
Instead of enhancing global security, this plan could increase tensions worldwide.
It may push countries to develop ways to neutralize satellite defenses, making the world more dangerous.