Golden Dome Is Technologically and Financially Infeasible– warontherocks.com

For as long as nuclear-armed, intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine-launched ballistic missiles have existed, strategists and engineers have pursued a seductive idea: a shield effective enough to diminish — or even block — a ballistic missile attack. The appeal is obvious. A state that could reliably intercept ballistic missiles could protect its cities from these terrifying weapons and reduce its adversaries’ leverage.

But defenses against strategic ballistic missiles have a long history of disappointments. Over roughly seven decades, the United States has spent more than $500 billion (in 2025 dollars) on missile defenses, much of it to defend against intercontinental ballistic missiles. And yet, the ability of any of these systems to intercept even a single missile or warhead under the conditions expected during a nuclear attack has not been demonstrated.

Most recently, the Trump administration has proposed “Golden Dome” — an ambitious proposal for a comprehensive, layered defense with ground, sea, and space-based elements. It is supposed to protect the United States and its allies and deployed forces not only against attacks by ballistic missiles, but also by cruise missiles, hypersonic boost-glide vehicles, aircraft, and drones launched at any time from anywhere by any adversary, including peer adversaries.

There is no prospect of deploying a missile defense system capable of successfully defending against a major ballistic missile attack by Russia and China for the foreseeable future. Such a system would have to be able to destroy hundreds or thousands of nuclear-armed long-range ballistic missiles or their warheads in the face of sophisticated countermeasures, dozens of decoys, and salvo tactics, as well as new delivery systems specifically designed to defeat it.