Away from the Korean Peninsula, President Donald Trump has proposed an ambitious next-generation missile defense system, the Golden Dome. This historic initiative will significantly sharpen America’s military edge. It aims them directly at specific threats, including intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), hypersonic weapons, and advanced cruise missiles. The Golden Dome will raise the stakes of missile defense much higher. Additionally, it envisions interception with space-based platforms.
The initiative comes at a time when the U.S. has spent over $400 billion on missile defense systems. This investment stretches out an extraordinary 70 years. Even with the massive new investment, experts are still doubtful that the plan for the Golden Dome is realistic. They highlight major technical and logistical challenges that are associated with such a complicated defend-forward strategy.
The Scope of the Golden Dome
The Golden Dome works to create a robust offensive system. Its mission is to defend the United States against nuclear attacks from rogue states, like North Korea, and against sophisticated threats from near peer adversaries, including Russia and China. To counter ICBMs, its stated aim is to provide a thick and effective defense. It does so in more advanced weaponry, marking a move beyond simply defending against relatively rudimentary missile threats.
Intercepting ICBMs presents formidable challenges. These missiles travel at speeds of over 25,000 kilometers per hour, nearly seven times the speed of a bullet. They pass through three critical phases during flight: the boost phase, midcourse phase, and terminal phase.
The boost phase is only a few minutes long. During this phase, rocket engines propel the missile to high altitudes and supersonic speeds. Their midcourse phase is 20 minutes long. The terminal phase lasts less than one minute as the warhead reenters the atmosphere. Experts indicate that intercepting ICBMs in their boost phase is particularly difficult due to the limited timeframe available for defense systems to respond.
Technical Challenges Ahead
The logistical requirements for really making the Golden Dome work are incredible. To ensure protection from just one North Korean ICBM, defense analysts estimate that over 1,000 interceptors would need to be positioned in orbit. If the threat is assumed to be 10 ICBMs, the needed interceptors can be more than 30,000. This drastic surge varies based on missile type and the assumptions we set regarding their trajectories and possible countermeasures.
A recent report by the American Physical Society warns that we would struggle to defend against even a limited, small-scale attack. This uncertainty leaves a lot open to question about how effective the proposed system would be.
“Intercepting even a single, nuclear-armed intercontinental-range ballistic missile or its warheads … is extremely challenging.”
Privately, experts warn against overstating the challenges of deploying effective missile defense technologies. Thomas González Roberts noted:
Considering the estimated cost of developing and deploying the Golden Dome—as a just-for-starter example—serious questions about its viability follow. Critics have pointed out that given a budget of only $175 billion, such radical goals might be impossible to achieve. González Roberts remarked:
“It really is an enormously huge difference to be defending against a small region [versus] a large continent.”
Even with these worries, several experts strongly urge putting air and missile defense projects on top because this is the only way to go. Tom Karako argues that enhancing missile defense capabilities is long overdue:
“I would call a lot of these proposals infeasible, but in reality, we don’t know what these proposals are really asking.”
Budgetary Implications and Strategic Considerations
Robert Peters mentioned:
“You would be hard-pressed to find a system that could do that for $175 billion.”
Despite these concerns, some experts advocate for prioritizing air and missile defense initiatives as a necessary step forward. Tom Karako argues that enhancing missile defense capabilities is long overdue:
“The initiative to elevate and prioritize air and missile defense … that’s long overdue and it’s entirely appropriate.”
In contrast, others maintain a more optimistic outlook on technological advancements in this domain. Robert Peters mentioned:
“I think we’re a lot closer than people recognize” when it comes to developing effective missile defense solutions.
Leave a Reply