Trump’s “Golden Dome” Lemon: A Missile Defence Mirage, By Chris Knight (Florida)
Imagine a hypersonic missile streaking toward America at Mach 10, twisting through the sky, invisible to radar. Could Trump's proposed "Golden Dome," a U.S.-wide missile defence shield stop it? Like Reagan's "Star Wars" dream, Trump's vision promises an impenetrable barrier against enemy missiles, nuclear or conventional. It's a seductive idea in tense times, but the reality is far from golden.
Trump points to Israel's Iron Dome, a system that intercepts over 90% of short-range rockets fired by Hamas or Hezbollah. Using radar and fast missiles, it protects small areas from slow, predictable threats. But scaling this to a continent-sized nation facing advanced weapons is like arming a slingshot against a swarm of drones. Israel's system strains under high-volume attacks, costs millions per interception, and doesn't cover vast regions. It's a local fix, not a national blueprint.
The U.S. faces far deadlier threats: nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), stealthy cruise missiles, and hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs). HGVs, traveling above Mach 5, manoeuvre unpredictably at low altitudes, evading systems like Ground-Based Midcourse Defense or Aegis, designed for high-arc ballistic missiles. China, Russia, and North Korea are testing these weapons, which leave defenders mere seconds to react. No proven technology can reliably stop an HGV mid-flight, as the physics, speed, altitude, agility, overwhelms current interceptors.
Even without HGVs, adversaries can overwhelm defences with saturation tactics: launching multiple warheads (like Russia's MIRV missiles, carrying several payloads), decoys, chaff, or jamming. Defenders must hit every threat perfectly; attackers need just one to break through. This asymmetry makes a perfect shield impossible, no matter how "golden."
These technical limits breed strategic peril. A belief in invincibility could embolden reckless U.S. actions, undermining nuclear deterrence, which relies on mutual vulnerability. Worse, adversaries may see the Golden Dome as a first-strike shield, spurring an arms race. China's recent HGV tests, partly a response to U.S. defense ambitions, show this dynamic already at play. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative sparked similar Soviet buildup in the 1980s, history warns us of escalating risks.
So, what's realistic? Layered regional defences, advanced radar, satellite tracking, and cyber resilience are smarter investments than a nationwide force field. Hardened infrastructure and smaller, dispersed targets reduce vulnerability. Diplomacy, though unfashionable, remains the only proven way to curb nuclear threats, as arms control has shown.
Trump's Golden Dome is a nationalist symbol, not a strategy. It sells technological salvation but can't stop warheads. As an aerospace engineer notes, no single system can shield an entire nation (The Conversation, 2025). Missiles fly faster than slogans. True defence demands grappling with complexity, not chasing mirages. Will we learn, or repeat Reagan's mistake? No prizes for guessing this!
Comments