In a piece titled "Golden Dome Is Technologically and Financially Infeasible," author Laura Grego notes that strategists and engineers have pursued the idea of a missile shield for as long as nuclear-armed ballistic missiles have existed. The appeal of protecting cities from such weapons and reducing an adversary's leverage is clear, but defenses against strategic ballistic missiles have a history of falling short of expectations. The United States has spent more than $500 billion (in 2025 dollars) on missile defenses over roughly seven decades, much of it directed at intercepting intercontinental ballistic missiles. The article does not provide additional detail on the specific Golden Dome proposal, but the title and opening argument suggest a strong skepticism about its viability.
Golden Dome missile defense system deemed infeasible by analysts
Decades of spending on missile shield technology have yielded limited results, argues Laura Grego in War on the Rocks
Analysis
Why This Matters
- The feasibility of missile defense directly affects strategic stability between nuclear-armed states.
- A system that cannot work would waste hundreds of billions of dollars, while one that partially works could still alter deterrence calculations.
- The debate over Golden Dome will shape U.S. defense spending priorities for years.
Background
Missile defense has been a contentious goal since the Cold War. The U.S. has pursued several programs, including the Strategic Defense Initiative in the 1980s and the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system currently deployed. None have demonstrated the ability to reliably protect against a large-scale attack. The proposed Golden Dome concept, reportedly inspired by Israel's Iron Dome, aims to provide a nationwide shield, but technical challenges such as countermeasures and the sheer number of incoming missiles remain formidable.
Key Perspectives
Proponents of missile defense: Argue that even imperfect defenses complicate enemy attack plans and provide some protection against limited launches or accidental strikes. Critics (including Laura Grego): Maintain that the technology is not mature enough and that the cost far exceeds any achievable benefit, especially against a determined adversary with large arsenals. Strategic stability theorists: Warn that robust defenses could provoke an arms race as adversaries build more offensive weapons to overwhelm the shield.
What to Watch
- Department of Defense budget requests for missile defense in upcoming fiscal years.
- Congressional support for Golden Dome and any shifts in emphasis from offensive to defensive systems.
- Advances in hypersonic and maneuverable reentry vehicles that complicate interception even further.
Sources
- Golden Dome Is Technologically and Financially Infeasible — War on the Rocks