The Hidden Costs of Trump’s Golden Dome Missile System

At first glance, Donald Trump’s plan to construct a massive new missile defense system—called the Golden Dome—might sound like a bold step to protect the American people. But according to leading arms control experts, including Harvard professor Matthew Bunn, Golden Dome, this expensive and ambitious initiative could actually make the world more dangerous, not less.

Trump claims the Golden Dome will offer nearly 100% protection against ballistic, cruise, hypersonic, and even space-based missile attacks. But decades of international security research—and lived history—tell us that this kind of missile defense rarely lives up to its promises.

Instead of ensuring peace, the Golden Dome is likely to:

• Provoke a new arms race, pushing nations like Russia and China to rapidly expand their nuclear arsenals
• Undermine existing arms control agreements, such as the soon-expiring New START Treaty
• Destabilize global security, by giving the illusion that the U.S. can strike first and hide behind a shield

🚨 The Danger of Overconfidence in Golden Dome

The logic seems simple: build a shield, stop a missile. But in nuclear strategy, things are never simple.

History shows us that when one country tries to build an impenetrable defense, adversaries respond by building more and smarter weapons—missiles with multiple warheads, decoys, or maneuverable designs that render those defenses useless. In the Cold War, when the Soviet Union built interceptors around Moscow, the U.S. just aimed more warheads at the city. When the Soviet Union built anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems around Moscow to defend against U.S. ICBMs, the U.S. countered by deploying MIRVs (Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles). This meant each U.S. ICBM could carry multiple warheads, each aimed at a different target, effectively overloading the ABM system and ensuring that the warheads could penetrate the defenses. 

A “Golden Dome” doesn’t end the missile threat—it intensifies it.

🌍 Golden Dome Can Lead to Global Fallout

Russia and China are already reacting. Their leaders have issued joint statements warning that Golden Dome would “undermine global strategic stability” and force them to counter the system with new offensive and space-based weapons. This is not just political rhetoric. China has ramped up its nuclear arsenal and already punished South Korea economically for installing U.S.-backed missile defenses.

Worse yet, the Golden Dome concept includes space-based interceptors, which could escalate the risk of space warfare—a chilling and dangerous new frontier.

🕊️ What We Could Do Instead of the Golden Dome

Rather than pouring billions into a defense system that experts say is unlikely to work and likely to provoke more conflict, the U.S. could pursue measured, strategic restraint:

• Maintain modest regional defenses tailored to small-scale threats
• Open diplomatic channels with nuclear powers to prevent further arms escalation
• Design transparent and limited systems that don’t threaten other nations’ deterrents

Missile defense should not become a fantasy of invincibility. As Professor Bunn put it, “It would be quite plausible to design defenses that would provide some protection… without threatening Russian or Chinese deterrent forces.”

✊ Peace Requires Restraint, Not Illusions

At the Peace Economy Project, we advocate for real security—built on diplomacy, disarmament, and social investment, not illusionary shields or arms races. The Golden Dome is not a promise of peace; it is a provocation with a golden price tag.

We urge elected officials, the public, and global partners to reject this dangerous plan and recommit to a path of cooperation, not escalation.

📢 Want to stay informed about nuclear policy and peace economy alternatives?

📩 Sign up for our newsletter or get involved at peaceeconomyproject.org