All That Glitters Is Trump: The Golden Dome Boondoggle

Why Canada Should Think Twice Before Signing On to Trump’s Missile Defence Delusion"

Trump’s new “Golden Dome” missile defence idea revives a decades-old dream, but it’s wildly unrealistic in cost, timeline, and technical scope. Canada must tread carefully in its response.

Early Efforts: Nike-Zeus and Safeguard

The United States has long aspired to develop a shield against ballistic missiles, a vision pursued by presidents from Eisenhower to Bush. Each attempt has faltered under the immense costs and formidable technical challenges involved in creating a viable defence system.

The initiative began in earnest following the Soviet Union's development of ballistic missile capabilities. In response, the U.S. developed the Nike-Zeus missile in the late 1950s. This system could intercept incoming missiles during the terminal phase of an attack—after warheads had separated from their missile bodies. However, it was susceptible to being overwhelmed by multiple warheads and relied on a nuclear warhead for interception in the upper atmosphere. Due to its limitations and vulnerability to simple countermeasures, Nike-Zeus was cancelled in 1962.

The program evolved into the Safeguard system, utilizing a modified Nike-Zeus missile, now named Spartan, alongside a new interceptor called Sprint. Safeguard aimed to protect the U.S. strategic arsenal, acknowledging its own limitations in the face of saturation attacks. The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty between the U.S. and USSR, later amended in 1974, restricted both nations to a single ABM site. Consequently, the Safeguard complex in North Dakota became operational in 1975 but was deactivated in 1976, remaining fully operational for less than four months.

The Strategic Defense Initiative: Reagan's Star Wars

Enter Ronald Reagan. The saga of Reagan’s so-called “Star Wars” project is far too complex to describe in detail here. Begun in 1984, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was designed to render opposing missile forces obsolete by rendering a missile attack completely ineffective. SDI was breathtaking in scope and encompassed space-based systems, ground-based interceptors, completely new warning and command and control systems, and new technologies like laser-based weapons. Experts deemed the entire project technically impossible, with some technologies being “decades” away. Funding was dramatically reduced by 1987. But, of course, this didn’t mark the end of SDI, as we shall see.

Post-Reagan Developments: Theatre-Level Defences

Following the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2002, efforts shifted towards providing theatre-level protection for deployed troops. The Patriot air defence system was adapted to intercept ballistic missiles, and new systems like the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and the U.S. Navy's Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense were developed.These systems offer defence against a range of threats, primarily short- and medium-range missiles, using kinetic energy interceptors. THAAD, being portable, has been deployed to countries including Israel, South Korea, Turkey, and the UAE, with sales to other nations like Qatar announced.

Limitations of THAAD and Aegis for Continental Defence

Despite their capabilities, THAAD and Aegis are constrained by range limitations, rendering them unsuitable for comprehensive continental defence. They are primarily designed to counter short- and medium-range missiles, with limited effectiveness against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). THAAD functions as a point defence system, and Aegis requires precise positioning. To address the ICBM threat, the U.S. developed the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system, deploying 44 interceptors in Alaska and California. However, the GMD system has demonstrated only a 50–60% success rate in intercepting ICBMs, highlighting the complexities involved in missile defence.

A Dome - In Magnificent Gold!

I’ve gone into this background because it’s important to understand what Trump is proposing with his “Golden Dome” idea. And it is only an idea. Trump saw the relative success of Israel’s “Iron Dome” air and missile defence system (which was developed with the support and participation of the United States) and decided that he would order something similar for the US. Reflecting his proclivities, it is to be “golden”—bigger and better than Israel’s - SDI redux.

What is it? Honestly, we don’t know. Trump appears to want to revisit Reagan’s SDI, complete with space-based weapons, ground-based interceptors, and a layered defence against ICBMs, hypersonic missiles, drones, and manned aircraft. Bizarrely, he has ignored the technological issues and directed that a full system be fielded in only three years, with a budget of $175 billion. The Commander of the US Space Force has been appointed as the unfortunate soul in charge of this project.

The Technological and Fiscal Chasm

And he’ll have no end of problems. None of the technology for space-based interceptors currently exists, although the odious Project 2025 gang has suggested Elon Musk could leverage his Starlink satellite system to develop it. The current ground-based interceptors are barely operational. The command and control, communications, and dedicated tracking systems do not exist. Golden Dome will be required to destroy incoming missiles during their mid-course stage and to differentiate between a multitude of warheads and decoys. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the true cost of Trump’s scheme to be a minimum of $542 billion over two decades to bring a comprehensive ABM system into service—with a potential for expenses to exceed $1 trillion.

In other words, Donald Trump has had another bright idea and, because he’s President of the United States, everyone is scrambling to implement it. But the fact remains that a “Golden Dome” is a massive project, requiring the development of new technologies using hundreds of billions of dollars over many years of research. As it stands, Trump’s vision cannot be implemented—despite the improvements in technology since the 1980s.

Canada’s Dilemma: Join, Dodge, or Delay?

This entire issue leaves Canada in a difficult position. There will be some—mainly, I suspect, in the Air Force—who will be pushing for Canada to be an enthusiastic partner in this brainiac scheme. This will also likely be the position of the Conservative Party, always on the lookout for a reason to get closer to the US. The United States, too, would value Canada’s participation. After all, we guard the American northern flank, and basing tracking radars and perhaps interceptors in Canada would add significantly to the Dome’s effectiveness.

But Canada has its own experts who will (I hope) be providing an assessment similar to this one. Unfortunately, the government cannot just come out and say that this is a stupid idea that cannot be implemented in its current iteration. Instead, they’re trying to avoid creating a further issue with Trump by paying the Golden Dome lip service and hedging their bets regarding participation. I suspect that, in the end, Canada will offer its improvements to NORAD—particularly the deployment of advanced over-the-horizon systems—as our “participation” in Trump’s pet project.

Conclusion: A Waiting Game

This may not be enough for Trump, who may be told that the basing of interceptors on Canadian soil is mandatory for the Dome’s success. It’s difficult to say, given the vagueness of the Golden Dome concept. What we do know is that today (May 28th), Trump has demanded Canada pay $61 billion for participation or face annexation if we want “in”.

It’s the usual combination of threats and blackmail in support of something that cannot happen. US$61 billion represents approximately 15% of Canada’s entire annual federal budget. Prime Minister Mark Carney firmly rejected the notion of annexation, emphasizing Canada's sovereignty and independence. Ambassador to the United Nations Bob Rae likened Trump's proposal to a "protection racket," underscoring Canada's commitment to sovereign equality as enshrined in the U.N. Charter

Frankly, it’s all too much. Golden Dome literally cannot happen given the timelines, budget, and technological challenges. It will take years to develop effective systems and to deploy them. Trump will be long dead by the time this happens. It is tempting to recommend that Canada just tell Trump to go to hell and that we’ll have no part of his scheme. Unfortunately, this risks creating issues with real continental defence—especially with NORAD—and may have a knock-on effect on trade and other issues. What we should do—and I suspect will do—is suggest that we’re already contributing to a Golden Dome through our investments in NORAD and that Canadian industry is ready to participate.

Will it be enough for Trump? Frankly, I’m not sure anything aside from annexation will be enough for Trump. But it may be possible to avoid making this an issue for the three years that he has left in office. After all, the last thing Canada needs is more artificial drama at the exact time we’re trying to pivot away from the US and disentangle our defence arrangements.