Despite Challenges, America’s ‘Golden Dome’ Push Is Long Overdue

Israel’s Iron Dome air defense system intercepts a rocket fired from the Gaza Strip, in Ashkelon, Israel, on Oct. 17, 2023. Tsafrir Abayov/AP Photo

Commentary

Many years ago, I witnessed the early development of a software which likely evolved into a piece of Israel’s Iron Dome technology. As coordinates were feverishly typed into a computer, a giant screen displayed a map of Israel as it wargamed a hypothetical conflict. Missiles came in progressively faster, culminating in one big flash; after that, the screen would momentarily go dark before it started all over again. It was deeply unsettling to watch.

Just days into his second term, Donald Trump signed an executive order with an ambitious directive to develop a “Golden Dome for America.” The next-generation missile defense shield would be modeled after Israel’s Iron Dome.

While President Trump originally wanted to call it the “Iron Dome for America,” the project was rebranded to “Golden Dome.” The publication Defense News suggested a possible explanation for the change might be trademark concerns, as “Iron Dome” is a registered trademark owned by Israeli defense firm Rafael Advanced Defense Systems. Also, the administration likely wanted to make it clear that the United States is not technically adopting Israel’s Iron Dome system. The concept, however, is the same.

Moreover, the name aligns with Trump’s flair for grandiose, gilded imagery—think gold-plated everything at Trump Tower and Mar-a-Lago, or the $100,000 watches he marketed in 2024. Most recently, we’ve seen a gold-plated Oval Office makeover to celebrate the “Golden Age” of America.

Thus, the aptly named Golden Dome has emerged as one of the administration’s top defense priorities, promising to reshape America’s security. But is it really feasible?

Unlike Israel’s system, which defends a country roughly the size of New Jersey, the Golden Dome would have to safeguard a U.S. landmass spanning 3.8 million square miles—that’s a huge difference that has sparked enthusiasm among proponents and skepticism among detractors.

Some skepticism is understandable. Along with the sheer logistics we can’t forget that America’s security is, after all, coming up from behind—way behind.

Lest we forget the article by Adam Kredo, published this past December in the Washington Free Beacon. It outlined a congressional wargame from the China Select Committee, exploring a scenario where the United States defends Taiwan from a Chinese naval invasion.

The results, confirmed across 25 identical simulations, revealed a severe deficiency: the United States doesn’t have enough weaponry to sustain a conflict with China. Key arsenals—like anti-ship missiles—would be exhausted in three to seven days, long-range cruise missiles in a month, and Taiwan’s own missile reserves in a week. And replenishing would be slow: two years for essential munitions, eight for submarines, and 40 for aircraft carriers.

Former National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan admitted in early December that a war with China would quickly drain U.S. munitions but offered no fixes after four years in office. A disastrous Afghanistan exit that left billions of dollars of equipment behind certainly didn’t help anything.

All of this begs the question, “If we don’t have the supplies on the ground, is it wise to prioritize investing in the air?”

At its core, Golden Dome is intended to counteract a broad spectrum of missile threats, from ballistic and hypersonic missiles to advanced cruise missiles. Trump’s executive order calls for a multilayered missile defense system, using space-based sensors, interceptors, and cutting-edge technologies like high-energy lasers and microwaves.

Over 360 defense contractors, including giants like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, RTX, and Northrop Grumman, have submitted proposals, eyeing a venture that could rival the Manhattan Project in scope and cost. The Space Force, Missile Defense Agency, and even NORAD are collaborating to design a system that integrates satellites, ground-based radars, and air assets that could “shoot down enemy bombers before they can fire their missiles at the United States.” In essence, Golden Dome could be a “whole-of-government” effort integrating electronic warfare and counter-drone capabilities, potentially creating an unparalleled, comprehensive threat umbrella. And that sounds great, but can we do that and build our ground assets at the same time?

The Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment is working to make that happen.

Steven J. Morani, who is currently performing the duties of that office, told DOD News that they are working on Golden Dome “while realigning also to meet Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s priorities. Among those priorities are reviving the warrior ethos, rebuilding the military by matching threats to capabilities and re-establishing deterrence to defend the homeland.”

He added they’re also “determining how to shift people, resources and priorities toward providing better support directly to the warfighter.” To this end, he said they’re “looking at ways to streamline and remove some red tape ... that includes looking at the department’s real estate portfolio and reducing or eliminating what is not needed.”

With that in mind, it’s easy to see that the Department of Government Efficiency and its cost-cutting efforts will likely play a huge part in recovering wasted money that can be better spent on securing our nation’s safety. Consider that just since February 2022, the United States allocated $182.8 billion to Ukraine that could have been better spent on its own defense.

It’s clear we’re overdue in kickstarting a comprehensive air defense system, especially since Israel’s Iron Dome, built with U.S. support, went live 14 years ago.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.