A top priority of U.S. defense officials is to protect Americans from nuclear attacks. In an attempt to accomplish this goal, President Trump issued an executive order calling for the creation of an “Iron Dome for America,” a reference to Israel’s much-vaunted missile defense system.
Secretary of Defense Hegseth hinted his desire to begin plans for this missile defense system. Some members of Congress, such as Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-Okla.) are also on board with this plan.
A missile defense system to protect America from nuclear weapons sounds like a good idea. It is not. A U.S. Iron Dome would be a waste of taxpayer money and would bring the world closer to nuclear Armageddon.
If anyone should take anything away from this piece, it is that missile defenses against nuclear weapons increase the chances of them being used. This seems counterintuitive. But U.S. senior officials and policymakers must understand how the other side would perceive such a move.
If the U.S. creates a missile defense system capable of shooting down incoming nuclear missiles, the Russians and Chinese would be compelled to make more nuclear weapons to counter this missile defense. Not only that, but the Russians and Chinese would see this missile defense as a possible way for the United States to launch nuclear weapons first without fear of retaliation.
The ability to retaliate makes deterrence work. Without it, a security crisis is likely to emerge.
The U.S. faced a crisis like this in 1983, when NATO forces launched war exercises. The Soviet Union came close to launching nuclear weapons out of fear that these exercises were actually a NATO attack against the Warsaw Pact. The Reagan administration’s missile defense plans earlier that year laid the groundwork for a nuclear crisis with the Soviets. It’s doubtful that anyone wants to experience a nuclear crisis in today’s fraught world.
There are also reasons to doubt that an Iron Dome for America would even work. Defense contractors and government officials say that missile defenses have a good interception rate, although they fail to publish these numbers to the public. Thankfully, organizations like the Arms Control Association and recent conflicts offer insight into the success rates of missile defenses.
The most recent test of America’s current missile defense system, the Ground-based Midcourse Defense — had “12 successful intercepts in 21 tests.” Between the end of 2008 and 2013, no GMD intercept tests succeeded. That’s not a great look for missile defense advocates.
To complicate missile defenses further, both China and Russia attach multiple warheads to their missiles. Having anywhere from three to 16 nuclear warheads raining down from a single missile makes intercepting all of them impossible.
Former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger was right when he said, “There is no realistic hope that we shall ever again be able to protect American cities. There is no leak-proof defense. Any defense is going to suffer some erosion at best.”
Current missile defenses foreshadow how costly a U.S. Iron Dome would be.
Take the Houthi attacks on American ships in the Red Sea. One missile interceptor aboard a U.S. ship costs around $2 million while a single Houthi drone amounted to around $2,000. This case shows that missiles have an economic advantage over missile defenses.
Over the past few decades, the U.S. has spent $400 billion of taxpayer money on missile defense programs. And as noted earlier, these missile defenses aren’t very successful at destroying incoming missiles. Creating an Iron Dome for America would cost around $2.5 trillion of American taxpayer money.
Moreover, missile defenses against nuclear weapons are like a snake eating its tail. If the United States builds an Iron Dome, Russia and China will increase their nuclear weapon stockpiles and capabilities, forcing the United States to increase its missile interceptors, then leading Russia and China to increase their nuclear weapon stockpiles and capabilities, and on and on it goes.
This was why the Nixon administration agreed to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 1972. Unlike 1972, America has two nuclear peers, making this tit-for-tat problem more profound than during the Cold War. If the Trump administration wants to cut U.S. government spending, it should avoid creating this missile defense system.
The world is closer to catastrophe than it ever has been. Creating an Iron Dome for America would not just be a poor decision — it would be a monumental failure in defense policy.
President Trump should reconsider this missile defense proposal. The fate of human civilization rests upon this decision.
Benjamin D. Giltner is a Washington D.C.-based defense and foreign policy analyst.
