Trump's Golden Dome Will Make US And World Less Safe

Latest stories

Xi calls Trump's bluff and wins, time and time again

Hopes for a Xi-Trump summit are naively misplaced Ukraine's attacks on Russia risk major retaliation

My first book , 35 years ago, made the case that it would be in the US national security interest to remain within the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which strictly limited US and Soviet – and later Russian – missile defenses. The United States and the Soviet Union negotiated the ABM Treaty as part of SALT I , the first agreements limiting the nuclear arms race. It was approved in the Senate 98-2.

The ABM Treaty experience is instructive for the implications of Golden Dome today.

Why did the two countries agree to limit defenses? First and foremost, because they understood that unless each side's defenses were limited, they would not be able to stop an offensive nuclear arms race.

If each side wants to maintain the ability to retaliate if the other attacks –“don't nuke me, or I'll nuke you” – then an obvious answer to one side building up more defenses is for the other to build up more nuclear warheads.

For example, in the 1960s and 1970s, the Soviets installed 100 interceptors to defend Moscow – so the United States targeted still more warheads on Moscow to overwhelm the defense . Had it ever come to a nuclear war, Moscow would have been even more thoroughly obliterated than if there had been no defense at all.

Both sides came to realize that unlimited missile defenses would just mean more offense on both sides, leaving both less secure than before.

In addition, nations viewed an adversary's shield as going hand in hand with a nuclear sword. A nuclear first strike might destroy a major part of a country's nuclear forces. Missile defenses would inevitably be more effective against the reduced, disorganized retaliation that they knew would be coming than they would be against a massive, well-planned surprise attack.

That potential advantage to whoever struck first could make nuclear crises even more dangerous.

Post-ABM Treaty world

Unfortunately, President George W Bush pulled the United States out of the ABM Treaty in 2002 , seeking to free US development of defenses against potential missile attacks from small states such as North Korea. But even now, decades later, the US has fewer missile interceptors deployed (44) than the treaty permitted (100).

The US pullout did not lead to an immediate arms buildup or the end of nuclear arms control. But Putin has complained bitterly about US missile defenses and the US refusal to accept any limitation at all on them. He views the US stance as an effort to achieve military superiority by negating Russia's nuclear deterrent.

Russia is investing heavily in new types of strategic nuclear weapons intended to avoid US missile defenses , from an intercontinental nuclear torpedo to a missile that can go around the world and attack from the south, while US defenses are mainly pointed north toward Russia.

Russia maintains a large force of nuclear weapons like this mobile intercontinental ballistic missile. Photo: Russian Defense Ministry Press Service via APPEAR / The Conversation

Similarly, much of China's nuclear buildup appears to be driven by wanting a reliable nuclear deterrent in the face of the United States' capability to strike its nuclear forces and use missile defenses to mop up the remainder.

Indeed, China was so angered by South Korea's deployment of US-provided regional defenses – which they saw as aiding the US ability to intercept their missiles – that they imposed stiff sanctions on South Korea.

Fuel to the fire

Now, Trump wants to go much further , with a defense“forever ending the missile threat to the American homeland,” with a success rate“very close to 100%.” I believe that this effort is highly likely to lead to still larger nuclear buildups in Russia and China. The Putin-Xi joint statement pledges to“counter” defenses“aimed at achieving military superiority.”

Given the ease of developing countermeasures that are extraordinarily difficult for defenses to overcome, odds are the resulting offense-defense competition will leave the United States worse off than before – and a good bit poorer.

Putin and Xi made clear that they are particularly concerned about the thousands of space-based interceptors Trump envisions. These interceptors are designed to hit missiles while their rockets are still burning during launch.