President Donald Trump’s executive order to create a “next-generation missile defense shield” aims to protect U.S. citizens and critical infrastructure against foreign aerial attacks. However, experts suggest that the plan faces significant technical and budgetary challenges.
The order’s title, “The Iron Dome for America,” implies the adoption of the Iron Dome anti-missile system developed by Raytheon and Rafael, effectively utilized by Israel in recent conflicts. Iron Dome is designed to protect against relatively short-range threats, up to about 50 miles. This makes it potentially useful in specific scenarios, such as defending El Paso, Texas, from rocket attacks launched from Mexico. However, its effectiveness would be limited on a larger scale across the vast U.S. landscape.
According to nuclear analyst Joe Cirincione, to provide comprehensive defense for the 3.7 million square miles of the continental U.S., over 24,700 Iron Dome batteries would be required. Each Iron Dome battery costs approximately $100 million, totaling an estimated $2.47 trillion—an investment that would address only smaller, slower weaponry, not intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
Trump’s initiative appears to redefine “Iron Dome” as a branding tool for a different missile defense system, possibly involving space-based interceptors. The concept of space-based missile defense is not new, originating from proposals like the Ballistic Missile Boost Intercept (BAMBI) in the 1960s, which was never implemented. It resurfaced during President Ronald Reagan’s administration with the Strategic Defense Initiative and the “Brilliant Pebbles” concept, intended to deploy small satellites for ICBM interception.
In March 2018, the Trump administration also proposed a space weapon concept involving a neutral particle beam but abandoned it due to substantial power requirements for effective missile destruction. Going forward, using space missiles instead of lasers or particles is seen as more feasible; nevertheless, the associated technical and financial challenges remain daunting.
Laura Grego, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, characterized Trump’s missile defense vision as a “fantasy.” She emphasized that the Iron Dome is designed for short-range threats, necessitating entirely different systems for defending against long-range missiles like ICBMs. Similarly, Todd Harrison from the American Enterprise Institute pointed out the astronomical costs and technical difficulties involved in deploying hundreds of satellites for such a defense network, also highlighting vulnerabilities to adversary attacks on these satellites.
Conversely, Rebeccah Heinrichs of the Hudson Institute praised the executive order as a significant policy advancement. She critiqued the current U.S. missile defense capabilities as inadequate in light of rapid missile technology improvements by rival nations and advocated for a comprehensive, layered missile defense system that includes space-based elements.
Additionally, Trump plans to deploy more interceptors on the ground, which is considered a more manageable task. Enhanced space tracking capabilities could effectively counter advanced threats, as demonstrated by Ukraine’s downing of a Russian missile with a U.S.-supplied Patriot battery in September 2023.
The geopolitical landscape underscores that missile threats are increasingly real. Both China and Russia have developed innovative hypersonic missiles that pose a considerable challenge to interception, especially with existing U.S. ground-based interceptors that are tailored to conventional ICBMs. In response, the U.S. is progressing in building a constellation of low-Earth orbit satellites aimed at tracking and intercepting these advanced missile threats.
