Will US President Donald Trump's idea of building an indestructible missile defense system be the final nail in the coffin of strategic nuclear arms control? With his proposed "Golden Dome" potentially triggering a costly and destabilizing strategic arms race, Trump's dream could become a nightmare for the entire world.
At the very least, Trump's proposed system represents a dangerous paradigm shift. During the final decades of the Cold War, and for about a decade after its end, the rapid reduction of nuclear arsenals led to strategic stability. During this period of progress in arms control, peacekeeping was based on a policy of deterrence, which relied on a shared understanding of the concept of mutually assured destruction. This concept (abbreviated as MAD, which also means "madness") was directly endorsed by the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty: the United States and the Soviet Union agreed to will not build any defensive shields against strategic nuclear strikes.
Despite the obvious absurdity of the concept, the constant threat of nuclear attack is widely believed to have helped to avoid nuclear exchange during the Cold War. Because of the policy of mutually assured destruction (MAD), direct conflict was too dangerous. Neither side had any interest in starting a war that would surely lead to its own destruction. And so the Cold War was fought on the periphery, often through proxy powers. There were occasional moments of extreme danger (e.g. the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, when the United States and the Soviet Union went on high nuclear alert), but direct armed conflict was avoided.
Political leaders have, from time to time, begun to dream of alternative systems. US President Ronald Reagan, for example, spoke of a world without nuclear weapons and launched the ambitious “Strategic Defense Initiative” (also known as “Star Wars”) with the goal of creating a space-based missile defense system. However, the idea proved to be prohibitively expensive and would probably not work in practice.
In 2002, US President George W. Bush withdrew from the treaty that limited the strategic defensive potential, which allowed the development of the system that America has today. However, these means of defense are quite limited, largely untested and primarily aimed at intercepting two or three North Korean missiles. If Russia were to ever decide to launch a mass launch of nuclear warheads, US defenses, as they currently stand, would be immediately overwhelmed.
Still, Bush’s decision has forced Russian President Vladimir Putin to focus resources on developing weapons capable of circumventing future U.S. defenses. These include nuclear torpedoes with a near-global range that could easily penetrate standard missile defenses, and a nuclear-powered cruise missile with unlimited range that could, for example, penetrate Mexican airspace. Although decades have been spent developing these systems, none of them have yet been brought into operational use. So what is left of decades of arms control work? Essentially, only the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START III), which Russia suspended in 2023 and which, if nothing changes, will expire in February of next year.
It is in this context that Trump proposes his “Golden Dome.” Although his bombastic statements about how he will “end the missile threat to American soil forever” are out of step with reality, there is no doubt that his administration will allocate hundreds of billions of dollars to develop new systems - advanced and complex, but of questionable effectiveness. Worse, Russia and China will perceive these initiatives as a threat to the effectiveness of their strategic nuclear arsenals. If they conclude that they are vulnerable and America is protected, their nuclear calculations will change.
This is particularly true for Russia, whose strategic nuclear power plays a key role in its aspirations to maintain its status as a world power. The threat of losing the ability to launch a nuclear strike could cause almost existential fear among Russian strategists. China's position would be similar, although probably less pronounced, because China's power is based on a broader basis.
If the US spends tens of billions on missile defense, Russia will have to do everything it can to neutralize this new potential. It is not clear whether Russia can afford it. But it is obvious that it will have to give up other priorities. The Russian space program has already fallen into crisis, which reveals the country's financial difficulties. However, such changes may not necessarily contribute to strengthening global stability. While the previous strategic arms control regime clearly defined the positions of each actor, now the situation will become more fluid and uncertain.
The bilateral strategic relationship between the US and Russia is already difficult to manage. The trilateral relationship, which includes China with its growing nuclear arsenal, will be considerably more complex, and the relationship involving France and the UK promises to be a complete mess. And the more messy the relationship, the more likely it is that misunderstandings or local conflicts will escalate into something much more dangerous.
Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping, for their part, have described the “Golden Dome” idea as “a complete and final refusal to recognize the inextricable link between strategic offensive and strategic defensive weapons.” They are not wrong in that. But they offer no suggestions for how to better deal with these risks.
In light of growing concerns in Russia and China, the Golden Dome system, paradoxical as it may sound, is unlikely to guarantee the security of the United States. We have just seen that, even when acting collectively, the most modern Israeli and American systems cannot prevent a large number of Iranian missiles from hitting the center of Tel Aviv. And when it comes to nuclear warheads, it is enough for one such missile to hit the target.
There are no easy solutions. While dreams of creating an indestructible defense system never die, nuclear stability has a very clear logic. Even in these difficult times, it is necessary to maintain dialogue, at least in a minimal form, between the key world powers.
The author was the Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Sweden, EU Special Envoy for the former Yugoslavia and co-chairman of the Dayton Peace Conference.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2025. (translation: NR)
Bonus video:
