A Response to the Opponents of Space-Based Interceptors in Golden Dome

The Return of an Old Debate

For nearly four decades, opponents of space-based missile defense have recycled the same three arguments whenever the United States explores deploying meaningful defenses in space: it will not work, it will cost too much, and it will destabilize deterrence with adversaries like China and Russia. Today’s debate over the “Golden Dome for America” initiative and space-based interceptors is no different.

The latest example is the recent report by the Congressional Budget Office titled Potential Costs of a National Missile Defense System. Almost immediately after its release, critics of Golden Dome seized upon the report’s headline estimate of roughly $1.2 trillion over twenty years as evidence that space-based interceptors are financially unrealistic and strategically misguided.

But that argument fundamentally misrepresents both what the CBO actually analyzed and what Golden Dome is actually pursuing.