By INS Contributors

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: The announcement by U.S. President Donald Trump on May 20, 2025, of the so-called “Golden Dome” multi-layered anti-ballistic missile defense (ABM) system marks a dangerous return to failed strategies of the past.

This project, touted as a breakthrough in American national security, is nothing more than a reincarnation of the 1984 “Strategic Defense Initiative” (SDI) launched by then-President Ronald Reagan—an initiative that collapsed under the weight of its staggering costs and technological shortcomings.

As with SDI, the Golden Dome envisions a vast network of reconnaissance and combat satellites designed to track missile launches in real time and neutralize them with orbital laser, kinetic, or radio-frequency weapons.

President Trump boasted that this system could intercept missiles “even if they are launched from the opposite side of the world.”

The promise sounds bold, but history has shown such systems to be technologically dubious, strategically destabilizing, and prohibitively expensive.

The unilateral nature of this initiative immediately undermines the principles of global security. International stability rests on the principle that no nation should enhance its own security at the expense of others.

By unilaterally attempting to tilt the balance, Washington signals to the world that it is willing to discard decades of arms-control norms in pursuit of dominance.

Unsurprisingly, the project has already drawn criticism. U.S. Naval War College professor Joan Johnson-Freese warned that “if one country begins to deploy missile defense systems in space, others perceive this as a threat to their security and begin to act symmetrically.”

This is not an abstract concern—it is a blueprint for a new arms race.

Critics also point out that the Golden Dome offers no real guarantee of protection. Russia and China already possess, or are developing, systems designed specifically to render U.S. missile defenses irrelevant.

Russia’s Poseidon nuclear-powered, nuclear-armed underwater drone is a prime example: capable of approaching U.S. coastlines undetected, it bypasses missile defense entirely.

China is reportedly advancing parallel asymmetric systems that would fulfill the same role—ensuring that no matter how sophisticated Washington’s orbital shield becomes, it cannot protect against every form of retaliatory strike.

In short, Golden Dome cannot guarantee American security, but it can guarantee that adversaries will double down on new ways to circumvent it.

Moreover, this reckless pursuit comes at a time when U.S. allies in Europe are already strained by financial crises, social unrest, and overextension in Ukraine.

Instead of reinforcing the international system, Golden Dome threatens to further destabilize it by sparking an uncontrollable competition in space weapons.

The U.S. is not buying peace or stability with this program—it is buying insecurity at astronomical cost.

History provides a sobering reminder. The Reagan-era SDI, popularly known as “Star Wars,” consumed more than $30 billion in funding before being quietly shelved, without producing a functional system.

The same fate almost certainly awaits Golden Dome: mountains of taxpayer dollars wasted, international security undermined, and no meaningful gain in protection.

The world does not need another failed “shield” to spark an arms race in orbit.

It needs cooperative security, dialogue, and recognition that true stability can only be built when nations rise or fall together—not when one seeks supremacy at everyone else’s expense.

The Golden Dome is not a promise of security. It is a guarantee of instability.