Washington, D.C. – Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) today released a report titled, “Missing the Mark: Why Golden Dome is Bad for American Taxpayers.” The report examines the plan for a proposed missile defense shield, titled Golden Dome, along with its potential costs, viability problems, strategic risks, and conflict-of-interest concerns. An accompanying fact sheet highlights some of the report’s key findings.
According to independent cost estimates, Golden Dome would likely cost far more than President Trump’s stated cost of $175 billion. A Congressional Budget Office report found that deploying a constellation of boost-phase space-based interceptors theoretically capable of intercepting one or two North Korean ICBMs could cost $542 billion. An American Enterprise Institute report found that the program overall could cost $3.6 trillion, or even more if the program pursues expansive approaches to some of the more costly components.
“If it’s ever deployed, it would likely be the most expensive Pentagon program in history,” said Steve Ellis, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. “High costs don’t guarantee effective systems—in fact they often buy you the opposite. The F-35 cost $2 trillion, and it’s only fully operational a third of the time. With a program like Golden Dome aiming to defend the nation from nuclear attack, anything short of 100 percent success is failure.”
The report examines some of the most significant viability problems facing Golden Dome, particularly with respect to the goal of defending the nation from nuclear attack. It addresses the extremely high ratio of interceptors to missiles necessary to theoretically defend the entire United States, ratios as high as 1600:1. It also highlights the challenges posed by countermeasures designed to confuse and overwhelm missile defense systems, and the prospect of nuclear detonations (a possible result of successful intercepts or warheads designed to detonate if interceptors get too close) making it impossible to track and intercept additional missile threats.
“The ratio of interceptors to missiles launched creates a cost effectiveness problem right out of the gate,” said Ellis. “Then there’s all the complex countermeasures that nuclear missiles can deploy to confuse radars and complicate intercepts. Maybe the single biggest problem is that even if you deploy enough interceptors and defeat all the countermeasures, you still have to contend with the possibility of nuclear detonations in space that could make it impossible to track and intercept additional targets. No one has an answer for that.”
The report details serious strategic risks involved with pursuing Golden Dome, from the pressure it would put on adversaries to expand their nuclear weapons capabilities, to the risk of turning outer space into a battlefield, to the risk of undermining prospects for arms control.
“Missile defense systems designed to defeat nuclear weapons are inherently destabilizing,” said Ellis. “Golden Dome will incentivize adversaries to expand their nuclear arsenals and capabilities beyond what they otherwise would in order to maintain the precarious balance of power between nuclear-armed states. Interceptors are also effectively missiles themselves, and putting potentially hundreds of thousands of missiles in orbit would have profound geopolitical impacts. Unlike missile defense systems, pursuing verifiable arms control agreements can and has tangibly reduced the threat of nuclear weapons, and at far lower costs.”
The report also examines conflict-of-interest concerns surrounding Golden Dome, from government employees with the power to shape contract decisions holding stock in companies vying for Golden Dome contracts, to those same companies donating to the White House ballroom.
“Unfortunately, conflicts of interest in Pentagon acquisition are nothing new,” Ellis added. “But the scale of this program and the conflicts identified thus far should prompt Congress to keep probing for conflicts throughout the process. If we choose to build this costly, ill-advised, unworkable missile defense shield, it should be based on a sober assessment of national security tradeoffs, not taxpayer funded quid pro quos.”
The report includes recommendations primarily designed to ensure that Golden Dome systems are subject to rigorous, realistic testing requirements and performance benchmarks prior to deployment.
“If proponents of Golden Dome want to push ahead with this system despite its astronomical costs, insurmountable viability problems, and likely strategic consequences, they should at least have to prove that it works before taxpayers are forced to dole out trillions of dollars,” concluded Ellis.
###
Taxpayers for Common Sense is a nonpartisan budget watchdog committed to eliminating wasteful spending and promoting fiscal transparency and accountability.
