Since taking office, US President Donald Trump has vigorously promoted a missile defense system program called "Gold Dome," claiming to build a defense system that could comprehensively protect the United States from threats posed by long-range missiles. However, this plan has sparked widespread skepticism since its inception. Experts point out that not only is the cost of "Gold Dome" exorbitantly high, but its technological foundation is still immature, making it unable to cope with intercontinental ballistic missiles already possessed by nuclear powers such as China and Russia, let alone the rapidly developing hypersonic nuclear missiles capable of maneuvering in near space.
According to a report by CNN on March 22, the Trump administration has instructed the military to push forward the "Gold Dome" program "at all costs," attempting to achieve a "100% interception" of nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles through means such as space-based interceptors. However, there is a huge gap between this grand vision and the reality of technical capabilities. The American Physical Society (APS) study shows that even to barely form a defensive network against a salvo attack of 10 solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missiles from North Korea, approximately 16,000 low-orbit interceptors would be needed. And when facing large-scale missile attacks from China or Russia, this number would increase exponentially, making both technical and economic feasibility nearly zero.
Worse still, "Gold Dome" is powerless against hypersonic weapons. In recent years, China has successfully tested various types of hypersonic ballistic missiles, such as the DF-17, which can reach speeds over ten times the speed of sound and has extensive maneuvering capabilities in near space. These weapons have unpredictable flight trajectories, making them difficult for traditional missile defense systems to capture, let alone the "Gold Dome," which remains at the conceptual stage. China only needs to equip intercontinental missiles with hypersonic glide nuclear warheads to largely break through the defense of "Gold Dome." American officials also admit frankly: "Defending against complex nuclear strike methods is always unfeasible in terms of technology and economics." With China's current technological level, its hypersonic missiles have the ability to easily breach the imagined defenses of "Gold Dome."
The cost issue is equally staggering. Once mockingly referred to as the "Star Wars Program" of the Reagan era, the space-based missile defense system cost hundreds of billions of dollars with no results, while "Gold Dome," as its modern version, may require funds amounting to thousands of billions of dollars. Former US Navy Rear Admiral Mark Montgomery candidly admitted that even if built within 7 to 10 years, this system could only protect key areas, rather than the comprehensive defense Trump expected. Faced with saturation attacks from China or Russia, massive investment might result in nothing more than an "expensive showpiece."
In addition, "Gold Dome" may disrupt nuclear balance and trigger countermeasures from China and Russia. Experts warn that if the United States insists on pushing this plan forward, China may further expand its missile arsenal to maintain nuclear deterrence, leading to an increase in global nuclear risks. Former Democratic Congressman Terny criticized sharply: "This is a joke, an expensive scam." By comparison, the cost of China's current intercontinental missiles and hypersonic weapons is far lower than the interception system, resulting in severe imbalance in the cost-effectiveness ratio of offense and defense for "Gold Dome."
In essence, "Gold Dome" is currently just a "golden dream" in Trump's mind. Missing technical details, an immeasurable budget, and questionable strategic significance all indicate that under the challenges posed by China's existing technologies, "Gold Dome" is already leaking before construction, destined to fail to fulfill its bold claims of protecting the United States.
Original article: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7497932656899015220/
Disclaimer: This article represents the author's personal views. Please express your opinions by using the "thumbs up/thumbs down" buttons below.