Featured

CPG Statement: Flawed in Principle and Practice — Why Canada Must Say No to ‘Golden Dome’

Flawed in Principle and Practice: Why Canada Must Say No to ‘Golden Dome’

A Statement from the Canadian Pugwash Group – June 2025

As Canada’s new government takes office amid growing global instability, an early and consequential test of its approach to continental defence will be how it responds to the United States’ proposed “Golden Dome.” Announced in January by President Donald Trump, this sweeping missile defence initiative envisions a $175 billion shield over U.S. territory, with Canada invited to participate for $61 billion. Canada should decline involvement in this flawed and destabilizing scheme.

Canada’s proud tradition of supporting arms control, non-proliferation, and disarmament has earned it global respect. That reputation would be placed at risk by participation in a project that emphasizes unilateral technological dominance over diplomatic restraint. Rather than entangle its defence policy in an unproven and provocative system, Canada should focus on practical investments that reinforce continental cooperation, security, and credibility.

Existing plans to modernize NORAD – upgrading early warning systems and strengthening surveillance of cruise and hypersonic missiles – offer a credible, cooperative path forward. This approach supports Canadian sovereignty and security while remaining consistent with long-standing international commitments and the mutually agreed framework of NORAD’s mission.

A Deeply Problematic Proposal

The “Golden Dome” proposal is not merely expensive; it is strategically unsound and technically unreliable. As with earlier U.S. missile defence efforts, including President Reagan’s “Strategic Defense Initiative” of the 1980s, this latest version suffers from three fatal flaws:

  • False Sense of Security

Despite decades of development and hundreds of billions of dollars invested, U.S. missile defence systems have demonstrated only limited effectiveness. Current ground-based interceptors have a success rate of roughly 50% – and only under highly scripted test conditions. These trials do not simulate real-world scenarios involving decoys or other countermeasures that would likely be used in an actual nuclear strike.

Proposals for space-based sensors or interceptors – hallmarks of Golden Dome – face severe technical and logistical obstacles. They also assume adversaries would not respond with countermeasures, an assumption both unrealistic and dangerous. A system that offers the illusion of security while failing in practice would do more harm than good.

Contrary to the implications of its name, the so-called Golden Dome bears little resemblance to Israel’s Iron Dome. It is designed not for short-range projectiles but for long-range, nuclear-armed missiles – against which interception is exponentially more complex and far less reliable.

Indeed, experts estimate that thousands of space-based interceptors would be required to defend against even a single missile launch from North Korea, let alone a coordinated attack from a major nuclear power. The system is not only exorbitant, but fundamentally implausible.

  • Provocative and Destabilizing

Strategic missile defence disrupts the already fragile balance of deterrence among nuclear-armed states. If a nation believes its retaliatory capability could be compromised, it may feel compelled to expand its offensive arsenal or adopt risky postures such as launch-on-warning.

Rather than enhancing security, initiatives like Golden Dome increase the risk of miscalculation, arms racing, and preemptive escalation, especially in times of crisis. These risks are not theoretical; they are embedded in the logic of deterrence that governs nuclear relationships to this day.

The space-based components of Golden Dome would also accelerate the weaponization of outer space. Canada has long been a vocal proponent of keeping space free of weapons, in line with international norms. Participation in this project would undermine that legacy.

Golden Dome’s destabilizing potential is not only theoretical. Russian and Chinese officials have already warned that expanded U.S. missile defence efforts could trigger countermeasures, including the deployment of more advanced offensive systems and the loosening of nuclear postures.

Canadian participation could make us a target in broader geopolitical rivalries, increasing, not decreasing, our exposure to risk. In addition, it would hamper efforts to push for further strategic arms reductions involving China, Russia and the United States.

  • Fiscally Unsound

The $175 billion price tag cited by the U.S. President is widely considered unrealistic. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office has estimated that space-based elements alone could exceed $500 billion over 20 years. Canada’s suggested contribution of $61 billion would be wildly disproportionate to its needs and capabilities.

At a time of fiscal constraint and competing national priorities, Canada must focus defence spending on capabilities that actually strengthen security, readiness, and sovereignty. Golden Dome fails this test on every front.

The opportunity cost of such a commitment cannot be ignored. A $61-billion expenditure would crowd out investment in urgently needed capabilities such as cyber defence, Arctic security, and domestic resilience. It would also strain Canada’s ability to fulfil other global obligations, including peacekeeping, climate security, and humanitarian response.

A Better Alternative for Canada

The idea of a missile shield, however ambitious, has consistently failed to deliver. Its appeal is undercut by persistent technical challenges, exorbitant costs, and serious strategic risks.

Canada’s involvement in such a scheme would not only be ineffective and destabilizing but would entangle our defence posture in broader U.S. ambitions – some of which may conflict with international law or Canada’s core security priorities. The proposed space-based elements of Golden Dome directly contradict Canada’s long-standing opposition to the weaponization of space, voiced repeatedly at the UN Conference on Disarmament.

Moreover, a defence commitment of this scale demands transparency and broad political consensus. Yet there has been no public consultation, parliamentary debate, or cost-benefit analysis of Canadian participation. A $61-billion expenditure, it is larger than Canada’s entire annual defence budget.

At a time of rising costs of living, climate stress, and overstretched public services, diverting tens of billions to a flawed and provocative weapons system would be irresponsible. Canada’s defence investments must be effective, accountable, and aligned with our national interest.

Continued NORAD modernization provides a credible, cooperative path forward strengthening North American defence while upholding Canada’s commitments to arms control, space non-weaponization, and strategic restraint.

In an era of mounting global insecurity, Canada must choose credibility over illusion – and reject participation in Golden Dome.

 

 

Douglas Roche, O.C. Named 2025 Winner of CLND Award for Distinguished Achievement in Nuclear Disarmament

 

Douglas Roche, O.C. Named 2025 Winner of CLND Award for
Distinguished Achievement in Nuclear Disarmament:

Presentation and Lecture in Ottawa on October 23, 202

July 17, 2025

Douglas Roche, O.C. will receive the Canadian Leadership for Nuclear Disarmament (CLND) 2025 Distinguished Achievement Award. He has devoted himself over many decades to the vital cause of nuclear disarmament and, ultimately, the global abolition of nuclear weapons. CLND is a civil society initiative sponsored by the Canadian Pugwash Group. It is endorsed by more than 1,000 recipients of the Order of Canada who have called for Canada to work for comprehensive negotiations for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

“We are immensely proud to give this year’s Award to Douglas Roche, honouring his unwavering and inspiring leadership, for more than 50 years, resolutely focused on ridding the world of its catastrophically deadly arsenal of nuclear weapons,” said Alex Neve O.C., CLND Chairperson. “There is no one who has been so steadfast, brought so many others to this vital campaign, and shown all Canadians the moral clarity and pragmatic necessity of the cause. Doug Roche embodies the very epitome of the essence and finest qualities of leadership. And he has ardently and eloquently shown us all just what is at stake: our very survival.”

Douglas Roche has had the rare distinction of serving in the three roles of a Canadian Member of Parliament, Ambassador for Disarmament and Senator. He received appointments from two prime ministers of different parties: Brian Mulroney appointed him ambassador and Jean Chretien named him a senator. In all of those roles he has been a clarion voice for peace, justice and human rights, and has been untiring in his determined effort, in particular, to advance nuclear disarmament.

Roche, who is also a former Visiting Professor at the University of Alberta, has been a lifelong educator, informing Canadians of the risks posed by nuclear weapons and policy options to lessen those risks. He has written 25 books, and multiple articles and speeches. To strengthen disarmament education, he has organized many Parliamentary breakfasts, civil society meetings, roundtables, seminars, and briefings. He holds nine honorary doctorates and is an Officer of the Order of Canada.

Roche has also been integral to the creation of a wide range of effective nuclear disarmament advocacy groups. He was founding Chairperson of  Parliamentarians for Global Action, the Middle Powers Initiative, and the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. He was the first international president of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.

“For his integrity, knowledge, dedication and unflagging hard work, Douglas Roche commands an exceptional – in fact unrivalled – level and degree of respect across Canada and globally, including from governments, UN officials, civil society leaders, academics, and peace and human rights activists,” said Neve. “At the age of 96, the determination and energy he continues to bring to this crucial campaign, sets a model that we all must aspire to follow.”

The Award will be presented at 4 PM on Thursday, October 23, 2025 and followed by Douglas Roche’s lecture, on “Creative Dissent: A Politician’s Struggle for Peace.” This public event is sponsored by CLND and the Centre for International Policy Studies (CIPS) at the University of Ottawa, in Room 4007 of the Faculty of Social Sciences Building, 120 University Private, Ottawa. The lecture will be followed by a reception and will conclude at 6 pm.

 

Previous recipients of the CNWC Achievement Award are:

2011 Murray Thomson

2012 Bev Tollefson Delong

2013 Fergus Watt

2014 Dr. Adele Buckley

2015 Paul Dewar

2016 Peggy Mason

2017 Metta Spencer

2018 Debbie Grisdale

2019 Dr. Mary-Wynne Ashford and Dr. Jonathan Down

2021 Dr. Jennifer Allen Simons

2022 Paul Meyer

2023 Tariq Rauf

2024 Ernie Regehr

 

Contact:    Elaine Hynes

CNWC Secretariat

clnd@pugwashgroup.ca

Recent publications by Canadian Pugwash members

Douglas Roche: Bob Rae is Feeling the UN’s Pain” The Hill TImes, July 16, 2025 [Roche_HT_July17.2025]

Robin Collins:The Debate about Gaza’s Death Count and Human Shields” Rideau Institute, July 15, 2025.

Cesar Jaramillo: “NATO Goes MAGA” Sane Policy Institute, July 8, 2025.

Michael Manulak, broadcast: “Reflections on Canada and the Global Order” BrianCrombie.com, July 7, 2025

Sean Howard:Manifesting our humanity: Remembering how to survive in the nuclear age” The Cape Breton Post, July 4, 2025.

Paul Meyer: The Future of Iran’s Nuclear Program: Could Withdrawal from the NPT be Next?” Policy, July 5, 2025.

Robin Collins:Canada – and the world – need prudent not excessive military spending” Ceasefire Blog, July 2, 2025.

Cesar Jaramillo:Flawed in principle and practice: why Canada must say no to Trump’s Golden Dome” The Hill Times, June 30, 2025.

Douglas Roche: “The real Mark Carney is about to emerge” The Hill Times, June 30, 2025.

Erika Simpson and Gordon Edwards: “Iran’s uranium enrichment: myths, realities, and what Canada should understand” The Hill Times, June 30, 2025.

Michael Manulak, participant: “Canada’s foreign policy must catch up to its military spending” Globe and Mail, June 27, 2025.

Paul Meyer:Canada Shouldn’t Buy into the Mirage of “Golden Dome” CIPS, June 25, 2025.

Erika Simpson: “NATO’s dangerous new trajectory of expensive targets” The Hill Times, June 25, 2025.

Peter Jones:Will Iran be Donald Trump’s Forever War?” Policy, June 22, 2025.

Peggy Mason, participant: “Canada and Gaza: What are the Moral and Legal Obligations?” OFIP, June 16, 2025.

Erika Simpson and Hwang, J.: “Forging Peace in 2025-2030: The Role of Canada and South Korea as Middle Powers in Leading Global Conflict Resolution“. In Factis Pax: Journal of Peace Education and Social Justice19(1). June 16, 2025.

Jeremy Whitlock:Non-proliferation and the Nuclear Revival” 49th Annual CNS/CNA Student Conference, Toronto, June 8-11, 2025.

 

Published views by members of CPG are not necessarily those of our organization.

Meyer: Canada Shouldn’t Buy into the Mirage of “Golden Dome”

Paul Meyer is a Board member and Past Chair of Canadian Pugwash Group

https://www.cips-cepi.ca/2025/06/25/canada-shouldnt-buy-into-the-mirage-of-golden-dome/

A new Canadian Government is assuming power at a time of great upheaval in international affairs. Norms of non-aggression, cooperative security and strategic restraint are being undermined. Regrettably, some of this disruption originates with our American ally with whom, as the Prime Minister has said, we will need to forge a new security relationship. 

Whitlock: NON-PROLIFERATION AND THE NUCLEAR REVIVAL

Jeremy Whitlock is a member of Canadian Pugwash Group

IAEA Dept. of Safeguards (ret’d)
Principal: Ottertail Consulting Inc. Stratford, ON

Paper delivered to 44th Annual CNS Conference and the 49th Annual CNS/CNA Student Conference
Westin Harbour Castle Hotel, Toronto, ON, Canada, June 8-11, 2025

FULL PAPER LINKED HERE: Non-proliferation and the Nuclear Revival – Jeremy Whitlock – CNS2025

The summary:

The nuclear revival will need to proceed in lock step with enhancements to the non-proliferation regime if it is to succeed while remaining consistent with international legal obligations. In the past the evolution of the nuclear industry has proceeded at a slow enough pace that nuclear safeguards – the cornerstone of non-proliferation and therefore of civilian nuclear energy expansion – has generally been able to keep up with emerging implementation challenges. The safeguards challenges of the current nuclear revival however, based on the diversity of technologies and timeliness of proposed deployment, will be both significant and quickly evolving. There is a clear need, therefore, for early engagement so that safeguards solutions can be integrated within the design process and considered alongside safety and security requirements.

The good news is that, given sufficient early engagement, safeguards solutions exist and non-proliferation does not have to be an impediment to nuclear innovation (or put another way, nuclear innovation an impediment to global security). Quite the contrary, as embodied in the tenets of the NPT, non-proliferation can rightfully assume its role as an enabler and cornerstone of nuclear innovation: the NPT, it must be remembered, recognizes the “inalienable right” of nations to benefit from peaceful nuclear technology.

For Canada this will possibly include a national debate over technologies such as reprocessing – a technology that it pioneered in the earliest years of its nuclear program but has generally avoided until very recently. For innovations such as this, there are clearly proliferation challenges but also non-proliferation solutions (largely in the form of adequate safeguards).

Safeguards by Design, the proactive practice of good engineering whereby an end user’s international obligations are accounted for as early as possible, is also a concept pioneered by Canada. By continuing to accord due weight to this requirement, Canada is in a position to honour its legacy of leadership in global non-proliferation, and help ensure a sustainable nuclear revival.

 

Open Letter to Prime Minister Carney: Canada Must Say No to ‘Golden Dome’

STATEMENT (PDF) HERE

The Right Honourable Mark Carney
Prime Minister of Canada
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6

June 11, 2025

Dear Prime Minister,

As your government begins its mandate at a time of profound international uncertainty, the Canadian Pugwash Group urges you to take a clear and principled position on a critical issue of defence and diplomacy: the United States’ proposed “Golden Dome” missile defence initiative.

As outlined in the statement that follows (Flawed in Principle and Practice: Why Canada Must Say No to ‘Golden Dome’) we believe that participation in this unproven, costly, and destabilizing scheme would undermine Canada’s strategic interests, global reputation, and longstanding support for arms control and multilateralism.

Canada should decline its participation in this initiative.

Instead, we encourage the Government of Canada to reaffirm its commitment to NORAD modernization as a credible and cooperative contribution to continental defence. This approach supports Canadian sovereignty and security without fuelling arms races or weakening international norms.

We hope the government will consider the perspectives offered in our statement and would welcome the opportunity to engage further.

Sincerely,
Cesar Jaramillo
Chair, Canadian Pugwash Group

cc: Minister of Global Affairs Canada, Hon. Anita Anand
cc: Minister of National Defence, Hon. David McGuinty

STATEMENT (PDF) HERE

 

EN / FR