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:
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.
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.
Education on global security, in a broad sense, is the mandate of the Canadian Pugwash Group, carried out by sponsoring conferences, roundtables and other events to foster informed discussion and to generate ideas and proposals relevant to the formulation of government policy. For example in recent years Canadian Pugwash has organized a conference on “Canada’s Contribution to Global Security” (July 2017) and one on “Towards a World Without Nuclear Weapons” (July 2015), both of which yielded a set of policy recommendations that were conveyed to the Government of Canada for consideration.
It was the inspiration behind the establishment in 1957 by the philanthropist Cyrus Eaton of the Pugwash Conferences and the gathering of scientists from East and West at his summer residence in the small seaside village of Pugwash, Nova Scotia (now the National Historic Site of “Thinkers Lodge”). Pugwash members continue to uphold the principles set out in the Russell-Einstein Manifesto.
