When Washington announced its ambitious Golden Dome plan worth $175 billion, it raised alarms in Moscow, Beijing and Pyongyang. Russia and China have described the move as 'deeply destabilising' in nature.At a press conference, Zhang Xiaogang, spokesperson for China's Ministry of National Defence, warned, “The U.S. actions will once again open the Pandora's box”.&nbsp;The term Golden Dome is derived from a massive biblical concept of divine protection, and it is designed to shield the United States from threats incoming from land, air, and sea. It is a technological artefact that holds the power to redefine modern warfare. It is also similar to Israel's Iron Dome, only larger in scale. This risks escalating tension in space, and while setting a precedent for other nations to develop their space-based program. This might also encourage other countries to develop sophisticated missiles to overcome the defences of the Golden Dome. Moreover, the effectiveness of missile interception might prompt the US to engage less in diplomatic talks and embolden it to follow riskier military operations.&nbsp;The Russian foreign affairs spokesperson said the development “violates the spirit” of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, an agreement that was supposed to protect the militarisation of space by prohibiting the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in space.&nbsp;Article IV of the treaty states, "Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction..."&nbsp;The treaty leaves scope for the peaceful utilisation of space. Hence, it does not implicitly forbid the installation of a defence system or satellites in orbit or technology that might use directed energy or laser weapons. But the defensive and offensive potential of technological artefacts in space is blurry, leaving a legal and strategic gray area and raising ethical questions.<h2>Technological artefacts and the politics they embody</h2>'Do artefacts have politics?' Philosopher Langdon Winner did not pose this as a rhetorical question, he posed this to challenge the neutrality of technology. He argued that the technologies of any society reflect values, power structures and ambitions of those who built them.&nbsp;The United States denied any implications that the project would militarise space, they said, “All we care about is protecting the homeland”. They have cited strategic defence from China's hypersonic glide vehicles and North Korea's Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles.&nbsp;Technological artefacts like the Golden Dome seem mostly strategic and technical. But technology often moves faster than diplomacy. These weapons, whether offensive or defensive, embody a politics of their own, irrespective of the anarchy in international affairs. This politics can be either by design of the technology or by the consequences of its utility.&nbsp;According to Winner, “to recognise the political dimensions in the shapes of technology does not require that we look for conscious conspiracies or malicious intentions”. For example, nuclear technology by design is centralised and requires sophisticated facilities and control that is exclusive to authority and power. On the other hand, solar technology is democratic; it can be used and harnessed by individuals at a micro scale.&nbsp;Golden Dome is far from just a defensive shield; it embodies the expansionist ambitions of our society. It initiates an arms race between superpowers like the US, Russia, China, North Korea and many more. The fate of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty is hanging by a thread. This might just be the initiation of a new era of military competition that extends beyond Earth's atmosphere.&nbsp;&nbsp;

The US Golden Dome plan raises global alarm, risking space militarization and challenging the 1967 Outer Space Treaty’s relevance.

When Washington announced its ambitious Golden Dome plan worth $175 billion, it raised alarms in Moscow, Beijing and Pyongyang. Russia and China have described the move as 'deeply destabilising' in nature. At a press conference, Zhang Xiaogang, spokesperson for China's Ministry of National Defence, warned, “The U.S. actions will once again open the Pandora's box”. The term Golden Dome is derived from a massive biblical concept of divine protection, and it is designed to shield the United States from threats incoming from land, air, and sea. It is a technological artefact that holds the power to redefine modern warfare. It is also similar to Israel's Iron Dome, only larger in scale. This risks escalating tension in space, and while setting a precedent for other nations to develop their space-based program. This might also encourage other countries to develop sophisticated missiles to overcome the defences of the Golden Dome. Moreover, the effectiveness of missile interception might prompt the US to engage less in diplomatic talks and embolden it to follow riskier military operations. The Russian foreign affairs spokesperson said the development “violates the spirit” of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, an agreement that was supposed to protect the militarisation of space by prohibiting the deployment of weapons of mass destruction in space. Article IV of the treaty states, "Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction..." The treaty leaves scope for the peaceful utilisation of space. Hence, it does not implicitly forbid the installation of a defence system or satellites in orbit or technology that might use directed energy or laser weapons. But the defensive and offensive potential of technological artefacts in space is blurry, leaving a legal and strategic gray area and raising ethical questions. Technological artefacts and the politics they embody 'Do artefacts have politics?' Philosopher Langdon Winner did not pose this as a rhetorical question, he posed this to challenge the neutrality of technology. He argued that the technologies of any society reflect values, power structures and ambitions of those who built them. The United States denied any implications that the project would militarise space, they said, “All we care about is protecting the homeland”. They have cited strategic defence from China's hypersonic glide vehicles and North Korea's Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles. Technological artefacts like the Golden Dome seem mostly strategic and technical. But technology often moves faster than diplomacy. These weapons, whether offensive or defensive, embody a politics of their own, irrespective of the anarchy in international affairs. This politics can be either by design of the technology or by the consequences of its utility. According to Winner, “to recognise the political dimensions in the shapes of technology does not require that we look for conscious conspiracies or malicious intentions”. For example, nuclear technology by design is centralised and requires sophisticated facilities and control that is exclusive to authority and power. On the other hand, solar technology is democratic; it can be used and harnessed by individuals at a micro scale. Golden Dome is far from just a defensive shield; it embodies the expansionist ambitions of our society. It initiates an arms race between superpowers like the US, Russia, China, North Korea and many more. The fate of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty is hanging by a thread. This might just be the initiation of a new era of military competition that extends beyond Earth's atmosphere.

The US Golden Dome plan raises global alarm, risking space militarisation and challenging the 1967 Outer Space Treaty’s relevance.&nbsp;

US Golden Dome: Prelude to a new arms race

US President Donald Trump has stirred fresh controversy with an audacious offer: Canada can have access to the United States' cutting-edge "Golden Dome" missile defence system — but only if it agrees to become the 51st US state.&nbsp;“I told Canada, which very much wants to be part of our fabulous Golden Dome System, that it will cost $61 Billion Dollars if they remain a separate, but unequal, Nation, but will cost ZERO DOLLARS if they become our cherished 51st State," Trump wrote on his Truth Social network.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">Donald J. Trump Truth Social 05.27.25 05:41 PM EST <a href="https://t.co/XdQqIDb6De">pic.twitter.com/XdQqIDb6De</a>&mdash; Commentary Donald J. Trump Posts From Truth Social (@TrumpDailyPosts) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpDailyPosts/status/1927481464871891441?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 27, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Canada has not officially responded to the claim made by Donald Trump.&nbsp;Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has acknowledged that his government is in talks with the US regarding participation in the Golden Dome program. “Is it a good idea for Canada? Yes, it is good to have protections in place for Canadians,” Carney said during a press conference last week. "We cooperate if necessary but not necessarily cooperate," he was quoted saying.&nbsp;What Is ‘Golden Dome’ system?&nbsp;Trump's Golden Dome is a missile shield system. As per the US president, once fully constructed, it would protect the nation from missiles launched from space and land.&nbsp;"Once fully constructed, the Golden Dome will be capable of intercepting missiles even if they are launched from other sides of the world, and even if they are launched from space," Trump said."This is very important for the success and even survival of our country," he added.&nbsp;The Republican leader said that the Golden Dome has more expansive goals, and would "deploy next-generation technologies across the land, sea and space, including space-based sensors and interceptors."&nbsp;Meanwhile, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said that the system would protect "the homeland from cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, hypersonic missiles, drones, whether they're conventional or nuclear."

Trump offers Canada free access to ‘Golden Dome’ defence system—But only if it joins the US

US President Donald Trump has stirred fresh controversy with an audacious offer: Canada can have access to the United States' cutting-edge "Golden Dome" missile defence system — but only if it agrees to become the 51st US state. “I told Canada, which very much wants to be part of our fabulous Golden Dome System, that it will cost $61 Billion Dollars if they remain a separate, but unequal, Nation, but will cost ZERO DOLLARS if they become our cherished 51st State," Trump wrote on his Truth Social network.

US President Donald Trump said Canada could join the Golden Dome missile defence system for $61 billion, but it would be free if they became the 51st state

golden-dome-defence-system

Golden Dome Defence System, News on Golden Dome Defence System, stories on Golden Dome Defence System, articles on Golden Dome Defence System, Golden Dome Defence System stories at Wion, Golden Dome Defence System news, Golden Dome Defence System latest news

golden dome-defence-system

US Golden Dome: Prelude to a new arms race

Trump offers Canada free access to ‘Golden Dome’ defence system—But only if it joins the US