US Golden Dome: Prelude to a new arms race

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.