Is Golden Dome 'Really The Best Way To Protect The U.S.'—Neil deGrasse Tyson Weighs In On Whether It Lives Up To Its Promise

Please share:

499

199

388

3471

A new missile defense concept known as the “Golden Dome” has gotten people talking, and astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson is sharing his honest opinion.

In a recent episode of “StarTalk,” Tyson explained how missile defense systems work and questioned whether the “Golden Dome” is practical or even necessary.

‘Golden’ In Name Only

Tyson pointed out the name quickly. Unlike the Iron Dome used by Israel, which shoots down incoming missiles using interceptors, the idea of a Golden Dome raises eyebrows for its symbolic but inaccurate branding.

“Iron is strong. We make skyscrapers out of that,” Tyson said.

“Gold is one of the softest metals on the periodic table.”

He pointed out that calling it a “golden” dome may say more about political optics than defense readiness.

Earlier this year, President Trump, known for his love of gold, brought in his personal “gold guy” to decorate the Oval Office with gold molding, cherubs, and even coasters with his name.

The same cabinetmaker has worked on gold features at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private club in Florida, which is also filled with gold accents.

The name “Golden Dome” might reflect that same flashy style more than a real defense plan.

“It’s more evidence that the president likes shiny objects than understands elements on the periodic table,” Tyson said.

What We’re Already Doing

Tyson reminded viewers that the U.S. already has some defenses in place. Systems in Greenland and on the West Coast are designed to detect and intercept intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

These missiles are launched at high speeds and arcs that exit Earth’s atmosphere, relying only on gravity to reach their targets.

“Ballistic missiles can hit another target on Earth within 45 minutes,” Tyson explained.

That gives missile defense systems a small window to respond, usually during the launch phase, when the missile’s infrared signature can be picked up by satellites.

Two Types of Threats

Tyson distinguished between two major types of threats. First, there are long-range ballistic missiles.

Second, there are hypersonic missiles and mobile artillery, which are harder to track and usually launched from closer distances. It’s harder to stop them because they move fast and might only be detected after launch.

“You don’t always track where it might come from.”

Total Coverage Is Unrealistic

The big question: Can a country as large as the U.S. be fully protected from all directions? Tyson is skeptical.

“I know it’s possible to protect us from certain compass directions where we know we have sworn enemies,” he said.

“But to think we’d be able to do that in every possible direction… it comes with a built-in assumption that we would ultimately make enemies of the entire world.”

He also noted the staggering cost. “A minimum several hundred billion,” Tyson estimated.

For comparison, the entire Apollo space program cost about $100 billion.

The Blind Spot: Internal Attacks

While the Golden Dome concept focuses on threats from above, Tyson warned it could leave the U.S. vulnerable in other ways.

He cited J. Robert Oppenheimer, who in 1946 told senators that the only way to detect a nuclear bomb brought into New York City by truck was “a screwdriver to open every single crate.”

“That’s the high technology you would need,” Tyson said, arguing that physical security on the ground is often overlooked.

Visible defense systems may result in enemies switching tactics, like poisoning water supplies or releasing pathogens.

A Different Kind of Safety

Instead of putting all our money into defense systems, Tyson suggested trying diplomacy.

“Do we not conquer our enemies when we make them our friends?” he asked, quoting Abraham Lincoln. “That’s the world I want to live in.”

Tyson said that real safety doesn’t come just from shooting down missiles. It’s also about reducing the chances of conflict before it even starts.

This could mean better relationships with other countries, working on peace efforts, and not always expecting war.

In his view, building trust might result in more lasting safety than building weapons.