Trump’s Missile Defense Initiative: A Strategic Imperative for the United States

Introduction

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order directing his Secretary of Defense to develop a missile defense system for the United States. He has given the Pentagon 60 days to draft a plan. Predictably, the announcement has sparked debate, with some questioning its feasibility, others drawing comparisons to past initiatives like Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), or “Star Wars,” and some suggesting it mirrors Israel’s Iron Dome. But none of these comparisons fully capture the reality of what is needed. This initiative is not a resurrection of SDI, nor is it an attempt to replicate Israel’s Iron Dome. Instead, it represents a hybrid approach suited to contemporary threats – one that integrates emerging technologies with existing capabilities to fill a critical gap in US defense strategy.

Much of the initial criticism of the plan is reflexive rather than analytical. Historically, missile defense has been dismissed as unworkable – until it wasn’t. When Israel first announced its intent to develop Iron Dome, many experts said it was impractical, too expensive, or unnecessary and doomed to fail. Yet today, Iron Dome has intercepted thousands of rockets and fundamentally reshaped the battlefield. Had Israel heeded early skepticism, it would be far more vulnerable to Hezbollah and Hamas barrages.

The broader issue is not just about whether the US should develop this system, but why it hasn’t done so already.

But this is not about copying Iron Dome. The threats facing the United States are different. Unlike Israel, which contends with short-range rocket attacks, the US must defend against ICBMs, hypersonic missiles, and long-range strategic strikes. Hypersonic weapons, in particular, present an immense challenge. Moving at speeds beyond Mach 5, they are difficult to track and intercept. Unlike conventional ballistic missiles, which follow predictable trajectories, hypersonic glide vehicles can maneuver mid-flight, evading current defense systems. While the US military is already researching potential countermeasures – including directed energy weapons and next-generation interceptors – it still lacks a comprehensive defense against these emerging threats. Meanwhile, China and Russia are already deploying operational hypersonic capabilities.

If the US lacks the ability to defend its homeland, no external actor will be able to rectify that mistake later.

The broader issue is not just about whether the US should develop this system, but why it hasn’t done so already. The global security landscape is shifting rapidly. China is turning the South China Sea into a militarized zone while the US remains preoccupied with internal political debates. Russia, through its war in Ukraine, is refining its missile strategies and testing Western defensive capabilities in real-time. Iran, North Korea, and their regional proxies have already demonstrated an ability to launch complex, coordinated missile and drone strikes against US assets and allies. The longstanding assumption that the US homeland is inherently secure due to geography is no longer valid.

Lessons from Ukraine: The Risks of Insufficient Missile Defense

Trump’s executive order may reflect a closer assessment of the Ukraine war than many assume. For three years, Russian missiles and drones have targeted Ukrainian cities, crippling energy grids, damaging critical infrastructure, and forcing Kyiv into a constant, reactive air defense battle. Ukraine has relied on a patchwork of Western systems – Patriot batteries, NASAMS, IRIS-Ts, and others – to mitigate these attacks. Yet even with these systems, no defense is perfect, and Ukrainian cities continue to face relentless bombardment.

The US must acknowledge a harsh reality: in a future conflict, no external power will be able to resupply its missile defenses in the way the US currently supports Ukraine. America is the world’s primary weapons supplier – there is no equivalent arsenal waiting to reinforce it in a crisis. Its allies depend on US protection, not the other way around. In a large-scale war, they will be too preoccupied with their own survival to offer meaningful reinforcements. Geography further complicates matters. Unlike Europe, where reinforcements can arrive by land, the US is surrounded by oceans, making logistical resupply of air defenses far more vulnerable in wartime. If the US lacks the ability to defend its homeland, no external actor will be able to rectify that mistake later.

Beyond Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD): The Need for a Modern Defense Posture

One common counterargument is that Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) makes missile defense unnecessary – that because major powers possess nuclear weapons, large-scale missile strikes will never happen. However, recent conflicts demonstrate that MAD does not prevent missile warfare.

• Russia, a nuclear power, still invaded Ukraine.
• The US, a nuclear power, still has its military bases and assets abroad attacked regularly by Iranian proxies.
• Israel, a nuclear power, is still bombarded by Hamas and Hezbollah rockets.

MAD may prevent all-out nuclear war, but it does not deter conventional conflict or prevent limited missile strikes from shaping the battlespace. The assumption that nuclear deterrence alone can shield the US from missile threats is not just naïve – it is dangerous.

China, Russia, and Iran: The Emerging Missile Threat

The strategic competitors of the United States are not relying on MAD to ensure their security. They are actively expanding their missile arsenals, refining their operational doctrines, and testing Western vulnerabilities in real-world conflicts.

• China is modernizing its missile forces, investing in hypersonic glide vehicles like the DF-17 and developing anti-ship capabilities designed to threaten US carriers in the Pacific.
• Russia has deployed the Avangard hypersonic system, improved its air defense capabilities, and adapted its military strategies based on combat experience in Ukraine.
• Iran has built a sophisticated missile network and demonstrated its ability to overwhelm air defense systems with massed drone and rocket salvos. Its proxies have proven that even non-state actors can pose serious missile threats if not countered effectively.

The era of assuming American soil is untouchable is over. Russia’s Avangard system, capable of travelling at Mach 20, can evade existing missile defenses through unpredictable maneuvers. China’s DF-17 can strike US aircraft carriers and regional bases before forces even have time to respond. These threats are not hypothetical – they are operational, and they are already reshaping the balance of power.

The Need for a New Missile Defense Strategy

Critics of missile defense often dismiss it as too costly, too complex, or too politically charged. But history suggests otherwise. Iron Dome was doubted – until it worked. Ukraine’s patchwork air defenses were questioned – until they proved essential. Every conflict of the modern era has underscored the same lesson: having a reliable missile shield is better than needing one and not having it.

Trump’s executive order is not about reviving Reagan’s SDI or cloning Israel’s Iron Dome – it is about addressing a pressing vulnerability in US national security. The question is no longer whether the United States should develop a modern missile defense system. The real question is: why did it take this long?