Kamal Ghorui
The United States has acknowledged major gaps in its homeland missile defence system, warning that existing capabilities are not equipped to counter advanced threats such as hypersonic and long-range cruise missiles.This comes as Washington moves forward with plans for an ambitious multi-layered “Golden Dome” defence shield, aimed at strengthening protection against evolving threats from countries like China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
Senior US defence and military officials, testifying before lawmakers on fiscal year 2027 budget requests, said current systems were designed for a very different threat environment, ANI reported.“We have a very limited, ground-based single-layer homeland defence system that was specifically designed against a small-scale rogue attack,” US Assistant Secretary of Defence for Space Policy Marc J Berkowitz told a Senate panel.“We have very limited capability against any other attack with ballistic missiles, and we have no defence against hypersonic weapons or cruise missiles today,” he added.The remarks underline growing concerns within Washington as adversaries develop “non-ballistic threats, including hypersonic and long-range cruise missiles designed to hold our homeland at risk.”
‘Golden Dome’ plan to plug gaps
To address these vulnerabilities, the US is backing a proposed multi-layered missile defence system dubbed the “Golden Dome,” estimated to cost between $175 billion and $185 billion.The plan, backed by President Donald Trump, aims to integrate space-based sensors, ground interceptors, artificial intelligence-driven command systems and emerging technologies such as directed energy weapons.It is designed to counter a wide spectrum of threats, from drones to ballistic and hypersonic missiles across the US mainland.US Space Force General Michael A Guetlein, who is overseeing the programme, said the threat landscape has changed dramatically. “For the first time in a generation, our nation’s margin of safety has vanished,” he told lawmakers, adding that “today the homeland is exposed and relatively undefended.”Officials are targeting an initial operational capability by 2028.
China, Russia among key concerns
US officials repeatedly highlighted China as the primary strategic challenge, describing it as the military’s “pacing competitor.” They warned that Beijing’s expanding missile arsenal particularly hypersonic weapons—along with advances in cyber and electronic warfare, could threaten US infrastructure and deterrence systems.“The Golden Dome will strengthen deterrence by denying adversaries the ability to achieve their objectives through coercion or aggression… The cost of failing to defend our homeland would be infinitely greater,” Berkowitz said.The hearing also exposed structural weaknesses in the US defence industrial base. US Missile Defence Agency Director Lt Gen Heath A Collins said years of underinvestment have created a “capacity debt,” limiting the ability to scale up interceptor production.Officials stressed the need for greater “magazine depth” the capacity to sustain prolonged defensive operations drawing lessons from recent conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East, where large-scale missile and drone attacks overwhelmed air defences.The proposed funding model for the Golden Dome also drew criticism. Senator Angus King questioned the use of budget reconciliation, arguing it reduces congressional oversight.“So the president gets to say we’re going to do a USD 150 to USD 200 to USD 300 billion project and Congress can sit meekly by and say, ‘OK, we’ll write the cheque for you,’” he said.Pentagon officials defended the approach, saying faster decision-making is necessary given evolving threats, but the exchange highlighted divisions in Washington over defence spending.Lawmakers also raised questions about the need for such a system, noting that Cold War deterrence functioned without a comprehensive missile shield.Officials responded that the security environment has fundamentally changed, with multiple nuclear-armed rivals and advanced technologies, making it necessary to move beyond traditional deterrence to a mix of deterrence and active defence.
