The former commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command says it is not possible or affordable to defend every inch of America, but defense leaders might not need to if they improve domain awareness and upgrade missile defense policies.
At The Washington Times’ “Threat Status’ Golden Dome for America” event on Tuesday, retired Air Force Gen. Glen D. VanHerck said a comprehensive missile defense shield over the U.S. is essential, especially in the face of emerging threats from China and Russia.
“I would tell you that strategic stability is eroding based on a limited ability to defend, as specifically the PRC develops capability to hold us at risk, and the risk of strategic return failure is growing,” the former NORAD commander said.
In late January, President Trump signed an executive order directing defense officials to prepare a “Iron Dome for America,” a missile shield project similar to the one used by Israel to defend against rocket threats. The project has since been rebranded as Golden Dome.
Since the order, defense officials and experts have debated the feasibility and affordability of such a system. Some have argued that if the U.S. adopts a foolproof missile defense system, it could upset the international deterrence order and lead to a strike from a rival.
Mr. VanHerck said such fears are unreasonable, adding any potential Golden Dome system should prioritize domain awareness as opposed to complete defense of the U.S. homeland.
“Now, there are many people who say, ‘Won’t you rock the boat on strategic stability?’ Well, I would say we open the door if we don’t defend ourselves,” he said. “We need to figure out from a policy perspective what achieves deterrence by denial. How many bullets in the magazine to go after a ballistic missile or a hypersonic missile or a cruise missile? But if you get in a race to go after every potential threat to your homeland, it’s gonna become unaffordable.”
Mr. VanHerck said defending and defeating threats on the U.S. homeland is an unsustainable strategy.
“My strategy was not to defend and defeat here in the homeland. It was to generate effects through my fellow combat commanders and our allies and partners to create deterrence effects before you have to defend and defeat here,” he said. “And I would also rather interdict the supply chain so that the missile doesn’t work in the first place when they hit the button, not necessarily having to shoot it down from the space-based capability. So I see this as much more than weapons in space going after missiles flying through.”
He added that, while U.S. missile defense systems are extremely effective, especially against ballistic missiles, they are mostly prepared to defend against emerging nuclear nations like Iran and North Korea. The U.S. should shift its policy toward defending against next-generation threats from peer nations to improve security, he said.
“Today, we’re not tasked with defending against China and Russia for ballistic missiles or avionics,” Mr. VanHerck said. “The policy says in the Missile Defense Review, you defend against the rogue nation and North Korea or potentially Iraq. We need to look at that as we go forward.”
