As the world’s major powers turn the heavens into the next battlefield, the dream of “absolute security” threatens to unravel global stability.
By Subhash Dhuliya
The Cold War may have ended three decades ago, but the world is again witnessing a dangerous escalation in military rivalry. With the United States’ ambitious “Golden Dome” initiative, China’s data-driven defense shield, and Russia’s battle-tested systems, the new arms race has moved beyond land, air, and sea—to outer space itself.
The Return of the Arms Race
When the Cold War ended in the early 1990s, the world dared to hope that military spending would decline and that the vast resources once devoted to nuclear competition could be redirected toward human progress. The dissolution of the Soviet Union appeared to mark the end of bipolar confrontation. NATO, many believed, would lose its relevance, and the United States would lead a “peace dividend” era.
That optimism has evaporated. Over the past decade, the global arms race has not only returned—it has accelerated, expanded, and transformed. What once was a competition for nuclear supremacy is now a struggle for technological and spatial dominance, with the world’s superpowers racing to build integrated missile defense systems, space-based weapons, and artificial intelligence-driven early-warning networks.
At the center of this new contest are three major powers—the United States, China, and Russia—each building a new generation of “domes” designed to shield their nations from missile attacks. But in seeking invulnerability, they are paradoxically undermining the very balance of mutual vulnerability that once kept nuclear conflict in check.
From Reagan’s “Star Wars” to Trump’s “Golden Dome,” the idea of a perfect missile shield has seduced American strategists for decades. But absolute defense, experts warn, can be the quickest route to absolute instability
The U.S. Golden Dome: Technological Supremacy, Strategic Anxiety
The Golden Dome, unveiled by President Donald Trump in 2025, represents America’s most ambitious military project since the original Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s. Envisioned as a $175 billion missile defense and space security system, the Golden Dome aims to create an “impenetrable shield” combining satellites, next-generation interceptors, directed-energy lasers, and artificial intelligence networks—all coordinated from space.
Its promise is seductive: a future in which no missile—conventional or nuclear—can strike American soil. But the price of this vision may be global instability. Experts estimate total costs could rise to $500–600 billion by the time the system becomes fully operational, likely in the early 2030s.
Critics argue that the project’s fundamental assumption—that technology can guarantee absolute security—is strategically flawed. The pursuit of invulnerability undermines the principle of mutual assured destruction (MAD) that deterred nuclear war during the Cold War. If one power believes it can neutralize another’s retaliatory strike, the delicate balance collapses, encouraging arms buildups and preemptive strategies.
Already, the Golden Dome has prompted adversaries to develop countermeasures. Russia has accelerated production of its hypersonic missiles and nuclear-powered cruise drones, while China is expanding its early-warning and counter-satellite capabilities. The race is not just for nuclear arms—it’s for control of the skies above them.
“When deterrence gives way to defense, every shield demands a sharper sword. The race for invulnerability is pushing humanity closer to the edge of a new Cold War—one that extends beyond Earth”
China’s Data-Driven Defense: Pragmatism and Precision
While Washington dreams of technological supremacy, China has adopted a quieter, data-centric approach. Its “distributed early-warning detection big data platform,” unveiled in 2025, integrates information from satellites, ground radars, naval sensors, and aerial reconnaissance into a unified command network capable of tracking over 1,000 missile launches in real time.
Developed by the Nanjing Research Institute of Electronics Technology, this platform reflects China’s belief in information dominance over sheer weapon quantity. Instead of building colossal systems like the Golden Dome, Beijing focuses on network resilience, cost efficiency, and integration of artificial intelligence into command decisions.
China’s defense strategy remains defensive by design, emphasizing sovereignty and deterrence rather than global supremacy. Its leadership repeatedly calls for “a peaceful order in outer space”, warning against the weaponization of orbit. Yet, China’s own progress—especially in anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities and hypersonic glide vehicles—inevitably contributes to the arms race it claims to resist.
In 2025, Beijing and Moscow issued a joint statement accusing the U.S. of destabilizing the “offensive–defensive balance” by seeking unilateral space dominance. Their partnership, once tactical, now forms a strategic counterweight to American power—one that could shape the next generation of global military alignments.
Russia’s Battle-Tested Shield: Deterrence Through Experience
Russia’s “Dome” may lack the futuristic branding of its American or Chinese counterparts, but it is arguably the most combat-tested. Building on Soviet-era defense programs, Moscow has refined its Unified Space System (EKS Kupol) and S-500 Prometheus interceptors, forming a robust multi-layered shield over its territory.
Unlike the U.S. or China, Russia’s defense architecture is grounded in real-world experience. In the Ukraine conflict, Russian forces claimed to intercept most incoming Western-supplied missiles and drones—a demonstration of both capability and doctrine. For Moscow, missile defense is not about perfection but survivability: ensuring that even if attacked, its retaliatory capacity remains intact.
This pragmatic approach mirrors the Cold War strategy of credible deterrence rather than total protection. Russia recognizes that invulnerability is an illusion, but resilience can preserve balance. Nevertheless, its advancements—especially the testing of the Burevestnik nuclear-powered cruise missile and the Poseidon underwater drone—have reignited Western fears of an escalating nuclear spiral.
Global Military Expenditure: The Big Picture
The new arms race is driven by economics as much as ideology. Military budgets worldwide are surging to record levels, even as global inequality widens. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), total global military expenditure in 2024 reached nearly $2.5 trillion, the highest ever recorded.
Here are the top 10 spenders (approximate 2024 figures):
- United States – $916 billion
- China – $296 billion
- Russia – $109 billion
- India – $83 billion
- Saudi Arabia – $75 billion
- United Kingdom – $74 billion
- Germany – $72 billion
- France – $64 billion
- Japan – $50 billion
- South Korea – $47 billion
Together, these ten nations account for more than three-quarters of total global military spending. What’s striking is not just the scale, but the direction: a growing portion of these budgets is now being channeled toward space, AI, and missile defense systems.
Military budgets are breaking records, but peace dividends are nowhere to be found. As nations pour billions into the militarization of space, Earth’s poorest pay the price of insecurity
The Militarization of Space: A Dangerous Frontier
The extension of the arms race into outer space marks a fundamental transformation in global security. Satellites are now the nervous system of modern civilization—supporting communication, navigation, finance, and surveillance. Yet, these same assets are now being targeted as potential weapons or vulnerabilities.
The U.S. Space Force, established in 2019, is tasked with ensuring “freedom of operation in space.” China’s People’s Liberation Army Strategic Support Force (PLASSF) oversees satellite launches and space-based electronic warfare. Russia, too, maintains a dedicated Aerospace Forces Command integrating space operations into its strategic planning.
Space, once considered a “global commons” for peaceful exploration, is rapidly becoming a militarized high ground. The deployment of satellite constellations for missile tracking, intelligence gathering, and potential offensive actions blurs the line between defense and aggression.
Recent incidents—such as Russia’s 2025 test of the S-550 anti-satellite weapon and reports of U.S. “dual-use” satellites capable of targeting enemy spacecraft—underscore the fragility of space security. Debris from ASAT tests threatens not only rival nations but the shared environment that sustains all space operations.
The 1967 Outer Space Treaty prohibits weapons of mass destruction in orbit but does not ban conventional or laser-based systems. As technology races ahead, international law lags dangerously behind.
India in the Emerging Order: Strategic Balancer, Not Participant
India, though not a direct participant in the U.S.–China–Russia rivalry, finds itself deeply affected by it. Its national security calculus increasingly depends on how this triadic competition unfolds.
India ranks fourth globally in defense spending, with an annual military budget exceeding $80 billion. Much of its expenditure focuses on countering threats from China and Pakistan, but its growing investments in indigenous missile defense and space capabilities—including the “Sudarshan Chakra” project and the 2019 Mission Shakti ASAT test—reflect awareness of the shifting battlefield.
However, unlike the major powers, India’s approach emphasizes deterrence and technological parity rather than dominance. It continues to rely on Russian S-400 systems while cautiously integrating U.S. and Israeli technologies. As a rising power in a multipolar world, India’s challenge lies in maintaining strategic autonomy without being drawn into a great-power arms spiral.
Implications for Global Stability
The implications of this new arms race are profound and troubling.
- Erosion of Deterrence:
The pursuit of missile defense undermines mutual vulnerability—the foundation of nuclear deterrence. If one side believes it can survive a first strike unscathed, the temptation for preemptive action increases. - Weaponization of Space:
The militarization of orbit risks transforming satellites from tools of cooperation into instruments of conflict. Collisions or ASAT strikes could create debris fields threatening all space activity. - Technological Inequality:
As military technology becomes more advanced, smaller nations fall further behind, increasing dependence on great powers and destabilizing regional balances. - Economic Costs:
With global military expenditure nearing $2.5 trillion, humanity is spending more on preparing for war than on combating poverty, pandemics, or climate change. - Arms Control Vacuum:
Treaties like the INF and New START have expired or weakened. No comprehensive agreement governs space weaponization. Diplomatic mechanisms are collapsing even as the dangers grow.
Space is no longer the final frontier—it’s the next battlefield. Without new global rules, the dream of “security” could end in mutual blindness, where satellites fall and communication dies
The Need for a New Security Architecture
If the 20th century was defined by the balance of terror, the 21st must be defined by the balance of responsibility. To prevent catastrophe, nations must recognize that security cannot be built on unilateral dominance.
A new international framework for space and missile defense governance is urgently needed—one that revives arms control, establishes transparency in testing, and prohibits the weaponization of orbit. Proposals for a Global Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities—supported by the EU and UN—should be revisited and expanded to include non-nuclear states and private space actors.
Confidence-building measures, shared early-warning systems, and cooperative monitoring could reduce mistrust. The same technology driving the arms race—AI, data integration, and space surveillance—can also be used to foster transparency and prevent accidental escalation.
Conclusion: Between Heaven and Destruction
The new arms race is not simply a competition of weapons—it is a contest of philosophies. The United States seeks invulnerability; China seeks information dominance; Russia seeks resilient deterrence. Each vision, pursued in isolation, leads to instability.
The race to control space is, at its core, a struggle for control over the future itself. Yet no dome—golden or otherwise—can protect humanity from the insecurity born of distrust. If the great powers fail to establish a cooperative order, the next conflict may not be fought on the ground—but in the heavens above.
The challenge for the 21st century is clear: Can humankind extend its reach to the stars without carrying its wars along?
Sources and Further Reading
- Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) — Military Expenditure Database 2024.
https://sipri.org - U.S. Department of Defense (Pentagon) — Missile Defense Review 2022 and Space Strategy Documents.
- RAND Corporation — The Future of Missile Defense: Threats, Technologies, and Strategies (2023).
- Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) — Missile Threat Project and Aerospace Security Report 2024.
https://missilethreat.csis.org - United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (UNODA) — Outer Space and the Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) reports.
- Carnegie Endowment for International Peace — The Return of Great Power Competition in Space (2023).
- The Economist — Weaponizing Space: The New Frontier of Deterrence, March 2025 issue.
- Defense News / Jane’s Defence Weekly — coverage of the U.S. “Golden Dome,” China’s missile defense advancements, and Russia’s S-500 system (2024–2025).
- China Daily / Global Times (2025) — reports on China’s “distributed early-warning detection big data platform.”
- Russian Ministry of Defense Briefings (2024–2025) — statements on EKS Kupol and Burevestnik system tests.
- Brookings Institution — The Militarization of Space and the Future of Deterrence (2024).
- European Space Policy Institute (ESPI) — Space Security Report 2024: The Strategic Dimension of Space.
- The Diplomat — India’s Strategic Balancing in the New Arms Race, April 2025.
- Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) — Global Conflict Tracker: Space and Security.
References
- Mearsheimer, John J. (2001). The Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
- Waltz, Kenneth N. (1981). The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Be Better.
- Buzan, Barry & Waever, Ole (2003). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International Security.
- Kupchan, Charles A. (2012). No One’s World: The West, the Rising Rest, and the Coming Global Turn. Oxford University Press.
Image: Bogdan Kupriets. Unsplash
About the Author
Prof. Subhash Dhuliya is a distinguished academician, researcher, and educational administrator. He served as Vice Chancellor of Uttarakhand Open University and Professor at IGNOU, IIMC, and CURAJ. Earlier, he worked as Assistant Editor and Editorial Writer with The Times Group and Navbharat Times, and as Chief Sub-Editor at Amrit Prabhat. He has edited IIMC’s research journals Communicator and Sanchar Madhyam, founded Newswriters.in, and served as a UNESCO consultant for journalism education in the Maldives.
Acknowledgement:
The conceptual framework and ideas in this article are solely those of the author. ChatGPT provided assistance in background research and editing.
