“A House of Dynamite,” now streaming on Netflix, is a must-watch for anyone who appreciates a good nuclear thriller. But it’s also a must-see for a country that is currently attempting a missile defense shield that experts say could costtrillions of dollars And still fail to protect the United States from nuclear attack. Since the US has already invested over $400 billion in ballistic missile defense that did not work, history is set to repeat itself. The film challenges us to imagine what would happen in the event of a nuclear attack if missile defenses fail, while painting a picture of its strong possibility.
arms control experts havePraisedThe film depicts the dangers of nuclear weapons, the need to reduce their numbers, and the illusion that missile defense can effectively protect us from them. On the other hand, the US Missile Defense Agency,logicThe film “highlights that deterrence can fail, reinforcing the need for a proactive homeland missile defense system.” These are two very different takeaways. So, which one is correct?
“We’re talking about shooting down a bullet,” said the fictional Deputy National Security Advisor to the fictional Defense Secretary, when the latter asked what the chances were of a ground-based midcourse defense system successfully intercepting an incoming nuclear missile. “Our mid-course interception system has a 61 percent success rate.”
While the analogy of killing one bullet with one bullet is useful, the probability of successfully defending the US against a nuclear attack would be similar to the probability of killing a dozen bullets with another dozen bullets. This is because in the real world, a nuclear attack against the US would involve many more missiles in the hope of reducing our ability to retaliate. In addition, those missiles will likely be equipped with countermeasures – decoys to confuse missile defense radars and increase the chances of the warhead surviving and hitting its target. And if even one of those bullets hits, the consequences will be devastating.
As far as success rates are concerned, the film probably got the “60 percent” number from real-world testing history of ground defense systems. Of 21 test Conducted on the system, the Pentagon has reported 12 of them as successful. However, it still increases observers’ sense of system efficacy.
according to a 2025 report According to the American Physical Society Panel on Public Affairs, ground-based systems tests “are conducted under scripted conditions and designed for success: the Pentagon has consistently … rated the tests low in operational realism.” In these tests, launch times are generally known in advance, and are chosen to align with the Sun falling on the targets, making them easier to see. And each test attempted to defeat only a single missile rather than a salvo.
Although the proposed Golden Dome missile defense shield is expected to provide a layered defense in which space-based interceptors as well as ground-based interceptors will play a role, the reality is that no missile defense system can guarantee a 100 percent success rate against nuclear weapons. There are lots of ways to avoid them. Decoys, which are not difficult to develop, would require a missile defense system capable of distinguishing between all decoys and any debris that accompanies each nuclear weapon.
A missile can also carry multiple warheads. All of these have to be stopped once they are separated from their missiles. A nuclear detonation in space, a possible consequence of a successful interception or deliberate attack on space-based missile defense systems, could also disrupt the ability of missile defense radars to detect and distinguish between additional targets.
Between 1957 and 2021, America spent more than$400 billionIn a vain attempt to defend the nation against ballistic missile threats. No system to date has demonstrated anything close to the ability to do this. According to the American Enterprise Institute, a robust architecture for just one element of the planned Golden Dome – a space-based interceptor designed to take out nuclear missiles in their boost stage (before they leave the atmosphere) – could cost$6 trillion Over 20 years. And even then, there would be no guarantee that such a system would achieve a 100 percent success rate.
Moreover, the very act of pursuing such a missile defense system is already encouraging U.S. adversaries to expand their nuclear arsenals and develop additional technologies to circumvent missile defenses. So, counterintuitively, missile defense is making the world less safe.
“A House of Dynamite” fills its audience with a sense of dread about the dangers of nuclear weapons. But investing trillions of dollars in missile defense systems that can be easily defeated is a counterproductive response to that fear. Instead, the United States can reduce the nuclear threat by negotiating to limit and reduce the world’s nuclear arsenals and the unacceptable threat they pose to mankind.
New START TreatyThe deal, which limits the number of intercontinental nuclear weapons the US and Russia can deploy, is set to expire in February. Renovating this would be a good place to start. Thankfully, for a country that recently surpassed $38 trillion in debt, nuclear diplomacy is also much more affordable.
Gabe Murphy is a policy analyst at Taxpayers for Common Sense, a national non-partisan budget watchdog that advocates for transparency and curbs wasteful spending.
