Expert: Greenland is an important piece in the Golden Dome

In May 2025, US President Donald Trump launched his plan for a space-based missile defense shield to protect the United States from external attacks. And recently, the president used the Golden Dome as an argument for why the United States needs Greenland.

The importance of Greenland and Canada

The importance of Greenland and Canada

According to department head and space expert, Professor John Leif Jørgensen from DTU Space, it is true that Greenland is absolutely central to Golden Dome, but it is not essential that the USA owns Greenland for the missile shield to be established.

– Greenland is an important piece in Golden Dome. But it is nonsense to say that the US needs to own Greenland in order to implement Golden Dome. The US has every opportunity to set up anti-missile systems in Greenland by virtue of their base rights according to the defense agreement from 1951, says John Leif Jørgensen, explaining that Golden Dome consists of elements both in space and on Earth.

– Some of the Golden Dome is in space and some is on Earth. The solution in space will be able to catch the vast majority of missiles, but an early warning system on Earth is also needed, and one would like to establish this as far away from the mainland USA, so that there is the longest possible time to react. And here, missile warning systems in Greenland and Canada will be crucial for the USA.

Anti-missile systems in Greenland

The Golden Dome is not something Trump came up with himself. It is a continuation of former President Ronald Reagan's "Star Wars" project from the 1980s coupled with the Israeli missile shield Iron Dome, which has been used in the war on Gaza, among other things.

John Leif Jørgensen estimates that the US has plans to build anti-missile systems in Greenland as part of Golden Dome. Presumably further developments of the so-called Patriot system, which is the most advanced system for intercepting and shooting down all types of lower-flying missiles. This will then be coupled with surveillance from space, which in the long term may be able to carry weapons.

– The US Space Force, which is tasked with securing American interests in space, is in full swing building so-called observation platforms that, as part of the Golden Dome, will be sent into space. Some have already been sent out, but there are no known weapons in space yet, says John Leif Jørgensen.

Satellites for surveillance

The American SpaceX's Starshield consists of over 100 satellites, which are expected to be launched by 2029. With these satellites, the US Department of Defense will be able to communicate and monitor all activities in the Arctic and elsewhere on Earth, and coupled with an anti-missile system stretching from Alaska across Canada and to Greenland, the US will be able to intercept and shoot down all types of missiles aimed at the US.

– For Greenland, one must recognize that no matter what one says and does, anti-missile systems will be installed. And in the event of a war, these missile stations will become a target in themselves. This means that Pituffik Space Base and other places where they are installed could be attacked. Of course, the systems will not be installed where people live, but it is clear that Greenland as such is not protected by the American missile shield and could therefore be hit in a war situation, says John Leif Jørgensen.

Weapons in space

According to the professor, however, an important geopolitical conversation is still pending about whether we should militarize space at all. It is one thing to send surveillance equipment into space, another to place nuclear weapons out there.

– Putin has threatened to send weapons into space. The US has now done the same. And that is really bad news for all of us. Why should we militarize space? We have a doctrine from the 1970s that it is important that no country gets an ultimate weapon because it enables the country in question to make a "first strike". So if Golden Dome is fully realized, Trump will have a weapon, and thus create a threat image that will force other countries to make a relevant response, says John Leif Jørgensen.