

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

President Donald Trump speaks in front of a map of his proposed "Golden Dome" missile defense system in the Oval Office at the White House on May 20, 2025 in Washington, DC.
While the debate rages on in Canada about how best to resist Trump’s grip on our economy, we’ve quietly signed on to fully co-operate with his ultimately more threatening military agenda.
It’s certainly worrisome, as we’re discovering, that U.S. President Donald Trump has so much sway over our economy.
What’s even more worrisome, but rarely mentioned, is that this volatile, vengeful, vindictive, reckless and deeply unpredictable man also has control over the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal.
Of course, Canadians don’t get to determine who sits in the Oval Office. But we do have some options how to respond.
And while the debate rages on in Canada about how best to resist Trump’s grip on our economy, we’ve quietly signed on to fully co-operate with his ultimately more threatening military agenda.
Our elbows aren’t just not up, they’re in lockstep with his.
At the urging of Trump, Prime Minister Mark Carney has agreed to radically raise our military spending over the next decade, jacking it all the way up from 1.4 per cent to five per cent of our GDP.
Furthermore, Carney has also signalled Canada’s intention to join Trump’s “Golden Dome” — thereby discarding decades of sensible Canadian refusal to become part of the long-smouldering Republican “Star Wars” fantasy of world nuclear domination.
This move is a striking departure for Canada, and it has received far too little attention.
For decades, Canadian governments, both Liberal and Conservative (under Brian Mulroney), wisely declined to participate in earlier versions of the Golden Dome under former U.S. presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Canada’s refusal was largely on the grounds that these so-called “missile defence” systems are not just defensive. In fact, they undermine arms treaties and encourage arms races.
Indeed, Canada’s apparent willingness to embrace the Golden Dome would amount to a repudiation of our long tradition of supporting arms control and specifically our role in trying to prevent the use of weapons in space.
This danger was underlined last week by Douglas Roche, a former Canadian ambassador for disarmament, when he lamented in a speech in Ottawa that the Carney government “has joined the Western pretence that a Golden Dome missile defence system will save us.”
Roche, a retired Canadian senator, considers it “deeply disturbing” that the Carney government seems willing to embrace the Golden Dome, which threatens to “provoke the development of a new offensive nuclear arms system.”
Roche calls nuclear weapons “instruments of pure evil.”
In an earlier column, I argued that Carney’s decision to appease Trump by dramatically raising our military spending means there will be little revenue left for other priorities.
Even worse, Carney’s willingness to join Trump’s Golden Dome misadventure will leave us less safe, by adding fuel to the already-overheated arms race.
The Golden Dome — a trillion-dollar project likely to enrich Peter Thiel and other U.S. tech billionaires — is central to the revival of the nuclear arms race, reversing the significant disarmament progress made in earlier decades. The Golden Dome is based on the far-fetched idea that a land mass the size of North America can be shielded from incoming missiles through a technology often likened to a speeding bullet hitting another speeding bullet from thousands of miles away. It can work in a test but is regarded as less reliable in warfare.
However, by providing the illusion of protection, the Golden Dome could encourage political leaders to consider using nuclear weapons, not just defensively, but in “first strike” situations, to pre-emptively knock out opponents. In other words, it risks encouraging nuclear aggression.
In an article last month in Scientific American, astrophysicist Ramin Skibba suggested that the Golden Dome would lead to a “more overt weaponization of space” and concluded that its main feature may be “the perilous acceleration of arms races and the enrichment of profit-seeking defence and space-tech contractors for what is, at best, only the illusion of safety.”
Hardly sounds like something Canada should be part of, particularly when the lethal nuclear arsenal connected to it will be under the control of someone we know, from firsthand experience, to be volatile, vengeful, vindictive, reckless and deeply unpredictable.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
It’s certainly worrisome, as we’re discovering, that U.S. President Donald Trump has so much sway over our economy.
What’s even more worrisome, but rarely mentioned, is that this volatile, vengeful, vindictive, reckless and deeply unpredictable man also has control over the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal.
Of course, Canadians don’t get to determine who sits in the Oval Office. But we do have some options how to respond.
And while the debate rages on in Canada about how best to resist Trump’s grip on our economy, we’ve quietly signed on to fully co-operate with his ultimately more threatening military agenda.
Our elbows aren’t just not up, they’re in lockstep with his.
At the urging of Trump, Prime Minister Mark Carney has agreed to radically raise our military spending over the next decade, jacking it all the way up from 1.4 per cent to five per cent of our GDP.
Furthermore, Carney has also signalled Canada’s intention to join Trump’s “Golden Dome” — thereby discarding decades of sensible Canadian refusal to become part of the long-smouldering Republican “Star Wars” fantasy of world nuclear domination.
This move is a striking departure for Canada, and it has received far too little attention.
For decades, Canadian governments, both Liberal and Conservative (under Brian Mulroney), wisely declined to participate in earlier versions of the Golden Dome under former U.S. presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Canada’s refusal was largely on the grounds that these so-called “missile defence” systems are not just defensive. In fact, they undermine arms treaties and encourage arms races.
Indeed, Canada’s apparent willingness to embrace the Golden Dome would amount to a repudiation of our long tradition of supporting arms control and specifically our role in trying to prevent the use of weapons in space.
This danger was underlined last week by Douglas Roche, a former Canadian ambassador for disarmament, when he lamented in a speech in Ottawa that the Carney government “has joined the Western pretence that a Golden Dome missile defence system will save us.”
Roche, a retired Canadian senator, considers it “deeply disturbing” that the Carney government seems willing to embrace the Golden Dome, which threatens to “provoke the development of a new offensive nuclear arms system.”
Roche calls nuclear weapons “instruments of pure evil.”
In an earlier column, I argued that Carney’s decision to appease Trump by dramatically raising our military spending means there will be little revenue left for other priorities.
Even worse, Carney’s willingness to join Trump’s Golden Dome misadventure will leave us less safe, by adding fuel to the already-overheated arms race.
The Golden Dome — a trillion-dollar project likely to enrich Peter Thiel and other U.S. tech billionaires — is central to the revival of the nuclear arms race, reversing the significant disarmament progress made in earlier decades. The Golden Dome is based on the far-fetched idea that a land mass the size of North America can be shielded from incoming missiles through a technology often likened to a speeding bullet hitting another speeding bullet from thousands of miles away. It can work in a test but is regarded as less reliable in warfare.
However, by providing the illusion of protection, the Golden Dome could encourage political leaders to consider using nuclear weapons, not just defensively, but in “first strike” situations, to pre-emptively knock out opponents. In other words, it risks encouraging nuclear aggression.
In an article last month in Scientific American, astrophysicist Ramin Skibba suggested that the Golden Dome would lead to a “more overt weaponization of space” and concluded that its main feature may be “the perilous acceleration of arms races and the enrichment of profit-seeking defence and space-tech contractors for what is, at best, only the illusion of safety.”
Hardly sounds like something Canada should be part of, particularly when the lethal nuclear arsenal connected to it will be under the control of someone we know, from firsthand experience, to be volatile, vengeful, vindictive, reckless and deeply unpredictable.
It’s certainly worrisome, as we’re discovering, that U.S. President Donald Trump has so much sway over our economy.
What’s even more worrisome, but rarely mentioned, is that this volatile, vengeful, vindictive, reckless and deeply unpredictable man also has control over the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal.
Of course, Canadians don’t get to determine who sits in the Oval Office. But we do have some options how to respond.
And while the debate rages on in Canada about how best to resist Trump’s grip on our economy, we’ve quietly signed on to fully co-operate with his ultimately more threatening military agenda.
Our elbows aren’t just not up, they’re in lockstep with his.
At the urging of Trump, Prime Minister Mark Carney has agreed to radically raise our military spending over the next decade, jacking it all the way up from 1.4 per cent to five per cent of our GDP.
Furthermore, Carney has also signalled Canada’s intention to join Trump’s “Golden Dome” — thereby discarding decades of sensible Canadian refusal to become part of the long-smouldering Republican “Star Wars” fantasy of world nuclear domination.
This move is a striking departure for Canada, and it has received far too little attention.
For decades, Canadian governments, both Liberal and Conservative (under Brian Mulroney), wisely declined to participate in earlier versions of the Golden Dome under former U.S. presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Canada’s refusal was largely on the grounds that these so-called “missile defence” systems are not just defensive. In fact, they undermine arms treaties and encourage arms races.
Indeed, Canada’s apparent willingness to embrace the Golden Dome would amount to a repudiation of our long tradition of supporting arms control and specifically our role in trying to prevent the use of weapons in space.
This danger was underlined last week by Douglas Roche, a former Canadian ambassador for disarmament, when he lamented in a speech in Ottawa that the Carney government “has joined the Western pretence that a Golden Dome missile defence system will save us.”
Roche, a retired Canadian senator, considers it “deeply disturbing” that the Carney government seems willing to embrace the Golden Dome, which threatens to “provoke the development of a new offensive nuclear arms system.”
Roche calls nuclear weapons “instruments of pure evil.”
In an earlier column, I argued that Carney’s decision to appease Trump by dramatically raising our military spending means there will be little revenue left for other priorities.
Even worse, Carney’s willingness to join Trump’s Golden Dome misadventure will leave us less safe, by adding fuel to the already-overheated arms race.
The Golden Dome — a trillion-dollar project likely to enrich Peter Thiel and other U.S. tech billionaires — is central to the revival of the nuclear arms race, reversing the significant disarmament progress made in earlier decades. The Golden Dome is based on the far-fetched idea that a land mass the size of North America can be shielded from incoming missiles through a technology often likened to a speeding bullet hitting another speeding bullet from thousands of miles away. It can work in a test but is regarded as less reliable in warfare.
However, by providing the illusion of protection, the Golden Dome could encourage political leaders to consider using nuclear weapons, not just defensively, but in “first strike” situations, to pre-emptively knock out opponents. In other words, it risks encouraging nuclear aggression.
In an article last month in Scientific American, astrophysicist Ramin Skibba suggested that the Golden Dome would lead to a “more overt weaponization of space” and concluded that its main feature may be “the perilous acceleration of arms races and the enrichment of profit-seeking defence and space-tech contractors for what is, at best, only the illusion of safety.”
Hardly sounds like something Canada should be part of, particularly when the lethal nuclear arsenal connected to it will be under the control of someone we know, from firsthand experience, to be volatile, vengeful, vindictive, reckless and deeply unpredictable.