News coming out of the Middle East has reminded me of President Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, which critics called “Star Wars” — a missile defense system that would protect the United States from attack by intercontinental ballistic missiles. Reagan thought the existing policy known as “mutually assured destruction” or “MAD” was nothing but a suicide pact, and on March 23, 1983, he called upon scientists and engineers to develop a system that would counter the threat of nuclear weapons by destroying missiles before they could hit. The Department of Defense set up its SDI program in 1984. Reagan was ridiculed for thinking that incoming missiles could be taken out before hitting the country.
As a member of the Newfound Peace Committee at the time, I was sure Reagan’s plans would bring the world closer to nuclear war, rather than end the threat. Building the system seemed to be encouraging the USSR to strike before the system became operable, even amidst doubts that it could be effective. Reagan’s rhetoric — calling the USSR an “evil empire” — seemed to be leading us into a confrontation that no one could win.
It turns out that Reagan’s stance frightened the Soviets enough that they “blinked” and his presidency set the stage for the collapse of the USSR a few years later — even if SDI did not produce the abilities he hoped to achieve.
Yet, elements of the SDI program were incorporated into the work of the US Space Development Agency in 2019, and Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system draws upon that legacy, using radar to track and destroy rockets. The system can even differentiate between missiles likely to hit populated areas from those that will not, allowing Israel to fire interceptor missiles at the rockets most likely to cause damage.
The Iron Dome proved its effectiveness on April 13 when Iran launched more than 300 drones and missiles towards Israel. None of the 170 drones and 30 cruise missiles made it to Israel, and only a small number of the 110 ballistic missiles got there. The United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Jordan assisted in destroying projectiles fired from Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, as well as Iran.
The question now is whether Iran’s attack will lead to an escalation of the conflicts in the Middle East. Iran announced that it would be launching the attack before it came, giving President Joe Biden Jr. time to order aircraft and warships to the region in time. Major General Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff for Iranian armed forces, said, “We see this operation as a result [of Israel’s airstrike that hit the Iranian embassy in Damascus, Syria, killing several top Iranians, including Mohammad Reza Zahedi, a senior officer in Iran’s Quds Force], and in our opinion, is over, and there is no intention to continue it,” but he added, “if the Zionist regime takes action against us, either on our soil or in the centers belonging to us in Syria, or another country does, our next operation will be bigger.” Tehran warned Washington that any backing of Israeli retaliation would result in the targeting of US bases.
It is time for everyone to pause and think about the world situation.
Noah Smith gives us a lot to think about in his Noahpinion column, “Sizing Up The New Axis” in which he warns of the possibility of a World War III. His main points center on China’s dominance as the “make everything country” which puts it at a strategic advantage over a hypothetical situation pitting a new Axis (which he defines as China and Russia, saying the Middle East is more of a regional struggle) against a new Alliance (the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, and Japan, with the possible addition of India).
Comparing the situation to World War II, “China has far, far more workers than the original Axis or the Soviet bloc,” he writes. “China has advanced manufacturing technology that probably rivals the original Axis in relative terms, and far exceeds the Soviet bloc. China has the world’s largest manufacturing cluster, making it the ‘make everything country’, which neither the Axis nor the USSR managed to be.”
He explains, “Before the turn of the century, a very large percent of the manufacturing in the world, in terms of value, was done in the old industrialized economies of the U.S., Europe, and Japan. But in the last 20 years, China has emerged as a second center of manufacturing that rivals all of the old industrialized nations combined. On some deep level, I suspect this shift is why we’re seeing the revival of great-power conflict.”
He goes on to say that, “If you go into a war with manufacturing companies that depend on the enemy countries for critical components, it doesn’t matter how much value-added you produce in peacetime — your factories will grind to a halt.” The “New Allies” have ready access to fossil fuels, but minerals that are necessary for the manufacture of batteries are located elsewhere. Graphite and rare earths are concentrated in China, while cobalt and platinum are concentrated in Africa. “[F]inding and exploiting these resources takes time, so the New Allies should probably be looking at this right now,” he said. Then there are the semiconductors, used in almost every piece of machinery, including machines of war and war production. “Currently, the New Allies produce most of the semiconductors in the world, though China is racing to catch up,” he says.
He concludes, “Much of the War Economy in the U.S. (and its allies) will therefore be about rediscovering the manufacturing capabilities they neglected during China’s meteoric rise.”
Café Chatter
On Rushing Forward : Tom, this reminds me of decades ago when, first, town meeting for bonds and warrants, and school board meetings at the auditorium whenever there was any discussion about funds. This most unique part of New Hampshire gave people a voice. It also made some want to pull their hair out. I will never forget my mom standing up and wagging her finger during a large school board meeting. “You listen to me Fletcher D. Sr.” Standing up for us, as students during the intended purge of teachers, and funny in a way, books to ban. And, Jed was old enough to have his say as well. I don’t know which is more difficult. Living in a county with thousands of people so you don’t have that kind of face to face discussion, or the face to face discussions. I know NH doesn’t have the town meetings of the past, where it could get quite rocuss. lol. Either sweating or freezing depending on how close you were to the wood burning stove. Good old days?
— Candace Skurnik