Last week, Donald Trump enacted a decision with far-reaching consequences, advocating for an “iron dome for America.” This initiative, reminiscent of Israel’s well-known air defense, is ambitiously envisioned as a space-based system to counter threats from nuclear, hypersonic, and cruise missiles. While the idea sounds protective, it risks igniting a new and destabilizing global arms race.
This latest move fits into a recurring pattern of escalating actions. Historically, Washington’s efforts to “enhance security” often had the opposite effect, making the world less stable. Back in 1986, a historic opportunity to eradicate nuclear weapons slipped away when Ronald Reagan clung to America’s unproven “Star Wars” missile defense concept. By 2002, George W. Bush withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile treaty, justified by perceived threats from North Korea, abandoning the principle that mutual vulnerability helps ease nuclear tensions, whereas independent defenses tend to inflame them. In “The New Nuclear Age,” Ankit Panda illustrates how Russia and China promptly developed countermeasures to ensure their nuclear capabilities could bypass a sophisticated U.S. defense system.
As a result of such policies, the U.S. faces potentially devastating nuclear threats from Russia and China, with no effective defense against them, and North Korea now possesses intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching American soil. Despite the definition of insanity—repeating actions expecting new results—Trump is embarking on a “Star Wars II.” Given the significant technological and financial barriers, implementing this vision seems unlikely. However, the rhetoric itself could spur other nations to expand their nuclear arsenals.
Furthermore, Trump’s executive order marks a strategic pivot in U.S. policy, shifting focus from traditional “rogue states” like North Korea and Iran towards major powers like Russia and China. The proposal posits that a robust defense system would deter attacks by discouraging adversaries. This reasoning neglects the reality that it could incite an uncontrollable arms race instead.
In January 2022, just before Russia’s incursion into Ukraine, the five recognized nuclear powers reaffirmed the moral unacceptability of using nuclear weapons. However, these weapons retain strategic importance, indicating they haven’t been fully stigmatized—because if they were, conversations wouldn’t treat them as viable military options. Alarming rhetoric from Trump, Vladimir Putin of Russia, and India’s Narendra Modi suggests a troubling normalization of the idea of nuclear exchanges.
This situation is particularly alarming because the détente once pursued by the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War seems elusive in today’s complex, three-player nuclear contest involving Washington, Moscow, and Beijing, as Mr. Panda notes. Even using a small portion of their nuclear arsenals could lead to unprecedented mass destruction. Without significant changes, the pivotal New START treaty—limiting strategic nuclear warheads and missile launchers between the U.S. and Russia—will expire in 2026. It’s imperative for U.S., Chinese, and Russian leaders to engage in dialogue to reestablish nuclear stability. Global survival depends on rekindling adversarial cooperation. True security is rooted in arms control, disarmament, and innovative nuclear diplomacy, not in attempting to construct an indomitable shield.
