Matt Pearl and Clete Johnson
Since its deployment in 2011, Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system has repeatedly captured the world’s attention for its ability to intercept rockets—over 5,000 and counting—and its impressive success rate—over 90 percent. In recent months, President Trump has made it clear that he is among the many who are impressed by this system, which relies on investments and ingenuity from both the United States and Israel.
On the campaign trail, Trump has cited the Iron Dome, declaring that if elected, the United States would “build . . . a state-of-the-art missile defense shield.” Within weeks of entering office, Trump issued an executive order to accelerate efforts to develop a next-generation missile defense shield against “ballistic, hypersonic, and cruise missiles, and other advanced aerial attacks.” President Trump’s goal for an Iron Dome–like missile defense system for the United States has become known as the “Golden Dome.”
Past efforts to build new military technologies launched from innovative, outside-of-the-box thinking. When the first stealth aircraft were developed, for instance, military contractors began by thinking in completely new ways about the design, material, and shape of aircraft. Unfortunately, in Washington’s discussions over how to optimize radio spectrum to guarantee both the military and economic aspects of U.S. national security, some in the defense community are using the bold aspirations of a Golden Dome to short-circuit necessary conversations about mutually beneficial military and commercial technology innovation. Instead, these discussions should focus affirmatively on finding groundbreaking ways to satisfy both of those critical national security goals.
No comments:
Post a Comment