An “Iron Dome for America”: A History Repeating Itself
How America’s Search for Total Security Keeps Making the World More Dangerous
On January 27, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled "The Iron Dome for America," launching an ambitious initiative to develop a next-generation missile defence shield for the United States. Modelled after Israel's Iron Dome, this system aims to protect the U.S. against ballistic, hypersonic, and advanced cruise missiles. But this is not just an expanded version of the Israeli system—it’s far more ambitious. The plan includes space-based interceptors and non-kinetic defence technologies, pushing missile defence into a new frontier.
Under this order, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth must present a comprehensive implementation plan within 60 days. The administration has framed this as a bold step toward national security, but adversaries aren’t convinced. Russia calls it a threat to nuclear stability, warning of an accelerated arms race and the militarisation of space. Meanwhile, North Korea said that in response it's going to strengthen its own military capabilities.
Beyond these geopolitical tensions, critics also question the feasibility of implementing such a system across the vast U.S. territory. The original Iron Dome, developed by Israel, was designed for a small geographic area with a specific threat environment—not an expansive superpower with multiple potential adversaries.
The Ghost of Star Wars Past
If this sounds familiar, it is because it is.
It echoes a past that began with Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI)—or as it was more famously (and mockingly) called, “Star Wars.” The nickname, coined by Senator Ted Kennedy was inspired by the science fiction movie “Star Wars” that had only been released a few months earlier.
Even as a governor, Reagan dreamed of shielding America from nuclear attack. Backing him were figures like retired Lt General Daniel O. Graham, an adviser to Reagan’s campaigns in 1976 and 1980, who envisioned unmanned space vehicles firing projectiles that could destroy Soviet missiles, and physicist Edward Teller, the renowned Hungarian American physicist known as the “father of the hydrogen bomb,” who dreamed a constellation of nuclear-powered X-ray lasers safeguarding America from space. An outlandish idea, at the time as the X-ray laser was still in the research phase.
In 1981, these two men set up an organisation called High Frontier to advocate for greater spending on missile defence. The High Frontier found its home in the well-known Heritage Foundation and received financial support from members of the Kitchen Cabinet. (a group of private and unofficial allies and friends, mainly from California that allies and friends who advised Reagan during his terms).
But the U.S. Air Force saw things differently. After studying the plan, it dismissed it as “unrealistic” and lacking “technical merit.” That didn’t stop Reagan. On March 23, 1983, at the end of a televised speech from the Oval Office, devoted to his defence build-up, Reagan made a grandiose announcement: “My fellow Americans, tonight we’re launching an effort which holds the promise of changing the course of the human history.” The project became known as the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI).
The reaction? Global alarm.
Even America’s closest allies opposed the project. Margaret Thatcher worried that SDI would either fail or, if successful, render the British nuclear project obsolete. In the meantime, the SDI speech, which was delivered a few weeks after the famous 'evil empire,' speech heightened Soviet paranoia.
At the time, nuclear deterrence relied on Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)— the idea that neither side would launch a nuclear strike because it would result in total annihilation. But If the SDI worked, the U.S. could theoretically neutralise the Soviet nuclear threat, making MAD obsolete. This threatened the very foundation of Soviet strategic security.
The result? An arms race on steroids. Some historians even argue that SDI was a contributing factor to the collapse of the Soviet Union, as it intensified the economic and military pressures that led to the end of the Cold War.
The Doomsday Clock, the brainchild of the members of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists which intended to warn humanity of the likelihood of a man-made catastrophe, was set at seven minutes to midnight.
Déjà Vu: Yet Another Promise of Missile Defence
Reagan wasn’t the last President to dream of an impenetrable and powerful defence system. In 2002, George W. Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, arguing that defensive systems were necessary to guard against "rogue states" like North Korea.
It was an epic mistake. Russia and China immediately ramped up efforts to counter U.S. defences, developing advanced hypersonic missiles to penetrate America’s evolving defences. And the U.S., despite its efforts, never built the foolproof system it imagined. The problem wasn’t the treaty—it was physics, engineering, and budgets.
The result today is that all three nations are armed with devastating nuclear arsenals, against which no missile shield—no matter how sophisticated—can provide absolute protection.
Trump’s “Iron Dome for America”: A History Repeating Itself?
Fast-forward to today and history appears to repeat itself. Trump’s “Star Wars II” initiative follows the same seductive but flawed logic: a defence so impenetrable that adversaries wouldn’t even think about launching an attack. As we know by now, history tells a different story.
Whenever one nation seeks total security, others panic—and build more weapons. That’s why the world isn’t safer today than it was in 1986. That’s why China and the U.S. are now locked in an arms race. And that’s why, today, the Doomsday Clock stands at just 89 seconds to midnight—closer than ever to catastrophe.
The hard truth is that no missile defence system—no matter how advanced—can guarantee absolute security. The physics of missile defence remains daunting. The costs are astronomical. And the risks of failure can be catastrophic. True security does not come from attempting to build an impenetrable shield- —it comes from global cooperation, diplomacy, and strategic deterrence.
Reagan’s dream of a world without nuclear threats remains just that – a dream. And if history has shown us anything, it’s this.
Whenever a nation builds a shield, others respond by sharpening their swords. And the cycle continues.
This article is free to read, but if you found it useful, please consider subscribing or making a small donation at my Buy Me A Coffee page below. The Climate Historian is an independent publication, entirely supported by readers like you.
Notes:
Address to the Nation on Defense and National Security. (n.d.). Retrieved from Ronald Reagan Presidential Library: https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/address-nation-defense-and-national-security
Antonov, D. (2025, January 31). Russia condemns Trump missile defence shield plan, accuses US of plotting to militarise space. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-condemns-trump-missile-defence-shield-plan-accuses-us-plotting-militarise-2025-01-31/
Boot, M. (2024). Reagan: His Life and Legend. Liveright.
Could the US build its own Iron Dome missile shield? (n.d.). The Times https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/what-is-iron-dome-and-how-does-it-work-vfmbbv99s.
The Guardian view on Star Wars II: US plans for missile shield risk nuclear instability | Editorial | The Guardian