Those of us of a certain age will remember a time, some 40 years ago now, when President Ronald Reagan advocated the Strategic Defense Initiative, Project High Frontier, and various other related programs, all built around the basic concept that we should have defenses against incoming missile attacks.
Throughout all of human history, military preparedness has involved both offensive and defensive elements. An army might have swords and longbows for offense, while being equipped with shields for defense. Cannons and cannonballs made up the offense, fortresses and moats provided a defense.
Thus it has been for thousands of years, but this common sense approach was inexplicably stopped cold -- with the dawn of the nuclear age.
All of a sudden, our betters came to the conclusion that we should not try to defend ourselves against intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear bombs, and similar ultra-modern threats. Instead of designing a defense, overwhelming arsenals and the fear of retaliatory strikes should be enough to dissuade any foe from launching such an attack.
President Reagan came to the conclusion that this theory -- Mutually Assured Destruction, known as MAD -- was exactly that, and a major thrust of his presidency was an effort to put an end to such a dangerous policy, once and for all.
The president believed that if America had an offense, it ought to have a defense as well. Period.
In the budget battles and political fights of the 1980s, President Reagan was never fully successful in implementing the multiphase missile defenses that he advocated, but even so, we were finally able to break free of the foolishness of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) treaty, and roll out some valuable defense capabilities, not only here in the United States, but abroad, for the benefit of our allies.
This commitment to a robust defense posture –- specifically against incoming missiles -- was among the key drivers in forcing the collapse of our then-greatest enemy, the Soviet Union.
Our friend Israel embraced the technology with vigor, and Israel has used several of these tools to defend itself against its many enemies ever since.
On April 13, 2024, after many years of funding, supplying, and directing attacks against Israel by its many puppets, the Islamic state of Iran decided to finally attempt a full-fledged direct attack against Israel itself.
This weekend, Iran launched hundreds of drones, rockets, and ballistic missiles directly at Israel.
All over the world, friends of Israel prayed for her safety, and wondered what the retaliation would be like. Iran has attacked Israel directly; Israel now has the undeniable moral high ground, the right to do everything we’ve known it could do for years. Israel might take out Tehran‘s Air Force, perhaps its rocket launch sites, maybe its power plants, and hopefully all of its nuclear weapon development sites. Israel has the right, and the free world would breathe much easier if it happened at last.
But as the reports came in, there was a surprise: Israel’s defenses are working, even better than expected. They’ve always worked well, of course, but the numbers this weekend are staggering.
Between Israel’s famous Iron Dome and other related tools, plus an assist in the Mediterranean from the US Navy, 99% of Iran’s rockets, missiles, and drones were destroyed before even penetrating Israel’s airspace.
Back in the 1980s, when this was a serious topic of discussion in American political dialogue, we made the point that such defenses don’t have to be 100% effective. Even if they are just 20% or 30% effective, the knowledge that some portion of incoming shots would be rendered ineffective should be enough to put doubt in the minds of our enemies. You don’t need 100% effectiveness; you just need enough to make it harder for your enemy to know how big an attack he needs, to be certain of success. And the more effective your defense, the harder it is for your enemy to perform that calculation.
At press time, Israel’s response to Iran’s attacks were still running 99% effective. That’s incredible.
There are a number of lessons to learn from this.
The obvious, of course, is that it’s never a good idea to bet against Israel.
But perhaps less obvious, but more generally applicable to other areas of debate, is the lesson that technological advances can surprise you. In the 1980s, we imagined a complex system, from MX railways underground to space satellite defenses launching “brilliant pebbles” from beyond the atmosphere.
What we did not anticipate was how incredibly accurate computer technology was to become in the years ahead, and how wonderfully the world of science could develop defenses against not only superpowers like Russia, but against maniacal rogue states like Iran.
Imagine how that room full of homicidal mullahs in Tehran must’ve taken the news this weekend: “How much damage did we do? What? None? What do you mean, none? None at all? That’s impossible!” (Please forgive the literary license; I’m sure it sounded much different in Farsi.)
Israel’s Iron Dome, along with all the rest of Israel’s many defense systems and processes, spring from not only technology, but also culture, history, and ethics.
Israel focuses as much on defense as it does on offense, because Israel values human life is much as it values that eventual victory.
Israel would no more focus entirely on offense than our own President Reagan would. Their necessary Realpolitik is tempered with a commitment to the Judeo-Christian worldview.
Is it too confident, too religious, to posit that perhaps these ethics, in addition to the scientific achievements, share the credit for this amazing 99% success rate?
The Left told us in the 1980s that this was impossible. They fought President Reagan’s funding requests for research and development; they fought the programs, they fought the very concept. The Left didn’t believe we could -- or should -- deflect even so much is 30% or 40% of incoming missiles; they feared it would jeopardize their beloved strategy of MAD. But 99% success? Even its biggest fans didn’t think that was possible. Nobody would have dared imagine that result 40 years ago.
Except perhaps President Reagan. Fully vindicated here this weekend, long after his death. on yet another issue, Ronaldus Magnus has been proven to have been right all along.
John F. Di Leo is a Chicagoland-based international transportation manager, trade compliance trainer and speaker. A one-time Milwaukee County Republican Party chairman, he has been writing a regular column for Illinois Review since 2009. Read his book on vote fraud (The Tales of Little Pavel) and his political satires on the current administration (Evening Soup with Basement Joe, Volumes I and II), and the recently released Volume Three.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.