Connect with us

Economics

Donald Trump revives ideas of a Star Wars-like missile shield 

Published

on

IN THE LATE 1980s Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, and Lowell Wood, an astrophysicist, proposed a seemingly bizarre scheme to defend America against missile attack. The “Brilliant Pebbles” system envisaged thousands of small satellites in low-Earth orbit, each housing heat-seeking missiles to take out incoming Soviet nukes long before they released their warheads. The idea faded, not least because the technology seemed distant. Now Donald Trump is resuscitating it.

On the campaign trail Mr Trump promised to build an “Iron Dome” for America, referring to an Israeli missile-defence system. The name is a misnomer. The Israeli system is designed to take out short-range rockets. What Mr Trump meant, and spelt out in an executive order published on January 27th, was a more ambitious effort to detect and counter intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and the like. America already has a system designed to do that, known as Ground-Based Midcourse Defence (GMD), which relies on interceptors in Alaska and California.

Mr Trump’s proposal differs in important respects. One is its scope. GMD was intended to parry limited attacks involving a small number of ballistic missiles, such as might occur in an attack by North Korea. Mr Trump’s shield is supposed to block “any foreign aerial attack”, which would imply not only both cruise and ballistic missiles, but also a full-scale strategic attack by Russia or China involving many hundreds of missiles at once.

Critics of missile defence say this is folly, because it is generally cheaper to build additional offensive systems than interceptors to stop them. Russia and China—which are building missile shields of their own—have also argued that American defences risk undermining nuclear deterrence, because they might one day allow America to strike enemies without fearing retaliation. Advocates retort that the missile threat has changed: long-range non-nuclear missiles could now paralyse military facilities in the continental United States, allowing enemies to coerce America into staying out of a distant war.

In any case, Mr Trump’s favoured design is also noteworthy. GMD targets incoming missiles when they are in mid-flight. In theory it is easier to take out a missile in its “boost phase” (as it is taking off), when it is moving more slowly. The problem is that this is a fleeting moment—three to five minutes for ICBMs.  The new order calls for “proliferated space-based interceptors capable of boost-phase intercept”. That amounts to a Brilliant Pebbles-like system: a lot of small, armed satellites, some of which would be above Russia, China and other foes at all times.

The cost of building tiny computers and putting thousands of them into orbit is far lower than it was in Mr Teller’s days—partly thanks to Elon Musk. But it is still eye-wateringly expensive, and liable to hoover up a good chunk of the defence budget. America would require 500 satellites in total to have just three to four interceptors in range of North Korean launchpads, estimates Bleddyn Bowen of Durham University; hundreds more than that would probably be needed, he says.

A key technical challenge will be building space sensors with “fire-control-quality tracking”—good enough at spotting and tracking enemy missiles to guide interceptors to them—says Tom Karako of CSIS, a think-tank. But if the technology proves mature, the implications could go beyond missile defence. “We will see the emergence, gradual understanding, and eventually acceptance of ‘space fires’,” says Mr Karako, which could include satellites capable of targeting, with both explosive and electronic means, targets on the ground, those in the air and other satellites in orbit.

There are many doubters. Mr Trump aired similar ideas in his first term but failed to back them with hard cash. Spending for an American Iron Dome will compete with a string of other priorities, from a bigger navy to more nuclear weapons. “It’s always a budget question,” says Mr Karako. “Show me your budget for missile defence, and I’ll tell you what your ‘Iron Dome for America’ is.”

Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important political news, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

Economics

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

Published

on

UK Has a New Prime Minister Without a General Election

On July 20, Andy Burnham has been chosen to be the next Prime Minister in UK. The appointment of a new Prime Minister in the United Kingdom often raises questions from people outside the country, especially when no nationwide election has taken place. Many wonder how a new national leader can assume office without voters casting ballots. The answer lies in the UK’s parliamentary system, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected by the public but is instead chosen based on who commands the confidence of the House of Commons.

How the UK Selects Its Prime Minister

Unlike presidential systems where citizens vote directly for the head of government, the United Kingdom elects Members of Parliament (MPs) during a general election. The political party that secures a majority of seats in the House of Commons usually forms the government, and that party selects its own leader to serve as Prime Minister.

If the leader resigns, becomes unable to continue, or is replaced by their party, the governing party can choose a new leader without triggering a general election. As long as the new leader is able to maintain the confidence of Parliament, they can immediately become Prime Minister after being formally appointed by the monarch.

Why No Election Was Required

A general election is not automatically required every time the office of Prime Minister changes hands. The governing party retains its parliamentary majority because voters elected MPs rather than an individual Prime Minister. If the ruling party chooses a new leader through its internal leadership process, the government continues to operate without interruption.

This constitutional arrangement provides stability and allows the government to continue functioning during periods of political transition. It also avoids the expense and disruption of holding a nationwide election every time party leadership changes.

The King’s Constitutional Role

After a governing party elects a new leader, the monarch invites that individual to form a government. This constitutional step is largely ceremonial and follows long-established conventions. The King appoints the person most likely to command a majority in the House of Commons, ensuring continuity of government.

Although the monarch formally appoints the Prime Minister, political power rests with Parliament and the elected representatives of the British people.

Could an Election Still Happen?

Yes. A newly appointed Prime Minister has the authority to request a general election if they believe it is politically advantageous or if they seek a stronger public mandate. Parliament can also reach a point where a government loses the confidence of the House of Commons, potentially leading to an election or the formation of a new government.

In many cases, however, a new Prime Minister continues governing until the next scheduled general election.

What This Means for the UK

The UK’s parliamentary democracy is designed to ensure government continuity while respecting the results of the most recent general election. Leadership changes within the governing party do not automatically alter the composition of Parliament, which is why a new Prime Minister can take office without another nationwide vote.

Understanding this process helps explain why political transitions in the United Kingdom can appear different from those in countries with presidential systems. While the Prime Minister may change, the democratic mandate of Parliament remains in place until voters elect a new House of Commons at the next general election.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Grid Upgrades Reshape Macro Economics

Published

on

Global grid upgrades reshape macro economics

On July 21, 2026, global economic analysis shifts focus toward a defining structural macroeconomic trend: the massive expansion of public and private capital deployment into high-capacity electrical grid infrastructure. As industrial electrification, automated data center hubs, and renewable energy integration accelerate worldwide, sovereign governments and institutional investors are facing a monumental economic challenge. Updating legacy power grids to meet skyrocketing demand has emerged as a primary driver of long-term capital expenditures and industrial productivity across both developed and emerging market economies.

According to international economic policy updates released this week, grid infrastructure investments are projected to exceed multi-trillion-dollar thresholds over the coming decade. Economic planners caution that without modernized, high-voltage transmission networks, regional manufacturing sectors face severe energy bottlenecks, localized power price volatility, and operational constraints. Consequently, infrastructure spending is rapidly transitioning from passive utility maintenance into a vital component of national economic competitiveness and industrial policy.

The macroeconomic ripple effects of this capital deployment are being felt across global commodity markets and labor networks. High demand for structural industrial inputs—such as copper, aluminum, specialized electrical steel, and high-capacity transformers—has created sustained pricing support for critical material producers. Simultaneously, the specialized technical labor required to manufacture and deploy modern grid hardware is driving wage growth in industrial sectors, adding a complex new layer to central bank disinflation trajectories.

For global policymakers and strategic investors, the economics of energy grid modernization represent a double-edged sword. While massive infrastructure investment boosts short-term gross domestic product (GDP) and strengthens domestic industrial foundations, it requires disciplined fiscal allocation to prevent inflationary crowding-out of private capital. Countries that efficiently streamline grid infrastructure permitting and mobilize private investment will secure lower long-term energy costs, attracting high-tech manufacturing and reinforcing sustainable economic growth.

Continue Reading

Economics

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

Published

on

Global Trade Realignment and Supply Chains in 2026

The international trade architecture entering the second half of 2026 is undergoing a profound structural pivot. As major sovereign economic blocs adjust to the long-term impact of unilateral tariffs and escalating regional subsidies, traditional globalized supply chains are being rapidly replaced by bilateral trade corridors and regional alliance networks. Data released in late July 2026 highlights a significant divergence: while cross-continental freight volumes between non-aligned partners have cooled, intra-regional trade throughout North America, Southeast Asia, and Eastern Europe has surged to record levels. This shift reflects a broader macroeconomic strategy wherein multinational corporations prioritize geopolitical resilience over pure cost minimization.

The primary economic catalyst behind this regionalization is the proliferation of sector-specific tariffs targeting critical industries, notably battery components, clean energy technology, and advanced semiconductor hardware. In response, global manufacturers have adopted multi-tier sourcing models that distribute production across intermediate partner nations before final assembly. While this strategy successfully bypasses primary import duties, it adds structural layers of logistical complexity and administrative oversight. Economists note that while total output remains robust, aggregate production costs have drifted upward, contributing to persistent baseline inflation across major consumer markets.

Simultaneously, currency settlement patterns within these regional blocs are experiencing a notable transformation. Sovereign central banks and commercial institutions are increasingly utilizing localized currency swap lines and digital clearing mechanisms to settle cross-border trade transactions. This transition reduces direct exposure to foreign exchange volatility and mitigates third-party liquidity constraints, further solidifying regional economic cohesion. However, for developing economies situated outside these primary trading alliances, the tightening of international trade networks presents severe challenges, restricting access to key export markets and foreign direct investment.

For corporate strategists and policy analysts navigating late 2026, success requires a thorough understanding of these emerging trade corridors. Organizations must conduct regular risk assessments of their multi-tier supplier networks, model tariff sensitivities under shifting geopolitical scenarios, and invest in real-time supply chain telemetry. As regional economic blocs strengthen their regulatory borders, supply chain agility and compliance fortitude will distinguish market leaders from vulnerable enterprises in the evolving global economy.

Continue Reading

Trending