Time to put Elon Musk back to work
In 1943, Sidney Hook published The Hero in History: A Study in Limitation and Possibility , a book that remains controversial but fascinating. Hook wanted to know just how vital a hero is to a nation's history. There is no simple answer.
In the US, we have had many heroes including George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. But Washington could have lost the Revolutionary War had he failed at Trenton and Monmouth, after he was defeated in New York and Harlem Heights. And Lincoln's generals could have seized Washington and put Lincoln in jail, splitting the US in half. Even short of a coup, Lincoln could have lost the 1864 election to General George McClellan, who would have cut a deal with Confederate President Jefferson Davis and his former colleague, Robert E. Lee.
Great scientists can also be heroes but are not always well-treated. The cryptographic genius Alan Turing, whose work decoding Nazi encrypted messages helped win World War II, should have been honored. Instead, he was convicted of homosexuality in 1952 and sentenced to harsh chemical treatments to 'cure' him of his 'disease.' The brutality of the so-called cure aside, his self-esteem was crushed. Alan Turing building the first computer called the Turing Machine.
He took cyanide and died in 1954. J. Robert Oppenheimer, testifying.
J. Robert Oppenheimer, another top scientist, assembled one of the greatest scientific and industrial teams at Los Alamos.
But he was persecuted by the Atomic Energy Commission on grounds that he had communist associations (which he did) which rendered him unreliable (never proven).
The fact that his work gave the US the atomic bomb, which saved tens of thousands of American lives, was disregarded. Oppenheimer lost his security clearances and was humiliated and his service to his country ended.
The truth is that Oppenheimer was an opponent of building a hydrogen bomb, which Edward Teller called the Super. Pulling Oppenheimer's clearances got him out of the way.
Heroes with social and political problems are nothing new.
Werner von Braun, the brilliant German rocket scientist, ran the Nazi V-1 and V-2 operations at Peenemunde during World War II. As the Tom Lehrer song laments, 'The widows and orphans in old London town owe their large pensions to Werner von Braun.' Von Braun was a Nazi, and he ruthlessly employed slave labor at Peenemunde and elsewhere to build his weapons. Von Braun at Peenemunde.
He was recruited as part of the notorious Paperclip program to the United States and became the key Army rocket scientist at the US Army Redstone Arsenal. Later he headed NASA's Saturn V rocket development. He thus was a hero for the Nazis and a hero for the Americans. Sidney Hook (1902-1989).
This brings us to Elon Musk, today America's greatest industrialist. He is in a bitter quarrel with President Trump, and his future relationship to the Trump administration is uncertain. While Musk, like other heroes, has his good and bad points, he is needed to help protect American national security, or to put it another way, Elon Musk is a national security asset and probably meets the criteria laid down by Sydney Hook: that is, we need him to save our defense manufacturing system, which is unacceptably costly, slow, inefficient and can't keep up with demand in times of crisis.
So far Musk has done some incredible things that are changing the security landscape. Space-X, for example, has changed the space launch industry by redefining how rockets are launched and recovered. Prior to Musk, a multimillion-dollar rocket launch was a onetime affair. Again, quoting Tom Lehrer on Von Braun, 'Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department, says Werner von Braun.'
NASA has long taken the same approach. Launch the rockets and let them, once used, crash into the sea. But Musk thought rockets should be reusable. He devised ways for booster rockets to successfully land either on ships (one of them is named 'Just Read the Instructions') or on land. The recovered boosters could be refurbished and used again – one of them (so far) as many as nine times.
This capability, along with devising a mass-manufacturing system for rockets, enabled Musk to put up the Starlink constellation, a highly innovative broadband communications platform. He already has launched 8,877 satellites into orbit (6,715 currently operating) and plans to put as many as 42,000 in orbit. There is no space manufacturing and launch company anywhere in the world that can launch that many spacecraft. A Falcon 9 rocket liftoff off from Vandenberg Space Force Base in California on June 4, 2025, carrying 27 Starlink satellites. It was the 500th orbital launch of a rocket in SpaceX's Falcon family. Image: SpaceX.
Starlink has already proven vital to warfighting.
Without Starlink, Ukraine would be without effective battlefield communications and would be limited in the range of its drones and other weapons.
Because there are so many satellites, jamming Starlink is difficult, maybe ultimately impossible. The slow-moving Pentagon is beginning to figure this out.
Space-X is also of great importance if the Defense Department actually develops and deploys a space-based missile defense system. Thousands of spacecraft will be needed for Golden Dome, which may be the only way to counter hypersonic long-range missiles.
Space defense has been talked about since the early 1980s, but one of the reasons projects such as Brilliant Pebbles never got off the ground (literally and figuratively) is because the lift capability to do it was missing. Musk has solved that problem. SpaceX's drone ship 'A Shortfall of Gravitas' returns to port on Aug. 31, 2021, after its first successful Falcon 9 rocket landing. Phoro: Amy Thompson / Space.com
While Space-X and Starlink establish Musk's bona fides as a national security asset, that is far from everything.
Remember that Musk's inventions started out as civilian projects. Starlink was to bring broadband Internet to users around the world inexpensively, without any clumsy and costly local infrastructure.
Space-X was to launch Starlink and other commercial spacecraft. The planned Mars mission, if he is ultimately successful, is not a defense project.
But the place to look toward the future is another commercial project, and that is Tesla. Tesla is a car (and truck) company featuring electric vehicles and battery power packs. Musk manufactures his cars, trucks and batteries in what he called Gigafactories.
A Gigafactory is a highly integrated manufacturing site, using lots of robots and advanced processes, capable of producing electric vehicles and batteries.
Tesla, which invented the Gigafactory idea, has six active Gigafactories. They're in Fremont, California; Sparks, Nevada; Austin, Texas; and Buffalo, New York as well as Berlin and Shanghai. The idea of Gigafactories, at least for batteries, is spreading around the world rapidly: Today there are some 240 of them worldwide making batteries.
It is noteworthy that, while electric battery and automobile manufacturing is focused on Gigafactories, this industrial idea has not gained a real foothold in defense manufacturing.
Today, defense companies may have state-of-the-art technology, but their industrial methods don't measure up even to the standards of production achieved in World War II. Marietta, Georgia, bomber plant boss James V. Carmichael (C, with cane) poses with a B29. Photo: Kenan History Center at the Atlanta History Center
The missing factor is consolidating certain types of defense manufacturing in efficient factories that can produce a variety of components commonly needed for equipping our armed forces.
For example, tactical rockets (small, medium, and large) could be consolidated in a Gigafactory with defense companies owning a share in the business. The advantages would be profound, including a lower cost of production, the ability to switch from one model to another, a consolidated and reliable supply chain (much of it brought in-house) and design commonality, making manufacturing easier and more efficient.
There are many categories where a Gigafactory would make sense. Some examples: armored vehicles, ammunition production, guns of all calibers, drones, 'black boxes' (electronics), sensors.
The best man to figure all this out is Elon Musk, because he has been immensely successful doing it at Tesla and Space-X and because the current defense industrial establishment cannot do it on its own.
We have already learned from the costly and prolonged Ukraine war that our industrial base is not able to keep up with demand. We also have learned that our efforts are feeding an expensive and inefficient defense industrial system operating deep in the industrial past.
We cannot afford to keep shelling out vast amounts of taxpayer money (this year more than $1 trillion) to buy fewer and fewer weapons, often delivered late and with serious flaws.
Because of the uncertainties in defense procurement and the general lack of automation (some munitions factories are 100 years old), retaining workers is a challenge and there are severe skill shortages across the defense landscape. When you see a sign behind home plate at Yankee's stadium that reads, 'Build Submarines,' you understand there is an employment crisis in the industry.
It would make sense for President Trump to bring Elon Musk back to government, make sure he has the right access and security clearances and put him to work reinventing America's defense industry.
Stephen Bryen is a special correspondent to Asia Times and former US deputy undersecretary of defense for policy. This article, which originally appeared on his Substack newsletter Weapons and Strategy, is republished with permission.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
a day ago
- Asia Times
The Israeli logic of assassinating Iran's nuclear scientists
At least 14 nuclear scientists are believed to be among those killed in Israel's Operation Rising Lion, launched on June 13, 2025, ostensibly to destroy or degrade Iran's nuclear program and military capabilities. Deliberately targeting scientists in this way aims to disrupt Iran's knowledge base and continuity in nuclear expertise. Among those assassinated were Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi, a theoretical physicist and head of Iran's Islamic Azad University, and Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, a nuclear engineer who led Iran's Atomic Energy Organization. Collectively, these experts in physics and engineering were potential successors to Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, widely regarded as the architect of the Iranian nuclear program, who was assassinated in a November 2020 attack many blame on Israel. As two political scientists writing a book about state targeting of scientists as a counterproliferation tool, we understand well that nuclear scientists have been targeted since the nuclear age began. We have gathered data on nearly 100 instances of what we call 'scientist targeting' from 1944 through 2025. The most recent assassination campaign against Iranian scientists is different from many of the earlier episodes in a few key ways. Israel's recent attack targeted multiple nuclear experts and took place simultaneously with military force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, air defenses and energy infrastructure. Also, unlike previous covert operations, Israel immediately claimed responsibility for the assassinations. But our research indicates that targeting scientists may not be effective for counterproliferation. While removing individual expertise may delay nuclear acquisition, targeting alone is unlikely to destroy a program outright and could even increase a country's desire for nuclear weapons. Further, targeting scientists may trigger blowback given concerns regarding legality and morality. Targeting nuclear scientists began during World War II when Allied and Soviet forces raced to capture Nazi scientists, degrade Adolf Hitler's ability to build a nuclear bomb and use their expertise to advance the U.S. and Soviet nuclear programs. In our data set, we classified 'targeting' as cases in which scientists were captured, threatened, injured or killed as nations tried to prevent adversaries from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Over time, at least four countries have targeted scientists working on nine national nuclear programs. The United States and Israel have allegedly carried out the most attacks on nuclear scientists. But the United Kingdom and Soviet Union have also been behind such attacks. Meanwhile, scientists working for the Egyptian, Iranian and Iraqi nuclear programs have been the most frequent targets since 1950. Since 2007 and prior to the current Israeli operation, 10 scientists involved in the Iranian nuclear program were killed in attacks. Other countries' nationals have also been targeted: In 1980, Mossad, Israel's intelligence service, allegedly bombed Italian engineer Mario Fiorelli's home and his firm, SNIA Techint, as a warning to Europeans involved in the Iraqi nuclear project. Given this history, the fact that Israel attacked Iran's nuclear program is not itself surprising. Indeed, it has been a strategic goal of successive Israeli prime ministers to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and experts had been warning of the increased likelihood of an Israeli military operation since mid-2024, due to regional dynamics and Iranian nuclear development. The wrecked cars in which four of Iran's nuclear scientists were assassinated in recent years are displayed on the grounds of a museum in Tehran in 2014. Photo: Scott Peterson / Getty Images via The Conversation By then, the balance of power in the Middle East had changed dramatically. Israel systematically degraded the leadership and infrastructure of Iranian proxies Hamas and Hezbollah. It later destroyed Iranian air defenses around Tehran and near key nuclear installations. The subsequent fall of Syria's Assad regime cost Tehran another long-standing ally. Together, these developments have significantly weakened Iran, leaving it vulnerable to external attack and stripped of its once-feared proxy network, which had been expected to retaliate on its behalf in the event of hostilities. With its proxy 'axis of resistance' defanged and conventional military capacity degraded, Iranian leadership may have thought that expanding its enrichment capability was its best bet going forward. And in the months leading up to Israel's recent attack, Iran expanded its nuclear production capacity, moving beyond 60% uranium enrichment, a technical step just short of weapons-grade material. During Donald Trump's first term, the president withdrew the US from a multilateral nonproliferation agreement aimed at curbing Iran's nuclear program. After being reelected, Trump appeared to change tack by pursuing new diplomacy with Iran, but those talks have so far failed to deliver an agreement and may be put on hold for the foreseeable future amid the war. Most recently, the International Atomic Energy Agency board of governors declared Iran in non-compliance with its nuclear nonproliferation obligations. In response, Iran announced it was further expanding its enrichment capacity by adding advanced centrifuge technology and a third enrichment site. Even if the international community anticipated the broader attack on Iran, characteristics of the targeting itself are surprising. Historically, states have covertly targeted individual scientists. But the recent multiple-scientist attack occurred openly, with Israel taking responsibility, publicly indicating the attacks' purpose. Further, while it is not new for a country to use multiple counter-proliferation tools against an adversary over time, that Israel is using both preventive military force against infrastructure and targeting scientists at once is atypical. Additionally, such attacks against scientists are historically lower tech and low cost, with death or injury stemming from gunmen, car bombs or accidents. In fact, Abbasi – who was killed in the most recent attacks – survived a 2010 car bombing in Tehran. There are outliers, however, including the Fakhrizadeh assassination, which featured a remotely operated machine gun smuggled into Iranian territory. Why target nuclear scientists? In foreign policy, there are numerous tools available if one state aims to prevent another state from acquiring nuclear weapons. Alongside targeting scientists, there are sanctions, diplomacy, cyberattacks and military force. Targeting scientists may remove critical scientific expertise and impose costs that increase the difficulty of building nuclear weapons. Proponents argue that targeting these experts may undermine a state's efforts, deter it from continuing nuclear developments and signal to others the perils of supporting nuclear proliferation. Countries that target scientists, therefore, believe that doing so is an effective way to degrade an adversary's nuclear program. Indeed, the Israel Defense Forces described the most recent attacks as 'a significant blow to the regime's ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction.' Posters featuring images of Iranian nuclear scientists are displayed in Tehran, Iran, on June 14, 2025. Photo: Fatemeh Bahrami/Anadolu via Getty Images / The Conversation Despite Israel's focus on scientists as sources of critical knowledge, there may be thousands more working inside Iran, calling into question the efficacy of targeting them. Further, there are legal, ethical and moral concerns over targeting scientists. Moreover, it is a risky option that may fail to disrupt an enemy nuclear program while sparking public outrage and calls for retaliation. This is especially the case if scientists, often regarded as civilians, are elevated as martyrs. Targeting campaigns may, as a result, reinforce domestic support for a government, which could then redouble efforts toward nuclear development. Regardless of whether targeting scientists is an effective counter-proliferation tool, it has been around since the start of the nuclear age – and will likely persist as part of the foreign policy toolkit for states aiming to prevent proliferation. In the case of the current Israeli conflict with Iran and its targeting of nuclear scientists, we expect the tactic to continue for the duration of the war and beyond. Jenna Jordan is associate professor of international affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology and Rachel Whitlark is associate professor of international affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
The Standard
a day ago
- The Standard
China downplayed nuclear-capable missile test: classified NZ govt papers
Military vehicles carrying DF-26 ballistic missiles travel past Tiananmen Gate to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II in Beijing, China, September 3, 2015. (Reuters/File)
South China Morning Post
a day ago
- South China Morning Post
Japanese American museum blasts Trump order as threat to ‘truth and democracy'
A prominent museum preserving the legacy of Japanese American incarceration during World War II has condemned US President Donald Trump 's new directive requiring national park sites to flag content deemed critical of the country's history, calling it a dangerous attempt to whitewash past injustices and dismantle democratic values. Advertisement The Japanese American National Museum (JANM) said the policy – which it traced to a May executive order titled 'Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History' – would suppress uncomfortable truths and erase the legacy of marginalised communities, including the more than 10,000 Japanese Americans imprisoned during World War II at sites such as Manzanar and Minidoka. 'JANM is deeply disturbed by this new directive, especially at historical sites like Manzanar and Minidoka where Japanese Americans were unjustly incarcerated during World War II,' said Ann Burroughs, the museum's president and CEO, in a statement posted to social media on Thursday. 'The widespread dismantling of federal agencies that support our work and the attempts at the wholesale erasure of history will not help us achieve a more just America.' Burroughs warned the initiative formed part of a broader campaign to 'suppress historical narratives that challenge [the administration's] preferred version of events' and to 'erase the contributions of people of colour, women, LGBTQIA+ individuals, and other marginalised communities from the American story'.
