Search

Begin New Search Topic Military Affairs Political Geography Global Focus Publication Year within 3 Years

1. Colonel John Boyd's Thoughts on Disruption A Useful Effects Spiral from Uncertainty to Chaos

Author:
Brian R. Price
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:
Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:
A close examination of John R. Boyd’s concept of disruption as recorded in his 1987 presentation, “An Organic Design for Command and Control.” This article draws attention to a series of disruptive actions Boyd lists, including uncertainty, doubt, mistrust, confusion, disorder, fear, panic, and chaos, noting that the list begins with the mildest effect but that it progresses regularly toward collapse and chaos. The author argues that Boyd was specific in listing these effects in order and notes that this cycle could be developed into a useful effects spiral, which, once understood, can be catalyzed to enhance enemy disruption in a Joint all-domain operations (JADO) environment. In the postscript, this article argues that officers seeking to operate in a multi- or all-domain environment can benefit from a broad educational base to unlock creativity in approaching wicked problem sets. This creativity, when coupled with concepts like the effects spiral, can enhance traditional maneuver and combat, triggering an opponent’s collapse without the need for annihilation.
Topic:
Education, Military Affairs, Psychological Warfare, and Uncertainty
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Are Gender Inclusive Militaries Better at Integrating Disruptive Technologies?

Author:
Shira Eini Pindyck
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
Recent advances in big data and analytics, cyber security, automation, and artificial intelligence can make critical contributions to the demonstration of power on the international stage. New technologies not only offer militaries the ability to conduct operations with greater effectiveness but also reduce the potential human cost of operations. In an increasingly digitized world, organizations that do not adopt and leverage these advances can become inefficient and even fall by the wayside. Yet, despite the immense promise of emerging technologies, many organizations struggle to integrate and utilize them. This is true in both the military and business sectors. For business organizations, a failure to adopt and use novel technologies may threaten profits and even their survival. For militaries, where soldiers’ lives are on the line, the consequences can be even more severe. Why is the integration of new technologies often so difficult? This policy brief highlights an important and overlooked reason, namely how gender policy can affect resistance to organizational change. Gender policy reform requires organizations to invest resources in the recruitment and retainment of an inclusive workforce, and therefore demands that organizations be flexible and resilient. Flexibility and resilience are also required to integrate disruptive innovations. Rather than trying to chain a new technology to old systems of ascension and reward, organizations that want to advance technologically must rethink their incentive systems and work hard to restructure entrenched hierarchies.
Topic:
Defense Policy, National Security, Science and Technology, International Security, Military Affairs, Innovation, and Geoeconomics
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Implementing Decision-Centric Warfare: Elevating Command and Control to Gain an Optionality Advantage

Author:
Bryan Clark, Dan Patt, and Timothy A. Walton
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
Since the Cold War ended, the US Department of Defense (DoD) has developed doctrine and capabilities predominantly for the most stressing campaigns it could face against opponents such as the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Russia, and North Korea. These worst-case scenarios are intended to ensure US forces can address “lesser-included” cases as well. This approach, however, favors concepts and systems designed for large-scale, high-intensity military conflict, and intelligent US adversaries are unlikely to present US forces with confrontations where DoD could leverage its strengths in missions such as power projection or precision strike. America’s rivals have evolved approaches during the past decade to circumvent US military strengths, such as PRC and Russian gray-zone or hybrid operations, that obtain objectives at lower cost and escalation—albeit over longer timeframes—than traditional military combat. DoD should therefore revise its planning to raise the priority of new scenarios that stress the US military in different ways than theater-wide high-intensity combat such as through protraction, varying levels of escalation and scale, and the use of proxy and paramilitary forces. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) concept of System Destruction Warfare and the Russian military’s New Generation Warfare are representative of the new approaches being employed against the United States and its allies. Although they are very different in their theory of victory and methodology, both concepts share a focus on information and decision-making as the main battlegrounds for future conflict. They direct attacks on an opponent’s battle network electronically and physically to degrade its ability to obtain accurate information while introducing false information that erodes the opponent’s ability to orient. Simultaneously, military and paramilitary forces would present dilemmas to the opponent by isolating or attacking targets in a manner that neutralized their combat potential and controlled the escalation of a conflict.
Topic:
Defense Policy, National Security, Science and Technology, and Military Affairs
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

4. AI and International Stability: Risks and Confidence-Building Measures

Author:
Michael Horowitz and Paul Scharre
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
Militaries around the world believe that the integration of machine learning methods throughout their forces could improve their effectiveness. From algorithms to aid in recruiting and promotion, to those designed for surveillance and early warning, to those used directly on the battlefield, applications of artificial intelligence (AI) could shape the future character of warfare. These uses could also generate significant risks for international stability. These risks relate to broad facets of AI that could shape warfare, limits to machine learning methods that could increase the risks of inadvertent conflict, and specific mission areas, such as nuclear operations, where the use of AI could be dangerous. To reduce these risks and promote international stability, we explore the potential use of confidence-building measures (CBMs), constructed around the shared interests that all countries have in preventing inadvertent war. Though not a panacea, CBMs could create standards for information-sharing and notifications about AI-enabled systems that make inadvertent conflict less likely.
Topic:
Science and Technology, International Affairs, Military Affairs, Political stability, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Global Focus

5. Principles for the Combat Employment of Weapon Systems with Autonomous Functionalities

Author:
Robert O. Work
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
An international debate over lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) has been under way for nearly a decade.1 In 2012, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued formal policy guidance on weapon systems with autonomous functionalities,2 and nations have come together since 2014 to discuss LAWS through the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). The discussions at the CCW have been hampered by the lack of an agreed-upon definition for LAWS.3 However, states party to the CCW agreed in 2019 that “human responsibility” for the decisions over the use of weapon systems and the use of force “must be retained.”4 Accordingly, discussions now tend to focus on the type and degree of human involvement required to ensure compliance with international humanitarian law and satisfy ethical concerns.5 Several scholars argue these discussions should focus on “developing objective, commonly held, and function-based understandings of autonomy in the military context” (emphasis added).6 The premise of this paper is that the best way to achieve such an understanding is to develop, debate, and agree upon some commonly accepted principles for the employment of weapon systems with autonomous functionalities in armed conflict.7 This is where the legal, ethical, and moral questions about autonomy in warfare are most acute and deserve the most attention. This paper offers a starting point for these discussions. The seven principles proposed in this paper are intended to complement and build on existing DoD guidance, including DoD Directive (DoDD) 3000.09, Autonomy in Weapon Systems, and DoD’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) Principles.8 They are also consistent with the 11 guiding principles adopted in 2019 by the CCW in its “Meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects.”9 These seven new principles concentrate on the responsible use of autonomous functionalities in armed conflict in ways that preserve human judgment and responsibility over the use of force and help minimize the probability of loss of control of the system or unintended engagements, especially against noncombatants. This paper is organized into four sections. The first details the history of U.S. weapon systems with autonomous functionalities. It is intended to give the reader a notion of how these weapons have historically been used, why autonomous functionalities are so useful, and why the DoD retains the right to use them. The second section explains why weapons with autonomous functionalities are now being improved through the addition of AI, an important development that aims to make the weapons more discriminate in the application of force. The third section explains why the DoD should consider publishing a new set of principles for the combat employment of weapon systems with autonomous functionalities. The final section outlines seven proposed principles for consideration.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Military Affairs, Weapons, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

6. Fall 2021 edition of Strategic Visions

Author:
Alan McPherson
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Strategic Visions
Institution:
Center for the Study of Force and Diplomacy, Temple University
Abstract:
Contents News from the Director . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Fall 2021 Lecture Series . . . . . . . . 2 Fall 2021 Prizes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 New: The Emerging Scholar Graduate Award! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Spring 2022 Lecture Series Announcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Note from the Davis Fellow . . . . . . . . . 6 CENFAD Community Interviews Q&A with Ethan Cohen, Inaugural Immerman Awardee . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Eric J. Perinovic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Dr. David B. Zierler . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Dr. Silke Zoller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Dr. Benjamin Talton . . . . . . . . . . 45 Book Reviews Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism, reviewed by Alexandra Southgate . . . . . . . . . . 61 The Ends of Modernization: Nicaragua and the United States in the Cold War Era, reviewed by Joseph Edward Johnson . . . . . . . . 65
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Cold War, Military Affairs, and Diplomatic History
Political Geography:
Nicaragua and Global Focus

7. Spring 2021 edition of Strategic Visions

Author:
Alan McPherson
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Strategic Visions
Institution:
Center for the Study of Force and Diplomacy, Temple University
Abstract:
Contents News from the Director Colloquium………………………..2 CENFAD sponsored lectures……...3 Prizes………………………………4 CENFAD Workshop………………4 Thanks to the Davis Fellow……….5 News from the CENFAD Community…6 Note from the Davis Fellow……………9 Book Reviews A Wall of Our Own: An American History of the Berlin Wall Review by Brandon Kinney…..11 Civil Aviation and the Globalization of the Cold War Review by Michael Fischer…..13 Imperial Metropolis: Los Angeles, Mexico, and the Borderlands of American Empire, 1865–1941 Review by Amanda Summers..15 Educating the Empire: American Teachers and Contested Colonization in the Philippines Review by Madison Ingram…17 Fantasy Island: Colonialism, Exploitation, and the Betrayal of Puerto Rico Review by Graydon Dennison..19 Beatriz Allende: A Revolutionary Life in Latin America Review by Michael Onufrak….21
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Cold War, Military Affairs, Empire, Diplomatic History, and Statecraft
Political Geography:
United States, Philippines, Germany, Latin America, Global Focus, and Puerto Rico

8. La perspectiva de género en las operaciones militares. Exigencia jurídica y operativa

Author:
Javier Ruiz Arévalo
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Revista UNISCI/UNISCI Journal
Institution:
Unidad de investigación sobre seguridad y cooperación (UNISCI)
Abstract:
The inclusion of the gender perspective in military operations is now a legal requirement. This exigency is mainly consequence of the doption of the UNSCR 1325. But it is also an operational requirement derived from the need to take into account in decision-making processes the human factor in all its dimensions, to ensure that military actions are adapted to the reality of the scenario in which they take place. This article tries to show that, in the process of integrating this aspect in operations, decision makers tend to only consider the legal aspects of this issue, ignoring the operational benefits that it entails. The official documents of organizations such as the UN or NATO, recognize this duality but, in practice, do not develop this perspective in their operating procedures. All this creates significant problems for those responsible for integrating the gender perspective in operations and requires the introduction of regulatory changes along these lines./Integrar la perspectiva de género en la conducción de las operaciones militares es una exigencia jurídica derivada principalmente de la RCSNU 1325. Pero es también una exigencia operativa derivada de la necesidad de tener en cuenta en los procesos de toma de decisiones el factor humano en toda su extensión, para garantizar que las actuaciones propias se adaptan a la realidad del escenario en el que se desarrollan. A lo largo de este trabajo se evidencia que, en la integración de este aspecto en las operaciones, se tiende a incidir únicamente en los aspectos jurídicos de esta cuestión, pasando por alto los beneficios operativos que conlleva. Los documentos oficiales de organizaciones como la ONU o la OTAN, reconocen esta dualidad pero, en la práctica, no la desarrollan en sus procedimientos operativos, lo que supone un problema para los responsables de integrar la perspectiva de género en las operaciones y hace necesario introducir cambios normativos en esta línea.
Topic:
NATO, Gender Issues, Human Rights, United Nations, Military Affairs, and Armed Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus

9. Principles for Building Confidence and Stability into National Defenses and International Security – toward sufficient, affordable, robust, and reliable defense postures

Author:
Charles Knight
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Project on Defense Alternatives
Abstract:
By bringing military structures into line with defensive political goals, the non-provocation standard facilitates the emergence of trusting, cooperative, peaceful political relations among nations. In contrast, any doctrine and force posture oriented to project power into other countries is provocative — unless reliably restrained by political and organizational structures.
Topic:
Defense Policy, International Security, Armed Forces, and Military Affairs
Political Geography:
Global Focus

10. Autonomous Weapon Systems and International Humanitarian Law: Identifying Limits and the Required Type and Degree of Human–Machine Interaction

Author:
Dr Vincent Boulanin, Netta Goussac, and Laura Bruun
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Abstract:
Compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL) is recognized as a critical benchmark for assessing the acceptability of autonomous weapon systems (AWS). However, in certain key respects, how and to what extent existing IHL rules provide limits on the development and use of AWS remains either subject to debate or underexplored. This report aims to help states form and express their views on the legal provisions that already do, or should, govern the development and use of AWS, particularly with respect to the required type and degree of human–machine interaction. It maps (a) what limits IHL already places on the development and use of AWS; (b) what IHL demands from users of AWS to perform and satisfy IHL obligations, whether the obligations are of a state, an individual or both; and (c) threshold questions concerning the type and degree of human–machine interaction required for IHL compliance. In its findings and recommendations, the report does not pre-judge the policy response that should regulate AWS. Instead, it aims to provide an analytical framework for states and experts to assess how the normative and operational framework regulating the development and use of AWS may need to be clarified and developed further.
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, Military Affairs, Weapons, Disarmament, Autonomy, and International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Political Geography:
Global Focus

11. Trends in World Military Expenditure, 2020

Author:
Nan Tian, Alexandra Marksteiner, and Diego Lopes da Silva
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Abstract:
World military expenditure in 2020 is estimated to have been $1981 billion, the highest level since 1988—the earliest year for which SIPRI has a consistent estimate for total global military spending. World military expenditure in 2020 was 2.6 per cent higher in real terms than in 2019 and 9.3 per cent higher than in 2011. The global military burden—world military expenditure as a share of global gross domestic product—rose by 0.2 percentage points in 2020, to 2.4 per cent. This increase was largely due to the fact that most countries in the world experienced severe economic downturns in 2020 related to the Covid-19 pandemic, while military expenditure continued to rise overall. This Fact Sheet highlights the regional and national military expenditure data for 2020 and trends over the decade 2011–20. The data is from the updated open-access SIPRI Military Expenditure Database, which provides military spending data by country for the years 1949–2020.
Topic:
Military Affairs, Military Spending, and Disarmament
Political Geography:
Global Focus

12. Drawdown: Improving U.S. and Global Security Through Military Base Closures Abroad

Author:
David Vine, Patterson Deppen, and Leah Bolger
Publication Date:
09-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
Despite the withdrawal of U.S. military bases and troops from Afghanistan, the United States continues to maintain around 750 military bases abroad in 80 foreign countries and colonies (territories). These bases are costly in a number of ways: financially, politically, socially, and environmentally. U.S. bases in foreign lands often raise geopolitical tensions, support undemocratic regimes, and serve as a recruiting tool for militant groups opposed to the U.S. presence and the governments its presence bolsters. In other cases, foreign bases are being used and have made it easier for the United States to launch and execute disastrous wars, including those in Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. Across the political spectrum and even within the U.S. military there is growing recognition that many overseas bases should have been closed decades ago, but bureaucratic inertia and misguided political interests have kept them open. Amid an ongoing “Global Posture Review,” the Biden administration has a historic opportunity to close hundreds of unnecessary military bases abroad and improve national and international security in the process. The Pentagon, since Fiscal Year 2018, has failed to publish its previously annual list of U.S. bases abroad. As far as we know, this brief presents the fullest public accounting of U.S. bases and military outposts worldwide. The lists and map included in this report illustrate the many problems associated with these overseas bases, offering a tool that can help policymakers plan urgently needed base closures. Fast facts on overseas U.S. military outposts • There are approximately 750 U.S. military base sites abroad in 80 foreign countries and colonies. • The United States has nearly three times as many bases abroad (750) as U.S. embassies, consulates, and missions worldwide (276). • While there are approximately half as many installations as at the Cold War’s end, U.S. bases have spread to twice as many countries and colonies (from 40 to 80) in the same time, with large concentrations of facilities in the Middle East, East Asia, parts of Europe, and Africa. • The United States has at least three times as many overseas bases as all other countries combined. • U.S. bases abroad cost taxpayers an estimated $55 billion annually. • Construction of military infrastructure abroad has cost taxpayers at least $70 billion since 2000, and could total well over $100 billion. • Bases abroad have helped the United States launch wars and other combat operations in at least 25 countries since 2001. • U.S. installations are found in at least 38 non-democratic countries and colonies.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Military Affairs, and Military Bases
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

13. Journal of Advanced Military Studies: Political Warfare and Propaganda

Author:
James J. F. Forest, Daniel De Wit, Kyleanne Hunter, Emma Jouenne, Glen Segell, Lev Topor, Alexander Tabachnik, Donald M. Bishop, Phil Zeman, Michael Cserkits, and Anthony Patrick
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:
Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:
The digital age has greatly expanded the terrain and opportunities for a range of foreign influence efforts. A growing number of countries have invested significantly in their capabilities to disseminate online propaganda and disinformation worldwide, while simultaneously establishing information dominance at home. Each of the contributions to this issue addresses the central theme of influencing perceptions and behavior. First, Daniel de Wit draws lessons from a historical analysis of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), America’s intelligence and special operations organization in World War II. In addition to its efforts to collect intelligence on the Axis powers and to arm and train resistance groups behind enemy lines, the OSS also served as America’s primary psychological warfare agency, using a variety of “black propaganda” methods to sow dissension and confusion in enemy ranks.82 As noted earlier, psychological warfare plays a significant role in the conduct of today’s military operations, so de Wit’s research offers important historical lessons for contemporary campaign planners. Next, Kyleanne Hunter and Emma Jouenne examine the uniquely troubling effects of spreading misogynistic views online. Their analysis of three diverse case studies—the U.S. military, the incel movement, and ISIS— reveals how unchecked online misogyny can result in physical behavior that can threaten human and national security. Glen Segell then explores how perceptions about cybersecurity operations can have positive or negative impacts on civil-military relations, drawing on a case study of the Israeli experience. Lev Topor and Alexander Tabachnik follow with a study of how Russia uses the strategies and tactics of digital influence warfare against other countries, while continually seeking to strengthen its information dominance over Russian citizens. And Donald M. Bishop reveals how other countries do this as well, including China, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela. Each is engaged in these same kinds of efforts to control the information that circulates within their respective societies, while using various forms of propaganda against other countries to strengthen their influence and national power. Phil Zeman’s contribution to this issue looks at how China and Russia are trying to fracture American and Western societies through information, disinformation, economic coercion, and the creation of economic dependencies— in many cases capitalizing on specific attributes and vulnerabilities of a target nation to achieve their strategic objectives. Through these efforts, he concludes, China and Russia hope to prevent the will or ability of American or Western states to respond to an aggressive act. Next, Michael Cserkits explains how a society’s perceptions about armed forces can be influenced by cinematic productions and anime, drawing on a case study comparison of Japan and the United States. And finally, Anthony Patrick examines how social media penetration and internet connectivity could impact the likelihood that parties within a conventional intrastate conflict will enter negotiations. As a collection, these articles make a significant contribution to the scholarly research literature on political warfare and propaganda. The authors shed light on the need for research-based strategies and policies that can improve our ability to identify, defend against, and mitigate the consequences of influence efforts. However, when reflecting on the compound security threats described at the beginning of this introduction—involving both cyberattacks and influence attacks—a startling contrast is revealed: we have committed serious resources toward cybersecurity but not toward addressing the influence issues examined in this issue. We routinely install firewalls and other security measures around our computer network systems, track potential intrusion attempts, test and report network vulnerabilities, hold training seminars for new employees, and take many other measures to try and mitigate cybersecurity threats. In contrast, there are no firewalls or intrusion detection efforts defending us against digital influence attacks of either foreign or domestic origin. Government sanctions and social media deplatforming efforts respond to influence attackers once they have been identified as such, but these efforts take place after attacks have already occurred, sometimes over the course of several years. The articles of this issue reflect an array of efforts to influence the perceptions, emotions, and behavior of human beings at both individual and societal levels. In the absence of comprehensive strategies to more effectively defend against these efforts, the United States risks losing much more than military advantage; we are placing at risk the perceived legitimacy of our systems and institutions of governance, as well as our economic security, our ability to resolve social disagreements peacefully, and much more.83 Further, many other nations are also facing the challenges of defending against foreign influence efforts. As such, the transnational nature of influence opportunities and capabilities in the digital age may require a multinational, coordinated response. In the years ahead, further research will be needed to uncover strategies for responding to the threat of digital influence warfare with greater sophistication and success.
Topic:
Security, National Security, Politics, Science and Technology, Military Affairs, Women, Radicalization, Cybersecurity, Internet, History, World War II, Propaganda, Deterrence, Disinformation, Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Digital Policy, Psychological Warfare, and Misogyny
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, China, Israel, Global Focus, and United States of America

14. High power microwave for knocking out programmable suicide drones

Author:
Mohamed Zied Chaari
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Security and Defence Quarterly
Institution:
War Studies University
Abstract:
The primary research objective is to reduce the dangers of rogue drones in our lives and the consequences of extremist groups, drug dealers, and organised criminals using them. The growing number of incidents involving modified drones proves the weakness of existing technology in stopping and neutralising errant drones such as the hand-held gun jammer, trained eagle, R.F. jammer, and others. This technology is not very likely to able to knock out a rogue drone and is incapable of stopping programmable drones. This article aims to examine the directed energy of HPM (high power microwaves) in using the electromagnetic field strength energy to damage the drone’s structure or burn its PCB board electronics. It goes on to analyse electronic attack using microwave power with high frequency to immediately switch off drones. The effectiveness of high microwave power for disrupting drones at different distances and in different weather conditions is evaluated. A study of the conical horn antenna of the magnetron coupling system, which has an operating frequency of 2.45 GHz, is also included.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Military Affairs, Weapons, and Drones
Political Geography:
Global Focus

15. United States Counterterrorism Operations 2018–2020

Author:
Stephanie Savell, Rachel McMahon, Emily Rockwell, and Yueshan Li
Publication Date:
02-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University
Abstract:
The map illustrates countries in which the U.S. government conducted operations it explicitly described as counterterrorism, in an outgrowth of President George W. Bush's “Global War on Terror.” These operations include air and drone strikes, on-the-ground combat, so-called “Section 127e” programs in which U.S. special operations forces plan and control partner force missions, military exercises in preparation for or as part of counterterrorism missions, and operations to train and assist foreign forces. (The map does not comprehensively cover the full scope of U.S. post-9/11 warfare, as it does not document, for instance, U.S. military bases used for counterterror operations, arms sales to foreign governments, or all deployments of U.S. special operations forces.) Despite the Pentagon’s assertion that the U.S. is shifting its strategic emphasis away from counterterrorism and towards great power competition with Russia and China, examining U.S. military activity on a country-by-country basis shows that there is yet to be a corresponding drawdown of the counterterror apparatus. If anything, the map demonstrates that counterterrorism operations have become more widespread in recent years.
Topic:
Military Affairs, Counter-terrorism, and Conflict
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

16. Space and Missile Wars: What Awaits

Author:
Henry D. Sokolski
Publication Date:
04-2021
Content Type:
Book
Institution:
Nonproliferation Policy Education Center
Abstract:
Sometimes, slow, steady changes produce revolutionary results. A case in point is missile and space technologies, which Space and Missile Wars: What Awaits will examine. Long-range missiles, satellites, and space launch vehicles used to be high technology exclusive to the superpowers. Now, scores of states have both. As for ballistic missiles and drones, even non-state actors have them, and these systems are far more accurate than anything the superpowers had even at the height of the Cold War. Then, long-range missiles could only be certain of destroying their targets if they were nuclear-armed and wiped out areas as large as cities. Now, drones are so accurate they can pinpoint and kill single individuals. As for space satellite launchers, they originally were derived from nuclear delivery missiles. None were privately owned. Similarly, almost all space satellites were government property and, until 1965, the owners were only American and Soviet. Now, the French, Chinese, Japanese, British, Indians, Israelis, Ukrainians, Iranians, and North Koreans have all launched satellites of their own. In addition, more than 60 nations own and operate their own satellites and increasingly, satellites are launched, owned, and operated entirely by private entities. These developments are nontrivial. They will define the military competitions with China, Russia, and other hostile states for the next two to three decades. Will the spread of accurate missiles embolden weak actors – small states and terrorist organizations – to threaten stronger states with missile attacks against key civilian targets (dams, reactors, petrochemical plants)? Will weak actors be tempted to use accurate drones to assassinate their adversaries’ key leaders? Will such attacks catalyze war, producing modern Sarajevos that draw in nuclear-armed states (e.g. Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea, or the superpowers)? With so many new space actors, will anyone be able to attribute hostile actions in space? Will states attack satellites mostly in low Earth orbit or geosynchronous orbit? Will the most important attacks come from antisatellite systems based on Earth, in low Earth orbit, or on or near the moon? This volume is designed to answer these questions.
Topic:
Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, Science and Technology, Non State Actors, Military Affairs, Drones, Nonproliferation, Space, Missile Defense, Satellite, and Nuclear Energy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

17. The Dominance Dilemma: The American Approach to NATO and its Future

Author:
Joshua R. Itzkowitz Shifrinson
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
Despite the Biden administration’s push to revitalize U.S. alliances, U.S. relations with NATO are due for a reset. The United States should incentivize European members of NATO to take on additional responsibilities for their defense. Encouraging the European allies to take initiative will help the United States focus on its other domestic and international priorities and may facilitate improving relations with Russia. This approach will also prove attractive to European states concerned about the future direction of U.S. foreign policy. Recalibrating the U.S. role in Europe would conform with the United States’ post–World War II efforts to stabilize European security — and stand as the fruit of Washington’s success in this regard.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, NATO, International Security, Military Strategy, Military Affairs, and Alliance
Political Geography:
United States, Europe, and Global Focus