Search

Begin New Search Topic Defense Policy Political Geography United States of America

241. Russian New and Experimental Nuclear-Capable Missiles: A Short Primer

Author:
Christopher Mihal
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
Russia has tested a wide variety of new weapon systems in an effort to modernize and upgrade its nuclear forces. Russian President Vladimir Putin has not been shy about publicly discussing these new weapon systems or the capabilities of several of them, though a few are not currently feasible for any sort of deployment. More of a threat, however, are the two weapons that Putin did not boast about: the SSC8 and SSC-X-31, both of which were almost certainly in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. While these missiles represent a threat in and of themselves, a far greater threat is the indication that Russia does not feel bound by international agreements. These missiles have already had their first successful casualty in the death of the INF Treaty, and they may have also dealt a mortal blow to the New START Treaty. To adequately understand Russia’s new nuclear arsenal, one must simultaneously look at the weapon systems themselves as well as the context in which they are being developed. Russia continues to view both the U.S. and NATO as supreme existential threats. Unfortunately for Russia, both the U.S. and NATO have greater military, political, and economic power, and so Russia has long sought avenues to achieve its national objectives without conventional military confrontation.386 Russia has turned to two primary means of ensuring supremacy: enhancing its nuclear arsenal, which it views as a powerful deterrent that is cheaper to maintain than a large conventional military, as well as ‘hybrid’ war, which encompasses a number of techniques just shy of war including cyber warfare, informatsionaya voyna (information warfare) and a large amount of maskirovka (deception) in both military and non-military realms.387 Putin has emphasized information control and manipulation since coming to power, ranging from direct methods such as election interference and masking the identity of irregular forces in Ukraine, to more subtle methods of dezinformatsiya (disinformation), of which the exaggerated capabilities of Russia’s new nuclear weapons are prime examples. Dezinformatsiya is using false or misleading information and disseminating it to credible news outlets. This causes opponents to either act upon the incorrect information, thus wasting time and resources, or it undermines the credibility of the news outlet when it is proven false.388 Both of these goals of dezinformatsiya are being met with the current furor regarding Russia’s new nuclear weapons. This primer aims to dispel some of the false or misleading claims regarding these weapons and present a factual foundation from which to react to Russia’s new weapon developments and how they fit into Russia’s strategic vision.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, National Security, Nuclear Weapons, Cybersecurity, and Weapons
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, and United States of America

242. Forget China: A Policy for an Interconnected Region

Author:
Scott McDonald
Publication Date:
12-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
The United States (U.S.) must approach the growing assertiveness and revisionism of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) by deemphasizing its importance to U.S. policy formation. Although this will seem counterintuitive to most observers, it is an important first step in placing the very real challenges posed by the PRC in their appropriate context. Neither is this to suggest the intentions and actions of the PRC do not pose a serious threat to the interests of the U.S., for in many areas they do. However, in crafting foreign policy, the U.S. government must first focus on promoting and defending its own interests. By contrast, the popular emphasis on “countering” other states is a second-handed approach that cedes the initiative and allows one’s adversary to control one’s policy. That is not to say that U.S. policy should not, where appropriate, be confrontational. Washington should not feel the need to kowtow or appease an increasingly aggressive Beijing. However, any action—cooperative or confrontational—must be taken in pursuit of a larger, positive purpose. The starting point for any policy towards the PRC, therefore, is a grand strategic approach to the Indo-Pacific as a region. It lies in a positive, provalue orientation towards building the world in which the U.S. wants to live.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, and Defense Policy
Political Geography:
China, Asia, and United States of America

243. Can and Will Germany Be a Viable Partner in a U.S. “Pushback” Strategy Towards Russia?

Author:
Hannes Adomeit
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies
Abstract:
Joe Biden, as presidential candidate, is on record as having stated that “the biggest threat to America right now in terms of breaking up our − our security and our alliances − is Russia.” As president, he asserted, “the days of the United States rolling over in the face of Russia’s aggressive actions are over.” The first months of his tenure in office have given some substance to such claims and confirmed that the new administration aims at containing and counteracting Russian malign behavior and to impose costs so as to affect the Kremlin’s risk calculus. Can Germany − and most likely will it − be a viable partner in such a U.S. strategy?
Topic:
Defense Policy, Diplomacy, Military Strategy, Hegemony, Leadership, Conflict, and Rivalry
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, Germany, North America, and United States of America

244. AUKUS - A Harbinger of a New Geopolitical Reality

Author:
Giorgi Badridze
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Georgian Foundation for Strategic International Studies -GFSIS
Abstract:
In September of this year, Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States announced the creation of a new defense pact in the Asia-Pacific region called AUKUS (which is an abbreviation for the names of the member states: Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States). This paper will discuss the objectives of this new tripartite pact as well as the rationale behind the reactions thereto vis-à-vis leading international players and how it reflects the current balance of power and security prospects in the world. Ongoing processes in the world today, including the creation of AUKUS, indicate that China's power and influence have grown so much that the more or less stabile world order may be radically altered if this is not balanced within the security sphere. The main task of the United States (the dominant power of the existing world order) and its allies is to prevent irreversible changes in world order; in particular, those that will accelerate the formation of Chinese hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region and the world at large.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Alliance, and AUKUS
Political Geography:
China, United Kingdom, Australia, and United States of America

245. The Case for EU Defense

Author:
Max Bergmann, Siena Cicarelli, and James Lamond
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for American Progress - CAP
Abstract:
U.S. opposition to EU defense efforts since the 1990s has been a strategic mistake that has undermined both the EU and NATO. It’s time for a new U.S. approach that encourages ambitious EU defense strategies.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, Regional Cooperation, Military Strategy, European Union, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Europe, North America, and United States of America

246. Natural Hazards and National Security: The COVID-19 Lessons

Author:
David Omand
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
Natural hazards can have serious implications for national security. The COVID-19 pandemic illustrates how first-order challenges are created for our national security planners, not least maintaining SSBN and SSN submarine crew and air crew rosters during quarantine restrictions, as well as keeping forces operationally effective while establishing social distancing in supply, repair and support facilities, gyms, and mess halls. We must also expect our adversaries to try to exploit the dislocation such events cause to further their own agendas. From our painful experience of COVID-19, we can draw general lessons for planning against the potential impact on national security of a range of natural hazards. In this article, I also want to address some of the less direct second- and third-order effects of COVID-19 that have wider implications for our future national security.1 Those indirect effects prompt the question of whether we have adequately defined the boundaries of what ought to be included within the rubric of planning for national security in the future. That in turn raises the question of where the balance of argument lies in moving in the direction of a Scandinavian-style “total defense” against both threats and natural hazards. That would likely involve some extension of the scope of the funded missions of the armed forces, and enlargement of the responsibilities of defense departments over an expanding national security space. There are important debates to be had drawing on the lessons from the COVID-19 experience, from how best to organize national resources for an all-of-nation response and identifying and analyzing potential natural hazards, to making informed choices as to where best to invest in precautionary measures that will meet with public support.
Topic:
Defense Policy, National Security, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

247. The Pentagon’s First Financial War

Author:
Justin Bernier
Publication Date:
11-2021
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
PRISM
Institution:
Institute for National Strategic Studies (INSS), National Defense University
Abstract:
China’s strategy for achieving its global ambitions is driven as much by bankers and bribes as bombs and bullets. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues to take every step imaginable to appropriate dual-use technologies—those with both civil and military applications—from the United States and its allies, while attracting billions of dollars in Western capital used to finance a modernization program for the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) reports that the strategic end state this program supports, if realized, would have serious implications for nothing less than “the security of the international rules-based order.”1 The extent of this threat implies that military tools alone may not prevent an undesirable outcome. The Pentagon is dutifully preparing for the possibility of a kinetic war with the PLA, but DOD has a role to play on the financial battlefield, too. Defense leaders should consider three policy initiatives to curb the flow of technology and capital to China: Encourage compliance on technology transfer laws by rewarding companies and universities with strong export control practices when they compete for federal grants and contracts. Discourage investment in China’s “bad actor” companies by supporting a government policy to assume custody of shareholder voting rights in certain state-owned enterprises (SOE). Track Chinese expansionism through business and financial channels with an all-source intelligence capability designed to provide U.S. officials with strategic warning and policy support. A bureaucratic purist could paint these initiatives as inconsistent with the Defense Department’s core competencies, but this view would be short-sighted. DOD may be the only government agency with the financial leverage, the knowledge base, and the political will to roll back China’s strategy of stealing military technology and securing foreign capital for its armed forces buildup against the United States. More certain is the reality that U.S. servicemembers are endangered by ongoing technology and capital flows from the West to the People’s Republic of China (PRC). These high stakes give the Pentagon little choice but to fight back against the financial warfare that China is already waging around the world.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Science and Technology, Finance, and Pentagon
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

248. Renew, Elevate, Modernize: A Blueprint for a 21st-Century U.S.-ROK Alliance Strategy

Author:
Kristine Lee, Joshua Fitt, and Coby Goldberg
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
The U.S.–South Korea alliance is a primary deterrent to the threat North Korea’s growing nuclear arsenal poses. But the alliance’s nearly singular functional focus on managing the North Korea threat, despite South Korea’s broadly integral role in advancing a rules-based order in the region, has introduced volatility in the bilateral relationship. Washington’s halting and inconsistent approach to Pyongyang and its failure to reach a timely agreement on its military cost-sharing framework with Seoul have nudged the alliance toward a new inflection point. Beyond the North Korea challenge, South Korea has the potential to play a consequential role in advancing the United States’ broader vision for a rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific. As Seoul adopts globally oriented policies, buoyed by its position at the leading edge of certain technology areas and its successful COVID-19 pandemic response, the United States should parlay these efforts into a more concrete role for South Korea as a partner on the world stage. Collaborating on global public health issues, combating climate change, and jointly developing norms around critical emerging technologies would position the alliance to meet the challenges of the 21st century. By widening the aperture of the alliance and positioning Seoul to play an integral role in the United States’ vision for the future of the Indo-Pacific, the two allies will be better equipped to address enduring geopolitical risks in Northeast Asia, including those associated with a nuclear-armed North Korea.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Alliance, and Modernization
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

249. Defense Technology Strategy

Author:
Paul Scharre and Ainikki Riikonen
Publication Date:
11-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
The Department of Defense’s (DoD) ever-shifting technology priorities jeopardize its ability to win a long-term technology competition. The DoD needs a systematic approach—a technology strategy—for how to prioritize technology investments. The dominant global tech trend today is the information revolution, which is leading to exponential growth in digital capabilities. The top priority of the DoD’s technology strategy should be rapidly spinning in and militarizing digital technologies generated in the private sector. The DoD should invest in key military-specific technologies, such as hypersonics or directed energy weapons, when there is clear operational value but should expect advancements to be incremental.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, and Investment
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

250. Working Case Study: Congress’s Oversight of the Tongo Tongo, Niger, Ambush

Author:
Loren DeJonge Schulman
Publication Date:
10-2020
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for a New American Security (CNAS)
Abstract:
The tragic 2017 killing of four U.S. Army personnel caught in a surprise ambush in Niger offers very few positive lessons for congressional oversight. Indeed, when speaking with experts, there is little agreement on whether Congress was kept appropriately informed or was even in a position to understand the mission of U.S. forces in Niger. Superficially, there are blunt facts—years of War Powers notifications detailing increasing numbers of combat-equipped personnel and U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) posture statements highlighting the counterterrorism mission in the Sahel—stood against blunt statements from senior members—“I didn’t know there was 1,000 troops in Niger,” Senator Lindsey Graham said shortly after the incident.1 Explored in more detail, inconsistent mission and authority reporting from the Department of Defense (DoD) confronts, and combines with, variable expectations from Congress. At the heart of this friction is the by-with-and-through counterterrorism strategy, how it is implemented in practice, and whether key stakeholders have a common understanding of its rule sets and risks. Some of the gaps the Tongo Tongo ambush highlighted—between the Pentagon and operational units; between AFRICOM and Special Operations Command Africa (SOC-AF); and between Congress and the DoD—have been addressed, but others remain. This incident offers multiple lessons to both sides of the Potomac River in improving oversight relationships, both in informal interactions and in formal understanding of authorities and oversight responsibilities.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Military Affairs, and Counter-terrorism
Political Geography:
Africa, North America, Niger, and United States of America