Search

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

441. Transatlantic Security, Defence and Strategy: Badly Needed Reforms

Author:
Peter M.E. Volten(ed.)
Publication Date:
01-2015
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
All Azimuth: A Journal of Foreign Policy and Peace
Institution:
Center for Foreign Policy and Peace Research
Abstract:
This year we celebrate the twenty-fifth anniversary of the downfall of communism in Europe, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. Students who started their postsecondary education this year were born about seven years after this anniversary, in 1996. And the freshmen of 1990 are now in their early forties. In Europe, the latter generation is about to take on political leadership and may still be aware of the ‘Idea of Europe’ as advocated by one of the fathers of the European Union, Jean Monnet: “No more war on this continent; we will build institutions and peace instead.” Today’s enrolling students probably do not remember this forceful idea; nor do they realise the significance of this inspiring idea in overcoming great difficulties to achieve a peaceful, democratic and prosperous EU. The freshmen of today may take this for granted while being rather more disturbed by the confusing world of globalisation, populist slogans such as ‘The War on Terror’, multilevel governance and a rippled sense of direction and political effectiveness in the EU or, for that matter, NATO; in other words, throughout the transatlantic world.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, NATO, Reform, and Transatlantic Relations
Political Geography:
Europe and United States of America

442. Nuclear Cruise Missiles: Asset or Liability?

Author:
Greg Thielmann
Publication Date:
03-2015
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Arms Control Association
Abstract:
The future of U.S. and Russian nuclear cruise missiles is at an inflection point. Russia's alleged testing of a ground-launched cruise missile has jeopardized not only the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, but other bilateral nuclear agreements as well, adding further strain to the U.S.-Russian relationship. The U.S. allegation and Moscow's three counter charges should be resolved with the help of the treaty's Special Verification Commission, which was explicitly designed to deal with compliance issues. But the two countries need to take a broader look at nuclear cruise missiles. New strategic cruise missiles are part of an unaffordable drive by Washington and Moscow to simultaneously modernize all three legs of their strategic arsenals. Given the increasingly marginal role that nuclear cruise missiles play in ensuring a U.S.-Russian balance and their destabilizing impact when deployed by emerging nuclear powers such as Pakistan, it is time to consider doing away with them entirely.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Nuclear Weapons, and Missile Defense
Political Geography:
Russia, Eurasia, North America, and United States of America

443. 2013-14 IGCC White Paper on Defense Transparency in Northeast Asia

Author:
Tai Ming Cheung and Jordan Wilson
Publication Date:
11-2014
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
Abstract:
The 2013‒2014 Northeast Asia Defense Transparency Index (DTI) measures transparency in de-fense activities in one of the most strategically important but politically volatile regions of the world. In the fifth year of this Index, its central goal remains to provide a rigorous, quantitative-based measurement of this essential but contested concept. Improving trust, confidence, and credibility in Northeast Asia’s security environment is becoming ever more pressing as arms competition intensifies among major regional powers and security interests become increasingly entangled. In this climate of growing security anxiety, the demand for timely and relevant defense information has grown, not only from governments and their mil-itaries but also from many other quarters, including the general public, media, and business com-munity. But while the case has been made by policy and academic experts that increased transpar-ency could potentially meet some of these demands and strengthen mutual trust between states, defense transparency lacks agreed-upon definitions and standardized means of measurement. The Institute on Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC) has sought to address this analytical gap to provide a general framework for defining and measuring defense transparency, specifically for the six states covered in the DTI: the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), Japan, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the Republic of Korea (ROK), the Russian Federation (Russia), and the United States.The brief begins by presenting the methodology used by IGCC to initially develop the DTI, then highlights changes made to improve the process in this latest edition. This is followed by the final scores achieved by states in the 2013–2014 DTI, which are compared with previous years. The Analysis section examines what brought about scoring changes for these states from the previous editions of the index. Finally, the Country Assessments and Recommendations section summarizes trends for each of the six countries. By taking a comprehensive approach to defense transparency and continuing to refine our meth-odology, we want to ensure that the DTI will remain an informative, relevant and adaptive tool for measuring defense transparency going forward, enabling comparison both across states and over time.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Budget, Cybersecurity, Media, and Transparency
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, China, Korea, and United States of America

444. The Japan-US Military Alliance and the Asia-Pacific Challenges: Prospects for Deep Changes

Author:
Antonio Marquina
Publication Date:
05-2013
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Revista UNISCI/UNISCI Journal
Institution:
Unidad de investigación sobre seguridad y cooperación (UNISCI)
Abstract:
In the last fifteen years a fundamental shift in the strategic balance in Asia – Pacific has taking place. The article aims at discussing the difficulties the Japan-US military Alliance has adaptating to this new regional strategic environment. It also explains the new strategy that President Obama´s Administration is trying to implement, initially called “Pivot to Asia” and later “Rebalance”. The article tries to show the challenges that this new strategy implies for both Japan and the United States, enumerating different scenarios some of them not very likely and highlighting on the contrary the possibility of a more assertive and military independent Japan.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and Armed Forces
Political Geography:
Russia, Japan, Asia, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

445. Upgrading the Japan-U.S. Defense Guidelines: Toward a New Phase of Operational Coordination

Author:
Sugio Takahashi
Publication Date:
06-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
The Japan-U.S. alliance has unique organizational characteristics compared to other major U.S. military alliances such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the U.S.-ROK (Republic of Korea) alliance. While these two alliances have a single integrated command and control (C2) structure for wartime coalition operation, the Japan-U.S. alliance lacks a permanent institution for combined operation. In the event of a military contingency, Japanese Self-Defense Force (SDF) and U.S. military forces must operate separately. In the absence of a C2 structure, the Guidelines for Japan-U.S. Defense Cooperation (hereafter “Defense Guidelines”) in effect embody procedures for operational coordination for the Japan-U.S. alliance.
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, Bilateral Relations, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America

446. Iran's Missile Program and Its Implications for U.S. Missile Defense

Author:
Greg Thielmann
Publication Date:
02-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Arms Control Association
Abstract:
Although plans for expanding U.S. strategic missile defenses focus on the Iranian ICBM threat, that threat is not emerging as was previously predicted. Iran conducted no long-range ballistic missile tests in 2012 and has not flown even the larger space launch vehicle that it displayed two years ago, which could have helped advance ICBM technology. Moreover, Tehran has still not decided to build nuclear weapons and continues to focus on short- and medium-range rather than longer-range ballistic missiles. It is, therefore, time to adapt U.S. missile defense plans accordingly by suspending the fourth phase of the European Phased Adaptive Approach. Doing so would remove an obstacle to negotiating further reductions in the strategic forces of Russia - the only country that poses an unambiguous existential threat to the United States.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, Missile Defense, and ICBM
Political Geography:
Iran, Middle East, North America, and United States of America

447. North Korea, Ballistic Missile Defence and Canada-US Defence Cooperation

Author:
Frank Harvey
Publication Date:
07-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
In December 2012, North Korea launched the Unha-3 rocket – a three-stage, intercontinental ballistic missile with an estimated range of 10,000 kilometres. When combined with North Korea’s latest underground nuclear test in January, these moves represent a concerted effort by the regime to develop and deploy an offensive nuclear capability. When acquired, a nuclear tipped intercontinental ballistic missile will provide Pyongyang with a credible deterrent that will seriously diminish our coercive leverage in subsequent military security crises involving North and South Korea. The imperative on the part of the international community to move forward with research, development and deployment of ballistic missile defences (BMD) is becoming more pressing each year. In November 2010, 28 NATO members signed NATO’s new Strategic Concept. The most relevant part of the alliance’s new strategy is the commitment by all NATO members to: “Develop the capability to defend our populations and territories against ballistic missile attack as a core element of our collective defence.” As a NATO member, Canada now officially endorses the logic, strategic utility and security benefits of ballistic missile defence, but, apparently, only in terms of protecting European and American territory and populations. The most perplexing aspect of Canada’s policy is the ongoing refusal to engage in bilateral discussions with our most important NATO ally to negotiate BMD architecture to protect Canadian territory and populations. Canadian officials have the luxury to sit back and let allies protect our territory, but this is a foreign policy strategy that has reached the point of taking free-riding to a new and somewhat disturbing level.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, International Cooperation, Missile Defense, and Ballistic Missile
Political Geography:
China, Canada, Asia, North Korea, and United States of America

448. Is NATO Still Necessary for Canada?

Author:
J. L. Granatstein
Publication Date:
03-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has been the most successful military alliance of the modern era. Set up in 1949 to counter the Soviet Union, NATO won the Cold War some four decades later without firing a shot. Perhaps it might have been better if NATO had wound itself up at the end of the Cold War. The alliance instead sought a new role and found it out of area. It conducted operations in Former Yugoslavia, war against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, and later still an air campaign that brought down Gaddafi in Libya. None of these operations were notable successes. In 2011, then U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated that NATO faced “the real possibility [of] a dim, if not dismal future....The military capabilities simply aren’t there." The transatlantic alliance, Gates said, must confront fundamental strategic questions about its future. All this makes a hard look at NATO essential. The European nations can readily handle the defence of their territory, and it is time to ask if NATO is the best way for us to contribute to Western defence, to ask which nations can and will act to protect democratic values? The "Anglosphere" states all fought in Afghanistan. So too did France and Denmark. And in Asia, there are other friendly states. There is no talk of a military alliance yet but there is the possibility of coalitions of the willing. Instead of pledging fealty to NATO's hollow shell, it is time for Canadians to produce a strategy for the next twenty years. Any such review will give primacy to Canada’s alliance with the United States. But one question must be asked and answered: does NATO any longer serve our political and military needs?
Topic:
Defense Policy, NATO, International Cooperation, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Europe, Canada, North America, and United States of America

449. Exigencies of Future Deployments: What Canada must Exact from its Military Partners

Author:
Hugh Segal and Jessica McLean
Publication Date:
06-2013
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Canadian Global Affairs Institute (CGAI)
Abstract:
An increase in global threats, failing states, and crisis prone regions around the world, coupled with shrinking defence budgets in the US, as well as budget cuts in Canada’s most loyal joint deployment partners – France, the UK, and The Netherlands – indicates there will be no less of a demand for Canadian deployable capacity over the next few years. In this context, understanding the ‘political’ requirements for various kinds of deployments is important and a key planning area for defence policy makers as well as military and strategic practitioners. To better understand the future of Canadian military deployments it is first necessary to examine the historical context of our post-war NATO and UN deployments as well as Prime Minister Harper’s 2006 commitment that required all significant military deployments to have parliamentary approval. Each deployment since WW II has been unique. The command structures, intelligence-sharing, mission design and assigned areas of responsibility for Canada, whether under the UN or NATO, have varied by the deployment itself and the nature of the mission. This requires our political and command requirements to adapt to the mission at hand. But whether or not Canada will participate in future deployments relies on not just being able to answer the question of “why”, but also “why us”. Reticence on the part of NATO allies will continue to be a problem in the future and so Canada must be capable to ensure it only takes part in “coalition of the willing” deployments to ensure realistic burden sharing. The pivot towards the Pacific will also require fresh and deeper intelligence cooperation with Australia, other Commonwealth partners in the region and enhanced interoperable capacity with our American allies.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, International Cooperation, Troop Deployment, and Military
Political Geography:
Europe, Canada, North America, and United States of America

450. Counter A2/AD in Japan – U.S. Defense Cooperation: Toward ‘Allied Air-Sea Battle’

Author:
Sugio Takahashi
Publication Date:
04-2012
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Project 2049 Institute
Abstract:
The balance of power in the Asia – Pacific is rapidly shifting. The U.S. and Japan share concerns over China’s increasing military spending and lack of military transparency. This report analyzes the implications of Japan’s National Defense Policy Guidelines 2010 for Japan’s role in the Pacific and for the future of U.S. – Japan defense cooperation.
Topic:
Defense Policy, International Cooperation, Military Spending, and Transparency
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, North America, and United States of America