Russia s nuclear arsenal is broke and broken. Moscow s overall economic decline has taken a large toll on Russian security during the past decade. Its military cannot adequately perform traditional, essential security missions — airspace surveillance and defense, territorial defense against invasion, border control, and maintenance of internal cohesion. The sole exception to this dismal state of military affairs is nuclear deterrence, and even this mission is becoming burdensome.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and Politics
Few other places in the world seem as close to war as Montenegro, Serbia s smaller partner in the all-but defunct Yugoslav Federation. Montenegro is poised to clash with troops carrying the federal flag of Yugoslavia but in reality serving only the Serbian government of Slobodan Milosevic. The two republics fell out over the nature of the political system: Serbia s government is turning increasingly dictatorial and autocratic while Montenegro is a fledgling democracy. Unlike all previous conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, ethnic differences — which in the case of Serbia and Montenegro are blurry to the point of nonexistent — do not play a major role.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, and War
IN AN EARLIER DEFENSE MONITOR(Volume XXIX, Issue 1, 2000), we reported on the status of the National Missile Defense program (NMD). At that time the success rate of NMD was 50%, although even the October 2, 1999 success was qualified because the kill vehicle first homed on the single decoy until, at the last moment, it finally detected its true target nearby.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Defense Policy, and Economics
Three years ago the international community joined forces to ban landmines. While the majority of the countries of the world worked to reach an agreement, several countries remained opposed to the effort. Nonetheless, today the 1997 Ottawa Treaty banning the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel mines has been signed by 137 countries and ratified by 95. The Treaty entered into force in March 1999, becoming binding international law more quickly than any treaty in history.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Economics, and Nuclear Weapons
Just five years ago the United States led a strong global effort to achieve indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970 which was due to expire on its 25th anniversary in April, 1995. U.S. leaders exerted substantial diplomatic pressure on nations less than enthusiastic about extending the NPT regime in order to ensure perpetuation of this critically important element of the global arms control structure, one very much in U.S. security interests.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Defense Policy, and Economics
On March 1 the Center for Defense Information welcomed its new President, Mr. Bruce G. Blair. Mr. Blair takes the helm from retired U.S. Senator Dale Bumpers, whose steady hand guided the Center as it made the transition from the 20th to the 21st Century. Mr. Blair brings to the job first-hand knowledge of the U.S. military and how it works, having served in the U.S. Air Force for four years following his graduation from the University of Illinois. He, like his predecessor, adds another highly complementary and invaluable dimension to CDI's base of experience: more than a decade spent in intense study and research into what may be the two most important continuing national security questions of the 21st century – the future of nuclear weapons and the future of Russia.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Defense Policy, and Economics
What moves faster than an intercontinental missile, leaps over rational scientific and diplomatic arguments, and defies the pull of fiscal constraints more surely than gravity governs the universe? With apologies to Superman for using his motto, the answer is the cost of the National Missile Defense (NMD) system that the Administration and Congress seem intent on developing and deploying by 2005 and maintaining for at least another 25 years.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Defense Policy, and Economics
The United States is often accused of lacking a global security strategy. The United States, so the accusation goes, makes foreign policy and security decisions on an ad-hoc basis, prompted by the demands of politics and pressure groups, and in alternating bursts of idealism and realpolitik. Since none of these factors can safely be dismissed, there has to be something to the accusation. In an unpredictable world, a certain respect for the ad hoc may even be a good thing: a global strategy, carried out without regard to circumstances, would confine the United States to a conceptual straitjacket, depriving it of needed flexibility.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Nuclear Weapons
There is a wide spectrum of potential threats to the American homeland that do not involve the threat of overt attacks by states using long-range missiles or conventional military forces. Such threats include covert attacks by state actors, state use of proxies, independent terrorist and extremist attacks by foreign groups or individuals, and independent terrorist and extremist attacks by residents of the US. These threats are currently limited in scope and frequency. No pattern of actual attacks on US territory has yet emerged that provides a clear basis for predicting how serious any given form of attack will be in the future, what means of attack will be used, or how lethal new forms of attack will be if they are successful.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Under the contradictory impact of globalization, regionalism and nationalism, the importance of borders is both declining and increasing—but above all it is changing. In some cases, it is declining and borders are becoming more permeable as regions integrate. In others, the salience of borders is growing as a contribution to national identity and as a protection of scarce natural resources. Both regional and national borders are, moreover, increasingly challenged by the rapid growth of activities and forces which are, by their very nature, non-territorial, tendentially rendering borders irrelevant. All these developments have military implications which are explored in the paper, including the changing role of border and territorial defence, transnational military threats to national security and 'non-territorial warfare'. A special emphasis is placed on the geopolitical implications of a defensive restructuring of the armed forces.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Globalization, Nationalism, Politics, and Sovereignty