Among those endeavors that a state or a people may undertake, none is more terrible than war. None has repercussions more far-reaching or profound. Thus, a grave responsibility to one's own nation and to the global community attends any decision to go to war. And part of this responsibility is to estimate and gauge the effects of war, including the collateral damage and civilian casualties that it incurs.
There are many threats in the current security agenda that call for collaborative international action: they include environmental degradation, organized crime, disease, natural disaster, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Sometimes collaboration is political or diplomatic, and sometimes it is economic. In other cases, security needs will require either the direct application of force or the use of organized, disciplined groups that may ultimately have to use force to protect themselves and others. Javier Solana, the European Union (EU) High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), pointed out: 'We need to develop a strategic culture that fosters early, rapid, and when necessary robust intervention. We should think particularly of operations involving both military and civilian capabilities'.
Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes
Abstract:
On behalf of the Partnership for Peace Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes, I am pleased to present the report of the Consortium's 7th Annual Conference held from 13 to 15 June 2004 in Bucharest and co-hosted with the Romanian Ministry of National Defense.
In 2001, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics (USD(AT)) directed the Defense Science Board (DSB) to study the precision targeting of air-delivered munitions. The results of the 2001 Task Force were well-received within Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), and in June 2003, USD(AT) directed the DSB to study the closely related topic of “integrated fire support in the battlespace.” In this new study the 2003 Task Force applied an approach and methodology similar to the 2001 effort but focused instead on ground-based fires, sea-based fires, and close-air support.
In February 2003, the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Industrial Policy, ODUSD(IP), produced Transforming the Defense Industrial Base: A Roadmap. This report identified the need for systematic evaluation of the ability of the defense industrial base to develop and provide functional, operational effects-based warfighting capabilities. The Defense Industrial Base Capabilities Study (DIBCS) series is a systematic assessment of critical technologies needed in the 21st century defense industrial base to meet warfighter capabilities, as framed by the Joint Staff's functional concepts. In addition, the DIBCS series provides the basis for strengthening the industrial base required for 21st century warfighting needs. This report addresses the third of those functional concepts, Force Application.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Industrial Policy, and Science and Technology
Weapons system readiness and safety are among the highest priority challenges for the Department of Defense (DoD). As it continues to receive a large number of mission taskings, it is imperative that DoD equipment be maintained at an acceptable level of material condition so that it may be employed safely and effectively when required, often in harsh and physically demanding environments. However, both the material condition and safety of DoD equipment are routinely being undermined by the effects of corrosion. The dollar cost of corrosion to DoD has been estimated by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to be $10-20 billion per year. Aggressive action is needed at every stage in the life cycle of this equipment — during design, materials selection, construction, operation, and maintenance — to reduce the negative effects of corrosion.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Arms Control and Proliferation, and Science and Technology
This sixth and annual report required under the Senate Resolution of Advice and Consent of July 31, 1998, examines the progress that parties have made in implementing and enforcing the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions (Antribribery Convention).
The Convention was signed by the United States on December 17, 1997 and ratified on November 10, 1998. The U.S. deposited its instrument of ratification with the OECD on December 8, 1998. Congress responded to the signature of the Convention by amending the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”) on October 21, 1998. The new legislation, which entered into force on November 10, 1998, extends the FCPA to any person who engages in any act while in the territory of the U.S. and to any U.S. national and company engaged in an act outside the U.S. in furtherance of a proscribed purpose; adds “securing any improper advantage” to the list of improper purposes for payments to foreign officials; expands the term “a foreign official” to include any person acting for or on behalf of “public international organisation”; and allows the U.S. Attorney General to seek injunctive relief against foreign citizens or residents and entities other than “issuers” or “domestic concerns” that have engaged in or are about to engage in a violation of the FCPA.
During the Cold War, the United States developed and refined intelligence capabilities upon a number of key factors: Known adversaries, the Soviet Union and the Communist Bloc, including China and North Korea; Known geographic boundaries: that of the communist nation states (We knew where to look); Known conflict of ideology: communism vs. capitalism; Observable (with some degree of confidence over time) military capabilities of adversaries; and Indications (and in some cases, warning - developed over the years) of activity potentially hazardous to the United States and NATO.
Topic:
Defense Policy, National Security, and Science and Technology
Since the 1999 edition, the Department of Defense has used its consolidated real property inventory (the Facilities Analysis Database) as the basis for the annual publication of the Base Structure Report. This report contains a comprehensive listing of installations and sites owned and used by the Department. It summarizes the current facilities inventory and provides other basic information, such as information concerning the site locations, names of the nearest city, and, where available, includes personnel authorizations.