Number of results to display per page
Search Results
32. The Problem with Power: Taiwan in the Era of Great Power Competition
- Author:
- Joey Ching Aracena
- Publication Date:
- 07-2024
- Content Type:
- Journal Article
- Journal:
- Fletcher Security Review
- Institution:
- The Fletcher School, Tufts University
- Abstract:
- The United States and the PRC hold opposing positions on the “Taiwan Question.” The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act affirms U.S. commitment to Taiwan’s defense by providing weapons and services to promote Taiwan’s self-defense capability.” The Act also considers “any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means...a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.” Conversely, the PRC emphasizes that Taiwan “reunification” is a strategic priority that “cannot be dragged on generation after generation.” At the 20th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), PRC President Xi Jinping stated, “We will continue to strive for peaceful reunification… but we will never promise to renounce the use of force.” Despite the PRC’s coercive behavior and sharpened rhetoric, Taiwan refuses to accept “reunification” under the PRC’s proposed “One Country, Two Systems” model. Nevertheless, the United States and the PRC both discourage Taiwan’s independence. Both states understand that if Taiwan were to formally declare independence, it would compel both parties to respond, potentially escalating towards military conflict. By attempting to influence Taiwan’s behavior, both great powers implicitly recognize Taiwan’s role in making or breaking their respective strategies. In this way, Taiwan maintains a powerful point of leverage in the “Triangular Relationship,” as it could take actions that trigger future conflict between the United States and the PRC.
- Topic:
- Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, Territorial Disputes, and Strategic Competition
- Political Geography:
- China, Taiwan, Asia, North America, and United States of America
33. Artillery in Present and Future High-Intensity Operations
- Author:
- Elio Calcagno, Bryan Clark, Sam Cranny-Evans, Alessandro Marrone, Nicolò Murgia, and Eugenio Po
- Publication Date:
- 09-2024
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- Istituto Affari Internazionali
- Abstract:
- The Ukraine war has highlighted among NATO allies the importance of planning for protracted, large-scale, and high-intensity conflicts. In this context, artillery capabilities have regained significance, with a clear emphasis on survivability, quality, quantity, range, but also on adequate munition stocks and production capacity. However, successful integration into a wider array of capabilities (including long range precision fires) and advanced Intelligence Surveillance Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) capabilities are crucial for an effective artillery force. Meanwhile, in the maritime domain, recent events in the Red Sea have shown how naval artillery is gaining a prominent role as a cost-effective solution to defence from drone and swarming threats.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, NATO, Procurement, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- Russia, United Kingdom, Ukraine, France, Italy, and United States of America
34. US-Germany Missile Agreement: Deterrence or Escalation?
- Author:
- Polina Sinovets
- Publication Date:
- 11-2024
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Istituto Affari Internazionali
- Abstract:
- This October was marked by a statement by the Head of the German Foreign Service Intelligence, Bruno Kahl, who claimed that by the end of this decade at the latest, Russian troops could “carry out an attack” against NATO.[1] The defence chief could hardly be accused of hyperbole. His comments took place at the time of Russia’s ongoing war against Ukraine, the Kremlin’s growing nuclear blackmail of the West and regular threats to use some measures[2] against any NATO country whose military deployments might potentially affect Russian missiles’ striking capabilities. Against this backdrop and with the new US administration coming to power in 2025 under the slogan of turning all its attention to China, Europe will have to care much more about its defence and security than before 2022. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine revealed the weak spots of the European NATO pillar in terms of arms production, military budgeting and general preparedness for a large-scale war in European territory, which turns out to be critical for the security of the continent.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, NATO, Deterrence, Military, and Russia-Ukraine War
- Political Geography:
- Russia, Europe, Germany, and United States of America
35. Cooperation on Semiconductor Supply Chains and Technology
- Author:
- Soyoung Kwon
- Publication Date:
- 12-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Korea Economic Institute of America (KEI)
- Abstract:
- The security alliance between the United States and South Korea, once focused primarily on military defense, is evolving to include economic security and technological cooperation. The evolving partnership between the two countries, particularly in the areas of semiconductor supply chains and advanced technologies, features the deepening and broadening of the alliance in the form of a Global Comprehensive Strategic Alliance. This change is driven by intensifying competition between the United States and China, which has led to the securitization of key technologies like semiconductors. This paper examines the opportunities and challenges in deepening and broadening US-South Korea cooperation on semiconductor supply chains. While such developments support the shared objectives of advancing technological innovation, bolstering supply chain resilience, and addressing potential threats from China, challenges remain in diverging threat perceptions and concerns about collective deterrence. The study concludes that aligning strategic objectives in economic security and technological cooperation is essential to ensure the sustainability of the alliance and its ability to navigate the complex global techno-geopolitical landscape.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Science and Technology, Supply Chains, and Semiconductors
- Political Geography:
- Asia, South Korea, North America, and United States of America
36. Adapting US strategy to account for China’s transformation into a peer nuclear power
- Author:
- David Shullman, John K. Culver, Kitsch Liao, and Samantha Wong
- Publication Date:
- 09-2024
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- Atlantic Council
- Abstract:
- China’s rapidly improving nuclear capabilities and expanding nuclear arsenal underpin its recent rise as a nuclear peer power. For the United States and its allies in the Indo-Pacific region, the uncertainty of China’s intentions behind this nuclear expansion poses a major challenge. It necessitates a revisit of the fundamental assumptions underpinning US and allied planning and preparation for a potential conflict with China. The 2022 White House National Security Strategy1 and National Defense Strategy2 identified China as the only competitor with both the intent and, increasingly, the economic, diplomatic, military, and technological wherewithal to reshape the international order. The 2022 United States Nuclear Posture Review noted how China has embarked on an ambitious expansion, modernization, and diversification of its nuclear forces and established a nascent nuclear triad.3 The report further assessed that Beijing will likely possess at least 1,000 deliverable warheads by the end of the decade.4 China also sustains extensive and ambitious space operations. According to the Department of Defense’s 2022 China Military Power Report5, as of 2021, China’s 260 intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) satellites were the largest collection of such constellations globally other than the United States’. The transformation of China’s military capabilities no longer represents the linear, stepwise modernization of an outmoded military that characterized the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) for the past two decades. Since the PLA launched its major internal command and service restructuring in 2015, previous doctrinal and teaching publications acquired and exploited by Western analysts are out of date and likely declining in relevance. By extension, much of the Western analysis of PLA plans, operations, and concepts of deterrence and escalation control are also likely to be out of date. China’s rapid expansion of strategic warfighting capabilities (i.e., nuclear forces, space/counterspace systems, and cyber/information operations) represents tremendous discontinuity in the pace, scope, and scale of the PLA’s transformation, necessitating a major US reassessment of Chinese strategy, doctrine, and warfighting operations. The commonly accepted notion that deliberate Chinese nuclear force modernization is characterized as “running faster to stay in the same place” to sustain a minimal retaliatory posture is assessed to have evolved. China now has a higher likelihood of using its newfound nuclear power to more actively deter or compel6 its opponents and safeguard its core interests. This includes perceived external threats that could negatively impact domestic political interests. As a step in this reassessment, this project reevaluated China’s strategy, doctrine, and warfighting concepts in light of its ongoing rapid transformation into a peer nuclear power, examined implications of this assessment for future US contingencies in the Indo-Pacific region, and produced several actionable findings and recommendations for US government decision-makers that can be addressed in the next five- to ten-year horizon.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, National Security, Nuclear Weapons, Conflict, and Missile Defense
- Political Geography:
- China, Asia, North America, and United States of America
37. Is There Life After NATO?
- Author:
- Marc Trachtenberg
- Publication Date:
- 10-2024
- Content Type:
- Policy Brief
- Institution:
- The Cato Institute
- Abstract:
- It is often claimed that Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949 requires the United States to defend “every inch” of NATO territory. The historical evidence, however, shows that this is not the case at all. It is also commonly claimed that until Donald Trump came along, no American president would have dreamed of threatening not to defend the European allies. This too, it turns out, is not supported by the evidence. But it is not just a question of getting the history right. Those historical claims are important because they support the more fundamental claim that the NATO system is so obviously in America’s interest that it needs to be treated as sacrosanct. But has it been such a phenomenal success?
- Topic:
- Security, Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, NATO, and Alliance
- Political Geography:
- Europe and United States of America
38. Deterrence and alliance power: Why the AUKUS submarines matter and how they can be delivered
- Author:
- Ross Babbage
- Publication Date:
- 07-2024
- Content Type:
- Commentary and Analysis
- Institution:
- Lowy Institute for International Policy
- Abstract:
- Significant progress has already been made in the program to deliver advanced nuclear-powered submarines to Australia. The AUKUS partnership with the United States and the United Kingdom is well placed to deliver on its objectives in a reasonable timeframe. A largely unrecognised near-term benefit of AUKUS is that Australia will host up to five allied nuclear-powered submarines (SSNs) within three years. These jointly crewed submarines will make a significant contribution to joint deterrence and theatre defence. By the mid-2030s, the AUKUS partners will have more than doubled the number of forward-deployed allied SSNs that can be operational in the critical first ten days of any Western Pacific crisis or conflict. Personnel expansion for the Royal Australian Navy will be one of the greatest challenges for the AUKUS program. Nevertheless, provided that upskilled Australian engineers and technical specialists are supplemented by British and American experts, this task will likely prove manageable.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, Navy, Alliance, Deterrence, AUKUS, and Nuclear-Powered Submarines (SSNs)
- Political Geography:
- United Kingdom, Australia, and United States of America
39. Implications of the Incursions into U.S. and Canadian Airspace
- Author:
- Marcin Andrzej Piotrowski
- Publication Date:
- 02-2023
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- The Polish Institute of International Affairs
- Abstract:
- In the first half of February, a series of serious incidents happened in the airspace of the U.S. and Canada involving shootdowns of four objects, with at least one confirmed as a Chinese balloon, likely used for intelligence. The U.S. administration is conducting an investigation to explain the various platforms, the equipment onboard, and their mission. Because further incidents cannot be excluded, some changes in the rhetoric of the Chinese government should be expected, as well as a higher readiness of air defence networks of the powers.
- Topic:
- Security, Defense Policy, Territory, and Airspace
- Political Geography:
- China, Canada, North America, and United States of America
40. Northeast Asia Defense Transparency Index 2021–22
- Author:
- Chi Fang and Jade Reidy
- Publication Date:
- 01-2023
- Content Type:
- Working Paper
- Institution:
- University of California Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation (IGCC)
- Abstract:
- Military tensions are on the rise in Northeast Asia as the likes of China, North Korea, and the United States flex their combat capabilities—but this does not mean that war is imminent. This is an important insight from the latest Northeast Asia Defense Transparency Index (DTI) for the period spanning 2021 to 2022. Carried out every two years by the University of California’s Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, the DTI offers a detailed examination of how open or closed major regional states are in disclosing information on their defense postures, including defense budgets, publication of official annual defense reports, legislative oversight, and the nature of external military activities. The 2021–22 DTI found that there was only a marginal decline in the overall defense transparency level for Northeast Asia, with Japan showing a noteworthy improvement in its transparency performance. The concealment of defense activities is often an indicator that countries are quietly making preparations for military conflict and contributes to declining trust and confidence. The evidence from this DTI that defense transparency is relatively stable in Northeast Asia is cause for cautious optimism that the long peace that the region has enjoyed remains intact for now. Transparency though is just one indicator of the overall state of defense affairs, and the powerful underlying currents that are the main determinants of war and peace, such as threat perceptions and arms dynamics, all appear to be trending negatively.
- Topic:
- Defense Policy, International Security, and Transparency
- Political Geography:
- China, North Korea, Northeast Asia, and United States of America