jfq-76

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Single modified tactical Standard Missile–3 launches from U.S. Navy Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie (U.S. Navy) They also emerged from dialogues, such as formal summits and long-running arms control negotiations. The former are certainly much more dangerous than the latter, and no one wants to see the space equivalent of a Cuban missile crisis. There are signs of progress. The United Nations Group of Government Experts recently recommended bilateral and multilateral transparency and confidence-building measures. In addition, the European Union is leading open-ended consultations to develop an “International Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities.” While these measures will help promote the responsible use of space, they do not squarely address the current lack of mutual understanding regarding how space attacks will be perceived in the midst of a crisis. This is of particular concern for the United States and China, which, as previously noted, increasingly rely on space systems to execute their political and military strategies. At the government-to-government (so-called Track 1) level, there is not currently a productive venue for the United States and China to develop a mutual understanding of how space plays into crisis stability. While space security has been incorporated into existing diplomatic and defense dialogues, these steps in the right direction have been slow and tentative, and there is much work to be done. Recently, some engagements led by think tanks (known as Track 1.5 dialogues due to mixed delegations of government and academics) have begun to explore the issue, and it is clear that both sides harbor a lot of mistrust and misperception. The United States continues to raise questions about China’s military modernization and its potential coercion of regional neighbors over contested territory. China continues to question the implications of expanding U.S. missile defenses and, to a lesser extent, the U.S. rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region. Suspicions about space activities fit within this broader geopolitical mistrust. The United States continues to express concern about Chinese space activities and China’s lack of transparency when it comes to unique space launch profiles or robotics experiments. China, for its part, expresses concerns about U.S. activities, such as the reusable experimental test platform known as the X-37B. These misperceptions are hard to resolve, both because of the inherent dual-use nature of space systems and the difficulty in creating transparency for a regime so far removed from terra firma. Resolving such suspicions and building trust take time and require a common understanding of the nature of the space domain and space systems. Returning to the formulation of Colby, recall that “in a stable situation . . . major war would only come about because one party truly sought it, not because of miscalculation.” Miscalculation is best avoided when each side understands the implications of its actions and understands how the other side will interpret and react to those actions. This situation does not exist in today’s environment regarding space systems and space weapons. We lack a common understanding of how space will contribute to, or come to define, potential crises between the United States and China. As both countries seek to define a “new type of great power relationship,” it would be wise to consider how new technologies and operational concepts are best managed during crises. Given both sides’ growing reliance on space systems to achieve their future military and political aims, a lack of understanding comes with great peril. We should strive to build a common framework now, using dialogues during peacetime, before provocative actions in space during a crisis imperil stability here on Earth. JFQ Notes 1 Elbridge A. Colby and Michael S. Gerson, eds., Strategic Stability: Contending Interpretations (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College Press, February 2013). 2 Elbridge A. Colby, “Defining Strategic Stability: Reconciling Stability and Deterrence,” in Strategic Stability, 55. 3 Ibid., 57. Emphasized in original. 4 National Space Policy of the United States of America, June 28, 2010, available at . 5 U.S.-China Joint Statement, November 17, 2009, available at . 6 James P. Finch and Shawn Steene, “Finding Space in Deterrence: Toward a General Framework for ‘Space Deterrence,’” Strategic Studies Quarterly (Winter 2011), 10–17. 7 Herman Kahn, On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios (New York: Praeger, 1965). 8 William Lynn, “A Military Strategy for the New Space Environment,” The Washington Quarterly 34, no. 3 (Summer 2011), 11. 20 Forum / Bringing Space Crisis Stability Down to Earth JFQ <strong>76</strong>, 1 st Quarter 2015
In April 2010, the United States, Canada, Spain, South Korea, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation agreed to pool resources for a new multilateral agriculture and food security program (The World Bank/Simone D. McCourtie) Debunking Technical Competency as the Sole Source of Innovation By Burton H. Catledge The inadequacies of our systems of research and education pose a greater threat to U.S. national security over the next quarter century than any potential conventional war that we might imagine. American national leadership must understand these deficiencies as threats to national security. —Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change Lieutenant Colonel Burton H. Catledge, USAF, is a student in the Dwight D. Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy. Academic and governmental organizations have sounded the alarm that the United States is rapidly losing technical competence, and this decline places the Nation at risk. A 1983 National Science Foundation (NSF) report stated, “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well view it as an act of war.” 1 In 1999, Congress chartered JFQ <strong>76</strong>, 1 st Quarter 2015 Catledge 21
Page 1 and 2: Issue 76, 1 st Quarter 2015 Joint F
Page 3 and 4: In this Issue Dialogue 2 Letter 4 F
Page 5 and 6: call for entries for the 2015 Secre
Page 7 and 8: First Brigade Combat Team, 1 st Cav
Page 9 and 10: in stenography, a skill that would
Page 11 and 12: ecommending military options would
Page 13 and 14: Figure. “Smart Interdependence”
Page 15 and 16: surface, or subsurface. Our ships a
Page 17 and 18: Flying over East Asia, Expedition 3
Page 19 and 20: joint force to meet its operational
Page 21: Views of zenith side of Internation
Page 25 and 26: Education Act (NDEA), passed by Con
Page 27 and 28: Cecil County math teachers visited
Page 29 and 30: significant breakthrough was his re
Page 31 and 32: Federal funding such as Pell Grants
Page 33 and 34: approach was reversed. In his lectu
Page 35 and 36: operations at the theater and strat
Page 37 and 38: Defensive line of Berkut soldiers i
Page 39 and 40: near future?” it is precisely thi
Page 41 and 42: •• motivation and commitment (s
Page 43 and 44: Table 1. Senior War College Problem
Page 45 and 46: Reed, with experience in both war c
Page 47 and 48: that graduate students can loaf the
Page 49 and 50: choices and instituting empirical f
Page 51 and 52: the same time, societal views were
Page 53 and 54: will always remember who you are—
Page 55 and 56: disciplines: rhetoric and discourse
Page 57 and 58: talked about. For example, a leader
Page 59 and 60: from discourse analysis and rhetori
Page 61 and 62: and science fiction, empowering arm
Page 63 and 64: Secretary Hagel tells troops cyber
Page 65 and 66: have different training and follow
Page 67 and 68: While deterrence has been an essent
Page 69 and 70: U.S.-China combined visit, board, s
Page 71 and 72: Pilots from the United States and o
Page 73 and 74:
Soldier aims XM-25 weapon system, A
Page 75 and 76:
Mongolian police officer operates X
Page 77 and 78:
U.S. Navy unmanned surface vessel i
Page 79 and 80:
two systems are not in the JNLWP’
Page 81 and 82:
Combat casualty care, however, does
Page 83 and 84:
Soldier from 1 st Stryker Brigade C
Page 85 and 86:
mission, dwarfing all the others. A
Page 87 and 88:
Public health officers releasing P.
Page 89 and 90:
flu-like illness and frequently dev
Page 91 and 92:
second largest country in Southeast
Page 93 and 94:
Thinking of a health-improvement en
Page 95 and 96:
Landing boats pouring southern land
Page 97 and 98:
Part of huge U.S. fleet at anchor i
Page 99 and 100:
on Kiska at approximately 10,000, a
Page 101 and 102:
likely COAs. The JIPOE process prov
Page 103 and 104:
A Scrap of Paper: Breaking and Maki
Page 105 and 106:
a lasting problem between the two s
Page 107 and 108:
By crafting a holistic integrated a
Page 109 and 110:
U.S. Marines with Amphibious Assaul
Page 111 and 112:
and allies around the world. Never
Page 113 and 114:
e able to assess passive defense ef
Page 115 and 116:
NEW from NDU Press A Low-Visibility
show all

jfq-76

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?