Command

Changes in the strategic landscape, the introduction and employment of new
technologies, and the adaptation and creativity of our adversaries may alter the
character of joint operations.
The causes of conflict will likely vary from rational political calculation to uncontrolled
passion. The enemy’s capabilities may range from explosive vests worn by suicide
bombers to long-range precision-guided cyberspace, space, and missile attacks.
The threat of mass destruction from nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons will
likely expand from stable nation-states to less stable states and even non-state
networks.
It is also conceivable that combinations of regional powers with sophisticated
regional capabilities could band together to form a powerful anti-US alliance.
The great difficulty US forces confront in facing irregular warfare is that irregular
conflicts require a thorough understanding of the cultural, religious, political, and
historical context within which they are being fought, as well as substantial
commitments of “boots on the ground” for sustained periods of time. There are no
“rapid decisive operations” in irregular warfare that can achieve swift victory.
A defining element in military effectiveness lies in the ability to recognize when
prewar visions and understanding of war are flawed and must change.
These changes have significant, long-term implications for the planning and
conduct of US operations. Air Force studies of the likely future operating environment,
such as the Air Force Strategic Environmental Assessment, make the following key
points:
The need for precision and detailed analysis has greatly expanded the scale of
information collection and processing; extensive networks are as important as
bullets or bombs. Sensors, shooters, and fusion centers are routinely
interconnected worldwide in a unified battle rhythm.
The nature of irregular conflicts requires patient, long-term commitment to a
consistent, coherent strategic and political approach that integrates the diplomatic,
informational, military, and economic elements of US, ally, and partner nation power.
This requires renewed emphasis on, and long-term institutional commitment to,
investment in building and sustaining effective partnerships that assures allies and
friends.
The diffusion of lethal technologies in general and proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) creates new challenges to deterrence. The Cold War-era model
of deterring a small number of nuclear-armed states has been replaced by the need
to develop a range of deterrence strategies against multiple potential adversaries,
some of which are transnational non-state actors. Also, the proliferation of WMD
may make the US increasingly the subject of the deterrence operations of others. In
spite of these changes, nuclear deterrence will remain relevant; US nuclear forces
viii