Science Of Warfighting Essay

Over the course of history, the strategic environment has changed rapidly and is now more complex than ever before – it is currently characterized by unpredictability and disorder, and may yet manifest itself in the collapse of nuclear armed nations, destabilizing conflict in geo-politically vital regions, and humanitarian crises. A world of disparate actors – not all nation states – now exists. Unpredictable events will continue to cause strategic surprise. The widespread effects of past conflicts such as World War II, Vietnam and the Iraq war are still being felt and have created significant strategic repercussions. The failures of these conflicts are the result of our military and political leaders’ failure to quickly adapt to wartime conditions. This occurs because of a general refusal to commit to a military culture of learning that encourages serious debate, critical assessments of our military operations, and challenges to our doctrine in the face of emerging change. Additionally, leaders have struggled with the critical responsibility of forecasting and providing for a ready force, one that is well-resourced and prepared to conduct future operations. It is the responsibility of our military and political leaders to send our military to war with a ready force, and a strategy that will ultimately result in victory. But understanding war and warriors is critical if societies and governments are to make sound judgments concerning military policy.

It is important for the Army Officer to pay attention to the concepts and theories, and not to fall into wrong assumptions that will divert the solution away of the purpose, mission, or goal of the Army Problem Solving Process. When the Army Officer compares the possible solutions it’s important form him to remember all the background and information, and to keep in consideration all the inferences and solutions. The Army Officer critical thinking must keep his options open avoiding to fall into false assumptions, and needs to keep a good baseline of concepts and theories.

The 4th Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) has a proud history of accomplishments. It has served in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Historically, the morale across the brigade was high; leaders took care of their Soldiers, and all of them did their best to train them, accomplish missions successfully, and support them in any way. The 4th ABCT HQ, as well as each of the battalions, were highly efficient and effective, and most of them were jubilant to be part of the brigade. Three years ago, one of the best maneuver brigades in FORSCOM was the 4th ABCT. The brigade had focus; leaders and soldiers were dedicated, and there was a strong work ethics. However, the 4th is facing some challenges ahead that are going to make difficult to reach its full potential. Amongst several leadership problems, there is a major one. There is not an organizational vision in the brigade, and if there is, it is unclear and poorly evident.

The late 19th and early 20th centuries were a time of immense change in Europe. Germany had recently unified, destabilizing the centuries-old balance of power. The second industrial revolution was in full swing, and Europeans thrilled to the latest inventions, from the skyscraper, the first airplanes, and, most ominously, to the machine guns of Maxim and Krupp. During this time, Europeans perceived sports in a number of ways. First of all, many saw sports as an arena to train their nations for war. Secondly, others saw sports as a unifying principle around which to build nationalism and ethnic identity. Finally, many simply saw sports simply as a healthy and productive activity.

In all the american wars we, as people have worked hard, but there was more than just people on the battlefield. Animals ranging from as simple as dogs, to as strange as slugs have been said to be the key to saving soldiers lives.They have faced as much pain and suffering as soldiers have and we have put these animals in dangerous places because they were our only chance of survival. Lots of animals like, slugs, chickens, and canaries were used to detect poisonous gases. Dogs and pigeons have all been used as messengers. Even glow worms, dolphins, and sealions were apart of the military. Animals contributed their strength, sweat, and lives to winning the wars.

Life is about death. Everything eventually dies. Grandmas die because of natural reasons. Plants die without the right amount of water . People die when in war. The other things are necessary. Except the last one. War is not necessary. What's the point of war? To kill the innocent because a few officials don't agree on some tiny subject? Everyone has a different opinion, but it doesn't mean that the officials should force wars to start... AND it also causes PTSD (post Traumatic Stress Disorder) for the people who actually live!!! In this Expository Essay, you will learn the positive and negative effects of war, my opinion on war, and the war between the good and bad.

In 2009, Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) convinced the President (POTUS) and Congress to truncate the F22 program, leaving the U.S. Air Force (USAF) with less than 190 operational 5th Generation air to air and air to ground combatants, this number of operational F22 was well short of the 381 the USAF estimated they needed to meet mission requirements. (AWC 1/ site) Robert Gates terminated the F22 production because of its low return on investments (ROI) for the U.S. taxpayer caused by the change in the U.S. Security and Strategic Environments and the obsolescent nature of the U.S. Department of Defense acquisition and development process leading to very expensive and marginally effective aircraft, which simply was not worth the investment. This essay will explore how the actual cost, including opportunity cost, of F22 capabilities were too expensive and unnecessary in today’s security and strategic environments. It will also expose the obsolete and probably corrupt nature of the Department of Defense weapons procurement process and Secretary Gates attempts to change this process.

Imagine a war. It doesn’t matter which war, because all of them have several things in common. Wars are very costly. They have cost thousands to millions of dollars in equipment, and all wars have cost hundreds, thousands, or even millions of lives, both in the military and in the innocent population. Those who do survive are scarred, sometimes physically, mentally, and emotionally. Many retired soldiers suffer from PTSD, or post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as severe or fatal injuries. There are very, very few who would want to go to war, but sometimes, war is necessary. The question is: when is military force justified? Military force is justified when the safety of our population is threatened, when one of our allies is threatened, and when other, more peaceful attempts have been ineffective.

War is an unforgettable event in our history, but through them, they can create some great opportunities to better the future. There have been some remarkable inventions as a byproduct of war, and that has in turn revolutionized our way of life in communication, transportation, and medicine. Many of your everyday items were develop during a time of war, mainly because war has always been an accelerator for technological advancements. It brings the research phase to the utilization phase of production to happen quicker. Most of the things we take for granted today have come from top military research developments; that at the time, were war-winning technologies, such as plastic and nylon. These materials were use in

War is a topic that politically gets thrown into our life and even formed the United States of America. Remember that American colonists fought the British for independence resulting in the revolutionary war. War had to seriously be planned and considered then because without any money or weaponry, soldiers were left hopeless compared to the British army when Britain didn’t want to reason with the America at the time in terms of independence from the king at the time. Depending on who is asked they may say war is justified or war is not justified. The view I am looking at is war is not justified. There are other solutions to solving conflict and war should be seriously thought over. Much of our reasoning behind war strings back to a simple fight between two humans physically, but going to war is a physical fight on a much greater level.

When I first heard the term, war driving I thought it was a military term that had to do with war. I thought it involved military vehicles and how U.S Soldiers used these vehicles in a time of war. Actually, war driving is a cyber security term that has do with people driving around in cars looking to expose access points to gain entry. In all actuality it involves hackers in cars using high powered antennas, their computers, tablets, or other computer devices, looking for access points that are unprotected and have easy to no passwords. All in all, it’s a way for hackers to infiltrate a company’s Network. Wardriving is often used in locating network vulnerabilities in order for hackers to attack the network. Once hackers identify the access point that is

Since day one in the Army, we have all heard leaders use phrases such as “train as you fight” and “train to standard”. Surprisingly these are not just some catchy phrases that someone made up to motivate soldiers. These phrases, and many more come directly out of an Army manual, the ADP 7-0 to be precise. So why are we talking about this? Well, to paraphrase ADP 7-0, unit training is the life-blood of the Army. (Headquarters, D.A., 2012)

As we all know war has been amongst us since time ever began. It has been around when the first creatures were developed and learned how to survive. And as humans evolved over the centuries, we came to realize this theory we call “war” is actually a natural thing. And we then classified it as violence or as the survival of the fittest. And now in modern thinking and technology, we are now able to find how the human mind came up with an idea such as violence. How humans first used violence for survival then it turned into strategies then from there came with the inventions of weapons.

Giulio Douhet, in his seminal treatise on air power titled The Command of the Air, argued, “A man who wants to make a good instrument must first have a precise understanding of what the instrument is to be used for; and he who intends to build a good instrument of war must first ask himself what the next war will be like.” The United States (US) military establishment has been asking itself this exact question for hundreds of years, in an attempt to be better postured for the future. From the Civil War, through the American Indian Wars, and up until World War II (WWII) the American military’s way of war consisted of fighting traditional, or conventional, wars focused on total annihilation of an enemy. Since that time, there has been a gradual shift from the traditional framework towards one that can properly address non-traditional, or irregular wars. While the US maintains a capability to conduct conventional warfare, the preponderance of operations where the US military has been engaged since WWII have been irregular wars. Therefore, this question articulated by Douhet, as to understanding the character of the next war in order to properly plan, train, and equip, is certainly germane to the current discussion of regular war versus irregular war. In today’s fiscally constrained environment, the questions remains, which will dominate the future and therefore, garner further funding and priority. Based on the current threats and the US role as a superpower, the US

This paper examines lessons learned that are timeless in their relevance for all types of warfare with respect to the lesson materials discussed in the Warfare Studies course. The first lesson learned that this paper examines is the United States’ adaptability in response to changing nature of warfare. The United States has experienced various types of warfare ranging from war of annihilation, war of attrition, or fourth-generation warfare; the United States has no identifiable American way of war. Second, this paper looks at the importance and enduring nature of fourth-generation warfare and counterinsurgency operations. These events are here to stay and will be significant in the future conflicts. The third lesson learned discusses