The Impact Of The European Union On The Common Security And Defense Policy

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 impacted the American people without many of them realizing it. The act called for increased monitoring of computer networks, phone lines, and online history inside the United States and allowed the government to deport suspects (ACLU). What was created by the act has snaked its way into all aspects of our lives, creating a sense of order and restricting some freedom. However, some say that this imposition into our daily lives limits our freedoms and actions allowed us by the Constitution. Many interest groups voice strong resentment for the act while others try to demonstrate the strengths and triumphs of the Homeland Security Act. This paper will show the differing viewpoints of those that feel that the

Gagnon, M., & Stephens, M. B. (2015). Obesity and National Defense: Will America Be Too

Thousands of kids roam a college campus - and it only takes one. No amount of preparation, staff training, or school-wide drills can prepare the university for something so terrible. This tragedy will forever change the way students and teachers operate the school. One man. One gun. And the sad part is that all of this can all be averted. For this reason, the law should consent to “licensed concealed carry” (carrying a weapon with a license) on campus. If students were allowed to defend themselves with their own weapons, they would. Teachers and students should be permitted to carry firearms onto the campus because the rule that bans weapons will not stop a shooter, it will greatly increase a person’s self–defense, and it can stop

United States Foreign Policy has always been in a constant form of metamorphosis. Gradually, since the birth of the United States of America, the country has been slowly evolving it’s policies and relations with other countries. The United States began its history as a insignificant isolated nation. It slowly overtime would change to what the powerhouse that it is today: A Global Superpower.

At a time when Australia faces its most challenging strategic outlook since World War II, there is no issue more important to Australia’s security than the increased capabilities of our intelligence agencies and the development of a robust national security policy. The challenge Australia faces is defining our national security priorities in today’s globalised world and creating a national security architecture for the 21st century that can enable the Australian Intelligence Communities (AIC) to adequately protect Australia and Australian interests. In order to combat the increasing aspects of asymmetric and transnational threats the Australian Government needed to implement a National Security Policy (NSP) that is effective, adaptable,

The Constitution grants Congress the power raise and maintain the armed forces, establish rules that govern those forces, and above all – declare war. The Framers of the Constitution intentionally designed Congress to have a collective control over war, thus granting the legislature authroity over offensive campaigns. In comparision, the president, as commander in chief, has the ability to use force to protect American sovergneity and American lives. Consequently, the U.S. national security policy process includes countless opportunities to delay or block action.

American foreign policy relates to what is done in foreign countries by the United States of America. The foreign policies include controlling of the governments of foreign countries or setting some rules in those countries. The foreign policy of America has always been changing all through the US existence. The changes have stemmed from the dynamics of exogenous and substantial influences of watershed up to the international system and also the effects and changes of endogenous inside the government of the United States. Outstanding assertions like the policies of Monroe, intercontinental encounters such as the Second World War, War of the Spanish and Americans, and the cold war and also conflicts that were termed as local including the Korean War and the Vietnam War considerably shaped the American foreign policy (Kissinger et al., 1969).

There are many arguments for and against the reliability of military deterrence. The simplest definition of military deterrence is threatening to use force to discourage another state or country from doing something that is not in your favour. One main example of this in history is the Cold War commencing 1947 – 1991. During the cold war both the United States and the Soviet Union accumulated a large supply of nuclear weapons. It was in the Soviet Union’s interest that they would use the nuclear weapons thus creating a nuclear war and that that it was likely they would fight and win. On the other hand the United States has adopted the theory of nuclear/ military deterrence threatening the Soviet Union with retaliation and punishment if they

Growing up in southern California many people will visually examine me as a girl that should only be a top model because of my looks and being soft spoken. People will always tell me, “Ashley, you will never make it in the law enforcement world because you are too “skinny” or you are too “pretty” but all my life, my goals and aspirations are to be in law enforcement and every time someone tells me something about what I can not do, it motivates me more to push myself to be in law enforcement and that’s why I optate to further my education in the National Security Studies Program.

In 1991, McCalla analyzes four different themes in Stoll’s book that seems to be suggestive and with no supportive information for discussion. The first theme is “the role of the military force in the nuclear era” (Stoll), promoting discussion about the use of force between US and USSR “conflict involvement in the pre and post-World War II eras” (McCalla). Stoll asserts in his notes that “changes [in the nuclear balance] can be turned into political-military leverage in a wide variety of situations,” but fails to provide concrete references and dates to support his statements. The second theme is “domestic influences on national security policy” (Stoll), which fails to explain in depth the “congressional and public support for defense spending and presidential actions” (McCalla). According to McCalla, Stoll provides useful information about the “long-term impact of World War II on the development of various services,” encouraging discussion on the subject. The third theme is “strategic nuclear warfare,” where Stoll exams the change of directions taken by the leaders. Moreover, McCalla describes Stoll’s writing as of a “creative manner” to discuss about the “limiting nuclear war” without conclusive data. The final theme is the “defense of Western Europe” (Stoll) where per McCalla, Stoll provides “an intriguing discussion of possible European responses to a U.S. pull from Europe – even though the

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.

Mary Ellen O’Connell, a research professor at the Kroc, Institute, University of Notre Dame, and the Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame, tells the congressional Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs “Lawful Use of Combat Drones” that the United States is failing more often than not to follow the most important single rule governing drones: restricting their use to the battlefield. O’Connell begins her argument with by describing combat drones as battlefield weapons capable of inflicting very serious damage and being unlawful for use outside combat zones. She states that police are the proper law enforcement agents, outside these zones, and are generally required to warn before using lethal force. By failing to restrict these remote weapons systems to the battlefield the U.S. is failing to respect a basic rule that contradicts the goal of winning hearts and minds to respect the rule of law. She breaks her speech into three sections: drones as a lawful battlefield weapon, the battlefield defined, and battlefield restraints.

Congress and Defense Policy / LGAF 6270.LH Session 2 Issue paper / Chapter 3 & 6 of 911 Commission Report

NATO Secretary General Lord Ismay recognized this issue, which coupled with an increasing difficulty “to sustain popular support for defense expenditures” and the foresight of a “considerable expenditure (…) to achieve the basic objectives” of NATO strategy caused him to request a detailed reevaluation of the potential implications put forth by the “New Approach”. Following this line of thought, the United Kingdom was by far the biggest upholder of cuts in defense expenditures, as it began pressuring the rest of the Alliance to issue political guidance that would enable a reduction of conventional forces necessary using the guise of nuclear armament as more than sufficient to defend European territory.

The establishment of the European Union (EU) solidified a united political, economic, and defensive front creating a Supranational Organization (Lucas, 1999, no page). With the assistance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United States, the EU has developed a comprehensive security strategy responsible for leading the coalition’s objectives for mutual solidarity, global stabilization, and defense. To address security threats both regionally and globally set forth by the European Security Strategy (ESS), considerations were developed which encompass both cultural domains of geography and development.