The critical flaw with the Joint Concept for Access and Maneuver in the Global Commons (JAM-GC), formerly known as Air-Sea Battle, is that it does not provide strategic deterrence to an erstwhile near peer adversary. The JAM-CG rightly identifies the emerging battle domains of cyber and space, as well as the increasing availability of technology that can be modified for defensive of offensive means.[i] However, it doesn’t address the fundamental bedrock of strategic deterrence; that you must put an adversary at a serious or existential risk to deter them from the behavior you wish to prevent.[ii]
The JAM-GC and its nominative predecessor, ASB, primarily focus on using the strategic power of the Navy and Air Force to preserve assured access
Wars have been occurring since the beginning of time. Wars were once fought with sticks but as humans evolved, so did the weapons involved. Today’s warfare includes anything from hand grenades to remote controlled planes that are thousands of miles away from the operator. The rise of technology has become an issue due to the increasing development of these devices. Technology is used worldwide and as wars continue to develop, so does the possibility that the next war could rise into a cyber war. The Cybersecurity Enhancement Act will ensure the United States takes on these new threats with cybercrime by protecting the country’s critical infrastructures and ensuring the people are ready for the future in the cyberworld.
Cyberspace is both a military domain and a part of the global commons, that is uncontrolled by any state or entity. (Carrington post, citing Denmark, 11). As technology increases, the world shifts from an industrial society to an information economy. (Whitescarver July 28, 2016 post, citing Allen and Pollack, video). Cyber threats impede the Joint Force’s capabilities to defend the United States with technology and with systems that utilize, transmit and store
3.Piotrowski, J.L. “In Defense of Strategic Defense.” Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. 53, no. 24, 10/1/87, pp. 742-745.
Today’s security environment is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA). The challenges presented by globalization, emerging powers as well as the continuing threat of terrorism indicate the future security environment will continue to gain complexity. Adding to this complexity is the challenge of increasingly constrained fiscal resources. To protect U.S. National Security interests in this complex and constrained environment, Joint Force 2025 (JF-2025) requires four core capabilities, it must be agile, adaptable, survivable and integrated. This essay discusses the key strategic direction for JF-2025, the capabilities required of the Joint Force, each member services and the inherent associated risks.
Clarke and Knake use a mixed method research approach in Cyber War to support their hypothesis that offensive prowess is meaningless without solid defense in cyberspace, and that the United States need immediately fix our defensive cyber shortfalls, or face apocalyptic doom. Specifically, the authors define ‘cyber war’ as “actions by a nation state to penetrate another nation’s computers or networks for the purposes of causing damage or disruption.” This infers that they are really talking about ‘warfare’ and
The national security objectives of the U.S. include homeland security and that of our allies, a strong open economic system, respect for universal values, and international order promoting peace, security and opportunity through cooperation. USSOUTHCOM is committed to uphold national security objectives through joint and combined full-spectrum bilateral and multilateral military operations and exercises. Exercise Tradewinds, a three week multi-national maritime security and disaster response exercise in the Caribbean, is a perfect example of how military exercises support national security objectives. The exercise supports the Caribbean Basin Security Initiative (CBSI), a U.S. Department of State regional security partnership. Tradewinds
For years, it was widely believed that the next World War would be centered on the use of nuclear weaponry. However, the development of viruses has furthered cyberwarfare, and in recent years the attention has shifted from a nuclear threat to a cyber one. Having the ability to completely, dismantle another country’s entire infrastructure without leaving your desk is clearly much simpler than using nuclear weapons. “The treat of a cyberattack is a clear and present danger to America and is more likely than a nuclear attack.” (The Hill) Even higher ranking defense officials are realizing that the focus must shift to cyberwar, instead of the traditional nuclear missiles. Additionally, the cost for cyberwarfare is significantly less than the cost of nuclear
While actively engaged in conflict, we are members of a very complex, unstable, and ever-changing environment. Scholars like Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz have both studied warfare extensively, and approach it from two very different angles. These approaches provide two main schools of thought when considering warfare and should be understood so that a place may be found for cyber-warfare. Sun Tzu’s (2013) main theme contends that weapons
The Army’s Strategic Goal is to provide the Joint Force Commander (JFC) with forces prepared to seize, retain, and exploit the initiative to gain and maintain a position of relative advantage in sustained land operations through simultaneous offensive, defensive, and stability or defense support of civil authorities operations in order to prevent or deter conflict, prevail in war, and create the conditions for favorable conflict resolution. (United States, 2014)
The proposal of the National Missile Defense System by Capitol Hill is a clear example of the international security dilemma, where the United States' desire to become more secure compromises other states' security. By setting up a missile defense to escape the power of other states, this will only create insecurity in the international arena that will prompt other states to react with their own missile defense system. This dynamia can also be seen through the prisoner's dilemma diagram (Figure 1). The United States fears for the worst possibility so it arms itself to increase its protection. It does not trust the other players in the international community and does not want to
The general capabilities required by the Joint Force in 2025 will be a global surveillance and strike (GSS) network, increased naval and air investments and ensuring cyber technology outpaces adversaries. Based on the current U.S. strategic direction and global security environment these capabilities are necessary. Satellites and cyber technology will be part of the design of the GSS system. The U.S. military will be able to strike quickly and remain engaged for increased periods while additional forces move to the area of concern using the GSS system. Increased Navy and Air investments in submarines, ships, aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV’s) and unmanned underwater vehicles (UUV’s) is critical. The Navy and Air Force allows us to project power to areas of the world far from our base of operations. Air power also enables us to provide support for ground forces while providing deterrence and denial of enemy forces. Cyber investments and security are critical because cyber technology will increasingly be the engine that runs our future military and allows us to attack adversary’s cyber networks and infrastructure. The U.S. Army will see a reduction in tactical armor units while the U.S. Marine Corps remains at the current level of equipment and personnel. After each capability are associated Risk.
China’s political situation allows them to pursue their interests in cyber space with little objections from the world’s superpowers. Even when questioned about their actions, the Chinese government continue to deny their involvement in security breaches of US security systems. To counter-act the allegations of China’s involvement, they show how other countries attack them first giving them an obligation to defend themselves. China is also free from overt scrutiny solely based upon the needs of China’s business and economy for US
For thousands of years warfare remained relatively unchanged. While the tactics and weapons have changed as new methods of combat evolved, men and women or their weapons still had to meet at the same time and place in order to attack, defend, surrender or conquer. However, the advent of the of the internet has created a new realm of combat in which armies can remotely conduct surveillance, reconnaissance, espionage, and attacks from an ambiguous and space-less digital environment. Both state and non-state actors have already embraced this new realm and utilized both legal and illegal means to further facilitate their interests. What complicates cyber security further is as states attempt to protect themselves from cyber-warfare, private
Military coercion strategy has long since existed as a means to enforce a desired set of outcomes, behaviours, or policies. The definition of coercion covers a lot of theoretical ground, including both compellence and deterrence. The successes and failures of military coercion can be seen through the mechanisms of, Destruction, Punishment, and Denial that theorists have argued are part of the methods of coercion. The effectiveness of military coercion may be linked to the credibility, capability and communication of a threat. These factors that determine what military coercion is are highlighted through historical examples, including the Cuban Missile Crises, nuclear warfare, counterinsurgency and the Kosovo air campaign.
The branches of the military, for a couple generations, have always been the Army, Navy, Air force, Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard; however, in an ever evolving digital world, the notion that outer space would be the next military front is being rapidly replaced by the idea that cyber space will be the next arms race. The United States has been defending attacks on their infrastructure day after day, night after night, when one hacker on one side of the world sleeps, another takes their place to attempt to compromise the US government. The motives may range from a political ‘hacktivist’ trying to prove a point, to an economic spy, trying to gain a competitive edge on its more upstart rivals, to an attempt to control the United States