The Military-Industrial Complex Today the “military-political situation” in the world has changed qualitatively (Dubovtsev, Galymzhanuly, 2011). There is no immediate threat of nuclear war and diminish the role of military force as an instrument of foreign policy. However, the need to maintain internal order, the protection of borders, protect the territorial integrity of the state, its security and defense when there is still the danger of war that requires from every country in the world to pay serious attention to equipping its military establishments with modern military technology. Military-industrial base of most countries in the world often unable to meet all the needs of the national army in armaments, and the demand is covered by
Decisions made over this could potentially affect the safety of all citizens. It also affects the amount of money that Americans spend in tax dollars each year. An increase in military would increase the safety of our country while also raising the amount of money paid in taxes. On the other hand, decreasing the military size could potentially leave America at a disadvantage when it comes to protecting the homeland, but there would be less tax money paid. The debate lies essentially on whether our military would be able to withstand heavy attacks with reductions in numbers or if it would need to sustain its current size to uphold against any potential heavy attacks.
In present contemporary operation environment (COE), military actions alone is not the sole guarantee for dealing with security challenges. Today’s conflicts are characterized by complex and interdependent issues which range from traditional war-fighting to disaster relief missions, peace keeping and enforcing operations and, humanitarian assistance. This makes management by a single organization or agency whether government or non-governmental difficult. The “internationalization of military life” has thus confronted military personals to challenges which are no longer limited to combat operations but involve social, ethnic, religious and ideological dimensions requiring winning hearts and minds. Operations by today’s armed forces cannot
Cited from the book “The Dynamics of Doctrine: The Changes in German Tactical Doctrine during the First World War” , war tactics and strategies began to form. Troops were well trained and prepared for war. As technology advances, weaponry equipment, such as, machine guns, recoil systems, explosives, optical sights, heavy artillery and communication lines were deployed in the First World War. The third generation of warfare, particularly in the Second World War, saw the big leap towards joint warfare. Rapid advances in technology meant that wars are now fought on a different level.
Before media, politicians and other newsmakers had to rely on word of mouth to communicate the various messages they were espousing. However, they found this was an unreliable method of communication and the first newspapers and other media mediums were created. This comes at a drawback. As media companies grow larger and larger, they become more susceptible to bias. This has lead to a proliferation of bias across the many media companies in existence today.
The term PMESII-PT means political, military, economic, social, information, infrastructure, physical environment, and time. The political aspect of the operational environment is a huge undertaking because to be successful in counterinsurgency commanders have to pay attention to past, present, and future of local government officials as well as local tribe leaders and respected elders. When it comes to the military, the commander needs to understand not only his capabilities but joint and host nation?s capabilities as well. Commanders must understand how the economic structure relates to the success of the mission. They need to take into account variables such as raw energy, government and taxation policies, and local corruption.
As per Kenneth Waltz in Sagan’s book, "the probability of major war among states having nuclear weapons approaches zero" (Sagan, Spring, 1994). The key to prevent war is to use the weapons responsibly. In contradiction, it is believed that nuclear proliferation can increase wars according to Scott D. Sagan (D.Sagan, Spring, 1994). Sagan also argued that for nuclear deterrence to work, it depends on the capabilities and will of the political leaders. If analyzed, it demands strength and emotional control in order to manage nuclear weapons or else the slightest cause of tensions between countries or even misunderstandings, can intensify into a war.
They were multi-faceted, consisting of conventional force projection, nuclear deterrence, alliance building and proxy wars. The deterrence policies of the US and the Soviet Union were also multi-tiered, aimed at preventing different levels of conflict. They both had nuclear deterrence policies, backed by very large, strategically deployed nuclear arsenals. The goal was to prevent the use of nuclear weapons through the notion of mutually assured destruction should one side use them. The lower tier of military deterrence deterred large scale conventional engagements.
II, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution) to a people-centered focus --whereby it puts people’s security at the heart of its military operation. (Oreta and Tolosa: 2012) This ‘paradigm shift’ is like the AFP venturing into a virtually unfamiliar territory, whereas before soldiers are used to being oriented towards the destruction and defeat of the enemy; now, the plan requires the soldiers to completely depart from that old paradigm and instead embrace a new paradigm that puts primacy on the protection and welfare of the people.
The first one is force structure that is not oprepirate to the defence capability, 2. It is very important to procure right and necessary equipment, weaponary systems in right time and of course in reasonable price. - Following wrong policy or planning procedure during Defence planning process ledads to the failure all defence capability of the state. It might weaken the allies defence capability as well. - Defence planning is an evaluation of the gap between reality and imagination, between possible