A New National Security Strategy in an Age of Terrorists, Tyrants,and Weapons of Mass Destruction:

Since the end of the Cold War and the subsequent demise of the Soviet Union, the United States has been in search of a new grand strategy. Over time, the question “What should be the post– Cold War U.S. grand strategy?” evolved into “What should the United States do with its preeminence?” The answers provided by the various erstwhile suc- cessors to George Kennan, who gave us the Cold War’s “containment,” have ranged from neo-isolationism—dubbed “strategic independence” by some of its advocates—to primacy, the consolida- tion and indefinite preservation of U.S. hegemony, of what had initially been thought to be a “unipolar moment.” Some, most notably neoconservatives, have even made the case for a U.S. em- pire—primacy on steroids

Holding the Line: U.S. Defense Alternatives for the 21st Century

This is the rare book that actually lives up to its blurbs. It should be required read- ing for U.S. defense planners, especially Bush administration officials for whom increasing defense spending rather than “holding the line” is an article of faith. They would profit greatly from the vol- ume’s analysis of where not to look for the savings that might pay for the admin- istration’s promised transformation of the military. Hint: cutting infrastructure will not pay for military transformation

Thinking about the Unthinkable—Unreasonable Exuberance?

Defense planners will not rush to embrace Admiral Turner’s nuclear-escrow scheme. Yet the details of the process Admiral Turner seeks to set in motion should not be allowed to obscure the grand purpose of the process and its significance. He is on the right track

Transforming the Navy

Judged against the expectations created by President Bush and his defense team, the Navy’s transformation enterprise falls short. However, no compelling strategic rationale for military transformation has yet been articulated. A revolution in military affairs is not required for the maintenance of U.S. military dominance specifically or American primacy generally, or for fighting and winning the global war on terror

What Do We Mean by “Transformation”?

What is “defense transformation” (by whatever name), and how might it affect strategy? What might it cost, and how could its cost affect military forces? What systemic impediments to implementation does it face, and what are its competitors in the budgetary realm? A distinguished panel of the Secretary of the Navy’s Current Strategy Forum held at the Naval War College on 12–13 June 2001 addressed these issues from various perspectives

Military Transformation and the Defense Industry after Next

Though still adjusting to the end of the Cold War, the defense industry is now confronted with the prospect of military transformation. Since the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, many firms have seen business improve in response to the subsequent large increase in the defense budget. But in the longer run, the defense sector\u27s military customers intend to reinvent themselves for a future that may require the acquisition of unfamiliar weapons and support systems.https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/usnwc-newport-papers/1016/thumbnail.jp

The dimensions of militarization in the Third World

Arms Control & Domestic and International Security (ACDIS

The diffusion of power and conventional arms production in the Third World: Implications for world order

Arms Control & Domestic and International Security (ACDIS

Arms acquisition and national security in the Third World

Arms Control & Domestic and International Security (ACDIS