Showing papers by "Naval War College published in 2006"

Hoping for the Best, preparing for the worst: China's response to US hegemony

Abstract: In the post-Cold War strategic environment, Beijing could plausibly have opted for Soviet-style geostrategic competition with Washington, but it has not Chinese leaders have not thus far, and almost certainly will never, amass thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert or deploy significant forces to a network of bases spanning the globe Nevertheless, the below assessment of China's increasing hard and soft power yields the conclusion that a Chinese challenge to US hegemony cannot be ruled out The United States must prudently maintain military forces appropriate to facing a potential peer competitor At the same time, however, Washington must engage in a process of creative diplomacy that simultaneously matches China's soft power and engages seriously with Beijing to create areas of consensus and cooperation

Effects-Based Operations and the Law of Aerial Warfare

Abstract: Examines the international humanitarian law implications of effects-based operations in the context of aerial warfare. Traces the evolution of airpower doctrine.

A Revolution in International Relation Theory: Or, What If Mueller Is Right?

Abstract: Author's Note: War has been the primary focus of the scholarly study of international relations (IR) from its very beginning. E.H. Carr and his colleagues at Aberystwyth created the first IR department in 1919 in the wake of the Great War at least partially in the hope of preventing the next one. Their lack of success did not keep war and peace from becoming the primary issues of study for most students of international politics ever since. Conflict has been the direct or indirect topic of much of the work that IR scholars have produced during the last century and, indeed, has been one of the main reasons why many of them entered the field in the first place. If the fundamental nature of warfare were to change, therefore, one would expect repercussions in the field of IR. The obsolescence-of-major-war argument, which found renewed energy with the publication of John Mueller's Retreat from Doomsday, seems to describe one such fundamental change. The suggestion that the great powers may have put war behind them has been debated at some length over the past 17 years, with its many skeptics pointing out that such optimistic ideas are not new. Prior articulations of "perpetual peace" have always been eventually proven wrong by war's depressing proclivity for resurrection. Supporters have not moved far beyond basic explanations of the argument, at least to this point, in large part because its nature seems to preclude definitive proof or falsification. It is, after all, a theory of the future as much as of the present. The development of the argument has stalled in the time since Mueller's book was published, with a number of key questions remaining unanswered. Would state behavior remain unchanged absent the realistic possibility of major war? How would the study of international politics need to be adjusted to describe accurately an age of great power peace? In other words, what if Mueller is right? In some senses, therefore, this forum is an exercise in conjecture and speculation. It asks the reader to accept the argument--ifjust for a moment--that the great powers have put warfare behind them, at least in their interactions with one another. For some, this will require a nearimpossible stretch of the imagination; for others, it will be a logical and overdue recognition of modern reality. If it is true that many nations no longer consider fighting such wars, then many of our central beliefs about state behavior will have to be rethought and adjusted to better describe twenty-first century realities. This forum contains three parts. (1) The first explores the current state of the argument and its critics and speculates on its importance to a field traditionally focused upon the great powers, discussing the reasons to believe that the obsolescence of major war may eventually lead to the obsolescence of all war. (2) The second contains multiple parts, each of which proposes a central theoretical implication of the obsolescence-of-major-war argument and considers the ways in which some of the major theories and debates in the field would be affected if the great powers prove stubbornly insistent on conducting peaceful relations. A new conception of power itself may be in order; for instance, one that makes a distinction between the "potential" and "kinetic" power of a state. This argument also has implications for the relative vs. absolute

A New US-Sino Space Relationship: Moving Toward Cooperation 1

Abstract: Since the late 1990's the United States has maintained a strict policy of no cooperation with China on space activities. The reasons for that are several, including the desire to inhibit the development of dual-use technology considered potentially threatening to the United States and political reluctance to work with a communist country. Increasingly, however, it has become clear that policy is not constraining China from dual-use technology development and that the policy overall may be detrimental to U.S. security interests. Therefore a policy change, from a realistic consideration of circumstances, must be considered.

The road not taken: Conflict termination and guerrillaism in the American Civil War

Abstract: Irrespective our views on the rationality of our opponent's continuing to conduct operations against us, unless utterly extirpated, he retains a vote on when and how conflict will end. This is because war is about power — compelling another actor to do something he would not otherwise do, or to cease doing something he would otherwise prefer to do. In planning for conflict termination we should account for the peculiarities of opponents who may decide not to quit when we have beat them fair and square. We do not desire that they cease conventional fighting, but that they cease fighting altogether.

The India-Pakistan Conflict: An Enduring Rivalry

Abstract: The India-Pakistan Conflict: An Enduring Rivalry, T.V. Paul, ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.The rivalry between India and Pakistan has clearly been both deep and enduring. The two sides have fought four wars since attaining independence in 1947, and have waged a low-intensity conflict in the disputed territory of Kashmir since the late 1980s. And despite recent improvements in Indo-Pakistani relations, their fundamental political and territorial disagreements remain unresolved. However, it is not obvious why the two countries' relationship has been so stubbornly antagonistic. The India-Pakistan Conflict: An Enduring Rivalry, edited by T.V. Paul, addresses this issue. Specifically, the volume asks: Why has the Indo-Pakistani rivalry been so persistent, even compared to other long-standing conflicts? How have factors at the international, state and leadership levels contributed to this outcome? And why are the prospects for achieving a negotiated settlement of the rivalry so dim?