The United States faces a unique confluence of crises right now. The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented economic and social impact on society, and has caused many people to reconceptualize what “national security” means. At the same time, the nation finds itself convulsed by issues of racial injustice and the response to issues in our criminal justice system. This likewise causes a reconceptualization of what it means to be secure, and raises questions about the role of the military and security forces in the United States.
In this episode Doyle Hodges, the executive editor of the Texas National Security Review, sits down with a panel of policymakers and academics to discuss how academics and those who study questions of war and peace broadly defined, can best influence and help as the United States works its way forward during these parallel crises. The panel features Kori Schake, director of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, Jim Goldgeier, the Robert Bosch senior visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and professor of international relations at American University, and Derek Chollet, the executive vice president of the German Marshall Fund.
Registration has opened for online attendance of the "World Order after COVID-19 Forum."
Join Johns Hopkins University President Ron Daniels, the JHU School of Advanced International Studies and the Henry A. Kissinger Center for Global Affairs for an event that draws upon the deep expertise and global academic leadership from among Johns Hopkins’ ten schools and departments as well as its unique programs including the SNF Agora Institute and the Applied Physics Lab.
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic dealt a crippling blow to global public health while devastating the world economy. As Henry Kissinger recently warned, “The coronavirus epidemic will forever alter the world order.” Moments of great shock, however, can also provide an opportunity to boldly re-imagine our future to build a new and better world.
Our Senior Fellow Mark Pomar appeared on WORLD Radio this week to discuss America's role in public radio abroad and his career working with Radio Free Europe and Voice of America.
The contention over the quantity and quality of regional missile defenses forward-deployed by the United States in the Asia-Pacific region animates much of the US–China disagreement about strategic stability. The Chinese argue that the deployed assets exceed reasonable defensive requirements and suggest that if these missile-defense deployments continue, they will be forced to increase the size of their nuclear arsenal. In disagreement, the United States claims that regional missile defenses are defensive by design, limited in scope, and necessary to defeat a North Korean missile campaign. In this article, a series of simulation experiments were developed to empirically test these opposing arguments over missile defenses and strategic stability. The simulations indicate that current deployments are necessary for defense and proportional to the threat. The analysis also argues that current deployments do not possess the ability to alter the US–China strategic nuclear balance significantly. The article concludes with a discussion of other subjective aspects of national security that may explain Chinese concerns and explore possible ways to reassure China.
"China has amassed a large arsenal of regional ballistic missiles capable of ranging all of Asia-Pacific. The Chinese People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) has also developed detailed doctrines articulating the use of these missiles to deny the United States and allied nations’ freedom of action during a regional contingency. The PLARF practices many of its exercises based on these doctrines and under realistic conditions that mimic adversary counter-tactics. In response, the U.S. and allied states deploy significant ballistic missile defense assets to deter and defend against the use of missiles. In this paper, an empirical evaluation of the performance of these regional missile defenses is conducted. The results indicate that regional missile defense remain robust and effective against small coercive signaling strikes. Against a limited suppression strike campaign aiming to delay and disrupt military movements, missile defenses remain robust if an early warning is available. Finally, against a large-scale coordinated missile campaign, missile defense assets are spread thin, and marginal cost to the defense is substantially high. If China can launch multiples waves of large-scale missile salvos or if critical missile assets are rendered nonfunctional, it could cause severe damage to military capabilities."
© Clements Center for National Security 2019