DOCSLIB.ORG

China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S China Naval Modernization: Implications for U.S. Navy Capabilities—Background and Issues for Congress Ronald O'Rourke Specialist in Naval Affairs December 10, 2012 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RL33153 CRS Report for Congress Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress China Naval Modernization Summary The question of how the United States should respond to China’s military modernization effort, including its naval modernization effort, has emerged as a key issue in U.S. defense planning. The question is of particular importance to the U.S. Navy, because many U.S. military programs for countering improved Chinese military forces would fall within the Navy’s budget. Two DOD strategy and budget documents released in January 2012 state that U.S. military strategy will place a renewed emphasis on the Asia-Pacific region, and that as a result, there will be a renewed emphasis on air and naval forces in DOD plans. Administration officials have stated that notwithstanding reductions in planned levels of U.S. defense spending, the U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific region will be maintained and strengthened. Decisions that Congress and the executive branch make regarding U.S. Navy programs for countering improved Chinese maritime military capabilities could affect the likelihood or possible outcome of a potential U.S.-Chinese military conflict in the Pacific over Taiwan or some other issue. Some observers consider such a conflict to be very unlikely, in part because of significant U.S.-Chinese economic linkages and the tremendous damage that such a conflict could cause on both sides. In the absence of such a conflict, however, the U.S.-Chinese military balance in the Pacific could nevertheless influence day-to-day choices made by other Pacific countries, including choices on whether to align their policies more closely with China or the United States. In this sense, decisions that Congress and the executive branch make regarding U.S. Navy programs for countering improved Chinese maritime military forces could influence the political evolution of the Pacific, which in turn could affect the ability of the United States to pursue goals relating to various policy issues, both in the Pacific and elsewhere. China’s naval modernization effort, which began in the 1990s, encompasses a broad array of weapon acquisition programs, including anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), submarines, and surface ships. China’s naval modernization effort also includes reforms and improvements in maintenance and logistics, naval doctrine, personnel quality, education, training, and exercises. Observers believe that the near-term focus of China’s military modernization effort has been to develop military options for addressing the situation with Taiwan. Consistent with this goal, observers believe that China wants its military to be capable of acting as a so-called anti-access force—a force that can deter U.S. intervention in a conflict involving Taiwan, or failing that, delay the arrival or reduce the effectiveness of intervening U.S. naval and air forces. Observers believe that China’s military modernization effort, including its naval modernization effort, is increasingly oriented toward pursuing additional goals, such as asserting or defending China’s territorial claims in the South China Sea and East China Sea; enforcing China’s view—a minority view among world nations—that it has the right to regulate foreign military activities in its 200- mile maritime exclusive economic zone (EEZ); protecting China’s sea lines of communications; protecting and evacuating Chinese nationals in foreign countries; displacing U.S. influence in the Pacific; and asserting China’s status as a major world power. Potential oversight issues for Congress include the following: whether the U.S. Navy in coming years will be large enough to adequately counter improved Chinese maritime anti-access forces while also adequately performing other missions of interest to U.S. policymakers around the world; the Navy’s ability to counter Chinese ASBMs and submarines; and whether the Navy, in response to China’s maritime anti-access capabilities, should shift over time to a more distributed fleet architecture. Congressional Research Service China Naval Modernization Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1 Issue for Congress ..................................................................................................................... 1 Scope, Sources, and Terminology ............................................................................................. 2 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Overview of China’s Naval Modernization Effort .................................................................... 3 Date of Inception ................................................................................................................. 3 Elements of Modernization Effort ....................................................................................... 3 Limitations and Weaknesses................................................................................................ 3 Goals of Naval Modernization Effort .................................................................................. 4 Selected Elements of China’s Naval Modernization Effort ....................................................... 9 Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBMs) ................................................................................ 9 Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs) ................................................................................. 11 Submarines ........................................................................................................................ 11 Aircraft Carriers and Carrier-Based Aircraft ..................................................................... 18 Surface Combatants........................................................................................................... 23 Amphibious Ships ............................................................................................................. 33 Land-Based Aircraft and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) .......................................... 36 Nuclear and Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Weapons ....................................................... 37 Maritime Surveillance and Targeting Systems .................................................................. 37 Chinese Naval Operations Away from Home Waters .............................................................. 38 Numbers of Chinese Ships and Aircraft; Comparisons to U.S. Navy ..................................... 40 Numbers Chinese Navy Ships and Naval Aircraft ............................................................ 40 Comparing U.S. and Chinese Naval Capabilities .............................................................. 42 DOD Response to China Naval Modernization....................................................................... 44 Renewed DOD Emphasis on Asia-Pacific Region ............................................................ 44 January 5, 2012, Strategic Guidance Document ............................................................... 45 January 26, 2012, Document on Selected FY2013 Program Decisions ............................ 46 September 2011 Press Report About New Defense Planning Guidance ........................... 48 October 3, 2012, Remarks by Deputy Secretary of Defense Carter .................................. 48 Air-Sea Battle (ASB) Concept .......................................................................................... 50 Navy Response to China Naval Modernization....................................................................... 50 Force Posture and Basing Actions ..................................................................................... 50 Acquisition Programs ........................................................................................................ 51 Training and Forward-Deployed Operations ..................................................................... 56 Statements of Confidence .................................................................................................. 56 Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 57 Future Size of U.S. Navy ......................................................................................................... 57 Air-Sea Battle Concept ............................................................................................................ 59 Navy’s Ability to Counter China’s ASBMs ............................................................................. 59 Breaking the ASBM’s Kill Chain ...................................................................................... 59 AAW and BMD Capability of Flight III DDG-51 Destroyer ............................................ 61 Endo-Atmospheric Target for Simulating DF-21D ASBM ............................................... 64 Press Reports ..................................................................................................................... 65 Navy’s Ability to Counter China’s Submarines ......................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense: an Assessment
    DEFENSE BUSINESS BOARD Submitted to the Secretary of Defense The Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense: An Assessment DBB FY 20-01 An assessment of the effectiveness, responsibilities, and authorities of the Chief Management Officer of the Department of Defense as required by §904 of the FY20 NDAA June 1, 2020 DBB FY20-01 CMO Assessment 1 Executive Summary Tasking and Task Force: The Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) (Public Law (Pub. L. 116-92) required the Secretary of Defense (SD) to conduct an independent assessment of the Chief Management Officer (CMO) with six specific areas to be evaluated. The Defense Business Board (DBB) was selected on February 3, 2020 to conduct the independent assessment, with Arnold Punaro and Atul Vashistha assigned to co-chair the effort. Two additional DBB board members comprised the task force: David Walker and David Van Slyke. These individuals more than meet the independence and competencies required by the NDAA. Approach: The DBB task force focused on the CMO office and the Department of Defense (DoD) business transformation activities since 2008 when the office was first established by the Congress as the Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO), and in 2018 when the Congress increased its statutory authority and elevated it to Executive Level (EX) II and the third ranking official in DoD. The taskforce reviewed all previous studies of DoD management and organizations going back twenty years and completed over ninety interviews, including current and former DoD, public and private sector leaders. The assessments of CMO effectiveness since 2008 are focused on the performance of the CMO as an organizational entity, and is not an appraisal of any administration or appointee.
    [Show full text]
  • The People's Liberation Army in the Land of Elusive Sheen
    No. 38 SEPTEMBER 2001 The People’s Liberation Army in the Land of Elusive Sheen Edward B. Atkeson The People’s Liberation Army in the Land of Elusive Sheen by Edward B. Atkeson The Land Warfare Papers No. 38 September 2001 A National Security Affairs Paper Published on Occasion by The Institute of Land Warfare ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES ARMY AN AUSA INSTITUTE OF LAND WARFARE PAPER The purpose of the Institute of Land Warfare is to extend the educational work of AUSA by sponsoring scholarly publications, to include books, monographs and essays on key defense issues, as well as workshops and symposia. A work selected for publication as a Land Warfare Paper represents research by the author which, in the opinion of the editorial board, will contribute to a better understanding of a particular defense or national security issue. Publication as an Institute of Land Warfare Paper does not indicate that the Association of the United States Army agrees with everything in the paper, but does suggest that the Association believes the paper will stimulate the thinking of AUSA members and others concerned about important defense issues. LAND WARFARE PAPER NO. 38, SEPTEMBER 2001 The People’s Liberation Army in the Land of Elusive Sheen by Edward B. Atkeson Major General Edward B. Atkeson, USA Ret., is a senior fellow with AUSA’s Institute of Land Warfare and a senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. During his military service he was appointed Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, U.S. Army Europe, and was later a member of the National Intelligence Council under the Director of Central Intelligence.
    [Show full text]
  • The History and Politics of Defense Reviews
    C O R P O R A T I O N The History and Politics of Defense Reviews Raphael S. Cohen For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR2278 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available for this publication. ISBN: 978-0-8330-9973-0 Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2018 RAND Corporation R® is a registered trademark. Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions. The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Preface The 1993 Bottom-Up Review starts with this challenge: “Now that the Cold War is over, the questions we face in the Department of Defense are: How do we structure the armed forces of the United States for the future? How much defense is enough in the post–Cold War era?”1 Finding a satisfactory answer to these deceptively simple questions not only motivated the Bottom-Up Review but has arguably animated defense strategy for the past quarter century.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded April 22, 2006
    SIX DECADES OF GUIDED MUNITIONS AND BATTLE NETWORKS: PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS Barry D. Watts Thinking Center for Strategic Smarter and Budgetary Assessments About Defense www.csbaonline.org Six Decades of Guided Munitions and Battle Networks: Progress and Prospects by Barry D. Watts Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments March 2007 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, nonprofit, public policy research institute established to make clear the inextricable link between near-term and long- range military planning and defense investment strategies. CSBA is directed by Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich and funded by foundations, corporations, government, and individual grants and contributions. This report is one in a series of CSBA analyses on the emerging military revolution. Previous reports in this series include The Military-Technical Revolution: A Preliminary Assessment (2002), Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge (2003), and The Revolution in War (2004). The first of these, on the military-technical revolution, reproduces the 1992 Pentagon assessment that precipitated the 1990s debate in the United States and abroad over revolutions in military affairs. Many friends and professional colleagues, both within CSBA and outside the Center, have contributed to this report. Those who made the most substantial improvements to the final manuscript are acknowledged below. However, the analysis and findings are solely the responsibility of the author and CSBA. 1667 K Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7990 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEGEMENTS .................................................. v SUMMARY ............................................................... ix GLOSSARY ………………………………………………………xix I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 Guided Munitions: Origins in the 1940s............. 3 Cold War Developments and Prospects ............
    [Show full text]
  • Chinese Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Background and Analysis
    Order Code 96-767 F CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Chinese Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Background and Analysis September 13, 1996 (name redacted) Analyst in Foreign Affairs Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress Chinese Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Background and Analysis Summary To assist congressional deliberations, this report sets forth the background on and analysis of Chinese technology transfers suspected of contributing to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. For a discussion of policy options and approaches, see the related Issue Brief 92056, Chinese Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Current Policy Issues. The issue of Chinese proliferation involves three aspects: China’s support for nonproliferation efforts, China’s transfers that promote proliferation, and vertical proliferation (modernization of China’s WMD and missile programs). Since 1992, China has responded to U.S. and other pressures to participate in some parts of international nonproliferation regimes. China promised to abide by the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), which is not a treaty, but a set of guidelines. China also acceded to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and signed the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). However, it is not a member of the MTCR, Zangger Committee, Nuclear Suppliers Group, Australia Group, or the Wassenaar Arrangement. The pressures to join nonproliferation efforts that China faced in the early 1990s have weakened, while its commitment to nonproliferation is unclear. Chinese missile-related transfers have not violated any international treaties, since the MTCR is not a treaty, but have violated Chinese pledges and U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Casting Net Assessment Andrew W
    THE 16 DREW PER PA S Casting Net Assessment Andrew W. Marshall and the Epistemic Community of the Cold War John M. Schutte Lieutenant Colonel, USAF Air University Steven L. Kwast, Lieutenant General, Commander and President School of Advanced Air and Space Studies Thomas D. McCarthy, Colonel, Commandant and Dean AIR UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF ADVANCED AIR AND SPACE STUDIES Casting Net Assessment Andrew W. Marshall and the Epistemic Community of the Cold War John M. Schutte Lieutenant Colonel, USAF Drew Paper No. 16 Air University Press Air Force Research Institute Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama Project Editor Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Jeanne K. Shamburger Schutte, John M., 1976– Copy Editor Casting net assessment : Andrew W. Marshall and the epistemic Carolyn Burns community of the Cold War / John M. Schutte, Lieutenant Colonel, USAF. Cover Art, Book Design, and Illustrations pages cm. — (Drew paper ; no. 16) Daniel L. Armstrong Includes bibliographical references. Composition and Prepress Production ISBN 978-1-58566-240-1 (alk. paper) Nedra O. Looney 1. Marshall, Andrew W., 1921– 2. United States. Department of Defense. Director of Net Assessment—Biography. 3. United Print Preparation and Distribution States. Department of Defense—Officials and employees— Diane Clark Biography. 4 Rand Corporation—Biography. 5. United States— Forecasting. 6. Military planning—United States—History— 20th century. 7. Military planning—United States—History—21st century. 8. United States—Military policy. 9. Strategy. 10. Cold War. I. Title. II. Title: Andrew W. Marshall and the epistemic community of the Cold War. UA23.6.S43 2014 AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE 355.0092—dc23 [B] AIR UNIVERSITY PRESS 2014035197 Director and Publisher Allen G.
    [Show full text]
  • The Art of the Deal for North Korea: the Unexplored Parallel Between Bush and Trump Foreign Policy*
    International Journal of Korean Unification Studies Vol. 26, No. 1, 2017, 53–86. The Art of the Deal for North Korea: The Unexplored Parallel between Bush and Trump Foreign Policy* Soohoon Lee ‘Make America Great Again,’ has been revived while ‘America First’ and ‘peace through strength,’ have been revitalized by the Trump admin­­­ istration. Americans and the rest of the world were shocked by the dramatic transformation in U.S. foreign policy. In the midst of striking changes, this research analyzes the first hundred days of the Trump administration’s foreign policy and aims to forecast its prospects for North Korea. In doing so, the George W. Bush administration’s foreign policy creeds, ‘American exceptionalism’ and ‘peace through strength,’ are revisited and compared with that of Trump’s. Beyond the similarities and differences found between the two administrations, the major finding of the analysis is that Trump’s profit­oriented nature, through which he operated the Trump Organization for nearly a half century, has indeed influenced the interest- oriented nature in his operating of U.S. foreign policy. The prospects for Trump’s policies on North Korea will be examined through a business­ sensitive lens. Keywords: Donald Trump, U.S Foreign Policy, North Korea, America First, Peace through Strength Introduction “We are so proud of our military. It was another successful event… If you look at what’s happened over the eight weeks and compare that to what’s happened over the last eight years, you'll see there’s a tremen­ * This work was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF­2016S1A3A2924968).
    [Show full text]
  • Future of Defense Task Force Report 2020 Cover Photo Credit: NASA Future of Defense Task Force
    draft Future of Defense Task Force Report 2020 Cover photo credit: NASA Future of Defense Task Force FUTURE OF DEFENSE TASK FORCE September 23, 2020 The Honorable Adam Smith Chairman House Armed Services Committee 2216 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 The Honorable William “Mac” Thornberry Ranking Member House Armed Services Committee 2216 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Dear Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Thornberry: Thank you for your support in standing up the Future of Defense Task Force. We are pleased to present you with our final report. Sincerely, Seth Moulton Jim Banks Chair Chair Future of Defense Task Force Future of Defense Task Force Susan Davis Scott DesJarlais Member of Congress Member of Congress Chrissy Houlahan Paul Mitchell Member of Congress Member of Congress Elissa Slotkin Michael Waltz Member of Congress Member of Congress Future of Defense Task Force Table of Contents PROLOGUE ............................................................................................... 1 TASK FORCE MEMBERS ........................................................................ 3 FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 5 RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................... 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................... 13 EVIDENCE .............................................................................................. 21 EMERGING
    [Show full text]
  • The Strange Rebirth of Missile Defense
    The Strange Rebirth of Missile Defense: Why Republicans Resurrected Reagan’s Dream Paul Musgrave Introduction National missile defense, even in its stripped-down, post-Reagan version, died in 1993. The Clinton administration killed it; shifting funding from research on “Star Wars”-like projects to missile defense systems like the Patriot. Instead of building a shield that would protect all of America, the United States would henceforth try to construct only limited defenses that could protect troops deployed in a future battleground. Yet ten years later, the George W. Bush administration has broken ground on new testing sites for a planned national missile defense, and billions of dollars annually are flowing into research and construction of a nationwide missile shield. The Bush administration could claim, were it so inclined, that it was merely following its predecessors; the basic parts of the Bush system are the same as those President Clinton proposed to use in his national missile defense. Why did U.S. policy toward missile defenses shift so dramatically? How did National Missile Defense survive its apparent death in 1993? These questions are important. National missile defense, in all of its guises and architectures, is among the most complex technical challenges humans have ever attempted to solve. It is also among the most costly, with some estimates placing the total cost of a missile defense system at nearly a trillion dollars. Understanding the sources of NMD’s resurrection is critical to a deeper comprehension of American security policy in the early years of the twenty-first century. The rebirth of missile defense came from two sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Transforming the U.S. Armed Forces Thomas G
    Naval War College Review Volume 54 Article 7 Number 3 Summer 2001 Transforming the U.S. Armed Forces Thomas G. Mahnken Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Mahnken, Thomas G. (2001) "Transforming the U.S. Armed Forces," Naval War College Review: Vol. 54 : No. 3 , Article 7. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol54/iss3/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Mahnken: Transforming the U.S. Armed Forces TRANSFORMING THE U.S. ARMED FORCES Rhetoric or Reality? Thomas G. Mahnken he leadership of the Defense Department has enthusiastically endorsed the Tproposition that the growth and diffusion of stealth, precision, and informa- tion technology will drastically alter the character and conduct of future wars, yielding a revolution in military affairs. President George W. Bush campaigned on a pledge to transform the U.S. armed forces by “skipping a generation” of technology. A month after assuming office, he promised in a speech at the Norfolk Naval Base to “move beyond marginal improvements to harness new technolo- gies that will support a new strategy.” He called for the development of ground forces that are lighter, more mobile, and more lethal, as well as manned and un- manned air forces capable of striking across the globe with precision.1 Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Economic Battle Plan
    Bill Gertz - Deceiving the Sky 2.60 [Economic Battle PlanTM points: 75) Background Briefing: Bill Gertz joins the Economic War Room to discuss our intelligence failures with China through 20 years of in-depth investigative reporting. Topics covered include China’s real world view, the mistakes we made integrating our economy with China, and the solutions going forward. It is time for all of America to wake up to the reality of what is happening. Historically, our intelligence analysts have been aligned with the Chinese. Now, that may be changing! ”In the 1990’s, I was with the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. And what he was saying was that China was not a threat. And my response was, “Why do you think that?” And his answer, to paraphrase it, was “Because the Chinese told us.” And I was totally shocked. But it became very clear to me within a very few years when a major spy was uncovered inside the Defense Intelligence Agency. His name was Ron Montaperto. He was a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst. And he was eventually convicted of passing classified information to Chinese and military intelligence at the Chinese embassy in Washington.” – Bill Gertz Best Selling Author, National Security Insider and Investigative Reporter Our intelligence community, our policy community, and our academic community has all been kind of infiltrated with these pro-China analysts. In some cases they were even infiltrated with Chinese spies. Your Mission: To understand the China threat and help enforce political change in DC that protects America’s national security. page 1 Bill Gertz - Deceiving the Sky 2.60 [Economic Battle PlanTM points: 75) FUN FACT: Former Defense secretary Rumsfeld said that Bill Gertz got information in the Pentagon faster than he did as Defense Secretary.
    [Show full text]
  • Space and Defense Issue
    33SPAC E and DEFENSE Volume Eleven Number One Spring 2019 China’s Military Space Strategy Sam Rouleau Volume Five Number One Communicating Cyber Consequences Sum Timothy Goines mer 2011 Why Brazil Ventured a Nuclear Program Saint-Clair Lima da Silva Arms Control & Deterrence Coalitions in Space:Damon Coletta Where Networks are CadetPower Voice—Curious Trinity: War, Media, Public Opinion byLaura James Olson Clay Moltz The 2010 National Space Policy: Down to Earth? by Joan Johnson-Freese Space & Defense Journal of the United States Air Force Academy Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Publisher Col. Kris Bauman, [email protected] Director, Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Editors Dr. Damon Coletta Dr. Michelle Black U.S. Air Force Academy, USA University of Nebraska, Omaha Associate Editors Mr. Deron Jackson Dr. Peter Hays U.S. Air Force Academy, USA George Washington University, USA Dr. Schuyler Foerster Ms. Jonty Kasku-Jackson U.S. Air Force Academy, USA National Security Space Institute, USA Thank You to Our Reviewers Andrew Aldrin Christopher Dunlap United Launch Alliance, USA Naval Postgraduate School, USA James Armor Paul Eckart ATK, USA Boeing, USA William Barry Andrew Erickson NASA Headquarters, USA Naval War College, USA Daniel Blinder Joanne Gabrynowicz UNSAM-CONICET, Argentina University of Mississippi, USA Robert Callahan Jason Healey NORAD-NORTHCOM, USA Atlantic Council, USA James Cameron Stephen Herzog Fundação Getúlio Vargas, Brazil Yale University, USA Robert Carriedo Theresa Hitchens U.S.
    [Show full text]