The US Defense Economy

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jomana Amara ◽  
Raymond E. Franck
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
The United States ◽  
Security Strategy ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
National Security Strategy ◽  
The Us ◽  
Industry Consolidation ◽  
Sheer Size ◽  
National Defence

The United States defence economy is remarkable for a number of reasons - including sheer size. It receives a significant (albeit decreasing) share of GDP and has a significant international footprint. Its purpose is to provide the resources for national defence - against a set of complex and capable adversaries. The main players in the defence economy are households, and the Federal Government. The associated interactions determine the resources provided for national defence and their allocation among various defence needs. This Element focuses primarily on interactions between government and industrial suppliers within the institutional peculiarities of the defence marketplace. This includes the developments that have determined the course of defence industry consolidation post-Cold War. The authors also highlight the persistent gap between resources available for defence and the means to execute the National Security Strategy. Finally, they offer some tentative thoughts regarding developments likely to shape the defence economy's future.

scholarly journals THE US POLICY SHIFT FROM ‘PIVOT TO ASIA’ TO ‘FREE INDO PACIFIC’: IMPLICATIONS FOR PAKISTAN

2021 ◽  
Vol 38 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Tatheer Zahra Sherazi ◽  
Amna Mahmood
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Cold War ◽  
The United States ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Pivot To Asia ◽  
The Us ◽  
Rise Of China ◽  
Offensive Realism ◽  
Policy Shift

Asia Pacific, which is extended Eastward to the states of Oceania, Westward to Pakistan, Southward to New Zealand, and Northward to Mongolia, is currently a pivot of the globe due to its economic growth. Since last two decades, it has got status of ‘growth center’ owing to its high economic growth rate. The United States (US) had been very active in Asia Pacific throughout the Cold War period, but in post-Cold War era, it was disengaged due to its pre-occupation in Middle East. However, the rise of China attracted US again with multiple arrangements at political, economic and social fronts. There are two world views about the US presence in Asia Pacific. The first one asserts that the Asia Pacific is more secure without the presence of US, while others takes the US presence as a patron for stability and solidarity within the region. The US policy of ‘Pivot to Asia’, ‘Asia Pacific’ commonly known as ‘Rebalancing’ ensured its new commitment of deep engagement in Southeast Asia. Policy shift under Trump administration from ‘Pivot to Asia’ to ‘Free Indo-Pacific’ has direct as well indirect implications for Pakistan. The study analyses the US strategies and polices under the theory of ‘Offensive Realism,’ where ‘rational powers uncertain of intentions and capable of military offensive strive to survive’. Analytical, descriptive approaches are adopted in order to analyse US ongoing strategies.

scholarly journals Is It Time for the Beaver to Hop off the Eagle? A Case for Canada to Reconsider Its Geopolitical Alignment with the United States

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Zhou
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
International System ◽  
Economic Cost ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic State ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Korean War ◽  
International Diplomacy

Canada is known for its close relations with the United States in the domains of economic affairs, defence and international diplomacy. This arrangement, however, was a product of the great changes brought about by the Second World War. The combination of British decline, Ottawa’s desire to achieve full independence from London, and the looming Soviet threat during the Cold War created a political environment in which Canada had to become closely integrated with the United States both militarily and economically. Canada did so to ensure its survival in the international system. With the exception of a few controversial issues like US involvement in Vietnam (1955) and Iraq (2003) as well as Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD), Ottawa has been Washington’s closest ally since 1945. On numerous occasions like the Korean War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and as recently as the War in Afghanistan and the War Against IS (Islamic State), Canada had provided staunch military and diplomatic support to Washington in its engagements around the globe. In an era of relative peace, stability, and certainty, particularly during the Post-Cold War period and the height of American power from 1991 to 2008, this geopolitical arrangement of continental integration had greatly benefited Canada. This era of benefits, however, is arguably drawing to a close. The Great Recession of 2007-09, the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the insistence on pursuing a foreign policy of global primacy despite its significant economic cost, are sending the US down an uncertain path. Due to its close relations and geographical proximity with the US, Canada now faces a hostile international environment that is filled with uncertainty as a result of superpower decline, great power rivalries, environmental degradation, and failed US interventions.

No First Use: The Next Step for U.S. Nuclear Policy

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael S. Gerson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
National Security ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
The United States ◽  
Security Strategy ◽  
The Core ◽  
National Security Strategy ◽  
Nuclear Policy

The release of the Barack Obama administration's much-anticipated Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) concluded an intense, yearlong effort to revamp U.S. nuclear weapons policy to better address modern threats. Despite general agreement that the United States' nuclear policy and posture was in need of overhaul, there were strong disagreements over what kinds of changes should be made. At the core of these debates was the issue of U.S. declaratory policy—the stated role and purpose of U.S. nuclear weapons. Whereas some members of the administration advocated that the United States retain all of the flexibility and options afforded by the policy of calculated ambiguity, others contended that to fulfill President Obama's commitment to “put an end to Cold War thinking” and “reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. national security strategy,” the United States should adopt a more restrictive nuclear policy such as no first use (NFU), perhaps in the form of a declaration that the “sole purpose” of U.S. nuclear weapons is to deter a nuclear attack. By not adopting NFU, the NPR missed an important opportunity to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in U.S. strategy. The traditional case for NFU hinges on the argument that the threat of nuclear first use is unnecessary for deterrence. Yet the continued U.S. option to use nuclear weapons first is not only unnecessary but dangerous. Given the size and accuracy of the current U.S. nuclear arsenal, and given the variation in the nuclear capabilities of current and potential adversaries, the first-use option risks creating instabilities in a severe crisis that increase the chances of accidental, unauthorized, or deliberate nuclear use. In a future crisis with a nuclear-armed state, the fear—whether real or imagined—that the United States might attempt a disarming nuclear first-strike increases the possibility of nuclear escalation.

scholarly journals Germany, the United States, and Future Core Conflict

1995 ◽  
pp. 445-482
Author(s):  
Brigitte Schulz
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
World Order ◽  
The United States ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
New Era ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Common ◽  
Will Power ◽  
The Cold War

With the end of the Cold War, much attention has been paid to the nature of the emerging new world order. By what criteria will power and influence be measured in this new era? Who will be the winners and losers? What types of allegiances will develop? Or is Francis Fukuyama's argument correct that, with the collapse of communism, we have reached the "...endpoint of man's ideological evolution" and thus "the end of history". Unlike Marx, who saw socialism at the end of humanity's arduous journey, Fukuyama tells us that the search is off because we have already arrived at our evolutionary destination: liberal capitalism...Other analysts envision less optimistic scenarios...One of the most popular scenarios over the past few years has been to anticipate growing tensions between the three main core powers: the US, Germany, and Japan... The first task of this paper, then, is to look at Germany within the context of the radically altered post-Cold War period... We argue that Germany, based on a multitude of factors which will be outlined below, is not now, nor will it ever become in the foreseeable future, a global hegemon... Indeed, as will be asserted in the second part of this paper, Germany will enter into a close alliance with the United States to form a reinvigorated trans-Atlantic marriage in which the common bonds of "culture and civilization" will replace a virulent anti-communism as the common vow.

scholarly journals Doomed to Repetition? Havana, Washington, Miami, and Moscow, from the Cold War to Today

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Radoslav Yordanov
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
The United States ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
The Past ◽  
Policy Debates ◽  
Competitive Coexistence ◽  
The Us ◽  
Comprehensive Survey ◽  
The Cold War

This paper offers a broad historical overview of US economic sanctions against Cuba, starting with the imposition of the partial trade embargo on 19 October 1960, taking the story up to the present day. Additionally, it develops a comprehensive survey of the numerous scholarly and policy debates which closely follow the changes in United States’ post-Cold War attitudes and actions towards its southern neighbor and which demonstrate the thinking behind centers of power in Washington and Miami related to US’ Cuba policies. The paper also glances over the latest developments under Cuba’s new President Miguel Díaz-Canel and the notable return to the harsh Cold War rhetoric, which transcends the boundaries of the localized Washington-Miami-Havana axis of the past thirty years. Referring to historic patterns, the paper concludes that the conjecture between the recent complication in the US-Cuba relations and Moscow’s ambition to reinstate its erstwhile position as an unavoidable international factor would afford Havana with the opportunity to reclaim once again the dubious honor of becoming one of the focal points in the renewed competitive coexistence between the United States and Russia.

scholarly journals Globalization of Ambitions. A Critical Analysis of Donald Trump’s National Security Strategy 2017

2017 ◽  
pp. 86-95
Author(s):  
N. P. Gribin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
National Security ◽  
The United States ◽  
Economic Security ◽  
Security Strategy ◽  
National Security Strategy ◽  
The Us ◽  
The World ◽  
At Home

Under the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Department Reorganization Act of 1986, the President of the United States must submit to Congress each year a report on the national security strategy. This report under the name of “National Security Strategy” is intended to be a comprehensive statement anticipating the worldwide interests, goals and objectives that are deemed crucial to the national security of the United States. The new “National Security Strategy” (December 2017) lays out the strategic vision of the Presidential Administration under Donald Trump about ways and means by which the US seeks to deal with internal and external threats. The authors of the Strategy set themselves the main task of proving that American security is based on the realization that American principles are: “a lasting force for good in the World.”  The authors of the Strategy prioritize the protection of the American way of life and American interests all over the world. In that aspect, they see the main danger from the hostile states and non-states actors who are “trying to acquire different types of weapons”. In addition, the administration is demonstrating concerns about the activity of international terrorist organizations (jihadist), transnational criminal organizations, drug cartels and cybercrime. Different from previous similar documents, Trump’s Strategy makes an evident accent on economic security as an important part of national security. The task in that area is “to rebuild economic strength at home and preserve a fair and reciprocal international system.” In a rather confronting manner, the Strategy assesses the role of China and Russia in the international affairs. It underlines that between the main sets of challengers – “the revisionist powers of China and Russia and the rogue states of Iran and North Korea”, the United States will seek areas of cooperation with competitors but will do so from a position of strength. The Strategy pays great attention to restoring military capability of the US. It is stressed that military strength remains a vital component of the competition for influence. In a certain sense, the authors of the Strategy demonstrate a new approach to the role of diplomacy, and especially in regards to the tools of economic diplomacy, intended to protect the US “from abuse by illicit actors”. Pillar four of the Strategy outlines considerations for expanding US influence on a global scale and for supporting friendly partners. As stated in the Strategy, American assistance to developing countries should help promote national interests and vice versa. The US will use all means, including sanctions, to “isolate states and leaders that pose a threat to the American interests.” The Strategy pays much attention to the regional aspect of national security, and, from these positions, the situation in various parts of the world (the Indo-Pacific region, Europe, the Middle East, etc.) is assessed. The authors emphasize that changes in the balance of power at the world level can cause global consequences and threaten American interests and US security. On the contrary, “stability reduces the threats that Americans face at home.”

scholarly journals Babel Syndrome and the New Security Doctrine of the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-45
Author(s):  
José Luís Fiori
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
Us Foreign Policy ◽  
Security Strategy ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Capitalist System ◽  
Tower Of Babel ◽  
National Security Strategy ◽  
The Us ◽  
Trump Administration ◽  
Inter State

This article explores the significance to the inter-state capitalist system of the new US national security strategy, as defined by the Donald Trump administration on 17 December 2017. By looking beyond the inconsistencies and idiosyncrasies of President Trump, we see that this strategy represents a break, not only with the strategies of recent US administrations but also with a longer tradition in US foreign policy. This article proposes that the supposed crisis of ‘liberal order’ is a direct and inevitable result of the expansion and success of the inter-state capitalist system. To explain the strategy of the US in this scenario, the article adopts an unorthodox approach, analysing the myth of the Tower of Babel.

Contesting Identity

2012 ◽  
Vol 49 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 423-436
Author(s):  
Sanjeev Kumar H.M.
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Soft Power ◽  
Religion And Politics ◽  
The United States ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Global War On Terrorism ◽  
War Economy ◽  
The Us ◽  
Global War ◽  
The Cold War

The interface between religion and politics has become strong in the wake of expansion of modernity in its contemporary form. This can be regarded as cultural globalization. To interpret this phenomenon, the demonization of Islam by the West led by the US has been taken as a key epistemological point. This article argues that this policy, framed as part of the American strategy in the global war on terrorism, has constituted a key component of the larger US agenda. One facet of this agenda is primarily related to America’s bid to perpetuate the institutional structure of the permanent war economy envisaged during the Cold War period. The structure consists of the vocational interests of the arms lobby and the hawkish politico-bureaucratic-strategic condominium in the US. To accomplish this goal, communism, the United States’ Cold War enemy, has been replaced by a new enemy, Islam, at the end of the Cold War. The events of 11 September 2001 brought all this to a full circle and facilitated the US to advance justifications for continuing the permanent war economy and to substantiate the transformation of the ideological conflict of the Cold War into a cultural conflict in the post-Cold War period. In this regard, the rise of US soft power, made possible by the pervasive impact of globalization, has helped defend America’s post-Cold War proposition regarding an emergent war culture and the portrayal of Islam as the Manichean other in this war.

scholarly journals Post-Cold War sanctioning by the EU, the UN, and the US: Introducing the EUSANCT Dataset

2020 ◽  
pp. 073889422094872 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick M Weber ◽  
Gerald Schneider
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Cold War ◽  
United Nations ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
The Eu

The European Union, the United Nations, and the United States frequently use economic sanctions. This article introduces the EUSANCT Dataset—which amends, merges, and updates some of the most widely used sanctions databases—to trace the evolution of sanctions after the Cold War. The dataset contains case-level and dyadic information on 326 threatened and imposed sanctions by the EU, the UN, and the US. We show that the usage and overall success of sanctions have not grown from 1989 to 2015 and that while the US is the most active sanctioner, the EU and the UN appear more successful.

scholarly journals US-Japan Security Alliance Adrift?

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 3-20
Author(s):  
Tsuneo Akaha
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Cold War ◽  
The United States ◽  
Asia Pacific ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
End Of History ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Cold War ◽  
Security Alliance

How stable is the US-Japan security alliance in the post-Cold War era? Have the “end of history”, the “end of the Cold War”, the end of a “hegemonic world”, and the “end of geography” (or the beginning of a borderless world economy) so altered the national security needs and priorities of the United States and Japan that they no longer need or desire the security alliance they have maintained since 1952? Will the alliance remain the anchor of Japanese and US policies in the Asia-Pacific region? In the age of multilateralism, will the two countries seek multilateral alternatives that will replace the bilateral alliance? In this brief analysis, I will review the ongoing debate in Japan and in the United States concerning the future of the US-Japan security alliance in the post-Cold War era.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5564/mjia.v4i0.415 Mongolian Journal of International Affairs Vol.4 2007: 3-20

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document