US-Soldaten in Afghanistan

Defense One


»http://www.defenseone.com«

suche-links1 2 3 4 5 6suche-rechts

22.07.2019

"Where’s the Coverage of Civilian Casualties in the War on ISIS?"

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/07/wheres-coverage-civilian-casualties-war-isis/158585/?oref=d-rive
r

Neue Studien haben Alexa O'Brien zufolge erhebliche Lücken in der Berichterstattung über die zivilen Opfer des Anti-IS-Kriegs in Irak und Syrien aufgedeckt. "(...) reporting on civilian casualties was found to be either absent or nearly so during key periods of the conflict. For example, between October 2015 and March 2016, when some of the most intense fighting was happening in Iraq, the five major U.S. newspapers (the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, The New York Times and USA Today) published a total of just five articles on reported civilian harm from coalition airstrikes. 'Siloed' and largely 'self-directed' is how media professionals describe civilian-harm coverage at their own organizations. Split between the relevant foreign bureaus that covered Iraq and Syria, and the newsrooms back home that cover the U.S. military and defense issues, many of those interviewed said that individual bureau chiefs and newsroom editors often lack the bandwidth or authority to task other bureaus and newsrooms with the subject, leading to intermittent or fragmented reporting."

Mehr lesen


14.06.2019

"Deterrence Is Failing — Partly Because Iran Has No Idea What the US Really Wants"

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/06/restoring-deterrence-iran/157756/?oref=d-topstory

Die Eskalation des Konflikts zwischen Iran und den USA ist nach Ansicht von Christopher J. Bolan vom Army War College in Pennsylvania darauf zurückzuführen, dass die US-Regierung Teheran über ihre Ziele und roten Linien im Unklaren gelassen habe. Die entstandene Ungewissheit habe auf beiden Seiten zu Fehleinschätzungen geführt. Um neue Klarheit zu schaffen, hält Bolan sowohl eine kalkulierte militärische Reaktion auf den Vorfall im Golf von Oman als auch neue positive Anreize für Teheran für unerlässlich. "An effective response is almost certain to include U.S. military strikes of one extent or another. The challenge for U.S. policymakers will be to design military strikes that are sufficiently strong to deter future Iranian attacks without provoking escalatory Iranian retaliation that spins out of control and triggers a broader regional war. Such a balancing act will require detailed intelligence, precise military planning, and sophisticated public and private diplomacy. (...) However, identifying small steps that could be taken by Iran that would be quickly rewarded with a comparably small 'reward' by the United States holds the potential to create positive momentum toward reduced tensions. If successful, a series of these small confidence-building steps could provide a sufficient foundation and incentives for both sides to return to the negotiating table and avoid a broader conflict that both sides say they want to avoid."

Mehr lesen


12.06.2019

"These Are the US Military Bases Most Threatened by Climate Change"

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2019/06/these-are-us-military-bases-most-threatened-climate-change/157
689/?oref=d-topstory

Das Pentagon muss sich Ben Watson zufolge Sorgen um zahlreiche Militärstützpunkte machen, die zunehmend von den Folgen des Klimawandels bedroht werden. "Each service evaluated its infrastructure’s vulnerability to increased flooding, drought, and wildfires; thawing permafrost; rising rivers and coasts; and other effects of climate change. The four services flagged a total of 46 bases as particularly threatened. (...) On Wednesday, the Government Accountability Office issued its own latest look at how military installations are preparing for the climate crisis. The report found that installations were moving too slowly, and that Pentagon higher-ups had not been issuing enough guidance."

Mehr lesen


11.06.2019

"US to Send 1,000 More Troops to Poland"

https://www.defenseone.com/politics/2019/06/us-send-1000-more-troops-poland/157635/?oref=defense_one_brea
king_nl

Die US-Regierung hat auf die Bitte Warschaus reagiert und will die Zahl der in Polen stationierten US-Soldaten um 1.000 auf 5.000 erhöhen. Dabei soll es sich allerdings nicht um Kampfeinheiten, sondern um rotierende logistische Einheiten handeln. "The U.S. defense official said the addition of the non-combat troops would not violate the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and Russia, which prohibits the permanent basing of NATO troops in former Warsaw Pact countries."

Mehr lesen


04.06.2019

"North Korea’s Nuclear Bomb Is Much Bigger than Previously Thought!"

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2019/06/north-koreas-nuclear-bomb-much-bigger-previously-thought/15
7469/?oref=d-topstory

Eine erneute Analyse der Daten eines nordkoreanischen Atomtests von 2017 hat Patrick Tucker zufolge ergeben, dass die getestete Atombombe um zwei Drittel größer gewesen sei als zunächst angenommen. "Earlier data put the yield somewhere between 30 and 300 kilotons; the U.S. intelligence community said 140 kilotons. That was already the most powerful device tested by North Korea, topping a 2016 test by about an order of magnitude. But a new look at seismological data suggests that the blast was between 148 and 328 kilotons, and probably around 250 kilotons. (...) A 250-kiloton weapon would be about 16 times more powerful than the one that leveled Hiroshima. (...) The 2017 North Korean test produced an earthquake of 6.3 magnitude. But how you look at that data shapes the conclusion that you reach. The new research uses a statistical trick called a 'relative waveform equalization procedure,' essentially a bit of tuning, like removing static noise from an audio signal, to enable the researchers to better compute 'two very closely located explosions recorded at multiple stations,' according to the paper."

Mehr lesen


09.05.2019

"The Flash Point Between America and Iran Could Be Iraq’s Militias"

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2019/05/flash-point-between-america-and-iran-could-be-iraqs-militias/1
56882/?oref=d_brief_nl

In Irak habe der gemeinsame Kampf gegen den IS in den vergangenen Jahren zu einer Art Allianz zwischen den US-Truppen und den von Iran unterstützten schiitischen Milizen geführt, schreibt Mike Giglio. Bei einer weiteren Verschärfung der Krise zwischen den USA und dem Iran könnten die Milizen den US-Truppen allerdings gefährlich werden. "The fact that U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria remain heavily engaged in the fight against ISIS underscores the risks of a U.S. strategy in the region that seeks to pivot to a new enemy, in Iran, even as the battle with the old one remains a work in progress. And as the past few days have shown, both the United States and Iran have levers with which they can escalate tensions."

Mehr lesen


06.05.2019

"Europe Should Do More for Regional Security — Starting with Libya"

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/05/europe-should-do-more-regional-security-start-libya/156739/?oref
=d_brief_nl

Daniel DePetris meint, dass sich die transatlantische Debatte über die sicherheitspolitische Lastenteilung nicht auf die Höhe der Militärausgaben konzentrieren sollte. Für die USA sei die Frage wichtiger, mit welchem Aufwand die amerikanischen Verbündeten sich um ihre eigene regionale Sicherheit kümmern. Europa sollte seine Aufmerksamkeit demnach auf den Nahen Osten und aktuell besonders auf Libyen richten. "Libya’s political future is far more critical to Europe than the U.S. As such, it should be Europe — not America — which gets bogged down managing Libya’s conflict and eventual reconstruction. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Europe’s most influential politician, has spent the last year calling on her fellow Europeans to take more responsibility for its own affairs. (...) Europe should not be so weak that it must rely on U.S. taxpayers and servicemembers — now $22 trillion in debt and overextended after two consecutive decades of war — to ride to the rescue and bail out the continent whenever a national security challenge arises. If Europe — a populace, prosperous bloc of nations—can’t tend to the challenges in Libya — a small, poor, weak nation in its near abroad — exactly what can it contribute to America’s security?"

Mehr lesen


25.04.2019

"Did Russia Just Concede a Need to Regulate Military AI?"

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/04/russian-military-finally-calling-ethics-artificial-intelligence/
156553/?oref=d_brief_nl

Russland hat sich bisher entschieden gegen eine internationale Regulierung der Entwicklung von Waffensystemen mit künstlicher Intelligenz ausgesprochen. Jüngste Äußerungen des Sekretärs des Sicherheitsrats der Russischen Föderation, Nikolai Patruschew, deuten Samuel Bendett zufolge auf ein mögliches Umdenken Moskaus hin. "'We believe that it is necessary to activate the powers of the global community, chiefly at the UN venue, as quickly as possible to develop a comprehensive regulatory framework that would prevent the use of the specified [new] technologies for undermining national and international security,' Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev said on Wednesday at an annual international-security conference in Moscow, according to state media. 'Modern technologies make it possible to create attack instruments with the use of artificial intelligence, genetics, and synthetic biological agents — they are often as deadly as weapons of mass destruction.' Such sentiment coming from the Russian military is rather surprising. Starting in 2017, Moscow’s position on LAWS has been fairly consistent: the country agrees with the international consensus that humans must maintain control of them, agrees to continue talking about regulating their use, but opposes international limits on their development."

Mehr lesen


05.03.2019

"The Inevitable Return of Muddling Along in North Korea"

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/03/inevitable-return-muddling-along-north-korea/155308/?oref=d-rive
r

Richard Fontaine vom Center for a New American Security erwartet, dass das Verhältnis der USA zu Nordkorea nach dem Scheitern des Gipfeltreffens in Hanoi schnell wieder in die gewohnten Bahnen zurückkehren wird. "We’ve been here before, more or less. In 2008, President George W. Bush overruled his more hard-line advisers to seek a deal with Pyongyang, removing North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. In return, North Korea was supposed to provide a faithful account of its nuclear program and destroy the cooling tower at its Yongbyon production facility. (...) No such luck. It turned out that Pyongyang’s account wasn’t faithful at all: It included only plutonium stores and left out enriched uranium. Although North Korea did destroy the cooling tower (and then sent the bill to Washington), within a year Yongbyon was back to reprocessing spent fuel. The North Korean nuclear arsenal didn’t shrink; it grew. Washington had no choice but to reduce the scope of its ambitions and return to managing the problem. Trump’s best option is to do the same."

Mehr lesen


20.02.2019

"ISIS Might Come Back. That’s Just One More Reason to Get Out of Syria"

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/02/isis-might-come-back-s-just-one-more-reason-get-out-syria/154973
/?oref=d-river

Die drohende Rückkehr des "Islamischen Staates" ist nach Ansicht von Bonnie Kristian kein Grund, den beschlossenen Abzug der US-Truppen aus Syrien hinauszuzögern. "'If Sunni socio-economic, political, and sectarian grievances are not adequately addressed by the national and local governments of Iraq and Syria,' the [Pentagon inspector general Report] notes, 'it is very likely that ISIS will have the opportunity to set conditions for future resurgence and territorial control.' U.S. military intervention cannot address these grievances, and there is no sign whatsoever that either the Syrian or the Iraqi government will do so soon. This decision point at which we find ourselves with Syria is a chance to learn from recent history, to avoid making again the mistakes of Afghanistan and Iraq. And the crucial lesson here is that there will always be another enemy who will reemerge in six to 12 months absent U.S. military pressure, because we cannot force the regimes we assist to reform their politics or their armies. (...) There is no credible case that our 2,000 troops could accomplish anything more than they already have by staying. As this potential resurgence itself demonstrates, our military intervention is capable of mowing the grass but not digging out the roots. It is fundamentally mismatched to the task of political and social change needed to move ISIS and its like from suppressed or defeated to unthinkable. We cannot and will not transform Syria by war."

Mehr lesen


13.02.2019

"Cyber Deterrence Done Right: The Coordinated Actions Against Huawei"

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/02/coordinated-actions-against-huawei-are-cyber-deterrence-done-rig
ht/154870/?oref=d-river

Annie Fixler von der Foundation for Defense of Democracies hält die amerikanische Strategie bei der Verfolgung des chinesischen IT-Konzerns Huawei für wegweisend. Der US-Regierung sei es gelungen, "demokratische Verbündete" wie Kanada und Polen dazu zu bewegen, koordiniert gegen den "Cyber-Widersacher" vorzugehen. "(...) where previous investigations and lawsuits appeared to make no measurable impact on the company’s growth, the new coordinated campaign by U.S. allies and aggressive diplomatic outreach by Washington is beginning to take its toll. At Davos last month, Huawei Chairman Liang Hua admitted that the company may withdraw from countries where it does not feel welcome. (...) These coordinated efforts demonstrated that joint punitive actions can be more powerful than unilateral measures. When the United States and European Union banned equipment and software from Russia’s Kaspersky Lab within three days of each other, the company’s CEO lashed out in frustration. But to date, these have all been ad hoc initiatives. It is time for Washington to create a standing consortium of likeminded nations to identify companies and technology that pose risks to the integrity of critical infrastructure and communications systems and take joint action to excise them from allied systems."

Mehr lesen


11.02.2019

"Two Ideas That Might Stop a Post-INF Arms Race, and One That Won’t"

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/02/two-ideas-might-stop-post-inf-arms-race-and-one-wont/154789/?ore
f=d-river

Seit dem absehbaren Ende des INF-Vertrags werden Überlegungen darüber angestellt, wie die atomare Rüstungskontrolle neu organisiert und ein neues internationales Wettrüsten verhindert werden könnte. Die Idee eines "INF-Plus"-Vertrags unter Einbeziehung Chinas wird von Daryl G. Kimball von der Arms Control Association (ACA) als aussichtslos abgelehnt. Er plädiert stattdessen für eine Vereinbarung, die die NATO und Russland zum Verzicht auf eine zu nahe Stationierung neuer Raketen verpflichten würde. "One option would be for NATO to declare, as a bloc, that no alliance members will field any INF Treaty-prohibited missiles or any equivalent new nuclear capabilities in Europe so long as Russia does not deploy treaty-prohibited systems where they could hit NATO territory. This would require Russia to move at least some currently deployed 9M729 missiles. As the United States and Russia dispute the range of that missile; perhaps they could agree to bar deployments west of the Ural mountains. (...) Key allies would likely view this as the best post-INF alternative. Germany has already declared its opposition to stationing new intermediate-range missiles in Europe. And Moscow may already be open to a new agreement along these lines."

Mehr lesen


25.01.2019

"The INF Treaty Is Doomed. We Need a New Arms-Control Framework"

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/01/inf-treaty-doomed-we-need-new-arms-control-framework/154428/?ore
f=d-river

Eugene Rumer vom Russia and Eurasia Program der Carnegie Endowment for International Peace hält den Kampf um den INF-Vertrag für gescheitert. Weder die USA noch Russland seien am weiteren Bestehen der Vereinbarung interessiert. Nun müsse es darum gehen, künftigen atomaren Abrüstungsbemühungen einen neuen Rahmen zu verschaffen. "It is impossible to separate the fate of the INF Treaty from the geography of the NATO-Russia standoff. NATO expansion has provided a robust security guarantee to the countries of Eastern and Central Europe — a guarantee they wanted as a hedge against precisely the kind of Russia they are dealing with today. But Russia rejects the European security order with NATO at its core, and the alliance’s expansion has resulted in a new climate of insecurity along its eastern edge. The asymmetry of the INF Treaty, which allows some intermediate-range systems, but not others, has doomed it in the eyes of Russian defense planners confronted with the new map of NATO and ever-improving U.S. offensive capabilities. (...) The arms control framework built during the Cold War is growing obsolete. It does not keep up with the rapid pace of technological change and the new geography of threats."

Mehr lesen


16.01.2019

"Army Chief Confirms US Will Hand off ISIS Fight in Syria"

https://www.defenseone.com/news/2019/01/army-chief-confirms-us-will-hand-isis-fight-syria/154237/?oref=d-
topstory

Wenige Stunden nach dem IS-Anschlag in Manbij habe mit Mark Milley zum ersten Mal ein hochrangiger US-General die Abzugspläne der USA für Syrien bestätigt, berichtet Patrick Tucker. "'We are determined to finish that off and then hand the battle off to our indigenous partners,' Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said on Wednesday. His comments came hours after a suicide bomber killed four people in Manbij, Syria, including two U.S. troops, a Defense Department civilian, and one contractor. Three more were injured in the blast, for which ISIS declared responsibility. Milley did not say when U.S. troops would leave Syria, but his characterization suggests a change of one mission goal for the Americans, who until Trump’s tweet last December were intending to remain in country until UN-brokered talks reached a peace deal in Geneva."

Mehr lesen


15.01.2019

"China’s Military Is Getting Better at a Lot of Things at Once: Pentagon Intelligence"

https://www.defenseone.com/threats/2019/01/chinas-military-getting-better-lot-things-once-pentagon-intell
igence/154194/?oref=d-topstory

Einer neuen Pentagon-Analyse zufolge hat sich das chinesische Militär in vielen Bereichen rasant weiterentwickelt. "China’s military power remains limited and its leaders want no war with the United States, but its desire for regional hegemony, global reach, and advanced technology means the U.S. military has much more to watch out for in the years ahead, according to a new unclassified assessment by the Pentagon’s intelligence agency. This is the Defense Intelligence Agency’s first public and unclassified report on the People’s Liberation Army’s arsenal and intentions; the agency released a similar report on Russia’s military last year. (...) one factor will continue to rein in Beijing’s ambitions: experience. China has not fought a war in four decades; moreover, there is a generational gap between newer Chinese military officers, who are being trained for joint warfare across military service branches, and older officers whose have limited experience extends only to their own service branches and regional assignments inside China."

Mehr lesen


15.01.2019

"Trump’s Wall Fixation Is Impeding Border Security"

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/01/trumps-wall-fixation-impeding-border-security/154192/?oref=d-riv
er

David Fidler meint, dass US-Präsident Trump mit seinem Bestehen auf der Errichtung einer Mauer an der Grenze zu Mexiko die modernen Möglichkeiten zur Sicherung nationaler Grenzen vernachlässige und dem Grenzschutz so eher schade. "The president’s obsession that only more concrete slabs or steel slats can better secure the U.S. southern border fundamentally misunderstands what walls have always been. This failure goes deeper than his inability to accept the evidence that no security or humanitarian crisis exists along the border with Mexico. Worse, the wall debate is preventing policymakers from deliberating effectively on how to re-calibrate the utilization of personnel, technology, and physical barriers for improved border security. (...) The course on which the president insists will, if taken, make border patrol agents and advanced technologies subservient to the physical barrier, rather than having agents, technologies, and barriers configured, networked, and deployed in the most effective ways to serve the various national interests and ideals touched by border security.“

Mehr lesen


08.01.2019

"Moscow’s Little-Noticed Islamic-Outreach Effort"

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2019/01/moscows-little-noticed-islamic-outreach-effort/154011/?oref=d-ri
ver

Hassan Hassan berichtet, dass Russland ein international bisher kaum beachtetes Programm zur Förderung eines moderaten Islams auf den Weg gebracht habe. Dabei bemühe sich Moskau um eine enge Kooperation mit arabischen Staaten, was dort positiv aufgenommen worden sei. "The Russian emissary for this effort is Ramzan Kadyrov, the head of the Chechen Republic. For Kadyrov, opposition to Islamic extremism is an extension of the war in Chechnya, in which he fought on behalf of Moscow against the separatist Chechen movement. (...) Over the summer, Kadyrov was welcomed like royalty in Saudi Arabia. Saudi authorities let him inside Prophet Mohammed’s room, which is closed to all but special guests. (...) Russia’s Islamic outreach is driven by several factors, first among them domestic worries. Muslims constitute nearly 15 percent of the Russian population, and Moscow fought two religious and nationalist insurrections in the Muslim-majority North Caucasus region. The rise of the Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Syria increased Moscow’s concerns about an extremist threat, especially given the sizable role of jihadis from North Caucasus within the two groups."

Mehr lesen


28.11.2018

"Something We Can Agree On: Close Some Overseas Bases"

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2018/11/something-we-can-agree-close-some-overseas-bases/153108/?oref=d-
river

Miriam Pemberton vom Institute for Policy Studies gehört zu den Unterzeichnern eines offenen Briefs an den US-Senat, in dem eine überparteiliche Gruppe von Sicherheitsexperten die Reduzierung der Zahl der internationalen US-Militärstützpunkte fordert. "Our group, which calls itself the Overseas Bases Realignment and Closure Coalition, or OBRACC, finds agreement from the right, left, and center that doing so would be an important step toward making the United States and the world safer and more prosperous. (...) The strategy of maintaining U.S. military dominance with a network of about 800 military bases spread across the globe has left us seriously overstretched. It has diverted our resources from our domestic needs, as well as from constructive, non-military forms of global engagement. This strategy has created nationalistic resentments, and even spurs to terrorism, in places where U.S. bases sit. Nobody likes to be occupied. (...) The damage to our national standing and reputation from our empire of bases also extends to the environmental damage to local communities caused by toxic leaks, accidents, and the dumping of hazardous materials. (...) All of these factors argue for shrinking America’s military footprint around the world."

Mehr lesen


19.11.2018

"Space Force Actually May Be Bargain, New Cost Estimate Says"

https://www.defenseone.com/politics/2018/11/space-force-actually-may-be-bargain-new-cost-estimate-says/15
2939/?oref=d-river

Die von US-Präsident Trump geforderte Weltraumarmee würde einer neuen Schätzung zufolge weitaus weniger kosten als bisher angenommen, da es sich im Wesentlichen um eine Neuorganisation bestehender Militärstrukturen handeln würde. "Space Force — the new branch of the U.S. military desired by President Trump — could cost taxpayers as much as $21.5 billion per year, but only $550 million of that would be new money, according to a budget analyst. The estimate from Washington’s resident defense spending guru Todd Harrison of the Center for Strategic and International Studies argues that creating a Space Force, large or small, amounts to nothing more than a reorganization in which money would be transferred out of the Air Force, Army and Navy into the new military service."

Mehr lesen


16.11.2018

"Russia Has Started to Train Its Entire Military to Fight Drones"

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2018/11/russia-has-started-train-its-entire-military-fight-drones/1
52889/?oref=d-river

Das russische Militär hat Patrick Tucker zufolge aus einem Drohnenangriff auf einen russischen Militärstützpunkt in Syrien Konsequenzen gezogen und das umfassende Training entsprechender Abwehrmaßnahmen angeordnet. "While the U.S. military and others have developed tactics, techniques, and procedures to fight off drones, Russia is the first country to implement such training on such a wide scale. The move follows a January attack by anti-Assad forces on a Russian military base in Syria, using ten small drones modified to carry explosives. Russian military officials frequently cite attacks by armed consumer drones flown by 'terrorist' groups, said Samuel Bendett, a researcher at the CNA Corporation and a fellow in Russia Studies at the American Foreign Policy Council. 'This threat was judged to be great enough to introduce training to counter such small drones with small fires across so many Russian services – airborne troops, marines and land formations. The training will concern everyone in uniform - from a cook, medic and logistician to front-line forces,' Bendett said."

Mehr lesen


06.11.2018

"China Is No Reason to Abandon the INF"

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2018/11/china-no-reason-abandon-inf/152607/?oref=d-river

Zac Brown hält das Argument, dass der INF-Vertrag eine angemessene amerikanische Reaktion auf das chinesische Raketenprogramm verhindere, nicht für überzeugend. Eine Stationierung von landgestützten Mittelstreckenraketen im Pazifik wäre seiner Ansicht nach "taktisch ineffektiv und strategisch destabilisierend". "First, virtually no allies would be willing to host new American ground-based missiles aimed at China. Japan has come out in defense of the INF Treaty, calling a U.S. withdrawal 'undesirable,' while Australian officials have indicated they have low thresholds for U.S. actions they perceive as needlessly provoking Beijing. Moreover, neither country is likely to view Taiwan as a core security interest in the same way as Washington. (...) This leaves the tiny island of Guam — nearly 2,000 miles from China — as the only realistic base for ground-launched missiles, an option which poses severe challenges for both survivability and military utility. (...) Guam is already a high-value target for Beijing, and any new missile deployment would only raise the incentives strike the island quickly in a fight. Moreover, it’s not completely obvious what this new force would do. (...) Simply put, there’s no need for ground-based, intermediate-range missiles when we have those aplenty in the air and at sea, all of which would be able to get in closer to China before launching."

Mehr lesen


04.11.2018

"John Bolton Keeps Citing This 2002 Pact as an Arms-Control Model. It’s Really Not."

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2018/11/john-bolton-keeps-citing-arms-control-pact-option-its-really-not
/152553/?oref=d-topstory

Nach dem Ende des INF-Vertrags würde es mit dem "New START"-Abkommen nur noch einen Abrüstungsvertrag geben, der die Atomwaffenarsenale der USA und Russlands limitiert, schreibt Steven Pifer von der Brookings Institution. Präsident Trump und sein Sicherheitsberater Bolton hätten bereits angedeutet, dass sie auch diesen Vertrag nicht besonders schätzen. Bolton habe den 2002 unterzeichneten "SORT"-Vertrag als alternatives Modell vorgeschlagen. "That model, however, will go nowhere. The Russians would not agree. Moreover, it is not serious arms control. (...) SORT was short, fitting neatly on two pages. One reason for its brevity: it contained no agreed definitions, no counting rules, and no monitoring measures. (In contrast, START I and New START each ran hundreds of pages in length.) The Russians hoped for more, but they desperately wanted an agreement. Offered SORT essentially on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, Mr. Putin took it. Could the United States negotiate something like SORT with Russia today? No."

Mehr lesen


29.10.2018

"Russia, US Offer Competing Vision of Cyber Norms to the UN"

https://www.defenseone.com/politics/2018/10/russia-us-offer-competing-vision-cyber-norms-un/152382/?oref=
d-river

Die USA und Russland haben Alex Grigsby zufolge bei der UN unterschiedliche Modelle zur Schaffung internationaler Cyber-Normen vorgelegt. "I’m not a UN process expert, so it’s hard to say how this will play out. But if I were a betting man, I’d put my money on the U.S. approach coming out on top. As an institution, the United Nations prefers incrementalism over radical change. That makes it much harder for Russia, China and the rest of the SCO members to drum up support for a twenty-five paragraph code of conduct that contains vague language mostly unfamiliar to many states. By contrast, the U.S. resolution has more similarities to Russia’s previous resolutions, an advantage given that they will be familiar to diplomats at the UN who prefer sticking to previously agreed text. No matter what happens as diplomats haggle over the particulars of the resolution, expect a new GGE [UN Group of Governmental Experts] next year."

Mehr lesen


23.10.2018

"How to Keep a Cyberattack from Turning into Nuclear War? Keep Talking"

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2018/10/how-avoid-cyberattack-turning-nuclear-war-keep-talking/152236/?o
ref=d-topstory

Ankit Panda hält die Möglichkeit, dass ein Cyberangriff auf kritische Infrastrukturen in den USA mit einem Atomangriff beantwortet werden könnte, angesichts der Änderungen in der Nuklearstrategie der US-Regierung für durchaus realistisch. "One danger that merits special attention is the possibility of a North Korean cyberattack escalating out of control – one that sparks an American counterstrike using conventional weapons so intense that Pyongyang responds with an attempted nuclear missile attack on the United States. Or, a scenario where a North Korean cyberattack hits an American target so vital that it elicits an American nuclear missile strike in return. It’s not fantasy. These dynamics are particularly salient given certain policy changes introduced by the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, or NPR. (...) The Trump administration never should have specified the 'extreme circumstances' that might lead to the United States considering nuclear use. (...) Before a miscalculation or provocation has a chance to test the Trump NPR’s boundaries, U.S. officials in their ongoing talks with North Koreans should make their intentions on nuclear weapons and cyberattacks crystal clear."

Mehr lesen


21.10.2018

"Nothing About Trashing the INF Treaty Makes the US Safer"

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2018/10/nothing-about-trashing-inf-treaty-makes-us-safer/152187/?oref=d-
topstory

Michael Krepon hält die Drohung von US-Präsident Trump, den INF-Vertrag mit Russland aufzukündigen, sowohl aus diplomatischer als auch aus strategischer Sicht nicht für überzeugend. Die vorgetragenen Vertragsverletzungen Russlands könnten seiner Ansicht nach mit effektiven Gegenmaßnahmen innerhalb des Abkommens beantwortet werden. "There are effective treaty-compliant counters to the Russian violation by means of air-delivered and sea-based capabilities that the Pentagon is already pursuing. The White House could also push Vladimir Putin to return to treaty compliance by linking American restraint on deploying more missile defenses in Europe to the removal of Russia’s noncompliant missiles. But neither Trump nor Bolton has demonstrated a fondness for diplomacy or an interest in reaffirming the INF Treaty. This move is about freedom of U.S. action and a deep, abiding distrust of treaties. Trump’s withdrawal from the INF Treaty fits into an 'America First' strategy that undermines diplomatic ties. That’s the take-away by U.S. friends and allies — along with a foreboding sense of an intensified nuclear competition."

Mehr lesen


17.10.2018

"US Military Leaders Keep Quiet on Saudi Arabia Amid Khashoggi Outrage"

https://www.defenseone.com/politics/2018/10/us-military-leaders-keep-quiet-saudi-arabia-amid-khashoggi-ou
trage/152082/?oref=d-river

Kevin Baron bezweifelt, dass das Pentagon seine engen Beziehungen zu Saudi-Arabien aufgrund der Affäre um den verschwundenen Journalisten Jamal Khashoggi in Frage stellen wird. Das US-Militär habe bisher in seinen Äußerungen immer wieder die strategische Bedeutung des Bündnispartners hervorgehoben. "Is the Saudi partnership still a matter of necessity? Should it be? That’s not likely the question Mattis and Dunford are asking for the near term. For them, the answer is yes. But for the long term, it’s also question for Pompeo and Trump. It’s a question of whether 'Saudi interests' under bin Salman still align with American interests, or just with American military and intelligence interests. (...) This week, national security press has been inundated with commentaries asking if the U.S.-Saudi relationship has been worth the cost. At the Pentagon, no matter the outcome of the Pompeo fact-finding trip or the Khashoggi investigation, the answer is most likely going to be a resounding yes."

Mehr lesen


16.10.2018

"China’s Moon Missions Could Threaten US Satellites: Pentagon"

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2018/10/chinas-moon-missions-could-threaten-us-satellites-pentagon/
152084/?oref=d-river

Das Pentagon fürchtet Patrick Tucker zufolge, dass sich das chinesische Mondprogramm künftig zu einer ernsten Bedrohung für amerikanische Satelliten entwickeln könnte. "The Chinese government has said the mission is part of a four-stage plan to build a moon base. 'We hope to start the construction of the [robot-manned] lunar base around 2025 and realize a manned landing on the moon around 2030,' Zhao Xiaojin of the China Aerospace Science and Technology Group told Xinhuanet in March. But [Jeff Gossel, the senior intelligence engineer in the Space and Missile Analysis Group at the Air Force’s National Air and Space Intelligence Center,] said putting a satellite at L2 could also enable Chinese attack spacecraft to zoom past the moon — about a quarter-million miles away — and then sneak up on critical U.S. intelligence and communications satellites in geosynchronous orbit, just 28,300 miles up — as occurred in the 2011 apocalypse-themed film 'Melancholia.'"

Mehr lesen


08.10.2018

"Police-Grade Surveillance Technology Comes to the Playground"

https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2018/10/police-grade-surveillance-technology-comes-playground/15185
4/?oref=d-river

Schulen in den USA werden aus Furcht vor neuen Amokläufen immer häufiger mit Sicherheits- und Überwachungssystemen ausgerüstet, die üblicherweise von der Polizei eingesetzt werden, berichtet Sydney Fussell. Ethische Fragen zum Einsatz dieser Sicherheitsmaßnahmen rücken dabei auch auf Seiten der Schüler weitgehend in den Hintergrund. "Rather than seeing surveillance technology, broadly, or face recognition, specifically, as invasive or disruptive to the learning environment, he has noticed the opposite: Students accept the presence of the tech without question. 'As our kids get older, they’ve been through all that before,' [Greg Bronson, a Lockport native and the president of the local teachers’ union,] says, referring to a number of emergency drills mandated by the state. Lockport students run school-shooting drills almost monthly. Bronson hypothesizes that, soon enough, face recognition and other technologies will just become part of the architecture of the modern school day, much the same as the drills. 'If anything,' he said, 'the bigger issue is getting them to take it seriously, because they have become so routine.'"

Mehr lesen


05.10.2018

"Winning 'Like War': A Conversation about Social Media and Conflict with Peter Singer"

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2018/10/winning-war-social-media-and-conflict-conversation-peter-singer/
151806/?oref=d-topstory

Patrick Tucker hat sich ausführlich mit Peter W. Singer über dessen neues Buch "Like War: The Weaponization of Social Media" unterhalten. "A new book looks at how 'likes' and lies are reshaping the nature of war and peace around the globe. We sat down with the author."

Mehr lesen


25.09.2018

"Two Reasons Not to Build Fort Trump in Today’s Poland"

https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2018/09/two-reasons-not-build-fort-trump-todays-poland/151551/?oref=d-ri
ver

Die Regierung in Warschau strebt die Errichtung einer ständigen US-Militärbasis in Polen an und möchte den US-Präsidenten durch den vorgeschlagenen Namen "Fort Trump" auf ihre Seite ziehen. Michael Fitzsimmons vom Strategic Studies Institute des U.S. Army War College nennt zwei Gründe, die seiner Ansicht nach gegen diesen Schritt sprechen. "In military terms, its merits are debatable. There are certainly some potential benefits, such as strengthening NATO’s ability to respond to Russian territorial aggression in Northeastern Europe, reassuring Poland and other countries on NATO’s eastern flank of the alliance’s commitment to collective defense, and offering greater efficiency than long-term rotational presence. As to deterrence of Russian aggression, however, the effects of a new U.S. base would be subject to the famous 'security dilemma': the time-worn truth that capabilities one rival builds for defense and deterrence appear provocative to the other rival supposedly being deterred, who then responds in kind. (...) even if Washington determines that the benefits of 'Fort Trump' would outweigh the costs in terms of deterrence and operational capability, there is another crucial but underappreciated security dilemma confronting this policy choice: the imperative to resist the Polish government’s recent turn toward illiberalism."

Mehr lesen


suche-links1 2 3 4 5 6suche-rechts

Hier finden Sie die Redaktion der Sicherheitspolitischen Presseschau.

Mehr lesen

Internationales

Internationales

Europa, Asien, Afrika, Amerika und weltweite Phänomene und Institutionen. Die bpb bietet ein breites Angebot zu internationalen Themen.

Mehr lesen

Online-Angebot

Informationsportal Krieg und Frieden

Wo gibt es Kriege und Gewaltkonflikte? Und wo herrscht am längsten Frieden? Welches Land gibt am meisten für Rüstung aus? Sicherheitspolitik.bpb.de liefert wichtige Daten und Fakten zu Krieg und Frieden.

Mehr lesen auf sicherheitspolitik.bpb.de

Dossier

Innerstaatliche Konflikte

Vom Kosovo nach Kolumbien, von Somalia nach Süd-Thailand: Weltweit schwelen über 280 politische Konflikte. Und immer wieder droht die Lage gewaltsam zu eskalieren.

Mehr lesen

Zahlen und Fakten

Globalisierung

Kaum ein Thema wird so intensiv und kontrovers diskutiert wie die Globalisierung. "Zahlen und Fakten" liefert Grafiken, Texte und Tabellen zu einem der wichtigsten und vielschichtigsten Prozesse der Gegenwart.

Mehr lesen

Publikationen zum Thema

Coverbild Internationale Sicherheit im 21. Jahrhundert

Internationale Sicherheit im 21. Jahrhundert

Die internationale Sicherheit ist fragil und bedroht. Wie können und müssen demokratische Systeme ...

Internationale Sicherheitspolitik Cover

Internationale Sicherheitspolitik

Seit Ende des Ost-West-Konflikts hat sich die internationale Sicherheitspolitik deutlich verändert....

Zum Shop