Pub Date : 2018-07-06DOI: 10.22459/ndst.07.2018.02
Lawrence Freedman
{"title":"The decline of the classical model of military strategy","authors":"Lawrence Freedman","doi":"10.22459/ndst.07.2018.02","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/ndst.07.2018.02","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":346795,"journal":{"name":"New Directions in Strategic Thinking 2.0: ANU Strategic & Defence Studies Centre's Golden Anniversary Conference Proceedings","volume":"81 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125235136","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-06DOI: 10.22459/ndst.07.2018.12
H. Strachan
{"title":"The future of strategic studies: Lessons from the last ‘golden age’","authors":"H. Strachan","doi":"10.22459/ndst.07.2018.12","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/ndst.07.2018.12","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":346795,"journal":{"name":"New Directions in Strategic Thinking 2.0: ANU Strategic & Defence Studies Centre's Golden Anniversary Conference Proceedings","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114898802","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-06DOI: 10.22459/ndst.07.2018.04
J. Frewen
Australia’s military instils in its members a ‘can-do’ culture with a bias for action, inculcated early in the careers of virtually all officers and enlisted personnel. This ethos seeks both to ensure that opportunities are seized and to avoid the more common historical peril of inaction. This instinct serves us well on the battlefield; it can be be of less benefit at the operational and strategic levels where consequences of decisions tend to be more farreaching. This bias is not merely a military concern. The public can also demonstrate a bias for action without due consideration of the broader political issues at stake. Depending on the circumstances, politicians can also demonstrate bias for either action or perceived action. Regardless, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is a relatively well-resourced and capable asset available to governments for a broad range of contingencies. From high-intensity warfighting to humanitarian operations, the ADF can be rapidly brought to bear to satisfy the ends of policy—uniquely in our government, through the employment of armed force. Yet, while the ADF can contribute to Australia’s national security, it cannot alone deliver national prosperity.
{"title":"A bias for action? The military as an element of national power","authors":"J. Frewen","doi":"10.22459/ndst.07.2018.04","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/ndst.07.2018.04","url":null,"abstract":"Australia’s military instils in its members a ‘can-do’ culture with a bias for action, inculcated early in the careers of virtually all officers and enlisted personnel. This ethos seeks both to ensure that opportunities are seized and to avoid the more common historical peril of inaction. This instinct serves us well on the battlefield; it can be be of less benefit at the operational and strategic levels where consequences of decisions tend to be more farreaching. This bias is not merely a military concern. The public can also demonstrate a bias for action without due consideration of the broader political issues at stake. Depending on the circumstances, politicians can also demonstrate bias for either action or perceived action. Regardless, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is a relatively well-resourced and capable asset available to governments for a broad range of contingencies. From high-intensity warfighting to humanitarian operations, the ADF can be rapidly brought to bear to satisfy the ends of policy—uniquely in our government, through the employment of armed force. Yet, while the ADF can contribute to Australia’s national security, it cannot alone deliver national prosperity.","PeriodicalId":346795,"journal":{"name":"New Directions in Strategic Thinking 2.0: ANU Strategic & Defence Studies Centre's Golden Anniversary Conference Proceedings","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133915967","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-06DOI: 10.22459/ndst.07.2018.11
H. Brands
The post–Cold War era has now lasted more than a quarter-century.1 This period has been an eventful time in US grand strategy. The United States did not withdraw from the world after the Soviet collapse; rather, it recommitted to pursuing a globalism every bit as ambitious as during the bipolar era. It is therefore worth considering what insights the experience of the post–Cold War era have to offer at a time when the international order is often thought to be reaching a new inflection point.
{"title":"American grand strategy in the post–Cold War era","authors":"H. Brands","doi":"10.22459/ndst.07.2018.11","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/ndst.07.2018.11","url":null,"abstract":"The post–Cold War era has now lasted more than a quarter-century.1 This period has been an eventful time in US grand strategy. The United States did not withdraw from the world after the Soviet collapse; rather, it recommitted to pursuing a globalism every bit as ambitious as during the bipolar era. It is therefore worth considering what insights the experience of the post–Cold War era have to offer at a time when the international order is often thought to be reaching a new inflection point.","PeriodicalId":346795,"journal":{"name":"New Directions in Strategic Thinking 2.0: ANU Strategic & Defence Studies Centre's Golden Anniversary Conference Proceedings","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130514075","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-01DOI: 10.22459/NDST.07.2018.07
N. Leveringhaus
We are now more than a quarter-century into the post–Cold War period. Yet vestiges of a ‘Cold War mentality’ are said to remain, limiting our understanding of nuclear strategy today. For some, concepts and capabilities specifically developed with US and Soviet nuclear strategy in mind, such as mutual assured destruction (MAD) as an optimal strategic condition or a Second Strike Force, have become conceptual ‘hangovers’ that strategists have struggled to improve upon, leaving little room for innovation in the nuclear domain.1 This chapter seeks to push back at this ‘hangover’ narrative by drawing out global developments that have shaped thinking about nuclear strategy since 1990. It will also be argued that the global conditions under which nuclear strategies have been formulated are fundamentally different post-1990. This might seem a rather uncontroversial statement. Most would agree that, compared to the Cold War period, the prospects of nuclear war are thankfully much reduced today. However, there are relatively few academic accounts of how nuclear strategies have developed since 1990.2
{"title":"Beyond ‘hangovers’: The new parameters of post–Cold War nuclear strategy","authors":"N. Leveringhaus","doi":"10.22459/NDST.07.2018.07","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/NDST.07.2018.07","url":null,"abstract":"We are now more than a quarter-century into the post–Cold War period. Yet vestiges of a ‘Cold War mentality’ are said to remain, limiting our understanding of nuclear strategy today. For some, concepts and capabilities specifically developed with US and Soviet nuclear strategy in mind, such as mutual assured destruction (MAD) as an optimal strategic condition or a Second Strike Force, have become conceptual ‘hangovers’ that strategists have struggled to improve upon, leaving little room for innovation in the nuclear domain.1 This chapter seeks to push back at this ‘hangover’ narrative by drawing out global developments that have shaped thinking about nuclear strategy since 1990. It will also be argued that the global conditions under which nuclear strategies have been formulated are fundamentally different post-1990. This might seem a rather uncontroversial statement. Most would agree that, compared to the Cold War period, the prospects of nuclear war are thankfully much reduced today. However, there are relatively few academic accounts of how nuclear strategies have developed since 1990.2","PeriodicalId":346795,"journal":{"name":"New Directions in Strategic Thinking 2.0: ANU Strategic & Defence Studies Centre's Golden Anniversary Conference Proceedings","volume":"91 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123437663","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-01DOI: 10.22459/NDST.07.2018.05
Evelyn Goh
The future shape and form of the East Asian regional order presents one of the most pressing concerns for Australian strategic policy planners and analysts, who have also contributed significantly to associated regional and international debates and policy initiatives.1 Ultimately, strategic efforts are defined by their ultimate ‘big picture’ goals. From the broad perspective of cultivating regional order in East Asia, one key goal must be to forge a feasible and sustainable ‘grand bargain’ among its resident great powers.
{"title":"The prospects for a Great Power ‘grand bargain’ in East Asia","authors":"Evelyn Goh","doi":"10.22459/NDST.07.2018.05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/NDST.07.2018.05","url":null,"abstract":"The future shape and form of the East Asian regional order presents one of the most pressing concerns for Australian strategic policy planners and analysts, who have also contributed significantly to associated regional and international debates and policy initiatives.1 Ultimately, strategic efforts are defined by their ultimate ‘big picture’ goals. From the broad perspective of cultivating regional order in East Asia, one key goal must be to forge a feasible and sustainable ‘grand bargain’ among its resident great powers.","PeriodicalId":346795,"journal":{"name":"New Directions in Strategic Thinking 2.0: ANU Strategic & Defence Studies Centre's Golden Anniversary Conference Proceedings","volume":"387 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132054346","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-01DOI: 10.22459/NDST.07.2018.08
Paul Dibb
The title of this chapter might suggest that geography has somehow gone missing in action as a body of strategic knowledge. While it is true that some theoreticians bought the superficial view at the end of the Cold War that geography had had its day, that was never the view of those of us who were senior defence policy officers. Strategic theories come and go, but the abiding nature of a nation’s geography remains a key defence planning tool. Indeed, I would agree with Australia’s greatest Secretary for Defence, Sir Arthur Tange, who said in 1986: ‘The map of one’s own country is the most fundamental of all defence documentation.’1 He also presciently asserted that the nature of Australia’s physical environment demands that maritime capabilities occupy a prominent place in defence.2
{"title":"The return of geography","authors":"Paul Dibb","doi":"10.22459/NDST.07.2018.08","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/NDST.07.2018.08","url":null,"abstract":"The title of this chapter might suggest that geography has somehow gone missing in action as a body of strategic knowledge. While it is true that some theoreticians bought the superficial view at the end of the Cold War that geography had had its day, that was never the view of those of us who were senior defence policy officers. Strategic theories come and go, but the abiding nature of a nation’s geography remains a key defence planning tool. Indeed, I would agree with Australia’s greatest Secretary for Defence, Sir Arthur Tange, who said in 1986: ‘The map of one’s own country is the most fundamental of all defence documentation.’1 He also presciently asserted that the nature of Australia’s physical environment demands that maritime capabilities occupy a prominent place in defence.2","PeriodicalId":346795,"journal":{"name":"New Directions in Strategic Thinking 2.0: ANU Strategic & Defence Studies Centre's Golden Anniversary Conference Proceedings","volume":"20 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130466736","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-01DOI: 10.22459/NDST.07.2018.15
Paul Dibb
Strategic studies in Australia seems to be undergoing a period of introspection about what to focus on, with concerns about whether it is still relevant to a greatly expanded agenda of ‘national security challenges’. There is the further issue of whether strategic studies should be separate from the study of international relations. Then there is the long-standing debate about whether the label ‘strategic and defence studies’ is a proper area for academic study, given its concern with military matters. All these issues have been touched upon—to a greater or lesser extent— in these chapters, themselves based on the Strategic & Defence Studies Centre’s 50th anniversary conference in July 2016.
{"title":"Conclusion: What is the future of strategic studies?","authors":"Paul Dibb","doi":"10.22459/NDST.07.2018.15","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/NDST.07.2018.15","url":null,"abstract":"Strategic studies in Australia seems to be undergoing a period of introspection about what to focus on, with concerns about whether it is still relevant to a greatly expanded agenda of ‘national security challenges’. There is the further issue of whether strategic studies should be separate from the study of international relations. Then there is the long-standing debate about whether the label ‘strategic and defence studies’ is a proper area for academic study, given its concern with military matters. All these issues have been touched upon—to a greater or lesser extent— in these chapters, themselves based on the Strategic & Defence Studies Centre’s 50th anniversary conference in July 2016.","PeriodicalId":346795,"journal":{"name":"New Directions in Strategic Thinking 2.0: ANU Strategic & Defence Studies Centre's Golden Anniversary Conference Proceedings","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132117029","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-07-01DOI: 10.22459/NDST.07.2018.13
Amitav Acharya
I have been asked to comment on the topic: ‘An Asian school of strategic studies?’ I understand this question as asking whether there can be a school in Asia that represents or reflects a distinctive approach to strategic studies like the English school on international relations theory or the Copenhagen school on security studies. I am glad that there is a question mark with the topic, because one could have some serious doubts about such an idea. Posing the question is very useful for provoking a discussion about some of the big challenges and questions that confront the development of strategic studies in Asia or the Asia-Pacific to which the Strategic & Defence Studies Centre (SDSC) has made a very significant contribution. Let me raise five supporting questions and challenges; the first three are familiar and perhaps not really critical. I mention them briefly. The last two are really crucial.
{"title":"An Asian school of strategic studies?","authors":"Amitav Acharya","doi":"10.22459/NDST.07.2018.13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.22459/NDST.07.2018.13","url":null,"abstract":"I have been asked to comment on the topic: ‘An Asian school of strategic studies?’ I understand this question as asking whether there can be a school in Asia that represents or reflects a distinctive approach to strategic studies like the English school on international relations theory or the Copenhagen school on security studies. I am glad that there is a question mark with the topic, because one could have some serious doubts about such an idea. Posing the question is very useful for provoking a discussion about some of the big challenges and questions that confront the development of strategic studies in Asia or the Asia-Pacific to which the Strategic & Defence Studies Centre (SDSC) has made a very significant contribution. Let me raise five supporting questions and challenges; the first three are familiar and perhaps not really critical. I mention them briefly. The last two are really crucial.","PeriodicalId":346795,"journal":{"name":"New Directions in Strategic Thinking 2.0: ANU Strategic & Defence Studies Centre's Golden Anniversary Conference Proceedings","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115331565","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：