| ID | 160724 |
| Title Proper | US perspective on future war |
| Other Title Information | why the US relies upon Ares rather than Athena |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Angstrom, Jan |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | This article addresses why the US in its military operations tends to focus on only one dimension in war – the military narrowly understood. More precisely, in the US case, its armed forces tend to be preoccupied with platforms and understand military capabilities as those that deliver death and destruction. I explain this one-sided understanding of the military dimension in war with how the US armed forces think about future war. How the US understands future war is, in turn, a reflection of how it organizes its long-term defense planning procedures. In particular, by approaching the concept of future as by and large structurally determined, a focus on platforms becomes natural. Investments in weapons systems, too, are more easily motivated to Congress since it is easier to attach a price to developing, for example, a new submarine than it is to attach a price to the cost of developing a military organization that is adaptive, learning and anticipating. The understanding of the future as something that happens whether you like it or not is particularly odd in the US context where of course a central tenet of the American dream is that the individual creates her own future. |
| `In' analytical Note | Defence Studies Vol. 18, No.3; Sep 2018: p.318-338 |
| Journal Source | Defence Studies Vol: 18 No 3 |
| Key Words | Defence Planning ; Future war ; United States ; Strategy |