| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
138351
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Whichever party or parties form the next UK government, a Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) is expected to begin soon after the general election in May. The review might be a ‘light touch’ exercise—little more than a reaffirmation of the SDSR produced by the coalition government in 2010. It seems more likely, however, that the review will be a lengthier, more deliberate exercise and one which might even last into 2016. For those most closely engaged in the process the challenge is more complex than that confronted by their predecessors in 2010. The international security context is more confused and contradictory; the UK's financial predicament is still grave; security threats and challenges will emerge that cannot be ignored; the population's appetite for foreign military engagement appears nevertheless to be restricted; and prevailing conditions suggest that the risk-based approach to national strategy might be proving difficult to sustain. Two key questions should be asked of the review. First, in the light of recent military experiences, what is the purpose of the United Kingdom's armed forces? Second, will SDSR 2015–16 sustain the risk-based approach to national strategy set out in 2010, and if so how convincingly? Beginning with a review of the background against which SDSR 2015–16 will be prepared, this article examines both enduring and immediate challenges to the national strategic process in the United Kingdom and concludes by arguing for strategic latency as a conceptual device which can complement, if not reinvigorate, the risk-based approach to national strategy and defence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
134086
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The importance of World War I for understanding contemporary East Asia lies not in the ubiquitous analogy drawn between Anglo-German antagonism and contemporary U.S.-China relations, but rather in the more specific lessons the period preceding its outbreak offers concerning the sources of instability and conflict among states. More precisely, these lessons relate to the challenges posed by complex security arrangements, the dual-edged nature of nationalism, and the dangerous dynamics that can emerge during repeated crises. Appreciating how these factors contributed to mounting tensions and eventually the onset of war in Europe a century ago can enhance efforts to understand and manage tensions in East Asia today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
132817
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The budget presented on 10 July 2014 has been called pedestrian, lacklustre and devoid of any innovative initiative by different critics. Some have gone to the extent of describing it as a 'budget-without-tears', wherein a token allocation of Rs 100 crore has been made to each and every promise made in the party manifesto.
However, one curious provision of the budget has escaped the attention of the most of the detractors. Quite unexpectedly, allocation to the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) has been hiked from the previous year's Rs 10,610 crore to Rs 15,283 crore, thereby raising the share of DRDO from the earlier five per cent to nearly seven per cent of the defence budget now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|