The Threat Of The United States Army

East Asia continues to present a broad spectrum of opportunities and challenges to the United States, our allies, and partners. The United States Government (USG) and Department of Defense (DoD) continues to work closely with its allies and partners to build relationships and capacity vital to advancing U.S. national interests of security, prosperity, international order, and the promotion of universal values. The most profound and alarming trend within the East Asia region over the past several years is the increasing belligerence and defiance of the Kim Jung-un regime of North Korea. The United States regards the coercive activities by North Korea, in particular its pursuit of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile capabilities, to comprise the most urgent security threat in the region. The USG is fully committed to maintaining peace throughout the Korean Peninsula by effectively working with our allies and other regional states to deter and defend against North Korean military provocations, weapons proliferation, and illicit trafficking; and to support enforcement of international sanctions restricting North Korean arms trade and other prohibited activities.

A threat is looming over the United States like the dense fog of an early fall morning. It promises total chaos that will leave the population in the dark. Imagine everything that uses electricity, which Americans take for granted, just stopped working. Lights, cell phones, running water, all of these are gone in the blink of an eye. This threat has the potential to bring the United States to a grinding halt with little to no casualties, at first. An EMP attack would cripple the United States by ending all electronic usage. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) is “. . . high-intensity electromagnetic radiation generated by a nuclear blast high above the earth 's surface and held to disrupt electronic and electrical systems.” According to this definition, an EMP attack will disrupt and possibly destroy all electrical systems. Just take a second to think of all the structures Americans rely on that are electrical. Essentially everything. This is why an attack of this kind is so terrifying.

a. The United States Army faces many challenges since the beginning of the first decade of the 21st century. Many of these challenges are due to long, repeated deployments in different countries where the struggle of stability operations is ongoing. Army Doctrine has been adjusting doctrinal terms and operational priorities, as the result of strategies used overtime to accurately achieve dominance in the battlefield.

The United States has to maintain the ability to conduct globally irregular and conventional warfare to preserve its status as a superpower and credibility as a reliable partner. Nevertheless, America faced severe constraints for U.S. military forces due to its over $17 trillion national debt and the enacted sequestration. Therefore, a balance and prioritization is necessary to accomplish national strategic objectives, retain military and economic reliability, and solve financial limitations.

ISIL and associated forces having been moving quickly across Iraq, taking control of large sections of territory and driving out residents. It appears that they have turned their eyes toward Baghdad, looking to take control of the capital and extend their control further. This of great concern to the United States government as ISIL is a direct threat to our interests in the region and to the homeland. They have killed three Americans this year with the possibility of publicly killing the other American hostages they hold. These killings are a direct attack on the United States and cannot be ignored. In addition, there are Americans in their ranks that heighten the threat ISIS poses to the United States. With access to US passports and the ability to reenter the country, these fighters could carry out an attack inside the United States. The government feels that action must be taken against ISIL to prevent damage to our national security and harm from coming to our citizens.

There has never been an attack from a foreign county on US soil (Associated Press, 2001). The United States Military is one of the strongest in the world. They are the better trained and equipped than any other country. The United States Military doesn’t come under attack very often for that exact reason.

This research paper would cover Russia’s political and military features and evaluate the threat that Russia poses against the United States.

Mary Ellen O’Connell, a research professor at the Kroc, Institute, University of Notre Dame, and the Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame, tells the congressional Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs “Lawful Use of Combat Drones” that the United States is failing more often than not to follow the most important single rule governing drones: restricting their use to the battlefield. O’Connell begins her argument with by describing combat drones as battlefield weapons capable of inflicting very serious damage and being unlawful for use outside combat zones. She states that police are the proper law enforcement agents, outside these zones, and are generally required to warn before using lethal force. By failing to restrict these remote weapons systems to the battlefield the U.S. is failing to respect a basic rule that contradicts the goal of winning hearts and minds to respect the rule of law. She breaks her speech into three sections: drones as a lawful battlefield weapon, the battlefield defined, and battlefield restraints.

Russia’s information war may appear a nuisance to our national defense, but I argue this is an existential threat facing the US far greater than ISIS, ballistic missiles, or even the regular Russian Armed Forces. These are still threats, but not to the degree of Russia’s information war. This information war is aimed directly at American society and is designed to destroy our society. Russia’s information war against the Ukraine and other eastern European nations is understood very

The Joint Force of 2025 needs to be agile, technically superior, and contain the right balance of ground, air, sea, and cyber capabilities. State, non-state actors and violent extremist groups (VEOs) will challenge the United States Military’s ability to meet this goal. The U.S Defense budget is under increased scrutiny and susceptible to reductions in spending as political leaders desire to focus on the economy vice wartime military spending. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the past thirteen years have resulted in significant increases in manpower, upgrades and modernization to equipment, and deficit spending to support these operations.

General Dempsey articulated the United States military is the premier global military with a decisive military advantage but dominance just doesn’t happen necessitating the United States military to maintain the decisive edge. Dempsey’s statement is the catalyst for the premise of Joint Force 2025 in which the United States military embarks upon a transition and rebalance to address a wide continuum of emerging threats to our nation’s national interests in the foreseeable future. Dempsey correctly states that adaptation and innovation are essential to the Joint Force 2025 as ‘we have to out-learn and out-think our adversaries.’ This essay will recommend general capabilities of Joint Force 2025 which are necessary to transition and rebalance the force based on strategic guidance and the global security environment which provides the combatant commander with right-sized capabilities in support of the nation’s strategic interests. Utilization of national strategic guidance will lay the foundation for the assessment of each service’s general capabilities in support of Joint Force 2025 while also appraising risk implications in the foreseeable global security environment.

The United States (US) is facing a worldwide changing political landscape and an uncertain fiscal environment, and both will shape the United States military in the coming years. The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and other national strategy documents vaguely outline the path that the US military will take in response to these two stressors. With over a decade of counterinsurgency (COIN) and irregular warfare, the leaders of the US military strategic leadership must decide to what level these conflicts shape the preparation for future wars. In order to protect US national strategic objectives, the US military must prepare to conduct regular warfare while training specific units to fight irregular conflicts.

To the surprise of many in the Obama administration, the newly appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Joseph Dunford was asked during his confirmation hearing what he felt was the greatest concern to the United States national security; he responded, "My assessment today, senator, is that Russia presents the greatest threat to our national security". Over the past few years Russia’s aggression in the Ukraine, specifically Crimea, and more recently their intervention in Syria has thrown a proverbial wrench and imbalance in the strategy of the United States and how it deals with Russia. This paper will attempt to analyze the United States’ policy toward Russia based on the National Security Strategic of 2015, and more specifically determine the balance of the United States strategy using Lykke’s criteria of suitability, feasibility, adaptability

While not geographically located in the South East Asian region, the US in recent years has implemented a policy referred to as the Asian Pivot. The Asian Pivot is the increase of the US military within the region with the intention to curb the regional monopoly of the Chinese and to offer a quicker response for their South East Asian allies. This balance of power means that the US has an invested interest in the security of the regions. As a key member of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty the US is also constantly attempting the reduce states abilities to acquire nuclear weapons to improve regional security.

The Democratic People 's Republic of Korea (DPRK) is a self-reliant and insular state. It’s paranoia and mistrust of the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the United States (U.S.) has contributed towards the relentless drive for expansion of its military capabilities under the ‘Military First’ (Songun) policy, this equates to 22% of GDP . This has been an aggressive expansion focussing on its nuclear and missile capabilities. The overt testing of the nuclear capability has caused concern amongst the international community. The political picture is also uncertain; Kim Jong Un continues to try and consolidate his position, under significant political, economic and military instability and a constant threat of regime change. The economic