Research for National Military and Defense Policies

This CNA-sponsored study identifies implications of nuclear possession between 1994 and 2003 in distant Third World areas. It identifies policies and programs affecting the design, organization, location, and employment of future U.S. forces. After exploring potential paths for the acquisition of nuclear weapons, we examined how five notional political crises (North Korea, Iran, Syria/Libya, India/Pakistan, and Algeria) evolved into nuclear confrontations. Then we analyzed what U.S. interests were relevant for each case, what political and military instruments were available, and how well they worked. Also highlighted are what the successes and failures in these cases imply for policy, strategy, and force development. We analyzed the following questions: (1) Why would some state or other party want nuclear weapons, how would it acquire them, and how fast? (2) What U.S. interests were at stake in each crisis? (3) Could nuclear use or threat of use be deterred, and how? (4) Was preemption possible, and did it make sense? (5) What kind of retaliation was feasible and justifiable? (6) How, and to what extent, did third parties participate? (7) How does the prospect of nuclear use (the nuclear shadow) affect military operations? and (8) What was the relative importance of various force components in the notional crises.

The CNA Context of Military Intervention (CMI) Project was sponsored by the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Plans, Policy, and Operation to help provide insight into the debate over the use of U.S. military forces in American foreign policy. This concept paper was prepared for participants in the CMI Seminar Series, which will examine this debate with prominent former members of the U.S. Government, along with experts from the military services, the media, and academia. The purpose of this paper is to define some of the issues and to provoke thought. Some case studies, which will be used as reference points in the seminars, are also outlined.

At the core of decision-making about U.S. military forces lies the question of what roles and function are assigned to each component of the national defense structure. In theory, resources are then distributed to reflect mission requirements. Today, the nation is in the midst of a review of mission requirements and resource allocations to national defense. This paper provides a backdrop to today's debate by examining the historical debate over 'who will do what with what.' This examination briefly reviews the debates over the U.S. military services' roles, functions, and missions. In addition to a chronological discussion, the paper highlights factors that drive roles and missions debates and relates these factors to today's debate. The discussion emphasizes the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps perspective. The intent is to provide a sense of how the U.S. military structure arrived at where it is today, thus laying a framework for examining potential alternative future structures and assignments of roles, functions, and missions.

In response to a request from the DCNO for Plans, Policy, and Operations, CNA (with the Hudson Institute and the Naval War College) conducted a study of the conditions under which multinational naval cooperation at sea could support U.S. interests in the decade ahead. The study considered the prospects and problems associated with coalition operations and combined exercises in the major areas of operation of the fleet commanders in chief. This memorandum summarizes the study approach and presents key findings. A series of supporting documents issued by CNA contains specialized regional and functional analyses.