UK Hard Power: Strategic Ambivalence

Royal Marine Landing Craft Utility (LCU) conducting cross decking drills with the French Marines with a French landing craft in the background Crown Copyright www.randeurope.org Center of the RAND Corporation, with a focus on German, US and Middle Eastern security issues. Michael Shurkin is a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation and previously worked in the US intelligence community. His research focuses on strategic planning, intelligence issues, and expeditionary military operations.

1992

The first reference to a military industrial complex (MIC) was made by US President Eisenhower in 1961. He then referred to something historically specific: the build-up of a large permanent military establishment and a permanent arms industry, which raised his concerns for the unwarranted influence of these societal forces. Subsequently the meaning of the MIC evolved to refer to the vested interests within the state and industry in expanding the military sector and in increasing military spending, with external threats providing the justification. During the Cold War, when the defence was strongly focused on deterrence, this produced a set of specific state-industry relationships that in turn generated a beneficial environment for the development and strengthening of the MIC. With the end of the Cold War, the conditions for a strong MIC were less favourable, at least initially, with changes in the international security environment, cuts in military spending and arms production, and ensuing privatisation, commercialisation, and internationalisation of military activities as well as of arms production. This paper discusses how the MIC has been affected by these changes and the degree to which there has been continuity of old power structures and a continuing MIC.

European Politeia, 2021

The article's purpose is to examine Transatlantic relations in the field of defense and their subsequent interactions in the post-Brexit era. The exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union and Joe Biden's electoral victory constitute substantial facts that will undoubtedly alter relations in the Euro-Atlantic space. Joe Biden's actions already mark a shift in United States foreign policy, in contrast to his predecessor, Donald Trump. The United States under President Biden is moving in towards NATO reconciling their relationship, meanwhile European and Transatlantic relations are affected by the United Kingdom's exit from the European Union. In a parallel manner, three decades after the end of the Cold War, the international system has been in a constant state of change, about global redistribution of power. Under the above circumstances, the United States and their European allies will have to redefine their relations. America's Perspective on International Relations THE concept of multilateralism in correlation with the induction of the United States into the global establishment did not

2017

Military security is a concept within a system of domains, types, sectors of national security (state security). This term defines a process that involves a variety of activities, a variety of measures aimed at counteracting external and internal threats that may endanger the use of military force to violate the territory and limit the sovereignty of the state, maintaining the capacity to oppose the use of military force. At the same time, this is a state of organized defense against these threats. Military security is a process that involves a variety of activities and measures aimed at counteracting external and internal threats. They may endanger the use of military force to violate the territory and limit the sovereignty of the state, maintaining the capacity to oppose the use of military force. At the same time, this is a state of organized defense against these threats [1].

International Affairs, 2009

Preparations for the next UK defence review are under way; a struggle is imminent and the lines of battle are being drawn. There is a grave danger that in the new ‘age of austerity’ defence planning—and strategy generally—will be driven by tribal conflicts, either between supporters of one or other of the armed services or between contending viewpoints about the nature of conflict. And there will be others who will argue that the defence review should be driven simply by the need to reduce government expenditure, as quickly as possible. These arguments not only reduce the defence debate to a struggle between various incompatible and uncompromising tribal beliefs—‘war among the fetishes’, perhaps—they also miss the point. This article gauges the extent of the economic challenges which the UK defence establishment will confront over the coming decade. The authors consider how best to approach the problem of undiminished (and even expanding) commitments at a time of decreasing resources. They argue that defence planning should be driven by the notion of value (the ratio of function to cost), which in turn requires both a clear national political vision and a defence establishment which is output- rather than input-oriented. Finally, the authors assert that defence must transform itself to be able to achieve the outputs required in the most efficient and responsive manner.