The Defense Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (DEPSCoR) aims to increase the number of university researchers and improve the capabilities of institutions of higher education in eligible jurisdictions to perform competitive basic research in science & engineering relevant to the DoD mission and reflect national security priorities.
I-Corps @ DoD is a partnership with the National Science Foundation to provide DoD-funded researchers with training from experienced entrepreneurs in how to commercialize their innovations. BRO is also looking to establish bridges that will allow teams who have completed the training to more seamlessly mature innovations into products that may enter DoD programs of record.
The Bilateral Academic Research Initiative (BARI) focuses on high-risk basic research in science and engineering as a bilateral academic collaboration, and supports academic teams to combine unique skillsets and approaches and provide rapid advances in scientific areas of mutual potential interest to both countries.
Social media.
Select Page
M. L. Cavanaugh | 08.28.16
Pervasive in academia, the perfection of specialization is the enemy of wisdom – by narrowing our curiosity, we limit our learning. Which is why I was thrilled to have received a new old book (1950), by B.H. Liddell Hart, Defence of the West: Some Riddles of War and Peace . Hart took on whale-sized topics, grouped in broad categories, including “riddles of the immediate past” like: “Was Russia Close to Defeat?,” “Was the 1940 Collapse Inevitable?,” and “Was Normandy a Certainty?” – in addition to several “riddles of the immediate future” like: “What Would Another War be Like?,” “Could We Survive Another War?,” and “Is Neutrality Possible in Modern Warfare?” This book was refreshingly refreshing in that it was genuinely fun to encounter a thinker that deliberately chose to engage with the biggest stuff – both the time-bound issues of the day and the timeless issues of all the days.
This book highlights for me the value of simple, direct questions (as the Israeli Defense Force General Aharon Farkash has said: “The question is the answer.”). A provocative corollary to the art of the question is the simple, direct prompt, designed to stimulate thought on a similar set of big issues. And so in the spirit of Hart’s contribution, I offer this list of 51 provocative, important strategic debates worth having.
1,10,11,29. Politicians are afffraid because corruption most of involve in. 43,47.49. In my view right.
1. The military’s purpose is to kill people and break things (a statement from which I dissent).
This is not entirely incorrect as an easy-to-understand distillation of the military’s strategies and tactics used to fulfill its purpose, but such a statement should not be understood as a full exposition thereof. The U.S. military’s purpose is to defend the country against foreign attack and fight America’s wars. Anything beyond that falls into the realm of the “how to.”
2. There will never be another need for a mass airborne drop.
While I am tempted to confine my response to, “never say never,” such a response would not treat the topic with the seriousness it deserves. Whether or not a future conflict would require the use of a mass airborne drop would depend on the who, where, and other tactical considerations of the conflict, including developments within the battle space. A mass airborne drop may be the most effective way of quickly delivering large numbers of combatants to the battle space when the circumstances of the conflict prevent timely introduction of conventional ground troops by other means.
3. Push button, standoff warfare is cowardly.
No, it is not. The means of conducting push button, standoff warfare should be used whenever and wherever it can be used in furtherance of the successful completion of the military’s mission. Where it can be used to reduce the number of killed and wounded American service personnel, it should be. However, it should never be considered as more than another tool in the military’s arsenal. It should not be thought of as capable of winning a war on its own.
5. Europe’s security is more important than Asia’s.
Neither area’s security is more important than the other’s. The two areas’ security concerns are equally important, and the U.S. military should always have the capability of addressing the security concerns of both areas simultaneously. To be clear, the U.S. military should be able to successfully conduct two major wars simultaneously.
In order to keep my replies relatively short, I will address other topics in subsequent posts.
7. Tank warfare is dead.
If one defines tank warfare as tank versus tank battle, then such warfare is a possibility, if an unlikely one, only in a conflict with Russia. The use of drones, attack helicopters, and close air support aircraft such as the A-10 Warthog, gives America’s military non-tank assets to employ against enemy tank attacks, but tanks will remain an important part of America’s war fighting capability.
8. War in the Pacific is inevitable.
No war is inevitable, but such a war is a possibility and America’s military must plan and prepare for it. The likelihood of such a war increases if America appears irresolute and unprepared.
14. Airpower will have a smaller role in future warfare.
The response to this proposition depends upon one’s definition of airpower’s current role in warfare. However, in the foreseeable future, airpower will have an indispensible role in warfare by providing air superiority and close air support capabilities to America’s military.
15. America will lose the next battle fought in a megacity.
ONLY if America’s military fails to plan and prepare for such a battle, or if America’s military is forced to engage in battle in a megacity under rules of engagement that make such a loss inevitable.
17. Another world war is simply impossible.
To believe this proposition is to believe in fairy tales. If America continues to reduce the size of its military and its military’s war fighting capabilities, then such a war is not only possible, but will become increasingly likely.
18. Winning wars is still possible.
Winning a war IS still possible, but remains possible only if war is actually declared. Further, winning a war must be defined as the destruction of the enemy’s willingness and ability to engage in continuing the fight.
In general reply to your 51 debates, here are five replies which either cover multiples or I thought were especially relevant.
1. Killing and breaking is the immediate purpose of the military, in order to empower political solutions to national problems. If the violence is not aimed to further a political solution gauged to the political problem, it will be a waste of time, so both military and political leaders are well served to understand both politics and the limits of force. These political solutions may also be found at very low levels, so every soldier may be a strategic actor, and every civilian may be a strategic audience.
2. While the exact character of fighting is likely to change, basic operational principles like mobility, firepower, intelligence, etc., are likely to remain fundamental. Airborne units, tank units, and others need to remember why they were created and evolve along those lines, but the need is unlikely to go away. This also goes for services which have become confused as to their mission.
3. Humans have engaged in standoff warfare since the first primitive man fixed a sharp rock to the end of a stick rather than wield it in his hand. It may be cowardly, but we’re going to keep doing it.
19. Limited wars are about who’s right, wars of survival are about who’s left. Morality may be an ingredient or an impediment to mission accomplishment, depending on the war, but whether you win or lose tends to be a lot more important than how you played the game.
38. Douglas MacArthur was probably a good role model for Army officers in his earlier career, but he could not see past the operational realm in Korea, and had to be fired because of it. We don’t fire enough generals like him—-behaving properly, operationally competent, but strategically ignorant—-today, though we should.
Matt Your framing of most of the questions, in the form of declarative sentences, telegraphs a bias.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
The articles and other content which appear on the Modern War Institute website are unofficial expressions of opinion. The views expressed are those of the authors, and do not reflect the official position of the United States Military Academy, Department of the Army, or Department of Defense.
The Modern War Institute does not screen articles to fit a particular editorial agenda, nor endorse or advocate material that is published. Rather, the Modern War Institute provides a forum for professionals to share opinions and cultivate ideas. Comments will be moderated before posting to ensure logical, professional, and courteous application to article content.
Regions submenu, topics submenu, israel’s missile defense engagements since october 7th, reflections on global oil and gas markets, hollywood goes to nato: telling the story of the alliance, potential scenarios for venezuela’s elections.
CSIS explores the nexus between defense technologies and emerging challenges to combat effectiveness in the twenty-first century, with analysis led by the Strategic Technologies Program and the International Security Program .
Photo: CSIS
The CSIS Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group hosted CSIS-DAPA 2024: The Potential for Expanding Defense Cooperation within the ROK-U.S. Alliance featuring keynotes from ROK DAPA Minister Seok, JongGun and U.S. ASA(ALT) Hon. Douglas R. Bush.
Transcript — June 27, 2024
Report by Maria Snegovaya, Max Bergmann, Tina Dolbaia, Nick Fenton, and Samuel Bendett (Contributor) — April 22, 2024
Newsletter by Tisyaketu Sirkar — April 19, 2024
Report by Clayton Swope, Kari A. Bingen, Makena Young, Madeleine Chang, Stephanie Songer, and Jeremy Tammelleo — April 17, 2024
Related programs.
All military technology content, type open filter submenu.
Report type open filter submenu, region open filter submenu.
In this episode, we discuss the state of autonomous weapons systems adoption in Ukraine, our takeaways from the Supreme Court's decision to overturn the Chevron Doctrine and the implications for AI regulation, the delayed deployment of Apple Intelligence in the EU, and a breakdown of Nvidia's deal to sell its technology to data centers in the Middle East.
Podcast Episode by Gregory C. Allen and Brielle Hill — July 8, 2024
Join the CSIS Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group for CSIS-DAPA 2024: The Potential for Expanding Defense Cooperation within the ROK-U.S. Alliance which will feature keynotes from ROK DAPA Minister Seok, JongGun and U.S. ASA(ALT) Hon. Douglas R. Bush.
Event — June 27, 2024
CSIS’s Heather Williams joins the podcast to discuss Russia’s nuclear provocations and to answer the question: Is arms control as we know it dead?
Podcast Episode by H. Andrew Schwartz and Heather Williams — June 3, 2024
In this episode, we discuss our biggest takeaways from the bipartisan AI policy roadmap led by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, what to expect from the U.S.-China AI safety dialogue, recent updates to the DOD’s Replicator Initiative, and Microsoft’s new Intelligence Community AI Tool.
Podcast Episode by Gregory C. Allen and Brielle Hill — May 20, 2024
Former New York Times Beijing bureau chief Jane Perlez joins the show to discuss her new Harvard podcast and the latest tensions in the U.S.-China relationship.
Podcast Episode by H. Andrew Schwartz — May 16, 2024
A short, spoken-word summary from CSIS’s Maria Snegovaya on her report with Max Bergmann, Tina Dolbaia, Nick Fenton, and Samuel Bendett, Back in Stock? The State of Russia's Defense Industry after Two Years of the War.
Podcast Episode by Maria Snegovaya — April 23, 2024
Two years into the war, Russia’s prospects have improved. By tapping into its Cold War–era stockpiles, Russia has ramped up domestic arms production. It has also solidified ties with China, Iran, and North Korea, importing dual-use goods and weapons from these countries.
CSIS’s Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group will host a live streamed discussion on modernizing Army software acquisition with DASA(SAR) Margaret Boatner and PEO IEW&S Brigadier General Ed Barker, moderated by Dr. Alexis Lasselle Ross, CSIS Senior Associate (Non-Resident).
Event — April 19, 2024
What measures is the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) taking to ensure a secure and stable semiconductor supply chain for defense applications? This week, we look at the Trusted and Assured Microelectronics program (TAM)—the DoD's largest semiconductor initiative by funding.
Types of publications.
Proceedings: Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.
Consensus Study Reports: Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.
Rapid Expert Consultation: Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.
This list of military technology research paper topics provides the list of 28 potential topics for research papers and an overview article on the history of military technology development.
Three nations built fleets of aircraft carriers— Britain, Japan and the United States—and each contributed to carrier design trends. Experiments began before World War I when, in November 1910, Eugene Ely flew a Curtiss biplane from a specially built forward deck of the cruiser USS Birmingham moored off Hampton Roads, Virginia. Two months later he accomplished the more difficult task of landing on a deck built over the stern of the cruiser Pennsylvania. Sandbags were used to anchor ropes stretched across the deck to help stop the airplane, which trailed a crude hook to catch the ropes.
Get 10% off with 24start discount code.
The Enterprise, America’s first atomic-powered carrier, entered service in 1961 with a range of 320,000 kilometers, or capable of four years’ cruising. She was similar to the Forrestal carriers except for her small square island structure that originally featured ‘‘billboard’’ radar installations. Despite a huge cost increase (about 70 percent more than the Forrestals), she became the prototype for the ultimate Nimitz class of nuclear carriers that began to enter fleet service in the mid-1970s. Displacing nearly 95,000 tons, each had a crew of some 6,500 men. Driven by concerns about the growing expense of building and operating the huge American fleet carriers and their vulnerability, research into smaller carrier designs continued.
Interest in air-to-air missiles (AAMs, also known as air intercept missiles or AIMs) was initially prompted by the need to defend against heavy bombers in World War II. Unguided rockets were deployed for the purpose during the war, but the firing aircraft had to get dangerously close, and even so the rockets’ probability of approaching within killing range of their targets was poor. Nazi Germany developed two types of rocket-propelled missiles employing command guidance and produced some examples, but neither saw service use.
Precision attack of ground targets was envisioned as a major mission of air forces from their first conception, even before the advent of practicable airplanes. Until the 1970s most air forces believed that this could be best accomplished through exact aiming of cannon, unguided rockets, or freelyfalling bombs, at least for most targets. But although impressive results were sometimes achieved through these methods in tests and exercises, combat performance was generally disappointing, with average miss distances on the order of scores, hundreds, or even thousands of meters.
The battleship dates back to the final decade of the 19th century when the term came into general use in English for the most powerfully armed and armored surface warships. Material improvements allowed the construction of ships with high freeboard and good sea keeping capable of effectively fighting similar ships at sea, like the line of battleships of the sailing era. British battleships were the archetypes of the era. They displaced around 13,000 to 15,000 tons and their most useful armament was a battery of six 6-inch quick-firing guns on each side. These stood the best chance of successful hitting given the primitive fire control techniques of the day, although skilled gunnery officers might use them to gain the range for accurate shooting by the slow-firing 12-inch guns, two of which were mounted in covered barbette turrets (armored structures to protect the guns) at each end.
In addition to the military use of natural or synthesized plant and animal toxins as poisons, biological warfare involves the use of disease-causing bacteria, viruses, rickettsia, or fungi to cause incapacitation or death in man, animals, or plants. Over the course of the twentieth century, biological weapons scientists, engineers, and physicians in various countries adopted existing technological and scientific practices, techniques, and instrumentation found in academic and industrial research to create a new weapon of mass destruction. Unlike the production of nuclear weapons, biological weapons research involves a synergistic relationship between the separate offensive and defensive components of each individual weapon system. Offensive research involves the identification, isolation, modification, and mass production of various pathogenic organisms and the creation of organismal delivery and storage systems. Offensive research is dependent in many cases upon the simultaneous success of a parallel defensive research program involving the creation of vaccines and protective health measures for researchers, military personnel, and civilians. In addition, defensive research involves the construction of accurate detection devices to indicate the existence of biological weapons whose presence can be masked during the initial phases of a natural epidemic.
Bombers apply aerospace technology to defeat an enemy through destruction of his will or ability to continue the conflict. In the twentieth century, the U.S. and the U.K found bombing particularly attractive because they were leaders in aerospace technology and disliked mobilizing large armies and suffering heavy casualties. Bombing requires aircraft that can carry sufficient bomb loads over great distances, penetrate enemy defenses, find targets in darkness and poor weather, and bomb accurately. Effective campaigns require adequate bases, trained personnel, fuel, munitions, replacement aircraft, spare parts, and the intelligence capability to select and assess damage to the proper targets.
Popular fiction forecast the use of poison gas in warfare from the 1890s. While an effort was made to ban the wartime use of gas at The Hague International Peace Conference in 1899, military strategists and tacticians dismissed chemical weapons as a fanciful notion. The stalemate of World War I changed this mindset. Under Fritz Haber, a chemist at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute, Germany’s chemical industry began making gas weapons. Compressed chlorine gas in 5730 cylinders was released against French Algerian and Canadian troops at Ypres, Belgium, on April 22, 1915. The gas attack resulted in approximately 3000 casualties, including some 800 deaths. Within months the British and French developed both gas agents of their own and protective gear, ensuring that chemical warfare would become a regular feature of the war. A variety of lethal and nonlethal chemical agents were developed in World War I. Lethal agents included the asphyxiating gases such as chlorine, phosgene, and diphosgene that drown their victims in mucous, choking off the supply of oxygen from the lungs. A second type were blood gases like hydrogen cyanide, which block the body’s ability to absorb oxygen from red corpuscles. Incapacitating gases included lachrymatorics (tear gases) and vesicants (blistering gases). The most notorious of these is mustard gas (Bis-[2- chloroethyl] sulphide), a blistering agent that produces horrible burns on the exposed skin and destroys mucous tissue and also persists on the soil for as long as 48 hours after its initial dispersion.
Missile defenses are complex systems composed of three major components: sensors to detect the launch of missiles and track them as they advance toward their targets, weapon systems to destroy the attacking missiles, and a command and control system that interconnects sensors and weapons. As a result of technological advances, these three components have evolved over the years since World War II, producing two major periods in the history of missile defense and suggesting the advent of a third by about 2025.
All chemical explosives obtain their energy from the almost instantaneous transformation from an inherently unstable chemical compound into more stable molecules. The breakthrough from the 2000- year old ‘‘black powder’’ to the high explosive of today was achieved with the discovery of the molecular explosive nitroglycerine, produced by nitrating glycerin with a mixture of strong nitric and sulfuric acids. Nitroglycerin, because of its extreme sensitivity and instability, remained a laboratory curiosity until Alfred Nobel solved the problem of how to safely and reliably initiate it with the discovery of the detonator in 1863, a discovery that has been hailed as key to both the principle and practice of explosives. Apart from the detonator, Nobel’s major contribution was the invention of dynamite in 1865. This invention tamed nitroglycerine by simply mixing it with an absorbent material called kieselguhr (diatomous earth) as 75 percent nitroglycerin and 25 percent kieselguhr. These two inventions were the basis for the twentieth century explosives industry. Explosives are ideally suited to provide high energy in airless conditions. For that reason explosives have played and will continue to play a vital role in the exploration of space.
Although new as weapons, fighters played an important role in World War I. Early in the war, reconnaissance planes and bombers were joined by fighters whose task it was to engage the enemy in aerial combat. Light machine guns were synchronized to fire through aircraft propellers. It was the German firm of Fokker which developed the first effective synchronizing device; this gave the Fokker planes, agile monoplanes, superiority over the Allies comparatively slow and less maneuverable biplanes. Aircraft development was then marked by a continuous catching-up process between German fighters on the one hand and French and British fighters on the other.
Research during World War II, especially in Germany, had shown that swept-back wings eased shockwave problems at high speeds. Important U.S. and Soviet aircraft developed shortly after the war, such as the Lockheed Sabre and MiG-15, had swept-back wings, and others adopted delta-wing layouts. Research and development in aerodynamics, structural engineering, materials science, and related fields led to the development of fighters and fighter–bombers with improved performance characteristics.
Fission weapons were developed first in the U.S., then in the Soviet Union, and later in Britain, France, China, India, and Pakistan. By the first decade of the twenty-first century, there were seven countries that announced that they had nuclear weapons, and several others suspected of developing them.
Among the most baleful of twentieth century technological accomplishments was the vast elaboration of the means for inflicting death and destruction in war. While nuclear and chemical weapons occasioned more revulsion, conventional high-explosive weapons wrought far wider harm. A revolution began in the nineteenth century with the introduction of rifled cannon and effective explosive shells. This, in turn, brought an escalating contest between weapons and protection both for fortifications and ships. At the beginning of the twentieth century, shells were beginning to move from black powder fill to modern high explosives such as ammonium picrate and trinitrotoluene (TNT). High-explosive (HE) shells needed steel walls thick enough to withstand the shock of firing, limiting weights of bursting charges to no more than about 25 percent of the whole. Depending on the target, they might use either point-detonating or time fuses. The early time fuses continued, as they had in the nineteenth century, to depend on the time taken for a powder train of precut length to burn to its end.
While early radar designers were driven to frequencies of more than 1000 megahertz by considerations of the availability of high-power components, it was appreciated very early on that higher frequencies and thus shorter wavelengths would allow better precision. Frequency and wavelength are inversely related according to the equation
Wavelength = c/frequency
where c = velocity of light.
Radars operating in the high-frequency (HF) band (3 to 30 megahertz) may detect targets well beyond the nominal horizon through two mechanisms: ‘‘sky wave’’ and ‘‘surface wave.’’ Early in the century, it was discovered that high-frequency radio waves were strongly refracted by the ionosphere. A HF beam aimed near the horizon would, under suitable conditions, be effectively reflected, returning to sea level some hundreds to thousands of kilometers from its transmission site. From the 1940s, interest developed in using this sky-wave transmission phenomenon to provide surveillance at great ranges. Early HF over-the-horizon radars (OTHRs) were bistatic ‘‘forward scatter’’ systems in which a widely separated transmitter and receiver detected and tracked targets lying between them. Ballistic missile tracking was a major application.
During the 1960s, the U.S. and the Soviet Union began to develop and deploy long-range ballistic missiles, both intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBMs). The former would have ranges over 8000 kilometers, and the latter would be limited to about 2400 kilometers. The German V-2 rocket built during World War II represented a short- or medium-range ballistic missile. The efficiency and long range of these missiles derived from the fact that they required fuel only to be launched up through the atmosphere and directed towards the target. They used virtually no fuel traveling through near outer space. They were ‘‘ballistic’’ rather than guided in that they fell at their target after a ballistic arc, like a bullet.
A cruise missile is an air-breathing missile that can carry a high-explosive warhead or a weapon of mass destruction such as a nuclear warhead for an intermediate range of up to several hundred kilometers. When launched from the ground, such missiles are known as ground-launched cruise missiles (GLCMs). Some historians of weapons technology regard the German V-1 or ‘‘buzzbomb’’ operated in World War II, propelled with a ram-jet, air-breathing engine, as the first GLCM. The weapons do not require remote guidance, but automatically home in on pre-assigned targets, acting autonomously.
During the 1930s, Great Britain was one of several countries, including most notably Germany and the U.S. that experimented with radar for early warning of air attacks. The British ‘‘Chain Home’’ system, designed by Sir Robert Watson-Watt and established by 1939, included a string of stations along the east and south coasts. By mid-1940, most of the stations featured two 73-meter wooden towers, one holding fixed transmitter aerials and the other receivers. When it was discovered that low-flying aircraft could slip undetected beneath the original fence, Britain created a second string of ‘‘Chain Home Low’’ stations, beginning with Truleigh Hill. The latter sites consisted of two separate aerials, one to transmit and the other to receive, mounted on 6-meter-high gantries and short enough to allow an operator inside the equipment hut beneath the gantry to manually rotate the arrays. Together, Chain Home and Chain Home Low provided a detection range of 40 to 190 kilometers depending on an incoming aircraft’s altitude. This early warning capability contributed immeasurably to the RAF victory over the Luftwaffe in the Battle of Britain.
The exchange of technical ideas between the military world and the civilian world can be found throughout the history of technology, from the defensive machines of Archimedes in Syracuse about 250 BC, through the first application of the telescope by Galileo in military and commercial intelligence, to the application of nuclear fission to both weaponry and power production. In the twentieth century, as the military establishments of the great powers sought to harness inventive capabilities, they turned to precedents in the commercial and academic world, seeking new ways to organize research and development. By the 1960s, the phrase ‘‘technology transfer’’ described the exchange of technique and device between civilian and military cultures, as well as between one nation and another, and provided a name for the phenomenon that had always characterized the development of tools, technique, process, and application.
The first successful nuclear reactor, called an ‘‘atomic pile’’ because of its structure of graphite bricks, was completed and operational on December 2, 1942, in Chicago in the U.S. Although originally built to demonstrate a controlled nuclear reaction, the reactor was later dismantled and the depleted uranium removed in order to recover minute amounts of plutonium for use in a nuclear weapon. In effect, Chicago Pile- One (CP-1) was not only the world’s first nuclear reactor but also the world’s first reactor used to produce material for a nuclear weapon.
Reflection was an important part of Heinrich Hertz’s 1887 demonstration of the existence of electromagnetic waves, and the idea of using that property to ‘‘see’’ in darkness or fog was developed shortly afterwards.
By the early 1930s, serious efforts were underway in the U.S., Germany, and Britain to construct radio-location devices using relatively long wavelengths. (Russian efforts were ahead in the early 1930s, but they yielded little as a result of serious organizational problems and purges that sent key engineers to the gulag.) The German company GEMA built the first device that can be called a functioning radar set in 1935 with Britain and America following only months behind. Two groups in the U.S.—the Signal Corps and the Naval Research Laboratories—proceeded independently but on lines very similar to those of the Germans in using dipole arrays. They had air-warning and searchlight-pointing prototype sets ready for production in 1939.
The British physicists Robert Watson Watt and Arnold Wilkins proceeded along a different line using wavelengths of tens of meters with broadcast rather than ‘‘searchlight’’ transmission. This equipment, although inferior to that working on shorter wavelengths, was seen by Air Vice-Marshal Hugh Dowding as the key to the air defense of Britain from expected German attack. As commander of the newly created Fighter Command, he created a system of radar stations and ground observers linked by secure telephone lines to the fighter units. He drilled Fighter Command to use the new technique, and when the Luftwaffe came in the summer of 1940, the attacking squadrons were ambushed by defending fighters positioned by radar.
As with much else in radar, airborne radar sets were first developed during World War II, and most of the modern uses for such sets were explored during that war. While airborne radar shares much in common with surface and naval sets, there are many factors involved that make airborne installations very different from either of the latter.
At the beginning of the 21st century, combat aircraft continue to use radar for the same purposes as in World War II: navigation, air and surface search, and targeting. Using computers and guided munitions, they could also automatically release bombs or launch missiles at the appropriate time. The big difference between 1945 and 2018 is that most, if not all, of these functions can be done by a single aircraft carrying a single radar with a range and resolution much greater than any airborne set used during the war.
Those who first conceived of radar early in the century often envisioned systems that would simply indicate, perhaps by sounding a buzzer or lighting a lamp, that a target had been detected and where it was located. Those who first reduced radar to practice in the 1930s, however, were radio scientists who knew that the returning radar signals would somehow have to be distinguished against a background of radio-frequency interference and noise. They were accustomed to displaying signals visually on cathode ray tube (CRT) oscilloscopes, and they naturally turned to such means for radar. This made the operator an essential part of the radar system, responsible for the final stages of the detection process and extraction of target data.
With the onset of war in September 1939, Britain, Germany, and the U.S. had advanced radar designs while France, Russia, The Netherlands, Italy, and Japan had little of value in comparison although they had made research efforts along those lines. Of these endeavors, only Britain had proceeded past the prototype stage into a state of war readiness in the form of the Chain Home air defense. Germany had technically the best radar designs, but the Wehrmacht intended to wage a war of aggression and initially gave little support to a technology whose strength lay overwhelmingly in defense. In the U.S., because of the contentious battleship–bomber disputes of the 1920s, the Navy had pressed for any new technical method to defend ships against air attack, and the Army had sought to perfect its anti-aircraft artillery with methods of combating bombers at night.
After World War I and during World War II, technological effort was aimed at putting the camera at higher altitudes, theoretically out of the ability of the enemy to reach and destroy it, and to further increase its operational effectiveness by allowing it to operate in the dark. This led to development of electrical heating apparatus that prevented camera shutters from being adversely affected by the cold at high altitudes and to the slit camera that adjusted the speed at which film was fed through the camera to the speed of the aircraft, an advance that improved the production of maps of enemy territory. Nighttime operations were aided by aerial flash equipment designed by Harold Edgerton of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which provided not only well-lit scenery, but also frozen imagery of the target, an asset vital to effective bomb sighting.
With the opening of the Cold War, the mindset that kept pushing reconnaissance to increasingly high altitudes and greater speeds took on a new importance as it not only kept the camera out of the enemy’s physical reach, but out of his legal and political reach as well. The Royal Air Force’s first jet bomber, the Canberra, counted on both speed and altitude to keep it away from enemy fighters. These advantages were to prove useful to reconnaissance as well and the Canberra still serves in the RAF inventory. The quest for speed and height led ultimately to the two best-known Cold War reconnaissance aircraft, the U-2 and the SR-71. Capable of cruising at 740 kilometers per hour (km/h), with a range of 3540 kilometers, and a ceiling of 17,000 meters. (21,000 meters and above in the later models), the U-2 represented the cutting edge in aerial intelligence gathering until it was superceded by the faster and higher flying SR-71. The Blackbird pushed the altitude envelope to over 26,000 meters and was able to maintain speeds of Mach 3.2.
With most nations surrounding their military capabilities with considerable secrecy, different published range figures and guidance types sometimes contradicted each other. Furthermore, the distinction between an intermediate-range missile (up to about 2400 kilometers) and an intercontinental- or long-range missile was a matter of definition over which there was never complete agreement. Some publications would include submarine- launched missiles up to intermediate range in short- and medium-range ballistic missile listings. Although the missiles listed here were generally capable of carrying a nuclear warhead, most were also loaded with conventional explosive warheads.
The word ‘‘sonar’’ originated in the U.S. Navy during World War II as an acronym for ‘‘SOund NAvigation and Ranging,’’ which referred to the systematic use of sound waves, transmitted or reflected, to determine water depths as well as to detect and locate submerged objects. Until it adopted that term in 1963, the British Admiralty had used ‘‘ASDIC,’’ an abbreviation for the Anti- Submarine Detection Investigation Committee that led the effort among British, French, and American scientists during World War I to locate submarines and icebergs using acoustic echoes. American shipbuilder Lewis Nixon invented the first sonar-type device in 1906. Physicist Karl Alexander Behm in Kiel, Germany, disturbed by the Titanic disaster of April 1912, invented an echo depth sounder for iceberg detection in July 1913. Although developed and improved primarily for military purposes in World War I, sonar devices became useful in such fields as oceanography and medical practice (e.g., ultrasound).
The basic technology of the submarine is quite simple and has remained constant since its inception. The boat submerges by taking on water through vents to decrease its buoyancy and surfaces by expelling the water with compressed air. The outward appearance of the military submarine has remained remarkably constant throughout its modern development—a cigar-shaped hull topped by the immediately recognizable conning tower with a periscope for viewing the surface.
We can break submarine technology into five categories:
In World War II, when Japanese kamikaze aircraft showed the amount of damage that could be inflicted with a single explosive-laden plane, it became apparent that machine gun and antiaircraft fire were insufficient protection against current and future weapons. The answer was to combine radar detection, guided rockets, and the proximity fuse into surface-to-air missiles or SAMs. Intensive development in the postwar years produced the Sea Sparrow in the 1950s as one of the first, successful SAMS. When identifying a Warsaw Pact weapon as a surface-to-air missile, NATO forces would assign it an ‘‘SA’’ or surface– air, number.
Despite some curiosity on the part of a handful of other nations, the development of the tank in the twentieth century was largely a British affair. Yet even Britain did not intentionally set out to develop it. Like many things, the tank was the result of other technologies being developed as well as a response to the dangers some of those very technologies presented. Although tanks were plagued with problems of power, protection, and a lack of vision about their use at the beginning of the 20th century, and despite the massive advances in weapons of all kinds during the century, at the beginning of the 21st century the tank remained a vital instrument of warfare.
In spite of its similarity to nineteenth-century warfare, World War I witnessed several new developments, most notably the airplane, the tank, and the truck. Between 1919 and 1939, the implications of these new developments were worked out, producing new operational approaches that transformed warfare.
During World War II (1939–1945), European land warfare was dominated by mobile armored forces that swept back and forth across the continent. While armies fought on the ground, air forces contended for control of European skies. In this massive air war, Allied bombers devastated Germany’s industrial base and population centers.
Meanwhile, in the Pacific region, the war centered on aircraft carrier task forces that battled each other and supported amphibious operations. The war started with Japan conquering much of the western Pacific, only to be pushed back by superior Allied arms and forced to surrender when American B-29 bombers dropped the only two atomic bombs ever used in war.
By the time World War II ended in the Pacific, Japan’s military resources had been severely reduced by Allied military actions. The reduction of Japanese resources, along with the progressive weakening of Germany in the European theater, suggest that World War II, like the first, was an attrition war in which industrial capacity was as important as military forces.
Two of the most revolutionary developments of World War II were the atomic bomb and the long-range ballistic missile. When more fully developed and mated to each other during the Cold War (1946–1991), they became what is perhaps the most revolutionary weapon in military history, the nuclear-tipped, intercontinental-range ballistic missile (ICBM). In the end, the Cold War was another attrition conflict, ending with the economic exhaustion and collapse of the Soviet Empire.
The end of the Cold War reduced the tensions that had kept nuclear strike forces on hair-trigger alert since the 1950s. Although nuclear weapons still existed, relations between the U.S. and the Russian Federation that emerged from the defunct Soviet Union were no longer based on mutually assured destruction (MAD), as both sides reduced their nuclear forces and the U.S. continued developing missile defenses.
While there were a number of significant ‘‘limited’’ wars during the twentieth century, the five major episodes described above unleashed the greatest national energies. These energies were molded into major new military systems through the process of command technology that is rooted in England of the 1880s according to historian William McNeill. Before this time, weapons were either developed in government-owned arsenals or by private entrepreneur inventors. A major change began in 1886 when the British Admiralty, dissatisfied with the performance of the government arsenal at Woolwich, started contracting with private arms makers for the development of new weapons. Under this approach, the Admiralty established the specifications for a new weapon and effectively challenged the contractor to produce it. This contracting system marks the beginning of command technology. Tantamount to invention on demand, this process of state-sponsored research and development spread throughout the West, becoming the dominant paradigm for weapons acquisition by 1945.
One product of command technology during World War I was the tank, which was developed by the British to cross fire-swept terrain between the trenches and breech the German defenses. While the tank proved capable of completing its mission, its successes were limited due to technical limitations and a lack of understanding of how best to use the new weapon.
The principal enabling technology for the tank was the internal combustion engine, which also powered World War I trucks and airplanes. The former improved logistics by connecting troops in forward positions with railheads and supply depots in the rear. The latter opened an entirely new realm of warfare and, over the course of the war, suggested all the missions the airplane would perform in future wars.
Building on the lessons of World War I, air power advocates used the period between the two world wars to develop a rigorous body of air power doctrine. At the same time, the world’s leading powers developed aircraft of increasing capabilities to execute the missions defined in their doctrines.
The U.S. emphasized long-range bombers to execute daylight, precision bombardment—the dominant doctrine in America’s air force. England also developed bombers, but she also pursued fighter development because of the threat posed by the air force of a rearming Germany. In addition to bombers, Germany developed tactical aircraft to support its new approach to ground warfare—Blitzkrieg.
The basic ideas behind Blitzkrieg had emerged by the end of World War I, as the capabilities of tanks and aircraft improved. After the war, the Germans developed these ideas further and mated them to the panzer division, which included tanks, mechanized artillery, and motorized infantry. Through radio communications, these elements were integrated into coherent units that also used their radios to coordinate supporting air attacks by Germany’s tactical fighters. Using their air support, the panzers would execute deep, penetrating attacks to unbalance opponents and keep them from shoring up their defenses once these had been breeched.
World War II in Europe opened with Blitzkrieg attacks that swiftly overran Poland in 1939 and France in 1940. It ended with Allied air forces supporting mechanized operations that pushed German forces out of their conquered territories prior to overrunning Germany itself.
While the Germans were perfecting Blitzkrieg, naval officers around the world were integrating aviation into naval operations. This entailed developing true aircraft carriers with landing decks that ran the full length of vessels, allowing aircraft to both take-off and land on the carrier. The advent of these carriers prompted a debate over which ship, the carrier or the battleship, would dominate the next war.
This question was settled decisively at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, when Japanese carrier aircraft damaged or sank every American battleship in the harbor. Throughout the remainder of the war in the Pacific, the principal measure of naval power was the carrier task force in which battleships, cruisers, and destroyers used their firepower principally to protect their carriers from attack by enemy planes and submarines. The impact of the carrier on naval warfare is clearly illustrated by the May 1942 Battle of the Coral Sea, the first naval engagement in which the surface forces never sighted each other. Throughout the remainder of the century, the carrier task force dominated naval operations.
Three years before the Battle of the Coral Sea, physicist Albert Einstein alerted U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt to the potential of nuclear fission. After having this concept evaluated by a panel of scientists, Roosevelt launched the Manhattan District Project to develop an atomic bomb.
There were two major facets to this project: developing an industrial base to produce fissionable materials and designing the bomb itself. On July 16, 1945, less than three years after the project began, the world’s first atomic bomb was detonated in New Mexico. Within a month, the U.S. had dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, forcing the Japanese to surrender. About a decade before the U.S. launched its atomic bomb project, the Germans began work on what would become the world’s first long-range ballistic missile. In 1937, this program was greatly expanded with the establishment of a vast, new rocket development center at Peenemunde. The German program employed several hundred scientists and technicians who were supported by a large budget that could be coupled to Germany’s industrial base and its university research facilities through a flexible contracting system.
This rocket program is a classic example of command technology. Guided by specifications established by the army’s ordnance office, the Peenemunde team made rapid progress after 1937. In June 1942, the team completed the first successful test of the V-2 rocket, which became the world’s first operational long-range missile when it began hitting allied cities in September 1944. This choice of targets, which was dictated by the missile’s inaccuracy and the limited size of its warhead, meant that the V-2 was essentially a terror weapon with little real military value.
Immediately after World War II, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union absorbed German rocket developments and began working energetically to produce long-range missiles that could be used for military purposes. A major breakthrough came in the 1950s when both countries demonstrated the ability to produce thermonuclear bombs. This meant that warheads could be made that were light enough to be carried by a missile, yet powerful enough to compensate for missile inaccuracies. Moreover, the advent of the hydrogen bomb ushered in an era of ‘‘nuclear plenty,’’ since fusion fuel is plentiful and inexpensive when compared to fission fuel.
At the same time, work was progressing on inertial guidance systems that would be much more accurate than the system used in the V-2. A major breakthrough here was the development of more sensitive inertial measuring units that were based on complex mechanical structures, computer advances, and improved electro-optical technologies.
The simultaneous resolution of guidance and warhead problems made the ICBM feasible. Paradoxically, because these weapons could destroy civilization, the doctrine governing their employment, mutual assured destruction (MAD), aimed to deter their use. MAD required each side to have enough nuclear weapons to absorb a nuclear attack and still be able to inflict unacceptable losses on the attacker.
America’s first ICBM became operational in 1959. In developing this missile, the U.S. Air Force pioneered a new management discipline that was based on insights into the functioning of complex weapons.
Until well into the nineteenth century, weapons were largely simple, stand-alone devices. However, by World War I, they were often amalgams of complex components as in the case of the giant dreadnought class battleships that dominated naval warfare during the first two decades of the twentieth century.
During the World War II, air defenses and aircraft carriers raised the complexity of weaponry another order of magnitude. It was at this point that the pioneers of operational analysis made the point that optimizing the performance of complex weapons required a thorough understanding of how their components interacted with each other and with their operational environment. Assuring a proper ‘‘fit’’ between system components became the work of systems engineering. Bringing operational analysis and systems engineering together to create an effective weapon was the function of systems management, a discipline that was more fully developed and formalized in the U.S.’s huge ICBM program that was launched in the 1950s. The success of the ICBM program transformed systems management into the principal paradigm for managing major weapons programs, including those for self-guided and precision-guided munitions (PGMs).
A major inspiration for self-guided munitions was the airplane. Before the advent of artificial sensors, computers, and advanced servo motors, the presence of a pilot offered one means, beyond initial aiming, to guide a weapon to its target. Indeed, one of the best known early efforts to achieve precision guidance was the Japanese use of suicide pilots who attempted to fly their planes into U.S. ships during the World War II. Less well known are U.S. and German efforts to develop unmanned glide bombs and vertical bombs that could be controlled from the aircraft that dropped them.
Germany’s desperate efforts to down Allied bombers near the end of the World War II spawned several innovative concepts in the area of precision-guided surface-to-air missiles or SAMs. Included here was the use of a simple infrared sensor to allow SAMs to home in on hot bomber engines. Another SAM was to have been guided by commands from the ground that reached the interceptor via a thin wire that played out as the missile flew toward its target. Fortunately for Allied bombers, these ideas came too late in the war to be implemented.
More fully developed after World War II, wire-guided missiles were used extensively in limited and regional wars such as the Vietnam War (1965–1973) in which an American wire-guided missile achieved an 80 percent hit rate. Soviet wire-guided missiles were used extensively by the Egyptians to inflict heavy losses on Israeli armor during the early phase of the 1973 Arab–Israeli War.
Infrared heat-seeking technology was widely applied in missile guidance after 1945. By 1953, the U.S. had developed the world’s first heat-seeking air-to-air missile. Widely used throughout the rest of the century, these missiles generally employed a small, nose-mounted infrared sensor to guide them to the hot engine tailpipe of enemy aircraft. Shoulder-held heat-seekers were also developed to protect soldiers against air attacks. By the end of the century, the spread of these small, portable missiles was causing concern that terrorists might use them against commercial jetliners.
Other precision-guided missiles used radar in their guidance systems. While some were designed for air-to-air combat, others were built to home in on the signal from air defense radars. Radar-guided SAMs also became central to effective air defenses.
Systematic efforts to develop defenses against aircraft began during World War I when the British tried to stop German bomber attacks on England. Twenty years later, with England facing the prospect of air attacks from a rearming Nazi Germany, Sir Robert Watson-Watt advised the British government that reflected radio waves could be used to locate attacking aircraft. This principal became the basis for a radar system that the British began deploying in the mid-1930s. By the time German planes attacked London in 1940, England had deployed an air defense system that used radar plots and radio communications to guide defensive fighters to attacking German planes.
The use of radar here is an important departure. The increasing speed and range of the airplane collapsed time and threatened to deprive the defender of adequate response time. Using instruments such as binoculars and listening devices to increase the power of human senses was no longer adequate for locating an attacking force. Radar marks the first effort in military affairs to extend human perception by using phenomena outside the normal range of man’s five senses. The British Chain Home radar system could detect aircraft approaching at an altitude of 6000 meters at a range of 145 kilometers, providing a warning time of 15 minutes for planes flying at 580 kilometers per hour.
Faced with the threat of nuclear-armed Soviet bombers in the 1950, the US. developed a continental- wide air defense system with a forward-based radar system to provide the earliest possible warning of attack. Radar data were fed to computerized control centers that automated the manual process of vectoring interceptors to their targets. These centers could simultaneously track 200 attacking bombers while vectoring 200 interceptors to their intercept points.
As this system was becoming operational, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union began deploying ICBMs. Against these weapons, bomber defenses were essentially useless. The ICBM’s speed allowed it to traverse thousands of kilometers in a matter of minutes, further compressing the time for defensive actions. Some way had to be found to recapture the lost response time.
Improved ground-based radars provided fifteen minutes of warning time in the case of an ICBM attack. An additional fifteen minutes were gained by deploying satellite-based, infrared sensors that surveilled enemy missile fields around the clock. More time was recovered by parsing time into picoseconds, providing billions of time units that could be effectively managed by high-speed computers to optimize defensive reactions.
Later missile defense concepts pursued under the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was launched in 1984 by the US., sought to improve the odds for a successful defense by placing interceptor missiles in space. Furthermore, the U.S. pursued various concepts for directed energy weapons, which promised a near instantaneous kill, since beam velocities approached the speed of light. Combining orbiting lasers with space-based interceptors would produce a defense capable of destroying enemy missiles during the boost phase before they released their multiple warheads and decoys.
As the twentieth century was ending, the U.S. was developing an airborne laser that could also destroy ballistic missiles during their boost phases. This weapon also promised to be effective against attacking aircraft.
The high-speed computer, so crucial to the prospects of missile defense, was also central to the development and proliferation of command and control systems after 1950. These systems formed an integrated ‘‘picture’’ of current situations based on information from a wide variety of sources. Included among these sources are battlefield sensors, overhead satellites, electronic intelligence, and units engaged in combat. This picture provided the basis for extending and tightening the control exerted of senior political and military leaders. Computerized systems also played a major role in managing military logistics, so essential to modern military forces.
Developments such as high-speed computers, lasers, radar, and infrared sensors point toward a fundamentally new departure in twentieth-century weaponry: the creation of advanced military capabilities based on esoteric scientific principles. These principles are generated through abstract, mathematical reasoning and are not readily discoverable through the traditional methods of careful observation and the manipulation of materials. Without the highly mathematical electromagnetic field theory of James Clerk Maxwell there would be no radio or radar. Without the work of scientists like J. J. Thompson, Ernest Rutherford, and Niels Bohr there would have been no atomic theory and no basis for conceiving nuclear fission.
Introducing scientists into the mix of engineers, technicians, and managers that was central to earlier forms of command technology greatly increased government’s power to invent on command. As the century was ending, this enhanced form of command technology had created in military affairs a situation similar to what historian Walter McDougall described as a perpetual technological revolution.
Change had become one of the few constants in military affairs. Making effective ‘‘transformations’’ in force structures and doctrines to ensure success in future wars was more clearly than ever a core concern for military professionals and their civilian leaders.
Browse other Technology Research Paper Topics .
Looking for some military topics for discussion? You’re in the right place! We’ve gathered here a list of hot military persuasive essay topics to boost your creativity! Our unique army persuasive essay topics will inspire your presentation or research paper.
✍️ military essay topics for college, 👍 good military research topics & essay examples, 💡 simple military essay topics, 🎓 most interesting army persuasive essay topics, ❓ military research questions.
Cite this post
StudyCorgi. (2021, September 9). 171 Military Essay Topics. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/military-essay-topics/
"171 Military Essay Topics." StudyCorgi , 9 Sept. 2021, studycorgi.com/ideas/military-essay-topics/.
StudyCorgi . (2021) '171 Military Essay Topics'. 9 September.
1. StudyCorgi . "171 Military Essay Topics." September 9, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/military-essay-topics/.
Bibliography
StudyCorgi . "171 Military Essay Topics." September 9, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/military-essay-topics/.
StudyCorgi . 2021. "171 Military Essay Topics." September 9, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/military-essay-topics/.
These essay examples and topics on Military were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.
This essay topic collection was updated on June 24, 2024 .
Discover the world's research
🏆 best military topic ideas & essay examples, 👍 good essay topics on military, 📃 interesting topics to write about military, 🥇 most interesting military topics to write about, 💡 simple & easy military essay titles, 🎓 good research topics about military, ❓ military research questions.
IvyPanda. (2024, March 2). 339 Military Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/military-essay-topics/
"339 Military Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 2 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/military-essay-topics/.
IvyPanda . (2024) '339 Military Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 2 March.
IvyPanda . 2024. "339 Military Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/military-essay-topics/.
1. IvyPanda . "339 Military Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/military-essay-topics/.
Bibliography
IvyPanda . "339 Military Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/military-essay-topics/.
This page has examples of library resources addressing some Military Science topics.
The library catalog uses the term " Terrorism Prevention ."
School of advanced warfighting.
Welcome to Marine Corps University’s New Student Registration page. The following content and links provide information and forms for all military and civilian students who will be attending the resident officer professional military education programs given at Marine Corps University. These programs include the Marine Corps War College, School of Advanced Warfighting, Command and Staff College, and Expeditionary Warfare School.
The dates listed below apply to all U.S. military and interagency students. All local students are expected to report into Marine Corps University by 1600 on the “Report No Later Than Dates” established below.
03 Jul: Report not later than date for all students traveling from a CONUS location
03 Jul: Report not later than date for all students traveling from an OCONUS location
08 Jul: Orientation & Onboarding for all students.
15 Jul: Classes Convene.
01 Jul: Report not later than date for all students traveling from a CONUS location
01 Jul: Report not later than date for all students traveling from an OCONUS location
01 Jul: Classes Convene.
TBD: Orientation & Onboarding for all students.
23 Jul: Report not later than date for all students traveling from a CONUS location
23 Jul: Report not later than date for all students traveling from an OCONUS location
24-26 Jul: Orientation & Onboarding for all students.
29 Jul: Classes Convene.
23 Jul: Report not later than date for all students traveling from a CONUS location
24-26 Jul: Orientation & Onboarding for all students
29 Jul: Classes Convene
Marine Corps War College (MCWAR)
School of Advanced Warfighting (SAW)
Marine Corps Command and Staff College (CSC)
Expeditionary Warfare School (EWS)
Questions with regard to the administrative join process and reporting into Marine Corps University should be directed to the Student Services office. The Student Service office is open from 0800 to 1600 Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday. The Student Service office is located in Room 1182 of Warner Hall, 2044 Broadway Street, Quantico, VA 22134.
Director, Administrative Services Maj Nicholas D. Patitsas (703) 432-4632
Dep Director, Administrative Services MSgt Martin I. Cervantes (703) 784-5665
Student Service Chief/Navy Rep YN1(SW) Robin Charoenkwanchi (703) 432-5465
Student Service Clerks LCPL Joshua M. Chester (703) 432-5477
Student Services OMB [email protected] Registrar Mr. Jake Bilyew (703) 432-5503 Security Officer Ms. Lisa Nelson [email protected]
All students must request enrollment in their respective college or school via the links below. Enrollment begins on 1 January 2024 and must be completed by 1 July 2024. Enrollment will allow students access to online course material utilized during the academic year.
All Sister Service and Inter-Agency students will need to create a MarineNet Account. Please click on the link provided for step-by-step instructions for creating your MarineNet account.
Marine Corps War College (MCWAR)
School of Advanced Warfighting (SAW)
Marine Corps Command and Staff College (CSC)
Expeditionary Warfare School (EWS)
Each year, the Commanding General, Education Command/President, Marine Corps University oversees the administrative support of 140 to 150 IMS attending the many schools, programs and courses within the Marine Corps Combat Development Command (MCCDC) located aboard Marine Corps Base (MCB), Quantico, Virginia.
This page provides specific information that applies to those IMS who have been selected to attend one of Marine Corps University’s year-long officer professional military education (PME) programs:
MCWAR : Marine Corps War College (10 months long, for Lieutenant Colonels)
SAW : School of Advanced Warfighting (11 months long, for selected Majors)
CSC : Command and Staff College (10 months long, for Majors)
EWS : Expeditionary Warfare School (9 months long, for Captains)
International Military Students attending all other courses aboard MCCDC should contact the Regional IMS Officer at [email protected] .
More Information
International Military Students are scheduled to arrive in CONUS to attend a two-week foreign student orientation program. Escorts will meet these students at the airport and help orient them to Quantico by assisting them with the initial requirements of settling their families and preparing for the academic year.
Note: Students who report early, and not in a liberty/leave status, will be required to provide support as needed for the in-processing of International Military Students.
Each International Military Student will be assigned a U.S. military student to serve as their 'IMS' sponsor during the academic year. Volunteers are preferred. A sponsor's primary role is to assist the IMS with settling their family at Quantico, understanding the administrative and academic requirements, and to be aware of needs that may require referral to the appropriate supporting activities. Interested students should complete and submit the applicable school sponsor form provided below.
EWS IMS SPONSOR FORM
CSC IMS SPONSOR FORM
If you have any questions, please contact the Regional IMS Officer at [email protected] .
MCU Parental Leave Policy Letter 3-23
Administration Center (IPAC) located on the 2nd deck of Yale Hall (Building 2006) to conduct their administrative join process and to file their PCS travel claim for reimbursement of travel entitlements and expenses.
MCB-Q IPAC Address Yale Hall 2006 Hawkins Avenue Quantico, VA 22134
All Sister Service and Inter-Agency students will report to the Student Services Office, room 1177 of Warner Center to complete the university check-in process.
Warner Center Address 2044 Broadway Street (Room 177) Quantico, VA 22134
All PTAD is required to be taken prior to the start of the school year. Students are encouraged to factor in the 10 days of PTAD when determining the day in which they will report into the university. PTAD will be scrutinized in accordance with the intent of the leave and liberty order.
MCB Quantico Map Marine Corps University Campus Map
Note: This information is subject to change as guidance is updated by higher headquarters.
All students must check out with their current command Security Manager prior to executing transfer to Marine Corps University. A “debrief” and an “out-process” action is required to be completed by your current Security Manger via the Defense Information Security System (DISS). Students should ensure their security clearance will not expire prior to the end of the academic year (June 2025).
Marine Corps University’s Security Manager is responsible for providing personnel security guidance, education, and training support to all students. The Security Manager serves as the primary advisor in all matters regarding the eligibility of personnel to access classified information.
MARINE CORPS RESEARCH TOPICS AY 2022-2023
BRUTE KRULAK CENTER FOR INNOVATION AND FUTURE WARFARE SCHOLARS PROGRAMS
Krulak Scholars Program - AY23 focus is "The World Energy Paradigm after Ukraine: Global Perspectives on Strategic Competition." ( application deadline 02 Sep 2022 )
Ellis Fellowship for Military Transformation - AY23 focus is the Marine Corps "Campaign of Learning" and refinement of Force Design 2030
Reynolds Scholars Program - focus is the advancement of the Women, Peace & Security effort within PME. ( application deadline 26 Aug 2022 )
JPME JPRTD is the JPME Prospective Research Topics Database , which provides prospective research topics for students attending advanced military study programs and intermediate and senior services schools. This site is CAC-enabled. If you are unable to access the PRTD, check your browser settings.
The Joint Special Operations University Press publishes a list of research topics annually. The 2022 list highlights a wide range of topics collaboratively developed and prioritized by experts throughout the Special Operations Forces (SOF) community.
USSPACECOM developed space defense, technology, and war studies topics, which are listed in this document . Students who select a research topic from this list will receive informal, open-source access, coaching, and, depending on the topic, unclassified material from one or more USSPACECOM subject matter experts (SMEs). The top research papers received will be assessed for potential inclusion in an all-space special issue or an Air University journal to be edited by USSPACECOM's SIG. The SIG will coordinate for longer document publication options for projects that exceed a journal-sized entry but are considered highly desired for Department of Defense (DoD) formal publication and dissemination.
IN AN EFFORT TO ALIGN THE MARINE CORPS INTELLIGENCE ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT IN THE SPECIAL EDUCATION PROGRAM AND PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS WITH THE REAL PROBLEM-SOLVING NEEDS OF OUR SERVICE, THE DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE, SOLICITS THESIS TOPICS FROM OPERATING FORCE AND SUPPORTING ESTABLISHMENT. ACCESS TO FULL LIST OF TOPICS MAY REQUIRE INTELINK ACCOUNT AND PAGE PERMISSIONS.
The Marine Corps Research Library produces a broad range of research guides which can be used to identify and pursue research topics of interest to the Marine Corps and broader national security community.
For information on how to submit a topic for inclusion in future topic lists, please contact MCU’s Director of Research or use the online form .
The Leadership Communication Skills Center is an educational support resource for the MCU community—students, faculty, and staff.
Designing data-gathering and analysis approaches.
For students with specialized research design needs, such as survey or interview protocols or use of qualitative and statistical analysis tools, MCU will attempt to link them to internal and external Marine Corps scholars/scientists who can assist them on an individual basis. This support is provided through a network of volunteer scholars/scientists in MCU and not all types of expertise may be available at a particular point in time. For more information, contact [email protected] .
Not sure who to ask? Contact [email protected] .
Gray Research Center
Research papers produced by MCU's students are maintained by the Marine Corps Research Library Reference Branch and the Archives Branch of the Marine Corps History Division. Additional information is available on the MCU Student Papers site .
The Breckinridge Papers
Marine Corps University recognizes outstanding PME student papers and advances their ideas into academic and defense community debate. The Breckinridge Papers: Selected Studies from the Marine Corps University showcases Marine Corps War College, School of Advanced Warfighting, Command and Staff College, and School of Expeditionary Warfare student writing.
Marine Corps University is accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges to award the following master’s degrees:
Master of Strategic Studies via the Marine Corps War College Master of Operational Studies via the School of Advanced Warfighting Master of Military Studies via the Command and Staff College
Students enrolling in a master’s degree program must have earned a regionally or nationally accredited U.S. bachelor’s degree, or its equivalent. Students attending the Marine Corps War College and the School of Advanced Warfighting are required to submit official transcripts as evidence of your bachelor’s degree. All U.S. Students attending the Command and Staff College are required to apply for the Master of Military Studies (MMS) and must also submit official transcripts. Transcript receipt due dates are listed below:
Marine Corps War College 1 July 2024 School of Advanced Warfighting 1 July 2024 Command and Staff College 15 October 2024
Command and Staff College International students will be briefed on the optional MMS program and its requirements/deadlines during the first week of classes.
Official transcripts must be submitted directly from the degree granting institution to the Marine Corps University Registrar in the manner prescribed by that granting institution as “official”. Normally, this means a stamped transcript sent by mail in a sealed envelope. Some institutions have official electronic transcripts, which are accepted by Marine Corps University.
Transcripts that are hand carried by students, unofficial transcripts, “student” copies, faxed copies, and unsealed/open copies etc., are not accepted.
President, Marine Corps University Attention: Registrar 2076 South Street Quantico, VA 22134-5067 Or electronically to: [email protected]
Note 1: Students who previously attended the School of Advanced Warfighting and/or Command and Staff College Resident are NOT required to submit them again as long as they remain on file with the Marine Corps University Registrar. Please contact the Registrar at [email protected] to confirm.
Note 2: Students who have NOT earned a qualifying degree from an accredited U.S. institution must have their academic credentials evaluated for equivalency. Please contact the Registrar for guidance and assistance.
Military school student papers: research topics.
Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute:
Key Strategic Issues List 2016 - 2017
Special Operations Research Topics 2018
Special Operations Research Topics 2017
Special Operations Research Topics 2016
Special Operations Research Topics 2015
U.S. Army Special Operations Command FY18 Priority Research Topics
JPME Prospective Research Topics Database (PRTD)
The JPME PRTD provides prospective research topics for students attending advanced military study programs and intermediate and senior service schools. NOTICE: If you are unable to access the PRTD, you may need to modify your browser settings .
JFK Special Warfare Center and School SOF Topics and Research Guides
Marine Corp University Research Topics 2017 -2018
SEARCH ALL LIBRARY RESOURCES
|
|
| |
|
Stimson Library | US Army MEDCoE BLDG 2840 STE 106 3630 Stanley Road JBSA Fort Sam Houston, TX 78234-6160
Privacy & Security Notice | External Links Disclaimer | Web Accessability
Coast guard.
Mental health disorders were the top reason that active-duty U.S. military personnel were hospitalized in 2023, a trend that began in 2009 but has shown signs of easing in the past three years, according to two new reports from the Defense Health Agency.
Musculoskeletal injuries remain the No. 1 reason service members visit a medical facility, but mental health conditions are most responsible for putting them in hospitals overnight and keeping them there, according to epidemiologists with the Armed Forces Health Surveillance Division, who reviewed all medical appointments and hospitalizations among troops in 2023.
Of the roughly 62,806 times active-duty service members were hospitalized in 2023, nearly one-third -- 31% -- were there for mental health treatment, with adjustment disorders and alcohol abuse as the top diagnoses for men, and adjustment disorders and major depressive disorder the main diagnoses for women.
Read Next: Here's What Biden and Trump Actually Did for Veterans as President
While the median length of stay for a mental health issue was five days, some personnel stayed as long as 34 days, according to the June issue of the Medical Surveillance Monthly Report released Tuesday.
The mental health of U.S. service members has been a major focus of Defense Department policy and health programs since the late 2000s, when the number of suicides began rising among not only the active-duty component but also in the Guard and reserves.
Prior to 2008, military service was a protective factor against suicide, with troops having lower rates than the comparable U.S. population. But since that year, suicide rates have risen steadily despite enormous efforts by the military services and DoD to prevent such deaths.
With mental wellness a key component of the Defense Department's suicide prevention strategy, the department needs to understand the scope of diagnoses and hospitalizations to formulate policy, the researchers said.
"An accurate estimate of the health status of the armed forces can be used not only for determining expected health care use and costs" and for prioritizing treatments, but also to evaluate treatment impact and cost effectiveness, they wrote.
According to the reports, of the 14 million medical encounters troops had in 2023, counting appointments as well as hospitalizations, nearly 20% were for mental health -- an increase of 3% from 2018 that may be attributable to access to no-cost medical care and training requirements, the authors said.
However, in terms of overall encounters with medical personnel -- appointments and hospitalizations -- injuries remained the top reason why service members saw a doctor.
Injuries accounted for nearly one-quarter of all medical encounters by active-duty personnel last year, with back issues being the top complaint, followed by knee problems and arm and shoulder injuries.
Sleep disorders came in fourth, followed by other musculoskeletal problems. Anxiety, "ill-defined" symptoms, adjustment and mood disorders, and foot and ankle pain rounded out the top 10 reasons for troops to have contact with a provider in 2023.
The authors noted that, given the connection between mental health and physical health, particularly regarding back pain, military providers should consider a holistic approach to treating service members, rather than compartmentalize their medical conditions and treat each one separately.
They urged military medical leadership to use "holistic, integrated approaches to care" that take into account the unique health challenges faced by service members in training and combat, as well as the "interplay between military and civilian health care systems," to "better meet the health needs of military personnel and veterans."
Maternity care -- labor and delivery or pregnancy-related complications -- was the second most common reason service members were hospitalized in 2023. Largely as a result of this care, the hospitalization rate for service women, who make up 19% of the force, was more than three times that of servicemen.
When removing maternity care from the equation, the hospitalization rate for women was still 33% higher than men, largely as a result of hospital stays for mental health disorders and genitourinary disorders, according to the report.
The researchers noted that the Air Force and Space Force stood out in terms of hospitalizations, with pregnancy- and delivery-related conditions being the top reason airmen and Guardians were hospitalized. Mental health was the leading cause of hospitalization for the Army , Navy and Marine Corps .
"This pattern has been observed in recent years. Prior to 2020, pregnancy- and delivery-related conditions were ranked first for both Navy and Air Force active component members. Among all the services, the crude hospitalization rate for mental health disorders was highest among active component Army members," they wrote.
They noted that injury was the third leading reason for hospitalization across the services with the exception of the Air Force, where it was ranked fourth. Among the services, the Army had the highest hospitalization rate for injury followed by the Marine Corps.
In a bit of good news regarding the health of the force, hospitalizations for all major diagnoses declined from 2019 through 2023, and the crude rate – a simple measure of the total number of hospital admissions divided by the mid-year population that gives researchers a sense of general trends – was its lowest since 2014, according to the reports.
In a separate report, the researchers analyzed the medical encounters and hospitalizations of Coast Guard members and saw similarities to the results of the Defense Department armed services, including injuries as the leading cause of all medical appointments or hospitalizations, and mental health accounting for the most days spent in the hospital, making up 55% of the 8,717 days active-duty Coast Guardsmen spent in the hospital.
The analysts said they perform this in-depth look into injury and illnesses among troops to help military and civilian DoD leadership understand the scope of the issues; provide information on the health of armed forces; and guide decisions on prevention and treatment, as well as effectiveness.
"Recent and accurate information on the scale of health disorders among service members, groups noticeably at risk, and trends in their health statuses over time are critical data for policymakers," they wrote.
Related: A VA Medical Center in Colorado Paused Heart Surgeries for 13 Months. Its Leaders Didn't Tell Higher-Ups.
The Secret Service said in a statement that “the former President is safe.”
The strike came at a delicate time in cease-fire efforts.
The Army is behind paying some $8.5 million worth of bonuses it promised to noncommissioned officers who went to recruiting...
Details of the U.S.-South Korean guidelines weren't available, but experts say they are largely about how the two countries...
Capt. Lenard Mitchell, the commander of the Williams' "Gold" crew, was relieved by Vice Adm. Thomas Ishee, the commander of U...
Despite wide bipartisan backing, the Major Richard Star Act has languished for years, increasingly frustrating the veterans...
James Michael Fisher, the former lead engineer responsible for C-130 propeller maintenance at Robins Air Force base, was...
VA Under Secretary for Benefits Joshua Jacobs said that, with more employees and efficiencies, the department can move toward...
The doctrine, titled simply "Deception," was published late last month and supersedes a manual from 12 years ago, according...
Officials in the Pentagon have been talking about how to care for the sailors when they return home, including counseling and...
The pier helped bring the first truckload of aid onto the shores of Gaza on May 17 and has been operable for a total of about...
The aim is to integrate commercial equipment into military space operations, including satellites and other hardware.
The US military recently launched a groundbreaking initiative to strengthen ties with the commercial space industry . The aim is to integrate commercial equipment into military space operations, including satellites and other hardware. This would enhance cybersecurity for military satellites.
As space becomes more important to the world’s critical infrastructure, the risk increases that hostile nation states will deploy cyber attacks on important satellites and other space infrastructure. Targets would include spy satellites or military communications satellites, but commercial spacecraft too.
The US Department of Defense believes its new partnership, called Commercial Augmentation Space Reserve (CASR) , would enhance US national security and the country’s competitive advantage in space. It would go some way beyond the relationship between government and private contractor that already exists.
In some cases, the commercial sector has advanced rapidly beyond government capabilities. This situation exists in numerous countries with a space capability and may apply in certain areas in the US too.
The governments of some nation states are therefore confronted with a choice. They could utilize bespoke systems for protecting their satellites, even though these may be outdated, or they could use other commercial – and potentially more advanced – “off-the-shelf” components. However, the commercial hardware may be less well understood in terms of its vulnerabilities to cyber attacks.
Related: DARPA unveils 6 new designs for uncrewed vertical-takeoff military aircraft, eyes 2026 test flights
Nevertheless, the US military believes that CASR will give it advanced strategic capabilities, and that potential risks can be minimized by actively avoiding over reliance on any single commercial entity.
Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!
The supply chain aims to transition the US military from a restricted pool of commercial suppliers to a broader spectrum of partners. However, there are risks with a bigger pool of commercial suppliers too. Some might be unable to meet the demands of military contracts, could run into financial instability or encounter other pressures that hinder their ability to supply critical components.
In 2022, there was a cyber attack on the KA-Sat consumer satellite broadband service. It targeted the satellites delivering the broadband and disrupted the service.
There are many ways to attack another state’s satellites, such as anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, which are often designed to physically destroy or disable the spacecraft. However, compared to ASATs , cyber attacks can be carried out in ways that are cheaper, quicker and more difficult to trace .
Part of the critical need to prioritize cybersecurity as a result of this strategy is that the US is an attractive market for global players in space. This strategic shift by the US Department of Defense is therefore likely to encourage more global companies to participate.
Resilience to cyber attacks in the space industry has not always been a top priority. It is likely to take time for this to enter the thinking of major players in the space sector.
This historical lack of emphasis on cybersecurity in space highlights an obvious need. There are also inconsistencies and gaps regarding the basic cyber requirements for government and industry, which vary depending on the stance of each nation state.
The US military claims that interoperability in military standards – the ability of different hardware to work seamlessly together – will strengthen the new public-private relationship. It has also left the door open for commercial standards to be adopted in certain instances. But there’s a risk that shifting from military standards (which are typically more stringent than commercial standards) could undermine military assets and lead to the same adverse consequences the strategy seeks to avoid.
Despite the best intentions, the complexities of working with many more and newer commercial partners could also lead to inconsistencies in the application of standards across different projects and systems. Commercial cybersecurity standards are unlikely to prioritize the same level of security required for military applications, especially under extreme conditions.
In light of these challenges, the success of these initiatives hinges on having leaders who are proactive and well informed. Being able to act across the commercial and defense sectors will require key skills – one of which is being informed and educated on cybersecurity.
Recently, I developed an executive space cybersecurity course with postgraduate credentials in partnership with the International Space University. This executive-level course attracted professionals from various sectors, including the legal profession, regulators, consultants, commercial businesses and investors.
— Spies and hackers are targeting the US space industry: report
— US Space Force creates 1st unit dedicated to targeting adversary satellites
— These 3 teams just hacked a US Air Force satellite in space ... and won big cash prizes
By bridging the gap between different sectors and disciplines, the course fostered an all-round, multidisciplinary approach to space cybersecurity. Executives were able to gain a deeper understanding of the interconnectedness of various systems and the potential vulnerabilities that can arise. This not only enriched the learning experience but also encouraged participants to think outside the box and explore new strategies for mitigating cyber threats in space.
As the Pentagon and the commercial space industry forge ahead with their groundbreaking collaboration, it is important that those making decisions understand the critical nature of cybersecurity. This shift is not without its challenges. But it also presents opportunities for innovation and new partnerships which could shape the future of space exploration and lead to new approaches to cyber security for satellites and other space infrastructure.
Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: [email protected].
I am an interdisciplinary academic in the Hunter Centre for Entrepreneurship and a visiting academic at the International Space University in Strasbourg. I work at the intersection of the dual domains of space and cyber, I bring a blend of expertise in entrepreneurship, space technology, cybersecurity, simulation, and legal knowledge. With an understanding of the complex challenges faced by the space industry, I seek to leverage my interdisciplinary background to create transformative learning experiences that bridge the gap between theory and practice.
Through my lectures and immersive storytelling, I aim to inspire students and professionals to embrace the dynamic intersection of space entrepreneurship, emerging technology and cybersecurity resilience. By infusing my teaching with practical insights and a focus on ethical decision-making. I seek to empower my students to become purposeful and visionary leaders who can navigate the ever evolving complex landscape in emerging sectors and economies.
I am committed to fostering a collaborative and inclusive learning environment that nurtures creativity, critical thinking, innovation, entrepreneurship, and legal knowledge. I believe in the power of interdisciplinary education and strive to cultivate meaningful connections, with my students, guiding them to unlock their full potential and pursue their passions. Fundamentally my work is shaped by a desire to shape a secure entrepreneurially thriving, innovative and legally compliant space industry.
Private space-junk probe gets up-close look at discarded rocket in orbit (photo)
NOAA's upcoming GeoXO satellites could be 'weather-monitoring platform of the future'
Join Space.com's 25th Anniversary Virtual Panel on July 17: The Next 25 Years of Space Exploration - To the Moon, Mars and Beyond
| 2040 Broadway Street | Quantico, Virginia 22134 | 703.784.4409 / / / / / / |
Watch CBS News
By Melissa Quinn , Jacob Rosen
Updated on: July 11, 2024 / 9:40 AM EDT / CBS News
Washington — Voters in recent weeks have begun to hear the name "Project 2025" invoked more and more by President Biden and Democrats, as they seek to sound the alarm about what could be in store if former President Donald Trump wins a second term in the White House.
Overseen by the conservative Heritage Foundation, the multi-pronged initiative includes a detailed blueprint for the next Republican president to usher in a sweeping overhaul of the executive branch.
Trump and his campaign have worked to distance themselves from Project 2025, with the former president going so far as to call some of the proposals "abysmal." But Democrats have continued to tie the transition project to Trump, especially as they find themselves mired in their own controversy over whether Mr. Biden should withdraw from the 2024 presidential contest following his startling debate performance last month.
Here is what to know about Project 2025:
Project 2025 is a proposed presidential transition project that is composed of four pillars: a policy guide for the next presidential administration; a LinkedIn-style database of personnel who could serve in the next administration; training for that pool of candidates dubbed the "Presidential Administration Academy;" and a playbook of actions to be taken within the first 180 days in office.
It is led by two former Trump administration officials: Paul Dans, who was chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management and serves as director of the project, and Spencer Chretien, former special assistant to Trump and now the project's associate director.
Project 2025 is spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, but includes an advisory board consisting of more than 100 conservative groups.
Much of the focus on — and criticism of — Project 2025 involves its first pillar, the nearly 900-page policy book that lays out an overhaul of the federal government. Called "Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise," the book builds on a "Mandate for Leadership" first published in January 1981, which sought to serve as a roadmap for Ronald Reagan's incoming administration.
The recommendations outlined in the sprawling plan reach every corner of the executive branch, from the Executive Office of the President to the Department of Homeland Security to the little-known Export-Import Bank.
The Heritage Foundation also created a "Mandate for Leadership" in 2015 ahead of Trump's first term. Two years into his presidency, it touted that Trump had instituted 64% of its policy recommendations, ranging from leaving the Paris Climate Accords, increasing military spending, and increasing off-shore drilling and developing federal lands. In July 2020, the Heritage Foundation gave its updated version of the book to then-White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows.
The authors of many chapters are familiar names from the Trump administration, such as Russ Vought, who led the Office of Management and Budget; former acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller; and Roger Severino, who was director of the Office of Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Vought is the policy director for the 2024 Republican National Committee's platform committee, which released its proposed platform on Monday.
John McEntee, former director of the White House Presidential Personnel Office under Trump, is a senior advisor to the Heritage Foundation, and said that the group will "integrate a lot of our work" with the Trump campaign when the official transition efforts are announced in the next few months.
Candidates interested in applying for the Heritage Foundation's "Presidential Personnel Database" are vetted on a number of political stances, such as whether they agree or disagree with statements like "life has a right to legal protection from conception to natural death," and "the President should be able to advance his/her agenda through the bureaucracy without hindrance from unelected federal officials."
The contributions from ex-Trump administration officials have led its critics to tie Project 2025 to his reelection campaign, though the former president has attempted to distance himself from the initiative.
Some of the policies in the Project 2025 agenda have been discussed by Republicans for years or pushed by Trump himself: less federal intervention in education and more support for school choice; work requirements for able-bodied, childless adults on food stamps; and a secure border with increased enforcement of immigration laws, mass deportations and construction of a border wall.
But others have come under scrutiny in part because of the current political landscape.
Abortion and social issues
In recommendations for the Department of Health and Human Services, the agenda calls for the Food and Drug Administration to reverse its 24-year-old approval of the widely used abortion pill mifepristone. Other proposed actions targeting medication abortion include reinstating more stringent rules for mifepristone's use, which would permit it to be taken up to seven weeks into a pregnancy, instead of the current 10 weeks, and requiring it to be dispensed in-person instead of through the mail.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that is on the Project 2025 advisory board, was involved in a legal challenge to mifepristone's 2000 approval and more recent actions from the FDA that made it easier to obtain. But the Supreme Court rejected the case brought by a group of anti-abortion rights doctors and medical associations on procedural grounds.
The policy book also recommends the Justice Department enforce the Comstock Act against providers and distributors of abortion pills. That 1873 law prohibits drugs, medicines or instruments used in abortions from being sent through the mail.
Now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade , the volume states that the Justice Department "in the next conservative administration should therefore announce its intent to enforce federal law against providers and distributors of such pills."
The guide recommends the next secretary of Health and Human Services get rid of the Reproductive Healthcare Access Task Force established by the Biden administration before Roe's reversal and create a "pro-life task force to ensure that all of the department's divisions seek to use their authority to promote the life and health of women and their unborn children."
In a section titled "The Family Agenda," the proposal recommends the Health and Human Services chief "proudly state that men and women are biological realities," and that "married men and women are the ideal, natural family structure because all children have a right to be raised by the men and women who conceived them."
Further, a program within the Health and Human Services Department should "maintain a biblically based, social science-reinforced definition of marriage and family."
During his first four years in office, Trump banned transgender people from serving in the military. Mr. Biden reversed that policy , but the Project 2025 policy book calls for the ban to be reinstated.
Targeting federal agencies, employees and policies
The agenda takes aim at longstanding federal agencies, like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. The agency is a component of the Commerce Department and the policy guide calls for it to be downsized.
NOAA's six offices, including the National Weather Service and National Marine Fisheries Service, "form a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity," the guide states.
The Department of Homeland Security, established in 2002, should be dismantled and its agencies either combined with others, or moved under the purview of other departments altogether, the policy book states. For example, immigration-related entities from the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice and Health and Human Services should form a standalone, Cabinet-level border and immigration agency staffed by more than 100,000 employees, according to the agenda.
If the policy recommendations are implemented, another federal agency that could come under the knife by the next administration, with action from Congress, is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
The agenda seeks to bring a push by conservatives to target diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives in higher education to the executive branch by wiping away a slew of DEI-related positions, policies and programs and calling for the elimination of funding for partners that promote DEI practices.
It states that U.S. Agency for International Development staff and grantees that "engage in ideological agitation on behalf of the DEI agenda" should be terminated. At the Treasury Department, the guide says the next administration should "treat the participation in any critical race theory or DEI initiative without objecting on constitutional or moral grounds, as per se grounds for termination of employment."
The Project 2025 policy book also takes aim at more innocuous functions of government. It calls for the next presidential administration to eliminate or reform the dietary guidelines that have been published by the Department of Agriculture for more than 40 years, which the authors claim have been "infiltrated" by issues like climate change and sustainability.
Immigration
Trump made immigration a cornerstone of his last two presidential runs and has continued to hammer the issue during his 2024 campaign. Project 2025's agenda not only recommends finishing the wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, but urges the next administration to "take a creative and aggressive approach" to responding to drug cartels at the border. This approach includes using active-duty military personnel and the National Guard to help with arrest operations along the southern border.
A memo from Immigration and Customs Enforcement that prohibits enforcement actions from taking place at "sensitive" places like schools, playgrounds and churches should be rolled back, the policy guide states.
When the Homeland Security secretary determines there is an "actual or anticipated mass migration of aliens" that presents "urgent circumstances" warranting a federal response, the agenda says the secretary can make rules and regulations, including through their expulsion, for as long as necessary. These rules, the guide states, aren't subject to the Administration Procedure Act, which governs the agency rule-making process.
In a post to his social media platform on July 5, Trump wrote , "I know nothing about Project 2025. I have no idea who is behind it. I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal. Anything they do, I wish them luck, but I have nothing to do with them."
Trump's pushback to the initiative came after Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts said in a podcast interview that the nation is "in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be."
The former president continued to disavow the initiative this week, writing in another social media post that he knows nothing about Project 2025.
"I have not seen it, have no idea who is in charge of it, and, unlike our very well received Republican Platform, had nothing to do with it," Trump wrote. "The Radical Left Democrats are having a field day, however, trying to hook me into whatever policies are stated or said. It is pure disinformation on their part. By now, after all of these years, everyone knows where I stand on EVERYTHING!"
While the former president said he doesn't know who is in charge of the initiative, the project's director, Dans, and associate director, Chretien, were high-ranking officials in his administration. Additionally, Ben Carson, former secretary of Housing and Urban Development under Trump; John Ratcliffe, former director of National Intelligence in the Trump administration; and Peter Navarro, who served as a top trade adviser to Trump in the White House, are listed as either authors or contributors to the policy agenda.
Still, even before Roberts' comments during "The War Room" podcast — typically hosted by conservative commentator Steve Bannon, who reported to federal prison to begin serving a four-month sentence last week — Trump's top campaign advisers have stressed that Project 2025 has no official ties to his reelection bid.
Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita, senior advisers to the Trump campaign, said in a November statement that 2024 policy announcements will be made by Trump or his campaign team.
"Any personnel lists, policy agendas, or government plans published anywhere are merely suggestions," they said.
While the efforts by outside organizations are "appreciated," Wiles and LaCivita said, "none of these groups or individuals speak for President Trump or his campaign."
In response to Trump's post last week, Project 2025 reiterated that it was separate from the Trump campaign.
"As we've been saying for more than two years now, Project 2025 does not speak for any candidate or campaign. We are a coalition of more than 110 conservative groups advocating policy & personnel recommendations for the next conservative president. But it is ultimately up to that president, who we believe will be President Trump, to decide which recommendations to implement," a statement on the project's X account said.
The initiative has also pushed back on Democrats' claims about its policy proposals and accused them of lying about what the agenda contains.
Despite their attempts to keep some distance from Project 2025, Democrats continue to connect Trump with the transition effort. The Biden-Harris campaign frequently posts about the project on X, tying it to a second Trump term.
Mr. Biden himself accused his Republican opponent of lying about his connections to the Project 2025 agenda, saying in a statement that the agenda was written for Trump and "should scare every single American." He claimed on his campaign social media account Wednesday that Project 2025 "will destroy America."
Congressional Democrats have also begun pivoting to Project 2025 when asked in interviews about Mr. Biden's fitness for a second term following his lackluster showing at the June 27 debate, the first in which he went head-to-head with Trump.
"Trump is all about Project 2025," Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman told CNN on Monday. "I mean, that's what we really should be voting on right now. It's like, do we want the kind of president that is all about Project '25?"
Rep. Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, one of Mr. Biden's closest allies on Capitol Hill, told reporters Monday that the agenda for the next Republican president was the sole topic he would talk about.
"Project 2025, that's my only concern," he said. "I don't want you or my granddaughter to live under that government."
In a statement reiterating her support for Mr. Biden, Rep. Frederica Wilson of Florida called Project 2025 "MAGA Republicans' draconian 920-page plan to end U.S. democracy, give handouts to the wealthy and strip Americans of their freedoms."
Two GOP senators under consideration to serve as Trump's running mate sought to put space between the White House hopeful and Project 2025, casting it as merely the product of a think tank that puts forth ideas.
"It's the work of a think tank, of a center-right think tank, and that's what think tanks do," Florida Sen. Marco Rubio told CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday.
He said Trump's message to voters focuses on "restoring common sense, working-class values, and making our decisions on the basis of that."
Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance raised a similar sentiment in an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," saying organizations will have good ideas and bad ideas.
"It's a 900-page document," he said Sunday. "I guarantee there are things that Trump likes and dislikes about that 900-page document. But he is the person who will determine the agenda of the next administration."
Jaala Brown contributed to this report.
Melissa Quinn is a politics reporter for CBSNews.com. She has written for outlets including the Washington Examiner, Daily Signal and Alexandria Times. Melissa covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The Army University Press - the US Army's premier multimedia organization - focuses on advancing the ideas and insights military professionals need to lead and succeed. The Army University Press is the Army's entry point for cutting edge thought and discussion on topics important to the Army and national defense. Through its suite of publication platforms and educational services, the ...
STIX. The Science, Technology, Innovation Exchange (STIX) was originally piloted in 2017, with the intent of communicating the big ideas, positive social impacts, and disruptive capabilities that have resulted from DoD S&T investments. The event included a series of lightning (up to 12 minute) talks in fields of science, technology, and STEM ...
Military history research paper topics offer students a fascinating window into the world of warfare and its impact on societies throughout history. In this page, we present a comprehensive guide to exploring and selecting captivating military history research paper topics. From ancient battles to modern conflicts, this collection of topics will engage students in thought-provoking research ...
And so in the spirit of Hart's contribution, I offer this list of 51 provocative, important strategic debates worth having. The military's purpose is to kill people and break things (a statement from which I dissent ). There will never be another need for a mass airborne drop. Pushbutton, standoff warfare is cowardly.
Marine Corps University Press (MCUP) Press. Established in 2008, MCUP recognizes the importance of an open dialogue between scholars, policy makers, analysts, and military leaders and of crossing civilian-military boundaries to advance knowledge and solve problems. To that end, MCUP focuses on books and periodicals that provide a forum for ...
Podcast Episode by Clayton Swope — April 17, 2024. A rapidly evolving technological landscape is changing the very definition of war fighting. CSIS's work in this areas examines cyber warfare, cyber terrorism, defense and military technologies, and more. Our programs leading the research on this topic include the Strategic Technologies ...
In this article, "military research psychology" is used broadly to describe work by psychologists, neuroscientists, and other brain health scientists. The topics they address are wide ranging ...
Marine Corps Topics of Interest Guide. This research guide focuses on current topics of interest and discussion within the Marine Corps community. Sources include: library & database resources, original PME scholarship, external links to academic, military & news sources. U.S. Army War College 2014-15 Key Strategic Issues List.
Analysis of Potential Interference Issues Related to FCC Order 20-48 (2023) Browse 304 science publications on Conflict and Security Issues - Military and Defense Studies from the National Academies Press.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 675 North Randolph Street Arlington, VA 22203-2114 703.526.6630
Research Questions and Topics. Research Topics. USSTRATCOM Analytic Agenda 2023 Research Questions. Understanding and anticipating change in the environment and impacts to deterrence strategies: What are useful new models for understanding the relationships among multiple nuclear-armed actors?
This list of military technology research paper topics provides the list of 28 potential topics for research papers and an overview article on the history of military technology development.. 1. Aircraft Carriers. Three nations built fleets of aircraft carriers— Britain, Japan and the United States—and each contributed to carrier design trends.
👍 Good Military Research Topics & Essay Examples. On-time delivery! Get your 100% customized paper done in as little as 1 hour. Let's start. Positive Psychology for Military Leadership. Leadership in the military is a complex task given the adverse working environment of officers especially during and after deployment.
Especially weapons physics and chemistry are nowadays at the frontiers of science leading to new inventions and discoveries. This report summa-rizes in random order some very important topics of ...
Office of Research & Development. Research Topics. The following is a list of key areas being studied by VA researchers. Click each topic for an overview of noteworthy past and current research, and a one-page printable fact sheet.
The linkage of the military mindset and their application in business settings support the research and analysis of the selected research topic. Leveraging the Military Mindset Into Business With YSG's culture of hiring veterans and relatives to the veterans, this is an indicator that the company is benefiting from the military mindset in its ...
AU (Air University) Research Topics. Fifteen Decisive Battles of the World: From Marathon to Waterloo by Sir Edward Creasy, M.A. Immutable Nature of War - An interview with Marine General Paul Van Riper for the NOVA program "Battle Plan Under Fire." (Dec. 17, 2003)
Understanding and Treating Military Sexual Trauma by Kristen Zaleski This thorough analysis of sexual assault in the military examines the scope of this long-neglected issue using a lens informed by modern day attachment and trauma theories. Starting with an overview of sexual violence during wartime, it details the cultural and organizational aspects of military life--and entrenched ideas ...
JPME Prospective Research Topics Database (PRTD) JPME JPRTD is the JPME Prospective Research Topics Database, which provides prospective research topics for students attending advanced military study programs and intermediate and senior services schools. This site is CAC-enabled.
Research Topics; Military Publications; Army War College SSI. Army War College, Strategic Studies Institute: Key Strategic Issues List 2016 - 2017. JSOU Press Research Topics. Special Operations Research Topics 2018 .
Mental health disorders were the top reason that active-duty U.S. military personnel were hospitalized in 2023, a trend that began in 2009 but has shown signs of easing in the past three years ...
The Army University Press - the US Army's premier multimedia organization - focuses on advancing the ideas and insights military professionals need to lead and succeed. The Army University Press is the Army's entry point for cutting edge thought and discussion on topics important to the Army and national defense. Through its suite of publication platforms and educational services, the ...
Jam packed issues filled with the latest cutting-edge research, technology and theories delivered in an entertaining and visually stunning way, aiming to educate and inspire readers of all ages
JITC provides a full-range of agile and cost-effective test, evaluation, and certification services to support rapid acquisition and fielding of global net-centric warfighting capabilities. Joint Knowledge Online (JKO) The authoritative DoD source for online joint training. The JKO provides continuous, career-long development of joint knowledge ...
BLR&D. The Biomedical Laboratory Research & Development Service conducts preclinical and clinical research to understand life processes from the molecular, genomic, and physiological level in regard to diseases affecting Veterans. It includes research on animal models and investigations of tissues, blood, or other biologic specimens from humans. It also includes studies on humans of moderately ...
Replicator's goals of drone deployment and business development process change are both worthy objectives. But given the Pentagon's antiquated culture, is two years enough time to procure more ...
During his first four years in office, Trump banned transgender people from serving in the military. Mr. Mr. Biden reversed that policy , but the Project 2025 policy book calls for the ban to be ...