A-Infos (en) Developing the weapons of the 21st century

[MichaelP <papadop@PEAK.ORG>]

________________________________________________
     A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
           http://www.ainfos.ca/
________________________________________________

http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/md/inside/1998/02/13warfare.html
---------------------------------------------------------------

LE MONDE DIPLOMATIQUE - February 1998

PEACEKEEPING OR HIGH-TECH WARFARE

 

Developing the weapons of the 21st century

 

------------------------------------------------------------
 A space platform consisting of a drone for launching weapons systems, a
hypersonic attack aircraft, cruise missiles and vehicles for launching or
repairing satellites or acting against enemy bases in space. Science
fiction? No. This is all part of the United States' arms programme. The
aim: to remain the only superpower and to be able to win simultaneously,
without losses, two conflicts on a par with the Gulf war. They must
prepare for wars where the distinction will become blurred between soldier
and civilian, or riot and insurrection.

by MAURICE NAJMAN *
------------------------------------------------------------

The old world order based on a confrontation between two nuclear
superpowers is no more. The utopian "new world order" has turned into a
nightmare. Disorder reigns everywhere. War seems to be reasserting itself.

On top of the bloody rise in ethnic, religious or nationalist fever, we
are now faced with new kinds of threats: the development of "grey" areas
where international law, like national law, means nothing; greater
cooperation between international criminal organisations (drugs mafia,
financial crime); nuclear terrorism; biological and chemical threats, etc.

The military are faced with "a major new situation: the rising tide of
uncertainty", writes Paul-Yvan de Saint-Germain, director of the Centre
for Strategic and Technological Research and Studies (CREST) (1). It is a
technical uncertainty first of all, since it is so difficult to discern
the medium and long-term implications of the information technology
explosion and the "emergence of an infosphere" , all of which,
Saint-Germain stresses, are "driven by the civilian market", adding a
further dimension of uncertainty.

Then there is the geopolitical uncertainty. Traditional disputes between
states are giving way to conflicts within them: the former USSR is
breaking up; the former Yugoslavia has fragmented; Rwanda, Burundi,
Afghanistan, Somalia and Liberia have all imploded. In Latin America as in
Asia, areas once the haunt of guerrillas have become havens for all kinds
of trafficking. Private armies are proliferating, often as well organised
and equipped as the official ones. The instantaneous nature of
international flows of capital, as of information, poses delicate security
problems.

The information war is penetrating economies and cultures; computer
networks are attacked daily by "pirates" working for governments or large
corporations. The threat of an electronic Pearl Harbour is taken seriously
by the White House and the Pentagon. "The possible scenarios are both many
and unknown" acknowledge defence experts who are having to learn to work
in the dark (2).

These new threats make the doctrines fashioned for yesterday's conflicts
largely irrelevant. From now on, what counts most of all is to neutralise
the enemy, to make him deaf and blind. It is more a matter of taking
control of situations than of settling conflicts (by force of arms), let
alone of really making war. The war is won even before the first shots are
fired.

True, conventional warfare, which kills because the adversaries are face
to face, has not been eliminated. The Pentagon now takes as its model the
"Bottom Up Review" which envisages that American military forces should be
ready to prosecute simultaneously two regional conflicts similar in scope
to the Gulf War (3). At the same time, America still reserves the option,
if necessary, of unleashing a nuclear "first strike", even though at the
end of 1997 President Clinton officially abandoned the idea of "winning" a
major nuclear war. The important thing is therefore to ensure that the
American armed forces maintain the ability to engage in these "old style"
conflicts. More generally, Washington intends to be able to conduct
peace-keeping operations anywhere in the world where their absence would
seriously threaten US interests.

According to the White Paper published by the French Defence Ministry in
1994, "After the disappearance of the USSR, even if the reduction in
America's relative strength looks set to continue, the Americans are very
keen to strengthen the internal foundations of their security ... Between
the dream of leading a new world order and the temptation to withdraw into
themselves, there seems to be room for the definition of a great power
policy that will select its strategic interests and therefore the areas in
which they lie, and the means for their defence in case of threat ...
Speed, especially in computing and cyberspace, has become of the essence.
The considerable growth in national intelligence resources and their
orientation towards new risks give the United States a kind of leadership
among the industrialised nations. These choices indicate a strategy that
does not allow every violent confrontation or every combat management
situation to be avoided, but which favours selective engagement, sparing
human lives, and a more flexible management of conflicts that have to be
justified to a public and politicians who are increasingly well informed
(4) ."

The lead taken by the United States is obvious. Scarcely had the Berlin
wall come down and the last soldier returned home from Operation Desert
Storm than the think tanks' thousands of researchers, universities,
laboratories and the Pentagon's "organic" intellectuals set to work.
General staffs have given birth to a Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA).
The term is no exaggeration: it is in fact a global rethink, which is
beginning to produce new strategic and operational concepts, and highly
specific research and development organisations and programmes (new
weapons, new communications technologies, etc.) that are already at the
experimental stage. Each branch of the armed forces is adapting the
concept to its raison d'jtre: "Force XXI" for the land army, "Nueva Vista"
for the air force, "Sea Dragon" for the marines, etc.

[footnotes ommitted]

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. **





     ****** A-Infos News Service *****
  News about and of interest to anarchists

Subscribe -> email MAJORDOMO@TAO.CA
             with the message SUBSCRIBE A-INFOS
Info      -> http://www.ainfos.ca/
Reproduce -> please include this section