weasel1962
New Member
Deleted
Last edited:
The changing role of the military
- Thread starter weasel1962
- Start date
(Assuming) Global Warming causes major damage, the military of the future will be used in three primary roles:
1. To Manage Disasters, and to generally assist the population with coping with the prevalance of widespread and commonspread crisis (eg Katrina)
2. Maintain the authority of government in disaster affected regions (katrina again) and to control opposition to government policy (the last bit is possible but that is my opinion)
3. Involvment in resource wars, this is likley a major role of future military, at the same time accusing members of opposition of whatever form of indecency (terrorism, tyranny etc). Key resources could become:
Oil
Corn (for Ethanol)
Water
Grain (Food)
1. To Manage Disasters, and to generally assist the population with coping with the prevalance of widespread and commonspread crisis (eg Katrina)
2. Maintain the authority of government in disaster affected regions (katrina again) and to control opposition to government policy (the last bit is possible but that is my opinion)
3. Involvment in resource wars, this is likley a major role of future military, at the same time accusing members of opposition of whatever form of indecency (terrorism, tyranny etc). Key resources could become:
Oil
Corn (for Ethanol)
Water
Grain (Food)
DoDUSA
New Member
Future nature of Conflict
I would tend to agree that the nature of warfare is indeed changing; the evidence is in the gradual increase in low intensity conflict that are being waged over traditional and non-traditional resources (water rights, cyberspace, heritage, media-propaganda, etc.)
The assertion that the military will increasingly be confronted by humanitarian situations such as that in Indonesia is true (especially for the USA due to its capacity to support massive logistic operations), but I think that it might fail to acknowledge that conflict in general is becoming less like that which was seen in the Persian Gulf war and more toward that which was seen in Kosovo or in Somalia. From my perspective, this is because non-state actors are beginning to get technology that was previously reserved for the state (sat-intel, international comm, mass computing, access to international news) so that their story actually becomes known to other actors.
It would seem that conflicts are increasingly taking on a humanitarian component, which would imply that the military is going to need to begin retraining to assimilate the knowledge to accomplish this new type of mission. But success in these relatively short interventions can work wonders for the strategic interest of a nation. Helping another while they are suffering can pay huge military and political dividends in the long run. Great topic for discussion!
I would tend to agree that the nature of warfare is indeed changing; the evidence is in the gradual increase in low intensity conflict that are being waged over traditional and non-traditional resources (water rights, cyberspace, heritage, media-propaganda, etc.)
The assertion that the military will increasingly be confronted by humanitarian situations such as that in Indonesia is true (especially for the USA due to its capacity to support massive logistic operations), but I think that it might fail to acknowledge that conflict in general is becoming less like that which was seen in the Persian Gulf war and more toward that which was seen in Kosovo or in Somalia. From my perspective, this is because non-state actors are beginning to get technology that was previously reserved for the state (sat-intel, international comm, mass computing, access to international news) so that their story actually becomes known to other actors.
It would seem that conflicts are increasingly taking on a humanitarian component, which would imply that the military is going to need to begin retraining to assimilate the knowledge to accomplish this new type of mission. But success in these relatively short interventions can work wonders for the strategic interest of a nation. Helping another while they are suffering can pay huge military and political dividends in the long run. Great topic for discussion!
One of the common forms of Natural Disaster in south-eastern Australia are bushfires. Often , in the media, the question is asked why we (the firefighting services) do not request more help from the armed services. The reality is that while the military can provide significant support in certain specialist areas, it is also true that dealing with the general management of fires and firefighting is not something in which the majority of military personnel have any significant skills or training.
I suspect that most natural disasters have this in common. The military have certain skills and equipment that can be very useful, such as logistics, medical support, and the ability to operate in remote areas.
However it is probably not appropriate to attempt to make every infantry soldier fully trained and competent at wild-land firefighting, civil policing or welfare roles.
It detracts from their primary roles, and diverting the appropriate equipment and training effort to them, takes it away from those people who specialize in those roles.
I suggest that our first priority is to have the military do what it does best, and what nobody else does as well..... provide security. Our own security first.
Peter
I suspect that most natural disasters have this in common. The military have certain skills and equipment that can be very useful, such as logistics, medical support, and the ability to operate in remote areas.
However it is probably not appropriate to attempt to make every infantry soldier fully trained and competent at wild-land firefighting, civil policing or welfare roles.
It detracts from their primary roles, and diverting the appropriate equipment and training effort to them, takes it away from those people who specialize in those roles.
I suggest that our first priority is to have the military do what it does best, and what nobody else does as well..... provide security. Our own security first.
Peter
I would argue that big bush fires are much more of a special case than other natural desasters.
Floods, earthquackes and storms are things where the armed forces can much better bring their strengths to bear.
Their ability to use alot of manpower and their huge logistic capabilities together with special platforms like bridging/ferry equipment, helicopters, etc. makes the armed forces much more usefull in one of the mentioned emergencies.
It is not our fault that you aussies always need to play with the fire...
Floods, earthquackes and storms are things where the armed forces can much better bring their strengths to bear.
Their ability to use alot of manpower and their huge logistic capabilities together with special platforms like bridging/ferry equipment, helicopters, etc. makes the armed forces much more usefull in one of the mentioned emergencies.
It is not our fault that you aussies always need to play with the fire...
" .. historical connectivity and shared traditions .. " by Pallam Raju
I find the words crisis management especially real today. Minor misunderstandings of sensitivity to the going issue; not is too small failure to start creating another crisis. This is issue and one of the capabilities
military can handle. Changing roles is not sounding too awful today.
Sequel of military budget crisis is forming frames to operations. Countries
may welcome new operations more than gladly, if the savings is in line with
this. Why not start introduction-operations to get to know another
countries and share the going crisis dialogue.
I would welcome any peace-talking operations. Coming future is defenceless
without action.
I find the words crisis management especially real today. Minor misunderstandings of sensitivity to the going issue; not is too small failure to start creating another crisis. This is issue and one of the capabilities
military can handle. Changing roles is not sounding too awful today.
Sequel of military budget crisis is forming frames to operations. Countries
may welcome new operations more than gladly, if the savings is in line with
this. Why not start introduction-operations to get to know another
countries and share the going crisis dialogue.
I would welcome any peace-talking operations. Coming future is defenceless
without action.
".. third plenary session Q & A .."
My heart is going broke between in questions in South Korea and North Korea.
Priority of Asian land as well as western priority exactly is sharing
reunification of modern welfare policy with purposes of Asian balance.
Is here the questions of no more threats ?
Catastrophic collision between navy is out of question.
My heart is going broke between in questions in South Korea and North Korea.
Priority of Asian land as well as western priority exactly is sharing
reunification of modern welfare policy with purposes of Asian balance.
Is here the questions of no more threats ?
Catastrophic collision between navy is out of question.
What change??
Basically I don't think there is much change - or rather after the 20'th century and its mutual mass slaughter of conscripted armies - reversion to former tasks.
Emergency relief has always been a military task, simply because an army is a lot of organised hands under central control.
The apparent lack of major confrontation is due to the fact, that any nation with any sort of general staff is in the position to calculate that offensive action is not a viable proporsition. That was exactly what Saddam Hussein did not realise.
The position of USA is rather much like the Roman empires, not so much in military strength, but the realisation, that expansion is NOT a profitable proporsition. The areas the Romans did occupy benefitted from the integration and with little cost. In Britania the Roman immigrant were able to colonise and farm areas, that the locals did not have the technology to exploit - f.i.
The local conflicts, and ideologically inspired revolts, can hardly be called war. That is not surprising, as the military effort goes into ending the military confrontation. The situatíon in Iraq and Afghanistan has more or less degenerated into organised (more or less) crime. Al Qaida/Taliban et alia get whipped every time they try to fight as organised troops.
The problem that remains there is that there are not qualified POLICE forces. To defeat gangster you don't need soldiers, you need cops. For the moment we are forced to use soldiers for a task they are not suited.
Basically I don't think there is much change - or rather after the 20'th century and its mutual mass slaughter of conscripted armies - reversion to former tasks.
Emergency relief has always been a military task, simply because an army is a lot of organised hands under central control.
The apparent lack of major confrontation is due to the fact, that any nation with any sort of general staff is in the position to calculate that offensive action is not a viable proporsition. That was exactly what Saddam Hussein did not realise.
The position of USA is rather much like the Roman empires, not so much in military strength, but the realisation, that expansion is NOT a profitable proporsition. The areas the Romans did occupy benefitted from the integration and with little cost. In Britania the Roman immigrant were able to colonise and farm areas, that the locals did not have the technology to exploit - f.i.
The local conflicts, and ideologically inspired revolts, can hardly be called war. That is not surprising, as the military effort goes into ending the military confrontation. The situatíon in Iraq and Afghanistan has more or less degenerated into organised (more or less) crime. Al Qaida/Taliban et alia get whipped every time they try to fight as organised troops.
The problem that remains there is that there are not qualified POLICE forces. To defeat gangster you don't need soldiers, you need cops. For the moment we are forced to use soldiers for a task they are not suited.
Well personally I think that using the military for disaster management and other areas is quite a good idea. In pretty much every stable country all the soldiers do all say is sit around polishing tent poles and practicing, nothing else (unless their country is involved with a peace keeping mission.)
By using soldiers in scenarios like disasters you will be using an incredibly powerful resource that has all the above listed strengths (in the other posts).
An example of how effective the military can be in support is in South Africa a while ago there was a large amount of xenophobia attacks in our poorer areas. It had being going on for a while with quite a few deaths before they finally called in the military, with in a few days everything was quite (and note the army only had to kill one guy, and they found him raping a woman, told him to get lost and so he pulled a gun on a group of soldiers. If you ask me his death is no loss to humanity)
By using soldiers in scenarios like disasters you will be using an incredibly powerful resource that has all the above listed strengths (in the other posts).
An example of how effective the military can be in support is in South Africa a while ago there was a large amount of xenophobia attacks in our poorer areas. It had being going on for a while with quite a few deaths before they finally called in the military, with in a few days everything was quite (and note the army only had to kill one guy, and they found him raping a woman, told him to get lost and so he pulled a gun on a group of soldiers. If you ask me his death is no loss to humanity)
Cius
New Member
Interesting question with a few different angles that it could be approached from. I think military being used for things like disaster management is going to grow due the reasons that Ths stated: They are organised hands under a central command.
Firstly: I think that the military is well suited to providing logistical, transport, and medical support to disaster area's as they have very specialised equipment and training that is designed to bring materials and people into inaccessible areas during war time. I don;t think that they should be providing any guns (see second point). Often during natural disasters transport infrastructure is damaged or destroyed and the military becomes the main agency that can move supplies to these places. So for transport and logistics support I think we will see more and more military involvement as it makes sense to have the dual roles as its just more efficient. Where there is big military commitment to distant wars one would run into big problems though if disasters happen and the rescue team is away so to speak. This is why its best not to have too big a reliance on the military as it may limit them in providing their primary function, or leave you in the lurch should they be committed elsewhere to a conflict. Military medics are also great in disaster areas as they are trained to dispense aid and set up field hospitals in potentially hazardous areas. They would go in with water purification equipment as an obvious example while a normal hospital would not have that kind of thing off hand.
Secondly I thought I would just mention the policing function of soldiers. Soldiers are trained essentially to kill. Police are trained very very differently. Their roles, mindsets, training, and objectives tend to differ and that is why military people seldom make good police forces. Where possible I think police should be used to control areas that are having disasters. There is overwhelming evidence that during natural disasters there is an almost immediate break down in law and order that gets progressively worse the longer the effects of the disaster roll on. Looters started looting jewelry stores while the waves where rolling in for the Asian tsunami, and people where shooting at cops after Katrina. Think along those lines. This is where it is tempting to use the army guns to restore control but a better solution is to converge riot police and normal police from other areas of the country into the disaster zone to maintain order. If manpower is really that short then army MP's should be used as support but in conjunction with normal police with the police clearly dictating the rules and policies. This way its easier to disengage the Army personal when the situation improves and keep the rule of law in the hands of those sworn to defend it (the police).
Army people are not sworn to maintain law and order, they are sworn to defend the national integrity of their country and to kill where they are told to. This is why the roles are normally kept seperate.
Disaster management is a field that has come very far in a very short space of time. I have been in disaster management centers for big corporates like BHP Billiton. They have board rooms and offices set up with maps of different mines, locations, lists of closest aid to each mine that could suffer a disaster, lists of agencies to contact for each place, etc. They have templates for every conceivable type of disaster set up so that people don't have to think "what do we do now that this explosion happened deep in a Columbian mine", they already know. Just follow the steps listed on the template. They have satalite TV links to similar board rooms all over the world so that the closest one can co-ordinate and the rest can be kept up to date with the efforts. Its really incredibly to see just how fast they can react to a situation. People like the UN and red cross, and most governments, have some of the best professionals in this field and have teams dedicated to co-ordinating relief efforts of all kinds. They should thus hopefully have resources made available to them from normal civilian channels that could handle most disasters but also be prepared to accept and utilize other forms of aid, including military aid.
Interesting aside: Did you know that it is recommended that each family in the world have an emergency 72 hour kit of food, water, and emergency equipment as well as crucial identification documents. The 72 hours is because that is the worst case time it will take for international aid to reach any part of our planet (baring political obstruction as was seen in China recently).
Firstly: I think that the military is well suited to providing logistical, transport, and medical support to disaster area's as they have very specialised equipment and training that is designed to bring materials and people into inaccessible areas during war time. I don;t think that they should be providing any guns (see second point). Often during natural disasters transport infrastructure is damaged or destroyed and the military becomes the main agency that can move supplies to these places. So for transport and logistics support I think we will see more and more military involvement as it makes sense to have the dual roles as its just more efficient. Where there is big military commitment to distant wars one would run into big problems though if disasters happen and the rescue team is away so to speak. This is why its best not to have too big a reliance on the military as it may limit them in providing their primary function, or leave you in the lurch should they be committed elsewhere to a conflict. Military medics are also great in disaster areas as they are trained to dispense aid and set up field hospitals in potentially hazardous areas. They would go in with water purification equipment as an obvious example while a normal hospital would not have that kind of thing off hand.
Secondly I thought I would just mention the policing function of soldiers. Soldiers are trained essentially to kill. Police are trained very very differently. Their roles, mindsets, training, and objectives tend to differ and that is why military people seldom make good police forces. Where possible I think police should be used to control areas that are having disasters. There is overwhelming evidence that during natural disasters there is an almost immediate break down in law and order that gets progressively worse the longer the effects of the disaster roll on. Looters started looting jewelry stores while the waves where rolling in for the Asian tsunami, and people where shooting at cops after Katrina. Think along those lines. This is where it is tempting to use the army guns to restore control but a better solution is to converge riot police and normal police from other areas of the country into the disaster zone to maintain order. If manpower is really that short then army MP's should be used as support but in conjunction with normal police with the police clearly dictating the rules and policies. This way its easier to disengage the Army personal when the situation improves and keep the rule of law in the hands of those sworn to defend it (the police).
Army people are not sworn to maintain law and order, they are sworn to defend the national integrity of their country and to kill where they are told to. This is why the roles are normally kept seperate.
Disaster management is a field that has come very far in a very short space of time. I have been in disaster management centers for big corporates like BHP Billiton. They have board rooms and offices set up with maps of different mines, locations, lists of closest aid to each mine that could suffer a disaster, lists of agencies to contact for each place, etc. They have templates for every conceivable type of disaster set up so that people don't have to think "what do we do now that this explosion happened deep in a Columbian mine", they already know. Just follow the steps listed on the template. They have satalite TV links to similar board rooms all over the world so that the closest one can co-ordinate and the rest can be kept up to date with the efforts. Its really incredibly to see just how fast they can react to a situation. People like the UN and red cross, and most governments, have some of the best professionals in this field and have teams dedicated to co-ordinating relief efforts of all kinds. They should thus hopefully have resources made available to them from normal civilian channels that could handle most disasters but also be prepared to accept and utilize other forms of aid, including military aid.
Interesting aside: Did you know that it is recommended that each family in the world have an emergency 72 hour kit of food, water, and emergency equipment as well as crucial identification documents. The 72 hours is because that is the worst case time it will take for international aid to reach any part of our planet (baring political obstruction as was seen in China recently).