The Revolution in Military Affairs: Mandate for Change or Recipe for Disaster?

Abstract

What is the correct development path for the future United States military? Is it huge investments or draconian cuts? Moderate organizational improvements or wholesale restructure? There are at least as many views as there are political leaders, and when our brightest minds disagree, what course do we take? Who's opinion do we adopt as the right one? Many historians will look back at Napoleon and marvel at his genius. But was it genius, or did he simply choose a strategy that fit his capabilities and practice, and then work hard to make it successful? Consider the very first time he concentrated his canon fire on that central point in his enemy's line and then surged through the breach. If his opponent had sufficient strength to close around Napoleon's forces and crush them, would we be reading about him today? Perhaps not. Two well-respected strategic thinkers of our time are Michael O'Hanlon and Admiral Bill Owens, one a respected academic, and the other a respected military leader. Both offer opinions on the concept and promise of a Revolution in Military Affairs, and the potential it holds for our future military.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Jan 01, 2002
Accession Number
ADA442428

Entities

People

  • Tim J. Stolsig

Organizations

  • National War College

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Air Platforms
  • Ground and Sea Platforms
  • Human Systems
  • Materials and Manufacturing Processes
  • Weapons Technologies

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Combat Forces
  • Computers
  • Disasters
  • Information Operations
  • Information Warfare
  • Military Operations
  • Military Organizations
  • National Security
  • Radiation Hardening
  • Revolutions
  • Security
  • Terrorists
  • Training
  • United States
  • Universities
  • War Colleges
  • Warfare

Readers

  • Military History of the United States in the 20th Century.
  • Strategic Security Studies