To Boldy Go . . .

Seeing as how I am a complete nerd, I am preposterously excited for this movie. Note the Trans-America Tower on the right side of the background.

In order to keep things within the scope of this blog, let's take a moment to consider the strategic implications of the way the world will look in 2300, around the time when USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-B) launches. I'll be using UN demographic data (pdf!) keeping in mind that one of the study's own essays begins with the assertion that, "Once more the United Nations Population Division has boldly gone where few demographers have dared go before." Here goes.

• The average life expectancy will range from 87 to 106 years, depending on country of origin. That is a lot of social entitlement spending for governments to be responsible for.
  
• The world median age will be 48 years. Guess the retirement age is going to have to rise quite a bit.
• Population estimates range from a staggering 36.4 billion (start building those planetary explorers NOW!) to a shriveled 2.3 billion (who is going to pay social security then?). The most likely medium scenario which allows for growth to a peak around 2050 followed by a slight decline and then slower, non-exponential growth rates puts the population at a more manageable 9 billion around 2300.
• Europe will decline from today's 730 million or so to 611 million
• North America will rise in population from 316 million to 534 million
• The Oceania region sees growth from 31 million to 48 million
• Latin America and the Caribbean expands from 520 million to 723 million
• Asia will grow dramatically from 3.7 billion today to 4.9 billion
• And Africa will grow the most, from 793 million to 2.1 billion
• Given the amount of people being born in poorer regions (which will be most affected by global warming) this will likely result in not a bright utopian techno-paradise, nor (thanks to economic growth) a dystopian overcrowded nightmare. Rather, the world will look, at least from an economic inequality standpoint, much as it does today.
• I suspect that by this time, advances in education and the spread of information and technology will make population the most valuable source of national power. In the realization of a Flat World, as Thomas Friedman calls it, if everyone is more or less equally capable, then true power will come from those that have the most people.
• Accordingly, I present to you, the G-20 (most populous nations):

1. India
2. China
3. The United States of America
   
4. Pakistan
5. Nigeria
6. Indonesia
7. Bangladesh
8. Brazil
9. Ethiopia
10. The Democratic Republic of the Congo
11. Uganda
12. Yemen
13. Mexico
14. Philippines
15. Egypt
16. Vietnam
17. Iran
18. Japan
19. Nigeria
20. The Russian Federation

• Of course, that assumes that the predominant actor will still be nation-states. I believe there is strong evidence to suggest that regional unions, if not the most important actors in international politics, will surely be at least as powerful as the EU is today. Accordingly, here is a ranking based on today's major regional groups. Perhaps this will be the future UN Social Council?

1. South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (~2 billion)
   
2. The African Union (~2 billion)
   
3. China (~1.3 billion)
   
4. The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (~600 million)
   
5. The European Union (~550 million)
   
6. Association of Southeast Asian Nations (~650 million)
   
7. Union of South American Nations (~550 million)
8. Eurasian Economic Community (~200 million)
   
9. Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (CCASG) (~200 million)
10. Iran (100 million)
11. Japan (100 million)
12. All others less than 100 million each

From this I believe a natural rule set arises that could lead to representation for future global legislature. Each political entity would be awarded a number of seats proportional to their population.

Notably, the population of say, an internationally built starship would be expected to have similar representation. That is: 24% South Asian, 26% African, 16% Chinese, 7% North American, 7% from ASEAN, 6% from the EU, 6% from South America, 2% from Russia or its neighbors, 2% from the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (CCASG) and 1% each from Japan, Iran, the Pacfic Islands Forum and the Caribbean Community.

A future UN Security Council that determines how such a vessel is used would probably have a single representative from each of the actors listed above, as well as a unified Korea. Voting is determined by how much money each player is willing to spend on any given endeavour. No veto power. Thus it would represent every major military and economic power on the planet:

• The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation
  
• The European Union
• The Security and Prosperity Partnership for North America
  
• The Union of South American Nations
• The African Union
• The Eurasian Economic Community
• Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf
  
• The Caribbean Community
• The Pacific Islands Forum
• The Association of Southeast Asian Nations
• China
  
• Iran
• Japan
• Korea

Inaugural Post

BLUF:

In the study of modern warfare, a bifurcation has arisen between those who believe we must structure and deploy our military to combat primarily non-state actors, primarily in the form of counterinsurgencies, and those who believe we should align our forces to face traditional state opponents. I believe that this is a false dichotomy, and that as the only military power with a truly global reach, it is our responsibility to provide both options to policy makers.

First, how this all got started, LTG Caldwell says it much better than I could.

GEN Omar Bradley once stated that "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals study logistics." The weakest link in the logistical base of the US military, or the military of any truly democratic state, will always be the political will of its citizenry. For this reason, it is vital that we include civilians in any discussion about the future structure and purpose of our Armed Forces. I offer this blog as an open forum for the discussion of anything from the tactical (counterinsurgency, maneuver warfare, special operations) to the operational ("The Long War," AFRICOM) to the strategic (procurement, force structure, forward deployment).

In this discussion I find several publications to be of particular utility:

- Thomas P.M. Barnett: The Pentagon's New Map, Blueprint for Action, and the soon to be published: Great Powers.

- Thomas L. Friedman: The Lexus and the Olive Tree, The World is Flat

- Combined Arms Center: FM 3-0: Operations, The Counterinsurgency Field Manual, FM 3-24 and Marine Corps Warfighting Publication 3-33.5

-and many more, but these form the basis of my personal understanding of global conflict and the prescription for its cure . . . I welcome additional submissions for my perusing pleasure.

Additionally, there is a great spectrum of my fellow Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airmen, whom I turn to as sources of information, insight, and experience. And there are of course other sources such as blogs, traditional media outlets, and my own twisted imagination.

For those not squared away on current military affairs, there are essentially two schools of thought on the direction of future conflict. They are generally, but by no means entirely, divided along generational lines, with an older, Cold War-era group seeing a world where the great powers of the planet must inevitably clash in tradtional military struggles, and a younger, mostly junior and senior officer crowd that sees the future of the military lying in stability operations, conterinsurgency, and humanitarian aid, all with the purpose of reducing regional conflicts that could scale up into larger full-fledged wars. These distinctions rule over how they see aquisitions, research, force structure, pretty much everything that comprises the military. If you believe in the Stability Operations crowd, you want Amphibious Warfare ships, UAVs, and tons of boots on the ground to do everything from handing out aid to tracking down terrorists. If you are a Westphalian Warrior, you want Tanks, Subs, F-22s, all complemented with a healthy serving of Nukes on the side.

I believe that we must have a force for both types of warfare. One that can eliminate state actors by force, and one that can work with NGOs, coalition partners, and local leaders to target violent non-state actors, build up local security infrastructure, and pave the way for economic development that eventually improves quality of life. I believe that we need a small, conventional force that is "sized" to take down the armed forces of the most militarily powerful non-nuclear enabled "rogue" state. (currently Iran) And a larger constabulary force that can act to spread security in any part of the world destabilized by disaster, be it natural or man-made.

This blog is a discussion about how to best achieve those two forces, as they are what is expected of us as a military force by both the world and the American taxpayer. I offer this basic outline only as a starting point, and welcome discussion, including that which suggests we go completely one way or the other. Who knows, maybe you'll change my mind.