Introduction
Even in times when nations are making significant efforts to establish peace throughout the world, the scarcity of natural resources and basic laws of human nature continue to fuel the threat of future armed conflicts. Many potential conflicts, in fact, are aimed at undermining the positions of current superpowers and changing the political constellation of forces to shift the balance of power and gain some advantage. As a global economic leader, the United States needs to define a set of guiding principles to prepare for future international conflicts. Drawing from credible studies, the essay explores three areas of concern: cyberspace safety, space weapons, and mental issues among military servicemen.
Develop Strategies to Defuse Cyber-Attacks
During the most devastating armed conflicts of past centuries, opportunities for warring nations to synchronize their armed forces were limited due to the lack of communication circuits capable of real-time information sharing. Nowadays, rapid technological advancement in some countries is giving rise to security concerns regarding cyberspace, and ensuring cyberspace data protection should be among the key priorities of the United States.
Jabbour and Ratazzi acknowledge that the country has become vulnerable due to its “increasing reliance on cyberspace” (42); therefore, strategies that will make cyber-attacks against the United States more costly are obviously necessary. Cyber-attacks have the potential to become an important component in future international conflicts, in part due to the anonymity and complexity of cyberspace (Kern 91). The degree of technological development in the United States encourages obvious and hidden adversaries to attack the country in the realm of cyberspace to disrupt the operations of financial institutions, government websites, or law enforcement agencies.
Strategies for making the country less vulnerable in cyberspace should be aimed at reducing the potential gain foreign adversaries might enjoy from cyber-attacks against the United States, as well as causing such attacks to become more costly (Jabbour and Ratazzi 46). Many researchers believe that the country needs to shift its focus from neutralizing small groups of cyber-criminals to “compartmentalizing data” to prevent significant information leaks (Ricks).
Decrease the Vulnerability of Satellites to Attacks
Taking into account the degree to which different industrialized nations have developed modern technology, adversaries of the United States are likely to use both malicious software to conduct cyber-attacks and weapons capable of destroying satellite systems. Thus, the second guiding principle refers to the necessity of allocating more resources to satellite protection. The ability to design powerful anti-satellite weapons promises a competitive advantage over key adversaries since satellites provide the means for mobile communication, GPS systems, Internet access, and the functioning of stock exchanges. In addition, the use of anti-satellite weapons can help aggressor countries to disrupt communication between military drones and drone operators, thereby rendering nuclear attack alerting services useless (Klein).
While the importance of space safety was highly emphasized during the administration of Barack Obama, this focus did not help the government to eliminate the threat of space attacks (Klein). Many modern researchers are concerned about the fact that China and Russia are constantly improving their anti-satellite weapons, creating a significant threat to the national security of the United States if there is a further decline in trust between these three countries (Haney 5). According to Klein, the space strategy of the United States remains unclear; many US citizens believe that “traditional principles of warfare have little applicability” to war in space. Currently, researchers all over the world are widely discussing the concept of space safety because the idea of attacking a country’s satellites promises an easy way to win a competitive advantage over adversaries.
The need for new strategies to help make the US satellite system less vulnerable to attack is a topic that began to command attention more than seven years ago. For example, in an article written in 2011, Smith states that “satellites in low Earth orbit” are vulnerable because they “do not even need to be destroyed” to stop working properly (43). The threat becomes even more significant given that in the modern world, adversaries of the United States have access to physical weapons such as kamikaze satellites or lasers that explode satellites. Furthermore, satellites launched by the United States can be deactivated by exposure to certain types of electromagnetic frequency impulses, a form of “electromagnetic brute force attacks” (Smith 43). The identified guiding principle that the United States may need to take into account to prepare for potential conflict involves numerous tasks, ranging from decreasing the costs of manufacturing and launching satellites to hardening systems against potential attack.
Prepare Soldiers for Stress
The United States can expect to be required to employ a variety of resources to ensure the safety of its citizens and infrastructure in cyberspace and to reduce adversaries’ opportunities to conduct successful attacks in space. However, in its attempts to prepare for potential wars, the United States should not underestimate the importance of psychological preparedness for war. In fact, the impact of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and other mental issues can become a significant threat in terms of preventing soldiers from performing concerted and effective actions to protect the civilian population.
The detrimental impact of mental health concerns dictates the importance of including strategies for dealing more effectively with stress in military personnel among the guiding principles to be used in preparation for further conflicts. Researchers recognize the necessity to build psychological stamina in the United States Army, including Barno and Bensahel, who admit that filling this strategic gap presents a challenging task due to its nature. The rising suicide rate among soldiers is but one example of the significant threats associated with mental unpreparedness for war and PTSD (Ursano et al. 747).
It is obvious that the lack of effective strategies for assessing the risks of suicidal behavior and preventing or dealing with the development of PTSD in soldiers can have a negative impact on the combat capabilities of service people. Failure to strengthen soldiers psychologically and help them become more able to resist stress can be expected to add more ammunition to the adversaries of the United States. Therefore, it is important to pay close attention to this issue when preparing for future conflicts with other countries.
Conclusion
In the end, a number of problems threaten to make the United States more vulnerable in the face of potential armed conflict, and the guiding principles that inform preparatory measures should reflect a focus on these issues. First, those principles central to the national security strategy of the United States should be tied to threats associated with cyber-attacks. Second, it will be vital to anticipate potential attempts to destroy the country’s satellite network. Lastly, since armed conflicts involve a war of willpower, it is essential to develop and implement new strategies that will help make soldiers better able to resist stress and reduce the prevalence of mental health problems in the United States Army.
Works Cited
Barno, David, and Nora Bensahel. “Preparing for the Next Big War.” War on the Rocks. 2016. Web.
Haney, Cecil D. “Strategic Deterrence for the Future.” Air and Space Power Journal, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 4-7.
Jabbour, Kamal, and Paul Ratazzi. “Deterrence in Cyberspace.” Thinking About Deterrence: Enduring Questions in a Time of Rising Powers, Rogue Regimes, and Terrorism, edited by Adam Lowther, Air University Press, 2013, pp. 37-51.
Kern, Sean Charles Gaines. “Expanding Combat Power Through Military Cyber Power Theory.” Joint Force Quarterly, vol. 79, 2015, pp. 88-95.
Klein, John J. “Space Warfare: Deterrence, Dissuasion and the Law of Armed Conflict.” War on the Rocks. 2016. Web.
Ricks, Thomas E. “The Future of War (II): As the Nature of War Changes, the Familiar Dividing Lines of Our World are Blurring Across the Board.” Foreign Policy. 2014. Web.
Smith, M. “Spacepower and Warfare.” Joint Force Quarterly, vol. 60, 2011, pp. 42-45.
Ursano, Robert, et al. “Risk Factors, Methods, and Timing of Suicide Attempts Among US Army Soldiers.” JAMA Psychiatry, vol. 73, no. 7, 2016, pp. 741-749.