Force protection and society

Wars have long been fought with a firm focus upon armies' domestic contexts. These socio-political foundations have underpinned decisions regarding embarking upon war as well the conduct of war itself. Of particular importance among liberal democracies is the emphasis which is now placed upon force protection; broadly conceived as the range of measures employed to ensure the protection of servicemen and women on operations. Decisions surrounding protective equipment, deployed locations and wartime activities all face detailed scrutiny in contemporary operating environments. The attitudes of the government, the military and the civilian population combine to create a complex and dynamic backdrop of harmony and tension to this most sensitive characteristic of modern wars.     

亚洲地缘冲突板块与我国的安全环境

亚洲地区冲突原因复杂 ,由来已久。本文着重从地缘冲突板块理论的角度考察中东 (大西亚 )、中亚—南亚、亚太 (大东亚 )和北亚四大冲突板块如何以不同方式、不同程度影响亚洲和平与发展的大局 ,对中国安全环境构成多方向、多样化的挑战 ,并认为冲突板块的特殊性、连动性、持久性和时代性特征客观上要求中国发挥亚洲地缘重心的作用 ,带动亚洲各国树立以发展促安全的新型安全观 ,建立信任与合作的亚洲政治经济新秩序 ,科学系统地建立亚洲的整体安全战略 ,团结亚洲各国共同维护亚洲的安全与稳定。     

Indian Military Modernization and Conventional Deterrence in South Asia

In recent years, headline grabbing increases in the Indian defense budget have raised concerns that India’s on-going military modernization threatens to upset the delicate conventional military balance vis-à-vis Pakistan. Such an eventuality is taken as justification for Islamabad’s pursuit of tactical-nuclear weapons and other actions that have worrisome implications for strategic stability on the subcontinent. This article examines the prospects for Pakistan’s conventional deterrence in the near to medium term, and concludes that it is much better than the pessimists allege. A host of factors, including terrain, the favorable deployment of Pakistani forces, and a lack of strategic surprise in the most likely conflict scenarios, will mitigate whatever advantages India may be gaining through military modernization. Despite a growing technological edge in some areas, Indian policymakers cannot be confident that even a limited resort to military force would achieve a rapid result, which is an essential pre-condition for deterrence failure.