国防领域技术预警流程研究

技术预警是对技术突破和由此引起的军事、政治、经济和社会危机的预测,是从国家安全的根本利益出发,以保持己方军事优势、防止敌人"技术突袭"为宗旨的技术发展预测。研究回顾了国内外技术预警研究历程,从前期准备、预警清单、技术调查、分析评估等四个主要环节,全面分析国防领域技术预警的具体流程,为国防领域技术预警系统的构建与应用提供支撑。     

军事安全视角下的军队翻译能力建设

军队翻译能力是军队外语能力的组成部分。军队翻译能力的理论框架包含构成要素、存在形式和转换机制三个组成部分。新的安全形势对我军的翻译保障在广度和深度上都有了新的要求,而军队翻译能力供给相对不足。需要对军队翻译能力进行规划,加强翻译人力资源的储备与管理,提升翻译保障信息化水平。     

大力弘扬改革创新时代精神 加快建设世界一流高等教育院校

习主席在庆祝改革开放40周年大会上的重要讲话,是新时代改革开放再出发的宣言书和动员令。学习贯彻习主席重要讲话精神,关键要全面推进学校深化改革创新,深刻认清弘扬改革创新精神对于建设世界一流高等教育院校的重大意义,牢牢扭住全面深化改革创新的主攻方向,科学处理深化改革创新的重大关系,既以顽强的战略定力坚定不移深化改革,又运用科学的工作方法积极稳妥地推进改革。     

信息化条件下基于大数据的后装一体化保障构想

由于契约的不完全性、专用性资产的存在,导致民企参军的谈判过程中,一方可能利用另一方因专用性资产投资的锁定效应,而采取机会主义行为将另一方套牢,攫取可占用专用性准租金。这种套牢风险不是单向的,而是双向的,双向套牢风险的存在不仅会降低军品科研生产项目建设质量,而且还会严重挫伤民营企业承担军品科研生产任务的积极性。为有效防范双向套牢风险,本文将从博弈论的角度,建立民营企业与军队采办部门的期望收益与专用性资产投资的函数关系和博弈矩阵,分阶段讨论民营企业与军队采办部门所面临的套牢风险大小及各自的最佳行为选择。以降低民企参军面临的套牢风险,引导更多优势民营企业进入军品科研生产与维修领域,推动军民融合的深度发展。     

军民融合背景下军工企业多元化发展战略研究

冷战结束后,欧美多数军工企业在军转民的过程中采取多元化的经营战略,壮大企业规模并寻求进一步的发展。随着我国军民融合战略的深入实施,军工企业不再是封闭独立的单一军品生产基地,而是顺时应势逐步实现军品和民品同步多元化发展的战略转型。通过分析我国军工企业军转民的历史进程与国际经验,结合多元化战略的特点,考察军工企业在军转民过程中实施多元化战略的动因,构建军工企业多元化战略的选择函数。本文认为,军工企业选择多元化战略应考虑企业自身实际情况,积极响应国家政策,培育核心竞争力;同时,军转民过程作为军民融合深度发展的重要一环,会促使军工企业往多元化的方向发展,而多元化战略的实施也会加快军民融合深度发展的进程。     

在新时代对培育大学生综合国防素质的思考

综合国防素质是在适应世界军事变革发展和国家安全新需要的基础上,对传统国防素质的一次改进与提升。与传统国防素质不同,综合国防素质强调的是对综合国防意识、综合国防知识以及综合国防技能的掌握和运用。新时代,弘扬和培育大学生综合国防素质是贯彻党的十九大精神、落实国家教育事业"十三五"规划部署的重要举措,对加快实施人才强国战略、实现新时代强军目标发挥着重要作用。     

强爆轰驱动超高速碎片发射装置设计因素分析

为了得到发射装置设计因素和超高速碎片性能间的关系,考虑了药型罩的材料、炸药种类、装药长径比、药型罩的锥角、药型罩的厚度、药型罩顶部靠近装药侧的曲率半径等设计因素,采用AUTODYNTM,结合正交试验,对超高速碎片的发射过程进行数值模拟。结果表明,3种发射装置结构分别可以提供质量为1. 533 g的紫铜碎片、速度为11. 649 km/s的铝碎片、动能为85. 6 k J的铝碎片; 2种发射装置结构均可以提供质量大于1 g、速度高于11 km/s的密实结构圆柱状碎片。验证了仿真方法的可信性,对影响碎片性能的设计因素进行了分析、排序,并得到了这些设计因素与碎片质量、速度、动能的关系。     

Competitive Statehood in Libya: Governing Differently a Specific Setting or Deconstructing its Weak Sovereign State with a Fateful Drift Toward Chaos?

Abstract

Libya in 2011 witnessed a real process of political change, though different from all the policy-oriented jargon equating transition with a teleological transition to democracy. Due to the resilience of the Qadhafi regime in power and with the essential role of NATO intervention, the process was eased out by a eight-month civil war. Governance in post-Qadhafi Libya was not done through the rebuilding of centralized authorities. But it took the specific form of the emergence of multiple non-state actors embedded in local dynamics and then connected with weakened central authorities that had access to the huge Libyan resources. That raised complex questions about the quality of this mode of governance, especially at a time of pressing problems for Libya and its neighbors, whether direct ones (Tunisia, Egypt, Mali) or farther countries across the Mediterranean sea: terrorism with the expansion of Da’esh into the country and flows of refugees crossing Libya’s uncontrolled borders and flowing into Italy and then Europe by thousands.     

A Question of ‘Government’ Control: Afghanistan DDR Programs Since 2001

Since the fall of the Taliban in late 2001, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA), the United States, the United Nations, and the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) have funded and led three different Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR) programs. Despite a significant investment in time and treasure, all of them have failed to significantly reduce the number of insurgents or arbaki (militia). This article explores why these programs failed despite incorporating ideas from the prominent DDR schools of thought. Utilizing Stathis Kalyvas’ theory of The Logic of Violence in Civil War as a lens, this article argues that GIRoA and ISAF did not have sufficient control of territory to entice insurgents or arbaki to reconcile and/or reintegrate with the government. Further, in areas GIRoA nominally controlled in northern and western Afghanistan, regional powerbrokers who controlled these areas balked at these programs.     

Multilateral defense cooperation in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region: Tentative steps toward a regional NATO?

Some U.S. military leaders have asserted that the United States, Japan, Australia, and India and the Republic of Korea are developing multilateral defense cooperation to deter aggression and uphold norms much like North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has in Europe. Frequent military exercises and China’s threats to freedom of navigation (FoN) and North Korea’s nuclear missiles comprise the motive force for such cooperation. However, cooperation thus far has been trilateral and minimal, given divergent national interests and dispersed geopolitical locations. Cooperation among Japan, Republic of Korea (ROK), and the United States is increasing given the threat, but ROK’s public opinion is divided about Japan. Australia, Japan, and India have increased cooperation with the United States but are reluctant to conduct FoN operations with the United States to challenge China’s expansionism in the South China Sea. If China becomes more aggressive and blocks FoN or seizes territory, development toward an Asian NATO is possible.