U.S. Conventional Forces, Nuclear Deterrence and China (CRS)
A new Congressional Research Service report (pdf) proposes an analytical framework for assessing the comparative strengths of U.S. conventional and nuclear forces in the context of a hypothetical future conflict with China.
The authors consider “the possible role that U.S. nuclear and conventional forces might play in four stages of potential conflicts: deterrence, prior to the start of the conflict; crisis stability in the early stages of the conflict; warfighting during the height of the conflict; and war termination, through either a negotiated settlement or a battlefield victory.”
The new report “highlights a number of policy issues that may bear consideration in the ongoing debate regarding military investments,” but refrains from drawing specific conclusions.
CRS does not make its reports directly available to the public. A copy was obtained by Secrecy News.
See “U.S. Conventional Forces and Nuclear Deterrence: A China Case Study,” August 11, 2006.
To ensure an energy transition that brings broad based economic development, participation, and direct benefits to communities, we need federal policy that helps shape markets. Unfortunately, there is a large gap in understanding of how to leverage federal policy making to support access to capital and credit.
From use to testing to deployment, the scaffolding for responsible integration of AI into high-risk use cases is just not there.
OPM’s new HR 2.0 initiative is entering hostile terrain. Those who have followed federal HR modernization for years desperately want this effort to succeed.
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.