Classification guides are used by government agencies and program managers to translate top-level national security classification policy into specific guidance on what information is to be classified and at what level. There are innumerable such guides, many of which are themselves classified. One recent (unclassified) example that provides a notion of the entire class of documents is an Air Force Classification Guide for the Global Broadcast System (pdf), issued in April 2007.
The potential role of nanotechnology for defense and military applications was assessed in unclassified format in a recent report issued by the Director, Defense Research and Engineering. See “Defense Nanotechnology Research and Development Program” (pdf), April 27, 2007.
“Command and control of air and space power is an Air Force-provided asymmetric capability that no other Service or nation provides,” according to a new U.S. Air Force publication on the subject. See “Command and Control” (pdf), Air Force Doctrine Document 2-8, June 1, 2007.
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.