Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of globalization on society
Effects of globalization on society
Impact of globalization on society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of globalization on society
Globalization simply put, is a process which involves connecting various locations around the world. Globalization is already a process, which affects our economics, politics, and culture. The future effects of Globalization on the military environment at both the Strategic and Operational level has already started but we can expect more changes, as Globalization continues to take hold of the world as a whole.
The Strategic goals of the United States Army have remained consistent for many decades, relevance and readiness. The security challenges of the new century are testing our force in ways we have never experienced before, and will continue to change as Globalization spreads amongst our Allies and enemies. The emergence of unconventional warfare and the asymmetric threats we now face around the globe is stretching the capabilities of not only the Army but all branches of the Armed Forces. Our strategy must adapt to the changing environment and take into account the effects of Globalization.
Prior to World War II, the United States was not considered to be a big spender on military might which some say left us vulnerable and unprepared for the global war to come. The political policies of isolationism left little room for a ready and capable standing force. Of course the war changed our policies as well as our strategic goals and the buildup which followed created the foundation of the larger footprint we now have around the globe. The Strategic environment which we are faced with today, may not be consistent with the current capabilities of our military force, and because of the effects of Globalization we have already begin to transform our focus. It is paramount that this transformation concentrates on improving ...
... middle of paper ...
...eloped nations are experiencing a population explosion. The population growth in undeveloped countries could lead to expansionism when leaders are confronted with lack of food and water shortages within their own borders. The world’s populations are moving around rapidly, from one country to another, creating diversity but at the same time exporting cultural differences to a wider variety of places than before, creating the potential of further dislocations and more troubles.
Economics have also played a role in the changing Operational Environment. The recent economic downturn and resulting financial crisis will continue to be significant events in the future changing environment. In the United States case, our foreign debt continues to grow, and the Trade Deficit between other countries is exponential.
Works Cited
http://www.army.mil/aps/05/mission.html
...in technology and tactics have made Special Forces units more reliable. For example, the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan and the incident with the Somali pirates of the coast of Somalia show the capabilities of today’s Special Forces. The author asserts that, in the future the United States will shift away from major combat operations. These large engagements have proven to be costly in lives and treasure. For that reason, she infers that the US Military will choose the “go small, go long” model for future engagements in the Middle East. Special operation forces are uniquely suited for this model. Their conspicuous nature and low cost make them politically and strategically ideal. The author also suggests that future large scale operations may look like the conflicts in Libya and Somalia rather than the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Shalikashvili, J.M. (n.d.). Shape, Respond, Prepare Now -- A Military Strategy for a New Era. National Military Strategy. Retrieved September 14, 2004, from http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/nms/index.html#Top
This paper will not bore with the definition of a profession. The United States Army is about more than words, it is about action. The action of over 238 years of tradition and service. The Army is a profession. A profession requires its members to adhere to prolonged training and learn specialized skills. A member of a profession must wholly commit himself and his skills to a calling which is entrusted by the public. A profession provides its members with intrinsic value which motivates beyond financial gain. The Army is a higher calling which demands all of these qualities and more.
Presently, the United States places a high value on its military power and often boasts of its strength in the news. Not only does
America holds the dream of liberty and freedom and protects the attainment and success of democracy across the world. As President Eisenhower emphasized in his “Farewell Address,” our goal as a nation has always been to “foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among people and among nations” (par. 7). However, since the early fifties, American society has become a nation of self-servers with ulterior motives that surface well after our nation has initiated conflicts with others. The Korean, Vietnam and the Iraq War all exemplify the new era of secretive purpose behind military action taken. These three wars span the majority of the past sixty years. This new era began when our country started our transformation into, what President Eisenhower coined, the “military-industrial complex” (par.16). This complex harbors an unbalanced society that allows for our government’s actions to become easily corrupted by the need to feed the industry that feeds our military in turn. During President Eisenhower’s farewell, he warned our nation of the devastating effects of this type of national compound. In, Why We Fight, by Eugene Jarecki, an award-winning documentary director and producer, the film introduces the audience to the lack of understanding our society has on the actual intent behind our nation’s conflicts. Jarecki conveys throughout his piece that the overall purpose for misleading the American public is to fuel the military-industrial economy by maintaining America’s political supremacy around the world. The director introduces the audience to this new understanding by employing anecdotes from certain citizens as well as expressive imagery that comprised of heart wrenching video clips as w...
Keeping the people of the United States safe from the ever rising threat of terrorism and continual conflict is an important task for this nation’s military. Distraction and lack of cohesion leads to failures and unnecessary casualties. A concentrated focus on the battles at hand is a key task in overcoming the world’s threats and to be ready to fully function in the capacity assigned. Preparation, before the need arises, leads to more lives saved and success in accomplishing the mission.
Recent technological advancements on show in the recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have indicated, to some, that there is a new American way of war. Scholars, however, do not seem to have reached consensus on what a new way of war for the United States would embody. Depending on the scholar, their beliefs are underwritten by the American ability to wage war with highly interconnected, agile, precise, and extremely damaging methods or because the United States is capable of waging war with a small, Special Forces centered footprint. Other scholars argue that there is not a new American way of war because traditional methods are still necessary in many kinds of conflict. Scholars who address this question focus on conflicts that they believe to be important indicators of how the United States will act in the future, but miss the forest for the trees. The choice of a particular method of combat in any given war is not the result of some national tendency, but rather the result of the political object desired. The political object is the ultimate arbiter of the choice of strategy in war, and that is certainly not new to how the United States wages war.
This paper examines lessons learned that are timeless in their relevance for all types of warfare with respect to the lesson materials discussed in the Warfare Studies course. The first lesson learned that this paper examines is the United States’ adaptability in response to changing nature of warfare. The United States has experienced various types of warfare ranging from war of annihilation, war of attrition, or fourth-generation warfare; the United States has no identifiable American way of war. Second, this paper looks at the importance and enduring nature of fourth-generation warfare and counterinsurgency operations. These events are here to stay and will be significant in the future conflicts. The third lesson learned discusses America’s poor planning and preparation for stability, security, transition, and reconstruction operations (SSTR) and demonstrated the need to avoid stovepiped, single agency planning. The apparent lack of planning for SSTR operations severely complicated and extended the United States mission in Iraq. Fourth, America must always strive to be on the cutting edge and maintain technological superiority over our adversaries in order to secure great advantages. However, the United States cannot solely rely on technological savvy military to achieve success. The last lesson learned discusses the growing relevance of information IOP as a powerful tool of war and the importance of it in shaping public opinion.
Should the government decrease military spending or should it increase military spending? This is a question that many Americans wrestle with, and politically speaking, is a point of great contention since to many, military might evokes a sense of security. However, when considering this question from a foreign policy standpoint, does current military spending really match the current level of threats faced by the United States, or are too many dollars being allocated for an unnecessary level of military strength? There are certainly cons in making the decision to drastically lower military spending, but they are minimal when compared to the positive ramifications such a decision would have. This paper aims to explore these pros and cons
“In July 1945, the first atomic bomb was tested in New Mexico and the next month the second and third weapons off the production line were dropped on Japan. Since then no nuclear weapons have been used in anger, although tens of thousands have been accumulated by the major powers and their destructiveness and sophistication increased immensely.” The nature of warfare is constant and evolved from multiple factors and military revolutions over time. The purpose of this paper is to identify the most important military revolution in history and highlight its effects that permeate modern day society. The proliferation of nuclear weapons is the most significant military revolution that led to the greatest changes in warfare, which include the immergence of new threats such as non-state actors, the shift from total war to low intensity conflict, and the importance of technology and innovation. This military revolution completely shattered existing paradigms of warfare due to the real threat of nuclear weapons’ total destruction of humanity.
The strategy of the United States concentrates on the next five to ten years in order to protect the national interests around the global. With the increase in globalization, the ability to have a presence in all regions becomes important to national security and the United States accomplishes this by building and strengthening alliances. This promotes stability and security in the region as well. Defending the home front is the most important objective of the NSS and in order to accomplish that, continued global power projection is necessary. The NDS and NMS both seek to accomplish this through a thorough assessment of the strategic environment and applying either diplomatic or military power as necessary. The military serves as a major deterrent to potential adversaries, because of the United States’ military capability.
In today’s operational environments, the U.S. Army is facing a range of problems and mission sets that are arguably more complex than previously encountered. Forces face an array of demands that encompass geo-political, social, cultural, and military factors that interact in unpredictable ways. The inherent complexity of today’s operations has underscored the need for the Army to expand beyond its traditional approach to operational planning. In March 2010 in FM 5-0: The Operations
These new technologies has, as all technology is, been developed to finally and directly eliminate the threat generated by initial development of the nuclear strike capability. The question that now begs to be asked is weather this technology will once again change the strategic focus away from the economic arena and back to the military one? Technology has not rendered strategy obsolete. Certain military technological advances, which are continually reshaping the tactical realm, have managed, by the shear magnitude of their impact, reached beyond that area to change the Grande Strategy by which nations plan their success. As we see, strategy changed in order to counter the threat posed until a counter technology was developed. The interplay of tactics, technology and strategy is cyclical and symbiotic in nature with each element being driven by changes in the other.
The definition of globalization is, “Globalization is the connection of different parts of the world. Globalization results in the expansion of international cultural, economic, and political activities. As people, ideas, knowledge, and goods move more easily around the globe, the experiences of people around the world become more
Globalization is the connection of different parts of the world. Globalization results in the expansion of international, cultural, economic, and political activities. As people, ideas, knowledge, and goods move easily around the globe, the experiences of people around the world become more similar. (“Definition of Globalization“, n.d., ¶ 1)