8 April 2017

** Is Discontent in Russia Reaching the Tipping Point?


There will be more demonstrations this weekend in Russia, following protests last week that were the largest in five years. As details emerge about the demonstrations and their organizers, a new picture of Russian discontent is materializing. Unsurprisingly, the Kremlin is choosing to respond with crackdowns rather than by addressing the underlying issues causing the dissent.

Last weekend's protests were organized by opposition heavyweight Alexei Navalny, who traveled through half a dozen Russian cities to promote his anti-corruption campaigns against Kremlin elites. But the movement also had a considerable grassroots element: Messages about the event spread to individuals through social media, and many of those promoting the demonstrations online made sure to distance themselves from Navalny and other anti-Kremlin organizations. They said they were interested in the actual issues rather than politics and came out against government corruption, the stagnant Russian economy, rising poverty rates and high food prices.

The number of younger Russians, those in their 20s, taking part in the demonstrations was also notable, since the demographic makeup of previous demonstrations has been notably older. Pro-Kremlin news outlets mocked the young turnout, dubbing the protests a "teenager's rebellion." But privately there is little doubt that the Kremlin is worried about the demographic shift. President Vladimir Putin has been in power for 17 years, most of younger Russians' lives. And he may now have to try to quell dissent from Russians who are too young to remember the chaos and tumult that followed the fall of the Soviet Union.

** Brexit's Potential to Fracture the U.K.


Splitting from the European Union will inevitably strain the United Kingdom's territorial integrity. Those pushing for Scotland and Northern Ireland to secede from the United Kingdom are using Brexit to justify their agendas. Brexit will also open a debate between the central government in London and the country's devolved governments about who will control the powers that will be repatriated from Brussels. With authority over policy areas such as agriculture, fisheries, industry and the environment returning to the United Kingdom after Brexit, the administrations of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will push London to transfer many of those attributions to them.

The United Kingdom has a devolution system, according to which different policy powers from the United Kingdom's Parliament have been transferred to assemblies in Cardiff and Belfast, and to the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh. The system was created to acknowledge the United Kingdom's distinctive cultures and identities. So in addition to the negotiations it faces to determine its status after it departs the European Union, the central government must also prepare for the issues that will arise among the United Kingdom's constituent countries.

An Independence Push in Scotland

Mrs Jinnah's love jihad in Mahatma Gandhi's time


In today's charged atmosphere of heightened Hindutva, the views of Mahatma Gandhi on the Hindu-Muslim relationship are riveting. They are not quite what most Left-illiberal historians have portrayed them.

In her excellent book Mr and Mrs Jinnah: The Marriage That Shook India, Sheela Reddy sheds light on not only those incendiary views but also on the two Jinnahs who were the toast of Bombay society before Independence.

But first, the Mahatma. Ruttie, daughter of the Parsi baronet Sir Dinshaw Petit, was a free-spirited 18-year-old girl. She proposed to the strait-laced 42-year-old Mohammad Ali Jinnah, rather than the other way around. Sir Dinshaw filed charges against Jinnah of kidnapping his daughter. In court, the fiesty Ruttie told the judge, "Mr Jinnah has not abducted me; in fact I have abducted him."

All this happened just as the freedom movement led by Mahatma Gandhi was gathering steam. As Fatima Bhutto writes in her engaging piece in Mint: "The true pull of this book is Ruttie Petit. It is impossible not to adore a woman who refused to stand to greet the viceroy during the summer assembly sessions in Shimla though her parents were loyal subjects of the British.

Four Reasons You Should Worry About Aadhaar’s Use of Biometrics


Aadhaar is premised on the infallibility and security of an individual’s biometric data – her fingerprints and iris scans. But this is just a myth. 

The opposition to Aadhaar mostly centres on the issues of surveillance and privacy. While these are very important issues, the lofty platform on which Aadhaar stands is supported on the myth that biometric based identity is infallible, robust and safe. None of this is true, which therefore brings into question the very utility of Aadhaar, as also the unforeseen complications it may cause. 

Need to update biometric information throughout lifetime 

This is enshrined in sections 6 and 31(2) of the Aadhaar Act: 

Nuclear false alarm

by Bharat Karnad

(Agni-5 launch)The latest edition of the Carnegie Nuclear Policy Conference in Washington that just ended featured American and foreign nuclear specialists chasing, as usual, the elusive nuclear catastrophe they are convinced is round the corner. There was also the obligatory alarm raised about South Asia. This year, the India-Pakistan “nuclear flashpoint” thesis was tweaked to claim that India has abandoned its No First Use (NFU) commitment and adopted a strategy, in case of an “imminent” launch, of a pre-emptive “comprehensive strike” against Pakistan. Such a course is being contemplated, it was argued, to spare the country the “iterative tit-for-tat exchanges” and prevent the “destruction” of Indian cities.This hair-raising conclusion was not supported by other than extremely flimsy evidence — three unrelated statements by separate persons. Let’s examine and contextualise these statements in turn. The erstwhile defence minister Manohar Parrikar stated not long after taking office that India would “not declare one way or another” if it would use or not use nuclear weapons first. This was said expressly to inject ambiguity of response that is crucial for the credibility of the Indian nuclear posture. This credibility was lost in 1999 when the previous BJP government of Atal Bihari Vajpayee mindlessly made the draft-nuclear doctrine public, and later compounded the problem by replacing “proportional response” in the draft with “massive retaliation”. Incidentally, Parrikar’s avowal was in light of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s political decision to not initiate a formal revision of the doctrine promised by the ruling party in its 2014 election manifesto.

India Doesn’t Require F-16s When it Has Tejas

PRIME MINISTER Narendra Modi’s visit to the US to meet President Donald J Trump is now on the front burner, with an emphasis on ‘deliverables’. If Delhi is keen on easing the H1B visa regime for Indian techies, Washington is eager that Modi sign up for the fourth generation F-16, a deal seen as ‘open sesame’ for endless future transactions on military hardware, and implement the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement. If the fourth generation F-16 is the key, what does it say about India that the BJP Government is interested in an antique American combat aircraft, optimised for air warfare of the 1970s, as a frontline fighter for the Indian Air Force well into the 21st century?

The Lockheed F-16 and the Swedish SAAB (Svenska Aeroplan Aktie Bolag) JAS 39 Gripen are competing for the single-engined fighter slot in the IAF, a requirement casually conceived to fill the gap the indigenous Tejas Light Combat Aircraft (LCA), earmarked to replace the large numbers of the Russian MiG-21 as the bulk combat aircraft in the Air Force, has failed to meet. It is another matter that the delays suffered by the Tejas programme can be traced mainly to machinations to derail it, including frequent changes in specifications, and the ordering of the LCA in small batches to curtail economies of scale and deter HAL and private companies from investing in multiple LCA production lines. (See my ‘The Tragedy of Tejas’, February 17th, 2017). Despite starting with negligible technology and industrial capability, the LCA is operational, has impressed as a compact, multi-role, highly agile, fly-by-wire, 4.5 generation warplane, and can even become an export revenue earner for the country.

Afghan Taliban lists ‘Percent of Country under the control of Mujahideen’


The Taliban issued a “report” that attempts to determine areas in Afghanistan it controls as well as contested areas and areas under the influence of the Afghan government. While the report may be seen as propaganda to bolster its claims of controlling territory, it does not inflate or exaggerate the Taliban’s control of districts centers and contested areas throughout the country, compared to data compiled by FDD’s Long War Journal. The report was actually a rather conservative estimate, painting a dire but realistic picture of the security situation in Afghanistan. The Taliban also admits that there are large areas in Afghanistan where it has only a minimal presence.

Confronting Pakistan’s Support For Terrorism: Don’t Designate, Calibrate

 Stephen Tankel

As emotionally gratifying as it might be, designating Pakistan a state sponsor of terrorism would be a mistake. But unilateral and multilateral mechanisms could be used to try to coerce Pakistan to undertake tactical shifts on militancy that might have strategic effects over time.  Download 

South China Sea Options: An Alternative Route

By The Black Swan

“The Black Swan” is an officer and a strategist in the U.S. Army. He has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. He has been a company commander, and served at the battalion, brigade, division, and Army Command (ACOM) level staffs. The opinions expressed are his alone, and do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Divergent Options’ content does not contain information of an official nature nor does the content represent the official position of any government, organization, or group.

National Security Situation: Japan is one of the most stalwart allies of the United States (U.S.) in Asia. The U.S. guarantees Japanese security and sovereignty. Japan serves as one of the principal rivals of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in Asia. Japan is an island, however, and depends upon seaborne trade routes, especially those that transit through Southeast Asia. PRC claims of sovereignty over virtually the entire South China Sea (SCS) pose a direct threat to Japanese security.

Background: For the greater part of recorded history, Japan has been a rival of the PRC. All Japanese attempts to dominate the Asian mainland however, have ended in failure. The defeat of Japan during WWII decisively put an end to Japanese Imperial ambitions. Since the end of the Allied post-WWII occupation in 1952, Japan has been one of the most stalwart allies of the U.S. in Asia, and a bastion of western values. Japan is an economic powerhouse, a vibrant democracy, and possesses an extremely formidable military. For those reasons, as well as historical animosity, Japan is one of, if not the main rival, of the PRC in Asia.

Asia Arms Race Heats Up Over South China Sea

As China expands its influence in the disputed South China Sea, an arms race has developed among other nations with claims in the area.

China claims most of the 3.5 million-square-kilometer South China Sea as its territory. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Taiwan and Vietnam also have claims in the waterway. The sea is rich in fisheries and is thought to hold valuable resources such as oil and natural gas.

Since 2010, China has stepped up its military activities in the South China Sea. It has patrolled with coast guard ships and sent its aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, to carry out military drills.

Construction is shown on Fiery Cross Reef, in the Spratly Islands, the disputed South China Sea in this March 9, 2017, satellite image released by CSIS Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)

Statecraft and Grand Strategy: Assessing the US and China

By Mercy A. Kuo

Trans-Pacific View author Mercy Kuo regularly engages subject-matter experts, policy practitioners, and strategic thinkers across the globe for their diverse insights into the U.S. Asia policy. This conversation with Charles Hill – Brady-Johnson Distinguished Fellow in Grand Strategy, diplomat in residence and lecturer in International Studies at Yale University – is the 85th in “The Trans-Pacific View Insight Series.”

Identify the key elements of American and Chinese modern statecraft.

America’s grand strategy has been generally consistent across the political administration since World War II: to support and defend the international (Westphalian) state system that has been the structural foundation of the modern era; its elements have been the state as the basic entity of world affairs, international law, human rights, and professional military and diplomatic services. The Second World War, the Cold War, and radical Islamism all have been efforts to overthrow and replace this system while America’s strength has been employed to protect it.

China's Century of Humilation

It is important to understand the history of a rising power, especially one seeking its "proper" place in the world - a place denied it for over 100 years - when its long history indicated it was the central focus of all human endeavor - the "Middle Kingdom."

Nice presentation here on China's "Century of Humiliation" and the role that plays in China's "national narrative" which really ought to be read in toto:

 First, the “Century of Humiliation” – a period between 1839 and 1949 when China‟s government lost control over large portions of its territory at the hands of foreigners – is a key element of modern China‟s founding narrative.

 Second, the Century of Humiliation is thought by many Chinese today to provide historical lessons that are taken as indicative of how strong Western powers tend to behave toward China.

 Third, the intellectual debates about the nature of international relations that took place during the Century of Humiliation underpin similar elite debates that are taking place in China today. Concerns with the nature of interstate competition, with the possibility for equality among nation-states, and with the question of whether the international system might evolve into something more peaceable in the future, remain salient topics of discussion and debate in China today.

China's Naval Militia

Very interesting read from Andrew S. Erickson and Conor M. Kennedy for the U.S. Naval War College's Chinese Maritime Studies Institute on China’s Third Sea Force, The People’s Armed Forces Maritime Militia: Tethered to the PLA (pdf):

Amid growing awareness that China’s Maritime Militia acts as a Third Sea Force which has been involved in international sea incidents, it is necessary for decision-makers who may face such contingencies to understand the Maritime Militia’s role in China’s armed forces. Chinese-language open sources reveal a tremendous amount about Maritime Militia activities, both in coordination with and independent of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Using well-documented evidence from the authors’ extensive open source research, this report seeks to clarify the Maritime Militia’s exact identity, organization, and connection to the PLA as a reserve force that plays a parallel and supporting role to the PLA.

Like a tetherball, the PAFMM may be sent in many different directions when contacted by different players in the Chinese security space, but is often directed by the PLA and always remains tied to the PLA.

Russia's Most Dangerous Nuclear Attack Submarine Ever Is Ready for War

Dave Majumdar

Russia has launched its first upgraded Project 885M Yasen-class attack submarine at Sevmash Shipyards in Severodvinsk. Called Kazan, she will be the most formidable enemy submarine that the U.S. Navy has ever faced once the boat is operational.

“It’s probably the most capable nuclear powered submarine out there fielded by a potential adversary,” Center for Naval Analyses Russian military affairs specialist Michael Kofman told The National Interest earlier this month.

Kazan features substantial improvements over her older sister, Severodvinsk. The vessel incorporates new technological developments that have emerged since Severodvinsk started construction in 1993—including an optimized hull shape and upgraded electronic warfare and automation systems. Kazan also incorporates lessons learned from testing her older sister ship.

“The 885M is really the first ship of the class,” Kofman said. “The 885M is intended as a substantial improvement, based on the lessons learned from the lengthy development, construction, and testing process for the original 885.”

Is Russia America's Enemy?

By Brandon Valeriano

The constant stream of revelations that members of President Donald Trump’s administration and his surrogates had direct contact with Russia during and after the 2016 presidential election provokes a series of questions: Does it matter? And is Russia really our enemy? The answer might surprise you.

To call Russia our enemy right now is not exactly accurate. It would be rather more fitting to call Russia our rival. This might seem like a minute distinction, and yet it is a telling one. A rival is a strategic competitor -- an equal who competes for superiority and who strives for the same goal. An enemy, on the other hand, is the hostile opposition -- an antagonist that seeks the destruction of its opponent. 

It is basically incontestable that Moscow’s interests and strategic goals directly counter Western and democratic values, and more importantly, the liberal world order. Much of what Russia does or hopes to achieve directly clashes with the international system America helped set up to manage conflict and promote cooperation.

So why then is Russia merely a rival to the United States, rather than an unequivocal enemy to the order that America traditionally upholds? As it happens, this distinction stems from a change in the value America places on its own traditional ideals.

Which Currency Could Replace the Dollar?

Since the recent change of leadership in the White House, questions have arisen about the sustainability of the dollar's role as the global reserve currency. Some of U.S. President Donald Trump's previously stated positions, if they come into being, would likely undermine faith in the currency. Investors should therefore take seriously the possibility that the dollar could become a less secure asset in the years to come. Of course, focusing on the dollar alone doesn't tell the whole story. Investors would also have to consider what alternative to move into. And at the moment, there are few contenders that could be considered reliable successors to the dollar.

Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Chief Wants to See Networks of ‘Expendable’ Platforms

By Jon Harper

Teams of lower-cost, unmanned systems that don’t need to return from battle will be critical for future warfighting, the head of the Pentagon’s Strategic Capabilities Office said March 28.

Potential adversaries are developing new military technologies that are putting expensive U.S. military platforms and personnel at greater risk, William Roper noted at an Air Force Association conference in Arlington, Virginia.

“Increasingly we’re going to ask our designers, including those in industry, to help us shift all of the dangerous jobs in combat — as many of them as we can do in an ethical way — to machines that can take the brunt of at least that initial edge of conflict so that … we have the maximum number of our operators returning home safely,” he said.

Much of the technology required already exists, he said.

The Strategic Capabilities Office, also known as the SCO, has partnered with Defense Department research laboratories and other organizations on a number of projects along these lines.

One, called Perdix, demonstrated the ability of a fighter jet to launch a swarm of autonomous drones capable of performing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions.

Warplanes: F-16 Production Ended, Or Did It

April 1, 2017: Production of F-16s, which has been going on since 1973 (with the first prototype) has halted, but it is not yet ended. There is one more possible sale. At the end of 2016 all 36 Iraqi F-16IQs had been built and that was believed to be the last F-16s ever manufactured. Iraq can still get more because older F-16s can be had cheaply and refurbished to the F-16IQ standard. But as the last F-16IQs were being built a possible sale (via licensed production in India) went from long-shot to an idea that was gaining momentum in the U.S. and India. The F-16 Block 70 would be the most advanced model ever. India never seriously considered buying used, but refurbished and upgraded, fighters. Since India won’t make a final decision for a while (as much as another year or so at least) the last F-16 assembly line is being moved from Texas to a smaller plant in South Carolina. The Texas facility, where some 80 percent of all F-16s were built, is now producing F-35s. In South Carolina a smaller plant has been building pre-production models of the T-50A jet trainer, which has not won any major contracts yet. Since the T-50A is based on the F-16 design moving the last F-16 production line to South Caroline makes sense.

Meanwhile there is the current “last F-16” which, with or without the Indian sale, will always be unique. Iraq began receiving the first F-16IQs in 2014. This is a special version of the Block 52 F-16C and the two-seater F-16D. The F-16IQ is similar to American Block 52 F-16s except they are not equipped to handle AMRAAM (radar guided air-to-air missiles) or JDAM (GPS guided bombs). The F-16IQ can handle laser guided bombs and older radar guided missiles like the AIM-7. The first 18 F-16IQs were ordered in late 2011 and the first arrived in Iraq right about the time ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) seized Mosul in June 2014. Shortly thereafter Iraq ordered another 18 F-16IQs. The Iraqis were eager to buy F-16s partly because neighboring Turkey and Jordan have done well with this model. Iraqis who have studied the F-16 are also aware that another neighbor, Israel, has the largest fleet of F-16s outside of the United States and the most combat experience.

Weaponized Narrative Is the New Battlespace


And the U.S. is in the unaccustomed position of being seriously behind its adversaries. 

Conventional military dominance is still critical to the superpower status of the United States. But even in a military sense, it is no longer enough: if an American election can be controlled by an adversarial power, then stealth aircraft and special forces are not the answer. With lawmakers poised to authorize $160 million to counter Russian “fake news” and disinformation, and the CIA and the Congress examining meddling in the U.S. election and democracies around the world, it’s time to see weaponized narrative for what it is: a deep threat to national security.

Weaponized narrative seeks to undermine an opponent’s civilization, identity, and will by generating complexity, confusion, and political and social schisms. It can be used tactically, as part of explicit military or geopolitical conflict; or strategically, as a way to reduce, neutralize, and defeat a civilization, state, or organization. Done well, it limits or even eliminates the need for armed force to achieve political and military aims.

The efforts to muscle into the affairs of the American presidency, Brexit, the Ukraine, the Baltics, and NATO reflect a shift to a “post-factual” political and cultural environment that is vulnerable to weaponized narrative. This begs three deeper questions:
How global is this phenomenon? 

Dealing with cyber vulnerabilities of US weapons systems

by Stephen Bryen

A new Defense Science Board report, produced by a special task force, has raised serious questions about how robust existing and future defense systems are and will be against cyberattacks and cyber intrusions. As the Trump administration rightly commits billions of dollars to overhaul worn-out weapons platforms, is attention being given to cyberthreats? Or will our patched up systems be compromised and fail us when we most need them?

The task force’s report makes clear that most U.S. weapons already in the field have no formal cyber protection plan; cyber protection was not included in any design requirement. More recently, the Department of Defense began requiring Program Protection Plans, or PPP, for weapons, but these only apply to the design and development stage and not activities in the field, have been executed unevenly at best, and have lacked clear standards of implementation. The task force worries that vulnerabilities can be maliciously inserted into systems and there is no PPP-type analysis in the sustainment-side of the acquisition process, meaning that once a weapon is fielded it can be years before corrections are made, if ever.

Cyber war requires a new look for a new kind of soldier


“I can shut down your power grids. I can paralyze your infrastructure. I can access the personal data of everyone in America.” This is the voice you hear as the camera pushes slowly towards an ownerless laptop in the center of a darkened room. As the laptop’s screen fills with text and the modulated voice says “I am the enemy with no face, and I can’t be stopped…” the picture explodes into static, which rapidly coalesces into a montage of the “Good Guys.”

Some are civilian, but most are in uniform. These young, trim, dedicated soldiers work furiously at keyboards and touch screens as, stopping the ‘enemy with no face.’ These are the U.S. Army’s “team of cyber warriors who will not be defeated.” They are the stars of the new recruitment ad to “join the team that makes a difference.”

And we need that difference now. That Army ad wasn’t exaggerating when it talked about the threats to our power grids or infrastructure. We’ve witnessed recent attacks on a hospital. We know for a fact that our election was hacked by a foreign government. And as scary as data breaches are, they pale in comparison to outright sabotage of physical machinery by hostile virus like Stuxnet. If the Stuxnet virus can cause Iranian centrifuges to fail, what, or who, can stop Vladimir Putin, or Kim Jong-un, or just some random anarchist from grabbing the wheel of your driverless car?

Evolving Threats and Strategies Will Require More and Better ISR

Dan Goure

The last 16 years of continuous conflict with multiple terrorist organizations around the world has taught the military one lesson: the importance of information, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. The ability to collect, process, exploit and disseminate vast amounts of information from multiple types of sensors is vital to successfully prosecuting the counterinsurgency fight. Now, the United States is confronting new and evolving threats with the knowledge and, in a growing number of cases, the resources to counter current U.S. ISR capabilities. In addition, the U.S. military is pursuing new operational concepts such as Multi-Domain Battle and distributed lethality. As a consequence, there is a pressing need for more and better ISR capabilities.

The conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan saw a revolution in ISR platforms, sensors, analytic capabilities and organizations. The Pentagon invested massively in many different unmanned aerial systems, or drones, such as Predator, Reaper, Shadow, Wasp and ScanEagle. These were backed up by fleets of specialized manned platforms like the MC-12W, essentially a commercial aircraft loaded with sensors. The protection of U.S. bases in Iraq and Afghanistan was enhanced by the deployment of both fixed towers and aerostats equipped with electro-optical sensors. Even systems developed during the Cold War such as the Navy’s EA-6B Prowler and P-3 Orion were pressed into service.

A scramble at Cisco exposes uncomfortable truths about U.S. cyber defense

By Joseph Menn

When WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange disclosed earlier this month that his anti-secrecy group had obtained CIA tools for hacking into technology products made by U.S. companies, security engineers at Cisco Systems (CSCO.O) swung into action. 

The Wikileaks documents described how the Central Intelligence Agency had learned more than a year ago how to exploit flaws in Cisco's widely used Internet switches, which direct electronic traffic, to enable eavesdropping. 

Senior Cisco managers immediately reassigned staff from other projects to figure out how the CIA hacking tricks worked, so they could help customers patch their systems and prevent criminal hackers or spies from using the same methods, three employees told Reuters on condition of anonymity. 

The Cisco engineers worked around the clock for days to analyze the means of attack, create fixes, and craft a stopgap warning about a security risk affecting more than 300 different products, said the employees, who had direct knowledge of the effort. 

A more connected military means new battlefield glitches, too

Aliya Sternstein

MARCH 31, 2017 —The US Army is embarking on a potentially decade-long quest to prepare soldiers to operate in the Digital Age.

In a $52 million initiative to create what it's calling the Internet of Battlefield Things, the Army Research Lab plans to redesign everything the soldier wears – and uses – so that it connects to the military's vast digital communications networks.

That doesn't just mean coming up with night vision goggles and helmets with sensors and embedded communications. Instead, it means reimagining the battlefield with smart materials and connectivity in mind. 

Imagine robotic tanks that maneuver themselves across desert terrain, avoiding land mines; drones with enough artificial intelligence to carry out strikes without human operators; and next-generation uniforms to monitor soldiers' heart rates and hydration levels or provide early warning alarms for chemical attacks. 

“If I’m wearing a uniform that informs me when there is a chemical attack," says Richard Danzig, the former US Navy Secretary, "that's a very valuable attribute.”

Army: We will be challenged to maintain EW superiority


Adversaries currently have the ability to wage electronic warfare against U.S. forces, and Army leaders say they need to develop systems and training to more effectively fight in a contested or degraded electronic domain.

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Army modernization, generals stated that one of the side effects of years of budget cuts and sequestration is that the service has forgone investments in modernization to focus on readiness.

That’s one of the reasons why adversaries have caught up in EW.

Maj. Gen. Robert M. Dyess, acting director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center, told the panel that he expects the Army to be contested in space, cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum.

“It's going to be increasingly lethal, it's going to be increasingly complex with urban environments,” he said, adding that the Army will need to operate with degraded capabilities.

“We're putting that in our concept work, so that will help give us a point of direction to travel in,” and will inform people who develop military requirements going forward, he said.

Lt. Gen. John Murray, deputy chief of staff, G-8, said that defensively, the Army is developing greater resilience in its systems by using atomic clocks as a backup to GPS and developing alternative communication systems.