Weapons (Formerly Munitions) March 23, 2021

The Munitions Industrial Base of the United States: A Strategic Overview

The munitions industry is one of the oldest known to the U.S. defense industrial base. Since 1775 and the founding of the first Continental Army Depot Arsenal in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, the art and science of crafting our nation's munitions has remained a cornerstone in our greater defense schema. World Wars I and II ushered in historical surges in industrial capacity to meet the demands of multiple theaters, peaking at over 80 production sites at the height of the conflicts and beyond into the Korean and Vietnam eras. Today, a mere 16 sites comprise the government's munitions industrial base (MIB). The current footprint answered our nation's call over the last 20-years of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, ensuring the readiness and lethality of the joint warfighter. However, as these operations reach their conclusions, we must consider the context of two competing paradigms. First, what is the "right size" for the greater munitions industrial complex to sustain steady-state productions in peacetime while maintaining surge capacity? Second, how do we effectively shape the future of this MIB to meet the demands of both state and non-state actors, particularly within the context of a Great Power Competition/peer adversaries, such as China and Russia? The following work represents the capstone of a joint service collective of professional officers and dedicated government civilians, providing an analysis of the U.S. MIB. Through critical analysis of the greater strategic landscape, we propose policy recommendations to meet both current and future demands by both the U.S. and allies/partner nations. Limitations to this experience include both time and those related to the current COVID-19 pandemic. The forthcoming commentary is rooted in the students' experience/observations/analysis. It does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the National Defense University or the Department of Defense.

Nuclear Triad (Formerly Nuclear C3, Nuclear C2) March 23, 2021

Assuring the Nation’s Strategic Deterrent: Nuclear Enterprise Modernization Challenges and Opportunities

As Russia completes its nuclear modernization and China expands its nuclear force, the United States faces two nuclear-capable, strategic peer competitors for the first time. Unlike Russia and China, most systems in the U.S. nuclear enterprise have served far beyond their initial design life. The decades-long hiatus between legacy and recapitalization programs created a “modernization gap” that now presents numerous challenges for both the U.S. government and industry as the nation attempts to sustain and modernize the nuclear enterprise simultaneously. This report identifies several critical contextual factors and cross-cutting challenges affecting U.S. nuclear enterprise recapitalization efforts. It assesses the Department of Defense (DoD) and industry’s ability to execute simultaneous modernization efforts for all three legs of the triad and associated nuclear command, control, and communication (NC3) architecture. Optimizing this effort requires DoD to communicate a consistent strategic narrative, develop comprehensive strategies, transfer best practices across the enterprise, and increase the use of incentives to drive innovation within industry.

Organic Industrial Base March 23, 2021

Opportunities to Improve OIB Strategy

The United States’ (U.S.) Organic Industrial Base (OIB) is a bloodline for the Nation’s defense. Nested in a vast ecosystem of organizations and industries providing support to the Nation, the OIB maintains, repairs, overhauls, and modifies weapon systems for the Nation’s Armed Forces. The OIB provides an assured sustainment capability free from vulnerabilities that plague the commercial sector and larger Defense Industrial Base (DIB). Just as blood carries oxygen throughout the body to permit it to function optimally, a government-owned and operated weapon system sustainment capability supports global reach and readiness. The OIB bloodline must effectively deliver this capability in peacetime and have the capacity to increase flow when the United States must surge or mobilize its resources in response to an event. Congress recognizes the importance of the OIB. The Fiscal Year (FY) 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Section 359 directed the Secretary of Defense to develop strategy to improve covered depots and ensure the OIB maintains the capacity and capability to support the readiness and material availability goals of current and future Department of Defense (DoD) weapon systems. In response, each service offered maintenance plans and proposed several investment initiatives, but none published an open-source strategy update. An environment marked by Great Power Competition (GPC) requires the OIB to develop a more integrated strategy framed on value creation, that improves readiness and maintains technological superiority.

Advanced Manufacturing March 23, 2021

The Strategic Implications of Industry 4.0 in Great Power Competition

The tools and techniques of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, or Industry 4.0, create strategic opportunities for the nations and firms best able to leverage the incredible increase in systems connectivity and data. This paper summarizes five months of research and discussions with Industry, Government, and Academia on the advanced manufacturing technologies made possible by Industry 4.0. We compare and assess competing for national industrial systems and policies and evaluate divergent firm and market strategies. Our team paid attention to the manufacturing ecosystems in the United States, the People’s Republic of China (PRC), and the Russian Federation, using the Porter’s Diamond Model of National Advantage to identify each nation’s unique strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. This analysis proposed policy recommendations to strengthen the U.S. manufacturing base and expand and diversify the nation’s supply chain for Great Power Competition.

Artificial Intelligence (Formerly Emerging Technologies) March 23, 2021

Seizing the Moral High Ground: Accelerating a Values-based Global AI Agenda

Artificial Intelligence, or AI, is not a single, stand-alone industry but a broad set of applications fueling life-altering technologies like autonomous driving, remote surgery, and autonomous weapons systems. AI is “the theory and application of machines...to perform tasks that typically require human intelligence.” AI’s strategic implications for global peace, stability, and prosperity have prompted prominent analysts to label it “the most powerful tool in generations.” The United States has a great interest in maintaining its innovative edge in the development and deployment of AI. Much like transformative technologies of the past, AI has the potential to richly benefit or decidedly harm humanity. AI does not have values, but its applications indisputably mirror the values of those that develop and deploy them, and two divergent models have emerged. In an authoritarian model purveyed by China, citizens possess little control over the collection and use of their personal data, states regularly surveil citizens’ movements and finances, militaries produce unregulated AI-powered autonomous weapons systems, and AI expands the reach of global disinformation. The United States and liberal allies strive for a dramatically different application of AI that respects the rule of law, human rights, and democratic values. To best leverage the profoundly transformative effects of AI and emerging technologies, deter common threats, create prosperity, ensure our innovative edge, and promote democratic liberal values, the United States, in concert with like-minded countries and global industry, must catalyze efforts to deploy values-based AI standards and strengthen multi-stakeholder collaboration to accelerate innovation.

Space March 23, 2021

Renewing U.S. Great Power Competitiveness in Space

This report culminates a semester-long study of the challenges, threats, and opportunities the United States faces in the space domain. The Space Domain Industry Study at the Eisenhower School for National Security and Resource Strategy at the National Defense University for the academic year 2020-2021 pursued the following overarching research focus areas: Given recent Department of Defense (DoD) space policy reforms, renewed great power competition, and the rapid growth of commercial space activity: a. How should the U.S. improve its ability to rapidly field operational space capabilities through industrial speed and agility to address Chinese and Russian counterspace threats? b. How should the U.S. improve its ability to sustain and enhance the market health of the space industrial base by facilitating globally competitive, sustainable business plans with improved innovation? Human space activity stands at a historic inflection point. A proliferation of counterspace systems and escalating competition among military space powers threaten a domain that underwrites U.S. military strength and powers the global economy. U.S. leadership in space is increasingly in doubt, and the nation must act immediately to build and sustain a long-term national competitive advantage in space.

Strategic Materials March 23, 2021

Securing Minerals Critical to National Security

The fragility of today’s critical minerals global value chain poses an untenable risk to the national security and economic prosperity of the United States. With domestic supply lagging after decades of underinvestment and inattention, the United States relies heavily upon foreign sources for dozens of mineral products that form the fabric of the U.S. economy and defense industrial base. While some of these foreign sources are steadfast U.S. allies, other less dependable foreign suppliers like China or politically unstable states represent serious supply vulnerabilities and risks. Exacerbating the situation, global trends in manufacturing and green technology portend higher future demand and heated competition for these vital materials. On its current path, the United States is not well-positioned to compete successfully for these essential components. Mineral extraction and processing is a notoriously expensive, complex, and risky industry subject to the vagaries of price swings. Such difficult market forces reinforced by unsupportive investment climates and weak social licenses to operate at home and abroad have led to an underdeveloped domestic minerals sector and serious challenges for U.S. mining companies overseas. This dynamic has led to a divergence between what the United States needs for its national security and what the free market is able to provide. By contrast, U.S. competitors, like China, eschew free market principles to successfully prop up domestic champions, manipulate minerals markets, and use political pressure to access minerals overseas.

Biotechnology March 23, 2021

Securing America’s Future in Biotechnology

The United States (U.S.) is currently the global leader in the human health segment of biotechnology. However, China, Russia, and other countries are also devoting significant resources to compete in the biotechnology industry. In an era of Great Power Competition, where nations are vying for power and influence, economic and national security requires a holistic, balanced, and sustainable strategy. The U.S. must set conditions for success to remain the leader and mature an ethical and innovative biotechnology ecosystem, fortifying all instruments of national power. The U.S. must set the conditions for success to remain the leader in biotechnology. Future human health, economic growth, and national security will depend on governments, academia, and industry taking the proper steps to grow a thriving and ethical biotechnology industry while making strategic investments to maintain primacy against peer competitors such as China. The U.S. must proactively invest in human capital, government enablement, and other foundational components of the biotechnology ecosystem to secure its competitive advantage and remain ahead of its rivals in biotechnology. The recommendations contained in this paper will benefit the entire economy and the DoD in particular.

Cyberspace and Advanced Computing Industry Study (Formerly Cyber) March 23, 2021

Winning in Cyberspace by Improving Coordination, Supporting Innovation, and Securing Supply Chains

In the 21st century, cyberspace and the advanced computing industry are at the heart of great power competition and the rapidly changing character of war. How well the United States competes in this industry will impact its economic and national security. U.S. cyber policy influences the conduct of the government, business, civil society, and individuals, and it cuts across political, legal, economic, and ethical interests. Because of the impact of cyber policy on all facets of American life and the breadth of policy required, it is essential for the U.S. government to coordinate and orchestrate lines of effort to achieve desired objectives. This paper examines the current cyber strategic environment, surveys significant stakeholders and their interests, analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of key international players, describes the industry’s outlook, and makes recommendations for U.S. policy. Key recommendations include restructuring the U.S. government to orchestrate better domestic policy and international leadership, investing in innovation and human capital to remain competitive, and securing and diversifying strategic supply chains.