{ "id": "R43838", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "R", "number": "R43838", "active": true, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.592584", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_100_2024-02-28", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/100", "sha1": "f9e06376aa1b473a16231aecb83ad9f0adc724c0", "filename": "files/2024-02-28_R43838_f9e06376aa1b473a16231aecb83ad9f0adc724c0.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2024-02-28_R43838_f9e06376aa1b473a16231aecb83ad9f0adc724c0.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2024-02-28" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.591316", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_98_2024-01-10", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/98", "sha1": "6b49f2587a80b8a4145b865c749bd4da28649e24", "filename": "files/2024-01-10_R43838_6b49f2587a80b8a4145b865c749bd4da28649e24.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2024-01-10_R43838_6b49f2587a80b8a4145b865c749bd4da28649e24.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2024-01-10" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.590144", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_96_2023-10-03", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/96", "sha1": "9513b97cf6dcdd917d41d002b2a810f9796130bd", "filename": "files/2023-10-03_R43838_9513b97cf6dcdd917d41d002b2a810f9796130bd.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2023-10-03_R43838_9513b97cf6dcdd917d41d002b2a810f9796130bd.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2023-10-03" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.588988", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_94_2023-05-16", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/94", "sha1": "d17f0ba055e2f76f2902f95a7c82404003fd34a2", "filename": "files/2023-05-16_R43838_d17f0ba055e2f76f2902f95a7c82404003fd34a2.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2023-05-16_R43838_d17f0ba055e2f76f2902f95a7c82404003fd34a2.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2023-05-16" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.588306", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_93_2022-11-08", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/93", "sha1": "19bb8ef8496ecad875766b62fd9d6a961d486f35", "filename": "files/2022-11-08_R43838_19bb8ef8496ecad875766b62fd9d6a961d486f35.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2022-11-08_R43838_19bb8ef8496ecad875766b62fd9d6a961d486f35.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2022-11-08" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.587219", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_91_2022-03-10", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/91", "sha1": "f76f26b926bd551ac7807606a86760faefc9be04", "filename": "files/2022-03-10_R43838_f76f26b926bd551ac7807606a86760faefc9be04.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2022-03-10_R43838_f76f26b926bd551ac7807606a86760faefc9be04.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2022-03-10" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.586041", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_89_2022-03-01", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/89", "sha1": "30b8bb348460bffb4f13d15e9e347c4a037598f3", "filename": "files/2022-03-01_R43838_30b8bb348460bffb4f13d15e9e347c4a037598f3.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2022-03-01_R43838_30b8bb348460bffb4f13d15e9e347c4a037598f3.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2022-03-01" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.584789", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_87_2022-02-22", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/87", "sha1": "8c61d334d96dbd1ff6c5b59ff0f88825da1b6645", "filename": "files/2022-02-22_R43838_8c61d334d96dbd1ff6c5b59ff0f88825da1b6645.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2022-02-22_R43838_8c61d334d96dbd1ff6c5b59ff0f88825da1b6645.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2022-02-22" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.583518", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_85_2022-02-10", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/85", "sha1": "d9866d705bea2ffe5e21288a71ae27d6e51e7201", "filename": "files/2022-02-10_R43838_d9866d705bea2ffe5e21288a71ae27d6e51e7201.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2022-02-10_R43838_d9866d705bea2ffe5e21288a71ae27d6e51e7201.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2022-02-10" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.582837", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_84_2022-01-25", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/84", "sha1": "3ea80ede6f2369fbf390d061e798006fbe156759", "filename": "files/2022-01-25_R43838_3ea80ede6f2369fbf390d061e798006fbe156759.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2022-01-25_R43838_3ea80ede6f2369fbf390d061e798006fbe156759.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2022-01-25" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.582171", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_83_2021-12-21", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/83", "sha1": "87671e0ff2537eaac110d460ffda8741734951aa", "filename": "files/2021-12-21_R43838_87671e0ff2537eaac110d460ffda8741734951aa.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2021-12-21_R43838_87671e0ff2537eaac110d460ffda8741734951aa.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2021-12-21" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.581466", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_82_2021-12-02", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/82", "sha1": "7e72178fab13b5c1628a6959f0de9a5b76a8d3e5", "filename": "files/2021-12-02_R43838_7e72178fab13b5c1628a6959f0de9a5b76a8d3e5.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2021-12-02_R43838_7e72178fab13b5c1628a6959f0de9a5b76a8d3e5.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2021-12-02" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.580317", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_80_2021-11-17", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/80", "sha1": "4528479bbd7aaa39de9b8f9609097bc60a3decc5", "filename": "files/2021-11-17_R43838_4528479bbd7aaa39de9b8f9609097bc60a3decc5.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2021-11-17_R43838_4528479bbd7aaa39de9b8f9609097bc60a3decc5.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2021-11-17" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.579130", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_78_2021-10-07", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/78", "sha1": "4c622e09b10381edf0104ffbe67c225114dc7b28", "filename": "files/2021-10-07_R43838_4c622e09b10381edf0104ffbe67c225114dc7b28.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2021-10-07_R43838_4c622e09b10381edf0104ffbe67c225114dc7b28.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2021-10-07" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.578472", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_77_2021-09-09", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/77", "sha1": "f1bdd07cf0aebf252c63ddcf9daf3e91f602b106", "filename": "files/2021-09-09_R43838_f1bdd07cf0aebf252c63ddcf9daf3e91f602b106.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2021-09-09_R43838_f1bdd07cf0aebf252c63ddcf9daf3e91f602b106.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2021-09-09" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.577883", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_76_2021-08-03", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/76", "sha1": "c1e2ba7511bf7ad56b9eef80c4207deb595e2a00", "filename": "files/2021-08-03_R43838_c1e2ba7511bf7ad56b9eef80c4207deb595e2a00.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2021-08-03_R43838_c1e2ba7511bf7ad56b9eef80c4207deb595e2a00.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2021-08-03" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.576587", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_74_2021-07-08", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/74", "sha1": "e9ec96696680cacacc6c9a31090df32cfc9f8ccc", "filename": "files/2021-07-08_R43838_e9ec96696680cacacc6c9a31090df32cfc9f8ccc.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2021-07-08_R43838_e9ec96696680cacacc6c9a31090df32cfc9f8ccc.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2021-07-08" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.575365", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_72_2021-03-04", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/72", "sha1": "4af84c0d90b4f2667de1e31917a002fcd58acf98", "filename": "files/2021-03-04_R43838_4af84c0d90b4f2667de1e31917a002fcd58acf98.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2021-03-04_R43838_4af84c0d90b4f2667de1e31917a002fcd58acf98.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2021-03-04" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.574844", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_71_2021-01-27", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/71", "sha1": "3200894279bbbd9d184002b97f75f42c68e266e9", "filename": "files/2021-01-27_R43838_3200894279bbbd9d184002b97f75f42c68e266e9.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2021-01-27_R43838_3200894279bbbd9d184002b97f75f42c68e266e9.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2021-01-27" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.573898", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_70_2020-12-17", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/70", "sha1": "92e936426011e7b890c88a4f300a78380619bba8", "filename": "files/2020-12-17_R43838_92e936426011e7b890c88a4f300a78380619bba8.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2020-12-17_R43838_92e936426011e7b890c88a4f300a78380619bba8.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2020-12-17" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.571930", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_67_2020-12-03", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/67", "sha1": "6dc9841bc753e630c9c7b5c980180be6f31184e1", "filename": "files/2020-12-03_R43838_6dc9841bc753e630c9c7b5c980180be6f31184e1.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2020-12-03_R43838_6dc9841bc753e630c9c7b5c980180be6f31184e1.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2020-12-03" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.570556", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_65_2020-10-29", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/65", "sha1": "98876080a8b0d644eeca630d53b8d876368b0849", "filename": "files/2020-10-29_R43838_98876080a8b0d644eeca630d53b8d876368b0849.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2020-10-29_R43838_98876080a8b0d644eeca630d53b8d876368b0849.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2020-10-29" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.569026", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_63_2020-09-30", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/63", "sha1": "68d6f82e85a2f5e89b09bf1bb6b30daac327f8bd", "filename": "files/2020-09-30_R43838_68d6f82e85a2f5e89b09bf1bb6b30daac327f8bd.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2020-09-30_R43838_68d6f82e85a2f5e89b09bf1bb6b30daac327f8bd.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2020-09-30" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.568335", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_62_2020-08-25", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/62", "sha1": "5dcaf659d70a400381850a8093a1c8dcc81d313a", "filename": "files/2020-08-25_R43838_5dcaf659d70a400381850a8093a1c8dcc81d313a.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2020-08-25_R43838_5dcaf659d70a400381850a8093a1c8dcc81d313a.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2020-08-25" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.566775", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_60_2020-07-31", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/60", "sha1": "e7ed191767b06dc1857e22eaf1cdd0c9b09b44d9", "filename": "files/2020-07-31_R43838_e7ed191767b06dc1857e22eaf1cdd0c9b09b44d9.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2020-07-31_R43838_e7ed191767b06dc1857e22eaf1cdd0c9b09b44d9.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2020-07-31" }, { "summary": null, "typeId": "R", "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R43838", "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "type": "CRS Report", "retrieved": "2024-04-01T04:03:46.566228", "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "id": "R43838_59_2020-05-29", "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R43838/59", "sha1": "68779d31da6b3b917f18825990633ca64069003d", "filename": "files/2020-05-29_R43838_68779d31da6b3b917f18825990633ca64069003d.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2020-05-29_R43838_68779d31da6b3b917f18825990633ca64069003d.html" } ], "active": true, "title": "Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "date": "2020-05-29" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 624166, "date": "2020-05-01", "retrieved": "2020-05-19T13:55:37.512133", "title": "Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "Many observers have concluded that the post-Cold War era of international relations\u2014which began in the early 1990s and is sometimes referred to as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power)\u2014began to fade in 2006-2008, and that by 2014, the international environment had shifted to a fundamentally different situation of renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition was acknowledged alongside other considerations in the Obama Administration\u2019s June 2015 National Military Strategy, and was placed at the center of the Trump Administration\u2019s December 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) and January 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS). The December 2017 NSS and January 2018 NDS formally reoriented U.S. national security strategy and U.S. defense strategy toward an explicit primary focus on great power competition with China and Russia. Department of Defense (DOD) officials have subsequently identified countering China\u2019s military capabilities as DOD\u2019s top priority.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition has profoundly changed the conversation about U.S. defense issues. Counterterrorist operations and U.S. military operations in the Middle East, which moved to the center of discussions of U.S. defense issues following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, continue to be conducted, but are now a less dominant element in the conversation, and discussions of U.S. defense issues now feature a new or renewed emphasis on the following, all of which relate to China and/or Russia:\ngrand strategy and the geopolitics of great power competition as a starting point for discussing U.S. defense issues;\norganizational changes within DOD;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nthe global allocation of U.S. military force deployments;\nnew U.S. military service operational concepts;\nU.S. and allied military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end conventional warfare;\nmaintaining U.S. superiority in conventional weapon technologies;\ninnovation and speed of U.S. weapon system development and deployment, to help maintain U.S. superiority in fielded weapons;\nmobilization capabilities for an extended-length large-scale conflict;\nsupply chain security, meaning awareness and minimization of reliance in U.S. military systems on foreign components, subcomponents, materials, and software; and\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics.\nThe issue for Congress is how U.S. defense planning should respond to this shift, and whether to approve, reject, or modify the Trump Administration\u2019s proposed defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs for responding to this shift. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant or even profound implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "553b05646e185d4bf698463fc1f0ee7a04b7537a", "filename": "files/20200501_R43838_553b05646e185d4bf698463fc1f0ee7a04b7537a.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "ac8ed9b8526cf17bd3bc53ac54a6d234d72d3420", "filename": "files/20200501_R43838_ac8ed9b8526cf17bd3bc53ac54a6d234d72d3420.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 622012, "date": "2020-04-07", "retrieved": "2020-04-11T23:05:32.770807", "title": "Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "Many observers have concluded that the post-Cold War era of international relations\u2014which began in the early 1990s and is sometimes referred to as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power)\u2014began to fade in 2006-2008, and that by 2014, the international environment had shifted to a fundamentally different situation of renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition was acknowledged alongside other considerations in the Obama Administration\u2019s June 2015 National Military Strategy, and was placed at the center of the Trump Administration\u2019s December 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) and January 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS). The December 2017 NSS and January 2018 NDS formally reoriented U.S. national security strategy and U.S. defense strategy toward an explicit primary focus on great power competition with China and Russia. Department of Defense (DOD) officials have subsequently identified countering China\u2019s military capabilities as DOD\u2019s top priority.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition has profoundly changed the conversation about U.S. defense issues. Counterterrorist operations and U.S. military operations in the Middle East, which moved to the center of discussions of U.S. defense issues following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, continue to be conducted, but are now a less dominant element in the conversation, and discussions of U.S. defense issues now feature a new or renewed emphasis on the following, all of which relate to China and/or Russia:\ngrand strategy and the geopolitics of great power competition as a starting point for discussing U.S. defense issues;\norganizational changes within DOD;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nthe global allocation of U.S. military force deployments;\nnew U.S. military service operational concepts;\nU.S. and allied military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end conventional warfare;\nmaintaining U.S. superiority in conventional weapon technologies;\ninnovation and speed of U.S. weapon system development and deployment, to help maintain U.S. superiority in fielded weapons;\nmobilization capabilities for an extended-length large-scale conflict;\nsupply chain security, meaning awareness and minimization of reliance in U.S. military systems on foreign components, subcomponents, materials, and software; and\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics.\nThe issue for Congress is how U.S. defense planning should respond to this shift, and whether to approve, reject, or modify the Trump Administration\u2019s proposed defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs for responding to this shift. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant or even profound implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "69c95de4e28954033eb5f92005778cf319af5eca", "filename": "files/20200407_R43838_69c95de4e28954033eb5f92005778cf319af5eca.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "2418b568d1565c50400be22af124b5da916827ed", "filename": "files/20200407_R43838_2418b568d1565c50400be22af124b5da916827ed.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 619698, "date": "2020-03-12", "retrieved": "2020-03-15T19:15:13.508406", "title": "Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "Many observers have concluded that the post-Cold War era of international relations\u2014which began in the early 1990s and is sometimes referred to as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power)\u2014began to fade in 2006-2008, and that by 2014, the international environment had shifted to a fundamentally different situation of renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition was acknowledged alongside other considerations in the Obama Administration\u2019s June 2015 National Military Strategy, and was placed at the center of the Trump Administration\u2019s December 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) and January 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS). The December 2017 NSS and January 2018 NDS formally reoriented U.S. national security strategy and U.S. defense strategy toward an explicit primary focus on great power competition with China and Russia. Department of Defense (DOD) officials have subsequently identified countering China\u2019s military capabilities as DOD\u2019s top priority.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition has profoundly changed the conversation about U.S. defense issues. Counterterrorist operations and U.S. military operations in the Middle East, which moved to the center of discussions of U.S. defense issues following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, continue to be conducted, but are now a less dominant element in the conversation, and discussions of U.S. defense issues now feature a new or renewed emphasis on the following, all of which relate to China and/or Russia:\ngrand strategy and the geopolitics of great power competition as a starting point for discussing U.S. defense issues;\norganizational changes within DOD;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nthe global allocation of U.S. military force deployments;\nnew U.S. military service operational concepts;\nU.S. and allied military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end conventional warfare;\nmaintaining U.S. superiority in conventional weapon technologies;\ninnovation and speed of U.S. weapon system development and deployment, to help maintain U.S. superiority in fielded weapons;\nmobilization capabilities for an extended-length large-scale conflict;\nsupply chain security, meaning awareness and minimization of reliance in U.S. military systems on foreign components, subcomponents, materials, and software; and\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics.\nThe issue for Congress is how U.S. defense planning should respond to this shift, and whether to approve, reject, or modify the Trump Administration\u2019s proposed defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs for responding to this shift. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant or even profound implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "24aee6d6670f57a423395447b21c332bf9855af7", "filename": "files/20200312_R43838_24aee6d6670f57a423395447b21c332bf9855af7.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "329aff88da1e45bbd2d9cca84cba09119b81ec96", "filename": "files/20200312_R43838_329aff88da1e45bbd2d9cca84cba09119b81ec96.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 616177, "date": "2020-02-06", "retrieved": "2020-02-07T23:02:35.965925", "title": "Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "Many observers have concluded that the post-Cold War era of international relations\u2014which began in the early 1990s and is sometimes referred to as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power)\u2014began to fade in 2006-2008, and that by 2014, the international environment had shifted to a fundamentally different situation of renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition was acknowledged alongside other considerations in the Obama Administration\u2019s June 2015 National Military Strategy, and was placed at the center of the Trump Administration\u2019s December 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) and January 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS). The December 2017 NSS and January 2018 NDS formally reoriented U.S. national security strategy and U.S. defense strategy toward an explicit primary focus on great power competition with China and Russia. Department of Defense (DOD) officials have subsequently identified countering China\u2019s military capabilities as DOD\u2019s top priority.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition has profoundly changed the conversation about U.S. defense issues. Counterterrorist operations and U.S. military operations in the Middle East, which moved to the center of discussions of U.S. defense issues following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, continue to be conducted, but are now a less dominant element in the conversation, and discussions of U.S. defense issues now feature a new or renewed emphasis on the following, all of which relate to China and/or Russia:\ngrand strategy and the geopolitics of great power competition as a starting point for discussing U.S. defense issues;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nthe global allocation of U.S. military force deployments;\nnew U.S. military service operational concepts;\nU.S. and allied military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end conventional warfare;\nmaintaining U.S. superiority in conventional weapon technologies;\ninnovation and speed of U.S. weapon system development and deployment, to help maintain U.S. superiority in fielded weapons;\nmobilization capabilities for an extended-length large-scale conflict;\nsupply chain security, meaning awareness and minimization of reliance in U.S. military systems on foreign components, subcomponents, materials, and software; and\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics.\nThe issue for Congress is how U.S. defense planning should respond to this shift, and whether to approve, reject, or modify the Trump Administration\u2019s proposed defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs for responding to this shift. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant or even profound implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "978a58b8d0afc521507c1906e9969d01c023d933", "filename": "files/20200206_R43838_978a58b8d0afc521507c1906e9969d01c023d933.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "584da9dab65666884db374cf16b09b54dafc4f36", "filename": "files/20200206_R43838_584da9dab65666884db374cf16b09b54dafc4f36.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 615590, "date": "2020-01-31", "retrieved": "2020-02-01T23:07:20.904100", "title": "Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "Many observers have concluded that the post-Cold War era of international relations\u2014which began in the early 1990s and is sometimes referred to as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power)\u2014began to fade in 2006-2008, and that by 2014, the international environment had shifted to a fundamentally different situation of renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition was acknowledged alongside other considerations in the Obama Administration\u2019s June 2015 National Military Strategy, and was placed at the center of the Trump Administration\u2019s December 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) and January 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS). The December 2017 NSS and January 2018 NDS formally reoriented U.S. national security strategy and U.S. defense strategy toward an explicit primary focus on great power competition with China and Russia. Department of Defense (DOD) officials have subsequently identified countering China\u2019s military capabilities as DOD\u2019s top priority.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition has profoundly changed the conversation about U.S. defense issues. Counterterrorist operations and U.S. military operations in the Middle East, which moved to the center of discussions of U.S. defense issues following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, continue to be conducted, but are now a less dominant element in the conversation, and discussions of U.S. defense issues now feature a new or renewed emphasis on the following, all of which relate to China and/or Russia:\ngrand strategy and the geopolitics of great power competition as a starting point for discussing U.S. defense issues;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nthe global allocation of U.S. military force deployments;\nnew U.S. military service operational concepts;\nU.S. and allied military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end conventional warfare;\nmaintaining U.S. superiority in conventional weapon technologies;\ninnovation and speed of U.S. weapon system development and deployment, to help maintain U.S. superiority in fielded weapons;\nmobilization capabilities for an extended-length large-scale conflict;\nsupply chain security, meaning awareness and minimization of reliance in U.S. military systems on foreign components, subcomponents, materials, and software; and\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics.\nThe issue for Congress is how U.S. defense planning should respond to this shift, and whether to approve, reject, or modify the Trump Administration\u2019s proposed defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs for responding to this shift. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant or even profound implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "0407425bc927c5b1fdbad4129e876edd40d7e410", "filename": "files/20200131_R43838_0407425bc927c5b1fdbad4129e876edd40d7e410.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "e5fbbe400d6a75d11d01936f2c68b66954509f71", "filename": "files/20200131_R43838_e5fbbe400d6a75d11d01936f2c68b66954509f71.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 614765, "date": "2020-01-24", "retrieved": "2020-01-24T23:02:52.292682", "title": "Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "Many observers have concluded that the post-Cold War era of international relations\u2014an era that began in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and that was sometimes also referred to as the unipolar moment, with the United States as the unipolar power\u2014began to fade in 2006-2008, and that by 2014, the international environment had shifted to a fundamentally different situation of renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition was acknowledged in the Obama Administration\u2019s June 2015 National Military Strategy, and more fully in the Trump Administration\u2019s December 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) and January 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS), which formally reoriented U.S. national security strategy and U.S. defense strategy toward an explicit primary focus on great power competition with China and Russia. DOD officials have identified countering China\u2019s military capabilities as DOD\u2019s top priority.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition has profoundly changed the conversation about U.S. defense issues from what it was prior to 2014, leading to a reduced relative emphasis in the conversation on counterterrorist operations (although such operations continue), and to a new or renewed emphasis in the conversation on\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense issues;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nnew U.S. military service operational concepts;\nU.S. and allied military capabilities for countering China\u2019s military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities for countering Russia\u2019s military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end conventional warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\ninnovation and speed of weapon system development and deployment;\nmobilization capabilities for an extended-length large-scale conflict against an adversary such as China or Russia;\nsupply chain security, meaning awareness and minimization of reliance in U.S. military systems on components, subcomponents, materials, and software from Russia and China; and\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to the shift in the international environment from the post-Cold War era to the era of renewed great power competition. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant or even profound implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "c37adf730ae3f7960ba87f044c7bbbc8eae3662f", "filename": "files/20200124_R43838_c37adf730ae3f7960ba87f044c7bbbc8eae3662f.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "78b96dd61ba0739aabc62adfad19a6977b98b7e8", "filename": "files/20200124_R43838_78b96dd61ba0739aabc62adfad19a6977b98b7e8.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 611900, "date": "2019-12-19", "retrieved": "2019-12-20T16:15:50.420293", "title": "Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "Many observers have concluded that the post-Cold War era of international relations\u2014an era that began in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and that was sometimes also referred to as the unipolar moment, with the United States as the unipolar power\u2014began to fade in 2006-2008, and that by 2014, the international environment had shifted to a fundamentally different situation of renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition was acknowledged in the Obama Administration\u2019s June 2015 National Military Strategy, and more fully in the Trump Administration\u2019s December 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) and January 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS), which formally reoriented U.S. national security strategy and U.S. defense strategy toward an explicit primary focus on great power competition with China and Russia. DOD officials have identified countering China\u2019s military capabilities as DOD\u2019s top priority.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition has profoundly changed the conversation about U.S. defense issues from what it was prior to 2014, leading to a reduced relative emphasis in the conversation on counterterrorist operations (although such operations continue), and to a new or renewed emphasis in the conversation on\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense issues;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nnew U.S. military service operational concepts;\nU.S. and allied military capabilities for countering China\u2019s military capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities for countering Russia\u2019s military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end conventional warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\ninnovation and speed of weapon system development and deployment;\nmobilization capabilities for an extended-length large-scale conflict against an adversary such as China or Russia;\nsupply chain security, meaning awareness and minimization of reliance in U.S. military systems on components, subcomponents, materials, and software from Russia and China; and\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to the shift in the international environment from the post-Cold War era to the era of renewed great power competition. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant or even profound implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "ed5d0e068c112b8c177a3df186899398f32fd51e", "filename": "files/20191219_R43838_ed5d0e068c112b8c177a3df186899398f32fd51e.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "8ad78c369f510b1d51e0bbc11d1380754f1b05be", "filename": "files/20191219_R43838_8ad78c369f510b1d51e0bbc11d1380754f1b05be.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 607346, "date": "2019-11-07", "retrieved": "2019-12-13T15:27:41.847174", "title": "Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "Many observers have concluded that the post-Cold War era of international relations\u2014an era that began in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and that was sometimes also referred to as the unipolar moment, with the United States as the unipolar power\u2014began to fade in 2006-2008, and that by 2014, the international environment had shifted to a fundamentally different situation of renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition was acknowledged in the Obama Administration\u2019s June 2015 National Military Strategy, and more fully in the Trump Administration\u2019s December 2017 National Security Strategy (NSS) and January 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS), which formally reoriented U.S. national security strategy and U.S. defense strategy toward an explicit primary focus on great power competition with China and Russia. DOD officials have identified countering China\u2019s military capabilities as DOD\u2019s top priority.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition has profoundly changed the conversation about U.S. defense issues from what it was prior to 2014, leading to a reduced relative emphasis in the conversation on counterterrorist operations (although such operations continue), and to a new or renewed emphasis in the conversation on\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense issues;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nnew U.S. military service operational concepts;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end conventional warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\ninnovation and speed of weapon system development and deployment as a measure of merit in defense acquisition policy;\nmobilization capabilities for an extended-length large-scale conflict against an adversary such as China or Russia;\nsupply chain security, meaning awareness and minimization of reliance in U.S. military systems on components, subcomponents, materials, and software from Russia and China; and\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to the shift in the international environment from the post-Cold War era to the era of renewed great power competition. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant or even profound implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "3a88914778b52194c83cb66e474c5b8fb1df0d1b", "filename": "files/20191107_R43838_3a88914778b52194c83cb66e474c5b8fb1df0d1b.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "36da5363ad9598005a6e0238d7a3f16378a0499d", "filename": "files/20191107_R43838_36da5363ad9598005a6e0238d7a3f16378a0499d.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 605648, "date": "2019-09-24", "retrieved": "2019-10-10T22:26:42.049252", "title": "Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "World events in recent years have led observers, particularly since late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment in recent years has undergone a shift from the post-Cold War era that began in the late 1980s and early 1990s, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition has become a major factor in the debate over future U.S. defense spending levels, and has led to new or renewed emphasis on the following in discussions of U.S. defense strategy, plans, and programs:\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense budgets, plans, and programs;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nnew U.S. military service operational concepts;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end conventional warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\nspeed of weapon system development and deployment as a measure of merit in defense acquisition policy;\nmobilization capabilities for an extended-length large-scale conflict against an adversary such as China or Russia;\nminimizing reliance in U.S. military systems on components and materials from Russia and China; and\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to the shift in the international security environment. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "2a79b8e5fe6761711184c76bbee4bbeb3410d4b5", "filename": "files/20190924_R43838_2a79b8e5fe6761711184c76bbee4bbeb3410d4b5.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "c2dea458fb32141548df47f112f846a1e11e2d98", "filename": "files/20190924_R43838_c2dea458fb32141548df47f112f846a1e11e2d98.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 603490, "date": "2019-08-05", "retrieved": "2019-08-12T22:09:57.630570", "title": "Renewed Great Power Competition: Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "World events in recent years have led observers, particularly since late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment in recent years has undergone a shift from the post-Cold War era that began in the late 1980s and early 1990s, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nThe shift to renewed great power competition has become a major factor in the debate over future U.S. defense spending levels, and has led to new or renewed emphasis on the following in discussions of U.S. defense strategy, plans, and programs:\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense budgets, plans, and programs;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nnew U.S. military service operational concepts;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end conventional warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\nspeed of weapon system development and deployment as a measure of merit in defense acquisition policy;\nmobilization capabilities for an extended-length large-scale conflict against an adversary such as China or Russia;\nminimizing reliance in U.S. military systems on components and materials from Russia and China; and\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to the shift in the international security environment. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "c71124a10a19e5d684ea202081de29677165b2bf", "filename": "files/20190805_R43838_c71124a10a19e5d684ea202081de29677165b2bf.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "c75778154bda3e8f8bfcaa1f9b4e367375700811", "filename": "files/20190805_R43838_c75778154bda3e8f8bfcaa1f9b4e367375700811.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 586848, "date": "2018-10-24", "retrieved": "2019-04-18T13:32:20.867139", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "World events in recent years have led observers, particularly since late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment in recent years has undergone a shift from the post-Cold War era that began in the late 1980s and early 1990s, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nThe shift in the international security environment has become a major factor in the debate over future U.S. defense spending levels, and has led to new or renewed emphasis on the following in discussions of U.S. defense strategy, plans, and programs:\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense budgets, plans, and programs;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end conventional warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\nspeed of weapon system development and deployment as a measure of merit in defense acquisition policy;\nminimizing reliance in U.S. military systems on components and materials from Russia and China; and\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to the shift in the international security environment. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "cd3a20c6f4a025fb2774878327820aba1bed1989", "filename": "files/20181024_R43838_cd3a20c6f4a025fb2774878327820aba1bed1989.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "fd72c9a2f744419b3ff915ddc881ed7ce74caddf", "filename": "files/20181024_R43838_fd72c9a2f744419b3ff915ddc881ed7ce74caddf.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 583639, "date": "2018-08-03", "retrieved": "2018-08-09T13:39:55.853227", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "World events in recent years have led observers, particularly since late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment in recent years has undergone a shift from the post-Cold War era that began in the late 1980s and early 1990s, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nThe shift in the international security environment has become a major factor in the debate over future U.S. defense spending levels, and has led to new or renewed emphasis on the following in discussions of U.S. defense strategy, plans, and programs:\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense budgets, plans, and programs;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nspeed of weapon system development and deployment as a measure of merit in defense acquisition policy; and\nminimizing reliance in U.S. military systems on components and materials from Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to the shift in the international security environment. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "4d52a6388c7925abb930687dc17865de4ad9d03b", "filename": "files/20180803_R43838_4d52a6388c7925abb930687dc17865de4ad9d03b.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "334dbdc7366d87196f20ad11e15fbba349b4fab8", "filename": "files/20180803_R43838_334dbdc7366d87196f20ad11e15fbba349b4fab8.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 583021, "date": "2018-07-20", "retrieved": "2018-07-24T14:09:37.781755", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "World events in recent years have led observers, particularly since late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment in recent years has undergone a shift from the post-Cold War era that began in the late 1980s and early 1990s, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nThe shift in the international security environment has become a major factor in the debate over future U.S. defense spending levels, and has led to new or renewed emphasis on the following in discussions of U.S. defense strategy, plans, and programs:\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense budgets, plans, and programs;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nspeed of weapon system development and deployment as a measure of merit in defense acquisition policy; and\nminimizing reliance in U.S. military systems on components and materials from Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to the shift in the international security environment. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "330f80a51f0bc7a697e827d2d09c08a7a0e3196c", "filename": "files/20180720_R43838_330f80a51f0bc7a697e827d2d09c08a7a0e3196c.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "388e793f4d1438b769aff05dfb2c5a130bee80ea", "filename": "files/20180720_R43838_388e793f4d1438b769aff05dfb2c5a130bee80ea.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 580536, "date": "2018-04-26", "retrieved": "2018-05-10T10:20:50.534850", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "World events in recent years have led observers, particularly since late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment in recent years has undergone a shift from the post-Cold War era that began in the late 1980s and early 1990s, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nA previous change in the international security environment\u2014the shift in the late 1980s and early 1990s from the Cold War to the post-Cold War era\u2014prompted a broad reassessment by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress of defense funding levels, strategy, and missions that led to numerous changes in DOD plans and programs. Many of these changes were articulated in the 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR), a reassessment of U.S. defense plans and programs whose very name conveyed the fundamental nature of the reexamination that had occurred.\nThe recent shift in the international security environment that observers have identified\u2014from the post-Cold War era to a new situation\u2014has become a major factor in the debate over the size of the U.S. defense budget in coming years, and over whether the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (S. 365/P.L. 112-25 of August 2, 2011) as amended should be further amended or repealed. Additional emerging implications of the shift include a new or renewed emphasis on the following in discussions of U.S. defense strategy, plans, and programs:\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense budgets, plans, and programs;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nspeed of weapon system development and deployment as a measure of merit in defense acquisition policy; and\nminimizing reliance in U.S. military systems on components and materials from Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to changes in the international security environment. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "4170f1217232aa6233a7621f6ba10f8d41ce1a00", "filename": "files/20180426_R43838_4170f1217232aa6233a7621f6ba10f8d41ce1a00.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "bd1cd1778d6231f247b9662d1f4dfce2c5fdff25", "filename": "files/20180426_R43838_bd1cd1778d6231f247b9662d1f4dfce2c5fdff25.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 576516, "date": "2017-12-12", "retrieved": "2017-12-14T14:15:25.797919", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "World events in recent years have led observers, particularly since late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment in recent years has undergone a shift from the post-Cold War era that began in the late 1980s and early 1990s, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nA previous change in the international security environment\u2014the shift in the late 1980s and early 1990s from the Cold War to the post-Cold War era\u2014prompted a broad reassessment by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress of defense funding levels, strategy, and missions that led to numerous changes in DOD plans and programs. Many of these changes were articulated in the 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR), a reassessment of U.S. defense plans and programs whose very name conveyed the fundamental nature of the reexamination that had occurred.\nThe recent shift in the international security environment that observers have identified\u2014from the post-Cold War era to a new situation\u2014has become a factor in the debate over the size of the U.S. defense budget in coming years, and over whether the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (S. 365/P.L. 112-25 of August 2, 2011) as amended should be further amended or repealed. Additional emerging implications of the shift include a new or renewed emphasis on the following in discussions of U.S. defense strategy, plans, and programs:\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense budgets, plans, and programs;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nspeed of weapon system development and deployment as a measure of merit in defense acquisition policy; and\nminimizing reliance in U.S. military systems on components and materials from Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is whether to conduct a broad reassessment of U.S. defense analogous to the 1993 BUR, and more generally, how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to changes in the international security environment. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "426e5cd2c4ac93a2d07b40f5dcf42f21abc96243", "filename": "files/20171212_R43838_426e5cd2c4ac93a2d07b40f5dcf42f21abc96243.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "cae1bb77b83cd8068c3b01372ceba0ff39f72b27", "filename": "files/20171212_R43838_cae1bb77b83cd8068c3b01372ceba0ff39f72b27.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 574933, "date": "2017-10-26", "retrieved": "2017-10-31T13:19:50.589111", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "World events in recent years have led observers, starting in late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment has undergone a shift from the familiar post-Cold War era of the past 20 to 25 years, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nA previous change in the international security environment\u2014the shift in the late 1980s and early 1990s from the Cold War to the post-Cold War era\u2014prompted a broad reassessment by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress of defense funding levels, strategy, and missions that led to numerous changes in DOD plans and programs. Many of these changes were articulated in the 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR), a reassessment of U.S. defense plans and programs whose very name conveyed the fundamental nature of the reexamination that had occurred.\nThe recent shift in the international security environment that observers have identified\u2014from the post-Cold War era to a new situation\u2014has become a factor in the debate over the size of the U.S. defense budget in coming years, and over whether the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (S. 365/P.L. 112-25 of August 2, 2011) as amended should be further amended or repealed. Additional emerging implications of the shift include a new or renewed emphasis on the following in discussions of U.S. defense strategy, plans, and programs:\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense budgets, plans, and programs;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nspeed of weapon system development and deployment as a measure of merit in defense acquisition policy; and\nminimizing reliance in U.S. military systems on components and materials from Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is whether to conduct a broad reassessment of U.S. defense analogous to the 1993 BUR, and more generally, how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to changes in the international security environment. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "5246db86e613daba727cf6b9823ed843ac953469", "filename": "files/20171026_R43838_5246db86e613daba727cf6b9823ed843ac953469.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "cbd8c20c0462785fa017b17ce9b773399b8d732c", "filename": "files/20171026_R43838_cbd8c20c0462785fa017b17ce9b773399b8d732c.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 465990, "date": "2017-09-15", "retrieved": "2017-10-02T22:23:10.586690", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "World events have led some observers, starting in late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment has undergone a shift from the familiar post-Cold War era of the past 20 to 25 years, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nA previous change in the international security environment\u2014the shift in the late 1980s and early 1990s from the Cold War to the post-Cold War era\u2014prompted a broad reassessment by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress of defense funding levels, strategy, and missions that led to numerous changes in DOD plans and programs. Many of these changes were articulated in the 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR), a reassessment of U.S. defense plans and programs whose very name conveyed the fundamental nature of the reexamination that had occurred.\nThe recent shift in the international security environment that some observers have identified\u2014from the post-Cold War era to a new situation\u2014has become a factor in the debate over the size of the U.S. defense budget in coming years, and over whether the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (S. 365/P.L. 112-25 of August 2, 2011) as amended should be further amended or repealed. Additional emerging implications of the shift include a new or renewed emphasis on the following in discussions of U.S. defense strategy, plans, and programs:\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense budgets, plans, and programs;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nspeed of weapon system development and deployment as a measure of merit in defense acquisition policy; and\nminimizing reliance in U.S. military systems on components and materials from Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is whether to conduct a broad reassessment of U.S. defense analogous to the 1993 BUR, and more generally, how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to changes in the international security environment. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "3e2704e93d27e602302c07ef0ab5ee7889790ac9", "filename": "files/20170915_R43838_3e2704e93d27e602302c07ef0ab5ee7889790ac9.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "3fa7c08e473e8688521631f7811bd023ae840e78", "filename": "files/20170915_R43838_3fa7c08e473e8688521631f7811bd023ae840e78.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 463380, "date": "2017-08-16", "retrieved": "2017-08-21T14:19:07.132576", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "World events have led some observers, starting in late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment has undergone a shift from the familiar post-Cold War era of the past 20 to 25 years, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nA previous change in the international security environment\u2014the shift in the late 1980s and early 1990s from the Cold War to the post-Cold War era\u2014prompted a broad reassessment by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress of defense funding levels, strategy, and missions that led to numerous changes in DOD plans and programs. Many of these changes were articulated in the 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR), a reassessment of U.S. defense plans and programs whose very name conveyed the fundamental nature of the reexamination that had occurred.\nThe recent shift in the international security environment that some observers have identified\u2014from the post-Cold War era to a new situation\u2014has become a factor in the debate over the size of the U.S. defense budget in coming years, and over whether the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (S. 365/P.L. 112-25 of August 2, 2011) as amended should be further amended or repealed. Additional emerging implications of the shift include a new or renewed emphasis on the following in discussions of U.S. defense strategy, plans, and programs:\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense budgets, plans, and programs;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nspeed of weapon system development and deployment as a measure of merit in defense acquisition policy; and\nminimizing reliance in U.S. military systems on components and materials from Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is whether to conduct a broad reassessment of U.S. defense analogous to the 1993 BUR, and more generally, how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to changes in the international security environment. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "5cf076e199d6216226f3fa65e2068a87069d81c1", "filename": "files/20170816_R43838_5cf076e199d6216226f3fa65e2068a87069d81c1.html", "images": {} }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "a12fcd9815d56ab2f69cd7c458f84f3978201061", "filename": "files/20170816_R43838_a12fcd9815d56ab2f69cd7c458f84f3978201061.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 461728, "date": "2017-06-07", "retrieved": "2017-06-16T16:03:49.755397", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "World events have led some observers, starting in late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment has undergone a shift from the familiar post-Cold War era of the past 20 to 25 years, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nA previous change in the international security environment\u2014the shift in the late 1980s and early 1990s from the Cold War to the post-Cold War era\u2014prompted a broad reassessment by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress of defense funding levels, strategy, and missions that led to numerous changes in DOD plans and programs. Many of these changes were articulated in the 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR), a reassessment of U.S. defense plans and programs whose very name conveyed the fundamental nature of the reexamination that had occurred.\nThe recent shift in the international security environment that some observers have identified\u2014from the post-Cold War era to a new situation\u2014has become a factor in the debate over the size of the U.S. defense budget in coming years, and over whether the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (S. 365/P.L. 112-25 of August 2, 2011) as amended should be further amended or repealed. Additional emerging implications of the shift include a new or renewed emphasis on the following in discussions of U.S. defense strategy, plans, and programs:\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense budgets, plans, and programs;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nspeed of weapon system development and deployment as a measure of merit in defense acquisition policy; and\nminimizing reliance in U.S. military systems on components and materials from Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is whether to conduct a broad reassessment of U.S. defense analogous to the 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR), and more generally, how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to changes in the international security environment. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "5aaedd50dac94ef1b5879f2931c388fd8e52dc51", "filename": "files/20170607_R43838_5aaedd50dac94ef1b5879f2931c388fd8e52dc51.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "39b7e5f7b661a1ec055b5d750fc642a3973ee9f8", "filename": "files/20170607_R43838_39b7e5f7b661a1ec055b5d750fc642a3973ee9f8.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 461429, "date": "2017-05-19", "retrieved": "2017-05-24T16:15:27.787035", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "World events have led some observers, starting in late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment has undergone a shift from the familiar post-Cold War era of the past 20 to 25 years, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nA previous change in the international security environment\u2014the shift in the late 1980s and early 1990s from the Cold War to the post-Cold War era\u2014prompted a broad reassessment by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress of defense funding levels, strategy, and missions that led to numerous changes in DOD plans and programs. Many of these changes were articulated in the 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR), a reassessment of U.S. defense plans and programs whose very name conveyed the fundamental nature of the reexamination that had occurred.\nThe recent shift in the international security environment that some observers have identified\u2014from the post-Cold War era to a new situation\u2014has become a factor in the debate over the size of the U.S. defense budget in coming years, and over whether the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (S. 365/P.L. 112-25 of August 2, 2011) as amended should be further amended or repealed. Additional emerging implications of the shift include a new or renewed emphasis on the following in discussions of U.S. defense strategy, plans, and programs:\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense budgets, plans, and programs;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nspeed of weapon system development and deployment as a measure of merit in defense acquisition policy; and\nminimizing reliance in U.S. military systems on components and materials from Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is whether to conduct a broad reassessment of U.S. defense analogous to the 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR), and more generally, how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to changes in the international security environment. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "96a6984049b9185440c86a62e60c06105b8c0f23", "filename": "files/20170519_R43838_96a6984049b9185440c86a62e60c06105b8c0f23.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "901cff17072de15f42663e92edf6a72b7c6f694d", "filename": "files/20170519_R43838_901cff17072de15f42663e92edf6a72b7c6f694d.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 459997, "date": "2017-03-23", "retrieved": "2017-03-29T20:03:32.469579", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "World events have led some observers, starting in late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment has undergone a shift from the familiar post-Cold War era of the past 20 to 25 years, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nA previous change in the international security environment\u2014the shift in the late 1980s and early 1990s from the Cold War to the post-Cold War era\u2014prompted a broad reassessment by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress of defense funding levels, strategy, and missions that led to numerous changes in DOD plans and programs. Many of these changes were articulated in the 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR), a reassessment of U.S. defense plans and programs whose very name conveyed the fundamental nature of the reexamination that had occurred.\nThe recent shift in the international security environment that some observers have identified\u2014from the post-Cold War era to a new situation\u2014has become a factor in the debate over the size of the U.S. defense budget in coming years, and over whether the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (S. 365/P.L. 112-25 of August 2, 2011) as amended should be further amended or repealed. Additional emerging implications of the shift include a new or renewed emphasis on the following in discussions of U.S. defense strategy, plans, and programs:\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense budgets, plans, and programs;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nspeed of weapon system development and deployment as a measure of merit in defense acquisition policy; and\nminimizing reliance in U.S. military systems on components and materials from Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is whether to conduct a broad reassessment of U.S. defense analogous to the 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR), and more generally, how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to changes in the international security environment. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "5d7ee84741293e43ea28d7dc93e820d99926202a", "filename": "files/20170323_R43838_5d7ee84741293e43ea28d7dc93e820d99926202a.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "b1163a5f405499ac20a020ad67decfb736daa33c", "filename": "files/20170323_R43838_b1163a5f405499ac20a020ad67decfb736daa33c.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 453170, "date": "2016-06-08", "retrieved": "2016-10-17T19:54:48.398654", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "World events have led some observers, starting in late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment has undergone a shift from the familiar post-Cold War era of the past 20 to 25 years, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nA previous change in the international security environment\u2014the shift in the late 1980s and early 1990s from the Cold War to the post-Cold War era\u2014prompted a broad reassessment by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress of defense funding levels, strategy, and missions that led to numerous changes in DOD plans and programs. Many of these changes were articulated in the 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR), a reassessment of U.S. defense plans and programs whose very name conveyed the fundamental nature of the reexamination that had occurred.\nThe shift in the international security environment that some observers have identified\u2014from the post-Cold War era to a new situation\u2014has become a factor in the debate over the size of the U.S. defense budget in coming years, and over whether the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (S. 365/P.L. 112-25 of August 2, 2011) as amended should be further amended or repealed. Additional emerging implications of the shift include a new or renewed emphasis on the following in discussions of U.S. defense strategy, plans, and programs:\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense budgets, plans, and programs;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nspeed of weapon system development and deployment as a measure of merit in defense acquisition policy; and\nminimizing reliance in U.S. military systems on components and materials from Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is whether to conduct a broad reassessment of U.S. defense analogous to the 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR), and more generally, how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to changes in the international security environment. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "71627c67e7d82d4674e5217fbb625bcac4f63032", "filename": "files/20160608_R43838_71627c67e7d82d4674e5217fbb625bcac4f63032.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "b04612862a2f41bd8df87fc1ab36f8f8e58e0a9d", "filename": "files/20160608_R43838_b04612862a2f41bd8df87fc1ab36f8f8e58e0a9d.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4903, "name": "Strategy, Operations, & Emerging Threats" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc855806/", "id": "R43838_2016May31", "date": "2016-05-31", "retrieved": "2016-08-07T13:31:21", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense--Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report briefly describes the shift in the international security environment that some observers believe has occurred, and identifies some defense-related issues for Congress that could arise from it. Congress's decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20160531_R43838_c0407c71a3af48967f29a26f3200cdb945d5fa9a.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20160531_R43838_c0407c71a3af48967f29a26f3200cdb945d5fa9a.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "National security", "name": "National security" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International relations", "name": "International relations" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International affairs", "name": "International affairs" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 451292, "date": "2016-03-30", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T16:50:30.113363", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense\u2014Issues for Congress", "summary": "World events have led some observers, starting in late 2013, to conclude that the international security environment has undergone a shift from the familiar post-Cold War era of the past 20 to 25 years, also sometimes known as the unipolar moment (with the United States as the unipolar power), to a new and different situation that features, among other things, renewed great power competition with China and Russia and challenges by these two countries and others to elements of the U.S.-led international order that has operated since World War II.\nA previous change in the international security environment\u2014the shift in the late 1980s and early 1990s from the Cold War to the post-Cold War era\u2014prompted a broad reassessment by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress of defense funding levels, strategy, and missions that led to numerous changes in DOD plans and programs. Many of these changes were articulated in the 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR), a reassessment of U.S. defense plans and programs whose very name conveyed the fundamental nature of the reexamination that had occurred.\nThe shift in the international security environment that some observers have identified\u2014from the post-Cold War era to a new situation\u2014has become a factor in the debate over the size of the U.S. defense budget in coming years, and over whether the Budget Control Act (BCA) of 2011 (S. 365/P.L. 112-25 of August 2, 2011) as amended should be further amended or repealed. Additional emerging implications of the shift include a new or renewed emphasis on the following in discussions of U.S. defense strategy, plans, and programs:\ngrand strategy and geopolitics as part of the context for discussing U.S. defense budgets, plans, and programs;\nU.S. and NATO military capabilities in Europe;\ncapabilities for countering so-called hybrid warfare and gray-zone tactics employed by countries such as Russia and China;\ncapabilities for conducting so-called high-end warfare (i.e., large-scale, high-intensity, technologically sophisticated warfare) against countries such as China and Russia;\nmaintaining U.S. technological superiority in conventional weapons;\nnuclear weapons and nuclear deterrence;\nspeed of weapon system development and deployment as a measure of merit in defense acquisition policy; and\nminimizing reliance in U.S. military systems on components and materials from Russia and China.\nThe issue for Congress is whether to conduct a broad reassessment of U.S. defense analogous to the 1993 Bottom-Up Review (BUR), and more generally, how U.S. defense funding levels, strategy, plans, and programs should respond to changes in the international security environment. Congress\u2019s decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R43838", "sha1": "44595ec8fcf998490080d719e071fd35d2157fed", "filename": "files/20160330_R43838_44595ec8fcf998490080d719e071fd35d2157fed.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R43838", "sha1": "c218246b830525b45bfc7cc3740d85e270706a7e", "filename": "files/20160330_R43838_c218246b830525b45bfc7cc3740d85e270706a7e.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 3153, "name": "Defense Strategy, Military Operations, and Force Structure" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc795926/", "id": "R43838_2015Dec21", "date": "2015-12-21", "retrieved": "2016-01-13T14:26:20", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense--Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report briefly describes the shift in the international security environment that some observers believe has occurred, and identifies some defense related issues for Congress that could arise from it. Congress's decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20151221_R43838_4979909d1128a8b72b15f2fc5dffc1a0bd80a7dd.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20151221_R43838_4979909d1128a8b72b15f2fc5dffc1a0bd80a7dd.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "National security", "name": "National security" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International relations", "name": "International relations" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International affairs", "name": "International affairs" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc795904/", "id": "R43838_2015Nov20", "date": "2015-11-20", "retrieved": "2016-01-13T14:26:20", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense--Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report briefly describes the shift in the international security environment that some observers believe has occurred, and identifies some defense related issues for Congress that could arise from it. Congress's decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20151120_R43838_0fc92ae5837330a4916c66cb7b7f7ed1b286db7a.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20151120_R43838_0fc92ae5837330a4916c66cb7b7f7ed1b286db7a.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "International relations", "name": "International relations" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International affairs", "name": "International affairs" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "National security", "name": "National security" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc795659/", "id": "R43838_2015Sep24", "date": "2015-09-24", "retrieved": "2016-01-13T14:26:20", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense--Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report briefly describes the shift in the international security environment that some observers believe has occurred, and identifies some defense-related issues for Congress that could arise from it. Congress's decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150924_R43838_d4361e1e55fff1d2f8b7ef19f352093856176606.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150924_R43838_d4361e1e55fff1d2f8b7ef19f352093856176606.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "National security", "name": "National security" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International relations", "name": "International relations" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International affairs", "name": "International affairs" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc700656/", "id": "R43838_2015Jul14", "date": "2015-07-14", "retrieved": "2015-08-27T16:20:31", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense--Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report briefly describes the shift in the international security environment that some observers believe has occurred, and identifies some defense related issues for Congress that could arise from it. Congress's decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150714_R43838_ebe29e416bd0c61ca4777f51179e831975002722.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150714_R43838_ebe29e416bd0c61ca4777f51179e831975002722.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "National security", "name": "National security" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International relations", "name": "International relations" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International affairs", "name": "International affairs" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc689168/", "id": "R43838_2015Jun12", "date": "2015-06-12", "retrieved": "2015-08-03T15:06:47", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense--Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report discusses the shift in the international security environment that some observers believe has occurred, and identifies some potential defense related issues for Congress. Congress's decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150612_R43838_2b03bce9d17556688f56cae71cc1d19ea55fc84d.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150612_R43838_2b03bce9d17556688f56cae71cc1d19ea55fc84d.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "National security", "name": "National security" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International relations", "name": "International relations" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International affairs", "name": "International affairs" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc689470/", "id": "R43838_2015Jun09", "date": "2015-06-09", "retrieved": "2015-08-03T15:06:47", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense--Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report briefly describes the shift in the international security environment that some observers believe has occurred, and identifies some defense related issues for Congress that could arise from it. Congress's decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150609_R43838_af455dbf38fa028c42969d7e774dc1de1ddfc509.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150609_R43838_af455dbf38fa028c42969d7e774dc1de1ddfc509.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "National security", "name": "National security" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International relations", "name": "International relations" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International affairs", "name": "International affairs" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc505589/", "id": "R43838_2015Mar20", "date": "2015-03-20", "retrieved": "2015-05-29T05:37:21", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense--Issues for Congress", "summary": "This report briefly describes the shift in the international security environment that some observers believe has occurred, and identifies some defense related issues for Congress that could arise from it. Congress's decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150320_R43838_5a1c75f89413356213f6e5a09d7e2d3c81bf79ea.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150320_R43838_5a1c75f89413356213f6e5a09d7e2d3c81bf79ea.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "National security", "name": "National security" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International relations", "name": "International relations" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International affairs", "name": "International affairs" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc501743/", "id": "R43838_2015Jan21", "date": "2015-01-21", "retrieved": "2015-03-30T22:03:27", "title": "A Shift in the International Security Environment: Potential Implications for Defense--Issues for Congress", "summary": "A shift in the international security environment could have significant implications for U.S. defense plans and programs. A previous shift in the international security environment--from the Cold War to the post-Cold War era--prompted a broad reassessment by the Department of Defense (DOD) and Congress of defense funding levels, strategy, and missions that led to numerous changes in DOD plans and programs. The issue for Congress is whether a shift in the international security environment has occurred, and if so, how to respond to that shift. This report briefly describes the shift in the international security environment that some observers believe has occurred, and identifies some defense-related issues for Congress that could arise from it. Congress' decisions on these issues could have significant implications for U.S. defense capabilities and funding requirements.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20150121_R43838_eb5287927aa14659341dbaed72294ace9b8642b5.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20150121_R43838_eb5287927aa14659341dbaed72294ace9b8642b5.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Defense policy", "name": "Defense policy" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "National security", "name": "National security" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International relations", "name": "International relations" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "International affairs", "name": "International affairs" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Economic Policy", "Foreign Affairs", "Intelligence and National Security", "National Defense" ] }