In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich describes the current threats facing the United States and argues that the need for a well-crafted defense strategy has never been greater. Three revisionist powers in three different regions are confronting the United States and actively challenging the rules-based international system. At the same time, the means available to address these challenges are diminishing. The United States will need to develop different ways of deterring our enemies and of defeating them if deterrence fails. This effort should be informed by (and inform) the strategy we adopt.
"Nobody does defense policy better than CSBA. Their work on strategic and budgetary topics manages to combine first-rate quality and in-depth research with timeliness and accessibility—which is why so many professionals consider their products indispensable." – Gideon Rose, Editor, Foreign Affairs.
In his remarks before the House Armed Services Seapower and Power Projection Forces Subcommittee, Bryan Clark argues that American undersea dominance will increasingly be contested by competitors who are pursuing new detection technologies while growing and quieting their own submarine fleets. To affordably sustain its undersea advantage well into this century, the U.S. Navy must accelerate innovation in undersea warfare by evolving the role of manned submarines and exploiting emerging technologies to field a new "family of undersea systems."
In his remarks before the House Armed Services Committee, Mark Gunzinger argues that the Air Force has an opportunity to create a family of systems that will maintain America's long-range strike advantage well into the future. The U.S. military needs a penetrating bomber that is large enough and has sufficient range to ensure it is able to deliver high volumes of munitions deep into denied areas. Failing to field a long-range strike platform or procuring it only in very small numbers would extend America's long-range strike capability gap, allowing future enemies more time to mature capabilities that threaten our ability to project power.
In this testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Ambassador Eric Edelman asserts that the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue is deeply flawed because it concedes an enrichment capacity that is too large, sunset clauses that are too short, a verification regime that is too leaky, and enforcement mechanisms that are too suspect. He asserts that the prospect of Iranian nuclear latency will, in turn, put the Middle East on the path to a catastrophic arms race. Ultimately, Ambassador Edelman recommends that Congress disapprove the agreement in order to allow for a more stringent deal to be renegotiated.
In this testimony before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Seapower and Projection Forces, Bryan Clark argues that the Navy needs a new approach to surface warfare in light of new security challenges. Today's security environment is not as benign or stable as it was 15 years ago, when the Navy planned a "network-centric" approach to surface warfare supported by a family of new ships.
In this testimony before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, Dr. Evan Montgomery discusses the implications of China's offensive missile force. He argues that in the face of an eroding conventional military advantage in the Western Pacific, the United States faces acute challenges to its forward defense posture.