For almost three decades, CSBA has been a reliable source of independent, path-breaking research focused on the future of defense.
The heart of CSBA is our staff of uniquely qualified defense experts who conduct in-depth strategic and budgetary analyses.
Indeed, when it comes to negation of important missile defense investments, the above mirrors an interview I conducted back in 2014 with experts from the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA). When I asked them about the utility of US missiles defenses against hypersonic weapons they explained: “Defensive missiles have very limited time and a finite amount of energy available to position themselves to intercept an incoming offensive missile.
John Stillion, a former RAND analyst and contributor to the 2008 war game and the 2011 paper, wrote a paper [10] for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a Washington, D.C., think tank, proposing that the Pentagon’s next fighter should be the size of a bomber and carry 24 air-to-air missiles while also controlling drones hauling their own missiles...Stillion’s proposal were hints that the arsenal-plane concept was gaining legitimacy in military circles. But the first arsenal plane could be a fighter rather than a bomber.
In the U.S. military, at least, the “pivot” to Asia has begun. By 2020, the navy and the air force plan to base 60 percent of their forces in the Asia-Pacific region. The Pentagon, meanwhile, is investing a growing share of its shrinking resources in new long-range bombers and nuclear-powered submarines designed to operate in high-threat environments.
While proponents of different U.S. grand strategies might concur that China has the greatest potential to challenge America over the long run, they don’t see that challenge as a very serious one in the near term. Why?