The world is facing truly breathtaking changes, in particular from the socialist countries. The traditional rigidity of communist regimes and the preeminence of the communist parties in these countries are breaking down. Strong voices of nationalism within the Soviet Union are challenging the very integrity of the union itself. Thus, a bipolar world--where the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), led by the United States, and the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO), led by the Soviet Union, represent both .an ideological schism and a superpower confrontation--is no longer the basis or even a dominant force for threatened conflict.

The recognition is growing that such factors as economic strength, abundance of basic resources, productivity, and the health and morale of the population are in many respects stronger bases of national security than are military forces. This recognition conflicts sharply with the concept of national security as defined in the Dictionary of Military Terms (issued by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff) as "a military or defense advantage over any foreign nation or group of nations."

In view of all these developments, the realization that military power and national security are not synonymous is becoming more prevalent in the United States.  More attention is focusing on internal threats from deficiencies such as those in education, from erosion of the country's infrastructure, drugs, and problems of the environment. This attention, in turn, has deflected public concern and attention from military issues. The decreased concern not only has diminished the priority given to military preparedness but also, unfortunately, has lessened the concern with arms control.

This paper addresses the steps that the United States should take to insure the continuation of its position of influence and involvement in world commerce and geopolitics in light of the developments in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.  The developments are both positive--prodemocracy movements, lessened tensions--and negative, the latter suggesting that there may well be a period in which pent-up ethnic, ideological, and nationalistic pressures could give rise to local conflicts and regional disputes throughout the world, not just in Eastern Europe.

For all the time and frustration that humans expend interacting with computers, it is surprising that more attention is not paid to the impact the computers used by armed forces might have on security and peace. The military, like the rest of us, is dependent on its computers and interacts with them unceasingly, often in critical situations. Never before have our armies been so intimately dependent on their tools, certainly not ones as complex, or as apparently capricious as misapplied computers can be. This paper looks at the ways in which this peculiar human involvement with computer systems requires special attention, most critically in the military context, from policymakers and researchers.

The national security strategy of the United States since World War II has changed frequently during the course of eight administrations and two wars. But it has also had an underlying consistency, driven by three major factors: the Cold War, the United States' position as leader of the Western world, and the economic strength of the United States. In the 1990s, however, U.S. national security strategy is likely to be very different as the Cold War abates, the United States' role with allies evolves from one of dominance to one of senior partnership, and the U.S. economy is stressed by actions to reduce the budget and trade deficits.

Though fairly stable over the past decade, the Asian-Pacific area is entering a fluid stage, heralding important changes. Whether these changes will be conducive to a more peaceful, stable, and prosperous Asia-Pacific, or ominous of the approach of new chaos and conflict
in the region, is of concern to many. This paper attempts to highlight the opportunities as well as challenges that the region will face in the next ten to fifteen years and explores the possibility of creating a more propitious strategic framework, in which the level of military confrontation between the superpowers would be reduced, economic integration and political cooperation among the Asian-Pacific states enhanced, and potential crises removed.

The strategic situation in the Asian-Pacific area can be viewed from two perspectives--from that of relations among the United States, the Soviet Union, and China, and that of the regional balance of the Asian states.  Although these two perspectives are distinct from each other, they are often overlapping and interactive.

This study of the naval-training system grew out of our larger project on the development of China's strategic weapons. After completing work on the history of Beijing's nuclear weapons program, we began research on Project 09, China's development program for nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines. This research brought to light important new materials on the overall growth of China's navy and led to interviews with Chinese naval specialists. The new data suggested important insights into questions related to military professionalism and the long-range strategy for Chinese military power. This review of the history of Chinese naval training thus illuminates larger issues of Chinese defense planning and security goals. It also provides a baseline for assessing the missions of the navy and its readiness for carrying out those missions.

Soviet theoreticians reject the concept of a national strategy or a grand strategy above military strategy, reasoning that the national strategy or grand strategy of the United States and other Western countries is simply their anti-Soviet stance. They further maintain that military strategy includes political, economic, scientific and technological, and moral factors. Realization of national military objectives (that is, national power) requires unification of these factors. Thus it is not necessary to have a national strategy or grand strategy beyond military strategy.

The Soviets hold that military doctrine and military policy, rather than national strategy or grand strategy, are above military strategy. In fact, the Western notion of national strategy or grand strategy and the Soviet concept of military doctrine or military policy are similar in content. The distinction derives from the fact that the Soviet Union is a Communist country, where the Party leads everything. The Party's policy is the government's policy, and the decisions and resolutions passed at a Party congress are guiding principles not only for the government, but for all spheres of daily life.