Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS Newsletter
Other Research
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Alumni & Networks
Alumni
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
Commentaries
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
IDSS Paper
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
RSIS Publications for the Year
Glossary of Abbreviations
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
External Publications for the Year
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
Media
2024 Indonesia Elections
Great Powers
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
Media Mentions
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Future Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSIS Newsletter
      Other ResearchScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to Apply
      Financial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
      AlumniAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
      International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)SRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersCommentariesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsIDSS PaperInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking PapersRSIS Publications for the Year
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-EdsExternal Publications for the Year
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
      2024 Indonesia ElectionsGreat PowersSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesMedia Mentions
      News ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO07048 | Strategic Trends 2007-2036 Right Horizon Scanning, Wrong Military Responses
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • Commentaries
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • IDSS Paper
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers
    • RSIS Publications for the Year

    CO07048 | Strategic Trends 2007-2036 Right Horizon Scanning, Wrong Military Responses
    Bernard Loo Fook Weng

    29 May 2007

    download pdf
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Commentary

    FOR BETTER or worse, every time a new security concern emerges, there is almost always one question that dominates thinking – what will be the military role or response to this new security concern? Such thinking highlights the centrality of the military organisation in all matters concerning the security of the state.

    However, is it possible that such emphasis on the military is at best misplaced, if not potentially dangerous? The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence recently released its Strategic Trends 2007-2036, a document that outlines its vision of the future trends that can affect global and national security, and the military-strategic implications of these possible developments. This document may well turn out to be a case of spotting the right long-term potential security concerns, but identifying the wrong national responses to these long-term concerns.

    Bleak Future?

    The picture that is developed in the document is one that is on balance bleak. It highlights a number of potential fault lines. One is on the expectation that economic growth will continue, even if patterns of economic growth will be unevenly distributed, resulting in increasing levels of deprivation and poverty. Globalised communications will, if anything, feed frustrations over relative deprivation by heightening awareness of these uneven patterns of economic development.

    A second potential fault line lies in the apparently contradictory trends of the growing centrality of English as the lingua franca of global business and politics, sitting in juxtaposition with the growing contacts between diverse cultures as a result of globalisation, creating the conditions for people to become increasingly comfortable with cultural diversity. This will coincide with increasing secularism and materialism, moral relativism and pragmatism; these trends will trigger reactions from ‘complex, traditionally-defined communities’, harkening back to Huntington’s clash of civilisations thesis.

    A third potential fault line lies with be the increasing centrality of resource scarcity – with particular emphasis on water, but also on energy and other natural resources of strategic value. Maintaining access to these resources will be the key, especially since many strategic resources are located in areas of dubious security, raising the likelihood of resorting to military force to secure these strategic resources.

    The Military and Fault Lines

    Where is the role of the military organisation in all of these potential fault lines? The document portrays the growing disparities in the global military balance as another potential fault line; these disparities are the result of ever increasing costs of military research and development, leading to increasing trends of centralisation of military industry, cross-border collaborations and defence internationalisation and globalisation. However military technologies have increasingly short life spans, making technological obsolescence increasingly rapid.

    The military balance also will be increasingly complicated by proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear, or the so-called CBRN weapons – as the military technological spread outlined earlier continues. There is already the emergence of important new defence industrial players such as Brazil and South Africa. What is likely to happen is that more and more countries will acquire significant technological capabilities that will cross over into the possible production of CBRN weapons.

    However, there is a serious disjuncture between the various fault lines identified in the document. No where is this disjuncture more obvious than in the juxtaposition between the bleak social-economic outlooks and the continuing emphasis on CBRN proliferation. No doubt, CBRN weapons represent the worst kinds of weapons humanity has ever devised. The social-economic deprivations that the document outline contain the potential for causing new waves of conflict and violence, whether at the level of inter-state wars, internal conflicts and civil wars, or the so-called asymmetric violence between state and non-state actors. In any of these conflict scenarios, the prospect of a single CBRN attack represents the worst-case scenario for just about any state. But the likelihood of a CBRN attack remains very small, given the technological hurdles that any actor – whether state or non-state – has to overcome in maintaining a CBRN arsenal and deploying it in war.

    Small Arms Nightmare

    A more plausible, and equally destructive, outcome is the proliferation of small arms and other man-portable weapons as rocket-propelled grenades, shoulder-launched missiles and anti-personnel mines. Already, such weapons kill more people every year than automobile accidents. Given the increasing number of national defence industries – all seeking the limited goal of self-sufficiency in small arms and ammunition production – the proliferation of small arms and these man-portable weapons represents the greater security concern for the immediate, medium and long terms. These are weapons that are easily smuggled, by both illegal criminal organisations as well as state organisations running so-called ‘black operations’ – supplying combatant parties in non-related conflicts with weaponry for economic-financial motives. The last scenario is not as far-fetched as some might think – witness the Iran-Contra scandal that broke out during the last years of the Reagan Administration in the United States or, more recently, the Abdul Qadeer Khan nuclear technology clandestine export network.

    The bottom line is this: one may identify the likely fault lines – accepting that horizon scanning remains at best a newly conceived capability – but this good work can be undone if one subsequently identifies the wrong solutions or sees the wrong implications for national security. The Strategic Trends 2007-2036 appears to be guilty of this. It identifies fault lines that few strategic and security analysts would disagree with, but the implications of these trends remain too rooted in the realm of military aspects of security. Not all security concerns affect military power, or can be addressed by military power. The trick lies in being open to this possibility.

    About the Author

    Bernard FW Loo is an Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.
    Categories: Commentaries / Conflict and Stability / Global

    Last updated on 07/10/2014

    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Commentary

    FOR BETTER or worse, every time a new security concern emerges, there is almost always one question that dominates thinking – what will be the military role or response to this new security concern? Such thinking highlights the centrality of the military organisation in all matters concerning the security of the state.

    However, is it possible that such emphasis on the military is at best misplaced, if not potentially dangerous? The United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defence recently released its Strategic Trends 2007-2036, a document that outlines its vision of the future trends that can affect global and national security, and the military-strategic implications of these possible developments. This document may well turn out to be a case of spotting the right long-term potential security concerns, but identifying the wrong national responses to these long-term concerns.

    Bleak Future?

    The picture that is developed in the document is one that is on balance bleak. It highlights a number of potential fault lines. One is on the expectation that economic growth will continue, even if patterns of economic growth will be unevenly distributed, resulting in increasing levels of deprivation and poverty. Globalised communications will, if anything, feed frustrations over relative deprivation by heightening awareness of these uneven patterns of economic development.

    A second potential fault line lies in the apparently contradictory trends of the growing centrality of English as the lingua franca of global business and politics, sitting in juxtaposition with the growing contacts between diverse cultures as a result of globalisation, creating the conditions for people to become increasingly comfortable with cultural diversity. This will coincide with increasing secularism and materialism, moral relativism and pragmatism; these trends will trigger reactions from ‘complex, traditionally-defined communities’, harkening back to Huntington’s clash of civilisations thesis.

    A third potential fault line lies with be the increasing centrality of resource scarcity – with particular emphasis on water, but also on energy and other natural resources of strategic value. Maintaining access to these resources will be the key, especially since many strategic resources are located in areas of dubious security, raising the likelihood of resorting to military force to secure these strategic resources.

    The Military and Fault Lines

    Where is the role of the military organisation in all of these potential fault lines? The document portrays the growing disparities in the global military balance as another potential fault line; these disparities are the result of ever increasing costs of military research and development, leading to increasing trends of centralisation of military industry, cross-border collaborations and defence internationalisation and globalisation. However military technologies have increasingly short life spans, making technological obsolescence increasingly rapid.

    The military balance also will be increasingly complicated by proliferation of weapons of mass destruction – chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear, or the so-called CBRN weapons – as the military technological spread outlined earlier continues. There is already the emergence of important new defence industrial players such as Brazil and South Africa. What is likely to happen is that more and more countries will acquire significant technological capabilities that will cross over into the possible production of CBRN weapons.

    However, there is a serious disjuncture between the various fault lines identified in the document. No where is this disjuncture more obvious than in the juxtaposition between the bleak social-economic outlooks and the continuing emphasis on CBRN proliferation. No doubt, CBRN weapons represent the worst kinds of weapons humanity has ever devised. The social-economic deprivations that the document outline contain the potential for causing new waves of conflict and violence, whether at the level of inter-state wars, internal conflicts and civil wars, or the so-called asymmetric violence between state and non-state actors. In any of these conflict scenarios, the prospect of a single CBRN attack represents the worst-case scenario for just about any state. But the likelihood of a CBRN attack remains very small, given the technological hurdles that any actor – whether state or non-state – has to overcome in maintaining a CBRN arsenal and deploying it in war.

    Small Arms Nightmare

    A more plausible, and equally destructive, outcome is the proliferation of small arms and other man-portable weapons as rocket-propelled grenades, shoulder-launched missiles and anti-personnel mines. Already, such weapons kill more people every year than automobile accidents. Given the increasing number of national defence industries – all seeking the limited goal of self-sufficiency in small arms and ammunition production – the proliferation of small arms and these man-portable weapons represents the greater security concern for the immediate, medium and long terms. These are weapons that are easily smuggled, by both illegal criminal organisations as well as state organisations running so-called ‘black operations’ – supplying combatant parties in non-related conflicts with weaponry for economic-financial motives. The last scenario is not as far-fetched as some might think – witness the Iran-Contra scandal that broke out during the last years of the Reagan Administration in the United States or, more recently, the Abdul Qadeer Khan nuclear technology clandestine export network.

    The bottom line is this: one may identify the likely fault lines – accepting that horizon scanning remains at best a newly conceived capability – but this good work can be undone if one subsequently identifies the wrong solutions or sees the wrong implications for national security. The Strategic Trends 2007-2036 appears to be guilty of this. It identifies fault lines that few strategic and security analysts would disagree with, but the implications of these trends remain too rooted in the realm of military aspects of security. Not all security concerns affect military power, or can be addressed by military power. The trick lies in being open to this possibility.

    About the Author

    Bernard FW Loo is an Assistant Professor and Coordinator of the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) Programme at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University.
    Categories: Commentaries / Conflict and Stability

    Last updated on 07/10/2014

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info