MILNET: Analysis of the Threat to The U.S.

In this example case, the U.S. Government has made it possible for us to present to you an excellent analysis of the threat leading in the second millenium, starting with the Chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency in 1996 through various extremely knowlegable government officials at the beginning of the year 2000.

To compare the current threat environment to that a mere 15 years ago, take a look at the MILNET analysis of threat just after the break of the former Soviet Union.

The major threats facing the U.S. and our allies in the year 2000 are:

• Proliferation of delivery systems for weapons (i.e. missiles)
• Proliferation of highly capable fighting systems (conventional weapons)
• Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which include Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons (NBC)
• Continuing strength and support for terrorist states, groups, and individuals
• Regional conflicts based upon ancient arguments and pressures which will draw the U.S. into involvement

These key elements of threat can further described by how they will become visible to us in the day-to-day geo-political environments:

• Technology Based Threats due to ever increasing technology increments and the asymetric challenge a leap in technology can create for a previously "small" player.
• Age-old resentments igniting violence that require U.S. involvement due to treaty or moral requirements
• Resentment of U.S. political, economic, and perceived interference in the world today.
• Distribution of global wealth and the movement of the planet's millions of people into already dense urban areas.
• Global decline in global defense spending
• Rogue states, groups, and individuals who are willing to engage in violence to make their issues our issues and to refute our plans for the future.

Of these geo-political motives, the translation into conflict will be comprised of the following areas of defense and pro-active prevention strategies:

• Missile threats to the U.S. and our allies -- including chemical and biological warheads, and less threatening in terms of statistical reality but never-the-less extremely frightening, nuclear attack.
• Delivery of weapons of mass destruction through other means than missiles
• Dual use technologies in development and manufacturing of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
• Surprise emergence of a foe as of yet undetected in the field of Weapons of Mass Destruction
• Terrorist delivery of weapons of mass destruction is a great unknown as these opponents tend to strike with little warning and there is little counter- intelligence capable of increasing our warning to any vast degree.
• Drug related crime due to increased supplies from Afghanistan
• An increase in International Organized Crime centered now mostly in the countries of the former Soviet Union as criminals take advantage of a society struggling to earn its freedom and move to an even keel under democratic rule.
• Urban conflict will rise to be among the most devastating and difficult to control, with the U.S. leadership in non-lethal weapons research being outstripped by the very necessity to use these kinds of weapons.
• Information Warfare -- perhaps the number one weakness today for any nation and the U.S. is certainly at high risk with our dependence on the tools of the information age, economically, structurally, and militarily.

If you wonder why this seems so complex, migrating from a few simple conditions for threat in the first list to ever-increasing complexity of a total of three lists, undertand that this is the nature of threats in the next millenium. The threats do and will cross over lines, graying and blurring the distinctions upon the type of threat. For instance, a third world, seemingly impoverished nation will suddenly acquire weapons of mass destruction undetected and attack a long hated neighbor who the United States is pledged to support as an ally. The result, the U.S. is drawn into a conflict, far from home, perhaps allied with a country and cultural values very different from our own, and with little hope of having any real public support in the country we are pledged to help and protect. If this sounds familar, this scenario could be applied to any number of countries in the Middle East, and perhaps has already occurred in some part during the Gulf War.

Fortunately, as you will see from the material presented here, the evolving threats have not gone unrecognized. Here then is a compilation of key research in of years of analysis that began back in 1996:

1996
• General Patrick Hughes, Director Defense Intelligence Agency - 2/22/96
• Transcipt 1996 Congressional Hearings: Intellignece and Security
     - CURRENT AND PROJECTED NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS TO THE UNITED STATES AND ITS INTERESTS ABROAD
• Assistant Secretary of State for Intellignece and Research Toby Gati - 2/22/96
• Worldwide Threat Assessment Brief, John Deutch, Director of Central Intelligence - 2/22/96
• Unofficial Transcipt - Intelligence and Security - 3/21/96
• Written Responses to Committe Questions for State Department Intelligence and Research - 5/23/96
• Written Responses to Committee Questions - 5/6/96 23
• Congressional Hearing Q&A for Director Deutch - 2/22/96 23
• Written Responses to Questions to the CIA by the Select Committee on Intelligence - 5/10/96

  1998

• GLOBAL THREATS AND CHALLENGES: DECADES AHEAD - 1/28/98
• DCI George Tenet, 1998 Congressional Hearings on Intelligence and Security
• Former DCI James Woolsey, 1998 Congressional Hearings on Intelligence and Security
• Former DCI John Deutch, 1998 Congressional Hearings on Intelligence and Security
• Threats to U.S. National Security FBI Director Louis Freeh, 1998 Congressional Hearings on Intelligence and Security

  2000

• DCI George Tenet, Congressional Hearings on Intelligence and Security - 2/2/00
• Vice Admiral Thomas R. Wilson, Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, Statement Before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence - 2/2/00

milnet@milnet.com

The WorldWide Web