Retour aux nouvelles

21 août 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité

The Pentagon can now buy US-made small drones from these five companies

By: Charles V. Peña

The first COVID-19 clusters appeared in Italy in late February, and by early March the Italian authorities issued a decree to install strict public health measures, including social distancing first in the affected regions and then nationwide. Soon afterward, Spain, France and many other European countries instituted similar public health measures. Without debating the efficacy of those measures, the important takeaway is that when faced with what was viewed as a clear and present danger, European countries acted in their own self-interest without having to depend on the U.S. to counter the threat posed by COVID-19. They need to take that same approach for their own security and responsibilities under NATO. It is not a question of resources or capabilities — it is largely a matter of political will.

The low hanging fruit for our European NATO allies is to meet their pledge of spending 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense. Currently nine countries meet that threshold: the United States (3.42 percent), Bulgaria (3.25 percent), Greece (2.28 percent), the United Kingdom (2.14 percent), Estonia (2.14 percent), Romania (2.04 percent), Lithuania (2.03 percent), Latvia (2.01 percent) and Poland (2 percent).

Noticeably absent are Germany (1.38 percent), France (1.84 percent) and Italy (1.22 percent) — the fourth, seventh and eighth largest economies in the world.

These are wealthy countries that can afford to make the necessary investment. Indeed, the combined GDP of NATO Europe is nearly on par with the U.S. — about $17.5 trillion versus about $20 trillion. Yet, the U.S. spends more than double on defense than our European NATO allies. Other than political will, there is no real reason that European NATO countries cannot spend 2 percent of their GDP for their own defense. Yet, even though Germany previously pledged to meet its 2 percent obligation, Berlin is proposing a new metric based on a country's defense needs — perhaps because U.S. President Donald Trump has stated that he wants European allies to spend 4 percent of their GDP on defense (a metric even the U.S. does not meet).

Beyond spending, there is the question of what threat NATO should counter. Originally created in 1949, NATO was intended to counter the Soviet military threat and communist expansion. At the height of the Cold War, the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies had some 4 million troops and 60,000 main battle tanks deployed against Western Europe — and threatened invasion via the North German Plain, Hof Corridor and Fulda Gap. But today's Russian Federation is not the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, NATO's European countries have the resources to counter a Russian military threat (although it's worth noting that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg recently said: “We don't see any imminent threat against any NATO ally.”)

NATO Europe's combined GDP is 10 times larger than Russia's — more than $17 trillion versus $1.7 trillion. And current defense spending is also in Europe's favor by more than 4-to-1 ($287 billion versus $65 billion). Again, there is no practical reason why NATO Europe cannot make the necessary investments to provide for its security. It is more a question of political will.

Moreover, if NATO is concerned about Russia as a potential threat, it should think twice about continuing to expand the alliance eastward onto Russia's doorstep. Rather than providing increased security, it may do more to provoke the Russian bear.

Part of the problem is that NATO has largely strayed from its original purpose of collective defense against the Soviet Union (and now Russia). According to the NATO website, the organization is “an active and leading contributor to peace and security on the international stage” that “promotes democratic values and is committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes” with “approximately 20,000 military personnel ... engaged in NATO operations and missions around the world.”

If Russia is deemed a threat to Europe and NATO, then the European members of NATO need to take primary responsibility for defending themselves against that threat — and they should view that threat widely to include Russian cyberthreats as well as misinformation and disinformation campaigns meant to undermine elections. That doesn't mean a U.S. withdrawal from NATO. But it is long past the post-World War II era when European countries were struggling to regain their footing and needed America to be the bulwark of its defense.

Europe as a whole is today an economic powerhouse — second only to the United States. NATO Europe can and should do more to provide for its own security rather than depending on the U.S. to act as the front line of its defense. All that needs to happen is for those countries to be as serious as they were with COVID-19 and take the same approach to national security as they did when the pandemic began.

Charles V. Peña is a senior fellow with Defense Priorities. He has experience supporting the U.S. departments of Defense and Homeland Security. He previously served as the director of defense for policy studies at the Cato Institute, and he is author of “Winning the Un—War: A New Strategy for the War on Terrorism.”

https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/08/20/money-and-missions-nato-should-learn-from-europes-pandemic-response/

Sur le même sujet

  • Afghanistan deployment proves One World Terrain is more than a training tool

    15 octobre 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Terrestre, C4ISR

    Afghanistan deployment proves One World Terrain is more than a training tool

    Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army began building an entire virtual world a few years ago for its Synthetic Training Environment (STE) to bring accuracy and a real-life feel to training, but a deployment of One World Terrain in Afghanistan has proved it's not just a training tool, according to Maj. Gen. Maria Gervais, who is in charge of the service's STE development. One World Terrain, or OWT, compiles realistic and, in some cases, extremely accurate virtual maps of territory all over the globe. The idea is to be able to click on any place on a virtual globe and go there. Soldiers can then train virtually in an exact environment in which they can expect to operate in reality. “We're seeing now there are better uses for operational capability,” Gervais told Defense News in an Oct. 8 interview ahead of the Association of the U.S. Army's annual conference. “And it's helping us inform how do we now expand this to meet training, operational and also targeting requirements.” It all began with a unit that used OWT for training at the National Training Center on Fort Irwin, California, and saw value in it, Gervais said. When the unit deployed to Afghanistan, the soldiers asked to take the system — which included a drone and software — she said. The unit was able to capture terrain for the purpose of mission-planning rehearsal and route planning. But the soldiers also used it to take an in-depth look at the forward-operating base to see how it was set up and analyze it for vulnerabilities. “I will tell you from that usage, they figured out they had to make some changes,” Gervais said. “And then they went out and they started looking at other operating bases within their area. They expanded it.” The system “immediately started proving its utility to them,” she said, “but from that unit from what they were able to do, we then were able to take the next unit that was coming in behind them and provide all that information to them and allow them to understand how One World Terrain could be used.” The Army's 82nd Airborne Division also used the system prior to deploying to another theater. The division captured the terrain, using it for predeployment planning and mission rehearsals, including how and where to set up a base and where to position electronic warfare systems. OWT also helped the 25th Infantry Division out of Hawaii prepare for a Joint Training Readiness Center rotation, and its members also plan to use it during the exercise. These uses have led the Army to provide more drones and software for more units, Gervais said. Starting in December and January, the Army will begin fielding “a little bit more capability,” she added. In March, the STE team went to Germany to observe an assured position, navigation and timing exercise that included a sensor-to-shooter, live-fire drill. The team worked with the 1st Cavalry Division's intelligence analysts and put OWT on the Distributed Common Ground System-Army (DCGS-A) system, which is an intelligence analysis platform. “We showed them the capability, and what came out of there was pretty astounding,” Gervais said. With 3D terrain from OWT in the system, decisions could be made more quickly because there was no need to compare two different databases and reason against it, she said. That cut workload by about 60 percent, she added. OWT was on a DCGS-A system at Project Convergence at Yuma Proving Ground, Arizona, this year, Gervais said, and it showed the realm of the possible from a targeting perspective. While the STE had a limited scope during Project Convergence, “we're going to be more integrated in Project Convergence 21 next year,” she added, so that “everybody's kind of operating off the 3D terrain.” https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2020/10/14/afghanistan-deployment-proves-one-world-terrain-is-more-than-a-training-tool/

  • Cybersecurity Agencies Warn of China-linked APT40's Rapid Exploit Adaptation

    9 juillet 2024 | International, Sécurité

    Cybersecurity Agencies Warn of China-linked APT40's Rapid Exploit Adaptation

    Global cybersecurity agencies warn about China-linked APT40's rapid exploit adaptation, targeting vulnerabilities in widely-used software across multi

  • La Belgique devrait choisir Lockheed plutôt qu'Eurofighter

    21 octobre 2018 | International, Aérospatial

    La Belgique devrait choisir Lockheed plutôt qu'Eurofighter

    BERLIN (Reuters) - La Belgique devrait choisir d'ici la fin du mois quel avion de combat remplacera ses F-16 vieillissants, a appris Reuters de plusieurs sources, et elle devrait, selon des experts du secteur, préférer le F35 de Lockheed Martin au Typhoon d'Eurofighter. L'attribution de ce marché de plusieurs milliards de dollars était attendue en juillet avant le sommet de l'Otan à Bruxelles. Elle a été repoussée en raison des élections communales en Belgique, dimanche dernier, et d'un rapport qui a semé le trouble en suggérant que la durée d'exploitation des F-16 aurait pu être prolongée. Les Etats-Unis, à la demande de Bruxelles, ont prolongé de deux semaines, jusqu'au 31 octobre, les termes de leur offre portant sur 34 chasseurs F-35, ont dit des sources américaines. Un nouveau report, ont-elles ajouté, pourrait entraîner une modification du prix proposé. Harry Breach, analyste chez Raymond James basé à Londres, a estimé que la compétition tournait à l'avantage du F-35, en notant que les pilotes belges sont déjà familiarisés avec les F-16, qui sont aussi construits par Lockheed. Le Typhoon d'Eurofighter serait une option plus onéreuse, a-t-il ajouté. "Pour des raisons de coût, les petits pays ont tendance à choisir un avion à réaction de taille, charge utile et portée plus réduites. Tout cela suggère le choix des F-35." Aucun commentaire n'a pu être obtenu auprès du ministère belge de la Défense mais, selon des sources haut placées, une décision est probable avant la fin du mois. Eurofighter est un consortium constitué du Royaume-Uni, de l'Allemagne, de l'Italie et de l'Espagne. La France, qui dispose du Rafale fabriqué par Dassault Aviation, n'a pas répondu à l'appel d'offres officiel de la Belgique. Selon des sources industrielles, elle serait cependant soucieuse d'éviter que le F-16 gagne du terrain en Europe et aurait proposé à la Belgique une coopération étroite en matière de défense. (Andrea Shalal, Dominique Rodriguez pour le service français, édité par Marc Angrand) https://www.zonebourse.com/LOCKHEED-MARTIN-CORPORATI-13406/actualite/La-Belgique-devrait-choisir-Lockheed-plutot-qu-Eurofighter-27453698/

Toutes les nouvelles