Hot Doc: DoD’s 21st Century Strategy

Below you’ll find the Pentagon’s new strategic guidance for the 21st Century. It’s largely a recap of what we’ve all been told the DoD will need to do in the face of increasing budget pressure and Asia’s rise; keep only programs vital to meeting our new security challenges, cut programs that don’t meet modern security needs, trim personnel costs and focus much more of our military thinking on Asia.

Capabilities that will see investment include: Anti-access tech (think stealth, long-range strike weapons and UAVs); research and development programs; cyber war; counter-weapons of mass destruction; special operations and counter-terrorism; partnership-building programs.

The doc also hints that we’ll likely see cuts to the size of the nation’s nuclear arsenal, though it doesn’t lay out how this will be achieved.

Speaking of specifics, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Martin Dempsey just told a bunch of reporters to wait until the new budget comes out after the President gives his state of the union address in a couple of weeks.

Click through the jump to read the document. Remember, it’s intended to guide weapons buying and force-structure decisions going forward, so have a blast reading the tea leaves:

Defense Strategic Guidance//

  • Prodozul

    Basically it’s what people have been saying was going to happen these past few months.

  • Bob

    Just keep the B-52’s!!!! And downsize the other stuff!

  • blight

    Keeping B-52s will be like throwing B-29’s into the teeth of Mig-15’s in the Korean War.

    The only reason we kept them is because they are more cost-effective than their advanced counterparts.

    Would love to see how they trim personnel costs, without it coming out of a growing officer corps or reductions in pay, bonuses, compensation or the VA.

  • jake

    Why not link directly to the PDF of the document instead of forcing people to use FrackBook or Scribbled?

  • nary

    I suppose this means we just hoist up the white flag and shout “Surrender!” while the rest of the world nukes up as we render ourselves defenceless by giving up the one chess piece which has kept us safe for over 60 years…nukes…

    • neither

      That definitely is a logically sound argument, and in no way a noisy and hyperbolic screed.

    • Matt

      We have enough nukes to make Russia, China, and the whole world inhabitable multiple times over. Would it really be so horrible if we only had enough to end all life on Earth once or twice? Course you’re a troll so i doubt you care about a logical arguement…

  • BAJ15

    The pendulum swings in the age old battel for funding between guns and butter.

  • Lance

    Well true more of a deterrence force against Russia and China are needed and the Army is not needed for such a task a more robust Air Force and Navy are needed so I see the Army getting slashed and the Navy and USAF getting the life line. Fact is army projects are NOT needed GCV JLTV and the even more wasteful ICC need to go away. a

  • SamuraiBlue

    It US’s exit strategy from being the world police like the Britain done a hundred years ago.
    The diminishing influence of the US dollar as transaction currency for natural resources is directly linked to this decision. The effect will be a race for regional hegemony(Military, Economic and cultural).

    • SJE

      Actually, what destroyed the British military was economic decline, hastened by WWI and followed by the Great Depression. They just couldn’t afford it.

  • Matt

    Glad to see reduction is nukes. They cost a ton to maintain and we dont need to have enough to blow up the world “x” times over, just enough so China and Russia remember we can all wipe each other out. A reduction in personnel also seems to be a logical choice. Reduce recuitment requirements; raise standards on ASVABs and PFTs; results in getting higher quality troops in a world where force multipliers make raw numbers less important. Other than a reduction in nukes and personnel, what can the US give up w/o taking an near irreversable hit in effectiveness? Cut MBTs, IFVs, SPHs, etc too much and America loses a deterent for conventional enemies (Iran, N.Korea). Cut Strykers, UAVs, and other COIN tech and America wont be able to deal w/the insurgent wars that will likely define the forseeable future. Cutting vets benifits, active duty pay, etc would be just ungrafeful. Perhaps other parts of the Federal gov can take the hit, instead of the armed forces defending it.