Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This open access book brings together a collection of cutting-edge insights into how action can and is already being taken against climate change at multiple levels of our societies, amidst growing calls for transformative and inclusive climate action. In an era of increasing recognition regarding climate and ecological breakdown, this book offers hope, inspiration and analyses for multi-level climate action, spanning varied communities, places, spaces, agents and disciplines, demonstrating how the energy and dynamism of local scales are a powerful resource in turning the tide. Interconnected yet conceptually distinct, the book’s three sections span multiple levels of analysis, interrogating diverse perspectives and practices inherent to the vivid tapestry of climate action emerging locally, nationally and internationally. Delivered in collaboration with the UK’s ‘Place-Based Climate Action Network’, chapters are drawn from a wide range of authors with varying backgrounds spread across academia, policy and practice.

Central government policies --- Sociology --- Meteorology & climatology --- Environmental management --- Sustainability --- Geography --- Open Access --- climate change --- climate emergency --- praxis --- community --- theory --- practice --- climate action --- local climate praxis --- community engagement --- sustainable business models --- climate crisis --- community climate action

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Recent U.S. national defense policies have focused on the importance of multinational interoperability to meeting U.S. defense goals. However, even with the attention given to interoperability, the Army is still not interoperable with whom it wants, when it wants. One reason for this, the authors argue, is that policymakers do not have a precise enough understanding of why more and better interoperability is needed. In many ways, "interoperability" is a buzzword often asserted as the solution to an unexplained problem. Or worse, as a tautological argument: The need to be interoperable hinges on the fact that, historically, military forces have been rather terrible at doing so. The authors of this report recount both their literature review and structured interviews with planners and leadership involved in multinational interoperability, focusing on describing the various benefits often ascribed to interoperability. They discuss the values of interoperability across multiple dimensions — shaping the strategic environment, increasing capabilities, and reducing resourcing demands. The authors also suggest strategies for realizing those benefits. The authors aim to clarify the benefits of interoperability and spur conversations so that future decisionmakers can better articulate the intended rationale for investing in interoperability and better weigh the benefits against the significant costs and risks that interoperability might entail.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

To defend against potential threats, the U.S. Army devotes significant resources to strategic and operational planning. This planning is an exercise in risk management across the wide array of potential threats facing the United States. Military planners need tools that leverage emergent trends in the global geostrategic environment to forecast future contingencies to preemptively build, shape, and prepare U.S. forces for the kinds of missions they are most likely to encounter in the future and for the contingencies that pose the greatest strategic risk to the United States. This report provides empirically grounded assessments of potential future demands for U.S. ground forces. It does so by presenting a dynamic forecasting model that projects future U.S. ground interventions in a range of scenarios through the year 2040. The model the authors have developed incorporates annual projections of opportunities for U.S. intervention-including armed conflicts and their aftermath-and U.S. ground interventions themselves for each year in the 2017-2040 time frame. The authors present three main types of projections: trends in the future operating environment, including the incidence of interstate wars and intrastate conflicts; future U.S. ground interventions, including those involving deterrence, combat, and stabilization activities; and the anticipated average force requirements for those interventions. This analysis identifies key factors that can serve as early warning indicators of future conflicts and provides an improved empirical basis for estimating the frequency, magnitude, duration, and overlap of future contingencies.

United States. --- Operational readiness --- Planning. --- Mathematical models. --- Personnel management. --- United States --- Military policy

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

"There is an ongoing debate about the effects of U.S. military presence on conflict around the globe. In one view, U.S. military presence helps to deter adversaries, restrain U.S. partners from adopting provocative policies, and make it easier for the United States to achieve its aims without the use of force. In another view, U.S. military presence tends to provoke adversaries and encourage allies to adopt more reckless policies, and it increases the likelihood that the United States will be involved in combat. The authors of this report analyze historical data to assess how U.S. military presence -- in particular, U.S. troop presence and military assistance -- is associated with the interstate and intrastate conflict behavior of states and nonstate actors. Troop presence and military assistance have different effects. Stationing U.S. troops abroad may help deter interstate war. A large U.S. regional troop presence may reduce the likelihood of interstate conflict in two ways: by deterring potential U.S. adversaries from initiating interstate wars or by restraining U.S. allies from initiating militarized behavior. However, U.S. military presence may increase interstate militarized activities short of war. U.S. adversaries may be more likely to initiate militarized disputes against states with a larger U.S. in-country troop presence. U.S. troop presence does not appear to reduce the risk of intrastate conflict or affect the level of state repression. U.S. military assistance is not associated with changes in interstate conflict behavior. However, provision of U.S. military assistance may be associated with increased state repression and incidence of civil war. These findings have implications for near-term decisionmaking on U.S. forward troop presence in Europe and Asia."--Publisher's description

Military assistance, American --- War --- Assistance militaire américaine --- Guerre --- Causes. --- Forecasting. --- Prévision. --- United States --- United States. --- Armed Forces