Military

I won’t say that losing my Military Identification card was completely out of my control, but even losing it twice can happen obviously. Things happen, we’ve all lost something before, hell I had lost $75. 00 cash before. When I woke up the next day and couldn’t find it, I was so pissed, but it happened and there was nothing I could do about it, just had to take it as a loss. I’m only human, and this will not be the last mistake I ever make. However, I won’t make the same mistake over and over again.

I am certain that the corrective training I am doing sucks just enough if not more to make me want to ensure to maintain firm awareness of the location of my Military Identification card at all times from now on, which I’m sure was the intention of this corrective training or essay writing. Don’t get me wrong a lot of bad things have the potential to occur if my Military Identification were to fall into the wrong hands,people could get hurt and it would be my fualt.

Also what I am doing is not punishment, punishment is Uniformed Code of Military Justice, that’s something totally different and effects my well being, my career, and a lot more in the long run so I should be fully greatful and fully blessed that I didn’t get a uninformed code of military justice article 15. Corrective training is just that, TRAINING. Mistakes are okay, so long as people don’t repeat the same ones and they learn from them. The U. S. army values soldiers that are accountable for their actions.

Being accountable means being dependable-arriving to work and appointments on time, meeting deadlines, being in the right place at the right time, doing the right thing at the right time, and making sure you have your i. d. card at all times. Morning formation is the most important formation of the day. It is made to get accountability of everyone and put out any information that there needs to be dealt with. Without having accountability there is no knowing of where everybody is or what’s going on. I have realized that is an important asset always showing up on time.

It shows others in the unit that your dependable and ready for more responsibility. If a soldier fails to keep control of the simple things theres noway someone would put him in charge of other soldiers and likewise the soldeirs under him wont respect him cause they cant trust him to keep accountability of formation and tasks given by 1SGT. If were a leader and hade a soldier loseing his sensitive items i would be makeing him do the same thing by writing an essay it gives you to to look up information on the subject of losing an id card i learned lot. the next few paragraphs are of the five top reasones a soldier needs to keep acountability of his Military Identification card. One, someone can use a Military ID to sneak on to base and by passing security. Two, the Soldier who lost their military ID will not be able to access areas restricted to civilians and will be restricted from computers on base. Three, the Soldier can lose security clearance through the chain of command. Four, Soldier cannot access Postal Exchange (PX).

Five, the Soldier could possibly be non-judicially punished and possibly lose rank. Allow me explain them further. Reason one: It could help a terrorist to bypassing security. If someone were to find a Soldier’s Military ID and bypass base security, the person who breached security could steal sensitive documents, harm other soldiers, or map out the base for future attacks and they could do these multiple things in a twenty-four hour period if they were smart and fast enough to do it.

First thing they could do is get access to restricted areas and possibly sabotage military equipment. In addition, they could steal military grade equipment, blue prints to new weapon designs, military vehicles, and information regarding the movement of Soldier’s that are out in the battlefield and their objectives, depending on the security clearance of the soldier’s military ID. Reason two: military restrictions for losing Military ID.

The Soldier who lost his or her military ID will not be able to access areas restricted to civilians and lose access to computers on base. If a Soldier had to report to a restricted area to perform any duties and did not have his or her military ID, they would not be able to perform their duties or tasks given by a superior. In addition, if the Soldier had to access important information about an upcoming task or mission and he or she do not have their military ID; they would not be able to access the important Intel.

Reason three: soldiers who lose there military ID card could lose there security clearance as a result effect there job performance. In a combat zone when soldiers are spread thin cause of heavier work load this can jeprodize the mission and put more work load on other soldiers. A security clearance is also good to have in the civilian job sector for when you get out so if you lose it youll lose better job oppurtunitys

Reason four: A soldier who loses there ID card will not be able to make use of the PX, MWR, or the resiliance center. These places offer a place for soldiers to go so they can rest and have fun. so till the soldier is able to get a new ID card these places are off limits. Reason five: Wrongful disposition of U. S. Military property. Article 108. Military property of United States Loss, damage, destruction, or wrongful disposition.

Any person subject to this chapter who, without proper authority (1) sells or otherwise disposes of; (2) willfully or through neglect damages, destroys, or loses; or (3) willfully or through neglect suffers to be lost, damaged, destroyed, sold, or wrongfully disposed of; any military property of the United States, shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. my only hope in ending this essay is that my nco thinks its good enough cuase ive typed all i can on the suject its 2330 right know and i still havent called my daughter and im tired. so good night.

Weber Miscarried University In today’s world a topic that is becoming more popular by numerous infamous scandals is that of business ethics. With companies and businesses alike now realizing that their consumers care about how the operations work in the company can affect their sales they are becoming more aware of how to run operations ethically.

Although it is every groups goal to run plans ethically there are still many instances in which they fall short of this bar, whether it be because of greedy influences or being unaware of the laws it is a dilemma that must be approached wisely and handle with care. While most scandals involve a corporation or business while scanning the Internet I came across one that really caught my attention, a scandal within the US Military about cheating on tests, drug use, and the mishandling of missiles.

First news broke about this scandal in early January when the Air Force reported its open investigation of unknown exam cheating and scandals involving multiple officers in charge of our country nuclear forces. This recent scandal is one that was roughs to attention after the Air Force was investigating a non-related drug scandal at 6 other bases. This should come as a great concern to all people living in the US, for these are the generals and officers who are responsible for controlling the 450 nuclear missiles and fate of our country.

When further looked into it was found that 34 officers, all high class lieutenants or captains, were somehow involved in this scandal, some who were either caught cheating on the monthly proficiency tests or those that were aware of what was going on and did not report the actions. Along tit these accusations it was made clear by Air Force officials that two of the suspected officers also had relations regarding illegal drug use with an officer from an air base in Wyoming.

Being one of the most structured and toughest parts of the defense forces to get into the Air Force is not taking this situation lightly as nuclear launch officers have no room for error handling such dangerous and destructive weapons. ‘The root of all this madness is still unknown but there has been one major discharge of a commander from the Base at Minot because it was seen that there as a “loss of confidence” in his leadership skills as well as the firing of a commander in charge of training missile crews after a large number of launch officers did poorly on tests.

This is not the first scandal that the Air Force has faced after an incident in 2008 where the past secretary of defense Robert M. Gates fired a top general and civilian leader after a crew made a cross-country Journey unaware that 6 missiles on board were armed with nuclear warheads. The major dilemma in all this is these people are supposed to be the ones we as citizens look up to and protect our country et when we read news like this it really hinders our idea of what safety really is.

With such difficult guidelines, laws, and requirements it is amazing that such a scandal would be present in an area as important as the protection and well being of the United States as a country, but also goes to show that scandals and dilemmas are present in every aspect of this world no matter what the subject at hand. US Defense Secretary Chuck Haggle has not taken lightly to this situation as he explained that he is “deeply troubled” by the slue of military scandals in recent months (Talisman, 2014).

In January when becoming fully aware of all the problems inside the Air Force and military as a whole Haggle forced a review of operations which also included the Navy. In shear numbers 30 senior instructors have been accused of sharing answer sheets to nuclear qualification tests and 1,200 Navy soldiers, 200 of which were officers, took part in a long-term scheme involving fraudulent recruiting in order to collect roughly $100 million in promised recruiting payments (Talisman, 2014). Hazel’s biggest worry is that none of this is by accident and is all a result of unethical behavior by people in uniform”.

He along with many others believe that this is an issue that should be put on the top of the list and needs close attention and although it only involves a small number of those in service it is a matter of integrity that he wishes the forces can maintain regardless of those few who disobeyed the law. I felt that this issue was handled greatly and will continue to be throughout the rest of the investigation. Haggle understands the importance of the well being of the country and is not going to let this be something that could be the season for our downfall.

Although investigations may take more than a year to complete I trust the decision of the Secretary of Defense as he made if the first problem to be addressed when regarding the military. If this were the situation for a company or business I think that they would have handled it the exact same way, firstly be removing those that were involved or believed to be involved in the problem. Second course of action would be getting down to the bottom of the problem and finding the source, which were ultimately the loosely supervised exams restored by senior leaders and lieutenants.

After finding who was to blame for these faults it became evident that those people were to be interviewed immensely for why they took the course of actions they did. A document regarding this even went as far as saying that the “group testing” was viewed as “taking care of each other” and easing the pressure as the officers felt they needed a perfect score on the exams (Burns, 2014). So in the end I think this is being handled effectively and that it should have been done in no other manner.

Although it is evident that this can instill a lot of fear in the eyes of those who live in this great country the military wanted to make it apparent that there was no evidence that the recent problems lead to mishandling of nuclear weapons or Jeopardized any citizens safety. Following this event it will be interesting to see how it progresses as the investigation continues with the interviewing of many officers and those involved in the scandal. Being that the scandal involves nuclear weapons I am curious to see if there will be any new laws or regulations that will be put in place during such vents such as exams and testing.

When talking about American media during the time of the Vietnam Wars, a common belief is that US news coverage of the events had a significant impact on public opion about the conflict, at such an extent that is is sometimes refered to as the “Living- Room War” or the “Media War”. Critics of the US Media in coverage in Vietnam claim that most of the journalists were personnally against the war and their reports therefore negative portraits of US Involement in Vietnam, biased by their personal point of views.

Other people thank the media for having given more accurate reports f what was happening in Vietnam than the ones given officially by the leaders of the country The accuracy and the objectivism of the media at that time is still questionned nowadays, but was is clear is that before the Tet offensive of 1968, the media had genrerally reported on the war quite favorably whereas It was presented in a more negative light at the end of the sixties and in the early seventies. The debate on the role played by the U. S. Media in the Vietnam wars is open: did the media follow public opinion, or did it Influence It?

To what extent If any was the US media opposed to the Vietnam War? My essay shall first explore the shift brought by the Tet offensive In the US media. Then, shall focus on analyzing what caused the media to be accused of being against the Vietnam War before looking at the consequenses supposedly engedered by the role of the media. Finally I shall draw a limit on the role played by the media during the conflict. At the beginning of the war, American people seem to have supported it but public support decreased over the years. Although it was a major topic of the news by the end of the sixties. he Vietnam War was not a major concern for the American citizens t the beginning of the decade. Despite Kennedy’s decision to militarize the war and send military advisors to Vietnam, when Johnson replaced him, only one American on four was aware of the conflictsl . The Kennedy administration and the Johnson administration tried to keep the public away from the concern of the war. When Johnson ran his election campaign, he was promising the Americans that he did not intend to escalate the war. He therefore stood for the peaceful candidate, and a lot of people would vote for him hoping he would find a diplomatic solution to the conflict..

An incident occurred during the time of the election campaign: the Gulf of Tonkin crisis. As Walt Rostow -a political theorist- noticed, the crisis occurred when needed. In fact, the resolution passed by the Congress gave Johnson a Justification to escalate the war and public opinion therefore accepted the decision. 2 The “carte blanche” given to President Johnson after the incident permitted him to escalate the war without any major opposition. A few people opposed it, like George Ball who was in favour of negociations rather than a military escalation that would be diffcult to ontrol.

According to Daniel C Hallln, It Is only with the Gulf of Tonkin Incident that the Americans began to be conscious about the conflict occuring in Vietnam3. Political leaders supported, or at least, did not really opposed Johnson decision of ecalating the war, a decision he had taken without informing the American citizens. In 1965, “tuesday-lunch meetings”, Johnson had previously taken a lot of decisions through a limited group, whose members themselves started to doubt about the strategy in Vietnam. It is the case for McNamara who was pushed away from the decision- aking after having spokn in favour of a diplomatic solution.

The disagreements within the governement started to serve as topic of critic for the Journalists who did not approve of the war. Senator William Fullbright instored the Senate Foreign Relation committee hearings that were televised. The conflict in Vietnam was not anymore presented through facts to the American public, but it was debated and criticized in front of them. In 1966, public opinion started to be reluctant about Johnson’s policy-making. At that stage, opinions over the war were divided, whereas it was between political leaders or etween the American citizens.

A majority of people was against the war, but a minority agreed on what should be done to end the conflict. The key event that permitted the US media to play a role in the war occurred a few years later when the Tet Offensive took place. American people were already putting the war in question because of the fact that the war had already been carried on for a long time and had costed many lives of young Americans. But at the meantime, official statements were repeating that US army was making huge progression towards victory. The Tet Offensive is nowadays seen as the one that turned public opinion, and the war itself.

When the Communists attacked South Vietmam in January 1968, the Americans and South Vietnamese turned back the attack. It was a clear military victory on the battlefields but the images resulting from the attack had an opposite efect on the audience. This event is genarally said to be decisive for the end of the conflicts. In fact, despite a military victory; another battle was yet oppen: the media war. The Tet Offensive was reported on American TV and provided the ublic for the first time with the violence of the war. They had been told victory was near: it was not what the shoking images of the Tet Offensive were displaying.

The Viet Cong suffered great losses but they had managed to trigger a revolt within the American society. The credibility of the Johnson administration in the mind of the public was yet destroyed. The Tet Offensive on television displayed scenes of combat, of They had a shoking impact on the viewers who realised a lot of Americans were killed, but they primarily saw the atrocities the American soldiers were imposing on Vietnamese soldiers. The Tet offensive was interpreted as a defeat by the media since it proved that victory was far for being near.

One of the Journalists reporting on the Tet incident was CBS newscaster Walter Cronkite, “the most trusted man in America” according to a opinion poll, made the famous statement that the war would result either in a stalemate or a defeat4. Johnson was aware of the power the journalists had on the American society. After Cronkite had spoken about the war, Johnson said “Well, if I’ve lost Cronkite, I’ve lost middle America”. They had been antiwar protests that had been televised before 1968. The March on the Pentagon in 1967 was as a huge media event: Americans ah hippies putting home.

However, antiwar movements were themselves divided. Some of them were radical movements that paradoxically proned violence to revolt against the atrocities in Vietnam. The radicalism of some of the movements made that media did not really know how to deal with them in the news and left some American reluctant to join them. But after the Tet Offensive, antiwar protests were presented on the screen in a more positive perspective. The movement itself gained strength after people istrust the governement and the media increased their coverage of protests.

The media helped the antiwar movement to gain strength. The critical approach of the war the media took after the Tet Offensive helped the citizens to take more seriously what independent Journalists opposing the war had said before. At the end of the sixties, the image of the Vietnam War conveyed by the media was quite negative and until the withdrawal of the troops, the media not look at the Vietnam War in a postitive light. The Nixon government had to face another media scandal undermining US involvement in Vietnam in 1971.

The New York Times stole a copy of the Pentagon Papers, a secret study “History of the US decision-making Process on Vietnam Policy’ and published it, followed by the Washington Post. As it was enlighted later in the New York Times in 1996, the publication of the Pentagone Papers prove the American people that Jonshon and his administration had constantly lied to the people but also to the Congress5. To defend the role played by the media during the conflict, Journalists argue that they were only providing the audience and the readers with what was hidden to them by official reports.

The shift in the way US media presented the war after the Tet incident is the reason why media are sometimes said to have been opposed to the Vietnam War, and sometimes even accused of having been responsible for the defeat. Different opinions can be found on this matter, agreeing or rejecting those theories, but what seems clear is that a war was being carried on between the leaders of the country and the media. Nixon explicitly express his disagrement with US news coverage, arguing that aside from the Communists, “our worst enemy seems to be the press”6.

According to him, media put an emphasis on the military and moral side of the combat, forgetting to speak about the genuine objective of the war which was to fight Communism. This objective is what had maintain the Journalists to speak in a united voice at the beginning of the conflict: the only Journalists who disaproved with the conflict did not disagree with its aim, but with the strategies employed to achieve it. 7 Johnson’s vice-president Spiro Angnew also regularly denounced the unneffciency and inaccuracy of the media, even calling the reporters “nattering nabobs of negativism”.

In 1970, President Nixon founded the Office of Telecommunications Policy (OTP) to promote positive media coverage for his administration and to question indirectly the media’s accuracy. Critics of the press covering the Vietnam War are often stating that what the press did was showing daily fghts, forgetting about their aims, and focusing on details instead of providing the public with valuable informations. 8 Wyatt commented on this particular issue :”An intense focus on spot reporting of day-to-day combat and political stories (… typified American Journalism in Vietnam. During the height of American military involvement, even the most interested, diligent [dedicated] news consumer could conclude that the war in Vietnam was primarily an American effort in which non-military issues were either nonexistent or unimportant. “9 A parallel can be drawn between human memory and news media coverage. 10 Both of them keep certain images and versions of events and supress others. The Journalists therefore chose to provide the American people with a certain approach to the conflic.

What they are often blamed for in the coverage of the war, is that they have not been able o imform the Americans about the actions of the Viet Cong. By focusing on the violence of the conflicts involving Americans, the importance of the war crimes commited by the Viet Cong on the Vietnamese population was neglected. For those who believe that the Vietnam was lost because of the media, their argument is that by leading the nation to stand against the war, the soldiers on the battlefields lost the support they needed.

In November 1969, President Nixon made a speech on television where he suggested that the “great silent majority’ of Americans supported the war and that the media were undermining the war effort. John Pilgrer is one of the Journalists denying the fact that the Vietnam War was lost because of the media. According to him, the media coverage did not undermined the military and political effort, and the reporters were not antiwar. ll He points out that what the media did was to support “a failed crusade”.

It is for these reasons that some argue that Vietnam was not a military defeat, but more a social defeat generated by the media. Marshal McLuhan is a famous defensor of this theory. He argues: “Television brought the brutality of war into the comfort of the living room. Vietnam was lost in the living rooms of America, not on the battlefields of Vietnam. “. The defeat can be explained by the fact that no military or political leaders had understood that the information war was at least as important as the military war. The media challenged the discrepencies between the reality in Vietnam and the reports of official sources.

Emanating from a pluralistic media, the power of convincing the people was increased. Defensors of the media would argue primarily that it is only an excuse for the leaders not to take credit for a battle that ended up being a disaster for America. Richard Hallbrooke statement illustrates this point of view: “The press didn’t lose the war for us. The war was lost because the strategy was wrong. The military lost the war; the political leadership of this country lost the war. Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and [Secretary of State] Henry Kissinger are the men who cost us this thing.

Not the Case-Church Amendment [a law that placed restrictions on presidential war powers], not David Halberstam and Walter Cronkite, and not the antiwar demonstrators. The war was not lost, as Nixon always likes to write, in the halls of Congress and on the ages of the New York Times; it was lost in the rice paddies of Indochina. “12 They would also respond to the critic who claim that the war was lost because of the media showing only the horror of the fights, that only a small percentage of the news coverage were fghtings.

However, an study by the sociologist George Bailey shows related to actions by US ground troops or US Air force. 13 According to many Journalists -Walter Conkrite being one of them-, media proved efficient in giving America truthful informations at a time when the government and the military leaders were lying to them. A credibility gap was therefore constructed, and vice-president Spiro Agnew accused the Journalists of being resonsible for it, stating that if such a gap existed, the best place to start looking for it was not the offices of governement in Washington but in the studios of network in New York.

It is however hard to determine if the media were the source of influence for public opinion. The researches led by Daniel C. Hallin led to the conclusion that “Television was more a follower than a leader of public opinion. ” The media had a different role in the Vietnam than it had had in previous conflicts. Instead of reinforcing the voice of the governement, it provived the public with a critical approach of US policy making. Also, because it was the first war being televised, it was the first time American people had to face images of the conflict.

Those images are now what remains in the minds of the people when thinking about the news coverage of the Vietnam. At the time, the reporters were not really aware of the power it could have on the mind of the people, nor on the everlasting impact it had on the society. Television and photographs, the visual images of the war, is what people remember owadays. The fact that Journalist did not realise that they were actually opposing the war is a point that is worth raising. If the media proved to be opposed to the War, it may not be what they intented.

The power the images displayed on television had on the public is hard to determine, as Hallin underlines: “television images pass very quickly, leaving the audience with little time to reflect on their meaning. We know very little about how television audiences construct the meaning of what they see and hear”. 14 The consequenses of showing the war on images was probably not anticipated by the eporters, but American public surely remembers pictures such as Vietnam Napalm” by Nick Ut (1972) or “The Execution” by Eddie Adams (1962).

Life Magazine is the author of one of the most influential act during the war with the publication of an edition with photographs of the 242 American soldiers killed during one week of fighting. At the time of the Tet Offensive, Journalists rushed to cover the event. They gave America the pictures of the attack stating that what was happening there was horrific. The Tet Offensive was a real disaster in term of losses for the North Vietnamese soldiers. It appears clear that they knew they would not have any chance to win against the South Vietnamese and the Americans.

This suicide-assault may illustrate that the Communists had understood the power the media could have in a fght. They wanted reporters to show to the people in America how violent were the conflicts, and how Americans slaughtered the Vietnamese. If such was their aim, they achieved it. Eddie Adams, the photograph who took the picture of a Viet Cong chief apologized to the US Army. 15 During the Vietnam. Wars, the media and the Americans seem to have followed the same opinion regarding the war. At the beginning, they were all genrerally supporting it. By the end of the sixties, they started to oppose it.

The media might have influenced public opinion by starting to show the soldiers in action in Vietnam, by sympathise with antiwar movements or by displaying another version of event than the one given by the governement. Americans must have tend to believe what was told on the news at the time. They had believed the governement since the start of the war, and the war had still not ended. Moreover, the point of view given by the American media was one-sided: the enemy viewpoint was given in less than 3% of he coverage. 16 It is hard to define if the population influenced the media, or the contrary, and historians disagree on this point.

Nevertheless, one must not forget that the Journalists were themselves American citizens, and therefore their voices counts as the voice of the nation. If we look at the news coverage on the Vietnam Wars, arguments can be found to describe the American media as being against the War. First of all, the fact that the media did not follow the same versions of events than the governement is one. How is the nation supposed to support a war launched y a governement that does not report the same versions of events as the ones shown on television and in the newspapers.?

Morever, the antiwar movement was growing at the end of the sixties and antiwar protests were being covered by the media in a positive aspect. But what the media did that had the most impact on the American people is that they provided them with images of the conflict. Blood, violence, injuries: never a conflict had been covered that way on the television before. The shoking pictures stunned many people and the need for negociations to stop the disaster became the solution wanted by the people. In my opinion, Journalists were as shoked by the images as the people.

They must have been revolted by the situation but did not intent to turn public opnion against the war. What I think they really did was to give the pictures that spoke for themselves to the public at first, and really speak against the war when they could embrace public opinion that was changing. To conclude with, I can say that the media were opposed to the war but in a limited way: the opinion on the coverage shifted with the public opinion and with the realization that the end of the war was far for being near.

Defense Information System (DIS) refers to a military global protected telecommunication network that simplifies the conveyance of information in a worldwide space. It is driven by transmission requirements, security demands, and geographical needs of the targeted end-user groups. Centrally, it is designed and managed to provide a long-haul information transfer. Furthermore, it is configured to provide a more sophisticated point-to-point exchanged voice and data, teleconferencing video and image services. The DIS offers integrated operational standard user services to satisfy the connectivity requirements. It is a digital-based defense strategy, that facilitates access to vital information across the globe through efficiently designed services such as information assurance, data services, multinational sharing of information and computer hosting.

Moreover, DIS forms a key spectrum of military force operations which include defensive tactics, humanitarian efforts, offensive tactics as well as counterterrorism (Stahl, 2008). The ultimate goal of Defense information system is to help in achieving information governance by providing an effective infrastructure that may be of an advantage to the user in a combat.On the other hand, ethics refers to the prescribed code of conduct which are morally justified to administer the defense information system.

Major ethical issues involved herein include privacy of information, Access to information, information accuracy and right to Intellectual property. Rapid growth in information technology through its improved dimensions for communication, computation, surveillance, retrieval and storage has sounded an alarm on privacy matters (Kizza, 2007). This is to say that, the unethical retrieval of data and access to information by unauthorized persons has greatly threatened the privacy of integrated security systems networks.

Therefore, principles of ethics agitates for protection of privacy policies in relation to access of every sensitive information. Information accuracy is another ethical issue of concern. Upholding to an inaccurate information is misleading hence, it is a sole responsibility of the defense information system to be vigilant in pursuing the accuracy of its information. Imperatively, they should be certain that their information are based on facts as opposed to fiction (Stahl, 2008).

The final ethical issue in defense information system is the right of intellectual property. This forms the most complex right faced by many in the contemporary society and the military is not an exemption. Substantial ethical concerns surrounding this stem from the information traits which makes it transferable. Any Defense Information system information is believed to be costly (Stahl, 2008). Furthermore, once produced, it is easier to copy and transfer to others. This makes it difficult to safeguard such information due to its intangible nature. It is worth noting that several institutions such as copyrights and patents have come in to managed and protect the rights of intellectual properties. The worldwide process is narrowing the space steadily as a result of what Kant describes as the public use of reason. Information Technology has greatly improved the effectiveness of the Defense Information System.

It has enabled quick decision making through enabled rapid access to functionalities of creating, finding, using and sharing of the needed information. Quicker access to information by commanders from anywhere has also improved control and commanding. Additionally, it has also accelerated the speed of actions thus heightened the ability to coordinate all security issues across the globe. Other expeditious contributions of information technology on DIS includes improved cyber security, improved information security postures, as well as the defense effectiveness. However, the state territory is privately constrained by certain interests which differ from the individual reflection concerning the general subjects in a public domain. The greater disparity therefore emanates from the free public use of internet and other media due to their enormous private control.

Since information is provided on demand in our cloud computing era, access to web-based tools by users via browsers has led to abstraction of customer details, which has raised questions of privacy and transparency. Ethics in relation to privacy of information for both individuals and organizations have been heavily affected negatively as a result of technology. On this aspect, cyberspace has posted more security threats to nation-states in a context of increased dependency of worldwide networks and computer based interactions. Cyber-attacks, scams, image manipulations, infringements to computer systems and copying particular unauthorized software demonstrates the unethical practices facing the defense information system unit. It is therefore imperative for stiff ethical measures to be put in place to hasten security of the nation states with the advancements in technology.

Contemporarily, no state agency can apply control to privacy to prevent the exposure of one’s close secrets to others . Regarding to the larger size of data, computers have failed to interpret and register multi-millions of data therefore making it difficult to detect suspicious message making state communication of information more unsafe. However, the defense information system has not been much helpful due to increased illegal malpractices according to Snowden and other whistleblowers. On this regard, denouncing of the public authorities and engaging in public use of information has greatly threatened the secrecy of individuals .

In conclusion, defense information system is a telecommunication network enabled system designed to simplify the transfer of information across the globe. It was majorly implemented by the military operational forces in United States which include defensive tactics, humanitarian efforts, offensive tactics as well as counterterrorism. The ultimate goal was to achieve control of information by providing an effective infrastructure for users in a combat and to improve on the general security across the globe. However, ethical issues in defense information system include Privacy of information, accuracy of information, access to information and the Property right. Despite of the drawbacks, DIS has remained focused to work with the new technological innovations and achieve their set missions.

In his book “The Boys’ Crusade” Paul Fussell develops the theme of Adolf Hitler’s underestimation of the Allied forces. Hitler’s failure to accurately evaluate the power of the Allied enemies led to the destruction of the Axis powers and precipitated the end of WWII. He underestimated not only the strength of the Allies, but also their determination to win, their combined cooperation, their militarial organizational skills, and their combined technological advances.

This underestimation was a product of Hitler’s personal theory of German Aryan racial supremacy over other races and was commonly accepted to some degree as the social Darwinist ideas of the time. In Hitler’s eyes, Germans were a dominant species, set apart from other races by their motivation, their loyal dedication to the Fuhrer, and the strength of their willpower. Hitler believed Germans would prove themselves to be superior on the battlefield if only because of their pure racial background.

The lack of discipline and the dismissive attitudes of Allied troops were factors that Hitler believed maintained the theory of racial supremacy. The Germany military, called the Wehrmacht, the SS, and the Gestapo were all strictly trained and highly disciplined units. German parades during WWII consisted of controlled marches in uniform through the streets of German cities. Nazi officials aimed to show the Aryan population the strength and pride of the German military. In contrast to the strict discipline of the Wehrmacht were the Allied forces, in specific, the American troops.

They gained a reputation of general laziness including “slouching postures, gum chewing, leaning against walls when tired, keeping hands in trouser pockets, and  profanity…” Hitler saw the slovenly attitudes of the American troops as a solid example of the supremacy of the Aryan Germans. Fussell states that because conditions at the front line were so deplorable many psychological problems and morale issues arose. Also, a general unpreparedness of new recruits was a critical concern, which could have been avoided by training infantrymen for the psychological aspects of warfare.

Too late, military planners found that unless replacement troops were “trained rigorously and prepared psychologically for the carnage of the front lines, they would not survive long and tended to revert to cowardice when faced with violent action. ” In trench warfare the abysmal living environment, illness, fatigue, loneliness, and constant fear of death created a hopeless feeling of fighting in a meaningless “never-ending” war. The psychological health of Allied troops was a crucial factor in relation to the positive morale and overall troop resilience, especially of those confronted daily with violent action.

The infantry suffered the highest percentage of total casualties throughout the war, and was forced to fight in the worst conditions. The idea of a “never-ending” war was created in part by the demoralization of troops during the middle stages of the war, before an end was clearly in sight, and also because American troops knew there were only three ways “to escape from the front line with its discipline, anxiety, and horror: the unlikely sudden end of the war; a wound; and death itself. ” Before the winter of 1941, Hitler had not considered, the threat of U. S. involvement in the war.

However, when the U. S. declared war on Germany and Japan on the 11th of December, 1941, Hitler wholeheartedly believed Germany was ready to challenge Britain and America in a war of global magnitude. Hitler had previously assumed the U. S. would stay out of a European conflict to continue their chosen policy of isolation across the Atlantic. But Germany was not materially prepared for a global war drawn out for more than a few years. Though the U. S. lacked the discipline and fanatical loyalty the German troops showed towards their Fuhrer, Americans were not entering a war without national strengths.

The Germans were renowned craftsmen and had the capability to produce high-quality weapons and war-materials but they were not equipped for the scale of production necessary for victory in a global war. However: the strengths of the American industrial tradition – the widespread experience with mass-production, the great depth of technical and organizational skill, the willingness to ‘think big’, the ethos of hustling competition – were just the characteristics needed to transform the American production in a hurry.  The U. S. as quite familiar with the technique of mass-production and implemented it very successfully. The American motor industry adapted so well to the program that “once the conversion was completed the industry began to overfulfil its orders. ” Based on the opportunities of individual profit, many prospective entrepreneurs found that the war opened a door to the world of business. Germany had been making preparations for war since Hitler took control of the state on the 30th of January, 1933 and the American leaders were aware of just how far behind in production they were.

The military weakness of the U. S. was a consequence of geographical and political isolation, but in only four years the giant plans approved by Roosevelt and Congress in the first weeks of war “turned America from military weakling to military super-power. ” The strategy of mass-production encouraged individuals to involve themselves in the production of war materials, giving them a personal and unique sense of dedication to the war effort. Production began with Roosevelt building a wartime planning infrastructure, run by business recruits.

He employed a strategy in which business was given a good deal of responsibility to further the war effort. The American approach to “production on this scale made Allied victory a possibility, though it did not make victory in any sense automatic. ” Hitler was anxious for a victory over the Soviet Union, not only to satisfy a sense of retribution remaining from the German defeat of the First World War, but also to accomplish the goals he set out in his book, Mein Kampf, to attain Lebensraum, or living space for an expanding Aryan population.

Even the war with Britain couldn’t distract him for long, and “in the summer of 1940 he turned his back on Britain, who could, he argued, be finished off by the Luftwaffe in good time, and looked eastward. ” Hitler was so focused on the conflict against the Soviet Union, that he didn’t correctly prioritize the two conflicts and the necessary war materials needed for a victory in a war against a second front in the West. Hitler had an overabundant confidence in the superiority of German troops and German tanks and didn’t realize how decisive the Allied landing at D-Day and later the battle at Stalingrad would be.

The landing on Normandy beaches were a welcome success after the months of small and costly victories in Italy and North Africa. Though Stalingrad is generally considered the most decisive battle of WWII, D-Day marked a major turning point for the Allies. The landing forced Hitler to fight a war on two fronts, which relieved some pressure from the Soviets’ bitter struggle against the Wehrmacht in the East. Hitler’s Germany was beginning to stretch thin, as “a great chasm opened up between Hitler’s plans and the material reality. The Allies effectively used technology to gain the upper-hand to aide in the victory of the Second World War in Europe. The strategy of synchronizing air support with ground forces promoted forward surges of troops while destroying dug-in German fortifications and causing enemy casualties. In the Battle of the Atlantic, the British were able to crack the German naval code and use decoded transmissions to steer convoys of merchant ships away from the packs of waiting U-Boats. The Allies proved their organization and cooperation abilities during the Battle of the Atlantic.

The British and Americans worked together successfully to “render redundant naval strategies still rooted in the battleship age”10 by the use of air power in groups called support escorts to keep merchant ships safe from U-Boat damage. The success of U-Boats destruction was increased with the use of long-range aircraft, radio, and radar. The warfare technology at sea was maximized, proving that “victory was a product of all those elements of organization and invention mobilized in months of painstaking labor.

Though the Battle of the Atlantic wasn’t won in any short p of time, it lasted for six years, the technological advances, communication improvements, and the coordination of British and Allied forces to predict U-Boat movement took Hitler by surprise. Hitler was confident that the superior German navy could easily gain control of the English Channel, but the Allies proved that in this specific battle “the careful application of air power, and the use of radar and radio intelligence, turned the tide.

Hitler had overabundant confidence in the German forces and didn’t contemplate the outcome of an Allied victory because he believed Germans were racially superior. Though he wasn’t interested in a war with Britain or the U. S. , they stood in the way of the fruition of his goals of conquest in the East, specifically the destruction of the Jewish people and the downfall of the Soviet Union. Hitler underestimated the combined strength, organizational skills, and military power of the Allies and allowed his dreams of Eastern conquest to cloud his judgment concerning military priorities when faced with a pressing war in the West. His inaccurate estimation of the strength of the Allies and his inability to coordinate war efforts on two fronts, especially after Stalingrad, led to the downfall of the Axis powers.

References

1. Fussell, Paul 2003. The Boys’ Crusade. New York: Random House Printing. 136. Fussell, 97. Fussell, 107. Overy,
2. Richard 1995. Why The Allies Won. New York: Norton Publishing. 192.

Dear brothers and sisters, India celebrates our 63nd Republic Day which is one of three national days in India. Commonly 63rd Republic Day is a public holiday in most of the countries to honor the day on which the country first became republics. In such some are Commonwealth countries, the British sovereign was ruling the state until the change of status. Even though India obtained freedom on August 15, 1947, Indian Constitution implemented and came into effect only on January 26, 1950. King George VI, the last and only “King” of the modern India, was leading our state during the evolution period from 1947 to 1950.

Lord Mountbatten and C. Rajagopalachari were serving as the Governors-General of India at that time. Afterwards Rajendra Prasad was elected as the first president of India on January 26, 1950. With this the Parliament officially approved the Constitution of India and declared itself as a “Republic” on January 26, 1950, a date thereafter celebrated every year as Republic Day in India. The Constitution had been prepared by the Constituent Assembly based upon India is becoming the liberal from the British rulers in 1947. So we can consider 26th of January was initially India’s “Independence Day”.

As everybody know Mahatma Gandhi, the father of nation, had taken a lot of efforts to get freedom for India by many symbolic acts during India’s Freedom Struggle against the British colonial rule. Acceptation of the Constitution on January 26, had given an extra strength to Country that has obtained liberty from the British Raj on August 15, 1947. There are two other annual national holidays in India apart from Republic day. One is Independence Day on August 15, 1947 and other one is birthday of Mohandas K Gandhi or Mahatma Gandhi on October 2. Lets talk about India Republic Day celebration official celebration in New Delhi. According to he Republic Day celebration on January 26th every year a grand parade is held in New Delhi, the Capital of India, beginning from Raisina Hill near the Presidential Palace Rashtrapati Bhavan, along the Rajpath, past India Gate and on to the historic Red Fort in the heart of the city to honor this occasion. Defence forces of state, Indian Army force, the Indian Navy and the Indian Air Force performs the past in parade with their ceremonial dress and official decorations on this auspicious occasion of Republic Day. The President of India, who is also the Commander in Chief of the Indian Armed Forces, takes the salute from the parade.

There will be an invited Head of State of another nation as Chief Guest of the parade which is the highlights of Republic Day celebrations. The Republic day parade also involves many customary dance groups, to signify the cultural legacy of India. At the end of parade Air Force jets perform a colourful flypast by in a tiranga formation which is adventurous and eye-catching at a time. Similar celebrations with such parades are held in the capitals of all the states of India on the Republic day. The Governor of the each state takes the salute in their respective celebrations.

More over all official government offices will also celebrate this national day which is also considered as people’s day. At the beginning of parade on Republic day, the Prime Minister of India wears a wreath at the Amar Jawan Jyoti at India Gate, honoring all the jawans who missed their worth lives for the country in the war. Then he address the public and give Republic day message in his Republic day speech. Next to this the President comes in his motorcade with the escorts of his bodyguards. Foreign Head of State – who is the Chief Guest at the celebration will follow the President in the Republic day Parade.

Once finish this salutation, a 21 gun salute is presented, the President unfurls the National Flag and the National Anthem is performed. This regards the beginning of the parade. The Republic day Parade commences with winners of bravery awards passing the President in open jeeps. Then all of the Armed Forces of India divisions salute the President of India. The Republic parade also sees the Indian Military exhibiting its latest acquirements such as tanks, missiles, radars, etc. There are also considerable parades from the various departments Police contingents, Home guards , Civil Defence and the National

Cadet Corps. A colorful cultural parade will follow the military parade. In this cultural parade India’s wealthy cultural tradition is displayed with tableaux from various states. Each state represents its distinctive festivals, historical locations and art forms. The next will be the ride past of children, who have won national bravery award winners at last year, on elephants. School-children from all over the country also take part in the parade on the republic Day. The most adventurous item is the next one, displays of skillful motor-cycle riding, usually by Armed Forces.

Following this the fly past of Indian Air Force salutes the president symbolically by fight planes. The republic Day celebration will not be end in one day. The official closing ceremony of Republic Day festivities will be held on the third day evening of January 29 after Republic Day. This is renowned as Beating the Retreat. On this occasion of this Republic Day we should stick with our own pledge for our Bharatha Matha to save the country and ourselves. The Republic day pledge should be against terrorism and corruption and we should stand for honesty which is taught by Mahatma Ghandi, father of the country.

Also our leaders must be corruption free and alert to threats those we are facing from the countries like Pakistan, China and US. Unlike the US, Pakistan and China have been aggressive ups and downs in India’s relationship with them. Therefore Leaders in Indian Government must attempt with effective discussions to eliminate the issues which are threatening India recently. India should not come again in the situation like attacks to Mumbai, Indian most commercial City. Let’s dream and hope for corruption free and other threats free peaceful India in upcoming years and contribute from our side.

Assess the importance of developments in military technology as a factor in the changing nature of military strategy in the period c1850 –c1985. The development of military technology can undoubtedly alter the way in which a war or battle is fought. Major military innovations have allowed for strategies to be adapted and refined. For example the invention of tanks allowed for strategic usage of movement to end the stalemate of World War One. The advances in technology have reformed the way in which a war is fought in the air as well as on the ground and sea.

If one side was in control of more advanced technology, it could be said they had a greater advantage over the enemy, with increased military capability. However the relationship between the technology and the strategy behind its deployment is essential. For the technology to achieve its goal, the planning, conduct and organisation must be beneficial. Technology however is not entirely responsible for the changes in military strategy, Leadership and tactics also play a part, but which is ultimately the most accountable?

The key technology that fundamentally affected the battles of the Crimean war was the invention of an effective rifle. Neil Stewart states that “The greatest change in land warfare was the substantial increase in the range, accuracy and firepower of the percussion cap rifles and the rifled artillery. ” This resulted in the attacking force standing little chance of succeeding and enabled the British to fight from greater distances with a higher chance of hitting the enemy. The infantrymen no longer had to load one bullet at a time, as a magazine could now take up to nine bullets in their magazine.

This meant loading time was reduced and the British were more likely to cause greater damage to the enemy over a shorter period. Furthermore Massie announces “The introduction of the Minie rifle and then the Enfield, revolutionised the battlefield. The ordinary infantry soldier now possessed a weapon long-ranged and accurate enough to enable him to operate it independently. ” This shows that now lines of infantry were now not needed and concentrated fire was not used. From the Crimean war, it is clear one strategy should never have been used.

The charge of the light brigade saw a cavalry charge against infantry and artillery. A report by Lieutenant-General Liprandi states “The English cavalry appeared, more than 2,000 strong…The enemy made a most obstinate charge…notwithstanding the well-directed fire from six guns of the light battery No. 7, and that of the men armed with carbines…In this attack the enemy had more than 400 men killed and sixty wounded, who were picked up on the field of battle, and we made twenty-two prisoners. ” Thus by the First World War, the cavalry were no longer used to attack against enemies laden with artillery.

The dominance of the machine gun in the First World War led to great strategic changes. Whereas a rifle could fire around fifteen rounds a minute, a machine gun could fire six hundred. The stalemate of the War meant that the guns could be set up in permanent positions resulting in the war becoming a defensive one. Stewart states “Unprotected troops could not expose themselves to this deadly onslaught of fire for long…and this meant digging into the ground. ” This explains how trenches became a popular method of escaping machine gun fire.

Trenches were not only a defensive method, but were ideal for launching an attack from within. The machine gun meant that military strategy was now in fact to keep killing until there was nothing left of the enemy, otherwise known as a war of attrition. The Battle of the Somme was designed to simply mow down as many of the German enemy as possible and try to break their morale. However this tactic proved to unsuccessful by Corporal W. Shaw. Shaw states “Our artillery had been bombing their line for six days and nights…the result was we never got anywhere near the Germans…they were just simply slaughtered. The stalemate of trench warfare leant itself for the reintroduction of mobile tactics. Stewart explains “By 1918 the British troops had moved away from the long linear advance; their attacking force was now built around a heavily armed, mobile, semi-independent platoon of 40 men. ” It could be said that long range tactics were now used, making the attacks depersonalised. The introduction of tanks meant that a preliminary barrage was no longer needed and attacks often now had the element of surprise. Their main tactic was to clear the trenches of the enemy and make a clear pathway for the infantry to follow behind.

A report by the war office in 1918 states, “At the end of the campaigning season of 1917 we tried the experiment at Cambrai of using tanks in large number to take the place of artillery bombardment. ” The use of tanks meant that there was a saving to be made in infantry, compared to that required to follow up an artillery bombardment. To finally break the Hindenburg line, the coordination of sophisticated artillery cover along with tanks, aeroplanes and armoured cars was used as the military strategy and according to Stewart “The battle tactics of the Second World War had emerged at the very end of the First World War. The tactics and strategies used in the Second World War were often based upon those used in the First World War. Many of the weapons used were simply the same but improved versions of those used before, thus you would think the same military strategy would be used. However the main military strategy of World War Two was to use the coordination of all available weapons and forces to strike the enemy at its weakest point instead of over a long front. The British and French went into the war believing it was going to be a defensive one; however the Germans were planning on it being an offensive one and to win it quickly.

According to Foley “The Allied armies, completely unprepared for the rapid, mobile operations of the Germans, had simply been out-fought at every turn. ” Stewart backs this up with his quote “A large part of the effectiveness of blitzkrieg was the panic and confusion produced by this unimagined mobility and advance. Opponents became quickly demoralized and surrendered rapidly. ” It can be said that this strategy was only effective with the use of advanced technology. Stewart states “A number of strategists…had advanced the theories of rapid mobile attack based upon concentrations of tanks. Putting this military strategy into practice resulted in the success of blitzkrieg. For example the French and British may have a higher number of tanks than Germany; however they chose not to concentrate them into large masses. Therefore it was not am advance in technology that forced the military plan to change, it was in fact then way in which the leaders chose to deploy it. Stewart also states “The intensification of the bombing offensive in 1943, however, had only limited results and incurred disastrous losses. This produced a change of strategy by the allies. This explains that perhaps Germany had superior technology in the air and therefore the Allies formed a military strategy which consisted of the total destruction of the German air force to achieve air supremacy. The commander in chief of the American air forces issued the instruction to “Destroy the enemy air force wherever you find them in the air, on the ground and in the factories. ” This shows how the Allies military plan was adapted to fully concentrate on the effectiveness of how to attack Germany’s air force. Leadership could also be considered a factor as to why military strategy changes.

For example Haig has often been criticised for the tactics he used in the First World War. Laffin says “A great commander knows exactly what he’s sending his men into but Haig didn’t. The principle which guided him was that if he could kill more Germans than the Germans could kill his men, then he would inevitably win. Now that is an appalling kind of strategy. It’s not a strategy at all, it’s just slaughter. ” Therefore it could be said that others would have chose a different strategy to Haig and not risked thousands of lives, meaning different leaders would address situations differently.

However on the other side many have argued that in fact Haig’s tactics did finally work in 1918 when he had more tanks and artillery to support him, perhaps making technology responsible. Furthermore Clarke tells of a conversation apparently held between Hoffman and Ludendorff. “Ludendorff: ‘The English soldiers fight like lions’ Hoffman: ‘True. But don’t we know that they are lions led by donkeys. ’ This shows perhaps if the leaders had provided a better military strategy, the brave soldiers could have been ‘lions’ which accomplished greater achievements.

Moreover Spilsbury states “Raglan…arrived at the top of this elevation Raglan was now in one of the most extraordinary positions ever taken up by a commander on the battlefield…Calthorpe reported ‘Lord Raglan at once saw the immense importance of getting guns up here, where they could enfilade all the Russian guns…” This shows Raglan to be an intelligent leader who could formulate and execute military strategy well and therefore having considerable influence in the way in which the battle was fought.

Logistics should also be considered. Johnson states “The logistical difficulties of the war prompted army reform in Great Britain. ” Speaking of the Crimean War, this quote shows that military strategy had to be adapted to fit around these problems. He then goes on to say “The first, and most important was the rationalisation of the chain of command for organisation in the field. ” This shows how rationalising as a strategy was bought in due to complications with logistics.

Moreover Overy states “Yet an operation designed to move 4000 ships, 2 million men and 12000 aircraft to France, from a base only a few minutes flying time from German airfields, appeared an impossible secret to keep for six long months. ” This is regarding the d-day landing of World War Two. A large amount of men and supplies had to be landed without being seen by the Germans, which would mean an excellent military strategy would be needed. The moving of these men and supplies resulted in a strategy being produced like no other.

Overall the tactics in Second World War had changed dramatically from the First World War. The technology was present in the First World War however its full potential had not been realised until later. From that it could be concluded that it was in fact factors other than technology that changed the nature of military strategy, such as leadership for example. If the leaders in the Second World War had not realised the mistakes made in tactics of the First World War, then perhaps they would not have been successful with their military planning.

However as technology progressed, its users were capable of achieving success in many different ways. In the Crimean War, due to the innovation of a successful rifle, strategy changed from fighting together to being able to fight independently. Tanks and armoured cars brought back mobility and therefore strategies changed to overcome the stalemate of trench warfare in World War One. A good leader could be assessed by the way in which he managed to supply his troops, in other words logistics.

So therefore logistics itself may have limited effect on military strategy as it is in fact the way in which a leader uses logistics to their advantage which is responsible for the change. To conclude, technology is forever changing and will carry on doing so long into the future. As it does so, the strategy behind the way it is deployed will have to change with it if it is to be a success. However whether or not a leader produces a high-quality military plan that supports the deployment of this new technology will also play a role in the development of military strategy.