Month: January 2025

The United Kingdom is undergoing a growing free speech crisis. Unlike the United States, there is no “First Amendment” which constitutionally protects free speech.

One key problem is that Britain’s “Online Safety Bill,” passed in 2023. It was originally meant to provide a “safe space” online. However, it is sufficiently vague to allow authoritarian practices.

According to an official Parliament review, the measure establishes an “online safety regime against current freedom of expression laws … the Bill will significantly curtail freedom of expression in a way that has profound consequences for the British media and journalism, courts and the UK’s digital economy. The Bill gives the Secretary of State overseeing the legislation unprecedented powers to curtail freedom of expression with limited parliamentary scrutiny.”

Earlier this year, Reform Party leader and Member of Parliament Nigel Farage, in a Daily Telegraph interview, warned that the Government’s new extremism definition, unveiled during the spring,  could “shut down” free speech. He stressed that the measure could be abused by the Government to shut down debate on issues that they did not like, and would permit it to block meetings and funding for groups that criticized elected officials.

The issue has attracted international attention. Human Rights Watch reports that “In 2023, the UK government eroded domestic human rights protections and reneged on important international obligations. The government passed a law further criminalizing protesters and limiting workers’ strikes.”

The Index on Censorship publication worries about the increasingly authoritarian approach to protesting in the UK and the worrying climate this creates for those wishing to peacefully exercise their right to free assembly and free expression.

The Spectator notes that “…people [have been] given prison sentences for posting words and images on social media.”

The Action Institute provides this analysis: “We now appear to have settled into a mentality in which government overreach becomes the norm, reinforcing populist alienation, and our churches sink under doctrinal declension and theological liberalism. Who is left to speak for us? In the first three months of the new Labour government, three actions were taken to set us on a road of diminished rights: (1) universities were exempted from protecting free speech, (2) there was the promise of an extension of hate laws and the recording of “hate incidents” based on what we think and say, and (3) we’re now closer to a conversion therapy ban that threatens both parental and church liberties. One of the first acts of the new Secretary of State for Education (in the U.K., the senior government minister in a department is usually styled as Secretary of State), Bridget Phillipson, was to suspend indefinitely the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.”

The Free Speech Union describes an example of how extreme the environment has become: “In the wake of civil unrest that spread across the UK following the murder of three children in Southport, [Prime Minister]Sir Keir Starmer has overseen the harshest of crackdowns on those suspected of online involvement, and on several occasions spoken approvingly about the ensuing wave of prosecutions. This includes one man who has been sent to jail for 18 months for sharing something “offensive” that someone else said on Facebook, and another man who has been sent down for three years for posting “anti-Establishment rhetoric.”

There is deep concern that so-called “Contempt of Court” charges are being employed to discourage criticism.

Article 19, a free speech group, explains that  The UK is expanding its powers to suppress protest rights, citing measures such as the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the 2023 Public Order Act, measures soundly criticized by Amnesty International. It described how, In May 2024, former Home Secretary Suella Braverman was ruled by a high court to have acted unlawfully by making it easier to criminalize peaceful protests. Various groups conducting peaceful protests have suffered as a result.

Illustration: Pixabay

The U.S. Defense Department has announced that it has adopted a new, classified strategy for countering the effects of unmanned systems, also called “drones.” 

Unmanned systems are increasing in capability and are posing ever-increasing threats to the U.S. and its allies. The Pentagon notes that “Enabled by growing commercial innovation and the increasing sophistication of artificial intelligence, autonomy and networking technology, unmanned systems are fundamentally changing how militaries of all sizes, capacities, and capabilities — as well as non-state actors — achieve their objectives.” 

Air Force Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder worries that drones “..have the potential to pose both an urgent and enduring threat to U.S. personnel, facilities and assets overseas and increasingly in the U.S. homeland,The threats presented by these systems are changing how wars are fought.”

Specific details of The new strategy are classified, but certain threat areas Have been openly discussed.

One effort involves gaining a better understanding of the threats posed by unmanned systems and improving the ability of American forces to detect, track and characterize those threats.  Another aspect of the strategy is to build counter-unmanned system efforts and knowledge into existing U.S. military doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership, personnel, facilities and policy. 

The military says it is committed to delivering adaptable counter-UAS solutions more quickly and at scale, including by working more closely with U.S. partners and allies. 

Of note also is that the department, within the strategy, recognizes the vast difference between the low cost of developing and deploying unmanned systems and the high cost the U.S. currently spends to defeat those systems.

The intensive use of drones, highlighted by the fighting in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, illustrates that warfighting is changing more rapidly than it has in decades. U.S. military strategists are seeking to transform based on “lessons learned and a sober assessment of the modern battlefield.”

As a consequence, major changes in arms programs are taking place.

The Army will discontinue development of the Future Attack and Reconnaissance Aircraft at the conclusion of prototyping activities while continuing investment in the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft, and making new investments in UH-60 Blackhawk, and CH-47F Block II Chinook. The Army will phase out operations of systems that are not capable or survivable on today’s battlefield including the Shadow and Raven unmanned aircraft systems. The Army will increase investments in cutting-edge, effective, capable and survivable unmanned aerial reconnaissance capabilities and the procurement of commercial small unmanned systems.

“The Army is deeply committed to our aviation portfolio and to our partners in the aviation industrial base,” said Secretary of the Army Christine Wormuth. “These steps enable us to work with industry to deliver critical capabilities as part of the joint force, place the Army on a sustainable strategic path, and continue the Army’s broader modernization plan which is the service’s most significant modernization effort in more than four decades.”

“We are learning from the battlefield—especially in Ukraine—that aerial reconnaissance has fundamentally changed,” said the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Randy George. “Sensors and weapons mounted on a variety of unmanned systems and in space are more ubiquitous, further reaching, and more inexpensive than ever before…”

It’s not only the American armed forces that are taking note. The Australian Army Research Center explains that “Overall, drones have been shown to provide lethality at range, low cost, and with economy of effort that can be used in the air, land and sea. The ability to see farther accurately, coupled with cost savings, has made UAVs indispensable for both Ukrainian defensive and offensive operations. Apart from the overwhelming use of drones in the air, the war in Ukraine unveiled successful use of the naval drones, and the infancy of the land drones for various purposes.”

Photo: Army Spc. Kevin Jiminez operates the “Dronebuster” during counter-unmanned aerial systems training near Pabrade, Lithuania

In its dramatic reach for global dominance, China has ignored both geographical reality and global agreements to pursue territorial gains.  While Beijing’s activities in the Indo-Pacific region have been noted, particularly in its aggression against the Philippines and Taiwan, its threatening moves in the Arctic have received lesser attention. Combined with Russia’s massive military presence in the far north, the U.S. and its allies are at an increasingly dangerous disadvantage.

There is no governing treaty, as there is in Antarctica, which mandates that the area be used only for peaceful purposes.

The Arctic Institute reports that “While China is located 1500 kilometers south of the Arctic Circle, Beijing is evidently interested in the region in terms of economic activities, international partnerships, scientific research, regional governance, and demonstrating the nation’s return to its historical role as a great power. China’s role in the Arctic continues to be a significant development in international politics. At the strategic level, there have been instances of Sino-Russian joint military maneuvers around the Arctic.”

Both the United States and Russia have taken note. Russia maintains that key portions of the region, including the Northern Sea Route, are part of its “Strategic patrimony.” It backs up that claim with an overwhelming military advantage in the area.

A Chatham House analysis warns that “Russia’s seeks consistent control over foreign military activity in the Russian Arctic, and ensured access for Russian armed forces, particularly the Northern Fleet…Parts of the armed forces, such as the Arctic Brigade, are now Arctic-capable and have developed concepts of operations tailored to that environment. The Northern Fleet has been repurposed with the Arctic environment in mind, and has been provided with Arctic-specific military technology and training.”

Russia’s military activities in the region are long-standing, but China’s intense interest in new and growing.

A Pentagon review featuring Iris A. Ferguson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Arctic and Global Resilience, speaking at Center for Strategic and International Studies noted that “The Arctic strategic environment is changing profoundly, and the United States must pay greater attention and dedicate more resources to this crucial area.”

Ferguson stressed that “China is, by no means, an Arctic nation. But Chinese leaders see the region as a new crossroads of the world, a new source of raw materials and new avenues for manifesting its growing power.”

She pointed out that China is working closely with Russia in its attempt to be seen as an Arctic power. Putin is investing heavily on military and economic strategies in the Arctic. “We’re seeing Russia continue to have immense focus on the Arctic region… we still see them … heavily focused on the region.” 

Ferguson reports that “Even more disturbing is the increasing levels of collaboration between Russia and China especially in the military domain, she said. Russia and China exercised together in the Bering Strait in summer of 2023. “Just this past summer, right after we released our department strategy, we saw a joint bomber patrol off of the coast of Alaska.There has also been increasing cooperation between the Chinese and Russian coast guards in the region.

The Scandinavian Journal of Military Studies illustrated that true Arctic regional nations are substantively worried. “China’s Arctic strategy follows what we describe as a ‘comprehensive approach’ consisting of four main arms: political, economic, scientific, and military. This strategy is designed to advance the party-state’s influence in the Arctic through simultaneously molding discourses and challenging legal concepts of the Arctic (political), boosting its economic interests in the Arctic (economic), fusing civil-military scientific and technological innovation (scientific), and preparing for a military presence in the Arctic (military). Finally, the article concludes that as the significance of the Arctic for China’s long-term security strategy is guided by Xi Jinping’s thought on total national security, future analyses of China’s Arctic intentions should pay particular attention to this evolving concept.”

Photo: Nearly 800 paratroopers assigned to the 2nd Infantry Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 11th Airborne Division, jump into Malemute Drop Zone, Alaska, Oct. 15, 2024.

Amid the nuclear challenges facing America, General Anthony J. Cotton, who leads the U.S. Strategic Command, has stressed the importance of readiness and adaptability in U.S. nuclear forces. The Nuclear Posture Review, a key component of national defense planning, highlights the urgency of modernizing the nuclear triad — bombers, submarines and intercontinental ballistic missiles — as well as the systems that ensure their cohesion and reliability. Cotton affirmed the NPR’s guidance, stating, “We cannot remain stagnant. Our modernization programs must include on-ramps and off-ramps to adjust to new challenges.” 

 Central to this modernization effort is the NUclear COmmand, COntrol, and Communications (NC3) system, which serves as the backbone of strategic deterrence. The NC3 infrastructure ensures that the president can communicate securely with nuclear forces, providing unambiguous orders and maintaining control under any circumstances.  

Cotton described the NC3 system as enabling three essential actions: deciding when an order is valid, ensuring the authenticity of that order and confirming when operations must cease. “NC3 enables us to decide, direct and confirm every step of a nuclear operation,” he explained. “It ensures connectivity with the president and validates every order as authentic.” 

Despite its importance, the NC3 system remains a vulnerability due to its Cold War-era architecture. Cotton acknowledged that while the system has performed reliably for decades, it now faces significant challenges from evolving cyber threats, space-based vulnerabilities and its own aging infrastructure. While he agreed that modernization efforts must integrate advanced technologies — such as artificial intelligence — to process massive amounts of data efficiently, Cotton stressed that human oversight remains non-negotiable. “AI supports decision-making, but humans will always stay in control,” he declared. 

The challenges of modernization extend beyond technology. Funding and integration represent obstacles as well. The NC3 enterprise encompasses more than 200 interconnected systems across multiple services and agencies, requiring seamless coordination to ensure operational continuity. Cotton highlighted the complexity of this task, noting that each element must align with the overarching strategy while maintaining flexibility to adapt to emerging threats. He emphasized the need for collaboration, “Modernization is about ensuring continuity, building a road map and aligning near-term actions with long-term goals.” 

This complexity underscores the vital role of the NPR and the NDS in shaping modernization priorities. Both documents emphasize that America must sustain a safe, secure and effective nuclear deterrent to meet the challenges posed by adversaries. These assurances are particularly important for maintaining the credibility of extended deterrence commitments to allies like Japan and South Korea. 

The modernization effort also comes with significant financial implications. Critics often cite the costs of nuclear modernization, projecting expenditures of over $1 trillion over the next 30 years. However, Cotton provided a clear perspective on this issue, arguing that modernization represents only 4% of the defense budget. “Modernizing our forces today costs far less than facing the consequences of unpreparedness,” he argued. The four star also emphasized that the investment covers all three legs of the nuclear triad as well as the NC3 system, making it essential for maintaining strategic stability. 

As the United States navigates this modernization process, lessons from adversaries further underscore the importance of maintaining a credible deterrent. Russia’s saber-rattling during the Ukraine conflict and its continued nuclear threats reveals the coercive power of nuclear capabilities. And China’s growing arsenal highlights the need for the United States to adapt its strategies to deter both conventional and nuclear aggression. Cotton stressed that U.S. forces must be prepared to prevent conflicts from escalating to the nuclear level, stating that ” must ensure that no conventional conflict escalates into nuclear war.” 

Cotton’s vision for STRATCOM reflects this urgency. As the command enters its “year of acceleration,” he outlined a forward-looking strategy to address immediate needs while building a foundation for long-term success. “We’ve laid the foundation for modernization and taken action to address immediate needs. Now we must accelerate progress to meet the challenges ahead,” he said. His approach includes fostering collaboration across agencies, leveraging technological advancements and engaging with allies to strengthen collective defense. 

While he addressed immediate operational challenges, Cotton also called for a renewed focus on cultivating the next generation of strategic thinkers. He emphasized the importance of blending traditional nuclear theory with contemporary insights to address today’s unique threat environment. “Theoretical foundations remain important, but we need new thinking to address the interwoven dynamics of alliances, economic interdependence and technological advancements,” he explained. His remarks emphasize a multidisciplinary approach to strategic deterrence — one that accounts for the complexities of a multipolar nuclear age. 

Cotton’s insights highlight the stakes of modernizing U.S. nuclear forces in an increasingly competitive and unpredictable world. The integration of advanced technologies, the reinforcement of NC3 infrastructure and the maintenance of strong alliances form the bedrock of this effort. At its core, modernization ensures that the Defense Department retains a credible deterrent capable of meeting any challenge. “Deterrence is about producing effects that meet the president’s objectives,” Cotton concluded. 

A Pentagon release notes that “The United States stands at the crossroads of strategic competition. The modernization of its nuclear forces represents not just a defense imperative but a critical investment in global stability.”

Photo: A ballistic missile system attached to a brigade under the PLA Rocket Force is well-prepared during a night training exercise in early March, 2020. (eng.chinamil.com.cn/Photo by Zhang Feng)