000			03204cam a2200445 a 4500
001			rnd000000000111406
003			RAND
005			20200811100747.0
008			050124s2005 cau b 000 0 eng
010			_a 2005001399
020			_a0833037447 (pbk.)
027			_aRAND/MG-219-A
035			_a(Sirsi) o57514883
037			_c$22.00 _fpaperback
040			_aCstmoR _cCstmoR
043			_an-us---
050	0	0	_aUA25 _b.N5 2005
100	1		_aNichiporuk, Brian, _d1966- _eauthor.
245	1	0	_aAlternative futures and Army force planning : _bimplications for the future force era / _cBrian Nichiporuk.
264		1	_aSanta Monica, CA : _bRAND, _c2005.
300			_axxiv, 111 pages ; _c23 cm
336			_atext _btxt _2rdacontent
337			_acomputer _bc _2rdamedia
337			_aunmediated _bn _2rdamedia
338			_aonline resource _bcr _2rdacarrier
338			_avolume _bnc _2rdacarrier
500			_a"All of the research for this monograph was conducted within RAND Arroyo Center's Strategy, Doctrine, and Resources Program"--Preface.
500			_a"RAND Arroyo Center."
504			_aIncludes bibliographical references (p. 109-111).
505	0		_aIntroduction -- Project Methodology -- Future Trends and the Creation of Alternative Futures -- Describing the Alternative Futures -- Implications for Army Force Planning -- Some Final Thoughts.
520			_aTo help the U.S. Army with force planning for the 2025 era, this study uses the tool of alternative futures analysis. It bounds the future the Army will face by laying out a representative spectrum of different "future worlds" that hopefully illustrate the complete universe of future missions. By mixing and matching possible trends across five key areas (geopolitics, economics, demographics, technology, and environment), six alternative futures are created: "U.S. unipolarity" and "democratic peace" (best cases), "major competitor rising" and "competitive multipolarity" (medium-good cases), "transnational web" (medium-bad case), and "chaos/anarchy" (worst case). After explaining the main features of each future, the study creates an appropriate "Army type" for each, through a three-step process: (1) a representative combat scenario was created for each future, (2) the strategies-to-tasks methodology was used to set out the raw capabilities needed for a given scenario, and (3) the force characteristics and size required to meet the needs presented in the capability statements were formulated. All the needed characteristics were then bundled together to form a basic Army type for a given future. The report concludes with a review and discussion of the common desired characteristics found across the six types.
530			_aAlso available on the internet via WWW in PDF format.
610	1	0	_aUnited States. _bArmy _xPersonnel management.
610	1	0	_aUnited States. _bArmy _xReorganization.
650		0	_aMilitary planning _zUnited States.
650		0	_aUnited States _xForeign relations _y2001- _xForecasting.
710	2		_aArroyo Center. _bStrategy, Doctrine, and Resources Program.
710	2		_aRand Corporation.
710	1		_aUnited States. _bArmy.
856	4	1	_yOnline Access _uhttp://www.rand.org/publications/MG/MG219/
999			_c596857 _d596857