Thesis (M.S. in Operations Research)--Naval Postgraduate School, December 2003. / Thesis advisor(s): Eugene Paulo, Kevin J. Maher. Includes bibliographical references (p. 39-40). Also available online.

Thesis (M.S.)--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 51.52). Also available online.

Decision makers often present military researchers with a most daunting challenge: to pursue, with some level of prophetic certainty, innovative concepts that will yield increased capabilities during future wars against forecasted threats in not-yet- determined locations. This conundrum is complicated further with the requirement that the proposed technology yield benefit throughout the various strata of military operations. In the maturation of an advanced capability enabled by a technological advancement, a groundbreaking design should simultaneously demonstrate performance overmatch against an envisioned foe while showing that the costs associated with development, procurement, and operation outweigh reverting to an incremental advancement in the conventional means of delivering combat power. This manuscript focuses on the construction and utilization of decision support tools for use by scientists and engineers charged with providing a quantitative evaluation of an advanced ground combat system. The concepts presented focus on the effects and synergy regarding the combat vehicle principal attributes of survivability, lethality, and mobility. Additionally, this study provides a framework for analysis of these attributes when screened at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels of war. These concepts are presented and demonstrated from both the candidate selection (or choice) perspective, and the concept development (or design) perspective. As an example of this approach, this study includes a comparison of conventional powder gun cannonry versus a specific type of electromagnetic launch device known as the railgun. The decision support tools formulated in this dissertation allow the user to distill, at a coarse level of fidelity, the parametric relationships between system survivability, lethality, and mobility for advanced weapon system concepts. The proposed methods are suited for evaluation at the nascent stages of development, when the information normally applied in standard methods is sparse. This general approach may also be valuable in contemporary acquisition strategies employed in urgent fielding efforts, where the immediacy of the problem can benefit from an expedient and efficient method of analyzing the coupled and synergistic effects of implementing a proposed technology. While advantage is typically measured in terms of performance overmatch at the platform level, the broadening of this consideration vertically to higher levels of military command can aid in identifying the competing issues and complementary relationships related to a technical approach. Finally, given the backdrop demonstration for the framework, this manuscript may serve as a brief summary of system fundamentals and design theory for direct fire powder gun cannonry and electromagnetic railguns. / text

Introduction. The relationships among military service, combat intensity and long-term health effects were investigated in a cohort of 6,355 Vietnam-era American Legionnaires who were recruited in 1984 and followed through 1998. First, the effect of Vietnam service on coronary heart disease (CHD) risk was assessed among 3,781 veterans who responded to both questionnaires. Next, the effect of serving in Vietnam and combat exposure was investigated as risk factors for the mortality of the cohort. Finally, potential threats to the validity of this study were evaluated.Methods. Military service and lifestyle factors were assessed by questionnaires in 1984 and 1998. Vital status in 1998 was determined and causes of death were ascertained through the National Death Index. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to calculate hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for CHD incidence and mortality in relation to service location and combat exposure, adjusting for age, smoking, alcohol consumption, body mass, and hypertension. Response bias and reliability of self-reported data were examined.Results. Serving in Vietnam was associated with an increased hazard of developing heart disease (HR=1.37, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.73), after controlling for independent risk factors. Vietnam veterans experienced a 50% higher mortality than non-Vietnam veterans during 14-year follow-up (HR=1.48, 95% CI= 1.13 - 1.93), which increased with combat intensity after adjustment for other risk factors, (low combat: HR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 - 1.73; medium combat HR=1.51, 95% CI 1.05 - 2.17; high combat HR=1.82, 95% CI 1.20 - 2.76). A stronger relationship was observed by level of combat for CHD mortality (low combat: HR =1.48, 95% CI 0.75 - 2.95; medium combat HR= 2.01, 95% CI 1.06 - 3.79; high combat HR= 2.27, 95% CI 1.08 - 4.79). Results showed that non-respondents differed only slightly from respondents for important variables potentially related to exposures and chronic disease outcomes. Furthermore, veteran self-report was moderately to highly reliable when measured over a 14 year period.Conclusions. Vietnam veterans are still experiencing higher rates of adverse health effects, even more than thirty years after their military service. These data support a long term and independent adverse effect of military service in Vietnam on cardiovascular health.

The cruel nature of war gives reason for its study. A crucial component of this research aims to uncover the reasons behind victory and defeat. Winning, after all, is the central attraction of organized violence. Unfortunately, political science efforts in this direction have been rare, and the few theories on offer (numerical preponderance, technology theory, and proficiency) are infrequently tested against the empirical record. This dissertation therefore not only subjected the main theories of battlefield victory to a systematic test against the historical record, but also did so with a dataset more comprehensive and with greater chronological breadth than any other in the political science literature. The range of battles included runs from Megiddo (1469 BC) to Wanat (2008). Such a historically ambitious undertaking is unfortunately fraught with a series of methodological concerns. However, fears regarding the reliability of these historical statistics are best allayed by the assortment of historiographical techniques that have been used to eliminate the more dubious estimations. Concerns regarding data validity are similarly met with a clear delineation of methodological scope: current data is both western-centric and fails to speak to combat in pre-agrarian settings; the conclusions drawn below therefore keep a recognition of these limitations in mind. Ultimately, the chief findings of this study are that neither Napoleon’s ‘big battalions’ nor armies boasting technological supremacy over their rivals are assured any guarantee of battlefield success. This result is a powerful blow to both mainstream realist theory (whose power calculations rely on raw aggregations like army size) and Western defence planners (who have predicated their strategies on the belief that technology is the chief underpinning of victory). That being said, the most compelling causal explanation for battlefield victory, combat proficiency, appears subject to a crucial caveat: even the most talented armies can be ground into dust. This finding will provide little comfort to gifted armies that find themselves involved in a costly and prolonged campaign, such as Canada and America in Afghanistan. Lastly, this project’s contribution should be seen as not only theoretical and practical in nature, but also as providing a methodological toolkit and empirical resource of use to anyone subsequently interested in tracing the evolution of organized violence over time. In short, this project is summation of how political science thinks about the most basic aspect of war: battle. As the findings of this dissertation suggest, what is distinctly troublesome is that our existing theories and assumptions about who wins and why appear to bear little resemblance to reality. If anything, this dissertation calls attention to the urgent need for further research into the matter of battle victory.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.