| 1. |
-
Core values and the expeditionary mindset : armed forces in metamorphosis
- 2011. - 1
-
Samlingsverk (redaktörskap) (refereegranskat)abstract
- There is quite some consensus that today’s international security environment has substantially changed following the end of the Cold War in 1989/90 and that this requires the transformation of modern armed forces from conventional ones to something else. This ‘something else’ may indeed be an expeditionary military. The military metamorphosis that is needed seems to be nothing less than a substantial overhaul of the armed forces in various dimensions. One obvious dimension is organizational structure. The second dimension is technology and especially armament technology where weapons and equipment need to be adapted to present-day conflict and combat challenges including a shift in focus of procurement policies. The third dimension rests with the assumption that the given, current security political landscape necessitates a change not only in the military’s organizational format and technological posture, but also in mindset. Changing the conventional military mindset towards one that is focused on expeditionary operations calls into question how such a transformation will influence the core values of the military. The fourth and final dimension is educating and training the soldiers because expeditionary operations call for additional skills and expertise compared to those required for a Cold War military mission.The contributions to this book focus on the mindset and the core values of an expeditionary military and take different avenues to approach these themes. At times, they also reach out into the other dimensions. The book is divided into two parts. The first part covers concepts and conceptual approaches, while the second part contains contributions that basically carry case-study character. The contributors belong to a wide range of academic disciplines, which allows for different avenues and perspectives on our topic, thus enriching our knowledge of the problems involved. The book is of great interest and relevance to academia, military practitioners and political decision-makers.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
-
Representing conflicts in games : Antagonism, rivalry, and competition
- 2023
-
Samlingsverk (redaktörskap) (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This book offers an overview of how conflicts are represented and enacted in games, in a variety of genres and game systems. Games are a cultural form apt at representing real world conflicts, and this edited volume highlights the intrinsic connection between games and conflict through a set of theoretical and empirical studies. It interrogates the nature and use of conflicts as a fundamental aspect of game design, and how a wide variety of conflicts can be represented in digital and analogue games. The book asks what we can learn from conflicts in games, how our understanding of conflicts change when we turn them into playful objects, and what types of conflicts are still not represented in games. It queries the way games make us think about armed conflict, and how games can help us understand such conflicts in new ways. Offering a deeper understanding of how games can serve political, pedagogical, or persuasive purposes, this volume will interest scholars and students working in fields such as game studies, media studies, and war studies.
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Thisner, Fredrik, et al.
(författare)
-
Sveriges historia
- 2011
-
Ingår i: Utbildningshistoria. - Lund : Studentlitteratur. - 9789144068978 ; , s. 27-42
-
Bokkapitel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Nilsson, Mikael, 1976-
(författare)
-
Tools of Hegemony : Military Technology and Swedish-American Security Relations, 1945-1962
- 2007
-
Doktorsavhandling (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- This doctoral thesis analyze the process whereby Sweden gained access to American guided missiles during the late 1950s and early 1960s. It also tracks the Swedish efforts to develop guided missiles domestically. The concept of hegemony is used to interpret these processes, the dynamic in the Swedish-American relationship, and its consequences for the Swedish policy of neutrality.Sweden’s domestic guided missile development program, begun in the end of World War Two, met with great difficulties already by the end of the 1940s, and had entered a cul de sac by the early 1950s. The reason for this was a contunuous lack of funding and personnel, as well as a lack of foreign hardware and know-how. By 1947 the United States had largely established its hegemony in Western Europe, and the U.S. government then sought to gain the consent of the Swedish government as well. The U.S. government used its preponderant position, and pressured Sweden to adapt its policies by withholding vital technology from the Swedes. The U.S. refusal to deliver arms to a neutral Scandinavian Defense Union was significant in this respect. Sweden gradually gave its concurrence through a series of steps, most importantly the participation in the Marshall Plan in 1948, and COCOM in the summer of 1951. The confirmation of the U.S. government’s acceptance of Sweden came in the summer of 1952 when was made eligible to buy armaments in the United States under the Mutual Defense Assistance Act (MDAA).However, Sweden was not granted access to American guided missiles. This was an experience shared with most of the NATO countries (with the limited exception of Britain and Canada). During the course of the 1950s the United States was forced to change its position, due to prodding from the nato allies. The annual nato meetings were used as a platform by the nato countries in this endevour. The U.S. government reversed its non-disclosure policy in 1957 because of worries that its hegemonic position was threatened if it did not provide these weapons to its allies. Guided missile deliveries to Europe was used as a means to keep the alliance together, and to preserve U.S. hegemony in Western Europe.Because of its consent to U.S. hegemony Sweden gained access to U.S. missiles at the same time, and many times even before the NATO countries. Sweden was the first Western European country to purchase Sidewinder (1959) and Hawk (1962), and license manufactured two versions of the Falcon missile. Because of these deliveries the development of Swedish surface-to-air and air-to-air missiles was halted. Sweden was dependent upon the U.S. for deliveries of additional missiles in wartime, and this could have become a problem for Sweden’s ability to defend its territory against Western intrusions, since Sweden’s defense was based on help arriving from the West if Sweden was attacked by the USSR. The Swedish government, using the Royal Air Force Board as a proxy, signed a memorandum of Understanding in 1961 which gave the U.S. government the rigth to any improvements to the Falcon missiles, as well as the right to use them anywhere in the world. Sweden had thus de facto become a part of the U.S. military’s supply line.
|
|
