Analyzing Taxonomy of Effects in Joint Doctrine
Versandkostenfrei!
Versandfertig in über 4 Wochen
58,99 €
inkl. MwSt.
PAYBACK Punkte
29 °P sammeln!
Effects have been an integral part of warfare for thousands of years. Only until the past twenty years has the study of effects in detail become a part of our joint doctrine. Effects-based thinking is not a service specific system, but rather it is a methodology for a way of thinking during planning, execution, and assessment. Joint doctrine has incorporated guidance on effects in warfare. This paper determines if certain effects-related voids exist in Joint Doctrine. It accomplishes this by initial focusing on the taxonomy of effects by reviewing current joint doctrine that consists of JP 5-0...
Effects have been an integral part of warfare for thousands of years. Only until the past twenty years has the study of effects in detail become a part of our joint doctrine. Effects-based thinking is not a service specific system, but rather it is a methodology for a way of thinking during planning, execution, and assessment. Joint doctrine has incorporated guidance on effects in warfare. This paper determines if certain effects-related voids exist in Joint Doctrine. It accomplishes this by initial focusing on the taxonomy of effects by reviewing current joint doctrine that consists of JP 5-0 Joint Operation Planning, JP 3-0 Joint Operations, and JP 3-60 Joint Targeting. Secondly, the paper shifts to researching additional taxonomy of effects. Finally, it provides recommendations based off the research and recommendations for further research. Those findings include: Recommendation #1: Based upon the research conducted, it is recommended for Joint Doctrine developers to integrate the effects provided from AFDD-2 and other sources in chapter 2 of this paper. Recommendation #2: As an option, reorient the taxonomy of effects per Figure 4, Proposed Taxonomy of Effects. This will streamline the taxonomy and provide a clearer picture of the multitude of pieces involved in the effects-based planning, execution, and assessment puzzle. Recommendation #3: Delineate, clarify, or delete the difference between desired/undesired and intended/unintended effects.
Andere Kunden interessierten sich für
