Summary regarding nuclear from the MOD's long term plan - publicly available here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ecured.pdf
1) they expect to see more nuclear power plants everywhere
2) As such they expect "Growing use of nuclear energy raises the possibility of fissile material being obtained by non-state actors as well as countries operating outside international laws, potentially causing security threats." - ie the terrorist nuke.
3) They expect Brazil or Argentina to have nuclear submarines and possibly nuclear weapons by 2045
4) They expect widespread solar power plantations in the middle east, and suggest this is preferable to the current trajectory of nuclear power ("a large quantity of fissile material and expertise may be present in the area")
5) They expect EU nations to continue to be low armed and work in coalition, with the two exceptions being France and the UK
6) they expect Russia to maintain nuclear weapons and subs to protect its interests in the Baltics.
in the future weapons section:
Increased levels of defence spending and
continuing advances in technology are likely
to lead to a variety of new weapons being
available by 2045. For example, laser systems
are maturing, with vehicle and sea-based
platforms already at advanced stages of trial.3
Directed energy weapons, such as lasers, could
be capable of discrete target discrimination,
producing a focussed beam (or wider field) of
electromagnetic energy or atomic radiation
to cause disruptive or damaging effects to
equipment and infrastructure. Such weapons
may also be capable of delivering non-lethal
effect on human targets at considerable
distances. Increases in the number and
sophistication of sensors (civil and military) are
likely to increase the accuracy of targeting, as
well as making it increasingly difficult to hide
people, machines or equipment. As people
use electronic devices more frequently, the
ability to target an individual by their ‘digital signature’ is likely to become easier. Similarly,
as the cost of sequencing an individual’s DNA
continues to fall, targeting an individual using
their DNA may be possible by 2045. We could
also see sophisticated environmental warfare,
capable of spreading plant and human
diseases by insects or insect-machine hybrids.
Crops and cattle could be destroyed, as well as
people being incapacitated or killed.
Globalisation, in particular the spread of
technology, information and ideas, is likely
to give an increasing number of people
(both state and non-state actors) access to
sophisticated and technologically advanced
capabilities. This is likely to increase the
opportunity for unconventional attacks
on technologically sophisticated nations,
including by terrorists. However, future
technology may also be developed to predict,
detect and counter such attacks.
on the threat of nuclear war and overall levels of conflict:
Although many people see the 20th and early
21st centuries as being the most violent and
bloody in human history, evidence suggests
that the frequency and intensity of wars, as
well as the number of violent deaths, has been
declining sharply and is likely to continue
to fall.4 For example, no western European
countries have gone to war against each other
since the end of World War II, but by contrast,
in the 600 years before 1945, they started an
average of two new wars each year. Although
the number of civil wars increased after 1945,
these have also been on the decline since
1991. Countries are also much more willing,
globally, to get involved in peacekeeping,
with peace-support operations dramatically
increasing since the end of World War II
(although they have slightly decreased in
number since 2000).5 Of course, the risk of
a major conflict will almost certainly remain.
Historically, the rise of two or more great
powers in close physical proximity is usually
correlated with war or conflict – and there are
a number of such potential flashpoints around
the world, looking out to 2045.
The nature of conflict will almost certainly
continue to change, particularly as a result
of technology. Increasing use of unmanned
systems may mean that, in the future, physical
conflict could occur between unmanned
systems (for example, using remotely piloted
aircraft to attack an unmanned oil installation).
The opportunities for bloodless attacks could
lower the threshold for conflict. Similarly,
as people become more connected and
dependent on technology, the potential for
inflicting significant harm on an adversary
without the need for violence, is likely to
increase. Power distribution networks or
banking systems could be closed down, rather
than more physically destructive action being
taken. Furthermore, globalisation is likely to
provide opportunities for actors to create
social and political instability. For example,
the reach and penetration of the internet
could be used to spread disinformation; social
media could be used to incite specific interest
groups and organisations; and the actor’s
diaspora communities could also be exploited,
particularly where they have local grievances.
When violence does occur, technology is likely
to make applying it more precise, and possibly,
more effective. For example, targeted
assassinations of the family members of a
ruling elite (or the threat of them) may have
more of a deterrent effect than the threat of
war. Nevertheless, war is ultimately a human
endeavour. It will be humans who choose
to go to war, it will be humans who can stop
wars and it will be humans who suffer the
consequences of war.
Defence and security implications
■■ The US and China are likely to have similarly sized defence budgets by 2045,
potentially out-spending the rest of the world.
■■ India could have a defence budget equivalent to the EU’s total spending on defence.
This would put India in a ‘second tier’ of global defence expenditure, with a ‘third
tier’ (comprising countries such as France, Germany, Russia and the UK).
■■ The link between expenditure and capability is not straightforward. Domestic
political problems may undermine the effectiveness of some countries’ armed
forces. Other countries may choose not to develop global military reach.
■■ Increasing real-terms equipment costs indicate that platforms will become ever
more expensive. Higher levels of defence spending may not lead to armed forces
larger than today’s.
posted without comment to allow other people to check/digest what I've said.
"Aid, trade, green technology and peace." - Hans Rosling.
"Welcome to SDN, where we can't see the forest because walking into trees repeatedly feels good, bro." - Mr Coffee
