Search results

Intro -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- Notes on Contributors -- Chapter 1: Introduction -- Resilience: Psychology and Security -- Resilience, Social Imaginaries, and Imagined Communities -- Resilience as a Traveling Concept -- Science/Politics (Knowledge/Power) -- Resilience Enters the Military -- Militarization -- Dominant Themes -- Future Research -- Conclusion -- References -- Part I: The Pre-history of Resilience -- Chapter 2: A New Psychology of War: The Science of Resilience and the Militarization of Positive Psychology -- Introduction -- The Roots of Resilience -- A Science of Strength and Virtue -- Mass Trauma -- The Rediscovery of Resilience -- Mental Armor -- Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 3: Resilience on the March: Stoic (Social) Grit -- References -- Chapter 4: Alternative Histories of Resilience: After and Before PTSD -- Introduction -- Post-9/11: The PTSD-Resilience Nexus -- Post-1945: Memory, Narrative and Stress -- Pre-1945: Shock, Management and Efficiency -- New Histories of Resilience -- References -- Part II: Contemporary Military Cases -- Chapter 5: 'The Bullet-Proof Mind': Resilience and Warfighters in the US Marine Corps -- Introduction -- New Concepts -- Crises Within the US Military -- Marine Responses -- Problems with 'Resilience' Training in the Mental Health Intervention Programs -- Tensions Between 'Normal' and Stigmatized Trauma -- Critique of the 'Resilience' and Trauma Models -- Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 6: Reconceptualizing Military Resilience Programming in the United States Army as Human Resource Management -- Introduction -- The Co-constitution of the Field of Psychology with Military Behavioral Health -- Defining and Locating Military Resilience -- CSF/CSF2 -- Validation of CSF and CSF2 -- Measuring Spiritual Fitness -- Additional Concerns About the GAT and Justifications for the Platform.

This book explores the concept of resilience in the context of militaries and militarization. Focusing on the U.S., Britain, Canada, Australia, and continental Europe, it argues that, post-9/11, there has been a shift away from trauma and towards resilience in framing and understanding human responses to calamitous events. The contributors to this volume show how resilience-speech has been militarized, and deeply entrenched in imagined communities. As the concept travels, it is applied in diverse and often contradictory ways to a vast array of experiences, contexts, and scientific fields and disciplines. By embracing diverse methodologies and perspectives, this book reflects on how resilience has been weaponized and employed in highly gendered ways, and how it is central to neoliberal governance in the twenty-first century. While critical of the use of resilience, the chapters also reflects on more positive ways for humans to respond to unforeseen challenges. Joanna Bourke is Professor of History at Birkbeck, University of London, UK and Fellow of the British Academy. She is the author of 16 books and over 120 academic articles. Her books include An Intimate History of Killing, What It Means to be Human, and Disgrace: Global Reflections on Sexual Violence. Robin May Schott is a philosopher and Senior Researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies in the unit on Peace and Violence. She is the author or editor of 10 books and over 60 academic articles. Her books include Discovering Feminist Philosophy and Cognition and Eros.

"Honduras: All-Purpose Militarization" published on by Oxford University Press.

Compiled by BICC, the Global Militarization Index (GMI) presents on an annual basis the relative weight and importance of a country's military apparatus in relation to its society as a whole. The GMI 2016 covers 152 states and is based on the latest available figures (in most cases data for 2015). The index project is financially supported by Germany's Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. With Armenia, Russia, Cyprus, Greece and Azerbaijan, five European countries are amongst the top 10 worldwide. Following the annexation of Crimea by Russia in particular and the continuing conflict in eastern Ukraine, the security situation in Europe has changed. While, for 2015, eastern European states in particular have shown a marked increase in militarization, a similar trend cannot be observed for most western European countries. Against the background of protracted conflicts in the Middle East, the level of militarization of most countries remains high. Israel is still at the top and Jordan on position four. It will be interesting in the coming years to see how oil prices, which have sharply fallen since mid-2014, will affect the militarization of the Gulf States and their extensive weapons purchases. Singapore, South Korea and Brunei are also in the top 10. It remains to be seen how the tensions from the territorial disputes in the South China Sea and connected modernization and armament efforts will shape the level of militarization in Asia. This year's GMI highlights the relationship between the level of militarization and the Global Hunger Index, which defines the causes of hunger not only in economic or climate change terms but also with regard to instability or violent conflict. The fact that most states suffering from hunger also have comparatively low levels militarization shows that a low level of militarization often does not point to a peaceful society but more often than not to a weak security sector and the absence of a safe environment. But, within the 20 states that suffer the most from hunger, there are also countries with a relatively high level of militarization. There, high investment is tied up in military resources that would otherwise be available to fight against hunger or to invest in the health system.

Compiled by BICC, the Global Militarization Index (GMI) presents on an annual basis the relative weight and importance of a country's military apparatus in relation to its society as a whole. The GMI 2017 covers 151 states and is based on the latest available figures (in most cases data for 2016). The index project is financially supported by Germany's Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. The ten countries that have the highest levels of militarization for the year 2016 are Israel, Singapore, Armenia, Russia, South Korea, Kuwait, Jordan, Cyprus, Greece and Brunei. These countries allocate particularly high levels of resources to the armed forces in comparison to other areas of society. For some countries that are included in the top 20 militarized countries in the world, the sharp decline in the price of oil has led to a reduction in military expenditures: Oman, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia but also Azerbaijan. In South American countries too, especially in Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru and Mexico, the drop in oil prices caused military spending to fall more or less significantly. One regional focus of the GMI 2017 is the Americas: The two most militarized countries in the region are Cuba and the United States. US military spending increased again for the first time since 2009 and, at US Dollar11 billion, was the highest in the world. While the countries of Central America and the Caribbean, with the exception of Cuba, show a relatively low level of militarization, the South American states can be found more in the upper mid-range. This year's GMI also positions the degree of militarization relative to Transparency International's (TI) Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index (GI). The defence sector is particularly opaque and vulnerable: Corrupt elites negotiate arms deals which, even though they frequently make little sense from a military point of view, help to make them rich. The comparison of the indices shows clearly, however, that corruption does not by any means only occur in highly militarized countries but also in many countries with comparatively low levels of militarization, indicating deficits in the security sector and weak state institutions.

THIS SECTION OUTLINES THE TWO PHASES OF THE MILITARIZATION OF SPACE: THE FIRST BEGINNING IN 1985 WITH THE LAUNCHING OF MILITARY SATELLITES, THE SECOND BEGINNING ALMOST IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF WEAPONS WHICH COULD DESTROY THESE SATELLITES. THE USE OF MILITARY RECONNAISSANCE, COMMUNICATIONS, NAVIGATION, AND METEOROLOGICAL SATELLITES IN ORBIT AROUND THE EARTH CONTINUES TO ENHANCE SOVIET AND US MILITARY POSTURE.

Compiled by BICC, the Global Militarization Index (GMI) presents on an annual basis the relative weight and importance of a country's military apparatus in relation to its society as a whole. The GMI 2018 covers 155 countries and is based on the latest available figures (in most cases data for 2017). The index project is financially supported by Germany's Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development. Israel, Singapore, Armenia, Cyprus, South Korea, Russia, Greece, Jordan, Brunei and Belarus are the top 10 worldwide. These countries allocate particularly high levels of resources to the military in comparison to other areas of society. The GMI 2018 has a regional focus on Europe. The pressure exercised by the United States on European NATO countries to increase their military budgets has resulted in the fact that nearly all European member states have spent more on the military than in the previous year. The number of military personnel and major weapons systems has also increased in many European countries. While Russia, again, is one of the most militarized countries worldwide, it drastically reduced its military spending in 2017 compared to the previous year. Despite dwindling revenues from the oil trade, militarization in the Middle East remains, by international standards, at a very high level. All countries in the region, with the exception of Iraq (position 41), can be found among the 30 most heavily militarized countries in the world. Algeria (position 15) and Morocco (position 24) are among the heavily militarized countries in North Africa. But most African countries, particularly those of Sub-Saharan Africa, can be found in the bottom part of the ranking. This year's GMI also examines the connection between particularly high or low militarization and the political system of the respective countries. In doing so, it refers to the data from the Freedom House Index and the Polity IV Project of the Center for Systemic Peace. A quite ambiguous picture can be found: It is true that there are significantly more Not Free countries and autocracies among the countries with particularly high militarization levels than among those with particularly low levels. But, conversely, a low level of militarization, does not automatically go along with a high level of freedom of political system but often points to weak state structures and, thus, less control by the state.

India's quest for space weaponization will have consequences for regional stability. South Asia remains a precarious region given the historical rivalry between India and Pakistan and their posture of mutual deterrence. India's pursuit of space weaponization and subsequent militarization will trigger an expensive and unnecessary arms race between India and Pakistan, exacerbating the fragility of the South Asian security matrix.