تدریس

the sink was leaking and I had no idea
how to fix it.
Call in Stop and visit.
I CALLED IN on Jenny on my way home
because she's not very well at the moment
and I wanted to see if she needed
anything.
Call off Cancel.
The concert had to be CALLED OFF
because the singer went down with a bad
case of flu.
Call off Order someone to stop attacking. CALL OFF your lawyers; we can work
something out.
Call on Ask for help.
The President CALLED ON the wealthy
countries for financial aid after the floods
destroyed much of the country's
agriculture.
Call on Visit. As we were in the area, we CALLED ON
my sister-in-law.
Call on Challenge. He CALLED the speaker ON several
mis-statements of fact.
Call on Ask someone to do something, especially
to speak in public. (Formal).
I now CALL ON the other party to give
their account of what happened.
Call out Expose or accuse someone of wrongdoing
or incompetence.
He CALLED them OUT over awarding
contracts to family members.
Call round Visit. I CALLED ROUND on my way home
but no one was in.
Call up Summon someone for military service. The army CALLED UP the reserve
soldiers when the war broke out.
Call up Telephone. I CALLED him UP as soon as I got to a
phone to tell him the news.
Calm down Stop being angry or emotionally excited. When I lose my temper, it takes ages for
me to CALM DOWN again.
Cancel out
Have an opposite effect on something that
has happened, taking things back to the
beginning.
The airport taxes CANCELLED OUT the
savings we had made on the flight tickets.
Cap off Finish or complete, often with some
decisive action.
She CAPPED OFF the meeting with a
radical proposal.
Care for Like. I don't CARE FOR fizzy drinks; I prefer
water.
Carried
away Get so emotional that you lose control.
The team got CARRIED AWAY when
they won the championship and started
shouting and throwing things around.
Carry
forward Include a figure in a later calculation. They CARRIED FORWARD their losses
to the next financial year.
Carry
forward Make something progress. They hope the new management will be
able to CARRY the project FORWARD.
Carry off Win, succeed. She CARRIED OFF the first prize in the
competition.
Carry off Die of a disease. Cancer CARRIED him OFF a couple of years ago.
Carry on Continue. CARRY ON quietly with your work until
the substitute teacher arrives.
Carry on Behave badly. The children annoyed me by CARRYING
ON all morning.
Carry on
with Have an affair. He's been CARRYING ON WITH
someone at work for years.
Carry out Perform a task. The government is CARRYING OUT test
on growing genetically modified crops.
Carry out Food bought from a restaurant to take
away.
I'm too tired to cook- let's get a CARRY-
OUT.
Carry over Continue past a certain point.
The meeting CARRIED OVER into the
afternoon because there was so much to
talk about.
Carry
through Complete successfully. They CARRIED the reforms THROUGH
despite the opposition.
Cart off Take someone away, usually under arrest
or to prison.
The police CARTED them OFF to
question them.
Cart off Take something away, especially if
stealing or without permission.
The thieves CARTED OFF all the ticket
receipts.
Carve out Create or get a area where you can be
special or successful.
She's CARVED OUT a career in
photojournalism.
Carve up Divide into smaller pieces. They CARVED the company UP and sold
a lot off.
Carve up Overtake someone and then pull directly
in front of a car.
The idiot CARVED us UP and forced me
to brake hard.
Cash in Convert shares, bonds, casino chips, etc,
into money.
They CASHED IN their bonds and spent
the money on a holiday.
Cash in on Benefit or make money on something,
especially if done unfairly.
The opposition party are CASHING IN
ON the government's unpopularity.
Cash out Illegally access a bank account or credit
card and steal money.
A hacker got my credit card details from
my computer and CASHED OUT a lot of
money.
Cash out Exchange something for money, collect
winnings.
After winning, she CASHED OUT her
chips.
Cash up Count all the money taken in a shop or
business at the end of the day.
After the shop closed, they have to CASH
UP before they can go home.
Cast about
for Try to find something. They're CASTING ABOUT FOR
support.
Cast around
for Try to find something. She was CASTING AROUND FOR
people to help her.
Cast aside Dispose, get rid of, ignore because you no
longer like something or someone. He CAST her ASIDE.
Cast off Dispose, get rid of. They CAST OFF any semblance of
politeness and attacked us viciously.
Cast off Untie a boat so it's free to sail. They CAST OFF and headed out to sea.
Cast out Expel, reject. They CAST him OUT because of his behaviour.
Cast round
for Try to find something. He CAST ROUND FOR any sign of his
things.
Cast up Be left on the shore by the sea. The rubbish was CAST UP by the tide.
Catch at Take or grab hold of something. She CAUGHT AT my sleeve as I was
leaving and said she needed to talk to me.
Catch on Become popular. Many critics were shocked when techno
CAUGHT ON in the clubs.
Catch on Finally understand what is going on.
Everyone else realised what was
happening, but it took Henry ages to
CATCH ON.
Catch out Trick. The exam is designed to CATCH you
OUT.
Catch out Discover or prove that someone is lying. He CAUGHT me OUT when he checked
my story with my previous employer.
Catch out Put someone in an unexpected and
difficult situation (often passive). We were CAUGHT OUT in the storm.
Catch up Get work, etc, up to date.. I was ill for a fortnight and now I've got
to CATCH UP on the work I missed.
Catch up Reach someone who was ahead of you. He started well, but I CAUGHT him UP
on the third lap.
Catch up in Become involved, often against one’s will. The tourists were CAUGHT UP IN the
violence of the revolution.
Catch up on Do something that should have been done
earlier.
I'm going home to CATCH UP ON my
sleep.
Catch up on Reminisce with an old friend after not
seeing them for a while.
I hadn't seen her for years, so we spent
the afternoon CATCHING UP ON old
times.
Catch up
with
Do something that should have been done
earlier.
I'm going home to CATCH UP WITH my
sleep.
Catch up
with
Meet someone after a period of time and
find out what they have been doing.
I CAUGHT UP WITH her at the
conference.
Catch up
with
When something negative starts to have an
effect.
His criminal behaviour is starting to
CATCH UP WITH him.
Catch up
with
Punish someone after they have been
doing something wrong for a long time.
The tax authorities CAUGHT UP WITH
me for not submitting my tax returns.
Catch up
with
Learn something new that many people
already understand.
My mother's trying to CATCH UP WITH
computers.
Cater for To provide what is necessary. The college CATERS FOR students of all
ages.
Cater to To provide what is needed, often seen
negatively.
The film CATERS TO the audience's
worst instincts.
Cave in Collapse. The roof CAVED IN because of the
weight of the snow.
Cave in Stop resisting or refusing. The government has refused to CAVE IN
despite the protests and demonstrations.
Chalk out To cut a line of cocaine. He went into the toilets to CHALK a line OUT.
Chalk up To achieve something good. The company has CHALKED UP its
highest ever profits.
Chalk up to Explain the reason for a problem.
They CHALKED the poor sales UP TO
the lower numbers of tourists visiting this
year.
Chance
upon Find something by accident. I CHANCED UPON a very rare book in
car boot sale and bought it for 65p.
Change
over Change a system. The Irish CHANGED OVER to using
kilometres in 2005.
Charge up Put electricity into a battery. I need to CHARGE my phone UP- the
battery's dead.
Charge with Accuse somebody of a crime.
She was arrested in customs last night
and has been CHARGED WITH
smuggling.
Chase down Try hard to find or get something. The press CHASED us DOWN when the
story broke.
Chase off Force a person to leave or go away. The dog CHASED he postal worker OFF.
Chase up Ensure that someone remembers to do
something.
The librarian is CHASING me UP about
my overdue books.
Chase up Try to get someone to pay a bill, debt, etc. I CHASED her UP as she hadn't paid for
several months.
Chase up Try to get more information about the
progress of something.
I didn't get a reply so I have been
CHASING them UP.
******** up Talk to someone you are *******ually
interested in to get them interested in you.
He spent the whole night ********TING her
UP.
Cheat on Be *******ually unfaithful. She CHEATED ON me with my friend.
Cheat on Deceive or betray, often in a *******ual and/or
emotional context.
She thought he had always been faithful
to her, but he had been CHEATING ON
her ever since their wedding day (with
one of the bridesmaids).
Cheat out of Get money from someone under false
pretences.
I hate him- he CHEATED me OUT OF
£100.
Check by Visit a place to check something. We CHECKED BY the office to see if the
stuff was ready.
Check in Register on arriving at a hotel or at the
airport.
They CHECKED IN at the Ritz
yesterday.
Check into Register on arriving at a hotel or at the
airport.
They CHECKED INTO the Ritz
yesterday.
Check off Mark something on a list as done. She CHECKED OFF the candidates'
names as they arrived.
Check out Pay the bill when leaving a hotel. She CHECKED OUT and took a cab to
the airport.
Check out Die. She CHECKED OUT last week; the
funeral's tomorrow.
Check out Get information about or inspect
something to see if it's satisfactory.
I CHECKED the new restaurant OUT as
soon as it opened. Check out
of Settle up and pay before leaving a hotel. Guests have to CHECK OUT OF the
hotel before midday.
Check over Check something very carefully. We CHECKED the contract OVER
before signing it.
Cheer on Encourage. Their CHEERED their team ON
throughout the match.
Cheer up Be less unhappy. Come on, CHEER UP; it isn't all bad, you
know.
Chew off Remove by biting. The dog CHEWED OFF the man's face.
Chew on Thinks about something carefully before
deciding.
I'll CHEW ON it for a day or two and let
you know what I think.
Chew out Criticize someone angrily. They CHEWED him OUT for being late.
Chew over Think about an issue.
He asked for a few days to CHEW the
matter OVER before he made a final
decision.
Chew up Cut into small pieces with your teeth. The puppy CHEWED UP the newspaper.
Chew up Damage something inside a machine. The video CHEWED my tape UP.
Chicken out Be too afraid to do something. I CHICKENED OUT of the bungee
jumping when I saw how high it was.
Chill out Relax. I'm staying at home and CHILLING OUT
this evening.
Chime in Contribute to a discussion. If it's OK, I'd like to CHIME IN because I
think it's a good idea.
Chip away
at
Gradually reduce something to make it
less powerful, effective, etc.
They have been CHIPPING AWAY AT
his reputation ever since he took office.
Chip in Contribute some money. Everybody CHIPPED IN to pay the bill.
Chip in Contribute to a discussion. If I could CHIP IN, there are a couple of
issues I'd like to raise.
Choke off Stop or restrict. These guerilla attacks are CHOKING
OFF our food shipments.
Choke out Clog or overwhelm. Water hyacinth is CHOKING OUT the
native vegetation in our rivers.
Choke up Become tearfully emotional. Jeff CHOKED UP during his retirement
speech.
Choke up Grip a handle farther from the end for
better control.
He CHOKED UP on the bat and hit the
ball better.
Choose up Form groups or teams. We CHOSE UP to play the game.
Chop down Fell or cut down a tree. They CHOPPED DOWN most of the
forest and now it looks like a desert.
Chop up Cut into small pieces. I CHOPPED UP the vegetables for the
soup.
Chow down Eat. Dinner's ready- CHOW DOWN!.
Chow down
on Eat something. We're going to CHOW DOWN ON that
barbecued pork.
Chuck away Dispose of something you no longer need
or want.
I CHUCKED AWAY all my old records
years ago when CDs came out.
Chuck in Quit something. I CHUCKED my job IN to go travelling. Chuck in Make a comment. I CHUCKED IN a few points at the end
of the discussion.
Chuck out Dispose of something you no longer need
or want.
I CHUCKED OUT some stuff I found in
the fridge that had gone bad.
Chuck up Vomit, be sick.
He got ridiculously drunk and
CHUCKED UP in the back of the
minicab on the way home.
Chuck up Quit something. She didn't like the course, so she
CHUCKED it UP after a few weeks.
Churn out Produce, usually quickly or in large
amounts without much regard to quality.
The government CHURNS OUT
educational policies every few months.
Clag up Make something sticky. His arteries are CLAGGED UP because
he eats so much saturated fat.
Clam up Be quiet, refuse to speak. Everybody CLAMMED UP when the
Principal entered.
Clamp
down on Restrict or try to stop something. The government are CLAMPING
DOWN ON antisocial behaviour.
Claw back Get money back. The new tax will CLAW BACK what the
government has given out in grants.
Claw back Retake possession with difficulty.
The opposition parties are trying to
CLAW BACK the voters they lost in the
last election.
Claw back Regain possession with difficulty. They are CLAWING BACK their market
share from their competitors.
Clean off Remove dirt or something dirty. After dinner, I CLEANED OFF the table.
Clean out Tidy up thoroughly and throw away
unwanted things..
I really must CLEAN the study OUT;
there's stuff all over the floor and piles of
paper everywhere.
Clean out Cause someone to spend all their money. The holiday CLEANED me OUT- I'm
broke till the end of the month.
Clean up Tidy and clean. CLEAN this bedroom UP; it's a disgrace.
Clean up Profit, sometimes suddenly. At the horse races yesterday we really
CLEANED UP.
Clear away Leave a place. We were told to CLEAR AWAY from the
scene of the accident.
Clear away Remove or tidy. After dinner, I CLEARED AWAY the
plates and dishes.
Clear off Leave somewhere quickly. As soon as the trouble started, we
CLEARED OFF.
Clear out Tidy up thoroughly and throw away
unwanted stuff..
I spent the whole weekend CLEARING
OUT the attic as it was full of papers and
other junk.
Clear out Leave somewhere. I told them to CLEAR OUT because they
were making so much noise.
Clear up Cure or recover from an infection. I took the antihistamines and the rash
CLEARED UP right away.
Clear up Tidy up. I'd better CLEAR AWAY the mess before
leave. Clear up Explain. Could you CLEAR these points UP
before we go any further?
Clear up Improve (weather). The skies CLEARED UP and the sun
came out.
Click
through Open an advertisement on the Internet.
Only a tiny fraction of users ever bother
CLICKING THROUGH the banner
adverts.
Climb down Accept that you are wrong and change
your position.
The Prime Minister had to CLIMB
DOWN over his tax proposals because
there was so much opposition from the
members of his own party.
Cling on Hold tight. He told me to CLING ON as the
motorbike accelerated.
Cling on to Try to keep something. They CLUNG ON TO power despite the
protests.
Cling to Try to maintain beliefs, hopes, etc.. They CLING TO their old way of
thinking.
Clog up Block, slow movement right down. The traffic's so bad the roads get
CLOGGED UP at rush hour.
Close down Close a shop, branch or business
permanently.
The banks have CLOSED DOWN a lot of
branches in villages over the last few
years.
Close down Stop an opponent being a challenge. He CLOSED the player DOWN and
stopped him being a threat.
Close in Surround, envelop. The fog CLOSED IN and we couldn't see
two yards in front of us.
Close in Approach, get near. The police were CLOSING IN so they
decided to try to make a break.
Close in on Get near someone. The police were CLOSING IN ON the
gang.
Close in
upon Get near someone. The police were CLOSING IN UPON the
gang.
Close off Block a place to stop people entering. The police CLOSED the road OFF after
the explosion.
Close on Get nearer. She is CLOSING ON the leader of the
race.
Close out Bring something to an end. We CLOSED OUT the meeting early and
went home.
Close out Close or stop using. She CLOSED OUT the account and
changed to another bank.
Close out Ignore, exclude. They always CLOSE me OUT of their
plans.
Close up Completely close something. They CLOSE UP the building after
everyone has left.
Close up Join together. The leaves CLOSE UP when it rains.
Close up Move closer together. They CLOSED UP when they saw the
gang coming towards them.
Cloud over Get very cloudy. The morning started bright and warm, but it CLOUDED OVER around midday and
poured with rain.
Clown
about Behave stupidly or waste time. The students were CLOWNING ABOUT
all lesson.
Clown
around Behave stupidly or waste time. I couldn't concentrate because they were
CLOWNING AROUND all afternoon.
Coast along Do something without making much effort
or trying to improve.
She's been COASTING ALONG all year
and hasn't made a lot of progress.
Cobble
together
Make, assemble or produce something
quickly, without much care.
They COBBLED a few pages
TOGETHER and submitted it.
Cock up Ruin or spoil something. It was so easy, but he managed to COCK
everything UP.
Colour
(Color) up Blush. He COLOURED (COLORED) UP when
he was caught stealing from the till.
Come about Happen, occur. The meeting CAME ABOUT because
both sides were sick of fighting.
Come about Shift direction (nautical). The yacht CAME ABOUT to a heading
of 240 degrees.
Come
across Find by accident. I CAME ACROSS my old school reports
when I was clearing out my desk.
Come
across Agree to have ******* with someone. I was surprised when she CAME
ACROSS on the first night.
Come
across The way other people see you. He CAME ACROSS as shy because he
spoke so quietly.
Come along Accompany. May I COME ALONG on your trip
tomorrow?
Come along Move faster or keep up. COME ALONG, we’ll never get there if
you don’t keep up with us.
Come apart Break into pieces.
It CAME APART when I tried to lift it off
the floor and I had to glue it back
together.
Come
around Recover consciousness. It took several hours after the operation
before he CAME AROUND.
Come
around to
Agree with or accept something you had
previously disapproved of or disliked..
They have started COMING AROUND
TO our way of thinking and are less
hostile.
Come back Return. I left work and CAME BACK home
early.
Come
before
Appear in court charged with a crime or
offence.
He CAME BEFORE the court on charges
of speeding.
Come by Visit. I'll COME BY after work and see if you
need any help.
Come by Acquire. How did you COME BY that Rolex?
Come down Rain. Just look at the rain COMING DOWN!
I'm not going out in that.
Come down Travel. When you're next in London, COME
DOWN and see us.

xcvxcvxcvvxc

59
ada, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, New Zealand,
and the USA, where he has held visiting chairs at West
Point, Texas Christian University, and Stillman Col-
lege. A past Council member of the Royal Historical
Society, he is a Fellow of the Royal Society for the En-
couragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce,
and a Senior Fellow of the Foreign Policy Research
Institute. He was appointed to the Order of Member-
ship of the British Empire for services to stamp de-
sign. Dr. Black is, or has been, on a number of edito-
rial boards including the Journal of Military History, the
Journal of the Royal United Services Institute, and History
Today and was editor of Archives. His books include
War and World 1450-2000; The British Seaborne Empire;
Maps and History; George III; and European Warfare in
a Global Context, 1660-1815. Dr. Black is a graduate of
Cambridge University.
ANDREW J. BACEVICH is a professor of inter-
national relations and history at Boston University.
Before joining the faculty of Boston University in 1998,
he taught at West Point and at Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity. Dr. Bacevich is the author of The Limits of Power:
American Exceptionalism. His previous books include
American Empire: The Realities and Consequences of U. S.
Diplomacy; The Imperial Tense: Problems and Prospects of
American Empire (editor); The New American Militarism:
How Americans Are Seduced by War; and The Long War:
A New History of US National Security Policy since World
War II (editor). His essays and reviews have appeared
in a wide variety of scholarly and general interest pub-
lications including The Wilson Quarterly, The National
Interest, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The Nation, The
American Conservative, and The New Republic. In 2004,
Dr. Bacevich was a Berlin Prize Fellow at the Ameri-
can Academy in Berlin. He has also been a fellow of 60
the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International
Studies at Johns Hopkins University, the John F. Ken-
nedy School of Government at Harvard University,
and the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.
Dr. Bacevich is a graduate of the U.S. Military Acad-
emy (USMA), and holds a Ph.D. in American diplo-
matic history from Princeton University.
WILLIAM L. NASH served in the U.S. Army for
34 years with commands from platoon to division;
he is a veteran of Vietnam and Operation DESERT
STORM. He has extensive experience in peacekeeping
operations both as a military commander in Bosnia-
Herzegovina (1995-96) and as a civilian administra-
tor for the United Nations in *******ovo (2000). Since
his retirement in 1998, Major General Nash has been
a fellow and a visiting lecturer at Harvard’s John F.
Kennedy School of Government (1998); Director of
Civil-Military Programs at the National Democratic
Institute for International Affairs (1999-2000); a pro-
fessorial lecturer at Georgetown University (2000-09);
a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations
(2001-09); and a military consultant for ABC News
(2003-09). Today, he is a visiting lecturer at Princeton
University and an independent consultant on national
security issues, civil-military relations, and conflict
management. 61
Panel IV.
Moderator:
WILLIAM BRAUN III is the Deputy Director of
the Strategic Studies Institute, United States Army
War College. He is returning to this position after a
tour as Director, CJ-7 (Force Integration, Training, and
Education Directorate), Combined Security Transi-
tion Command-Afghanistan (CSTC-A). Previous as-
signments include Director of Requirements, Deputy
Chief of Staff G-3/5/7, the Pentagon; Aviation Bat-
talion Commander, Soto Cano Air Base, Honduras;
operational assignments at Fort Bragg, NC, Camp
Casey, Korea, and Fort Campbell, KY; and previous
institutional support assignments at the Pentagon,
Fort Rucker, AL, and the U.S. Army Recruiting Com-
mand. Colonel Braun holds a Bachelor of Arts in Ath-
letic Training and Coaching from Alfred University
and master’s degrees in strategic studies from the U.S.
Army War College, in military science from the School
of Advanced Military Science (SAMS), and in business
from Webster University.
ROBERT CASSIDY is a member of the Royal Unit-
ed Services Institute. He currently serves at the U.S.
Naval War College in Newport, RI. He has served in a
host of organizations as a special operations strategist,
a battalion commander, a special assistant to a four-
star general, a brigade operations officer, a division
cavalry executive officer, a West Point professor, an
airborne air cavalry troop commander, a support pla-
toon leader, and a scout platoon leader. Cassidy has
served on operational deployments to Afghanistan,
Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Egypt, and the Caribbean. Col- 62
onel Cassidy has written several articles on irregular
warfare in journals ranging from the RUSI Journal to
Parameters, and two books: Counterinsurgency and the
Global War on Terror and Peacekeeping in the Abyss. Most
recently, he published “The Virtue of Punishment:
The Enduring Salience of the Soviet War in Afghani-
stan” in the fall issue of Defense Concepts. Colonel Cas-
sidy holds master's degrees in international relations
and security from Boston University and the Fletcher
School of Law and Diplomacy, and a Ph.D. from the
Fletcher School. Colonel Cassidy also has received the
Diplôme d’Études Supérieures de Défense from the
French Joint Defense College at the École Militaire in
Paris.
PAUL R. KAN is an associate professor of nation-
al security studies at the U.S. Army War College. He is
the author of the recent book, Drugs and Contemporary
Warfare, for the research of which he was awarded the
General George C. Marshall Faculty Research Grant,
U.S. Army War College Foundation. He has also re-
ceived a Madigan Faculty Writing Award for his ar-
ticle, “Drugging Babylon: The Illegal Narcotics Trade
and Nation-Building in Iraq,” published in the June
2007 edition of Small Wars and Insurgencies. As an out-
side advisor to the Director of the Office on National
Drug Control Policy, he has provided expertise for
counternarcotics decisionmaking in a number of areas.
His research on Mexican cartel violence will be part
of an upcoming book on the subject and his research
on North Korea’s illicit international activities will be
published as a monograph by the Strategic Studies In-
stitute. He is a regular contributor to WarAndHealth.
com and is currently working on his next book, Whis-
key Rebellions, Opium Wars and Other Battles for Intoxi-
cation. Dr. Kan holds a Ph.D. in international studies 63
from the Graduate School of International Studies at
the University of Denver.
THOMAS X. HAMMES served at all levels in the
operating forces, include command of a rifle compa-
ny, weapons company, intelligence battalion, infantry
battalion, and the Chemical Biological Incident Re-
sponse Force, during his 30 years in the Marine Corps.
He participated in stabilization operations in Somalia
and Iraq. He is currently a Senior Research Fellow at
the Institute for National Strategic Studies, National
Defense University. Dr. Hammes is the author of The
Sling and the Stone: On War in the Twenty-First Century;
chapters in 10 books; and over 90 articles and opinion
pieces in the Washington Post, New York Times, Janes
Defence Weekly, and other professional journals. He
has lectured widely at U.S. and International Staff and
War Colleges. He has appeared on CNN, ABC, News
Hour, PBS Frontline, BBC, All Things Considered,
and numerous other media outlets. Dr. Hammes at-
tended The Basic School, U.S. Army Infantry Officers
Advanced Course, Marine Corps Command and Staff
College, and the Canadian National Defence College;
and holds a master’s degree in historical research and
a Ph.D. in modern history from Oxford University.
MICHAEL KLARE is professor of peace and world
security studies at Five College, and Director of the
Five College Program in Peace and World Security
Studies (PAWSS). He serves on the board of the Arms
Control Association and advises other organizations
in the field. Dr. Klare has written widely on U.S. mili-
tary policy, international peace and security affairs,
the global arms trade, and global resource politics.
His books include American Arms Supermarket; Low- 64
Intensity Warfare; Peace and World Security Studies: A
Curriculum Guide; World Security: Challenges for a New
Century; Rogue States and Nuclear Outlaws; Light Weap-
ons and Civil Conflict; Resource Wars; and Blood and Oil.
His articles have appeared in many journals, includ-
ing Arms Control Today, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
Current History, Foreign Affairs, Harper’s, The Nation,
Scientific American, and Technology Review. Dr. Klare
holds a B.A. and M.A. from Columbia University and
a Ph.D. from the Graduate School of the Union Insti-
tute.
Panel V.
Moderator:
DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR., became the Di-
rector of the Strategic Studies Institute in May 2000.
Prior to that, he held the Douglas MacArthur Profes-
sor of Research Chair at the U.S. Army War College.
His Army career included a combat tour in Vietnam
and a number of command and staff assignments.
While serving in the Plans, Concepts and Assess-
ments Division and the Conventional War Plans Di-
vision of the Joint Staff, he collaborated in the devel-
opment of documents such as the National Military
Strategy, the Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan, the Joint
Military Net Assessment, national security directives,
and presidential decision directives. He is a member
of the Pennsylvania and New Jersey bars. Professor
Lovelace has published extensively in the areas of na-
tional security and military strategy formulation, fu-
ture military requirements and strategic planning. He
is a graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General
Staff College and the National War College, and holds 65
an MBA from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University
and a J.D. from the Widener University School of Law
ALBERT C. PIERCE is the first Director of the
Institute for National Security Ethics and Leadership
at the National Defense University (NDU) in Wash-
ington, DC. In February 2006, he became the first pro-
fessor of ethics and national security at NDU. He has
served as a member of the Editorial Advisory Board
of the Journal of Military Ethics and currently is on
the Editorial Board of Media, War, and Conflict. Dr.
Pierce co-authored The Armed Forces Officer; co-edited
Ethics and the Future of Conflict; authored Strategy, Eth-
ics, and the “War on Terrorism”; and A Model for Moral
Leadership: Contemporary Applications, Occasional Paper
No. 15. Dr. Pierce holds an M.A. and a Ph.D. in politi-
cal science from Tufts University.
MARTIN L. COOK is the Admiral James Bond
Stockdale Professor of Professional Military Ethics at
the United States Naval War College. He has previ-
ously served as professor of philosophy and Deputy
Department Head, Department of Philosophy at the
United States Air Force Academy, professor of ethics
and Elihu Root Chair of Military Studies at the United
States Army War College, and as a tenured member
of the faculty at Santa Clara University, California. He
has lectured on military ethics in the United Kingdom,
Australia, Singapore, and Norway. Dr. Cook serves as
an editor of The Journal of Military Ethics and as a mem-
ber of the editorial board of Parameters, the scholarly
journal of the U.S. Army War College. He is the author
of two books, co-author of a third, and of more than
35 scholarly articles. His most recent book is The Moral
Warrior: Ethics and Service in the US Military. 66
RICHARD PREGENT is currently the Chief of
the International and Operational Law Division at the
U.S. Army’s Office of The Judge Advocate General. In
July 2002, he became the senior legal advisor for all
NATO operations south of the Alps at Allied Forces
South, Naples, Italy. Shortly thereafter, he deployed
to Iraq and served as the Deputy General Counsel for
the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq until 2004.
From 2004 until 2008, he was the Staff Judge Advo-
cate for the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Com-
mand. From 2008 to 2009, he served in Iraq first as the
Director of the Interagency Rule of Law Coordinating
Center and then as the Director of the Law and Order
Task Force. Colonel Pregent received a B.A. from Wil-
liams College in 1976, and his J.D. in 1979 from Albany
Law School at Union University, Albany, New York.
DEANE-PETER BAKER joined the U.S. Naval
Academy in January 2010, where he is an assistant
professor in the Department of Leadership, Ethics,
and Law, after retiring from the South African Army
Reserves as a major. Prior to that he was an associ-
ate professor of ethics at the University of KwaZulu-
Natal in South Africa, where he taught for 11 years.
Dr. Baker’s research focuses on military ethics and
strategic studies (the latter with particular reference
to Africa). He has served as Chairman of the Ethics
Society of South Africa. He also served as the first
Convenor of the South African Army Future Vision
Research Group. Dr. Baker is Editor-in-Chief of the
African Security Review, the journal of the Institute for
Security Studies. He has held visiting fellowships at
the Triangle Institute for Security Studies and the Stra-
tegic Studies Institute of the U.S. Army War College. 67
Representative publications include Just Warriors Inc:
Armed Contractors and the Ethics of War (Continuum,
forthcoming in 2010) and the co-edited volume, South
Africa and Contemporary Insurgency. Dr. Baker is cur-
rently working on an analysis of South Africa’s secu-
rity environment which will be published in Praeger’s
Global Security Watch series. Dr. Baker holds two re-
search master’s degrees in philosophy and political
science from the University

30
Cook took issue with Pierce’s argument that it
was possible to return to the traditional distinction
between legitimate preemption and illegitimate pre-
ventative war given that highly dangerous nonstate
actors operate from within states. The relationship
between these nonstate actors and their host states
is highly complex—some states sponsor and support
them, some simply tolerate them, some simply can-
not do anything about the presence of violent nonstate
groups in their territory, and some are unaware of the
groups. Cook believes that there is a different legiti-
mate response for each of these relationships, thus de-
manding a legal framework more complex than the
preemption/preventative war binary. The terrorism
threat thus requires a new set of norms and custom-
ary international law which will not be as focused on
state sovereignty as previous legal frameworks. In this
new framework, discrimination and proportionality
should remain the guiding principles, but their specif-
ic meaning needs revision in a security environment
dominated by counterinsurgency and counterterror-
ism. For instance, traditional war between uniformed
militaries accepted a certain amount of collateral dam-
age based on the notion of military necessity. Coun-
terinsurgency, with its emphasis on winning public
support, requires a more restrictive notion of collat-
eral damage and a greater acceptance of military risk.
This demands a robust training regime beyond simple
rules of engagement.
Finally, Cook addressed the challenges of cross
cultural conflict when local norms are at odds with
American ones. This can, he noted, have “morally
corrosive” effects on the troops involved. While he of-
fered no definitive answer or solution, Cook suggested
that it might be time to open a wide ranging debate on 31
assumptions about the universality of Western values
which has driven international law for several centu-
ries. The 20th century notion—codified in the United
Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights—that an ethical convergence was un-
derway which would lead to the global acceptance of
Western, liberal values, does not reflect reality. In fact,
a case can be made that the conflict between al Qaeda
and the West is resistance to this idea. Yet it continues
to undergird the legal and ethical frameworks for war.
Pregent assessed the rules that apply to U.S. mili-
tary operations. He noted that the Obama administra-
tion believes that current rules are firmly grounded
in both international and domestic law. The admin-
istration has accepted the Bush administration’s con-
tention that the United States is fighting a war of self
defense. This is very important from a legal perspec-
tive. But, Pregent noted, other states and some NGOs
believe that counterterrorism is a matter of criminal
and human rights law rather than the law of war. This
dissonance can have effects in the field when the U.S.
military is involved in coalition operations. Military
leaders must maneuver carefully through the chal-
lenges it presents.
Baker was the panel’s revolutionary, arguing for
a new framework for thinking about the rule set for
war that is agile enough to deal with the murky con-
temporary operational environment. As this takes
shape, though, its architects must consider the con-
straints that rule sets place on military effectiveness.
The tendency is to claim that strategic success requires
staying within restrictive rules of engagement and at-
tempting to win the information war by dissemina-
tion of the truth (implying that what military forces
say is an ethical issue as much as what they do). Baker 32
indicated that he hoped this was true but that it war-
ranted careful examination and debate—something
that has not yet happened This absence of analysis
reflects a long-standing characteristic of the American
approach to strategy which assumes, without debate,
that in a free market of ideas, the truth will eventually
win out. The American system uses the free market as
a universal paradigm for social interaction, whether in
the political realm, the economic, or the informational.
But there is no real free market of ideas in the in-
formation war. Extremists feel no compunction to
hew to the truth, instead selecting their themes and
narratives based purely on strategic and tactical effect
rather than on the basis of ethics. And in the cultures
which give rise to violent extremism, truth often has
an affinity element; rather than being judged in some
objective sense—reflecting the best available informa-
tion—truth is defined, in part, by the audience’s af-
finity with the person making a statement or telling a
story. People are more likely to believe someone with
whom they have an ethnic, sectarian, racial, or tribal
affinity than alternative explanations coming from
someone with less affinity. U.S. troops in Iraq often
encountered this—”ground” truth sometimes had less
effect than a counterfactual explanation coming from
someone with an inherent affinity with the target au-
dience.
Another consideration is that military effectiveness
has a negative element as well as a positive one. Rath-
er than shaping their behavior according to which of
the antagonists relies on the objective truth or behaves
most ethically, people often act out of fear of violence
or punishment. Strategic thinkers like Ralph Peters,
Martin van Creveld, Michael Scheuer, and Edward
Luttwak argue from this perspective.18 The American 33
ethos, though, is based on the notion that most people
will support the side in a conflict that behaves better.
That is the foundation of the Western notion of legiti-
macy which plays a powerful role in U.S. counterin-
surgency doctrine. Ironically, insurgents who use the
Maoist strategy make the same assumption. But many
of the enemies that the United States and its allies are
facing now, and will face in the future, function more
with a mafia mentality—that negative motivation
through fear is more powerful than positive motiva-
tion through good and ethical behavior. The question,
then, is whether this ethical asymmetry is a recipe for
defeat. Should the U.S. military rely more on fear than
on good and ethical behavior to attain the desired ef-
fects? Has the United States abandoned the mailed fist
too quickly in favor of the velvet glove? Or, to phrase
it differently, can ethics which are serious impedi-
ments to strategic success be sustained? Until now,
the tendency has simply been to deny that this tension
exists and to assert that good, ethical behavior leads
to strategic success. As Baker suggested, it is time to
re-open this discussion.
Baker also noted that as Western military forces
struggle to adapt to the new normative environment,
they often attempt relabeling to make it seem more
like the traditional war environment, using phrases
like “human terrain” and “weaponizing culture.” In
this traditional environment, norms and rules were
conceptualized as barriers which limited the behavior
of military forces. Thus planners, commanders, and
strategists had to consider not only physical terrain
and the enemy, but also legal and ethical limitations
which prohibited some actions which might otherwise
have been militarily effective. This was an attempt
to apply the logic of domestic law, which has both 34
negative and positive dimensions, prohibiting certain
actions by the state and enabling certain actions de-
rived from the constitutional order of the state, to the
security environment. Today’s security environment,
Baker argued, demands a “radical re-visioning” of the
normative dimension of war. Notions of barriers on
the battlefield should be replaced with a core ethic
which can form the center of strategy. Ethics, in other
words, must be a core driver of strategy—war must
be “ethic centric.” The just war tradition is inadequate
for this. The principles of discrimination and propor-
tionality, for instance, tell militaries little about what
operational goals should be and whether to focus on
killing insurgents or protecting the population. Is pop-
ulation protection, for example, a moral imperative or
simply a means to politically defined ends? By using
the domestic legal analogy, traditional thinking only
asks whether an action is justified rather than whether
it is preferred. This was appropriate for a nation state
centric system but needs reevaluation and revision in
an era of market states and powerful nonstate actors.
Why Does It Matter?
Scholarship on war and theoretical thinking are
of great value when translated into concepts applied
by strategic practitioners within the military and
throughout the government. Rather than only adding
to knowledge (a laudable accomplishment), they also
can change the world. The final panel of the conference
was designed to suggest policy, strategy, doctrine, and
force development implications of changing think-
ing about the nature of war. It included Dr. Thomas
Mahnken of the Naval War College (a former Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense), Professor John Troxell
of the U.S. Army War College’s Center for Strategic 35
Leadership, Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) Nathan Freier
of the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
and Dr. Steven Metz of the Army War College’s Stra-
tegic Studies Institute.
Troxell noted that defining war was not simply
an academic or theoretical exercise, but was impor-
tant for developing a coherent national strategy and
for convincing the American people and their elected
representatives that national resources are being used
effectively. This is particularly true as economic prob-
lems like government deficits, mounting debt, and
growing entitlements begin to crowd out other spend-
ing, including that for defense. The result is a strategy-
resource gap that makes the need for efficiency—for
applying power resources where and how they will
have the greatest impact—even more imperative.
Phrased differently, a nation with a surplus of strategic
resources can be sloppy or inefficient in its strategy. A
nation without such a surplus—as the United States is
becoming—needs coherent strategy to maximize the
results from any expenditure of strategic resources.
Troxell also noted the importance of a convinc-
ing and clear narrative to build the consensus needed
for effective strategy. This is true of most nations but
is amplified in the United States where strategy and
national security policy are shaped more by public
opinion and the involvement of the legislature than in
any other great power today or in the past. Strategies
which the public does not understand or support, even
if they might in some sense be effective, are doomed to
failure. Finally, Troxell emphasized that understand-
ing the changing nature of war or, at least, the chang-
ing definition of war, is important for military force
development since organizations, equipment, and
doctrine created today are likely to be used for many
years in the future. 36
Mahnken emphasized that it was important to un-
derstand what has not changed about war as well as
what has changed or is changing. War remains an act
of violence to impose one’s will on an adversary. The
motives that lead to war, first identified by the Greek
historian Thucydides 2,500 years ago—fear, honor,
and interests—persist. And the possibility of major
war between states, while it may have diminished,
remains.
But while war’s essential nature remains constant,
Mahnken argued, its character clearly has changed.
Precision and discrimination are now expected. The
use of unmanned systems is routine. Organizations
other than states wage war. The outcomes are less pre-
dictable. War takes place in new domains like space
and cyberspace. And, from the American perspective,
potential opponents increasingly prefer types of war
other than large scale conventional combat, thus mak-
ing nuclear and irregular war more strategically sig-
nificant.
Other important characteristics also may be chang-
ing. One is the social context of war. Parts of the de-
veloped world such as Western Europe and Japan
appear to be undergoing debellicization. Publics there
increasingly oppose the use of force. Political leaders
recognize this and have shifted the emphasis of the
their militaries to peacekeeping and similar missions.
The developed world also has an increased sensitivity
to casualties (even if not an outright aversion). This
may be related to demographics. People are more ad-
verse to losing a child in war when they only have one
or two rather than many. The utility of nuclear weap-
ons may be declining in the developed world but in-
creasing elsewhere as new nuclear states emerge. The
long-standing taboo on the use of nuclear weapons, 37
Mahnken contended, may be eroding. Finally, the bal-
ance between state and nonstate actors in war may be
shifting toward the latter. But, Mahnken noted, this
may not continue. Nonstate organizations have been
able to function like states in large part because exist-
ing states allowed it. States could reverse this if they
elected to.
Freier examined how changes in war have been re-
flected in U.S. military strategy. The DoD’s prevailing
view of war and warfare, Freier argued, are obstacles
to real change. War, as the DoD prefers to see it, pits
one state’s military against another’s. The DoD’s view
reflects the American tradition of war as binary, or-
ganized, discrete (with an identifiable beginning and
end), and predominantly military in origin and char-
acter. But in the contemporary security environment,
that type of war is much less likely than other forms
of armed violence. Freier believes that this “legacy de-
fense status quo” is “out of synch” with today’s real-
ity. Thus the United States must decide whether the
DoD should be the successor to the War Department
and continue to focus primarily or even exclusively on
interstate war, or should be something fundamentally
different and broader.
The new defense status quo, Freier believes, in-
cludes both “threats of purpose”—deliberate hostile
actions by enemies—and “threats of context” which
are dangerous situations or structures. The distinction
between strategy, operations, and tactics still matters,
but it is different than in the past. There is both the
“strategic corporal,” whose actions at the tactical level
have direct strategic consequences, as well as the “tac-
tical general” who is able to control or, at least, attempt
to control units at the tactical level using technology. 38
Freier argued that the defense challenge today is
more than war. The DoD should jettison its reluctance
and accept this idea. In addition to its persisting mis-
sions—counterterrorism and homeland security—the
DoD must also prepare for two other major challeng-
es: irregular conflict and high end asymmetric war.
It must also, Freier contended, retain the capability
for large scale conventional warfighting. This threat,
though, is more manageable than ones that emerge
without attribution or overt violence, those which
come from substate and transnational networks, or
without explicit enemy design (such as ecological col-
lapse or natural disasters). In the broadest sense, the
goal is no longer to be able to undertake two nearly
simultaneous major regional wars (which was the
U.S. military’s force sizing construct from the end of
the Cold War until the 9/11 attacks), but to conduct
a wide range of dissimilar simultaneous operations.
The DoD now must be the “Department of Doing or
Defending Against Many Things” when the situation
involves violence or exceeds the capabilities of other
agencies.
Freier suggested that there are five “new immu-
table defense truths”:
1. The DoD will remain the n

dfgdfgdfgdfgg

برشی داخل صفحه در دیافراگم می شود. دیافراگم ها، در بین اعضای قائم در دهانه های مختلف قرار گرفته و نیروهای ایجاد شده را به اعضای قائم سیستم باربر جانبی منتقل می نمایند. در مورد بار باد، بار جانبی از فشار باد روی نمای ساختمان ایجاد می شود و به دیافراگم ها و سپس، به اجزاء قائم منتقل می شود. در مورد بار زلزله، نیروهای اینرسی در دیافراگم ها و دیوارها، ستون ها و سایر اجزاء ایجاد می شود و سپس، به واسطه دیافراگم ها به اعضای قائم منتقل می شوند.

ب- نیروهای منتقل شده به دیافراگم: اجزاء قائم یک سیستم باربر جانبی ممکن است داری مشخصه های متفاوتی در ارتفاع باشند ویا، موقعیت آنها در سیستم باربر جانبی، از یک طبقه به طبقه دیگر متفاوت باشد. این مسئله سبب میشود تا انتقال نیرو بین اعضای قائم اتفاق بیافتد. یکی از متداول ترین موقعیت هایی که در آن تغییر در سیستم مقاوم ساختمان اتفاق میافتد، سطح تراز ساختمان است که در آن، سطح پلان زیرزمین بزرگتر میشود. در این تراز، ممکن است انتقال نیروها از قسمت فوقانی سازه به دیوار حائل، از طریق دیافراگم صورت گیرد.

پ- نیروهای بوجود آمده در اتصالات دیافراگم و اعضای قائم قاب یا اجزاء غیرسازه ای: فشار باد که بر روی نمای بیرونی ساختمان وارد می شود، نیروهای خارج از صفحه ای را بر روی سطوح نما ایجاد میکند. به طور مشابه، ارتعاشات ناشی از زلزله نیروهای اینرسی در اجزا باربر قائم و اجزاء غیرسازه ای (از جمله نما) ایجاد میکند. این نیروها از طریق اتصالات، از اجزایی که نیروها در آنها ایجاد میشوند به دیافراگم منتقل میشوند.

ت- نیروهای افقی ایجاد شده در اثر وجود اجزای قائم مهاری ویا اجزای مایل در سازه: نیازهای معماری گاهی وجود اعضای مایل را به سازه تحمیل میکند. این مسئله سبب میشود تا تحت اثر بار ثقلی و یا تلاش های ناشی از واژگونی، نیروهای فشاری افقی بزرگی در صفحه دیافراگم ایجاد شود. نیروهای فشاری داخل صفحه ممکن است در جهات مختلف (با توجه به راستای عضو و اینکه تحت کشش یا فشار باشد) ایجاد شوند. در شرایطی که این نیروهای فشاری در تعادل با نیروهای سایر اعضا قرار نمی گیرند، این نیروها به دیافراگم منتقل می شوند. بدین ترتیب، این نیروها می توانند به سایر اجزا سیستم باربر جانبی منتقل شوند. ایجاد این نیروها همواره محتمل است و ممکن است در حضور برون محوری، به ویژه در ستون های بتنی که با قاب مجاور یکپارچه نیستند، از شدت بالایی برخوردار باشند. دیافراگم، همچنین، با اتصال ستون هایی که به عنوان بخشی از سیستم باربر جانبی طراحی نشده اند، به سایر اعضایی که پایداری سازه را تامین میکند، یک تکیه گاه جانبی برای این ستون ها ایجاد می کند.

ث- نیروهای خارج از صفحه ناشی از بارهای ثقلی و سایر بارهای وارد بر سطح دیافراگم: اغلب دیافراگم ها بخشی از سقف یا کف یک سیستم قابی هستند و لذا، باید توان تحمل بارهای ثقلی
را داشته باشند. همچنین نیروهای خارج از صفحه ناشی از بار مکشی باد در سطح سقف و شتاب های قائم ناشی از زلزله باید مطابق با آیین نامه های مرتبط در رفتار دیافراگم ها مورد توجه قرار گیرد.
حداقل ضخامت دیافراگم

دیافراگم ها باید از ضخامت کافی برخوردار باشند، به طوری

dfgdfgdfgdfgfdgdfgdfgdfgfdgfdgfdgdfgdfgdfgdfg

frisk

n the Administration. This
plan does not undertake exploration merely for the sake of adventure, however exciting that may be, but
seeks answers to profound scientific and philosophical questions, responds to recent discoveries, will put in
place revolutionary technologies and capabilities for the future, and will genuinely inspire our Nation, the
world, and the next generation.
Our aim is to explore in a sustainable, affordable, and flexible manner. We believe the principles and
roadmap set down in this document will stand the test of time. Its details will be subject to revision and
expansion as new discoveries are made, new technologies are applied, and new challenges are met and over-
come. This plan is guided by the Administration’s new space exploration policy, “A Renewed Spirit of
Discovery: The President’s Vision for U.S. Space Exploration,” a copy of which is provided on the follow-
ing pages. NASA is releasing this plan simultaneously with NASA’s FY 2005 Budget Justification. This
plan is fiscally responsible, consistent with the Administration’s goal of cutting the budget deficit in half
within the next five years.
I cannot overstate how much NASA will change in the coming years as this plan is implemented. I also can-
not overstate how profound the rewards will be on this new course. With the support of Congress, the sci-
ence community, the NASA civil and contractor workforce, and most importantly, the Amerins posed about the exis-
tence of life beyond Earth. Telescopes have found planets around other stars. Robotic probes have identified
potential resources on the Moon, and evidence of water -- a key ingredient for life -- has been found on Mars
and the moons of Jupiter.
Direct human experience in space has fundamentally altered our perspective of humanity and our place in
the universe. Humans have the ability to respond to the unexpected developments inherent in space travel
and possess unique skills that enhance discoveries. Just as Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo challenged a gen-
eration of Americans, a renewed U.S. space exploration program with a significant human component can
inspire us -- and our youth -- to greater achievements on Earth and in space.
The loss of Space Shuttles Challenger and Columbia and their crews are a stark reminder of the inherent
risks of space flight and the severity of the challenges posed by space exploration. In preparation for future
human exploration, we must advance our ability to live and work safely in sBringing the Vision to Reality
The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will be responsible for the plans,
programs, and activities required to implement this vision, in coordination with other agencies, as deemed
appropriate. The Administrator will plan and implement an integrated, long-term robotic and human explo-
ration program structured with measurable milestones and executed on the basis of available resources, accu-
mulated experience, and technology readiness.
To implement this vision, the Administrator will conduct the following activities and take other actions as
required:
A. Exploration Activities in Low Earth Orbit
Space Shuttle
• Return the Space Shuttle to flight as soon as practical, based on the recommendations of the Columbia
Accident Investigation Board;
• Focus use of the Space Shuttle to complete assembly of the International Space Station; and
• Retire the Space Shuttle as soon as assembly of the International Space Station is completed, planned
for the end of this decade;
International Space Station
• Complete assembly of the International Space Station, including the U.S. components that support
U.S. space exploration goals and those provided by foreign partners, planned for the end of this
decade;
• Focus U.S. research and use of the International Space Station on supporting space exploration goals,
with emphasis on understanding how the space environment affects astronaut health and capabilities
and devel understand the history of the
solar system, and to prepare for future human exploration;
• Conduct robotic exploration across the solar system for scientific purposes and to support human
exploration. In particular, explore Jupiter’s moons, asteroids and other bodies to search for evidence
of life, to understand the history of the solar system, and to search for resources;
• Conduct advanced telescope searches for Earth-like planets and habitable environments around other
stars;
• Develop and demonstrate power generation, propulsion, life support, and other key capabilities
required to support more distant, more capable, and/or longer duration human and robotic exploration
of Mars and other destinations; and
• Conduct human expeditions to Mars after acquiring adequate knowledge about the planet using
robotic missions and after successfully demonstrating sustained human exploration missions to the
Moon.
C. Space Transportation Capabilities re made 20 and 30
years ago, the direction we set for our human space
flight programs today will define space exploration
for decades to come.
The President’s Vision for space exploration is bold
and forward-thinking. It expands scientific discov-
ery and the search for habitable environments and
life by advancing 3The Vision for
Space Exploration
NASA Guiding Principles for Exploration
Pursue Compelling Questions
Exploration of the solar system and beyond will be guided by compelling questions of scientific and socie-
tal importance. NASA exploration programs will seek profound answers to questions about the origins of
our solar system, whether life exists beyond Earth, and how we could live on other worlds.
Across Multiple Worlds
NASA will make progress across a broad front of destinations, starting with a return to the Moon to enable
future human exploration of Mars and other worlds. Consistent with recent discoveries, NASA will focus
on possible habitable environments on Mars, the moons of Jupiter, and in other solar systems. Where advan-
tageous, NASA will also make use of destinations like the Moon and near-Earth asteroids to test and demon-
strate new exploration capabilities.
Employ Human and Robotic Capabilities
NASA will send human and robotic explorers as partners, leveraging the capabilitieurces, and extend an
advanced telepresence that will send stunning imagery back to Earth.
Starting at the Moon in 2008 and at Mars in 2011, NASA will launch
dedicated robotic missions that will demonstrate new technologies and
enhance our scientific knowledge of these destinations. These new
technologies and discoveries will pave the way for more capable robot-
ic missions and eventually human missio precursors for human mis-
sions to Mars and other destinations, testing new
sustainable exploration approaches, such as space
resource utilization, and human-scale exploration
systems, such as surface power, habitation and life
support, andbling future human
Mars missions. These missions will also obtain crit-
ical data for future human missions on chemical haz-
ards, resource locations, and research sites. They
may prepare resources and sites in anticipation of
human landings.
The first human mission beyond the Moon will be
determined on the basis of available resources, accu-
mulated experience, and technology readiness.
Potential candidates that might be considered
include circumnavigating Mars, visiting a near-Earth
asteroid, or erecting or upgrading a deep space tele-
scope. Such missions could test the human-scale
power, propulsion, and other transit systems neces-
sary to take trips to Mars before taking on the addi-
tional risk of a landing on planetary mobility. The scope and
types of human lunar missions and systems will be
determined by their support to furthering science,
developing and testing new approaches, and their
applicability to supporting sustained human space
exploration to Mars and other destinations.
The major focus of these lunar activities will be
on demonstrns. The first human explorers
will be sent to the Moon as early as 2015, as a stepping stone to demon-
strate sustainable approaches to exploring Mars and other worlds.
To support these missions, a number of key building blocks are neces-
sary. These include new capabilities in propulsion, power, communica-
tions, crew transport, and launch, as well as the refocusing of ongoing
programs like Space Station research. Major achievements, including
the completion of Space Station asses of each where most use-
ful. Robotic explorers will visit new worlds first, to obtain scientific data, assess risks to our astronauts,
demonstrate breakthrough technologies, identify space resources, and send tantalizing imagery back to
Earth. Human explorers will follow to conduct in-depth research, direct and upgrade advanced robotic
explorers, prepare space resources, and demonstrate new exploration capabilities.
For Sustainable Exploration
NASA will pursue breakthrough technologies, investigate lunar and other space resources, and align ongo-
ing programs to develop sustainable, affordable, and flexible solar system exploration strategies.
Use the Moon as a Testing Ground For Mars and Beyond
Under this new Vision, the first robotic missions will be sent to the Moon as early as 2008 and the first
human missions as early as 2015 to test new approaches, human and robotic capabilities
across multiple worlds. This plan provides the
framework for fulfilling the President’s direction,
guided by the principles on the facing page. It is
responsive to recent science findings, the NASA
Strategic Plan, the report of the Columbia Accident
Investigation Board, and the new space exploration
policy. It seeks to establish a sustainable and flexi-
ble approach to exploration by pursuing compelling
questions, developing breakthrough technologies,
leveraging sSupporting Exploration
• Develop a new crew exploration vehicle to provide crew transportation for missions beyond low Earth
orbit;
« Conduct the initial test flight before the end of this decade in order to provide an operational
capability to support human exploration missions no later than 2014;
• Separate to the maximum practical extent crew from cargo transportation to the International Space
Station and for launching exploration missions beyond low Earth orbit;
« Acquire cargo transportation as soon as practical and afforoping countermeasures; and
• Conduct International Space Station activities in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations contained
in the agreements between the United States and other partners in the International Space Station.
B. Space Exploration Beyond Low Earth Orbit
The Moon
• Undertake lunar exploration activities to enable sustained human and robotic exploration of Mars and
more distant destinations in the solar system;
• Starting no later than 2008, initiate a series of robotic missions to the Moon to prepare for and support
future human exploration activities;
• Conduct the first extended human expedition to the lunar surface as early as 2015, but no later than
the year 2020; and
• Use lunar exploration activities to further science, and to develop and test new approaches,
technologies, and systems, including use of lunar and other space and, at the same time,
develop the technologies to extend humanity’s reach to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. The new technologies
required for further space exploration also will improve the Nation’s other space activities and may provide
applications that could be used to address problems on Earth.
Like the explorers of the past and the pioneers of flight in the last century, we cannot today identify all that
we will gain from space exploration; we are confident, nonetheless, that the eventual return will be great.
Like their efforts, the success of future U.S. space exploration will unfold over generations.
Goal and Objectives
The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a
robust space exploration program. In support of this goal, the United Scan public, we
will embark on this very exciting future.
When Christopher Columbus made his voyages across the Atlantic in the 15th and 16th centuries, his ships
carried the inscription “Following the light of the sun, we left the Old World.” I look forward to joining you
as we follow the light of the planets and the stars into the new worlds of the 21st