National Defense Strategy - 644
SECRET//ORCON-GOV//NOFORN/LIMDIS/Approved for Government Viewing
This document serves to guide the decision making of all government agencies as it pertains to the defense of the Republic in the event of a contingency operation.
The Great North began a revisionist history narrative regarding Kodiak territorial borders in year 641AB. This revisionist narrative began soon after the announcement of untapped mineral deposits in the Darrent region of North-West Kodiak. For the past several years, The Great North has further increased in rhetoric of claims to the region and has taken active positions to push the boundaries of Kodiaker resolve to defend the territory. These “Grey Zone” tactics have included but are not limited to, air incursions of the Air Identification Zone in the western sea, large scale military exercises close to the border, longer than usual rotations of large formations near the border, and a probable “False Flag” attack against one border outpost. These actions have demonstrated a clear and present danger to the territorial integrity of the Republic. The Great North is assessed to be a Peer Threat to the Republic. Demonstrated from political rhetoric, military posturing, and information operations.
The Kodiak Republic preserves its national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Active deterrence of hostile action between the Kodiak Republic and The Great North.
Conditions will be measured in levels of success. These are conditions that the Republic’s foreign ministry will seek to end the war on favorable conditions.
The Kodiak Republic conducts a successful de-escalation of The Great North’s rhetoric and turns relations to a neutral stance. Avoiding armed conflict and preserving full national integrity.
Armed conflict was not avoided. Kodiaker forces resist armed invasion by the Great North. Retain control of the prewar international border. Kodiaker military losses are less than 9% of prewar strength. The Great North’s political will to continue conflict is degraded.
Kodiaker forces are pushed from the international border but remain intact north of Taiping. Retain control of 80% of the Darrent region. Kodiaker forces are unable to mount successful counter attacks to restore status quo ante bellum. Kodiaker losses are under 15% prewar numbers.
Conflict Termination Criteria
Conditions measured in levels of favorableness. These conditions will be decision points for the Kodiak Executive to determine if termination criteria have been met despite unfavorable conditions.
Kodiaker forces were unsuccessful in Defensive operations of the first and second echelons. Taiping is contested. Kodiak retains control of 50% of the Darrent Region. Kodiaker losses exceed 20% prewar forces
Kodiaker Reserves committed to the third defense echelon. Taiping under hostile occupation. National Capital indirectly threatened by enemy capabilities. Western coastline raided by enemy naval or air attack. Kodiak retains control of 25% of Darrent Region. Kodiaker losses exceed 25% of prewar forces.
Kodiaker command and control disintegrated. Taiping River line breached. National Capital Region under continuous attack. Enemy landing on the Western coastline. Kodiaker losses exceed 30% of prewar forces.
Lines of Effort
The Government of the Republic must take a whole of government approach to possible defense of the nation. The following items and action officers are identified.
a. Establishment of operational and strategic defense in depth. (Ministry of Defense)
b. Identification of monarchial supportive groups within the Darrent (Ministry of Law and Order)
c. Identification of sacrificial infrastructure and destruction criteria within the Darrent Region (Ministry of Transportation/Ministry of Commerce)
d. Establishment of Internally Displaced Person camps south of the Taiping River to accommodate 40% of the regional population on day of hostilities commencing. (Ministry of Social Services/Ministry of Health Services)
e. Evacuation procedure plans for communities of urban density within the Darrent region. (Ministry of Transportation)
f. General Mobilization criteria (Ministry of Defense, Chancellor)
g. Key Industry preservation plan (Ministry of Commerce and Labor)
h. Emplacement of obstacles within likely warzone. (Ministry of Defense, Chancellor)
i. Civil Resistance Plan. (Ministry of Law and Order, Chancellor)