Development of territorial defense strategies based on geomorphological analysis in Minab and Sirik regions

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Associate Prof. in University of Tabriz

2 Professor in Geomorphology, University of Tabriz

3 Assistant Prof. in Geomorphology, Imam Ali University

4 Ph.D. student in Geomorphology, University of Tabriz

Abstract

Defense and security organizations operate in a very complex and unstable environment. Long-term defense planning encourages thinking about possible situations and helps defense organizations prepare for the future to improve their strategy by providing insights into possible future dangers. The main purpose of this study is to study the geomorphological features of Minab and Sirik areas in the east of the Strait of Hormuz and their impact on the development of territorial defense strategies. The type of applied research and its nature is analytical-descriptive. Data were collected in the form of libraries - documentary and survey and its data were qualitative and quantitative. The statistical population includes 24 elites and experts in defense and security issues. The coefficient of criteria was determined based on the Likert spectrum. Using SWOT analytical tool, 34 indicators (strengths 8, weaknesses 9, opportunities 8 and threats 9) were evaluated and evaluated by relevant experts. The Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix (QSPM) was used to select the optimal strategy from the strategies obtained from SWOT analysis. The results of the SWOT model suggest the (WO) strategy as the optimal strategy in the Minab and Sirik regions. At the same time, in prioritizing the review strategy using the model (QSPM), the priority and superiority of the strategy is to use and deploy advanced defense, radar and eavesdropping systems, parallel to the shoreline and the points that create maximum frequency range over other review strategies.

Keywords

References

  •  

    • Army Australia, (2014), Land Warfare Doctrine 1(The Fundamentals of Land Power), intranet.defence.gov.au/army web/sites/Doctrine-Online.
    • Collins, J.M. (1982).U.S.defense planning: a critique. Boulder, CO:West view Press.
    • Dincer, O. (2004). Strategy Management and Organization Policy. Istanbul: Beta Publication.
    • Eastler, T, E. (2004). Military use of underground terrain A Brief Historical Perspective. University of Maine at Farming. D.R. Caldwell et al. (eds.), Studies in Military Geography and Geology, Publishers: Kluwer Academic,21–37.
    • Galgano, F. A. (2011) the Geography of Amphibious Warfare. Modern Military Geography. Edited By: Galgano, F. A. Palka, E, J. New York and London, publisher: Routledge, 184-201.
    • Gray. C. S. (2008). Coping with Uncertainty: Dilemmas of Defense Planning, Comparative Strategy.
    • Guth. P.L. (2011). Military Applied Geomorphological Mapping: Normandy Case Study. Developments in Earth Surface Processes, 15. 577-588.
    • Hill, T. Westbrook, R. (1997). SWOT analysis: It’s time for a product recall. Long Range Planning, 30, 46–52.
    • Hintze, O. (1975). Military organization and the organization of the state. In: F. Gilbert, ed. The historical essays of Otto Hintze. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    • Houben, G. Lenie, K. Vanhoof, K. (1999). A knowledge-based SWOT analysis system as an instrument for strategic planning in small and medium sized enterprises. Decision Support Systems, 26, 125–135.
    • Ilyés, Zoltán. (2010), Military Activities: Warfare and Defence. Editors: Szabó, J·
    • Kajanus, M. Kangas, J. Kurttila, M. (2004). The use of value focused thinking and the A’WOT hybrid method in tourism management. Tourism Management, 25, 499–506.
    • Kangas, J. Kurtila, M. Kajanus, M. Kangas, A. (2003). Evaluating the management strategies of a forestland estate-the S-O-S approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 69, 349–358.
    • Kangas, J. Pesonen, M. Kurttila, M. Kajanus, M. (2001). A'SWOT: Integrating the AHP with SWOT analysis. 6th ISAHP 2001 Proceedings. Berne:Switzland,189-198.
    • Kiersch, G A. Underwood, J. R„ Jr. (1998), Geology and military operations, 1800-1960: An overview, in Underwood, J. R. Jr. and Guth, P. L. eds. Military Geology in War and Peace: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology, v. XIII.
    • Knowles, Robert. B. Wedge, William. K. (1998), Military geology and the Gulf War, in Underwood, J. R. Jr. and Guth, P. L. eds. Military Geology in War and Peace: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology, V. XIII.P 117- 124.
    • Kotler, P. (1988). Marketing Management: Analysis, planning, implementation and control. New Jersy: Prentice-Hall.
    • Kranz, W. (1913), Militar geologie: Berlin, Kreigstech Zeitschrift, Officiere aller Waffen, 16, 464-471.
    • Kurttila, M. Pesonen, M. Kangas, J. Kajanus, M. (2000). Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis-a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. Forest Policy and Economics, 1, 41–52.
    • Mazarr, M J. Ley Best, K. Laird, B. Larson, E, V. Meredith. E. David‚. R. David ‚Forest, R. David‚ F. (2009). The quantitative strategic planning matrix (QSPM) applied to a retall computer store, The Coastal Business Journal, 8, (1), 42 – 52.
    • Montgomery, E, B, )2009(, Defense Planning For The Long Haul: Scenarios, Operational Concepts, And The Future Security Environment Strategy For The Long Haul, Evan B Center For Strategic And Budgetary Assessments,Washington,Dc.
    • Norwegian Defence Research Establishment (FFI), (2011), Annual Report in Brief.
    • Quadrennial Defense Review Report (2006) Washington, DC: Department of Defense.
    • Rose, E.P.F. (2005), Impact of Military Activities on Local and Regional Geologic Conditions, In Ehlen, J. Haneberg, W.C. Larson, R.A. eds. Humans as Geologic Agents: Boulder, Colorado, Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology, v. XVI, 51-66.
    • Sevkli, M, Oztekin A. Uysal O. Torlak G. Turkyilmaz A. and Delen D. (2012). Development of a fuzzy ANP based SWOT analysis for the airline industry In Turkey. Expert System swith Applications, 39, 14–24.
    • Shakoor Shahabi, R. Basiri, M.H. Rashidi. K. Ahangar Zonouzi, S. (2014). An ANP–SWOT approach for interdependency analysis and prioritizing the Iran's steel scrap industry strategies. Resources Policy, 42,18–26.
    • Sirvastava, P. (2005). Singh, Stakhobler- Based SWOT a hahgsistor successful municipal solid waste management in lucknow. India Waste Management,25,34-38.
    • Stewart, R. Moamed, S. Daet, R. (2002). Strategic implementation of IT/IS projects in construction: A case study. Automation in Construction, 11, 681–694.
    • Tama, J. (2018). Tradeoffs in defense strategic planning: lessons from the U.S. quadrennial defense review. Defence studies, 18 (3), 279–301.
    • Valeri, R, (2009) Governance, Management,Command, Leadership:Setting the Context for Studies of Defence Management. Hari Bucur-Marcu, Philipp Fluri, Todor Tagarev, eds. Defence Management: An Introduction (Geneva: Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces.
    • Wadman, H, M. McNinch, J, E. Foxgrover, A. (2014), Environmental metrics for assessing optimal littoral penetration points and beach staging locations: Amphibious training grounds, Onslow Beach, North Carolina, USA, in Harmon, R.S. Baker, S.E. McDonald, E.V. Military Geosciences in the Twenty-First Century: Geological Society of America Reviews in Engineering Geology, v. XXII, 187-203.

Willard, Bradford. (1963) Geology and wars, a neglected factor in wars within the continental limits of the United States of America: Pennsylvania History, v. 30. 4, 393-419.

Defensive Future Studies
Volume 5, Issue 18 - Serial Number 18
December 2020
Pages 87-112

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics