Full spectrum dominance includes the physical battlespace; air, surface and sub-surface as well as the electromagnetic spectrum and information space. Control implies that freedom of opposition force assets to exploit the battlespace is wholly constrained.

US military doctrine

The United States military's doctrine has espoused a strategic intent to be capable of achieving this state in a conflict, either alone or with allies by defeating any adversary and controlling any situation across the range of military operations.

The stated intent implies significant investment in a range of capabilities; dominant maneuver, precision engagement, focused logistics, and full-dimensional protection.

Criticism

As early as 2005, the credibility of full-spectrum dominance as a practical strategic doctrine was dismissed by Professor Philip Taylor of the University of Leeds an expert consultant to the US and UK governments on psychological operations, propaganda and diplomacy.

"It's true, though rarely recognized in the control-freakery world of the military, that full spectrum dominance is impossible in the global information environment."

Harold Pinter referenced the term in his 2005 Nobel Prize acceptance speech:

"I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources."

References

Further reading

• Mahajan, Rahul Full Spectrum Dominance:U.S. Power in Iraq and Beyond New York:2003 Seven Stories Press

See also

• American Empire
• Geostrategy
• Network-centric warfare
• Project for the New American Century
• U.S. Military
• World domination