One of the challenges Gen. John P. Jumper, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, sends to Air Force students, researchers, and staff offices is to investigate future concepts of operations (CONOPS). One in particular relates to this study, the CONOPS for space and command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. The Air Force is very sensitive about incorporating new technology into its operations. While the authors advocate a feasibility study for reactor sin space in a CONOPS, they also explore a deeper problem with widespread theoretical employment of nuclear technology in space. They point first to the mission enabling advantages of nuclear reactors in space - factors like light weight, high power, long life, and potentially lower costs. A reactor would supply electrical power to a space vehicle and perhaps provide ionic or electrical propulsion. They see that nuclear-powered spacecraft would serve long-range National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) missions as well as permit effective hyperspectral satellites that would have profound benefits for the Department of Defense. The limiting factors for nuclear power in space are a compelling mission requirement and broad acceptance in popular support. The first factor is rather obvious but the second is driven by a broad-based fear of risks in the employment of nuclear technology. Many have general doubts about such an undertaking. Some opponents perceive cataclysmic dangers. A failure of space launch carrying nuclear systems would produce something on the order of a "dirty" nuclear bomb. Opponents are rigorous in their protest. Two things were clear to these researchers. One, nuclear space developers must convince the public that they are capable of developing a safe and robust system. Two, because the political battle is primarily over perceived risks rather than empirically based understanding, employment of value-focused decision strategy is necessary to convince the public and congressional leaders of the feasibility of a space nuclear program.

The three researchers of "Military Chaplains as Peace Builders: Embracing Indigenous Religions in Stability Operations"-Chaplain (Col) William Sean Lee, Lt Col Christopher J. Burke, and Lt Col Zonna M. Crayne, all Air Force Fellows-make suggestions that bring the chaplain business into the twenty-first century. Religion and culture in general have been long neglected by planners, policy makers, and diplomats. Our experience in Phase IV, or the constructive phase, of Operation Iraqi Freedom has clearly exposed this inattention as a serious flaw in bringing peaceful development to Iraq. These authors suggest that military chaplains can be a part of a better solution. It is not a case of trying to proselyte; it is rather one of engaging local religious leaders to facilitate the stabilization process. Currently, US military chaplains not only provide religious and spiritual support to military personnel and their families, but also train to conduct religious area analyses and assessments, primarily for the purpose of advising the commander on indigenous religious culture and practices. The thesis of this paper is to suggest an expanded role as religious liaison, wherein the chaplains would have a direct interface with local religious groups and religious leaders. The chaplains would develop a dialogue, build relationships, promote goodwill, and even help create formal inter-religious councils. The authors recommend changes affecting doctrine, training, and assignments that are necessary to facilitate this expanded role of chaplains. Commanders often have a military lawyer and intelligence officer by their side when addressing operational decisions. Chaplains of the future should be equally important to the commander conducting stability operations. Our leadership must be comfortable in the understanding that an individual does not have to become religious in order to understand religion.