Bill Overview
Title: Assessing Chinese Special Operations Forces Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense's annual report on China's military strategy to include analyses, forecasts, and assessments relating to the Chinese military's special operations forces.
Sponsors: Rep. Murphy, Stephanie N. [D-FL-7]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in military strategy and analysis focused on China's military
Estimated Size: 50000
- The bill specifies that the Department of Defense must include certain information in its annual report.
- The target population consists of people who are directly involved in the creation and utilization of this report.
- Indirectly, individuals concerned with national security and scholars are also impacted.
- This global population includes military personnel, government officials, analysts and defense agencies not just in the U.S., but worldwide.
- National security policies are primarily focused around defense operations and strategies which inherently concern defense personnel globally.
Reasoning
- The policy involves the U.S. Department of Defense specifically focused on monitoring the Chinese Special Operations Forces.
- The policy will likely have a direct impact on military analysts, strategists, and planners who focus on Chinese military capabilities.
- The budget constraints imply a limited scope of impact, focusing on enhancing intelligence resources and reporting within the military.
- Given the focus on strategic military analysis, the broader American population is largely unaffected unless they have a direct connection to defense concerns.
- Security-related personnel may feel a positive impact in wellbeing due to better-informed policies, but this would mostly be within military or defense-associated individuals.
Simulated Interviews
military analyst (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think the policy is crucial for maintaining our strategic edge.
- It brings more alignment and coordination on global threats.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
strategic intelligence officer (San Diego, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could improve our data quality.
- I'm slightly concerned about bureaucratic delays.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
defense contractor (New York, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Interesting policy implication, but not directly affecting my work.
- Could result in tighter security measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
university researcher (Boston, MA)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could bring new insights for my research.
- Better data access is always a plus.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
software engineer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 31 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy seems significant for strategy departments.
- It might indirectly impact project goals, not directly my role.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
defense policy maker (Arlington, VA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an overdue enhancement to our reporting.
- It helps underpin critical defense initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
intelligence community manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful the policy will improve our ability to predict threats.
- Efficiency in reporting is essential.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
data analyst (Austin, TX)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Could impact demand for our analytics services.
- Enhanced defense data feeds could appeal to clients.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
retired military general (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 56 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's a smart move to keep an eye on our competitors.
- I'm pleased to see strategic foresight in action.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
author (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy may not impact my work directly.
- I can see the value for active military personnel.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $7000000)
Year 2: $5200000 (Low: $3200000, High: $7300000)
Year 3: $5400000 (Low: $3400000, High: $7600000)
Year 5: $5800000 (Low: $3700000, High: $8100000)
Year 10: $6700000 (Low: $4300000, High: $9400000)
Year 100: $8500000 (Low: $5400000, High: $12000000)
Key Considerations
- The bill leverages existing reporting structures within the Department of Defense, minimizing startup costs.
- Understanding and assessing adversarial military capabilities is critical for national defense strategy, potentially preempting conflicts and reducing future military expenditure.