Notes on The Kill Chain꞉ Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare

book
notes
history
My notes from the book The Kill Chain꞉ Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare by Christian Brose.
Author

Christian Mills

Published

August 27, 2024

Book LInks:

Introduction

Playing a Losing Game

  • This book argues that the U.S. military is on a path to lose a future war against China, and that this trajectory must be changed.

  • The author, Christian Brose, draws on his extensive experience as a national security and military advisor, most notably serving as staff director for Senator John McCain on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

  • This role provided Brose with access to classified information, top defense officials, and insights into the concerning reality of the U.S. military’s eroding advantage over China.

A Stark Warning Ignored

  • In 2017, Brose witnessed Senator McCain’s attempt to warn his Senate colleagues about the U.S. military’s vulnerabilities against China.
    • McCain, troubled by the military’s lagging technological advancement, organized a classified briefing for all 100 senators.
    • The briefing, based on concerning war game simulations, revealed a bleak outlook: the U.S. consistently lost in simulated conflicts with China.
    • Despite the gravity of the situation, only a dozen senators attended.

A Grim Assessment of U.S. Capabilities

  • David Ochmanek, a former Pentagon official, has conducted extensive war game simulations for the Department of Defense, revealing a disturbing pattern:
    • War Game Outcomes: The U.S. military consistently loses against China and Russia in these simulations, suffering heavy casualties and equipment losses while failing to achieve objectives.
    • A Shocking Reality: This finding contradicts the prevailing assumption of U.S. military dominance, leaving many within the defense establishment in disbelief.
  • A Consistent Pattern of Defeat: War game simulations over the past decade consistently show the U.S. losing against China.
    • A Well-Kept Secret: This information remains largely unknown to the American public and even many members of Congress, despite being acknowledged within the Department of Defense.

A Conversation with Senator McCain: Imagining a War with China

  • Following the poorly attended Senate briefing, Brose and Senator McCain engaged in a sobering thought experiment: imagining a potential war with China.
    • They agreed that the U.S. would not instigate a conflict, but acknowledged potential triggers such as:
      • A maritime incident escalating into conflict.
      • A Chinese attack on a U.S. ally prompting American intervention.
    • They envisioned a scenario where the U.S. would face significant challenges in mobilizing and deploying forces.

A Potential War With China: Key Vulnerabilities and Challenges

  • Geographical Disadvantages and Logistical Nightmares:
    • Much of the U.S. military’s necessary equipment and personnel would be positioned thousands of miles away from the conflict zone.
    • Mobilization efforts would be hampered by cyberattacks and attacks on vulnerable supply lines, including cargo ships and aircraft.
  • Space and Cyber Warfare Dominance by China:
    • China would leverage its capabilities to target U.S. satellites, disrupting critical intelligence, communication, and GPS systems.
    • Command and control networks would be crippled by electronic, cyber, and missile attacks, leaving U.S. forces in disarray.
  • Vulnerability of Forward Bases and Critical Infrastructure:
    • U.S. bases in Japan and Guam would be overwhelmed by barrages of Chinese ballistic and cruise missiles.
    • China’s hypersonic weapons, capable of maneuvering at high speeds, would render existing U.S. defenses useless.
    • Runways, operation centers, and fuel depots would be targeted, crippling U.S. operations and forcing evacuations.
  • Limitations of Air and Sea Power:
    • Older, non-stealthy fighter jets (F-15s, F-16s, F-18s) would be ineffective against China’s advanced air defenses.
    • Limited numbers of stealthy fighter jets (F-22s, F-35s) would be hampered by their short range and dependence on vulnerable aerial refueling tankers.
    • U.S. aircraft carriers would be forced to operate far from Chinese shores to avoid anti-ship missiles, limiting their effectiveness and making them vulnerable to attack.
    • China’s “carrier killer” missiles (DF-21 and DF-26) would pose a significant threat, potentially sinking carriers and causing massive casualties.
  • Challenges for the Marine Corps and Amphibious Operations:
    • The Marine Corps’ amphibious assault capabilities, designed for beach landings, would be largely ineffective against heavily defended Chinese territory.
    • The need to operate within range of Chinese missiles would severely restrict their ability to conduct traditional amphibious operations.
  • Logistical Constraints and Depletion of Critical Assets:
    • Key U.S. assets (submarines, long-range bombers, ground-launched missiles) would need to be relocated to the Pacific, taking crucial time.
    • Years of underinvestment and acquisition delays would result in a shortage of these assets and a rapid depletion of essential weapons.

A Sobering Realization: Facing the Consequences

  • Devastation and Defeat: Brose and McCain contemplated the potential human and material costs of such a war, including thousands of American casualties, sunken ships, destroyed bases, and a swift defeat.

  • Unthinkable Choices: The potential for such a rapid and devastating loss would present a U.S. president with limited options, potentially including surrender or a futile fight.

  • China’s Strategic Advantage: This outcome would fulfill China’s strategic objective of achieving victory without engaging in protracted warfare, as outlined in Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War.”

A Legacy of Neglect: Failing to Address the Challenge

  • McCain expressed frustration and disappointment that despite past warnings and efforts to address military weaknesses, the U.S. found itself in a precarious position.
    • The 1980s revelation of a “hollow force” sparked outrage and action, yet the current crisis, despite being more dire, had not elicited a similar response.
    • McCain lamented the lack of awareness and urgency among both the public and elected officials, fearing future generations would judge them harshly for their inaction.

The Illusion of American Military Supremacy: Mistaking Inputs for Outcomes

  • Despite spending more on defense than any other country, the U.S. military faces an existential crisis, challenging the prevailing notion of its invincibility.
    • This discrepancy between spending and effectiveness highlights a fundamental flaw in how the U.S. approaches national defense.
  • The Problem with Platforms:
    • The U.S. military’s traditional focus on platforms (e.g., ships, planes, tanks) as the primary measure of strength is misguided.
    • Platforms are seen as tangible symbols of military might, influencing budgets, capabilities, and even institutional identity.
  • The Importance of the Kill Chain:
    • Defining the Kill Chain:
      • The kill chain is the essential process by which militaries achieve their objectives, involving three key steps:
        • Understanding: Gathering information about the battlespace and the enemy.
        • Deciding: Analyzing information and making strategic and tactical decisions.
        • Acting: Executing decisions to achieve desired effects, which may or may not involve lethal force.
    • Closing and Breaking the Kill Chain:
      • Closing the Kill Chain: Successfully completing the understand-decide-act cycle to achieve a military objective.
      • Breaking the Kill Chain: Disrupting an adversary’s ability to complete the kill chain, neutralizing their effectiveness.
    • A Universal Concept:
      • The kill chain is not unique to the military; it mirrors processes used in business, sports, and everyday life.
      • This framework highlights that while the military operates in a unique and high-stakes environment, its core functions are relatable and understandable.
  • The Information Revolution and Its Unfulfilled Promise:
    • The information revolution of the 1980s promised to revolutionize warfare by enabling networked warfare and the disaggregation of the kill chain across multiple platforms.
    • However, the U.S. defense establishment failed to fully embrace this transformation, clinging to its platform-centric approach.
  • The Failure to Adapt:
    • Despite advancements in information technology, the U.S. military’s kill chain remains slow, inflexible, and reliant on outdated systems.
    • Military platforms often lack interoperability, hindering their ability to share information and function as a cohesive network.
  • The Legacy of Failed Modernization:
    • Previous attempts to modernize the military often focused on developing better versions of existing platforms using unproven technologies, resulting in costly procurement failures.
    • The U.S. military’s current predicament is partly a result of learning the wrong lessons from these failures, leading to risk aversion and a reluctance to embrace truly transformative change.

The China Challenge: A New Era of Competition

  • A Rapidly Evolving Threat:
    • The information revolution is accelerating, driven by commercial technology companies, and these advancements have significant military applications.
    • China, capitalizing on these emerging technologies, poses a rapidly growing and evolving threat to U.S. military dominance.
  • China’s Strategic Approach:
    • China has meticulously studied the U.S. military, identifying its weaknesses and developing strategies to exploit them.
    • Instead of directly confronting U.S. strengths, China aims to deny the U.S. military the ability to project power and fight in its preferred manner.
  • Asymmetric Warfare and Technological Leapfrogging:
    • China has invested heavily in advanced weapons designed to disrupt U.S. battle networks, destroy expensive platforms, and break the kill chain.
    • This approach prioritizes achieving a decisive advantage through technological superiority and asymmetric capabilities.
  • The Rise of China: Economic and Military Power:
    • China’s economic growth fuels its military ambitions, potentially enabling it to match or surpass U.S. military spending within a decade.
    • This shift in the balance of power poses an unprecedented challenge, demanding a fundamental reassessment of U.S. defense strategy.
  • China’s Grand Strategy:
    • China’s ambitions extend beyond regional dominance to becoming the world’s leading power, supplanting the United States.
    • This strategy entails undermining U.S. influence globally, eroding its alliances, and promoting China’s model of authoritarianism.
  • Exploiting Emerging Technologies:
    • China recognizes the transformative potential of emerging technologies and is investing heavily in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, robotics, and other fields.
    • These technologies are not only being used to enhance its military but also to strengthen its authoritarian control domestically.
  • A Looming Crisis for the U.S. Military:
    • The U.S. military’s current trajectory puts it at a severe disadvantage against China’s asymmetric capabilities.
    • Continuing to invest in the same platforms and approaches will only exacerbate this vulnerability, playing into China’s hands.

The Need for Transformation: Reimagining American Military Power

  • Recognizing the Urgency:
    • The U.S. defense establishment must acknowledge the severity of the situation and the need for radical change.
    • Complacency and clinging to outdated paradigms will result in catastrophic consequences for U.S. security and global standing.
  • Shifting from Inputs to Outcomes:
    • The focus should shift from simply acquiring platforms to building a more effective kill chain.
    • This requires prioritizing technologies and capabilities that enhance the U.S. military’s ability to understand, decide, and act faster and more effectively than its competitors.
  • From Platforms to Networks:
    • Instead of relying on small numbers of expensive and vulnerable platforms, the U.S. military must adopt a more networked and distributed approach.
    • This entails investing in:
      • Interoperable Systems: Enabling seamless communication and data sharing between platforms.
      • Resilient Networks: Developing robust networks that can withstand attacks and disruptions.
      • Artificial Intelligence: Leveraging AI for faster and more effective decision-making.
  • From Offensive to Defensive:
    • The U.S. military must prioritize defensive capabilities that deter Chinese aggression and protect critical assets.
    • This includes:
      • Strengthening base defenses against missile attacks.
      • Developing more effective counter-space and cyber capabilities.
      • Investing in technologies that make U.S. platforms less vulnerable to detection and attack.
  • Embracing Autonomy and Unmanned Systems:
    • The U.S. military should accelerate the development and deployment of autonomous and unmanned systems.
    • This shift would:
      • Reduce reliance on vulnerable manned platforms.
      • Increase the speed and tempo of operations.
      • Enable the U.S. military to operate more effectively in contested environments.
  • Rethinking Force Structure:
    • The U.S. military must move away from its traditional force structure of large, heavily manned platforms.
    • Instead, it should prioritize:
      • Smaller, more agile, and expendable platforms.
      • A greater emphasis on unmanned and autonomous systems.
      • A force that is designed for distributed and networked warfare.
  • Overcoming Institutional Inertia:
    • The biggest obstacle to transformation is not a lack of resources or technology but a lack of imagination and institutional inertia.
    • Overcoming this will require:
      • Strong leadership willing to challenge the status quo.
      • A cultural shift that embraces innovation and change.
      • A willingness to take risks and accept that failure is part of the innovation process.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

  • The Stakes:
    • The future of American security and global leadership hangs in the balance.
    • Failure to adapt to the changing character of warfare will have dire consequences for the U.S. and its allies.
  • The Path Forward:
    • The U.S. must embrace bold and transformative change to maintain its military edge.
    • This requires a fundamental rethinking of defense strategy, force structure, and acquisition processes.
  • The Role of Informed Citizenry:
    • An informed and engaged citizenry is essential for driving the necessary changes in U.S. national defense.
    • This book aims to educate the public about the challenges and opportunities presented by emerging technologies and the future of warfare, encouraging a national conversation about the best way to defend America in the 21st century.

Chapter 1: What Happened to Yoda’s Revolution?

The Dawn of a New Era and the Seeds of Complacency (1991-2001)

A Visionary’s Warning: Andrew Marshall and the Future of War

  • In 1991, amidst the backdrop of the Cold War’s end, Andrew Marshall, director of the Office of Net Assessment (ONA), initiated a project to assess the future of warfare.
    • Andrew Marshall, often referred to as “Yoda,” held this influential position for 42 years, reporting directly to the Secretary of Defense.
    • The ONA’s primary mission was to evaluate the United States’ strategic standing against its competitors, mainly the Soviet Union.
  • Marshall, aided by Army Colonel Andrew Krepenevich, aimed to analyze the impact of emerging technologies and the Soviet Union’s collapse on international security and the U.S.’s role.
  • This project became particularly relevant after the U.S. waged war against Iraq in response to the invasion of Kuwait, a conflict heavily shaped by Cold War strategies and military structures.

The Gulf War Illusion: A Misleading Victory

  • The Gulf War (1991) unfolded as a demonstration of American military might, leaving a lasting impression on a young generation.
    • The conflict showcased technological advancements like stealth bombers, smart bombs, and superior air and ground power.
    • The U.S. achieved a swift victory with minimal casualties (129 combat deaths).
  • Despite the perceived success, Marshall’s 1992 report to the Secretary of Defense offered a different perspective.
    • He highlighted the influence of classified Soviet military writings that predicted a “military technical revolution.”
      • This revolution, termed the “reconnaissance strike complex,” proposed that advanced sensors and surveillance technologies, coupled with precision weaponry, would create the fastest, most effective kill chain in history.
    • While the Soviets saw the Gulf War as a testament to this concept, Marshall argued that the U.S. hadn’t even come close to achieving its full potential in this area.
  • A 1993 Pentagon study supported Marshall’s assessment.
    • The study revealed that the U.S. battle network remained largely unchanged since the Vietnam era.
    • It struggled to engage moving targets and relied heavily on “dumb bombs” instead of “smart” ones.
  • Admiral William Owens, future Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, later stated that the Gulf War was primarily won through “massed brute force,” akin to historical campaigns.

A Revolution in Military Affairs: The Need for Transformation

  • Marshall envisioned a revolution in military affairs (RMA), driven by information technologies.

    • He cited historical examples of RMAs, such as the introduction of machine guns, steam-powered ships, and airplanes, emphasizing that technological advancements alone were insufficient.
    • Successful RMAs required developing new operational strategies and reforming existing military institutions for new strategic goals.

  • Marshall warned that the U.S. was in the early stages of such a revolution, one that could last for decades.

    • This RMA would center around information technologies that enhance understanding, decision-making, and action in war.
    • It would necessitate a shift in the concept of military power, potentially rendering traditional platforms like tanks, manned aircraft, and large ships less effective.
    • Marshall cautioned that failure to adapt to this RMA would leave the U.S. vulnerable to adversaries who successfully harnessed its potential.

  • Marshall’s analysts coined the term “anti-access and area denial capabilities” to describe how powerful adversaries could leverage this RMA to counter the U.S.’s platform-centric approach.

  • Despite its prescience, Marshall’s report failed to instigate significant change.

    • The U.S., after the Soviet Union’s collapse, found itself in a unipolar world, with no immediate peer competitors.
    • This led to a sense of complacency, with leaders prioritizing a “peace dividend” by downsizing the military and focusing on peacekeeping and humanitarian missions.
    • The prevailing assumption was that future conflicts would resemble the Gulf War, fought against technologically inferior adversaries, allowing the U.S. to dictate the terms of engagement.

The Allure of Technology and the Lack of Urgency

  • Despite the lack of substantial change, the concept of RMA gained traction in Washington during the 1990s, driven by the fascination with the burgeoning information age.
    • “Revolution” and “transformation” became buzzwords, leading to numerous initiatives aimed at reimagining the U.S. military.
      • These initiatives included projects like “Army After Next,” “Network-Centric Warfare,” “Joint Vision 2010,” and “Lifting the Fog of War.”
    • The 1997 Quadrennial Defense Review, the Pentagon’s key strategy document, explicitly prioritized exploiting the RMA.
  • However, despite the rhetoric and investments in defense technology, the U.S.’s way of fighting remained largely unchanged.
    • The interventions in Bosnia (1995) and Kosovo (1999) further reinforced this complacency.
      • These conflicts, won with minimal U.S. casualties (four non-combat deaths), were attributed more to adversary weakness than any significant U.S. transformation.
  • Admiral Owens, after retiring, criticized the military’s “residual overconfidence” and its tendency to draw the wrong lessons from the Gulf War.
    • He warned that without genuine adaptation, the U.S. risked a decline in military strength and capabilities in the coming decades as Cold War-era equipment became obsolete.

The 20XX War Games: A Glimpse into a Challenging Future

  • As the 21st century began, Marshall, recognizing the lack of progress, initiated the “Future Warfare 20XX war game series.”

    • These war games aimed to simulate future conflicts in a world where the RMA had reached maturity, pitting the U.S. against a hypothetical “large peer competitor” – implicitly China.

  • The war games were led by Robert Martinage and Michael Vickers, both future senior Pentagon officials.

  • Their 2001 report presented a stark assessment:

    • China, by 2025-2030, would possess advanced technologies comparable to the U.S., enabling it to target U.S. assets globally, including the homeland.
    • The U.S.’s reliance on traditional platforms and its vulnerability to attacks on its communication and logistics networks would render its traditional way of fighting ineffective.
    • The report stressed the need to fully embrace the RMA, building technologically advanced, networked forces, especially unmanned systems, to counter these threats.
    • The report warned of an “unforgiving future battlefield” where “if you can be seen, you can be killed.”

A Missed Opportunity: The Rumsfeld Era and the War on Terror (2001-2009)

A False Dawn: The Promise of Transformation and the Reality of 9/11

  • The arrival of Donald Rumsfeld as Secretary of Defense in 2001 initially signaled potential progress.
    • Rumsfeld openly advocated for the RMA and created the Office of Force Transformation to oversee the development of new military technologies and doctrines.
    • He also signed a new defense strategy that prioritized addressing the operational challenges highlighted in Marshall’s 20XX war games, shifting focus toward emerging great powers like China.
  • However, the 9/11 terrorist attacks drastically altered the strategic landscape, leading to a significant shift in priorities.
    • While Rumsfeld still emphasized transformation, the focus shifted towards waging a global war on terror.
  • The War on Terror did yield some genuine military innovations, primarily within the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).
    • JSOC developed new technologies and tactics for counterterrorism missions, achieving remarkable speed and effectiveness in dismantling terrorist networks.
    • This innovation, along with the adoption of a counterinsurgency strategy in 2007, played a crucial role in weakening al-Qaeda in Iraq.
  • However, the War on Terror ultimately sidetracked the U.S. from addressing the long-term challenge posed by China.
    • While the Bush administration claimed that both priorities could be managed simultaneously, the focus on counterterrorism, particularly the protracted conflict in Iraq, consumed the majority of resources and attention.

The Persistence of Complacency: Reliving Past Glories

  • Despite claims of transformation, the initial victories in Afghanistan and Iraq were, in essence, repetitions of past successes, achieved against significantly weaker opponents.
    • The U.S. retained its ability to dictate the terms of engagement, operate from secure sanctuaries, and leverage its technological superiority.
  • The core issue remained unchanged: the lack of urgency to embrace genuine transformation.
    • The perceived ease of these victories reinforced the belief in the U.S.’s military dominance and the validity of its traditional approaches to warfare.
    • Even as the Iraq War deteriorated into a strategic quagmire, the defense establishment largely dismissed it as an anomaly, clinging to outdated assumptions.
  • The U.S. continued to invest heavily in traditional military platforms, planning for future conflicts that mirrored those of the past – fought against technologically inferior adversaries on uncontested battlefields.

The Real Cost of War: Neglecting the Future

  • A prevailing narrative within the defense establishment argues that the U.S. military’s lack of preparedness for future challenges stems from the overwhelming demands of the War on Terror, which consumed its budget and bandwidth.

    • While the constant operational tempo undoubtedly took a toll, this narrative only tells part of the story.

  • The root cause lies in a failure of imagination and a misallocation of resources.

    • The U.S. clung to the idea that a persistent global military presence, rather than investing in and showcasing innovative capabilities, would deter adversaries.
    • This strategy, however, led to the overextension and exhaustion of the military, with limited strategic gains.

  • Instead of prioritizing the development of faster, more adaptable kill chains through real-world experimentation, the U.S. poured vast sums into attempting to transform existing platforms, often with little success.

  • Billions were wasted on numerous modernization programs that were ultimately canceled without yielding any usable capabilities.

    • Examples include the Army’s Future Combat System ($18.1 billion), the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle ($3.3 billion), and a host of other projects across all services.

  • Even those programs that weren’t canceled often faced significant delays, cost overruns, and ultimately failed to deliver the promised “transformational” capabilities.

    • This includes high-profile programs like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, the Ford-class aircraft carrier, the KC-46 refueling tanker, and the Littoral Combat Ship, as well as numerous lesser-known systems.
    • Many of these systems were rushed into development before the underlying technologies were mature, leading to persistent problems and escalating costs.

A Tower of Babel: The Failure of Interoperability

  • One of the most glaring failures was the lack of interoperability between different military systems, despite the emphasis on information sharing and joint operations.
    • Systems were often designed with incompatible communication and data-sharing protocols, hindering their ability to function as a cohesive network.
  • A prime example is the inability of the F-22 and F-35A fighter jets, both Air Force programs built by the same company, to directly share basic targeting data.
    • This lack of seamless integration forced reliance on outdated communication methods, such as voice transmissions.
  • This issue of interoperability plagued all branches of the military, stemming from a system that incentivized closed, proprietary technologies, benefiting defense contractors while hindering the development of truly integrated kill chains.

Stifled Innovation: The Price of Protecting the Past

  • While some genuinely revolutionary technologies were explored, they often faced resistance and were ultimately sidelined or abandoned.

    • The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) made progress in areas like artificial intelligence, but these projects rarely transitioned into operational capabilities.
    • Other initiatives, such as the development of semi-autonomous long-range anti-ship missiles and unmanned combat air vehicles, struggled for funding and were eventually discontinued.

  • The Navy’s X-47, the first unmanned aerial vehicle capable of launching from and landing on an aircraft carrier, demonstrated remarkable technological prowess but was canceled despite its success.

  • This resistance to innovation stemmed from the prioritization of traditional platforms, particularly manned aircraft, which were seen as central to the identity and budget justifications of the military services.

    • The focus on incremental improvements to these legacy systems, rather than embracing disruptive technologies, hindered the development of truly transformational capabilities.

The Wrong Priorities: Building for the Last War

  • The Pentagon and Congress essentially got military modernization backward, prioritizing incremental upgrades to existing platforms (tanks, manned aircraft, large satellites, and ships) over the development of integrated battle networks.

    • This approach ignored Marshall’s warnings that these legacy systems would become increasingly vulnerable in a future characterized by advanced reconnaissance strike complexes.

  • The result was a collection of disparate sensors and weapons systems, lacking seamless interoperability and requiring significant time and effort to function cohesively.

  • This outcome was not an accident but rather a consequence of a system that valued platforms over networks and incentivized the preservation of existing structures.

The Iraq War: A Death Knell for Transformation

  • The Iraq War ultimately dealt a fatal blow to the concept of RMA, but not in the way Rumsfeld initially envisioned.

    • As the conflict dragged on, revealing critical equipment shortages (body armor, blast-resistant vehicles, and unmanned surveillance aircraft) and mounting casualties, the idea of technological transformation became associated with a failure to adequately equip and support troops in the present.

  • This fueled a backlash against “revolution,” shifting the focus back to conventional warfare and traditional platforms.

    • By 2008, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates criticized what he termed “next-war-itis,” arguing against prioritizing future needs over current demands.

  • In reality, the more pervasive affliction was “last-war-itis” – an overreliance on past successes and a reluctance to adapt to a changing strategic environment.

  • The U.S., instead of embracing transformation, doubled down on its existing playbook, prioritizing legacy systems and preparing for conflicts that resembled those it had already fought.

The Obama Years: A Decade of Drift and Denial (2009-2017)

Continuing the Cycle: More Missions, Fewer Resources

  • Despite inheriting two wars and a global financial crisis, the Obama administration largely continued the trend of prioritizing present demands over future preparedness.

    • While President Obama campaigned on ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his tenure saw a continuation of these conflicts and the expansion of military operations into Libya, Yemen, Syria, and elsewhere.

  • Although Obama called for a “pivot to Asia” to counter China’s rise, and his administration initiated the “Air-Sea Battle” concept to address China’s growing military capabilities in the western Pacific, these efforts were undermined by budgetary constraints.

  • The 2011 Budget Control Act, enacted to reduce federal spending, mandated $1 trillion in defense cuts over a decade, triggering a scramble for resources within the defense establishment.

    • This resulted in a prioritization of short-term needs and legacy programs over long-term modernization and innovation.
    • The military continued to receive more missions but not the resources to effectively execute them or prepare for future challenges.

The Tyranny of the Present: Shackled to Outdated Systems

  • This constant focus on “current operations” resulted in a military increasingly ill-suited for the evolving character of warfare.
    • The U.S.’s rigid, manually intensive, and slow-to-adapt kill chains struggled to cope with dynamic targets and complex, multifaceted challenges.
  • The underlying technologies underpinning the U.S.’s decision-making and action cycles remained largely static, trapped in “black boxes” that were difficult to upgrade.
    • This reflected a dangerous assumption of perpetual dominance, neglecting the critical need for adaptability and innovation.

The Ambush of the Future: 2014 and Beyond

  • Andrew Marshall, upon retiring in 2015 after 42 years at the helm of the ONA, witnessed his warnings about the U.S.’s unpreparedness for the future of warfare coming to pass.

  • The annexation of Crimea by Russia in February 2014 marked a turning point, signaling a new era of great power competition and the return of interstate conflict.

  • The U.S., having prioritized the present at the expense of the future, found itself vulnerable to this “ambush by the future.”

  • The very technologies and strategies that Marshall had cautioned against decades earlier – anti-access and area denial capabilities, advanced reconnaissance strike complexes, and the exploitation of information dominance – were now being employed by adversaries, rendering the U.S.’s traditional advantages less certain.

Chapter 2: Little Green Men and Assassin’s Mace

The Reemergence of Great Power Competition

Russia’s Ambush in Ukraine (2014)

  • On February 27, 2014, “little green men,” masked soldiers in unmarked green uniforms, began seizing control of strategic locations in Crimea, Ukraine.

    • Speculation immediately arose that these were Russian special forces, a notion initially downplayed by U.S. officials.
    • This event caught the U.S. government off guard, despite indications of Russian military movements into Crimea.

  • The “little green men” swiftly took control of Crimea:

    • Seizing control of key infrastructure.
    • Blockading Ukrainian military forces.
    • Sealing off the peninsula from the rest of Ukraine.
    • Forcing the evacuation of 25,000 Ukrainian troops.

  • On March 21, 2014, Russia annexed Crimea, marking the first violent change of an international border in Europe since World War II.

  • The “little green men” employed advanced military tactics and technology:

    • Incited and supported Russian-speaking separatist groups.
    • Utilized sophisticated Russian military systems, including electronic warfare, communications jammers, air defenses, and long-range precision rocket artillery.
      • Much of this technology surpassed the capabilities of the U.S. military.

  • Examples of Russian military superiority as recounted by Ukrainian commanders:

    • Jamming Ukrainian drones, causing them to crash.
    • Jamming the fuses on Ukrainian warheads, rendering them inert.
    • Detecting Ukrainian communications signals and using them to target attacks.
    • Deploying unmanned spotter drones to identify and target armored vehicles.
    • Using thermobaric warheads to eliminate Ukrainian troops in bunkers and trenches.
    • Annihilating Ukrainian troop columns with cluster munitions.
    • Targeted assassination: Using intercepted cell phone data to geolocate and eliminate a Ukrainian commander.

  • Russia’s Actions in Ukraine Demonstrated:

    • The emergence of a “reconnaissance strike complex,” a network of sensors and shooters enabling rapid and lethal targeting.
    • A new form of warfare that the U.S. military was ill-prepared to counter.

Russia’s Military Expansion (2014-2016)

  • The same Russian military tactics and technology used in Ukraine surfaced in Syria in 2015, where U.S. forces were engaged in combat.
  • U.S. forces faced a range of threats from this modernized Russian military:
    • Jammed communications.
    • Advanced anti-aircraft missile batteries.
    • Aggressive maneuvers by Russian warships and submarines.
    • The use of cruise missiles in close proximity to U.S. Navy ships.
  • Russia’s military expansion extended to NATO’s eastern flank:
    • Violation of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty with the deployment of ground-launched cruise missiles capable of reaching Europe.
    • Snap military movements near NATO borders, raising concerns about potential aggression.
    • Threats of nuclear escalation to deter U.S. intervention.
  • Analysis of Russia’s Military Capabilities:
    • In 2016, RAND Corporation analysts David Shlapek and Michael Johnson predicted that Russian forces could reach the capitals of all three Baltic states within 60 hours, overwhelming NATO defenses.
    • This analysis highlighted the growing concern within the U.S. Department of Defense and Congress that the U.S. military was unprepared for a potential conflict with Russia and could potentially lose.
  • Factors Contributing to U.S. Military Weakness:
    • Withdrawal of combat power from Europe to support operations in the Middle East.
    • Costly but ineffective military modernization programs.
    • Divestment from systems and weapons that proved crucial in countering Russia’s tactics.
    • A military optimized for fighting less technologically advanced adversaries.

The Roots of Miscalculation: Russia

  • Post-Cold War Optimism:
    • The fall of the Soviet Union fostered hope in the West for a democratic and capitalist Russia that could become a U.S. ally.
    • This optimism led to U.S. assistance for Russia’s transition, including support for nuclear security and integration into global institutions like the G8 and World Trade Organization.
  • Divergent Interests:
    • Despite U.S. efforts, Russia prioritized restoring its great power status over partnership with the West.
    • Conflicts like Kosovo and Iraq exposed the power imbalance between the two nations.
  • Putin’s Rise and Resurgence:
    • Vladimir Putin, who became president in 1999, viewed the Soviet Union’s collapse as a geopolitical disaster.
    • He prioritized restoring Russia’s military might and geopolitical influence.
  • Military Modernization and Expansion:
    • Putin accelerated military modernization, focusing on:
      • Technologically advanced weapons.
      • Long-range missiles and rockets.
      • Highly capable special operations forces.
      • Advanced air defenses.
      • Electronic warfare and cyber weapons.
      • Anti-satellite capabilities.
      • Tactical nuclear weapons.
  • The Gerasimov Doctrine:
    • General Valery Gerasimov, Russia’s chief of the General Staff, outlined a new approach to warfare in 2013 that blended military and non-military tactics.
    • This doctrine emphasized:
      • Exploiting political and social fault lines.
      • Employing misinformation campaigns, political subversion, assassinations, cyberattacks, and social media manipulation.
      • Expanding the battlefield to encompass all aspects of society.
  • Russia’s Interference in the 2016 U.S. Election:
    • Russia’s use of the Gerasimov Doctrine extended to interfering in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
    • This interference aimed to undermine American democracy and sow discord.

The Miscalculations of U.S. Policy Toward Russia

  • Successive U.S. presidents, from Clinton to Trump, entered office seeking improved relations with Russia, often misinterpreting Russia’s motives.
  • The bipartisan consensus on engaging Russia blinded U.S. policymakers to the growing threat posed by its military ambitions.
  • The U.S. focus on economic engagement with China further diverted attention from Russia’s resurgence.

China’s Island Ambush (2014)

  • While the U.S. was preoccupied with Russia’s actions in Ukraine, China made a strategic move in the South China Sea.

  • China ramped up its efforts to assert control over the South China Sea, a region through which $3.4 trillion in global trade (much of it vital to the U.S. economy) flows annually.

  • China’s Island-Building Campaign:

    • In 2014, China deployed large dredgers to transform shallow reefs and atolls into artificial islands.
    • This construction occurred in territories claimed by other nations, directly challenging their sovereignty.

  • Militarization of Artificial Islands:

    • China began constructing military infrastructure on the artificial islands, including:
      • Runways.
      • Control towers.
      • Aircraft hangars.
      • Military bases.

  • Deployment of Advanced Weaponry:

    • The U.S. government observed and publicly criticized China for installing:
      • Long-range radars.
      • Surface-to-air missile batteries.
      • Fighter aircraft.

  • China’s Denial:

    • Despite clear evidence, Chinese President Xi Jinping denied the militarization of the islands.

The Strategic Challenge of China

  • China’s actions in the South China Sea were part of a larger pattern of military modernization and expansion.
  • Unlike Russia, China possessed significantly greater economic and military potential, posing a more formidable long-term challenge to U.S. interests.

The Roots of Miscalculation: China

  • Post-Cold War Partnership:
    • The U.S. and China shared common ground during the latter half of the Cold War, aligning to counter Soviet influence.
    • This partnership shaped a belief in Washington that China could be molded to fit U.S. interests through economic engagement.
  • The Gulf War Wake-Up Call (1991):
    • China closely studied the Gulf War, recognizing the technological superiority of the U.S. military.
    • The conflict revealed vulnerabilities in China’s own military capabilities, prompting a reassessment of its defense strategy.
  • China’s Military Transformation:
    • Following the Gulf War, China embarked on a comprehensive military modernization program.
    • This program aimed to develop “Assassin’s Mace” weapons, systems designed to exploit vulnerabilities in U.S. military capabilities.
  • Targeting U.S. Vulnerabilities:
    • U.S. Military Bases: China developed medium-range and long-range ballistic missiles to target U.S. bases in Japan and Guam, intending to overwhelm their defenses.
    • U.S. Strike Aircraft: China invested in early warning radars, integrated air and missile defense systems, and powerful jammers to counter U.S. air power.
    • U.S. Aircraft Carriers: China developed over-the-horizon radars, reconnaissance satellites, and anti-ship ballistic missiles (like the DF-21 “carrier killer”) to target U.S. aircraft carriers.
    • Command and Control Systems: China invested in advanced aircraft, electronic warfare, cyber capabilities, and anti-satellite missiles to disrupt U.S. communications, intelligence gathering, and command and control networks.
  • Systems Destruction Warfare:
    • China’s military doctrine focused on “systems destruction warfare,” aiming to cripple the U.S. military’s ability to operate by targeting its supporting infrastructure.

China’s Modernization and Expansion

  • In addition to “Assassin’s Mace” weapons, China modernized its conventional military forces:
    • Building a blue-water navy with advanced warships and aircraft carriers.
    • Developing amphibious assault capabilities.
    • Fielding long-range bombers and advanced fighter jets.
  • Nuclear Buildup:
    • China expanded its nuclear arsenal:
      • Mastering nuclear warhead miniaturization.
      • Developing a nuclear triad (land-based missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and aircraft-delivered bombs).
      • Building increasingly sophisticated delivery systems.
  • Technology Theft:
    • China engaged in widespread theft of intellectual property to accelerate its military modernization:
      • Acquiring nuclear weapons designs.
      • Stealing designs for advanced military technologies.
      • Exploiting joint ventures to access proprietary information from U.S. companies.

The Scale of the China Challenge

  • China’s military buildup posed a more significant threat than Russia’s due to its greater economic power and sustained investment.
  • While Russia’s actions in Ukraine served as a wake-up call, China’s long-term strategic ambitions presented a far greater challenge to U.S. military dominance.

Missed Opportunities and Distractions

  • Despite warning signs dating back to the early 1990s, the U.S. failed to adequately address the growing military challenge posed by China.
  • Factors Contributing to U.S. Inattention:
    • The aftermath of the September 11th attacks and the wars in the Middle East consumed U.S. foreign policy attention.
    • The persistence of the belief that economic engagement would liberalize China and align its interests with the West.
    • Domestic business interests often prioritized economic ties with China over security concerns.

The Reemergence of Great Power Competition

  • The events of 2014, with both Russia and China demonstrating their growing military assertiveness, forced a reassessment of the global security landscape.
  • The concept of great power competition reemerged as a defining feature of international relations.

The U.S. Response

  • Robert Work, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense, spearheaded efforts to counter the emerging threat from China and Russia.
  • Work advocated for a “new offset strategy” focused on leveraging cutting-edge technologies, like artificial intelligence, to maintain U.S. military superiority.
  • This strategy aimed to revitalize the concept of a “revolution in military affairs” by developing information-centric battle networks.

Challenges to U.S. Military Modernization

  • Despite years of investment, the U.S. military struggled to acquire the advanced technologies needed to maintain its edge.
  • Many key technologies were being developed by commercial tech companies reluctant to work with the Department of Defense.
  • The U.S. military’s bureaucratic procurement processes hindered its ability to adapt to the rapidly evolving technological landscape.

Conclusion

  • The events of 2014 exposed the U.S. military’s unpreparedness for the reemergence of great power competition.
  • The U.S. had become complacent, clinging to outdated assumptions about the global security environment.
  • Both Russia and China, each with its own motivations and capabilities, emerged as serious challengers to U.S. military dominance.
  • Addressing these challenges required a fundamental shift in U.S. strategic thinking, military modernization, and technological innovation.

Chapter 3: A Tale of Two Cities

This chapter describes how America’s approach to military technology development shifted during the Cold War and its aftermath, leading to a disconnect between the military and Silicon Valley.

The Rise of the Military-Industrial Complex

  • The Military-Industrial Complex: The close relationship between the Department of Defense, private defense companies, and Congress, formed during the Cold War.
    • This relationship was initially characterized by a sense of urgency and a willingness to take risks to stay ahead of the Soviet Union.

Eisenhower’s Approach: Picking Winners

  • President Eisenhower’s Philosophy: Concentrate resources and empower exceptional individuals (“founders”) to develop critical military technologies.
    • Example: General Bernard Schriever and the development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).
      • Schriever was given broad authority, ample funding, and protection from bureaucratic interference.
      • His team successfully developed ICBMs, laying the groundwork for space exploration, in just five years.
  • Other “Founders” and their Achievements:
    • Edward Teller: Developed the hydrogen bomb.
    • Admiral Hyman Rickover: Developed miniaturized nuclear reactors for submarines.
    • Kelly Johnson: Developed advanced aircraft, including the SR-71 Blackbird.
  • Prioritizing Speed and Results:
    • Efficiency and cost-effectiveness were secondary to rapid development and fielding of advanced weapons.
    • This approach was accepted as the price of staying ahead in the Cold War.
  • Silicon Valley’s Origins:
    • Defense contracts during and after World War II transformed Silicon Valley from an agricultural region into a hub of electronics and technology innovation.
    • This military funding fueled the development of technologies like mainframes, microprocessors, and the internet.
    • Early Silicon Valley embraced working on military technologies, driven by the challenges and the belief in contributing to national security.

The Bureaucratization of Innovation

The Shift Toward Bureaucracy

  • The 1960s and Onward:
    • The military-industrial complex became increasingly bureaucratic.
    • Robert McNamara’s Influence (Secretary of Defense, 1960s):
      • Introduced industrial-age management practices, prioritizing efficiency.
      • Added layers of oversight, analysis, and management, slowing down innovation.
  • Congressional Constraints:
    • Budget processes made it difficult to fund new or unconventional ideas.
    • Multi-year budget cycles favored predictable, established programs over rapid adaptation.
  • Consequences:
    • Military technology development became slower, more expensive, and less creative.

The Growing Divide Between Washington and Silicon Valley

  • The Vietnam War Era (Late 1960s - Early 1970s):
    • Silicon Valley engineers became increasingly uncomfortable working on military projects.
  • Circumventing the System:
    • By the late 1970s, defense innovators were forced to work around the rigid acquisition system to develop advanced technology quickly (e.g., stealth aircraft).
  • The Packard Commission (1980s):
    • Formed to address problems in military acquisition.
    • General Schriever’s Critique:
      • The system had become too slow, expensive, politicized, and bureaucratic.
      • Innovation was stifled by micromanagement and a focus on process over results.

The Post-Cold War Era: A Widening Chasm

Loss of Urgency and Misguided Priorities

  • The End of the Soviet Threat:
    • Removed the primary driver of rapid military technological innovation.
    • The U.S. military was dominant, reducing pressure to stay ahead.
  • Defense Industry Consolidation:
    • William Perry, Deputy Secretary of Defense (1993), predicted consolidation in the defense industry due to declining budgets, leading to mergers and acquisitions.
      • The number of major defense firms shrunk drastically.
  • Changes in Funding and Focus:
    • Reduced R&D funding, with remaining funds often politically motivated.
    • Small, fragmented contracts that rarely led to significant programs.
    • Emphasis on spreading contracts and supporting small businesses over achieving technological breakthroughs.
  • Slowing Innovation Cycles and Risk Aversion:
    • Development cycles for new military systems stretched to decades.
    • Focus shifted from developing new technologies to maintaining existing ones.
    • This lack of opportunity for innovation drove talented engineers away from the defense sector.
  • The “Valley of Death”:
    • Many technology companies struggled to transition small projects and demos into large-scale military programs, leading to wasted potential.
  • Unattractive Market for Startups:
    • High failure rates for companies attempting to work with the government.
    • Difficulty attracting investment compared to the booming commercial tech sector.
  • Consequences:
    • A growing disconnect between the needs of the military and the capabilities of the tech industry.

Perverse Incentives and Their Consequences

  • Focus on Efficiency Over Effectiveness:
    • The defense acquisition system became increasingly optimized for transparency, fairness, and administrative ease at the expense of speed and innovation.
  • Risk Aversion and Incrementalism:
    • Prioritizing technologically acceptable solutions at the lowest cost over potentially revolutionary advancements.
  • “Programs of Record” and Inertia:
    • Established programs, once funded, became difficult to displace, hindering the adoption of new technologies.
  • Defense Industry Adaptation:
    • Companies adapted to the Pentagon’s bureaucratic procurement system, focusing on fulfilling specific requirements rather than driving innovation.
    • This led to cost overruns, delays, and a resistance to new technologies that threatened existing programs.
  • Further Consolidation:
    • Increased regulations and costs favored larger companies that could navigate the complex system, leading to further consolidation and reduced competition.

The Information Revolution: A Missed Opportunity

The Rise of Silicon Valley and Commercial Tech

  • The Commercial Tech Boom:
    • The internet boom and subsequent technological advancements created a massive commercial market for Silicon Valley.
  • Shifting Focus and Funding:
    • Talented engineers and investors were drawn to the faster pace, larger profits, and less bureaucratic environment of the commercial sector.
    • Silicon Valley became the epicenter of the information revolution, driven by commercial, not military, applications.

The Pentagon’s Blind Spots

  • Focus on Platforms Over Networks:
    • The defense establishment remained focused on building and buying physical platforms rather than the connections between them.
  • Lack of Expertise in Connectivity:
    • Traditional defense companies lacked expertise in software, IT, and network development, crucial aspects of the information revolution.
  • Continued Reliance on Familiar Players:
    • Despite past failures, the Pentagon continued to award large contracts to traditional defense companies for IT and network projects, leading to further wasted resources.
  • Consequences:
    • The U.S. military, despite its vast resources, fell behind in adapting to the rapid pace of the information revolution.

Conclusion: An Ambush by the Future

  • The information revolution, driven by commercial forces, happened despite the Pentagon, not because of it.
  • The U.S. military, blinded by its own bureaucracy, missed the opportunity to harness the transformative power of networked technologies.
  • This disconnect between Washington and Silicon Valley left the U.S. vulnerable to rivals like China, who were rapidly adopting and adapting these new technologies.

Chapter 4: Information Revolution 2.0

The Widening Gap Between Military and Commercial Technology

NVIDIA and the Power of Edge Computing

  • In 2018, executives from NVIDIA, a computing company, visited the Senate to discuss their partnership with Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
  • They had built the world’s fastest supercomputer, capable of performing 200 quadrillion operations per second using NVIDIA’s graphics processing units (GPUs).
    • GPUs were originally designed for video games, which demanded increasingly powerful computing capabilities.
    • NVIDIA realized that the same technology powering artificial worlds in games could also power intelligent machines in the real world, particularly in artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning.
  • NVIDIA’s GPUs are now crucial for self-driving vehicles.
    • Their Drive AGX Pegasus chip, the size of a textbook, can conduct 320 trillion operations per second, enabling real-time data processing and interpretation on board the vehicle – a concept known as edge computing.
  • Despite the military applications of their technology, NVIDIA had no GPUs operating on fielded U.S. military systems at the time.
    • This highlights a significant technological gap between the U.S. military and commercial technology companies.
  • The most capable computer in a U.S. military system at the time was in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, nicknamed the “Flying Supercomputer.”
    • It could perform 400 billion operations per second, significantly less than NVIDIA’s Drive AGX Pegasus.

The U.S. Military: Trapped in the Information Age’s Past

  • The U.S. military lags behind in utilizing modern information processing techniques.
    • Data collected by military machines is often processed later, either after a mission or streamed back to an operations center, putting a strain on communication networks and relying heavily on human analysis.
  • While the Department of Defense built the precursor to the internet, it has fallen behind in adopting and adapting to the rapid pace of the information revolution, driven largely by commercial technology companies.
  • The information revolution comprises three key elements:
    1. Sensors: Collect information.
    2. Computers: Process and store information.
    3. Networks: Move information.
  • Advancements in any one element accelerate progress in the other two, leading to exponential growth.
Networks: A Tale of Two Connectivities
  • Commercial telecommunications companies have rapidly advanced network speeds, moving from 3G to 4G and soon to 5G.
  • The Department of Defense, however, lags in network connectivity, often relying on outdated systems and facing interoperability challenges.
Sensors: A World Awash in Data
  • The commercial sector has developed a wide array of low-cost, high-quality sensors, enabling machines to see and hear.
  • This proliferation of sensors has led to increased situational awareness in homes and vehicles, capabilities often lacking in military systems.
  • In contrast, the Department of Defense often relies on expensive, highly specialized sensors with limited deployment.
Computing Power: The Rise of the Cloud and Edge
  • The rise of cloud computing has provided almost unlimited processing power and data storage, making these services readily available to anyone.
  • The Department of Defense has been slow to adopt cloud computing, only recently awarding a contract for an enterprise cloud in 2019.
  • Edge computing allows for decentralized processing power, creating a network of smart systems that collect, process, and share information.

Software: The Achilles’ Heel of Military Systems

  • Silicon Valley’s approach to software development emphasizes continuous building, testing, and releasing, leading to constant updates and improvements.
  • In contrast, the Department of Defense prioritizes hardware over software, resulting in multi-year software development cycles that cannot keep pace with technological advancements.
  • This disparity results in military personnel using equipment with inferior functionality compared to what they use in their daily lives.

The AI Revolution: Silicon Valley’s Dominance and the Pentagon’s Lag

The Rise of AI and Machine Learning

  • The information revolution, with its abundance of data and computing power, fueled the rise of AI and machine learning, enabling machines to learn from data without explicit programming.
  • Deep learning, using layered algorithms in a neural network, further advanced AI capabilities.
    • NVIDIA’s GPUs were essential for deep learning, allowing machines to process vast amounts of data quickly.
  • Google’s AlphaGo and AlphaStar demonstrated the power of AI in complex games like Go and StarCraft II, surpassing human capabilities.

The Military’s Struggle to Adapt to AI

  • While AI is integrated into everyday life, its adoption in the U.S. military has been slow.
  • The Department of Defense’s traditional approach to data as a byproduct, rather than a valuable asset, hinders the development and implementation of machine learning.
  • Instead of using AI to analyze data, the Pentagon often relies on increasing manpower, leading to inefficiencies.

Commercial Space Revolution: Outpacing the Government

The Rise of Low-Cost Space Launch

  • The emergence of low-cost commercial space launch companies, such as SpaceX, Blue Origin, and OneWeb, has revolutionized access to space.
  • Reusable rockets have drastically reduced launch costs, leading to more frequent launches and new satellite designs.

Microsatellites: Democratizing Space Technology

  • The affordability of launches has led to the rise of microsatellites, smaller and cheaper satellites that can be mass-produced and replaced more frequently.
  • This allows for rapid technological advancement, as new technology is deployed more often.

Advanced Manufacturing: On-Demand Production and Its Military Significance

Transforming Manufacturing with Technology

  • Advanced manufacturing allows for on-demand production of complex components and finished goods at the point of need, reducing costs and lead times.

Additive Manufacturing: The Power of 3D Printing

  • Additive manufacturing, also known as 3D printing, enables the creation of complex parts and products from various materials.
  • Its applications include aerospace, automotive, and other industries.

The Future of Manufacturing: Localized and On-Demand

  • Advanced manufacturing, particularly additive manufacturing, has the potential to revolutionize production processes, allowing for localized and on-demand manufacturing with minimal waste.

Biotechnology: Redefining Human Potential and Military Applications

The Genomic Revolution

  • Advancements in computing and machine learning have enabled rapid and affordable genome sequencing.
  • CRISPR and other genetic engineering technologies allow for the creation of new genetic materials and life forms.

Human Performance Enhancement

  • Biotechnology offers the potential for enhancing human capabilities through personalized medicine and biotechnologies.
  • This raises ethical considerations for military applications.

Brain-Computer Interface Technology

  • Brain-computer interface (BCI) technology enables direct communication between the human brain and machines.
  • Companies like Neuralink are exploring BCI applications for typing, communication, and potential symbiosis with AI.
  • BCI has potential military applications in controlling drones, prosthetics, and other systems.

Quantum Information Technology: A Glimpse into the Future

Quantum Science: Exploiting the Subatomic World

  • Quantum science explores the unique properties of matter at the subatomic level.
  • Superposition: A quantum particle can exist in multiple states simultaneously.
  • Entanglement: Two entangled particles are linked, and actions on one instantaneously affect the other, regardless of distance.

Applications of Quantum Information Technology

  • Quantum sensors: Highly sensitive sensors capable of detecting minute changes in gravity and magnetic fields.
  • Quantum communications: Ultra-secure communication systems based on the principles of entanglement.
  • Quantum computers: Exponentially faster computers capable of solving problems beyond the reach of classical computers.

The Military Implications of Quantum Technology

  • Quantum technologies have the potential to revolutionize warfare, impacting sensing, communication, and computation.

The Widening Chasm: Silicon Valley’s Turn Away from the Pentagon

A Clash of Cultures and Values

  • The relationship between Silicon Valley and the Department of Defense has been strained by a clash of cultures, values, and priorities.
  • Silicon Valley’s global outlook and focus on innovation sometimes conflict with the Pentagon’s hierarchical structure and risk-averse nature.

Economic and Ideological Barriers

  • Working with the Pentagon can be slow, bureaucratic, and less profitable than serving commercial markets, deterring some tech companies.
  • Post-Cold War generations in Silicon Valley may not feel the same connection to the military as previous generations.
  • Snowden’s revelations fueled distrust of government surveillance and data collection practices.

Case Studies: SpaceX and Palantir

  • Both SpaceX and Palantir, despite facing resistance and bureaucratic hurdles, successfully broke into the defense market.
  • Their experiences highlight the challenges and potential rewards of working with the Department of Defense.

The Consolidation Dilemma

  • Both the defense industry and the technology sector have experienced consolidation, leading to fewer, larger companies.
  • While this has made some tech companies more capable of developing advanced technologies, it has also made them more risk-averse and less inclined to work with the military.

The Consequences of a Divided Landscape

  • The divide between the commercial tech sector and the defense world has significant implications for U.S. national security.
  • The U.S. military risks falling behind its strategic competitors in accessing and adopting cutting-edge technologies.

The Urgency of Bridging the Gap

Acknowledging the Systemic Failure

  • The failure to effectively integrate commercial technologies into the U.S. military is a systemic issue involving the Department of Defense, Congress, and the defense industry.
  • This failure stems from risk aversion, bureaucratic processes, and a lack of understanding of emerging technologies.

Rethinking the Military-Industrial Complex

  • The current system, focused on cost-saving and efficiency, has stiflied innovation and slowed down technology adoption.
  • A new approach is needed, one that encourages risk-taking, embraces innovation, and fosters collaboration between the military and the commercial tech sector.

Embracing Disruption and Change

  • The Department of Defense must become more agile, adaptable, and open to embracing disruptive technologies.
  • This requires cultural shifts, streamlined acquisition processes, and a willingness to learn from the successes of the commercial tech sector.

The Future of National Security in a Technologically Advanced World

  • The United States’ ability to maintain its technological edge in the 21st century depends on its ability to bridge the gap between the defense world and the commercial technology sector.
  • Failure to do so risks jeopardizing national security and ceding technological dominance to strategic competitors.

Chapter 5. Something Worse Than Change

The Current State of U.S. National Defense

  • Leaders in Washington are focused on great power competition and the need for military innovation.
  • This echoes discussions from the past three decades, but the U.S. is in a weaker position now than it was after the Cold War.

Reasons for the Decline

  • Overinvestment in Large Bases and Platforms: The U.S. military has heavily invested in large bases and expensive platforms that are vulnerable to advanced weaponry developed by rivals.
  • Delayed Modernization Programs: Transformational procurement programs initiated in the 1990s and 2000s have experienced significant delays, leaving the U.S. military with aging systems and a lack of replacements.
  • Strain on Existing Forces: Years of overseas operations have strained the U.S. military, resulting in a smaller, older force that is still recovering.
  • Inadequate Technological Adaptation: The information age revolution has not significantly benefited the military, despite its transformative potential.
  • Political Dysfunction: A chaotic and gridlocked political environment in Washington hinders effective decision-making.

Factors Contributing to the Decline

  • Misallocation of Resources: Trillions of dollars have been spent on defense since 1991, but often on poorly chosen military programs and foreign policies.
  • Lack of Hard Choices: Defense leaders have been reluctant to make difficult decisions about cutting military systems and missions.
  • Overemphasis on Outdated Technologies: Excessive focus and funding have been directed towards old or unproven technologies based on outdated conceptions of military power.
  • Unequal Burden of Counterterrorism: The demands of counterterrorism efforts following the September 11th attacks, while necessary, diverted resources and attention from other defense priorities.

The Challenge of Military Innovation in Peacetime

  • A core question for the future of warfare is whether militaries can innovate and change effectively without the pressure of active conflict.

The Role of War in Driving Innovation

  • The U.S. military’s recent innovations, such as those in special operations forces and counterinsurgency warfare, were largely driven by the demands of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  • Wartime creates a clear and present need for change and imposes consequences for failing to innovate.

Obstacles to Peacetime Innovation

  • Lack of Real-World Feedback: Unlike civilian institutions that have markets or competition to drive improvement, militaries lack routine sources of objective feedback on their performance.
  • Bureaucratic Resistance to Change: Military bureaucracies are inherently resistant to change due to their hierarchical structures, risk aversion, and emphasis on tradition.
  • “Psychology of Military Incompetence”: Norman Dixon’s concept highlights the dangers of clinging to outdated traditions, misusing technology, ignoring critical information, and underestimating adversaries.

Historical Examples of Successful Peacetime Innovation

  • U.S. Navy’s Adoption of Aircraft Carriers (1920s-1930s):
    • Admiral William Moffat, recognizing the potential of aircraft carriers, led a movement within the Navy to challenge the dominance of battleships.
    • Moffat used analysis, war games, and at-sea experimentation to develop new operational concepts and tactics for carrier warfare.
    • He championed technological advancements in aircraft and carrier design and advocated for the promotion of aviators within the Navy’s ranks.
    • Moffat’s efforts were supported by civilian leaders like President Herbert Hoover and Congressman Carl Vinson.
  • Development of the Assault Breaker Initiative (Cold War):
    • The initiative aimed to develop a new way to counter a potential Soviet invasion of Europe without relying on tactical nuclear weapons.
    • Led by Secretary of Defense Harold Brown, the initiative resulted in the creation of a new kill chain that included intelligence-gathering aircraft, communication relays, stealth aircraft, and long-range precision-guided munitions.
    • While never used in combat, Assault Breaker significantly concerned Soviet military planners and helped deter conflict.

Key Factors for Successful Peacetime Innovation

  • Clear Threat Definition: Identifying specific operational problems that need to be solved through new capabilities and ways of fighting.
  • Extraordinary Leadership:
    • Civilian leadership to provide direction, resources, and political support.
    • Military mavericks within the armed forces to champion change and challenge the status quo.
  • Focus on Operational and Organizational Transformation: Prioritizing how technology is used to build new capabilities, operational concepts, and organizational structures, rather than simply acquiring new technology for its own sake.
  • Constant Real-World Experimentation: Providing opportunities for military operators to experiment with new technologies, learn from failures, and refine concepts based on real-world feedback.

The Erosion of U.S. Military Dominance

  • The U.S. defense establishment has struggled in recent decades due to a lack of meaningful experimentation, bureaucratic processes, and an overemphasis on abstract requirements over practical testing.

The Rise of China as a Peer Competitor

  • The rise of China poses an unprecedented challenge to U.S. military dominance, representing a major shift in the global balance of power.
  • Unlike the Soviet Union, China is on track to surpass the U.S. in comprehensive national power.

The Nature of the Chinese Communist Party

  • China’s ambitions are amplified by its unique history and ideology as the “Middle Kingdom” and its desire to reclaim its perceived rightful place in the world order.
  • The Chinese Communist Party under Xi Jinping has embraced communist orthodoxy, consolidated power, and demonstrated hostility towards liberal values and institutions.

China’s Technological Ambitions and Military Expansion

  • China is aggressively pursuing technological dominance in areas like 5G, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology, driven by a national strategy to become a global leader in innovation.
  • The Chinese government is engaged in a systematic campaign to acquire advanced technologies through any means necessary, including intellectual property theft, espionage, and coercion.
  • China is rapidly expanding its military capabilities, including its navy, and investing in advanced weapons systems designed to challenge U.S. military dominance in the Asia-Pacific region.

Implications for the Future of Warfare

  • The proliferation of precision-guided weapons has shifted the advantage from offense to defense, making it increasingly difficult for the U.S. to project power against a peer competitor like China.
  • The potential erosion of deterrence and the rise of Chinese military dominance in the Asia-Pacific region pose a significant threat to U.S. interests and global stability.

The Need for Change: Confronting the “Something Worse”

  • The “something worse than change” is the prospect of losing the ability to deter war with China and the potential consequences of a future conflict.
  • This requires the U.S. to:
    • Recognize the urgency of the challenge and abandon complacency.
    • Reimagine the kill chain and adapt to a future of warfare characterized by rapid technological advancements and a more contested environment.
    • Recommit to innovation, experimentation, and the development of new operational concepts.
    • Mobilize all elements of national power—economic, diplomatic, and military—to compete effectively with China.
  • The stakes of this competition are high, with the potential to shape the future of the international order and determine the kind of world in which Americans will live.

Chapter 6: A Different Kind of Arms Race

A New Global Arms Race: Beyond Conventional Weapons

  • Representatives from over 80 countries have been discussing a ban on lethal autonomous weapons since 2014.
    • Lethal autonomous weapons: Defined by the Department of Defense as machines activated to select and engage targets without human intervention.
  • These weapons, often called “killer robots” by opponents, raise ethical concerns about removing humans from the kill chain.
    • Kill chain: The process of identifying, targeting, and engaging an enemy.
  • While China supports banning the use of these weapons, it has not committed to halting their development.
    • China’s definition of lethal autonomous weapons is narrow and does not encompass the full range of systems it’s developing.
  • This discrepancy highlights a broader trend of rapidly developing military technologies, sparking fears of a global arms race encompassing:
    • Cyber weapons
    • AI
    • Hypersonic technology
    • 5G networks
    • Quantum computing
    • Gene editing
    • Space capabilities
  • China’s role in this arms race is particularly concerning due to:
    • Significant economic and military power
    • Less transparent intentions compared to other nations
    • A potential ambition to reshape the world order in favor of its illiberal values, including authoritarianism, crony capitalism, and surveillance states.
    • The perception of the United States as an obstacle to its ambitions.
  • This competition for technological dominance is fueled by:
    • Mistrust between major powers
    • Fear of losing military advantage

A Race Unlike Any Other: From Arms to Cognition

  • This technological competition differs from traditional arms races in several ways:
    • Scope: It extends beyond traditional weapons to encompass enabling technologies that have broad civilian and military applications.
      • Enabling technologies: Technologies such as AI, quantum information systems, biotechnologies, and new space technologies that will transform how societies and militaries function.
    • Impact: It will reshape every stage of the kill chain, influencing not just military action but also understanding and decision-making.
    • Focus: The primary emphasis will be on accelerating one’s ability to close the kill chain while disrupting adversaries’ capacity to do the same.
    • Nature: This competition will be less about amassing weapons and more about achieving cognitive superiority, essentially a race for information dominance.

The Hypersonic Challenge: Speed and Unpredictability

  • Hypersonic weapons: Missiles or air vehicles capable of flying at speeds exceeding Mach 5 (3,800 mph), making them both fast and unpredictable.
    • Unlike ballistic missiles, which are fast but predictable, or cruise missiles, which are slower but unpredictable, hypersonic weapons combine speed and maneuverability.
  • This combination makes them difficult to track and intercept, posing a significant challenge to existing defense systems.
  • China has taken an early lead in hypersonic weapon development, investing heavily in research and testing.
  • While the U.S. is playing catch-up, developing and deploying hypersonic weapons is costly and time-consuming.
  • Despite these limitations, both countries are pursuing hypersonic weapons due to their strategic importance in maintaining conventional deterrence.

Directed Energy Weapons: A New Era of Warfare

  • Directed energy weapons: Weapons that use concentrated energy, such as lasers or microwaves, to disable or destroy targets.
  • Recent advancements in laser technology have brought directed energy weapons closer to operational viability.
  • Advantages:
    • Higher rate of fire
    • Faster engagement
    • Lower cost per shot
    • No ammunition resupply required
  • Limitations:
    • High power requirements currently limit their deployment to platforms with substantial power sources.
    • Counters, such as mirrors and heat shields, are being developed.
  • While primarily defensive now, directed energy weapons have the potential to revolutionize warfare in the future.

The Cyber Arms Race: Exploiting Digital Vulnerabilities

  • The cyber domain has become a key battleground in modern warfare.
  • Cyberattacks can disable critical military infrastructure and compromise sensitive information.
  • The interconnected nature of modern military systems, such as the F-35 fighter jet with its millions of lines of code, increases their vulnerability to cyberattacks.
  • The use of AI in cyberwarfare raises concerns about data poisoning, where adversaries manipulate training data to compromise AI systems, leading to unintended and potentially disastrous consequences.

Enabling Technologies: Reshaping the Kill Chain

  • Quantum information systems: Technologies that leverage quantum mechanics to enhance sensing, computing, and communication.
    • Quantum sensors: Offer improved battlefield awareness and unprecedented intelligence-gathering capabilities.
    • Quantum computers: Hold the potential to process vast amounts of data generated by intelligentized militaries and crack traditional encryption methods.
    • Quantum-resistant encryption: Critical for securing information in a future where quantum computers could render current encryption obsolete.
  • Biotechnology:
    • Will enhance understanding of human genetics and enable the development of customized treatments and technologies for augmenting human capabilities.
    • Raises concerns about potential misuse, particularly in the context of China’s less restrictive ethical boundaries.
  • New space capabilities:
    • The proliferation of satellites, especially small satellites, will enhance communication, intelligence gathering, and targeting.
    • Development of space-based infrastructure, including power generation, mining, and manufacturing, will be crucial for securing a space-faring future.
    • The strategic importance of space will likely lead to an extension of military competition beyond Earth.
  • Artificial intelligence and machine learning:
    • Will significantly enhance human understanding in warfare, particularly by processing and analyzing vast amounts of data from various sources.
    • AI-powered systems can identify patterns, objects, and trends that humans might miss, enabling better and faster decision-making.
    • Intelligent machines, capable of acting autonomously within human-defined parameters, will revolutionize military operations.

Challenges and Risks of the AI Arms Race

  • The rapid pace of AI development raises concerns about:
    • Premature deployment of insufficiently tested and potentially unreliable systems.
    • Accidental escalation and unintended consequences.
    • Ethical implications of increasingly autonomous weapons systems.

The Uncomfortable Truth and the Need for Urgency

  • Arms control agreements, while valuable for establishing norms, may not be effective in preventing the weaponization of emerging technologies.
  • The United States faces the likelihood of not achieving outright victory in this race, with parity being a more realistic and desirable outcome.
  • It is crucial for the U.S. to recognize the gravity of this competition and demonstrate a greater sense of urgency in order to avoid falling behind China.
  • The potential consequences of losing this race are significant, with China aiming to leverage these technologies to become the world’s leading power.

Conclusion: A Different Kind of Race, a Critical Choice

  • The race for technological superiority in the 21st century presents unprecedented challenges and risks.
  • It is not just a competition for military hardware, but a race for cognitive dominance and the ability to control the narrative in an increasingly information-driven world.
  • The United States faces a critical choice: rise to the challenge with the necessary urgency and commitment, or risk ceding the future to a rival power with a vastly different vision for the world.

Chapter 7: Human Command, Machine Control

The Ethical Dilemma of Intelligent Machines in War

  • The author recounts a poignant encounter with a Syrian mother who lost all five of her children in a barrel bomb attack, an experience that deeply affected both him and the late Senator John McCain.
    • This encounter underscores the profound human cost of war and serves as a stark reminder of the ethical considerations surrounding the use of force.
  • The author grapples with the question of whether, as a potential civilian caught in a conflict, the knowledge of whether the weapon systems targeting him were operated by humans or machines would matter.
    • This question highlights a fundamental debate about the ethics of war in the age of intelligent machines:
      • Is the morality of an action determined by the nature of the actor, or by the consequences of the action itself?
  • The author argues that the current debate about intelligent machines in war often misses the mark by focusing on the wrong questions.
    • He suggests that instead of fixating on the means of warfare (e.g., “killer robots”), we should prioritize the ends (i.e., the ethical use of force) and the principles of human accountability that should govern them.

The Importance of Command and Control

  • The author criticizes the term “human-machine teaming” often used to describe the relationship between humans and intelligent machines in a military context.
    • He argues that this term implies a false equivalence between human operators and machines.
  • Instead, the author advocates for the concept of “human command and machine control,” emphasizing the hierarchical nature of the relationship where humans retain ultimate authority and responsibility.
    • This concept aligns with the long-standing military principles of command and control, ensuring that human judgment and ethics remain central to the use of force.
  • The author acknowledges the concerns surrounding the potential for machines to act unethically.
    • However, he argues that humans have always exhibited a capacity for cruelty and that focusing solely on the perceived inhumanity of machines ignores the historical reality of human fallibility in war.
  • The author emphasizes that the current debate should center around narrow artificial intelligence (AI), which is limited to performing specific tasks, rather than artificial general intelligence (AGI) or superintelligence, which remain speculative concepts.
    • He underscores that narrow AI, despite its capabilities, operates within the boundaries defined by its human creators.

Trust, Accountability, and the Limits of Autonomy

  • Autonomy in the context of machines, the author clarifies, does not imply independent decision-making but rather the delegation of tasks within predefined parameters set by humans.

    • This concept mirrors the existing military practice of granting autonomy to human subordinates, albeit with clear rules of engagement and accountability mechanisms.

  • The author proposes a framework for building trust in intelligent machines, drawing parallels to the trust established between human commanders and their subordinates. This framework rests on three pillars:

    1. Training: Rigorous training of machines to perform designated tasks effectively and ethically.

    2. Testing: Repeated testing to ensure the machine’s reliability, predictability, and adherence to established parameters.

    3. Trust: Trust is earned through consistent demonstration of competence and reliability in training and testing, leading to greater confidence in the machine’s ability to perform as intended.

  • The author underscores that accountability remains paramount. Just as commanders are responsible for the actions of their human subordinates, they would bear the responsibility for the actions of the machines under their command.

    • This accountability extends to the entire chain of command, including those involved in training, testing, and deploying the intelligent machines.

Differentiating Roles: Leveraging Human Judgment

  • The author argues that one of the potential benefits of increased reliance on intelligent machines is the opportunity to free human operators from mundane and repetitive tasks, allowing them to focus on more complex and ethically demanding aspects of warfare.
    • This shift could lead to a more ethical use of force by allowing humans to leverage their unique capacity for judgment, empathy, and moral reasoning.
  • The author acknowledges that current intelligent machines might outperform humans in certain tasks, particularly those requiring speed, accuracy, and consistency in data analysis and pattern recognition.
    • However, he stresses that machines should not be seen as replacements for human judgment in all instances.
  • The author contends that while machines can enhance human decision-making by providing valuable insights and recommendations, the ultimate responsibility for decisions, especially those involving the use of lethal force, must remain with human commanders.
    • This approach ensures that human values and ethical considerations remain at the forefront of warfare.

The Importance of Transparency and International Cooperation

  • The author criticizes the secrecy surrounding the U.S. drone program, arguing that it created a perception of wrongdoing and hampered public understanding of the ethical considerations involved.
    • He advocates for a more transparent approach to the development and deployment of intelligent machines in warfare.
  • The author suggests that the U.S. should lead by example, demonstrating its commitment to ethical development and use of intelligent machines.
    • He proposes inviting international scrutiny and collaboration to establish norms and standards for the responsible use of these technologies.
  • The author acknowledges the challenges of international cooperation, particularly with rivals like China and Russia.
    • However, he argues that open dialogue and transparency are essential for building trust and establishing a framework for responsible development and use of intelligent machines in warfare.

Conclusion: A Reluctant Yes, With Caveats

  • The author concludes by advocating for the development of lethal autonomous weapons systems, but with significant caveats.
    • He argues that the U.S. cannot afford to cede this technological advantage to rivals who may not share its ethical commitments.
  • The author draws a parallel to the development of nuclear weapons, suggesting that lethal autonomous weapons should be viewed as a deterrent, intended to prevent their use by adversaries.
    • He emphasizes that the ultimate goal should be to deter conflict and prevent the use of these weapons altogether.
  • The author stresses the importance of transparency, rigorous testing, and clear accountability mechanisms to ensure that these weapons are developed and used ethically and responsibly.
    • He calls for a national conversation about these technologies, urging Americans to engage in this critical debate and shape the future of warfare.

Chapter 8: A Military Internet of Things

The Need for a New Approach to Military Technology

  • In 2014, Senator John McCain, then Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, directed the author to focus on investing in the future of warfare.
  • This directive stemmed from the realization that the U.S. military had been investing heavily in outdated technologies and needed to adapt to rapidly evolving threats.
  • The Department of Defense was slow to adapt, often prioritizing traditional weapons systems over emerging technologies.
  • This lack of foresight necessitated a proactive search for promising technological advancements outside of the traditional defense industry.

Early Examples of Autonomous Systems

  • XQ-58A Valkyrie (formerly Low-Cost Attritable Aircraft Technology Program): An experimental unmanned aircraft developed by the Air Force Research Laboratory.
    • Goals:
      • Develop a highly capable, unmanned combat aircraft with increased autonomy.
      • Create a more cost-effective alternative to expensive fighter jets.
    • Features:
      • Attritable: Designed to be affordable enough to be considered expendable in combat.
      • Long flight range (twice that of cutting-edge fighter jets).
      • High subsonic speed.
      • Missile-like launch and parachute recovery system, eliminating the need for vulnerable runways.
      • Cost: Several million dollars per unit (fully equipped), allowing for the purchase of roughly a dozen or two Valkyries for the price of one F-35A.
  • Orca (formerly Extra Large Unmanned Undersea Vehicle or XLUUV): An experimental autonomous submarine developed by the Navy.
    • Features:
      • 51 feet long with a potential length of 85 feet with a payload module.
      • Range of 6,500 nautical miles.
      • Payload module allows for the deployment of various payloads.
    • Cost:
      • Approximately $55 million per unit (without payloads and sensors).
      • Still significantly cheaper than the Navy’s Virginia-class submarine, which costs $3.2 billion per unit.

The Potential of Intelligent Machines in Future Warfare

  • The author argues that the true significance of systems like the Valkyrie and Orca lies in their potential to be integrated into a larger network of intelligent machines.
  • This network, envisioned as a “military Internet of Things,” would be characterized by:
    • Rapid development and modernization: Leveraging commercial technologies and focusing on software rather than hardware would allow for faster innovation cycles.
    • Affordability: Lower production costs would enable the deployment of larger numbers of autonomous systems.
    • Flexibility and scalability: The network could be easily adapted and expanded to meet evolving threats.
  • The key to unlocking the full potential of these systems lies in the integration of:
    • Artificial intelligence (AI): Enabling machines to learn, adapt, and make decisions without direct human intervention.
    • Vehicle autonomy: Allowing systems to operate independently and collaboratively with minimal human supervision.
  • This shift would move away from the current model of heavily manned and expensive military platforms towards a more distributed and scalable force structure.

Current Limitations of U.S. Military Networks and the Need for Change

  • The author argues that the U.S. military’s current battle networks, designed around human operators, suffer from significant limitations:
    • Information silos: Systems often struggle to share information seamlessly, leading to delays and inefficiencies in decision-making.
    • Linear and rigid structures: Current networks often operate in predetermined ways, making them inflexible and vulnerable to disruption.
    • High manpower requirements: Operating and maintaining complex systems require significant human resources.
    • Slow decision-making: The human-centric nature of current systems slows down the speed at which information is processed and acted upon.
  • These limitations are contrasted with the advancements in the commercial technology sector, particularly in developing the Internet of Things (IoT).
  • The IoT demonstrates the power of networked systems to share information seamlessly, enabling rapid decision-making and automated processes.

The Vision of a Military Internet of Things

  • Core Principles:
    • Shift from platforms to networks: Prioritizing the interconnection and interoperability of systems over individual platform capabilities.
    • Human command, machine control: Humans set objectives and make strategic decisions, while machines execute tasks and manage the complexities of the network.
    • Distributed intelligence: Intelligence is embedded throughout the network, enabling rapid information sharing and decision-making.
    • Scalability and affordability: The network is designed to grow exponentially and incorporate affordable, attritable systems.
  • Advantages:
    • Enhanced situational awareness: Seamless information sharing provides a comprehensive and real-time understanding of the battlespace.
    • Accelerated decision-making: Machines process information and execute tasks at machine speed, enabling faster responses to threats.
    • Increased efficiency and effectiveness: Automation and intelligent systems free up human operators to focus on higher-level tasks.
    • Force multiplication: One human operator can potentially control numerous intelligent machines, significantly expanding the reach and scale of operations.
    • Adaptability and resilience: The network can adapt to changing conditions and withstand the loss of individual nodes.

Implementing a Military Internet of Things: Challenges and Opportunities

  • Technological challenges:
    • Developing robust and secure communication protocols for the network.
    • Ensuring the reliability and trustworthiness of AI and autonomous systems.
    • Managing the complexity of a vast and interconnected network.
  • Organizational and cultural challenges:
    • Overcoming resistance to change within the military’s traditional, platform-centric mindset.
    • Adapting training and doctrine to accommodate new technologies and operating concepts.
    • Addressing ethical concerns surrounding the use of AI and autonomous systems in warfare.
  • Opportunities:
    • Leveraging commercial technologies: The rapid pace of innovation in the private sector presents opportunities to adopt and adapt existing technologies for military use.
    • Fostering partnerships: Collaborating with tech companies and research institutions to accelerate development and innovation.
    • Investing in research and development: Prioritizing funding for key technologies such as AI, autonomy, and advanced networking.

The Future of Warfare: A Human-Machine Partnership

  • The author envisions a future where human judgment and moral agency remain central to warfare, but are augmented by the capabilities of a military Internet of Things.
  • Intelligent machines would handle routine tasks, process information, and execute orders at machine speed, while human operators would focus on:
    • Setting strategic objectives.
    • Making critical decisions.
    • Providing ethical oversight.
  • This human-machine partnership would enable the U.S. military to:
    • Maintain its technological edge in an era of rapid technological change.
    • Outmaneuver adversaries in highly contested environments.
    • Ensure the responsible and ethical use of force.

Conclusion: Embracing the Inevitable

  • The emergence of intelligent machines and the growing ubiquity of networked systems represent a fundamental shift in the nature of warfare.
  • The U.S. military must embrace these changes and adapt its thinking, force structure, and operating concepts to remain competitive in the 21st century.
  • The transition to a military Internet of Things will require significant investment, innovation, and a willingness to challenge long-held assumptions about the nature of military power.
  • Ultimately, the successful integration of intelligent machines into the U.S. military will depend on striking the right balance between human control and machine autonomy.

Chapter 9: Move, Shoot, Communicate

The Future of Warfare: Then and Now

Jan Bloch’s Predictions and Their Implications Today

  • Jan Bloch, a Polish banker and military scholar, published a book in 1898 predicting how technology would transform warfare.
    • He accurately foresaw the lethality of modern battlefields due to technological advancements like:
      • Machine guns
      • Smokeless gunpowder: This innovation would “lift the fog of war,” leaving armies exposed after initial volleys.
      • Long-range artillery: Bloch calculated these were 116 times deadlier than those used a few decades prior.
      • Improved rifles: Offering greater speed, accuracy, and range.
      • Other innovations: Including railroads, telegraphs, and steamships.
    • Bloch believed this increase in lethality would make large-scale wars “impossible.”
    • However, World War I proved him wrong, though the conflict unfolded largely as he predicted, with trench warfare and high casualties (40 million deaths in four years).

Lessons from World War I: Technological Advancements and Doctrinal Lag

  • World War I’s carnage resulted partly from militaries using antiquated tactics with modern technology.
    • Technological advancements favored defenders, but offensive tactics remained unchanged, leading to devastating losses.
    • Military technological parity among the great powers exacerbated the destructiveness.

Parallels to Today’s Security Environment: The Rise of China

  • The proliferation of information technologies and precision strike weapons, particularly in China, is challenging America’s military dominance, creating an environment similar to the pre-World War I era.
    • China’s military modernization is eroding U.S. advantages, especially in offensive capabilities.
    • Military technological parity is re-emerging, with both the U.S. and China possessing similar advanced technologies.
    • The critical question becomes how to gain an advantage in this new era of warfare.

The Enduring Competitions of Warfare

  • Military planners face the difficult task of making investment decisions with incomplete information about future threats and technological advancements.
    • The goal is to discern how to gain a future advantage in the enduring competitions that define warfare.

Offense vs. Defense

  • This fundamental competition involves attackers seeking to overcome defenders and vice versa.

The Kill Chain

  • This competition centers around which military can better:
    • Understand the battlespace.
    • Make decisions based on that understanding.
    • Take actions to achieve their objectives.
    • Deny these advantages to their opponents.

The Three Elements of Warfare: Move, Shoot, Communicate

  • These operational considerations are crucial within the broader framework of offense vs. defense and the kill chain.

Movement: Shifting Advantages and the Rise of Ubiquitous Sensing

Traditional Assumptions of U.S. Military Movement

  • The U.S. has assumed it can:
    • Move large forces over long distances.
    • Rely on small numbers of advanced systems to hide, penetrate, and overmatch adversaries.
    • Maintain superior quality over quantity.
    • Ensure unfettered logistical support.

The Impact of China’s Military Modernization and Emerging Technologies

  • China’s military modernization and emerging technologies challenge these assumptions:
    • Ubiquitous sensors make hiding increasingly difficult and finding easier.
      • Examples:
        • Russian involvement in Ukraine exposed through social media imagery.
        • Chinese military installations in the South China Sea revealed by commercial satellite imagery.
    • Large constellations of satellites will provide constant surveillance, eliminating hiding places for large military assets.
    • Advanced sensors, like passive radar, are making stealth technologies less effective.
    • Networks of intelligent machines will fuse sensor data, further eroding hiding opportunities.

The Future of Hiding and the Rise of Deception

  • Active deception of sensors may be the best hope for hiding.
    • This could involve targeting the algorithms that interpret sensor data.

The Return of Mass to the Battlefield and the Rise of Battle Networks

  • Military Internet of Things (IoT) will enable the deployment of vast numbers of intelligent machines, shifting the advantage to those who can field larger forces.
    • This challenges the traditional trade-off between quantity and quality, as militaries will be able to achieve both.
    • Example: The 2019 Iranian drone and missile attack on Saudi oil facilities demonstrates the potential of massed, attritable systems.

The Increasing Speed and Expanding Scope of Movement

  • Military IoT will lead to:
    • Exponential increase in the number of actions and the speed at which they occur.
    • Collapsed timelines for decision-making, requiring greater automation.
  • Hypersonic weapons will further accelerate the speed of warfare, compressing strategic decisions to tactical timelines.
    • This could lead to a form of “mutually assured hypersonic destruction,” similar to the logic of nuclear deterrence.

Transformation of Logistics

  • Intelligent machines and advanced manufacturing will revolutionize logistics:
    • Systems will become easier, cheaper, and faster to produce.
    • 3D printing will enable on-demand production of weapons and equipment near the battlefield.

The Growing Importance of the Digital and Space Domains

  • As physical movement becomes more difficult, militaries will prioritize:
    • Cyber maneuver warfare: Offering speed, stealth, and plausible deniability.
    • Space-based operations: Establishing persistent presence and logistical hubs in orbit.
    • Expansion of the battlefield to include the space between Earth and the Moon.

Shooting: Longer Ranges, Increased Accuracy, and Overwhelming Effects

Traditional U.S. Approach to Shooting

  • Assumptions have driven a preference for:
    • Small numbers of highly accurate weapons.
    • Shorter-range engagement.
    • Effective hiding as the best defense.

The Impact of China’s Military Modernization and Emerging Technologies

  • China’s advancements in long-range, accurate, and lethal weapons are challenging these assumptions.
    • This affects U.S. air and maritime operations in East Asia and, to a lesser extent, U.S. forces in Europe and the Middle East.
    • Example: Iran’s downing of a U.S. Global Hawk drone in 2019.

The Changing Character of Shooting: From Kinetic to Non-Kinetic Effects

  • While traditional weapons remain relevant, militaries will increasingly leverage:
    • Cyberattacks: To cripple adversaries’ ability to wage war before deploying physical forces.
    • Electronic warfare: To disrupt command and control systems.
    • Directed energy weapons: Offering speed-of-light attacks.

Increasing Range: Overcoming Physical and Economic Limitations

  • Non-kinetic weapons are not bound by the traditional limitations of range.
  • New technologies, such as hypersonic weapons and electromagnetic railguns, will also increase the range of kinetic fires.
  • This will eliminate safe havens and expand the battlefield to include:
    • Outer space.
    • Logistics networks.
    • Information and communications systems.
    • Domestic critical infrastructure.

Enhancing Accuracy: The Power of Intelligent Machines and Sensor Fusion

  • Accuracy will improve through:
    • Faster data collection and sharing facilitated by intelligent machines.
    • Real-time precision strike capabilities enabled by military IoT.
    • Sensor fusion to overcome limitations of individual sensors and enhance target identification.

Increasing Effects: Volume, Velocity, and the Overwhelm Advantage

  • The future of shooting involves:
    • Vast numbers of armed intelligent machines capable of delivering both kinetic and non-kinetic effects.
    • Increased volume and velocity of fire due to the sheer number of weapons and faster decision-making.
    • Overwhelm tactics to overcome even well-defended targets through mass and attrition.

Communicate: Decentralization, Resilience, and the Human-Machine Nexus

Traditional U.S. Military Communications: Centralized and Vulnerable

  • The U.S. relies on a centralized “hub-and-spoke” model for military communications, making it vulnerable to attack.
  • This model is:
    • Manpower-intensive.
    • Energy-intensive.
    • Bandwidth-dependent.
    • Physically large and susceptible to disruption.

The Future of Military Communications: Decentralized, Resilient, and Machine-Driven

  • Militaries will prioritize:
    • Resilient networks that can withstand attacks, recover quickly, and reconstitute themselves.
    • Beyond-line-of-sight communications for extended range.
    • Software-defined communications for frequency agility.
    • Decentralized “mesh” networks that are more difficult to disrupt than centralized systems.

Enabling Technologies for Decentralized Communications

  • Key enablers include:
    • Ubiquitous space-based communications networks for global coverage and reduced jamming vulnerability.
    • Intelligent machines with edge computing capabilities to process information locally, reducing reliance on centralized hubs.

The Evolving Role of Manned Systems and the Rise of Human-Machine Teaming

  • Manned systems will transition from platforms for moving, shooting, and communicating to mobile command and control centers.
  • Human-machine teaming will become increasingly important, with:
    • Humans providing high-level decision-making and ethical oversight.
    • Machines performing tasks that require speed, scale, and precision.

The Future of Command and Control: From Virtual Reality to Brain-Computer Interface

  • Future command and control will leverage:
    • Virtual and augmented reality for immersive battlefield awareness.
    • Brain-computer interface for direct communication between humans and intelligent machines.

Data as a Key Terrain and the Challenge of Algorithmic Deception

  • Protecting military data will be crucial, as it underpins the effectiveness of artificial intelligence.
    • Adversaries will seek to poison data sets and deceive algorithms.
    • Countering these threats will require:
      • Rapid algorithm updates to patch vulnerabilities and adapt to new tactics.
      • Sensor fusion to provide context and reduce the likelihood of deception.

Implications for the United States: Reimagining National Defense

Reassessing Assumptions and Embracing New Approaches

  • The U.S. must adapt its military to a changing threat environment and technological landscape.
  • This requires rethinking assumptions about:
    • Force structure: From small numbers of exquisite systems to larger numbers of more affordable and attritable platforms.
    • Operational concepts: From reliance on dominance to strategies that account for contested environments.
    • Technological development: Prioritizing technologies that enhance resilience, agility, and the ability to operate in contested domains.

Recognizing the Erosion of Dominance and Preparing for a Different Future

  • The U.S. must acknowledge that its military dominance is eroding.
  • China’s rise as a peer competitor necessitates a fundamental shift in thinking about national defense.
  • The future security environment will be characterized by:
    • Military technological parity between great powers.
    • Contested environments across all domains, including cyber and space.
    • Accelerated decision-making timelines driven by the speed of warfare.

Embracing Uncertainty and the Need for Adaptation

  • The exact trajectory of technological development and the future of warfare are uncertain.
  • The U.S. must remain adaptable, constantly reassessing its assumptions and adjusting its strategies.
  • The key to success lies in anticipating change, embracing innovation, and outmaneuvering adversaries in the enduring competitions that define warfare.

Chapter 10: Defense Without Dominance

The Need for a New Defense Strategy

  • In 2017, John McCain urged the Secretary of Defense to shift national defense focus from counterterrorism to the challenges posed by great power competitors, primarily China.
    • Great power competitors: Nations with significant economic, technological, and military capabilities that can challenge U.S. interests and influence on a global scale.
  • This shift was deemed necessary due to America’s declining military advantage and the increasing capabilities of China’s military.
  • McCain stressed the need for prioritization and strategic thinking in the face of finite resources.
  • He argued that the new defense strategy presented a crucial opportunity to develop an effective approach to China.

The Importance of Strategy and Choice

  • McCain criticized the misuse of the word “strategy” in Washington, where it often masked the lack of real prioritization.
  • He believed that effective strategies require making hard choices, prioritizing critical goals, and accepting trade-offs.
  • This approach stood in contrast to the common practice of creating all-inclusive but ultimately meaningless “laundry lists” of priorities.

The 2018 National Defense Strategy: A Step in the Right Direction

  • The 2018 National Defense Strategy, influenced by McCain’s advocacy, marked a positive step towards addressing the challenges of great power competition.
  • Key Strengths:
    • Clearly identified long-term strategic competition with China and Russia as the top priority for the Department of Defense.
    • Provided detailed guidance for policy and programmatic choices in classified form.
  • Despite its strengths, the 2018 strategy was seen as a starting point that required further development and bolder action.

The Need for a More Radical Shift: Defense Without Dominance

  • The author argues that the scale of change required necessitates a move beyond incremental adjustments.
  • Defense without dominance: A strategic approach that acknowledges the decline of U.S. military superiority and focuses on defending core interests rather than pursuing global dominance.
    • Requires a fundamental shift in mindset, moving away from the offensive, power-projection model that has characterized U.S. military strategy since World War II.

Rethinking America’s Goals in an Era of Great Power Competition

  • The post-Cold War era, characterized by American dominance, allowed the U.S. to pursue expansive global goals.
    • This period was an anomaly in history, where great power competition is the norm.
  • The return of great power competition, particularly with China, necessitates a reassessment of U.S. goals and a return to prioritizing core interests.
    • Core Interests: Those interests deemed so vital to a nation’s security, prosperity, and values that it is prepared to defend them with military force.
  • The author argues for a more realistic and focused approach, recognizing that great powers can limit each other’s ambitions.

Denying China Military Dominance: The Primary Objective

  • The author contends that preventing Chinese military dominance in Asia should be the overarching objective of U.S. defense strategy.
    • Chinese military dominance could have detrimental consequences for the U.S. and its allies, potentially granting China control over vital economic centers and granting it leverage in international disputes.
  • This goal requires prioritizing the Indo-Pacific region and making difficult choices about resource allocation and military deployments.

Homeland Defense: A New (Old) Imperative

  • For the first time since the 19th century, the U.S. faces a credible threat of conventional military attack on its homeland.
    • China’s development of long-range precision strike capabilities has made U.S. territory vulnerable.
  • This new reality necessitates a significant shift in U.S. defense posture, requiring investments in homeland defense and a reevaluation of the military’s role in protecting the U.S. from conventional attack.

Embracing a Defensive Mindset and a New American Way of War

  • The author calls for a shift from an offensive to a defensive mindset, adapting to the challenges posed by China’s military capabilities.
  • This new approach emphasizes:
    • Denial: Preventing adversaries from achieving their objectives by making it too costly or difficult.
    • Deterrence: Dissuading adversaries from taking aggressive actions by demonstrating the ability and willingness to inflict unacceptable costs.
  • This shift requires a move away from the traditional U.S. military model of power projection and dominance towards a more agile and resilient force structure.

Building a Different Kind of Military for a Different Kind of War

  • The current U.S. military, designed for a different era, is ill-suited to the challenges of great power competition with China.
  • Key Weaknesses:
    • Reliance on small numbers of expensive, heavily manned, and vulnerable systems.
    • Centralized networks susceptible to disruption.
    • Limited ability to operate effectively in contested environments.
  • Attributes of a Future Force:
    • Distributed Systems: Larger numbers of smaller, more dispersed systems to complicate enemy targeting and enhance survivability.
    • Expendable Systems: Lower-cost, easily replaceable systems to mitigate the impact of losses and make it more expensive for adversaries to engage U.S. forces.
    • Unmanned Systems: Greater reliance on unmanned systems to reduce risk to human life and operate more effectively in high-threat environments.
    • Decentralized Networks: More resilient and adaptable networks that are difficult to disrupt and can continue to function even under attack.
    • Software-Defined Capabilities: Greater emphasis on software, artificial intelligence, and autonomous systems to enhance decision-making, speed, and lethality.

The Importance of Allies: Strength in Partnerships

  • The author stresses the critical role of allies in balancing Chinese power and deterring aggression.
  • While acknowledging the need for allies to share the burden of defense, the author criticizes the Trump administration’s approach to alliances as counterproductive.
  • He argues for a more collaborative and mutually beneficial approach, recognizing that allies provide:
    • Forward Presence: Access to bases and territory that enhances U.S. military posture and reduces reliance on long-range power projection.
    • Operational Support: Contributions to collective defense efforts, increasing overall capability and capacity.
    • Political and Diplomatic Leverage: Amplified pressure on adversaries and greater legitimacy for U.S. actions.

Conclusion: Embracing Change and Reimagining Defense

  • The author emphasizes the need for urgent and substantial changes to U.S. defense strategy to adapt to the realities of great power competition with China.
  • This requires a shift in mindset, a reassessment of goals, and a willingness to make difficult choices.
  • Failure to adapt risks leaving the U.S. vulnerable to Chinese coercion and unable to defend its core interests.
  • The future of U.S. national security depends on the ability to embrace change and reimagine defense in an era of renewed great power rivalry.

Chapter 11: Bureaucracy Does Its Thing

The Case of the USS Harry Truman: A Microcosm of Bureaucratic Inertia

  • In 2019, Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer sought to modernize the Navy’s fleet by retiring the USS Harry Truman, an aircraft carrier, to free up funds for new technologies.

The Rationale for Retiring the Truman

  • The Truman was due for a costly mid-life refueling.
  • Retiring the ship would save $3.5 billion in refueling costs and $30 billion in operating and maintenance costs over its remaining lifespan.
  • These savings could fund investments in unmanned vessels and other advanced capabilities.

Congressional and Industry Backlash

  • Congress, caught off guard by the proposal, reacted negatively due to a lack of prior consultation and the perceived risk of replacing a proven asset with unproven technologies.
  • Congressional representatives from states heavily invested in the Truman’s maintenance and shipbuilding industry, along with lobbyists and unions, mobilized to block the retirement.

The White House Reversal

  • Vice President Mike Pence, in a politically motivated move, announced the reversal of the Truman’s retirement during a visit to the ship in Virginia, a key state for the upcoming presidential election.

The Outcome

  • The Truman’s retirement was canceled, and Congress allocated additional funds to keep it operational, diverting resources from future capabilities.
  • This epitomizes the difficulty of enacting meaningful change within the defense establishment due to bureaucratic inertia, political maneuvering, and the influence of special interest groups.

The Budget Process: A Cycle of Short-Term Thinking

  • The annual defense budget process, totaling nearly $700 billion for fiscal year 2020, exemplifies the prioritization of short-term needs over long-term strategic investments.

Challenges of the Budget Process:

  • Lengthy and Inflexible: The multi-year budget planning cycle (currently five years) hinders adaptability to emerging technologies and changing security threats.
  • Congressional Constraints: Congress often restricts the Pentagon’s budgetary flexibility, limiting the ability to reallocate funds to new priorities. For example, reprogramming funds often requires approval from multiple congressional committees and is capped at a tiny fraction of the total budget (less than 0.009%).
  • Focus on Existing Programs: The majority of the budget is pre-allocated to existing programs, making it challenging to secure funding for new technologies.

The Power of “Communities of Interest”

  • Decentralized Power Structure: Power within the Pentagon is distributed among various “communities of interest” (e.g., different branches of the military, specific weapons programs). These groups wield significant influence over budgetary decisions.
  • Bottom-Up Budgeting: Budget proposals often originate from these communities, focused on maintaining existing programs rather than driving innovation or embracing disruptive technologies.
  • Short-Term Incentives: Military personnel and civilian officials are incentivized to prioritize the programs and platforms within their communities of interest, as this impacts their careers and funding.

A Flawed System: From Requirements to Acquisition

  • The U.S. defense establishment faces systemic challenges beyond budgeting, hindering its ability to adapt and modernize effectively.

The Requirements Process: Stifling Innovation

  • Purpose: To determine and validate necessary military capabilities for development or acquisition.
  • Challenges:
    • Bureaucratic Delays: The process can take years, leaving the military with outdated or inadequate equipment.
    • Consensus-Driven: This often leads to a focus on the lowest common denominator and a resistance to high-risk, high-reward technologies.
    • Lack of Vision: The process frequently fails to anticipate future needs or consider the potential of emerging technologies.

The Acquisition Process: Slow and Risk-Averse

  • Purpose: To acquire the capabilities identified in the requirements process.
  • Challenges:
    • Excessive Bureaucracy: The process is notoriously slow, risk-averse, and bogged down in regulations and paperwork.
    • Focus on Traditional Systems: There’s a bias toward acquiring familiar technologies and upgrading existing systems, even when revolutionary solutions are available.
    • Lack of Accountability: The diffuse decision-making structure often means that no single individual is empowered to take risks or accelerate the acquisition of vital technologies.

The Political and Cultural Dimensions of Inertia

  • Short-Term Political Incentives: Elected officials prioritize immediate concerns of their constituents and are less likely to champion long-term investments in defense innovation that may not yield immediate political benefits.
  • The Influence of Special Interests: While lobbying by defense contractors plays a role, the bigger issue is the dwindling number of major defense companies and the outsized influence of those focused on legacy systems. This limits competition and innovation.
  • Decline in Military Experience in Congress: The declining number of lawmakers with direct military experience can lead to both excessive deference to the military’s judgment and a lack of understanding of its complexities.
  • Lack of Technical Expertise: The absence of technical backgrounds among political and military leaders hinders the understanding and adoption of emerging technologies.
  • Resistance to Disruption: The shift to new technologies, while necessary, will inevitably cause economic and social disruption, creating resistance from those whose livelihoods depend on legacy systems.

The Trump Factor

  • While not solely responsible for the dysfunction, the Trump presidency has exacerbated existing problems.
  • Politicization of the Military: Trump has frequently used the military for political purposes, diverting resources and attention away from long-term strategic priorities.
  • Leadership Vacancies: Prolonged vacancies in key civilian positions within the Department of Defense have hampered decision-making and stalled progress on essential initiatives.

A Crisis of Leadership and Imagination

  • The challenges facing the U.S. defense establishment run deeper than any single administration or political party. There’s a fundamental failure:
    • Failure of Imagination: To anticipate and adapt to the rapidly evolving landscape of warfare in the 21st century.
    • Failure of Leadership: To make difficult choices, challenge the status quo, and prioritize long-term national security over short-term political expediency.

Urgent Need for Change: A Call to Action

  • The U.S. must urgently address these systemic issues to maintain its military edge and confront future challenges.
  • Overcoming bureaucratic inertia, political dysfunction, and a culture of short-term thinking is paramount.
  • Failure to do so risks the security and prosperity of the United States in an increasingly dangerous world.

Chapter 12: How the Future Can Win

The Need for Change in U.S. Defense

This chapter argues that the U.S. defense establishment needs significant change to adapt to future challenges. The author uses the case study of the JSTARS program and draws parallels to historical examples like the adoption of aircraft carriers and ICBMs to illustrate the need for a new approach. The chapter focuses on two key elements:

  • Incentives: Rewarding innovation, agility, and the development of technologies that address future threats.
  • Imagination: Moving beyond traditional platforms and doctrines to embrace new ways of warfare and leverage emerging technologies.

Case Study: The JSTARS Program

  • The Problem: The Air Force’s plan to replace the aging JSTARS aircraft, a vital intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platform, with a new version of the same aircraft.
    • This plan was flawed because the new JSTARS would be vulnerable to attacks from advanced adversaries like China and Russia.
  • The Solution: The Air Force proposed disaggregating JSTARS’s capabilities, distributing them across a network of unmanned aircraft and satellites. This approach offered greater resilience and survivability.
  • The Challenge: Powerful members of Congress and defense contractors who stood to benefit from the continued production of the traditional JSTARS aircraft opposed the Air Force’s plan.
  • The Success: The Air Force’s success in shifting to the new program stemmed from several factors:
    • Political Strategy: Early and candid engagement with key stakeholders in Congress.
    • Transparency: Providing detailed information about the threat to JSTARS and the advantages of the new program.
    • Industry Engagement: Informing defense companies about the new plan, enabling them to lobby Congress.
    • Compromise: Basing elements of the future program in the same state that would have hosted JSTARS, securing support from potential opponents.
  • The Lesson: Even good ideas require political maneuvering and strategic compromise to succeed within the existing defense system.

Obstacles to Change and Reasons for Hope

  • Obstacles: The U.S. defense establishment faces significant obstacles to change, including:
    • Parochial Military Services: Prioritizing their own interests over joint solutions.
    • Self-Interested Companies: Focusing on profits and protecting existing programs.
    • Distracted Political Leaders: Lacking focus on long-term defense planning and more concerned with short-term political gains.
  • Reasons for Hope: Despite these obstacles, the United States possesses key elements for successful adaptation:
    • Financial Resources: Ample funding for defense.
    • Technological Leadership: Access to cutting-edge technologies.
    • Skilled Workforce: A talented pool of engineers and innovators.
  • The Core Issue: The main obstacle lies in Washington, D.C., and stems from:
    • Dysfunctional Political System: Hampering the ability to make tough but necessary decisions.
    • Lack of Vision: A failure to envision and implement necessary defense reforms.
    • Urgency Deficit: A lack of urgency to drive change.

Restructuring Incentives for a Future-Ready Military

  • The Imperative: To prepare for future threats, the U.S. must restructure its defense incentives to favor:
    • Networked Kill Chains: Over legacy platforms.
    • New Ways of War: Over familiar doctrines.
    • Defense: Over offense.
    • Future Needs: Over present requirements.
    • Software: Over hardware.
    • Rapid Capability Development: Over acquisition compliance and cost accounting.
    • Technological Diversity: Over reliance on traditional defense contractors.
  • The Mechanism: Achieving this shift necessitates:
    • Leadership Ownership: Senior leaders in the Department of Defense and Congress must champion and drive change.
    • Collaboration: A partnership between the Pentagon and Congress to establish shared expectations and present a unified front to stakeholders.
    • Long-Term Vision: Recognizing that transforming the military is a multi-year process requiring sustained commitment.
  • Defining the Problems: Translating vague concepts into actionable operational problems, such as:
    • Denying China Military Dominance: Specifically, developing the capability to neutralize 350 Chinese ships within the first three days of a conflict, a challenge requiring advanced ISR, real-time information sharing, and rapid decision-making.
  • Shifting the Paradigm: Moving away from traditional requirements and budget processes towards:
    • Mission-Focused Competitions: Allocating significant funding to real-world competitions that identify the best solutions to specific operational challenges.
    • Rewarding Winners: Providing substantial funding and fielding opportunities to the winners of these competitions, regardless of their affiliation (military service, established company, or startup).
    • Embracing Rivalry: Leveraging the inherent rivalries between military branches and companies to drive innovation and accelerate the development of effective solutions.
  • Transitioning Incrementally: Acknowledging that the shift from legacy platforms to future technologies will be gradual:
    • Initial Enhancement: New technologies will initially enhance existing platforms.
    • Gradual Replacement: Over time, new technologies may replace legacy systems entirely.
    • Mission Adaptation: Traditional platforms may find new roles, such as homeland defense, as their relevance in high-intensity conflicts diminishes.
  • The Power of Demonstration: Showing, not just telling, to build support for change:
    • Deterrence through Demonstration: Convincing adversaries of U.S. military capabilities by showcasing new technologies.
    • Domestic Persuasion: Demonstrating the effectiveness of new solutions to skeptical military leaders and policymakers to build domestic political support.

Fostering a Vibrant Defense Technology Ecosystem

  • The Problem: A lack of private investment in defense technology due to:
    • Perceived Risk: The defense sector is viewed as a risky investment with a high failure rate for new technologies.
    • Lack of Government Commitment: The government often fails to purchase promising technologies at scale, discouraging private investment.
  • The Solution: Creating incentives for private investment by:
    • Picking Winners: Identifying and investing heavily in companies developing essential technologies like AI and autonomous systems.
    • Clear Signals: Sending strong signals to the market about the government’s commitment to purchasing these technologies in large quantities.
    • Multiplier Effect: Large government contracts will attract significantly more private investment, creating a virtuous cycle of innovation and growth.
  • Rethinking Earmarks: Reconsidering the ban on congressional earmarks, with safeguards for transparency and accountability, to enable Congress to directly fund promising defense technologies.
  • The Importance of Lobbying: Encouraging companies developing future-oriented military capabilities to actively lobby for their programs and secure political support.
  • Addressing the “Culture Problem”: The U.S. defense establishment needs to overcome its risk-averse, bureaucratic culture and embrace agility, competition, and a willingness to fail.

Conclusion: The Future Can Win

  • The Choice: The U.S. has a choice: cling to the familiar but increasingly obsolete or embrace change and build a military capable of winning future conflicts.
  • The Stakes: The stakes are high, with nothing less than America’s national security hanging in the balance.
  • The Path Forward: The path forward is clear:
    • Define problems precisely.
    • Compete for solutions.
    • Pick winners.
    • Fund what matters.
  • The Call to Action: The future of U.S. defense depends on the willingness of its leaders to embrace change, demonstrate courage, and make the tough decisions necessary to build a military ready for the challenges ahead.

Conclusion: A Failure of Imagination

Reflections on McCain’s Passing and the State of America

  • On three occasions since John McCain’s death, the author experienced profound emotional responses:
    • First Occasion: Upon receiving news of McCain’s passing, the author was overcome with gratitude for the time spent with him, realizing the incredible experiences they shared due to McCain’s influence.
    • Second Occasion: During McCain’s memorial service, the author hoped for positive change in Washington, a desire for unity and a focus on national security, but remained pessimistic. This pessimism stemmed from the belief that the political divisions and mistrust would resurface, hindering progress.
    • Third Occasion: Visiting McCain’s grave, the author felt sadness, recognizing that the situation in Washington had worsened since McCain’s death, becoming more divided and dysfunctional.

America’s Defense: Opportunities and Obstacles

  • Despite the current political climate, there is a significant opportunity to reshape national defense.
  • Positive Signs:
    • Increased motivation within the defense establishment to adapt to new threats and technologies.
    • Dedicated personnel.
    • Advanced technology.
    • Ample financial resources.
  • Major Obstacle: America’s inability to overcome internal challenges and make necessary changes.

The Persistent Problem: A Failure of Imagination

  • The author asserts that the root cause of the current national defense crisis is a failure of imagination, a term often used by McCain.
  • This failure manifests in the inability to:
    • Envision the potential consequences of inaction.
    • Comprehend the severity of the challenges faced.
    • Break free from the belief in America’s guaranteed success due to its past dominance.

The Consequences of Inaction

  • If America fails to adapt:
    • Others will seize the opportunity to advance their military capabilities.
    • The United States will lose control over its destiny, becoming vulnerable to its rivals.
    • Change will be forced upon America, likely through negative events such as war or a breakdown of deterrence.

Call to Action

  • The responsibility for safeguarding America’s future rests on the current generation.
  • While hope is essential, it is not a strategy.
  • Action is urgently needed to address the challenges and avert potential disasters.

Conclusion

  • While the author acknowledges the difficulty of implementing necessary changes in a dysfunctional political environment, they emphasize the dire consequences of inaction.
  • The author concludes with a stark warning: failure to adapt will result in a loss of control over America’s fate.
About Me:

I’m Christian Mills, a deep learning consultant specializing in practical AI implementations. I help clients leverage cutting-edge AI technologies to solve real-world problems.

Interested in working together? Fill out my Quick AI Project Assessment form or learn more about me.