The Kill Chain Book Notes

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

November 20, 2023

Introduction

Christian Brose, in “The Kill Chain: Defending America in the Future of High-Tech Warfare,” discusses the declining technological advantage of the U.S. military against countries like China. He reflects on his experiences as John McCain’s national security advisor and the urgent need for the U.S. to adapt its military strategy and technologies to maintain global dominance.

Ideas

  1. The U.S. military’s technological edge is rapidly eroding, particularly against China.
  2. There’s a critical need for America to modernize its military capabilities.
  3. Traditional military platforms are becoming less effective against advanced technologies.
  4. The concept of the ‘kill chain’—understanding, deciding, and acting in warfare—is central to military effectiveness.
  5. The U.S. defense establishment has been slow to adapt to technological changes.
  6. Current military platforms are not integrated into an effective battle network.
  7. The U.S. military’s dependence on large, expensive platforms is a strategic weakness.
  8. Emerging technologies like AI and robotics are key to future warfare.
  9. China’s military modernization is outpacing the U.S. in critical areas.
  10. America’s military strategy needs to shift from offensive to defensive capabilities.
  11. The U.S. must reimagine its military structure to counter new types of warfare.
  12. A lack of imagination, not resources, is hindering U.S. military advancement.
  13. The U.S. needs to invest in smaller, more autonomous, and expendable military technology.
  14. U.S. military dominance has led to complacency in defense innovation.
  15. Political gridlock and bureaucratic inertia impede necessary military reforms.
  16. Technology alone isn’t the solution; new strategic thinking is also essential.
  17. The military-industrial complex needs a paradigm shift to adapt to new challenges.
  18. Effective military power depends on more than just advanced platforms.
  19. The role of the military is changing due to technological advances.
  20. U.S. military strategy must evolve to maintain global security and dominance.

Facts

  1. Christian Brose served as John McCain’s national security advisor.
  2. The U.S. military spends roughly $700 billion each year.
  3. The Chinese military budget increased by 900% from 1990 to 2017.
  4. The U.S. military relies heavily on large, expensive, and hard-to-replace platforms.
  5. China is rapidly developing advanced military technologies.
  6. The U.S. military faces challenges in integrating new technologies into its existing systems.
  7. Emerging technologies are transforming the nature of warfare.
  8. The U.S. has been dominant in global military power for decades.
  9. Political and bureaucratic challenges hinder military innovation in the U.S.
  10. The U.S. military has been slow to adapt to changes in warfare technology.

Recommendations

  1. Modernize U.S. military capabilities to match emerging threats.

  2. Shift focus from traditional platforms to more agile and adaptable technologies.

  3. Increase investment in AI, robotics, and autonomous systems for defense.

  4. Reassess and reform the military-industrial complex to encourage innovation.

  5. Develop new strategic doctrines to counter advanced military threats.

  6. Improve integration of various military systems into a cohesive battle network.

  7. Prioritize defense against cyber warfare and electronic attacks.

  8. Expand U.S. military capabilities in space and other emerging domains.

  9. Foster a culture of agility and adaptability within the U.S. military.

  10. Strengthen alliances and partnerships to counter global military challenges.

What Happened to Yoda’s Revolution?

Chapter 1 explores the evolution and challenges of U.S. military technology and strategy. The author focuses on Andrew Marshall’s revolutionary ideas for military technology, their initial neglect, and the gradual realization of their necessity in the face of emerging threats, especially from China.

Ideas

  1. Andrew Marshall, nicknamed “Yoda,” foresaw significant changes in warfare driven by technology.
  2. Marshall’s report in 1992 highlighted the need for the U.S. to revolutionize its military approach.
  3. The U.S. military’s traditional platform-centered approach was becoming outdated.
  4. The Gulf War displayed U.S. technological superiority but also revealed limitations.
  5. Marshall emphasized the importance of building effective ‘kill chains’ in modern warfare.
  6. The U.S. military struggled with integrating new technologies into its existing frameworks.
  7. The early 2000s saw a shift in focus to counterterrorism, overshadowing the need for military modernization.
  8. China began developing capabilities that challenged the traditional U.S. military approach.
  9. The U.S. military invested heavily in traditional platforms, often at the expense of newer technologies.
  10. Political and bureaucratic inertia hindered the adoption of revolutionary military concepts.
  11. The U.S. military’s reliance on large, expensive platforms made it vulnerable to new forms of warfare.
  12. The concept of ‘anti-access and area-denial capabilities’ became crucial in understanding modern military strategy.
  13. The U.S. military needed to adapt to the information age and integrate advanced technologies like AI.
  14. The Pentagon and Congress often prioritized legacy systems over more innovative technologies.
  15. The U.S. military’s technological dominance led to a complacency in adapting to new threats.
  16. The focus on counterterrorism post-9/11 diverted resources from essential military modernization.
  17. The U.S. failed to fully exploit the revolution in military affairs, particularly in terms of information technology.
  18. The lack of a unified approach to military technology development led to inefficiencies and missed opportunities.
  19. The U.S. military’s strategic focus remained anchored in past successes, overlooking emerging threats.
  20. The U.S. defense establishment’s business model often prioritized platform development over network integration.

Facts

  1. Andrew Marshall directed the Office of Net Assessment in the Department of Defense.
  2. The Gulf War demonstrated the U.S. military’s technological superiority but also its limitations.
  3. Marshall’s report in 1992 highlighted the emerging importance of information technology in warfare.
  4. The U.S. defense establishment was slow in adopting Marshall’s revolutionary concepts.
  5. The focus on counterterrorism post-9/11 overshadowed the need for broader military modernization.
  6. China started developing capabilities to counter traditional U.S. military strategies.
  7. The U.S. continued investing heavily in traditional military platforms.
  8. The Pentagon and Congress often favored legacy systems over new technologies.
  9. The U.S. military’s approach to warfare remained largely unchanged since the Gulf War.
  10. The concept of ‘anti-access and area-denial capabilities’ became significant in modern military strategy.

Recommendations

  1. Embrace and integrate new technologies like AI and unmanned systems in military strategy.

  2. Transition from a platform-centered approach to a network-centric military model.

  3. Prioritize the development of effective ‘kill chains’ to enhance military effectiveness.

  4. Increase focus on modernizing military strategies to counter emerging threats, especially from China.

  5. Foster a culture of innovation and adaptation within the U.S. military and defense establishment.

  6. Reallocate resources to support the development of advanced military technologies and strategies.

  7. Enhance collaboration between the Pentagon, Congress, and the defense industry to prioritize future-focused military capabilities.

  8. Address bureaucratic and political inertia that hinders military innovation.

  9. Shift strategic focus from maintaining legacy systems to developing new capabilities.

  10. Improve information sharing and integration across different military platforms and services.

Little Green Men and Assassin’s Mace

Chapter 2 describes the emergence of new forms of warfare, focusing on Russia’s military actions in Ukraine (2014) and Syria, and China’s military developments. It details the tactical surprises and technological advancements of these nations, emphasizing their challenges to U.S. military dominance and the need for the U.S. to adapt its strategy and technology.

Ideas

  1. Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine (2014) marked a significant shift in modern warfare tactics.
  2. The Russian military employed advanced technology and unconventional tactics, including electronic warfare and precision strikes.
  3. China’s military strategy focused on developing “Assassin’s Mace” weapons to counter U.S. military advantages.
  4. Both Russia and China’s strategies aim to exploit vulnerabilities in U.S. military technology and strategy.
  5. The U.S. military faced challenges in adapting to these new forms of warfare.
  6. The U.S. reliance on traditional military platforms and systems has become a strategic weakness.
  7. Russia and China’s advancements highlight the importance of integrating modern technology like AI and cyber capabilities into military strategy.
  8. The U.S. military has been slow to respond to the evolving nature of global military threats.
  9. China’s assertive actions in the South China Sea demonstrate its expanding military capabilities and strategic ambitions.
  10. The U.S. has underestimated the speed and scope of China’s military modernization.
  11. Russia’s use of unconventional warfare tactics in Ukraine and Syria was a wake-up call for U.S. military planners.
  12. The U.S. has been complacent in its military technological dominance, leading to a lack of urgency in modernization.
  13. Both Russia and China have developed strategies to disrupt U.S. command, control, and communication systems.
  14. The U.S. needs a new strategic approach to address these emerging threats and maintain its military superiority.
  15. The U.S. military’s focus on counterterrorism has diverted attention and resources from addressing state-based threats.
  16. The U.S. military requires a paradigm shift towards network-centric warfare to counter these new challenges.
  17. Russia and China have effectively utilized technology theft and espionage to advance their military capabilities.
  18. The U.S.’s failure to adapt quickly to these changes has exposed vulnerabilities in its military strategy.
  19. China’s development of anti-access and area-denial capabilities is designed to prevent U.S. military intervention in regional conflicts.
  20. The U.S. needs to reevaluate its military alliances and partnerships in light of these emerging threats.

Facts

  1. In 2014, Russia used advanced military tactics and technology in its intervention in Ukraine.
  2. China has been developing “Assassin’s Mace” weapons to counter U.S. military advantages.
  3. Russia and China have focused on exploiting vulnerabilities in U.S. military technology and strategy.
  4. The U.S. military has faced challenges in adapting to new forms of warfare.
  5. China’s assertive actions in the South China Sea demonstrate its expanding military capabilities.
  6. The U.S. has been slow to respond to the evolving nature of global military threats.
  7. Russia and China have effectively used technology theft and espionage to advance their military capabilities.
  8. China’s development of anti-access and area-denial capabilities is designed to prevent U.S. intervention in regional conflicts.
  9. The U.S. military’s focus on counterterrorism has diverted attention from state-based threats.
  10. The U.S. needs to reevaluate its military alliances and partnerships in light of emerging threats.

Recommendations

  1. Integrate modern technology, including AI and cyber capabilities, into U.S. military strategy.

  2. Adapt U.S. military strategy to address emerging threats from Russia and China.

  3. Develop countermeasures against unconventional warfare tactics used by adversaries.

  4. Prioritize technological modernization to maintain U.S. military superiority.

  5. Reassess U.S. military alliances and partnerships in response to global threats.

  6. Enhance cybersecurity measures to protect against espionage and technology theft.

  7. Increase focus on network-centric warfare to counter new challenges.

  8. Improve U.S. military agility and adaptability to respond to rapid changes in warfare.

  9. Strengthen U.S. military capabilities in areas like electronic warfare and precision strikes.

  10. Foster innovation in defense technology to stay ahead of adversaries.

A Tale of Two Cities

Chapter 3 analyzes the growing divide between U.S. defense and technology sectors, tracing back to the Cold War era. It highlights the initial close collaboration between the U.S. government and Silicon Valley, and how this relationship deteriorated, leading to challenges in military technology development. The chapter emphasizes the impact of bureaucracy, changing priorities, and a lack of innovation focus, resulting in the U.S. military’s struggle to keep pace with technological advancements.

Ideas

  1. The early Cold War era saw a tight collaboration between the U.S. government and Silicon Valley, fostering significant technological advances.
  2. The U.S. military initially integrated civilian technologists and industrialists in developing new technologies.
  3. Eisenhower’s approach focused on empowering exceptional individuals (“founders”) to develop breakthrough technologies.
  4. The U.S. defense industry’s initial success was driven by a concentration of priorities, resources, and talent.
  5. The bureaucracy and regulatory environment in the U.S. military acquisition process grew over time, hindering innovation.
  6. The Vietnam War marked a turning point, with Silicon Valley engineers becoming uncomfortable working for the government.
  7. The end of the Cold War led to a decrease in defense R&D funding and a shift in priorities.
  8. The defense acquisition system became overly complex and inefficient, focusing on cost over innovation.
  9. Consolidation in the defense industry reduced competition and hindered technological advancement.
  10. The U.S. government’s procurement processes became unattractive to new technology developers.
  11. The Pentagon’s focus remained on traditional platforms rather than network-centric warfare.
  12. The information revolution in the commercial sector outpaced the technological advancements in the defense sector.
  13. The U.S. military failed to adapt to the rapid changes in technology during the information revolution.
  14. The gap between the defense establishment and Silicon Valley widened, impacting military technology development.
  15. The U.S. defense acquisition system prioritized fairness and efficiency over speed and innovation.
  16. The bureaucracy in the defense procurement process discouraged creative and fast-paced technological development.
  17. The U.S. government’s policies inadvertently pushed technology developers away from defense applications.
  18. The commercial technology economy became more lucrative and appealing than defense technology.
  19. The U.S. military’s technological edge began to decay amid China’s accelerating military modernization.
  20. The U.S. defense establishment was ill-prepared for the rapid technological changes brought by the information revolution.

Facts

  1. The U.S. government and Silicon Valley collaborated closely during the early Cold War era.
  2. Eisenhower focused on empowering individuals to develop new military technologies.
  3. The U.S. defense acquisition process became increasingly bureaucratic over time.
  4. The Vietnam War marked a shift in Silicon Valley’s attitude towards working with the government.
  5. Defense R&D funding decreased after the Cold War.
  6. The defense acquisition system became overly complex and inefficient.
  7. The defense industry underwent significant consolidation.
  8. The Pentagon’s focus remained on traditional platforms rather than on network-centric warfare.
  9. The commercial technology sector outpaced the defense sector in innovation.
  10. The U.S. military struggled to adapt to the rapid technological changes of the information revolution.

Recommendations

  1. Foster closer collaboration between the U.S. military and technology sectors, especially Silicon Valley.
  2. Simplify the defense acquisition process to encourage innovation and efficiency.
  3. Prioritize funding for defense R&D to maintain the U.S. military’s technological edge.
  4. Shift the Pentagon’s focus towards network-centric warfare and modern technologies.
  5. Create incentives for technology companies to engage in defense-related projects.
  6. Embrace rapid technological changes and integrate them into military strategy.
  7. Reduce bureaucratic hurdles in the defense procurement process to attract innovative companies.
  8. Encourage the development of new, competitive firms in the defense industry.
  9. Re-evaluate the U.S. military’s strategic priorities to align with current technological advancements.
  10. Increase collaboration and partnerships between government, industry, and academia to foster technological innovation in defense.

Information Revolution 2.0

Chapter 4 discusses the rapid advancements in commercial technology, especially in AI and machine learning, and contrasts these with the U.S. military’s lag in adopting these innovations. Brose reflects on his meeting with Nvidia executives and the vast gap between commercial computing capabilities and those of the U.S. military. He highlights the challenges the military faces in adapting to these technological shifts and the widening divide between Silicon Valley and the Department of Defense.

Ideas

  1. Commercial technology, particularly in AI and machine learning, has far surpassed military technology in capability and innovation.
  2. The U.S. military’s computing power is significantly behind that of commercial technologies, as exemplified by the comparison between Nvidia’s and the F-35’s processing capabilities.
  3. The U.S. military’s approach to data processing is outdated, relying heavily on manual human analysis rather than automated machine learning.
  4. Commercial companies like Nvidia are leading in fields like edge computing and AI, while the military lags.
  5. The widening gap between Silicon Valley and the Department of Defense is a significant concern for U.S. military capabilities.
  6. The U.S. military’s procurement and technological development processes are bureaucratic and slow, hindering innovation.
  7. Brose advocates for the military’s adoption of commercial technological advances to maintain a competitive edge.
  8. The chapter illustrates the need for a paradigm shift in the U.S. military’s approach to technology and data.
  9. The U.S. military’s technological stagnation is in stark contrast to the rapid advancements in the commercial sector.
  10. The military’s reluctance or inability to integrate cutting-edge technologies from the commercial sector poses strategic risks.
  11. Brose emphasizes the importance of modernizing military systems to leverage advancements in AI and machine learning.
  12. The U.S. military’s outdated technology and processes are not only inefficient but also potentially detrimental to national security.
  13. The chapter highlights the critical role of data in modern warfare and the need for the military to adapt to this reality.
  14. Brose suggests that the U.S. military’s technological backwardness could be a significant disadvantage in future conflicts.
  15. The military’s slow adoption of new technologies contrasts sharply with the fast-paced innovation in the private sector.

Facts

  1. Nvidia’s technology is significantly more advanced than the computing capabilities of the U.S. military.
  2. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter’s processor is the most advanced in U.S. military systems but pales in comparison to commercial technologies.
  3. The U.S. military relies heavily on manual data processing, unlike the automated processes in commercial technologies.
  4. The gap between Silicon Valley’s technological advancements and the U.S. military’s capabilities is growing.
  5. The U.S. military’s technology development process is burdened by bureaucracy and inefficiency.
  6. Nvidia leads in fields like edge computing, AI, and autonomous vehicles.
  7. The U.S. military’s approach to data and technology is significantly outdated.
  8. The U.S. military’s technological capabilities are lagging behind the commercial sector, especially in AI and machine learning.
  9. The military’s slow adoption of new technologies contrasts with the rapid innovation pace in the private sector.
  10. The U.S. military’s technological backwardness could be a disadvantage in future conflicts.

Recommendations

  1. The U.S. military should adopt commercial technological advances, especially in AI and machine learning.
  2. Modernize military systems to leverage advancements in AI and machine learning.
  3. Streamline the military’s procurement and technology development processes to reduce bureaucracy and encourage innovation.
  4. Integrate cutting-edge technologies from the commercial sector into military systems.
  5. Address the growing gap between Silicon Valley and the Department of Defense by fostering better collaboration.
  6. Prioritize the modernization of military computing capabilities to match commercial standards.
  7. Emphasize the importance of automated data processing in modern warfare.
  8. Adapt military strategies to leverage

the technological advancements in the private sector. 9. Encourage a cultural shift within the military to embrace rapid technological change. 10. Invest in partnerships with leading technology companies to bring state-of-the-art innovations to military applications.

Something Worse Than Change

Chapter 5 addresses the challenges facing U.S. national defense, particularly in the context of great power competition, military innovation, and emerging technologies. Brose critiques the persistent issues in U.S. defense policy and procurement, highlighting the irony of repeating historical rhetoric without meaningful change. He examines the consequences of misplaced priorities, bureaucratic inertia, and technological stagnation, emphasizing the need for a fundamental shift in approach to maintain U.S. military superiority, especially against rising powers like China.

Ideas

  1. Great power competition has reemerged as a central theme in U.S. national defense, necessitating military innovation and the integration of emerging technologies.
  2. Historical patterns of defense rhetoric show little change over decades, leading to current strategic and technological deficiencies.
  3. The U.S. military’s excessive investment in large bases and expensive platforms has been exploited by adversaries developing advanced weapons.
  4. Transformational procurement programs have been delayed or failed, resulting in aging military systems without modern replacements.
  5. The U.S. military faces a recovery challenge after years of overseas operations and is hindered by technological stagnation.
  6. The information age has not been effectively leveraged for military benefit, leading to a diminished margin of error in global affairs.
  7. Mismanagement in defense spending, prioritization of wrong military programs, and reluctance to make tough decisions contributed to current issues.
  8. The September 11th attacks diverted attention to counterterrorism, impacting the focus on broader military modernization.
  9. Military innovation often occurs in response to wartime demands, raising concerns about peacetime adaptation and change.
  10. The U.S. military’s current capabilities may have limited utility against technologically advanced state competitors.
  11. Bureaucratic resistance and conservative culture in the military have hindered necessary changes and innovation.
  12. Past examples of successful military innovation in peacetime highlight the importance of clear threat definition and bottom-up problem-solving.
  13. Leadership, both civilian and military, plays a crucial role in driving innovation and overcoming institutional resistance.
  14. True military innovation requires operational and organizational transformation, not just technological acquisition.
  15. The rise of China presents a unique challenge, with its integration into the global economy and rapid technological development.
  16. China’s military-civil fusion doctrine and its aggressive technology acquisition strategies pose significant threats to U.S. interests.
  17. The Chinese Communist Party’s use of technology for authoritarian control and military advancement is alarming.
  18. U.S. military dominance is eroding in the face of China’s technological and military parity.
  19. America’s failure to adapt to the changing character of war and the shift from offense to defense has strategic implications.
  20. The U.S. military must develop new force structures and strategies to maintain deterrence and counter potential Chinese aggression.

Facts

  1. Great power competition has reemerged as a key focus in U.S. national defense.
  2. U.S. military investments have focused on large bases and expensive platforms.
  3. Transformational procurement programs in the U.S. military have been delayed or unsuccessful.
  4. The U.S. military has been strained by years of overseas operations.
  5. The September 11th attacks shifted U.S. defense focus primarily to counterterrorism.
  6. The U.S. military has struggled with peacetime innovation and adaptation.
  7. China’s rise presents a unique challenge due to its economic and technological advancements.
  8. The Chinese Communist Party’s ideology influences China’s technological pursuits.
  9. China’s military-civil fusion doctrine aims to utilize civilian advancements for military purposes.
  10. The U.S. military faces the prospect of losing its technological and strategic superiority.

Recommendations

  1. Embrace a new era of military innovation focused on emerging technologies and changing strategic realities.
  2. Reevaluate and realign U.S. defense priorities and spending to address current and future threats effectively.
  3. Foster a culture of agility and adaptability within the U.S. military to respond to the changing nature of warfare.
  4. Encourage bottom-up problem-solving and innovation within the military to address specific operational challenges.
  5. Strengthen partnerships between civilian leadership and military mavericks to drive meaningful change.
  6. Prioritize operational and organizational transformation over mere technological acquisition for true military innovation.
  7. Develop strategies to counter China’s technological and military advancements while maintaining global stability.
  8. Reassess U.S. military force structures and strategies to ensure effective deterrence against potential aggression by great powers like China.
  9. Increase investment in research and development to maintain technological superiority in critical areas.
  10. Encourage collaboration between the U.S. military and the private sector, particularly in the field of emerging technologies.

A Different Kind of Arms Race

Chapter 6 examines the new dynamics of global military competition, focusing on the development of autonomous weapons, AI, and emerging technologies. It emphasizes China’s strategic advancements and its implications for U.S. military capabilities. Brose explores the complexities of arms control in the modern era, the potential risks and impacts of these technologies, and the urgent need for the U.S. to adapt and compete effectively in this new arms race.

Ideas

  1. The international debate on banning lethal autonomous weapons highlights the challenges of modern arms control.
  2. China supports banning the use of autonomous weapons but continues to develop them, indicating a strategic pursuit of military advantage.
  3. The concept of ‘intelligentized warfare’ is central to China’s military strategy, incorporating autonomous systems in all domains.
  4. The U.S. military faces challenges in keeping pace with China’s rapid advancements in military technology.
  5. The global arms race now extends beyond traditional weaponry to emerging technologies like AI, hypersonics, and quantum computing.
  6. China’s approach to technology, including mass data collection and authoritarian control, presents unique challenges to the U.S.
  7. The new arms race is characterized by a competition over information and cognitive dominance, rather than just physical weaponry.
  8. Emerging technologies like hypersonic weapons and directed energy weapons are reshaping military strategies.
  9. The military applications of AI could transform command and control processes, enhancing decision-making and operational effectiveness.
  10. The race to develop quantum computers and other advanced technologies will likely be a key determinant of future military superiority.
  11. Biotechnology advancements could lead to significant enhancements in human performance, with profound military implications.
  12. Space is becoming a critical domain in military competition, with the U.S. and China racing to develop new space-based capabilities.
  13. The U.S. must confront the reality of a complex and multi-faceted technological arms race with China.
  14. The U.S. faces the risk of falling behind in the race for military technological superiority.
  15. The development of intelligent machines and autonomous weapons could redefine warfare and military strategy.

Facts

  1. International discussions have been ongoing about banning lethal autonomous weapons.
  2. China is actively pursuing the development of autonomous military systems.
  3. The global arms race now encompasses emerging technologies like AI and hypersonics.
  4. China’s military strategy emphasizes the integration of advanced technologies.
  5. The U.S. is competing with China in developing new military technologies.
  6. Hypersonic weapons and directed energy weapons are reshaping military capabilities.
  7. The development of AI and quantum computing is critical to future military superiority.
  8. Biotechnology advancements have significant implications for military applications.
  9. Space-based capabilities are becoming a central aspect of military strategy.
  10. The U.S. faces challenges in maintaining technological superiority in the face of China’s advancements.

Recommendations

  1. Accelerate the development of autonomous and AI-enhanced military systems to keep pace with global competitors.
  2. Invest in hypersonic and directed energy weapons to maintain a competitive edge in modern warfare.
  3. Prioritize the development of quantum computing and other advanced technologies for military applications.
  4. Explore the potential of biotechnology for enhancing human performance in military contexts.
  5. Expand the U.S. military’s space-based capabilities to ensure dominance in this critical domain.
  6. Recognize and adapt to the multi-dimensional nature of the modern technological arms race.
  7. Enhance cybersecurity and information warfare capabilities to protect against emerging threats.
  8. Foster collaboration between the military, government, and private sector to accelerate technological advancements.
  9. Develop ethical guidelines and strategies for the use of autonomous weapons and AI in warfare.
  10. Strengthen U.S. military innovation and agility to effectively compete in the evolving global military landscape.

Human Command, Machine Control

Chapter 7 delves into the ethical and strategic implications of integrating intelligent machines and autonomous weapons in warfare. Brose reflects on the moral complexities of using such technologies, emphasizing the need for human command and control over these systems. He discusses the balance between effectiveness and ethical responsibility in military decisions, and the challenges posed by emerging technologies in the arms race, particularly against adversaries like China.

Ideas

  1. The rise of intelligent machines and autonomous weapons in warfare raises profound ethical questions.
  2. There is a debate over whether to maintain human control over the kill chain or to partially delegate it to machines.
  3. The use of intelligent machines in warfare should focus on ends rather than means, and actions rather than actors.
  4. Autonomous weapons systems like the U.S. Navy’s Phalanx and Aegis have already been in use, indicating a precedent for such technology.
  5. The military use of intelligent machines must be grounded in rigorous training, testing, and trust-building.
  6. The U.S. military must ensure that human agency initiates actions, particularly the use of violence, with clear accountability.
  7. Machines in warfare should perform tasks that leverage their technical capabilities without compromising ethical values.
  8. Intelligent machines can potentially reduce civilian casualties and risks to U.S. troops.
  9. There’s a distinction between what machines are capable of doing (automation) and what they are permitted to do (autonomy).
  10. The decision-making process of current intelligent machines can be opaque, necessitating the development of more explainable AI.
  11. The U.S. must adapt its laws, policies, and military practices to incorporate the use of intelligent machines effectively and ethically.
  12. The U.S. faces a challenge in maintaining transparency and ethical conduct while developing autonomous weapons systems.
  13. The U.S. should engage in radical transparency in its development and use of autonomous weapons to maintain public trust.
  14. The future military uses of intelligent machines and emerging technologies will be shaped by their builders and users.
  15. Brose argues for the cautious development of lethal autonomous weapons by the U.S., considering the advancements of strategic competitors.
  16. The U.S. should build autonomous weapons systems as a deterrence and for extreme cases of self-defense.
  17. The ethical and legal accountability for the use of intelligent machines in warfare ultimately rests with human commanders.
  18. The development of autonomous weapons systems should be guided by ethical imperatives and international law.
  19. The U.S. must consider the broader implications of its technological advancements on warfare and global security.
  20. The ethical debate over autonomous weapons should balance the risks and benefits of trusting intelligent machines in military operations.

Facts

  1. Intelligent machines and autonomous weapons are becoming increasingly prevalent in modern warfare.
  2. The U.S. Navy uses autonomous weapons systems like the Phalanx and Aegis for defense.
  3. The military use of intelligent machines involves training, testing, and trust-building.
  4. The decision-making process of current intelligent machines can be opaque, necessitating explainable AI.
  5. Autonomous weapons systems have made costly mistakes in the past, such as friendly fire incidents.
  6. The development of autonomous weapons systems is guided by ethical and legal standards.
  7. The U.S. military uses laws and rules to govern the use of violence in combat.
  8. The U.S. is facing challenges in maintaining transparency in the development and use of autonomous weapons.
  9. The development and use of lethal autonomous weapons by the U.S. are subject to ethical and legal considerations.
  10. The U.S. military’s approach to autonomous weapons includes considerations of self-defense and deterrence.

Recommendations

  1. Ensure rigorous training, testing, and trust-building for the use of intelligent machines in warfare.

  2. Maintain human command and control over autonomous weapons systems to ensure ethical and legal accountability.

  3. Develop more explainable AI to improve understanding and trust in intelligent machines.

  4. Foster radical transparency in the development and use of autonomous weapons to maintain public trust and ethical conduct.

  5. Adapt U.S. laws, policies, and military practices to effectively incorporate the use of intelligent machines.

  6. Balance the development of lethal autonomous weapons with ethical imperatives and international law.

  7. Consider the broader implications of technological advancements on warfare and global security.

  8. Engage in public and international discussions about the ethical use of autonomous weapons.

  9. Develop autonomous weapons systems for deterrence and extreme cases of self-defense.

  10. Continually reassess and update ethical and legal frameworks to address the evolving nature of autonomous weapons and intelligent machines.

A Military Internet of Things

Chapter 8 discusses the potential transformation of the U.S. military through the integration of advanced technologies. Brose envisions a military network akin to the commercial Internet of Things, utilizing autonomous systems, AI, and interconnected devices to enhance warfare capabilities. He argues for a shift from traditional, human-centric platforms to a network-focused approach, emphasizing the need for the U.S. to adapt to maintain its military edge.

Ideas

  1. The U.S. military could benefit from adopting a network-centric approach, similar to the commercial Internet of Things.
  2. Autonomous systems, like the XQ-58A Valkyrie and the Extra-Large Unmanned Underwater Vehicle, represent the future of military technology.
  3. Intelligent machines can operate with limited human involvement, increasing efficiency and reducing risks to personnel.
  4. The integration of AI and machine learning in military systems can significantly improve data processing and decision-making.
  5. A military Internet of Things would enable a vast, interconnected network of intelligent machines, enhancing situational awareness and response capabilities.
  6. The U.S. military needs to shift from a platform-centric to a network-centric approach to maintain its technological edge.
  7. Advanced manufacturing methods can reduce the cost and complexity of military machines, making them more expendable and attritable.
  8. The U.S. military’s current systems are outdated, leading to inefficiencies and limitations in warfare capabilities.
  9. The concept of leader elections in machine networks can optimize operations and decision-making processes.
  10. A military Internet of Things would involve a radical shift in command and control structures, with machines playing a more central role.
  11. The U.S. military could achieve greater scale and speed in operations through intelligent machines and automation.
  12. Human command and machine control would still be essential, ensuring ethical and strategic decision-making in military operations.
  13. The U.S. military faces the challenge of balancing technological advancements with ethical considerations in warfare.
  14. Developing a military Internet of Things requires a fundamental change in the U.S. military’s approach to technology, focusing on integration and network-building.
  15. The U.S. military’s success in future conflicts may depend on its ability to adapt to and integrate these emerging technologies.

Facts

  1. The XQ-58A Valkyrie and the Extra-Large Unmanned Underwater Vehicle are examples of advanced autonomous military systems.
  2. A military Internet of Things would consist of interconnected, intelligent machines enhancing warfare capabilities.
  3. The integration of AI and machine learning can improve military data processing and decision-making.
  4. Advanced manufacturing methods can make military machines more expendable and attritable.
  5. The U.S. military currently faces limitations due to outdated systems and a platform-centric approach.
  6. Leader elections in machine networks can enhance decision-making and operational efficiency.
  7. A military Internet of Things would require a shift in command and control structures.
  8. The U.S. military must balance technological advancements with ethical considerations in warfare.
  9. The success of the U.S. military in future conflicts may depend on its ability to integrate emerging technologies.
  10. The development of a military Internet of Things represents a significant change in the U.S. military’s approach to technology.

Recommendations

  1. The U.S. military should adopt a network-centric approach, akin to the commercial Internet of Things, to enhance its warfare capabilities.

  2. Invest in the development and integration of autonomous systems, AI, and machine learning to improve efficiency and decision-making.

  3. Focus on advanced manufacturing methods to create more expendable and attritable military machines.

  4. Update and modernize the U.S. military’s systems to overcome current limitations and inefficiencies.

  5. Implement leader election mechanisms in machine networks to optimize operations and decision-making.

  6. Ensure a balance between human command and machine control to maintain ethical and strategic decision-making in military operations.

  7. Address the ethical implications and challenges posed by the integration of advanced technologies in warfare.

  8. Encourage a fundamental shift in the U.S. military’s approach to technology, focusing on integration and network-building.

  9. Prepare the U.S. military for the challenges of future conflicts by adapting to and integrating emerging technologies.

  10. Promote collaboration and innovation within the military to develop and implement a successful military Internet of Things.

Move, Shoot, Communicate

Chapter 9 focuses on the evolving nature of warfare, drawing parallels between historical and current military technologies and strategies. Brose highlights Jan Bloch’s predictions about modern combat and the importance of movement, shooting, and communication in warfare. He emphasizes the growing challenges faced by the U.S. military due to technological parity with adversaries like China and the need for innovative approaches in movement, shooting, and communications strategies.

Ideas

  1. Historical insights from Jan Bloch show the significant impact of technology on warfare.
  2. The evolution of military technology has historically altered warfare, as seen in World War I.
  3. Modern warfare is characterized by a balance of offensive and defensive capabilities.
  4. The U.S. military’s traditional dominance is challenged by technological parity with adversaries, particularly China.
  5. The proliferation of information technologies and precision strike weapons has eroded America’s military dominance.
  6. Technological advancements in warfare have increased the lethality and complexity of conflicts.
  7. The U.S. military’s ability to fight offensively is hindered by vulnerabilities in its large platforms.
  8. The nature of military competitions, such as the kill chain, is evolving with technology.
  9. Understanding, decision-making, and action in military operations are critical components of modern warfare.
  10. The U.S. military must innovate in the domains of movement, shooting, and communication.
  11. The balance of power in warfare is shifting due to technological advancements.
  12. The U.S. must adapt to the changing character of war, including the shift from traditional to non-terrestrial domains like cyber and space.
  13. Military strategies must evolve to account for the high attrition rates of advanced machines and weapons.
  14. Communications in future warfare will be characterized by decentralized, resilient networks.
  15. The U.S. faces challenges in adapting to a military landscape where traditional assumptions about warfare are no longer valid.
  16. The U.S. military’s future success will depend on its ability to adapt to new technologies and warfare tactics.
  17. The rise of China as a peer competitor poses significant challenges to U.S. military dominance.
  18. The character of war is constantly changing, necessitating continual adaptation by militaries.
  19. The U.S. must be attentive to shifts in threats and technology, especially given the rapid pace of change.
  20. Reimagining America’s national defense is crucial in an era where U.S. military dominance is no longer assured.

Facts

  1. Jan Bloch was a banker who studied the impact of technology on warfare.
  2. The U.S. military faces challenges due to technological parity with adversaries like China.
  3. Modern warfare involves a balance of offensive and defensive capabilities.
  4. Technological advancements have increased the complexity and lethality of warfare.
  5. The U.S. military’s traditional platforms are now more vulnerable to advanced weapons.
  6. The nature of military competitions, such as the kill chain, is evolving.
  7. The U.S. must innovate in movement, shooting, and communication strategies.
  8. The balance of power in warfare is shifting due to technological advancements.
  9. Future warfare will involve decentralized, resilient communication networks.
  10. The character of war is constantly changing, requiring continual adaptation.

Recommendations

  1. The U.S. military should focus on adapting to the evolving nature of warfare, particularly in the areas of movement, shooting, and communication.

  2. Innovate in the domains of cyber and space to maintain a competitive edge.

  3. Develop strategies to adapt to the high attrition rates of advanced machines and weapons.

  4. Shift to decentralized and resilient communication networks in future warfare.

  5. Reassess traditional assumptions about warfare and adapt to new realities.

  6. Stay attentive to shifts in threats and technology to maintain military effectiveness.

  7. Reimagine America’s national defense strategy in response to the erosion of traditional military dominance.

  8. Invest in emerging technologies to stay competitive in the global military landscape.

  9. Focus on developing adaptable and innovative military strategies to respond to rapid changes in warfare.

  10. Encourage collaboration between military, government, and private sectors to foster technological advancements in defense.

Defense Without Dominance

Chapter 10 focuses on shifting U.S. national defense priorities towards great power competition, specifically with China and Russia. Brose, through a letter he helped John McCain write to Defense Secretary James Mattis, emphasizes the need for a revised National Defense Strategy. He advocates for rethinking America’s military goals and strategies in an era where U.S. military dominance is no longer assured, stressing the importance of adapting to technological advancements and new global realities.

Ideas

  1. The U.S. must shift its national defense focus to prioritize challenges posed by great power competitors like China and Russia.
  2. America’s longstanding military advantage has declined significantly, particularly against China.
  3. The U.S. can no longer afford to maintain its expansive military commitments globally.
  4. Effective defense strategy must prioritize and make tough choices, focusing on real threats and capabilities.
  5. The National Defense Strategy of 2018 marked a shift towards recognizing long-term strategic competitions with China and Russia.
  6. A change in defense strategy is crucial to meet the challenges of a world where the U.S. no longer enjoys uncontested military superiority.
  7. Great power competition requires the U.S. to define its core interests and make strategic compromises.
  8. The U.S. must adapt to the reality of other great powers imposing limits on American military goals.
  9. America’s defense strategy should focus on denying military dominance to China, not on maintaining global dominance.
  10. Future warfare might involve defending the U.S. homeland against conventional attacks from great powers.
  11. The U.S. military needs to prepare for conflicts where its traditional assumptions about warfare are no longer valid.
  12. A new American way of war should focus on defensive strategies rather than offensive ones.
  13. The U.S. must rethink how its military operates, moving away from large, expensive platforms to networks of smaller, cheaper systems.
  14. Allies play a crucial role in balancing power against China; the U.S. needs to encourage allies to contribute more to collective defense.
  15. The U.S. defense strategy must prioritize conserving strategic resources, such as military power, money, and international goodwill.
  16. The U.S. should focus on building a military capable of countering Chinese advancements, rather than projecting power globally.
  17. The defense strategy must evolve to manage the increasing gray zone conflicts, such as cyber and information warfare.
  18. The U.S. must prepare for a future where conflicts involve advanced technologies like hypersonic weapons and intelligent machines.
  19. American defense strategy should prioritize denying military dominance to adversaries over achieving global military dominance.
  20. The U.S. needs to adapt quickly to changing global realities, focusing on essential defense priorities and efficient resource allocation.

Facts

  1. John McCain and Christian Brose advocated for a focus on China in U.S. defense strategy.
  2. The National Defense Strategy of 2018 prioritizes strategic competition with China and Russia.
  3. U.S. military dominance has declined, particularly against China.
  4. Great power competition requires the U.S. to redefine its military goals.
  5. Future conflicts may involve defending the U.S. homeland against conventional attacks.
  6. A new American way of war should focus on defensive objectives.
  7. The U.S. military needs to adapt to changing warfare dynamics, including advanced technologies.
  8. Allies are crucial for balancing power against China.
  9. The U.S. defense strategy must prioritize resource conservation.
  10. The U.S. needs to adapt quickly to maintain effective national defense in changing global conditions.

Recommendations

  1. Realign U.S. national defense priorities to focus on great power competition, particularly with China and Russia.

  2. Redefine America’s military goals to adapt to a world without uncontested U.S. military dominance.

  3. Prioritize development of a National Defense Strategy that addresses current and emerging threats.

  4. Focus on denying military dominance to China, rather than maintaining global military dominance.

  5. Prepare for homeland defense against conventional attacks in future great power conflicts.

  6. Shift U.S. military strategy towards defensive objectives, emphasizing cost-effective and adaptable capabilities.

  7. Encourage greater contributions and capabilities from allies in collective defense efforts.

  8. Conserve strategic resources like military power and funding by prioritizing essential defense objectives.

  9. Adapt to technological advancements and new forms of warfare, including cyber and information conflicts.

  10. Accelerate strategic and operational adaptations to maintain effective defense in the face of global power shifts.

Bureaucracy Does Its Thing

Chapter 11 delves into the complexities and inefficiencies of the U.S. defense bureaucracy. It illustrates how entrenched interests and bureaucratic processes often hinder significant changes in America’s military, using the example of the USS Harry Truman’s planned retirement. Brose criticizes the defense budget process for its slow, tedious nature and its preference for present needs over future capabilities, highlighting the challenges in adapting U.S. military strategies and technologies to changing global realities.

Ideas

  1. The U.S. defense bureaucracy is resistant to change, often prioritizing present needs over future capabilities.
  2. Attempts to make significant changes, like retiring the USS Harry Truman, face strong opposition from various stakeholders.
  3. The defense budget process is slow and cumbersome, characterized by messy compromises and a focus on current programs.
  4. The system overwhelmingly favors maintaining legacy systems, hindering investment in future technologies.
  5. The annual defense budget process, involving numerous stakeholders, dictates how the U.S. allocates its defense spending.
  6. The Pentagon’s risk-averse acquisition system is not optimized for rapid technology development.
  7. The defense industry’s consolidation has limited competition and innovation.
  8. There’s a disconnection between the national security and technology communities.
  9. Brose argues that the bureaucracy’s structure and incentives are misaligned, focusing on immediate concerns over long-term needs.
  10. The budget process is influenced by entrenched interests that resist embracing emerging technologies and innovative approaches.
  11. Political and bureaucratic processes impede the military’s ability to adapt quickly to new challenges.
  12. The defense budget process often results in spending on legacy systems at the expense of future capabilities.
  13. The Pentagon’s budgeting and planning processes are hindered by a lack of flexibility and responsiveness to new developments.
  14. Congressional restrictions on defense spending limit the military’s ability to reallocate funds for emerging technologies.
  15. The power structure within the Department of Defense often prevents significant changes and favors existing programs.
  16. Brose critiques the lack of imagination and leadership in addressing the challenges of strategic competition with China.
  17. The bureaucratic processes are criticized for hindering the U.S. military’s effectiveness and adaptability.
  18. Brose emphasizes the need for a defense acquisition system that prioritizes rapid technology development and innovation.
  19. The Department of Defense’s focus on immediate challenges leaves little room for planning and investing in the future.
  20. The complex and slow-moving bureaucracy of the U.S. defense establishment is portrayed as a significant impediment to meaningful change.

Facts

  1. The defense budget process is cumbersome and slow, focusing on current programs and legacy systems.
  2. Attempts to retire the USS Harry Truman faced strong opposition from Congress and stakeholders.
  3. The U.S. defense budget process involves numerous stakeholders, including defense industry, veterans organizations, and unions.
  4. The Pentagon’s acquisition system is criticized for being risk-averse and not conducive to rapid technology development.
  5. The defense industry in the U.S. has become increasingly consolidated.
  6. The Pentagon’s budgeting and planning processes lack flexibility and responsiveness to new technologies.
  7. Congressional restrictions on defense spending limit the Pentagon’s ability to reallocate funds.
  8. The Department of Defense’s structure often prevents significant changes and favors existing programs.
  9. The U.S. military’s future ability to defend the nation is hampered by the current bureaucratic processes.
  10. The defense budget process often results in spending on legacy systems at the expense of future capabilities.

Recommendations

  1. Streamline the defense budget process to be more responsive and flexible towards emerging technologies and future capabilities.

  2. Encourage innovation and competition within the defense industry by reducing the consolidation of major defense contractors.

  3. Reform the Pentagon’s acquisition system to prioritize rapid technology development and innovation.

  4. Align the Department of Defense’s structure and incentives to focus more on future needs and capabilities.

  5. Increase transparency and accountability in the defense budget process to mitigate the influence of entrenched interests.

  6. Foster collaboration between the national security and technology communities to bridge the gap in understanding and application.

  7. Reallocate defense spending to prioritize investments in future capabilities and technologies over legacy systems.

  8. Develop a defense acquisition system that is adaptable and responsive to new challenges and technological advancements.

  9. Encourage leadership within the Department of Defense to make bold decisions and embrace risk for the sake of innovation.

  10. Address the bureaucratic challenges in the U.S. defense establishment to improve the military’s effectiveness and adaptability.

How the Future Can Win

Chapter 12 discusses the challenges and solutions for modernizing the U.S. military. It highlights the JSTARS program revision, emphasizing the need for agility, technological integration, and political strategy in defense. The chapter underlines the importance of adapting to new warfare technologies and the difficulties posed by entrenched interests and bureaucratic inertia.

Ideas

  1. Military modernization requires political strategy and technological agility.
  2. JSTARS program’s revision exemplifies the need for adaptable military systems.
  3. The U.S. military’s reliance on outdated platforms hampers its effectiveness.
  4. Technological advancements in warfare demand a shift from traditional methods.
  5. The inertia of the military-industrial complex impedes necessary changes.
  6. Political and economic interests often obstruct defense modernization.
  7. Disaggregating military capabilities enhances resilience and adaptability.
  8. A ‘military internet of things’ is pivotal for future warfare efficiency.
  9. The importance of understanding and adapting to the geopolitical landscape.
  10. Effective lobbying and political maneuvering are crucial for defense reforms.
  11. Encouraging competition within the defense industry can foster innovation.
  12. The role of private sector and startups in defense technology development.
  13. Overcoming bureaucratic and cultural obstacles is key to military advancement.
  14. The potential of AI and autonomous systems in redefining military capabilities.
  15. The importance of clear, operationally relevant problem definitions for military strategy.
  16. Restructuring incentives in defense spending to prioritize efficiency and innovation.
  17. Navigating the transition from legacy systems to modern capabilities.
  18. The need for senior defense leadership to drive and own the change process.
  19. Leveraging congressional support and policy-making for defense initiatives.
  20. The critical role of transparency and accountability in defense spending and reforms.

Facts

  1. The JSTARS program was revised to adapt to modern warfare requirements.
  2. Traditional military platforms are becoming increasingly obsolete.
  3. Political and economic interests often hinder military modernization efforts.
  4. Emerging technologies like AI and robotics are reshaping military capabilities.
  5. Bureaucratic inertia poses significant challenges to defense reforms.
  6. Private sector involvement is crucial in developing advanced military technologies.
  7. Clear and specific problem definitions are essential for effective military strategy.
  8. Transitioning from legacy systems requires strategic planning and execution.
  9. The defense industry is moving towards more integrated and resilient systems.
  10. Congressional support and policy-making play a crucial role in defense initiatives.
  11. The defense industry’s competitiveness fosters innovation and efficiency.
  12. Transparency and accountability are vital in defense spending and reforms.
  13. The U.S. military faces

cultural challenges in adapting to new technologies. 14. Senior leadership is key in driving and implementing defense reforms. 15. Incentives in defense spending impact the development of new capabilities.

Recommendations

  1. Prioritize technological agility and adaptability in military systems.
  2. Focus on integrating modern technologies into military strategies.
  3. Overcome bureaucratic and cultural barriers in the defense sector.
  4. Foster innovation and competition within the defense industry.
  5. Collaborate with the private sector for advanced military technology development.
  6. Ensure transparency and accountability in defense spending and reforms.
  7. Develop clear and specific operational problem definitions for military strategy.
  8. Strategically plan the transition from legacy to modern military systems.
  9. Leverage congressional support for defense initiatives and reforms.
  10. Restructure incentives in defense spending to prioritize efficiency and innovation.

Conclusion

In the conclusion, the author reflects on personal experiences with John McCain and the state of U.S. national defense. Brose expresses frustration over political divisiveness and bureaucratic inertia hindering defense reforms. He emphasizes the need for imaginative solutions to modernize America’s defense strategy in the face of growing challenges, particularly from technological advancements and geopolitical shifts.

Ideas

  1. The importance of imaginative thinking in addressing national defense challenges.
  2. Reflections on personal experiences with John McCain highlight the need for leadership in defense.
  3. The impact of political divisiveness on America’s ability to adapt to new defense realities.
  4. The role of bureaucracy in stifling necessary defense reforms.
  5. Recognition of the U.S.’s strategic advantages, like technology and dedicated personnel.
  6. The challenge of shifting from a traditional defense mindset to a more modern approach.
  7. The potential of new technologies to transform national defense.
  8. The necessity of overcoming internal political and bureaucratic barriers for effective change.
  9. Acknowledgment of the urgency and magnitude of the national defense crisis.
  10. The danger of complacency and resistance to change in the defense sector.
  11. The impact of America’s historical dominance on its current defense posture.
  12. The need for proactive change to maintain national security and global standing.
  13. The risks associated with America’s failure to adapt to the changing nature of warfare.
  14. The critical need for a collective, serious approach to national defense issues.
  15. The potential consequences of continued inaction and lack of serious reform in defense.

Facts

  1. Political divisiveness is a significant obstacle to U.S. defense modernization.
  2. The U.S. faces a national defense crisis due to a lack of serious reform efforts.
  3. Bureaucratic inertia is a major challenge in implementing defense strategies.
  4. Technological advancements are rapidly transforming the landscape of national defense.
  5. America’s historical position of dominance affects its current defense strategies.
  6. The U.S. risks losing its global standing due to a failure to adapt to new defense realities.
  7. Emerging threats and technologies necessitate a reimagining of national defense.
  8. Internal political and bureaucratic struggles hinder effective defense changes.
  9. The potential consequences of inaction in defense are significant and far-reaching.
  10. The U.S. possesses strategic advantages like advanced technology and dedicated personnel.

Recommendations

  1. Foster imaginative and forward-thinking approaches in national defense strategy.
  2. Address political divisiveness to enable effective defense reforms.
  3. Overcome bureaucratic inertia for successful implementation of new strategies.
  4. Embrace technological advancements to transform defense capabilities.
  5. Recognize and adapt to the changing nature of global threats and warfare.
  6. Encourage leadership that drives proactive and effective defense reforms.
  7. Prioritize long-term strategic planning in national defense.
  8. Promote collaboration and innovation within the defense sector.
  9. Ensure accountability and transparency in defense decision-making processes.
  10. Urgently address the need for defense reforms in the face of global shifts.