Since World War II there have been many advances in military
weaponry, communications and technology. In early May 1942, naval forces
from Imperial Japan and the allied forces of Australia and the United
States fought in the Battle of the Coral Sea. That engagement was the
first battle in which naval ships did not shoot upon or even see the
opposing force. Aircraft carriers directly engaged one another using
aircraft, with their long-distance reach, as their sole offensive
weaponry. This new type of warfare, the carrier versus carrier, was an
inevitable escalation of the air, radio and radar technology of the day.
It was viewed as a revolution in military affairs.
There is a tendency within military circles to call a particular advancement in technology a “revolution.” That was the case when former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld trumpeted technological advances as enabling the United States to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq without significant numbers of troops. More often than not, an advancement in technology ends up only incrementally changing how war is fought.
But there have been true revolutions in military affairs since the Battle of the Coral Sea, including the development of nuclear and space weapons. And now there is much discussion over two recent advancements in United States military capabilities: cyberwarfare and drones.
We believe the next few decades will be dominated by advancements in software and hardware (cyber and robotics, including drones) just as the last decade was dominated by counterinsurgency. We also believe that historians will look back and see advancements in cyberwarfare and robotics as the first two revolutions in military affairs of the 21st century.
While we were deployed overseas, we saw firsthand the impact of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, in a counterinsurgency fight. Drones enabled headquarters to break through the fog of war swiftly, giving commanders greater command and control over the battlefield. At the same time, our ability to undermine the enemy’s communications network was important in the counterinsurgency fight. Often this involved using basic jammers to disrupt insurgents’ abilities to trigger improvised explosive devices using cellphones. While on the lower end of the technological spectrum, those jammers saved lives.
Just as aircraft carriers allowed naval battles to extend their strike distance to the point of aircraft versus aircraft warfare, drones are increasing the strike distance of the military. Nanorobots will further increase the ability to deal precise damage. Drones are often the preferred choice of policymakers because they place no American lives at risk.
Cybertechnology also extends the reach of the military, with the Stuxnet attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons program serving as a prime example. Thanks to the Internet, cyberwarriors can reach immediately not only into the Web-connected world, but also into computers without direct Internet access – all without putting Americans in harm’s way.
But these advances will require policymakers to rethink the economic, political and moral calculus for when and how to deploy robots, or when to commence a cyberattack. Not only do the advanced technologies eliminate the problems with having troops die on foreign soil, but they also greatly decrease the cost of weapons. Weaponized drones are far less expensive than manned jets. Drone costs will continue to fall and their capabilities will continue to increase as robotics technology advances. Why buy the costly F-35 fighter jet when the military can instead buy a fleet of weaponized drones?
Moreover, many people believe that all robots are airborne weapons. But they have long been used by explosive ordnance soldiers when defusing bombs. As robotic technology advances, the Terminator movies might seem less like science fiction.
In the cyberrealm, the big costs – the satellites and fiber cables – have already been paid for. With that infrastructure in place, a few thousand lines of code can now be an effective weapon to inflict disarray and damage. But that also means that securing the network is more important than ever, underscored by the publishing of classified military and diplomatic documents by WikiLeaks and the more recent leaks of National Security Agency records by Edward J. Snowden.
Decreasing costs can be a double-edged sword. Just as I.E.D.s became the highly effective yet inexpensive weapons of choice for insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, robots and cyber technology could be the same for adversaries seeking to attack the United States. As costs have declined, these dual-purpose technologies have already become widely available to both state governments and nonstate actors.
This new type of warfare will make it harder to identify the source of an attack using either unmanned vehicles (land, air or sea) or cyber technology. Yet after the intelligence failures in Iraq, it will perhaps be more important than ever for the government to be able to assure its citizens that its intelligence is accurate about the identity of an attacker.
Yet as rapidly as this technology is developing, Americans are just beginning to think hard about the policy implications. Many Americans have begun expressing concerns regarding domestic drone use at home and the potential for lasting foreign policy damage caused by the drone war in Pakistan. And the recent leaks about NSA surveillance programs and the debate over the proposed Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, which would make it easier for tech companies to share information about computer security threats with government agencies, seem to have kindled concerns among many Americans that their own privacy is at stake.
These new kinds of warfare seem likely to further empower the executive branch at a time when our nation no longer declares war, potentially making the War Powers Act seem even less constraining and thus more outdated. Ultimately, it seems possible that these major changes will make it easier to wage war because the risks to American servicemen have been minimized. Wars will be fought not only by soldiers with boots on the ground but also by soldiers sitting in front of computer and video monitors. Tomorrow’s future warriors could very much resemble today’s civilian Xbox video gamers.
We are glad to see that the U.S. government is now taking an active role in developing those future warriors with cyber competitions. This is a tactic long used by other countries, like China. However we are concerned about how the government expects to field a large cyber force quickly. Although efforts are underway to train new security and cyber professionals, there is currently an inadequate number of leaders and experienced engineers to expand this force. The government will either have to develop its own experienced officers, or continue to use private contractors – like Mr. Snowden, who worked for one of the N.S.A.’s principal contractors, Booz Allen Hamilton. And filling the ranks will be difficult, too: there is intense competition for experienced engineers in both the cyber and robotics industries.
The future will require a nimble military that will be able to wage full spectrum warfare from counterinsurgency in remote outposts in Afghanistan’s tribal regions to a cyberwarfare campaign possibly initiated in the basement of a state or nonstate actor. Like other major technological changes facing society today, the problem will not be whether or not technology can accomplish a certain feat but whether our nation’s leaders fully understand the moral, social and political consequences of utilizing such technologies.
There is a tendency within military circles to call a particular advancement in technology a “revolution.” That was the case when former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld trumpeted technological advances as enabling the United States to wage war in Afghanistan and Iraq without significant numbers of troops. More often than not, an advancement in technology ends up only incrementally changing how war is fought.
But there have been true revolutions in military affairs since the Battle of the Coral Sea, including the development of nuclear and space weapons. And now there is much discussion over two recent advancements in United States military capabilities: cyberwarfare and drones.
We believe the next few decades will be dominated by advancements in software and hardware (cyber and robotics, including drones) just as the last decade was dominated by counterinsurgency. We also believe that historians will look back and see advancements in cyberwarfare and robotics as the first two revolutions in military affairs of the 21st century.
While we were deployed overseas, we saw firsthand the impact of unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, in a counterinsurgency fight. Drones enabled headquarters to break through the fog of war swiftly, giving commanders greater command and control over the battlefield. At the same time, our ability to undermine the enemy’s communications network was important in the counterinsurgency fight. Often this involved using basic jammers to disrupt insurgents’ abilities to trigger improvised explosive devices using cellphones. While on the lower end of the technological spectrum, those jammers saved lives.
Just as aircraft carriers allowed naval battles to extend their strike distance to the point of aircraft versus aircraft warfare, drones are increasing the strike distance of the military. Nanorobots will further increase the ability to deal precise damage. Drones are often the preferred choice of policymakers because they place no American lives at risk.
Cybertechnology also extends the reach of the military, with the Stuxnet attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons program serving as a prime example. Thanks to the Internet, cyberwarriors can reach immediately not only into the Web-connected world, but also into computers without direct Internet access – all without putting Americans in harm’s way.
But these advances will require policymakers to rethink the economic, political and moral calculus for when and how to deploy robots, or when to commence a cyberattack. Not only do the advanced technologies eliminate the problems with having troops die on foreign soil, but they also greatly decrease the cost of weapons. Weaponized drones are far less expensive than manned jets. Drone costs will continue to fall and their capabilities will continue to increase as robotics technology advances. Why buy the costly F-35 fighter jet when the military can instead buy a fleet of weaponized drones?
Moreover, many people believe that all robots are airborne weapons. But they have long been used by explosive ordnance soldiers when defusing bombs. As robotic technology advances, the Terminator movies might seem less like science fiction.
In the cyberrealm, the big costs – the satellites and fiber cables – have already been paid for. With that infrastructure in place, a few thousand lines of code can now be an effective weapon to inflict disarray and damage. But that also means that securing the network is more important than ever, underscored by the publishing of classified military and diplomatic documents by WikiLeaks and the more recent leaks of National Security Agency records by Edward J. Snowden.
Decreasing costs can be a double-edged sword. Just as I.E.D.s became the highly effective yet inexpensive weapons of choice for insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, robots and cyber technology could be the same for adversaries seeking to attack the United States. As costs have declined, these dual-purpose technologies have already become widely available to both state governments and nonstate actors.
This new type of warfare will make it harder to identify the source of an attack using either unmanned vehicles (land, air or sea) or cyber technology. Yet after the intelligence failures in Iraq, it will perhaps be more important than ever for the government to be able to assure its citizens that its intelligence is accurate about the identity of an attacker.
Yet as rapidly as this technology is developing, Americans are just beginning to think hard about the policy implications. Many Americans have begun expressing concerns regarding domestic drone use at home and the potential for lasting foreign policy damage caused by the drone war in Pakistan. And the recent leaks about NSA surveillance programs and the debate over the proposed Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, which would make it easier for tech companies to share information about computer security threats with government agencies, seem to have kindled concerns among many Americans that their own privacy is at stake.
These new kinds of warfare seem likely to further empower the executive branch at a time when our nation no longer declares war, potentially making the War Powers Act seem even less constraining and thus more outdated. Ultimately, it seems possible that these major changes will make it easier to wage war because the risks to American servicemen have been minimized. Wars will be fought not only by soldiers with boots on the ground but also by soldiers sitting in front of computer and video monitors. Tomorrow’s future warriors could very much resemble today’s civilian Xbox video gamers.
We are glad to see that the U.S. government is now taking an active role in developing those future warriors with cyber competitions. This is a tactic long used by other countries, like China. However we are concerned about how the government expects to field a large cyber force quickly. Although efforts are underway to train new security and cyber professionals, there is currently an inadequate number of leaders and experienced engineers to expand this force. The government will either have to develop its own experienced officers, or continue to use private contractors – like Mr. Snowden, who worked for one of the N.S.A.’s principal contractors, Booz Allen Hamilton. And filling the ranks will be difficult, too: there is intense competition for experienced engineers in both the cyber and robotics industries.
The future will require a nimble military that will be able to wage full spectrum warfare from counterinsurgency in remote outposts in Afghanistan’s tribal regions to a cyberwarfare campaign possibly initiated in the basement of a state or nonstate actor. Like other major technological changes facing society today, the problem will not be whether or not technology can accomplish a certain feat but whether our nation’s leaders fully understand the moral, social and political consequences of utilizing such technologies.
No comments:
Post a Comment