27 décembre 2023 | International, Sécurité
What’s old is new again: How to boost NATO’s air defenses in Europe
Opinion: Early European investments to expand industrial capacity for air defense systems are already benefiting Ukraine.
20 mai 2020 | International, Aérospatial, Naval, Terrestre, C4ISR, Sécurité
By BRADLEY BOWMANon May 20, 2020 at 4:01 AM
Even as many Americans huddle in their homes to avoid the coronavirus, our adversaries have continued to use military power to test and undermine the United States. Since the crisis began, Moscow has sent bombers to probe American air defenses near Alaska. China escalated its belligerent activity in the South China Sea. Iran has harassed U.S. naval vessels in international waters. North Korea launched a barrage of missiles. Hackers have pummeled defense networks and suppliers with cyberattacks. All the while, terrorists have continued attacking U.S. and partner forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Authoritarians and terrorists apparently did not get the memo that they were supposed to play nice during the pandemic. They clearly still believe they can advance their interests and undermine ours with the employment of cyber and kinetic military power.
Despite this, opponents of defense spending may cite the economic consequences of COVID-19 — huge deficits and ballooning national debt— in an effort to slash the Department of Defense's budget. If they succeed, American military supremacy will erode further, inviting aggression from adversaries and decisively undermining American security.
To be clear, the United States did not find itself in this tenuous position overnight. America's military edge has been eroding for years. For many years after 9/11, Washington repeatedly failed to provide the Pentagon with the timely, predictable and sufficient funding necessary to maintain current readiness and modernize its forces.
When confronted with this difficult choice, defense leaders were often forced to postpone vital weapon modernization research and development programs to resource and support the next units to deploy.
Meanwhile, Beijing and Moscow studied how the United States fights wars and undertook comprehensive efforts to modernize their weapons and revamp their operational concepts.
So, by 2018, the military balance of power had shifted so significantly that the National Defense Strategy (NDS) Commission — a group of bipartisan national security experts not prone to hyperbole — sounded the alarm. “The security and wellbeing of the United States are at greater risk than at any time in decades,” they warned. “America's military superiority—the hard-power backbone of its global influence and national security—has eroded to a dangerous degree.”
Thankfully, the U.S. has now emerged from what the 2018 National Defense Strategy called a “period of strategic atrophy” and taken concerted action. With increased defense funding in the last few years and a focus on great power competition, the Department of Defense is undertaking the most significant U.S. military modernization effort in decades.
In order to win the intense military technology competition with Beijing and others, the Pentagon is focusing its research and development on artificial intelligence, biotechnology, autonomy, cyber, directed energy, hypersonics, space and 5G. Simultaneously, the Pentagon and combatant commands are working to develop a new joint concept to employ these new weapons.
Despite these positive efforts, U.S. military supremacy has continued to erode.
Consider Indo-Pacific Command's report submitted in March warning that the military balance of power with China continues to become “more unfavorable.” The United States, it said, is accumulating “additional risk that may embolden our adversaries to attempt to unilaterally change the status quo before the U.S. could muster an effective response.”
This is because America has not yet deployed most of the weapons and capabilities it has been developing and is still crafting its new joint warfighting concept. To be sure, each of the U.S. military services are sprinting to field key systems, weapons, and capabilities in the next few years. But the Chinese Communist Party and its People's Liberation Army are sprinting too, and there is no time to waste.
The bipartisan experts on the NDS Commission recommended that “Congress increase the base defense budget at an average rate of three to five percent above inflation” in the coming years. If Congress ignores its own commission and slashes defense spending, U.S. military supremacy will continue to erode and could eventually disappear.
The far left and libertarians often respond to such arguments by emphasizing the size of the U.S. defense budget. What they fail to mention is that U.S. defense spending, measured either as a percentage of gross domestic product or a percentage of federal outlays, is near post-World War II lows.
That doesn't mean assertive congressional oversight is not needed; there is certainly room for improvement at the Pentagon. Indeed, defense leaders must continue to ruthlessly establish priorities, eliminate waste, and implement efficiencies—while credibly demonstrating tangible stewardship to Congress and taxpayers.
One should not dismiss the severe economic impacts of the coronavirus. The Congressional Budget Office has highlighted the potentially dire consequences for the federal deficit and debt. But Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security's mandatory spending — not discretionary defense spending — is the primary driver, by far, of fiscal unsustainability.
If the American people and their representatives in Congress provide the Department of Defense sufficient resources over the next few years, the U.S. military will be able to complete and field vital modernization programs. This will ensure U.S. troops have what they need and will enable the United States to re-assert the military superiority that has been so beneficial to peace, prosperity, and security.
The coronavirus has certainly demonstrated the need for better domestic health security programs and has delivered a body blow to the U.S. economy. But if political leaders respond by slashing the Department of Defense's budget, Washington risks making American military superiority yet another casualty of the coronavirus.
Bradley Bowman, former advisor to Sens. Todd Young and Kelly Ayotte, is senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/dont-let-the-covid-deficit-hurt-defense-spending
 
					27 décembre 2023 | International, Sécurité
Opinion: Early European investments to expand industrial capacity for air defense systems are already benefiting Ukraine.
 
					21 novembre 2018 | International, C4ISR
By: Kelsey D. Atherton In just two words, the phrase “artificial intelligence” captures a deep techno-utopian promise, the notion that through craftsmanship humans can create learning and thinking machines outside the processes of organic life. AI is typically the realm of technologists and science fiction writers. Now it is also in the world of export controls prohibitions and restrictions on technologies as overseen by the Department of Commerce. In a proposed rule announced Nov. 19, the Bureau of Industry and Security wants to set out guidelines establishing “criteria for identifying emerging technologies that are essential to U.S. national security.” The stated goals of such controls are tied to both security and protectionism for existing American industry, especially the science, technology, engineering and manufacturing sectors. The proposed rules encompass 14 technologies, covering brain-computer interfaces to advanced surveillance technology. Nestled in that list of technologies is “artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning technology,” which is further broken into 11 related tools. Here is a list of all the kinds of AI that the new rules seek to put under Commerce export controls: Neural networks and deep learning (e.g., brain modelling, time series prediction, classification) Evolution and genetic computation (e.g., genetic algorithms, genetic programming) Reinforcement learning Computer vision (e.g., object recognition, image understanding) Expert systems (e.g., decision support systems, teaching systems) Speech and audio processing (e.g., speech recognition and production) Natural language processing ( e.g., machine translation) Planning (e.g., scheduling, game playing) Audio and video manipulation technologies (e.g., voice cloning, deepfakes) AI cloud technologies AI chipsets Several of these are as much mathematical concepts, or processes, as they are distinct, controllable technologies. Others, like AI cloud technologies, suggest always-online servers, which by the very nature of the internet, are difficult to control within borders. Tackling an entire technological field, especially one with as low a barrier to entry as coding, is a tricky proposition, even in the instances where the technology is clearly defined. Why might the White House go through all this trouble? “These revisions could compose an important element of a strategy of targeted countermeasures against the near-term threat posed by China's tactics for tech transfer and the long-term challenge of China's emergence as a powerhouse in innovation,” said Elsa B. Kania, adjunct fellow at the Center for New American Security. “However, the revision of this traditional mechanism for today's challenges is inherently challenging, particularly when development is driven by commercial technologies.” Unlike, say, controlling the components and designs of missiles in the Cold War, many of the technologies covered under these proposed rules have both commercial and military applications. We need not look abroad to find this. Project Maven, the tool Google created to process images collected from drones, was built on top of an open-source library. Identifying objects in images is hardly a military-specific task. Should companies within the United States be restricted in how they create, sell and share those same tools with researchers and commercial companies outside American borders? “China's national strategy of military-civil fusion, which seeks to create and leverage synergies among defense, academic, and commercial technological developments in dual-use technologies, increases the ambiguity and uncertainty of tech transfer and collaboration,” Kania said. “That is, the boundaries between defense and commercial technologies can become quite blurred as a result of the nature of these technologies and the Chinese government's strategy for their integrated development.” Putting in place controls to hinder the free flow of AI between American companies and businesses abroad may mitigate that risk somewhat, but countries set on acquiring the tools can pursue research by other means, including technology transfers, espionage, theft through hacking, or even straightforward investment and acquisition. Staying ahead in artificial intelligence likely cannot be done through commerce restrictions alone. “The U.S. must recognize that such controls may slow and hinder China's advances in these emerging technologies, but China's emergence as a powerhouse and would-be superpower in such emerging technologies will remain a critical long-term challenge,” Kania said. “We must not only pursue such defensive countermeasures, but also undertake a more offensive approach to ensuring future American competitiveness through investing in our own innovation ecosystem.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/it-networks/2018/11/20/to-maintain-tech-edge-us-seeks-export-controls-on-ai
 
					13 septembre 2023 | International, C4ISR
“Both sides are doing the cat-and-mouse game very, very well,” said Col. Josh Koslov, the commander of the 350th Spectrum Warfare Wing.