April 18, 2026

Military

The Final Frontier of Combat Operations: The Escalating Militarization of Space

The Final Frontier of Combat Operations: The Escalating Militarization of Space

Michael Cessna August 23, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Beginnings

As humanity’s presence in space grows, so too does the potential for conflict. The militarization of space – “space war”, if one prefers – was once the realm of science fiction, but is rapidly becoming a reality that promises to reshape global security dynamics in the 21st century.

The concept of space as a military domain is not new. Since the launch of Sputnik in 1957, nations have recognized the strategic importance of space. Early military applications focused on reconnaissance and communication satellites, which have played crucial roles during the Cold War, and the wars of the 21st century. However, recent years have seen a dramatic acceleration in the development and deployment of military space capabilities.

 

Confrontation In Space

As far back as 1981, author G. Harry Stine, one of the founders of model rocketry in the United States, and a notable author of hard science and technology writings, as well as science fiction, laid down the basics of warfare in space in his book “Confrontation In Space“, defining the basic shape and dimensions of the battlespace, the most likely weapons that will be used, and outlining the early concepts of how combat in space would be waged.

There is no science fiction in this book, and no technobabble, just the hard realities of applying warfare “in the Black”, to reference a certain TV show, to the real world. Given the general nature of some of the space-war musings of the time that have since been declassified by official sources, Stine is a refreshingly sane and soberingly realistic voice.

The extent to which Stine’s work has influenced modern space battle planning is open to question; it should be a fundamental text, but given the current mission statement of the United States Space Force (USSF), that seems unlikely.

Today, the major players in space militarization are the United States, China, and Russia, with other nations like India and Japan also expanding their capabilities. These countries are investing heavily in a wide range of space-based military technologies. The United States, however, long one of the main innovators of space exploration, only established the USSF in 2019 as a separate branch of its armed forces, signaling the growing importance of space in military doctrine.

Current military space capabilities go far beyond simple reconnaissance. They include the creation and servicing of advanced communication networks (which underpins the basic operation of the internet), precision navigation systems like GPS and early warning systems to detect ballistic missile launches. However, in recent years, China, Russia, and the United States have all demonstrated anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons capabilities, raising fears about the vulnerability of critical space infrastructure, demonstrating the ability of national actors to destroy satellites at will.

 

An artist’s illustration of the Soviet-era Istrebitel Sputnikov ASAT system, c.1986. US Government image. Public Domain.

 

Technological advancements are driving this new space race. The miniaturization of satellites has made it easier and cheaper to launch large constellations of small satellites, enhancing resilience and coverage, as well as opening the potential for true “surge capacity”, to rapidly launch replacement satellites to replace combat losses. In addition to rapid reconstitution of a damaged communications network, the need to replace combat-lost GPS satellites is a key function of satellite surge capacity, because most military vehicle and targeting systems rely on GPS for navigation in addition to combat. Reusable launch vehicles, pioneered by companies like Elon Musk’s SpaceX, have dramatically reduced the cost of accessing space, which has lowered the barrier to entry for military space programs.

 

Throwing Rocks

Fundamental to actual warfare in space is the development of dedicated weapons for use in the theater. While actual weapons have been fired in space, these weapons go far beyond lasers, high-powered microwave systems, or even the darling of recent science fiction shows, the “particle accelerator“. In fact, the most lethal weapons in space will likely be rocks: “mass drivers“, essentially an electromagnetic catapult, can accelerate iron-rich space rocks (as small as pebbles) to very high velocities, far faster than conventional bullets or cannon rounds. A hit from a very high-speed projectile of any nature could be a catastrophic damage source to any spacecraft, as current launch systems severely limit the weight of spacecraft, which in turn limits the amount of armor a vessel can carry, assuming that current armor would even be effective. While still largely theoretical, such weapons could revolutionize space warfare, and require careful thought and planning to employ.

In response to these emerging threats, nations are working to develop countermeasures and defensive strategies; most of these, it much be noted, are ‘passive’ in nature, as active countermeasures are currently ill defined. The strategies currently in development include hardening satellites against attacks, improving space situational awareness to detect threats, and developing rapid launch capabilities to quickly replace damaged or destroyed satellites.

 

Bright Light Boom

There is also the possibility – perhaps “likelihood” – that someone will eventually detonate a nuclear weapon as part of an actual battle in space. The main considerations in using these weapons in space begin with exactly where they are detonated. If a large enough warhead were detonated at a suitable altitude above the surface, it could – in theory – generate an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) sufficient to overload and shutdown, if not outright destroy, any large-scale power grid. This phenomenon was first recognized in 1962 during the Starfish Prime test, when an unexpected EMP wave from the detonation knocked out power to parts of the city of Honolulu, Hawaii.

 

Photo of the Starfish Prime detonation in the skies over Honolulu, Hawaii, 1962. US Government photo. Public Domain.

 

Aside from the well-known, at least in a broad sense, radiation effects (which would likely be magnified in space, without an atmosphere to absorb them) and EMP concerns, the main damage-causing mechanism of a nuclear blast on Earth – blast effect, caused by the compression of the atmosphere by the detonation wave – would not be present, as there is no atmosphere in space that can be compressed into a destructive force.

For all that, however, work on “bomb-pumped lasers” and other exotic warhead designs such as Project Casaba-Howitzer (which used a nuclear weapon to create a shaped charge from material vaporized into plasma by the blast), largely came an end – at least publicly – at the end of the 1980’s, as it was clear that the Soviet Union was dying, and that the prospect of all-out nuclear war had rapidly begun to fade.

 

Pulse propulsion unit of project Orion vehicle, used as the basis for the Casaba-Howitzer warhead concept, 1964. NASA image. Public Domain.

 

As the possibility of actual open warfare in space continues to rear its head, it is a near-certainty that many of these old programs are being reexamined, using fresh data and better computer modeling…The possible side effects, however, remain.

 

Combat Logistics in Space Warfare

One of the most challenging aspects of space militarization is the issue of combat logistics. Unlike terrestrial warfare, where supply lines can be established and maintained relatively easily, space presents unique challenges for sustaining military operations.

The primary hurdle is the enormous energy requirement to launch materials into orbit. Every kilogram of supplies, whether fuel, ammunition, or replacement parts, comes with a very high price tag (over $2,000 per kilogram) and significant challenges to logistical load planning, in both loading and unloading at point of delivery. This makes traditional resupply methods impractical for sustained operations in-theater, as we understand the idea.

To address these issue, military planners are exploring several approaches. One concept is the development of in-orbit refueling capabilities. This would involve specialized “tanker” satellites capable of transferring fuel to other spacecraft, extending their operational lifespan and maneuverability.

 

A contour plot (not drawn to scale) of the effective potential of a two-body system, showing the 5 Lagrange points. NASA image. Public Domain.

 

Another area of focus is in-space manufacturing. Advanced 3D printing technologies – currently capable of making conventional ammunition-using select-fire weapons a factor in infantry combat – could allow for the production of spare parts or even small satellites directly in orbit, reducing the need for launches from Earth. Different avenues of research are exploring the possibility of mining asteroids or the Moon for resources, which could provide a sustainable source of materials and fuel for space-based operations.

Robotic servicing missions represent another potential tool in the box. These would involve unmanned spacecraft under direct, if remote, control, or completely autonomous systems guided by artificial intelligence, which would be capable of repairing, refueling, or upgrading other satellites or spacecraft, potentially extending their useful life and reducing the need for replacement of complete craft.

The concept of staging pre-positioned orbital depots is also being considered. These would be stockpiles of fuel, spare parts, and other critical supplies placed in strategic orbits, such as the Lagrangian points, ready to support military space operations as needed. In form, these might take the form of the old Skylab design, as – being the size of a 3-bedroom house – the design could hold a significant amount of material.

 

Artist’s concept illustration of the Skylab with the Command/Service Module docked to the Multiple Docking Adapter. 1972. NASA photo.

 

These logistical challenges and their potential solutions will play a crucial role in shaping the nature of future space warfare. The side that can most effectively sustain its space-based capabilities may gain a significant strategic advantage in any potential conflict extending into the space domain.

 

The Future

 

The future of space militarization remains uncertain, but several scenarios seem plausible. One possibility is the outbreak of a limited conflict in space, perhaps involving the destruction of key military or civilian satellites. This could have cascading effects on terrestrial military operations and civilian infrastructure.

Another scenario envisions the deployment of space-based weapons capable of striking targets on Earth. While technically challenging and currently prohibited by international treaty, such systems could offer significant strategic advantages.

A third possibility is the integration of space-based capabilities with terrestrial, air, and naval forces to create a seamless, multi-domain military force. This could enhance military effectiveness but also increase reliance on potentially vulnerable space assets.

As we look to the future, it’s clear that space will play an increasingly important role in military affairs. The challenge for the international community will be to balance the legitimate use of space for national security with the need to prevent a destabilizing arms race in orbit. Failure to do so could turn the final frontier into the next battlefield.

 

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

  1. G. Harry Stine (1981), Confrontation in Space
  2. Julian Thompson (1994), Lifeblood of War: Logistics in Armed Conflict
  3. Thomas Ricks (2012), The Generals
  4. James F. Dunnigan (2003), How To Make War, 4th Edition
  5. James F. Dunnigan (1991), Shooting Blanks

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
The Carrier Battle Group: America’s “Big Stick” Of Power Projection

The Carrier Battle Group: America’s “Big Stick” Of Power Projection

Michael Cessna August 16, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

Earlier this week, the United States accelerated the deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) and its carrier battle group to the Middle East – an operation which was already in progress to relieve the USS Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71) and its own battle group of escorting warships, who have been on station in the region for months – in response to signs that the increasingly unstable regime in Iran may attempt to significantly widen its proxy war against the state of Israel which began on October 7 of last year.

 

The Good Ol’ Days

The origin of the aircraft carrier battle group takes its origins from the world-spanning naval warfare of World War II, primarily from its operations in the Pacific Ocean. The devastating Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, on December 7th, 1941, demonstrated the power of carrier-based aviation and the vulnerability of battleships, marking a fundamental shift in naval strategy, as the Imperial Japanese Navy destroyed the United States Navy’s main battle force in the attack. The United States Navy – stripped of its battleship fleet by the sneak attack on its Hawaiian base, and whose Asiatic Fleet was functionally neutralized in the opening stages of the war by staggeringly unbelievable levels of incompetence and mismanagement – was forced to continue the fight with only three aircraft carriers, something it had never seriously considered as a possibility.

 

Photograph taken from a Japanese plane during the torpedo attack on ships moored on both sides of Ford Island shortly after the beginning of the Pearl Harbor attack. IJN photo, via the US Navy. Public Domain.

 

As the war raged on, the U.S. Navy quickly adapted, forming diverse, multi-ship task forces centered on its massive aircraft carriers. The battles of the Coral Sea and Midway in 1942 proved the effectiveness of this approach, with American carriers dealing a decisive blow to the Japanese fleet, while remaining largely protected by much smaller destroyers and destroyer-escorts, which both shot down attacking Japanese aircraft, and sometimes absorbed bombs and torpedoes meant for the carriers. As the war progressed, these carrier task forces became increasingly sophisticated, with hard-learned doctrine and techniques using destroyers primarily for anti-submarine warfare and cruisers studded with heavy automatic cannons for air defense, even at close range.

 

Bofors 40 mm anti-aircraft guns on a Mk 12 quadruple mount firing on board USS Hornet (CV-12), circa February 1945, probably during gunnery practice. Photo credit: Lt. Cmdr. Charles Kerlee, USN. Public Domain.

 

 

Into the Cold

In the post-war era, the advent of jet aircraft and guided missiles led to further refinements to both aircraft carriers themselves, but also in their organization and tactics. The introduction of the angled flight deck and steam catapults (these are now being replaced with electromagnetic catapults on the new Gerald R. Ford-class carriers) in the 1950s enhanced carrier operations, while the development of guided missile destroyers and cruisers improved the group’s air defense capabilities, at least in theory. Modern navies, however, would get a severe reality check in 1982, as the very modern British Royal Navy was badly hammered by the second-tier air force of Argentina in the savage (especially allowing for its relatively small size) Battle of San Carlos, causing a sobering reassessment by all navies of their own capabilities and tactics. (On a historical side note, the Falklands War also saw the destruction of the ARA General Belgrano, the former USS Phoenix (CL-46), a Brooklyn-class cruiser from World War 2, which had survived the Pearl Harbor attack, to be sunk by a British attack submarine some forty years later.)

 

A Standard Missile-3 is launched from the Japanese Aegis Destroyer JS Kongo (DDG 173), 2007. US Navy photo. Public Domain.

 

The Cold War saw the carrier battle group evolve into one of – if not the primary – key instruments of power projection. The nuclear-powered USS Enterprise (CVN-65), commissioned in 1961, heralded a new era of endurance for carrier operations. However, this would be tempered with the realization that while the range of the carrier itself was now measured in decades, instead of miles, it was still restricted by the ranges of its gas-turbine engined escort vessels, and the constant need for resupply of everything from food to bombs, spare parts and fuel for its aircraft wing. The development of the Aegis combat system in the 1980s (and its associated ballistic missile defense component) would significantly enhance the group’s air defense capabilities, while continuous development of anti-submarine and anti-mine technologies further protected the carrier and its escorts. These capabilities did not come without cost, however: hard lessons were learned from the attacks on the USS Stark, the USS Samuel B. Roberts, and the bombing of the USS Cole. These lessons continue to be learned, but the takeaway is that naval warfare – like all warfare – is not a video game, despite breathlessly giddy news stories to the contrary.

In the realm of anti-submarine warfare, the US Navy pioneered the modern use of armed combat drones in warfare, when it deployed the QH-50 DASH (Drone Anti-Submarine Helicopter), built by Gyrodyne, in 1959.

 

In the Persian Gulf, a port quarter view of the guided missile frigate USS STARK (FFG-31) listing to port after being hit by two Iraqi Exocet missiles, 18 May 1987. Public Domain.

 

The Dawn of the Millennium and the GWOT

The post-Cold War period has seen carrier battle groups involved in numerous conflicts, from the 1990-91 Gulf War to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. The groups have also played crucial roles in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief missions. Today’s carrier battle groups, while retaining their core structure developed over some fifty years, continue to evolve to meet new challenges. The integration of stealth aircraft, more advanced unmanned systems, and advanced, internet-based networking and cyberwar capabilities ensures that the carrier battle group will remain a fundamental cornerstone of naval power projection for the rest of the 21st Century.

Laying at the heart of the United States Navy’s global power projection capabilities, the carrier battle group (CVBG), also known as a carrier strike group (CSG) is a formidable assembly of warships and aircraft, centered around a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, representing one of the most potent concentrations of military might ever to sail the world’s oceans. Usually comprising an aircraft carrier, a single guided missile cruiser for air defense, at least two LAMPS-capable warships (focusing on anti-submarine and surface warfare), and one or two anti-submarine destroyers or frigates, such battle groups frequently deploy more combat power than that possessed by most individual nations in the world.

The cornerstone of any carrier battle group is the aircraft carrier itself. As of 2024, the US Navy operates eleven nuclear-powered carriers, primarily of the Nimitz class, with the newer Gerald R. Ford class gradually being introduced into service. These floating airfields, crewed by between 4,000 and 5,000 sailors, displace approximately 100,000 tons and can carry an air wing of 60-75 aircraft.

The air wing of a 21st Century US aircraft carrier typically consists of:

  1. F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets: Multirole fighters capable of air superiority and strike missions.
  2. EA-18G Growlers: Electronic warfare aircraft for jamming enemy radar and communications.
  3. E-2D Hawkeyes: Airborne early warning and control aircraft.
  4. MH-60R/S Seahawk helicopters: For anti-submarine warfare, search and rescue, and utility missions.
  5. F-35C Lightning II: The Navy’s newest stealth multirole fighter, gradually being integrated into carrier air wings.

 

E-2D Advanced Hawkeye aircraft conduct a test flight near St. Augustine, FL, 2009. US Navy photo. Public Domain.

 

Surrounding the carrier are several Aegis-equipped guided missile cruisers and destroyers. These ships form a protective screen around the carrier and provide a wide range of capabilities:

  1. Ticonderoga class cruisers: Usually one or two per battle group, these ships specialize in air defense but are also capable of land attack and anti-ship warfare.
  2. Arleigh Burke class destroyers: Typically three to four per group, these versatile warships can perform anti-air, anti-surface, and anti-submarine warfare missions.

 

Both classes of ships are equipped with the Aegis combat system, which integrates powerful radars with various close-in and long-range weapon systems, allowing for sophisticated air and missile defense capabilities.

Although not always visible, one or two nuclear-powered attack submarines often operate in conjunction with a carrier battle group. These could be Los Angeles-, Virginia-, or Seawolf-class nuclear-powered submarines. Their primary roles include:

  1. Gathering intelligence
  2. Providing an unseen protective screen against enemy submarines
  3. Potential land-attack capabilities with Tomahawk cruise missiles

 

A carrier battle group also includes several support ships crucial for sustained operations:

  1. Supply ships: Usually one or two fast combat support ships (T-AOE) or a combination of fleet oilers (T-AO) and dry cargo ships (T-AKE) to replenish fuel, ammunition, and supplies.
  2. Hospital ships: While not typically part of the regular battle group, these can be attached for humanitarian missions or in anticipation of major combat operations.

 

Royal Australian Navy ship HMAS Sirius (OR-266) and amphibious transport dock USS Juneau (LPD-10) conducts a replenishment at sea (RAS), 2007. US Navy photo. Public Domain.

 

An entire battle group, such as that outlined above, is under the command of a Rear Admiral (lower half), who typically serves as the Commander, Carrier Strike Group (CCSG). The CCSG and their staff coordinate the activities of all ships and aircraft in the group, ensuring they work together as a cohesive fighting unit.

A fully equipped US carrier battle group is ideally positioned to:

  1. Project power far from American shores, with the ability to strike targets hundreds of miles inland.
  2. Establish air superiority over a wide area.
  3. Conduct sustained air operations, launching over 100 sorties per day.
  4. Provide a visible deterrent to potential adversaries.
  5. Respond rapidly to crises anywhere in the world.
  6. Conduct humanitarian assistance and disaster relief operations.

 

The versatility of the carrier battle group allows it to transition quickly from peacetime presence to crisis response to full-scale war fighting. This is no more true than in its mission of supporting assault landings by combat units (MAGTF’s) of the United States Marine Corps, which remains a part of the Department of the Navy. The US Navy’s ten Amphibious Ready Groups are able to quickly insert up to 6,000 US Marines quickly, at multiple points along a hostile shoreline, ranging well inland, if necessary…as long as the naval squadron can get to the area quickly enough – hence, the acceleration of the USS Abraham Lincoln and her CVBG to the Levant.

As of 2024, the US Navy continues to adapt its carrier battle groups to meet evolving threats:

  1. Anti-ship ballistic missiles: The development of these weapons, particularly by China, has led to increased emphasis on integrated air and missile defense capabilities.
  2. Unmanned systems: The Navy continues to explore the integration of unmanned aerial, surface, and undersea vehicles to extend the reach and capabilities of the battle group.
  3. Cyber warfare: Increased focus on protecting the battle group’s networks and exploiting adversary vulnerabilities in the digital domain.
  4. Distributed lethality: Spreading offensive capabilities across more platforms in the battle group to complicate enemy targeting.

 

Conclusion

The Navy is continuously evolving the concept of the carrier battle group. Some areas of focus include:

  1. The integration of directed energy weapons for close-in defense.
  2. Development of long-range anti-ship missiles to counter peer competitors.
  3. Exploration of smaller, more numerous carriers to distribute capabilities.
  4. Enhanced networking capabilities to better integrate with joint and allied forces.

 

The US carrier battle group remains a cornerstone of American military power projection, and will continue to do so well into the 21st Century, and likely beyond. Its ability to bring a flexible, sustained, and potent military presence to any region of the world makes it a unique and invaluable strategic asset. As geopolitical tensions and technological advancements continue to shape the global security landscape, and as unrest continues to disrupt the trade vital to the modern world, the carrier battle group will continue to evolve, maintaining its role as a key instrument of US national security policy, as well as protecting the civilized world at large.

 

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

  1. Estate of Wayne P Hughes Jr. USN (Ret.) & Robert P. Girrier (2018), Fleet Tactics and Naval Operations, 3rd Ed
  2. Patrick Degan (2003), Flattop Fighting in World War II
  3. Paul S. Dull (2007), A Battle History of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1941-1945
  4. Thomas Ricks (2012), The Generals
  5. James F. Dunnigan (2003), How To Make War, 4th Edition
  6. James F. Dunnigan (1991), Shooting Blanks

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran: Fiddling In The Fire

Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran: Fiddling In The Fire

Michael Cessna August 9, 2024 0

 

 

 

The period from 2020 onward has seen a significant escalation in tensions between Israel and its regional adversaries, primarily Iran and its proxy forces, Hezbollah and Hamas, as well as the more distant Houthi’s of Yemen. This complex web of conflicts and alliances has continued to shape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, and has significantly escalated tensions, to the point of a realistic chance for a much-expanded war.

The long-standing animosity between Israel and Islamic revolutionary Iran began to intensify in the early 2020’s. Iran’s nuclear program remained a central point of contention, with Israel consistently opposing any deal that would allow Iran to continue its nuclear development; this attempt at preventing nuclear proliferation, however integral to Israel’s security as it may be, is also highly unrealistic; the assassination of top Iranian nuclear scientist Mohsen Fakhrizadeh in November 2020, widely attributed to Israel, marked a significant escalation, as this differed from the Israeli Mossad’s previous assassination of Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh in Dubai, as the killing of Fakhrizadeh happened within Iran itself.

In this context, Israel is now accused of the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’ political head, who was killed in his hotel room on July 31st, in an apparent drone attack. This, too, occurred in Iran, but in the capital of Tehran itself. While Israel is unarguably at war, following the Hamas offensive of Oct. 7, 2023, an assassination such as this – known as a “decapitation strike” in military parlance – happening in a technically-neutral country (even given the events of April of 2024), is doing Israel no favors internationally.

 

 

The Biden administration has proven itself ineffectual with its diplomatic efforts, demonstrating both weakness and incoherence, to the point of encouraging the ambition of the Iranian ruling mullahs.

The election of hardliner Ebrahim Raisi (who was killed on May 19th, 2024 in a helicopter crash while returning from neighboring Azerbaijian) as Iran’s president in 2021 further complicated diplomatic efforts. Raisi’s administration took a more confrontational stance towards both Israel and the West, leading to increased concerns about regional stability.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah – the Iran-backed militant group that has controlled Lebanon’s southeastern Bekaa Valley since the mid-1980’s, remained a significant threat to Israel’s northern border. In 2020 and 2021, there were several minor skirmishes along the Israel-Lebanon border, though both sides managed to avoid a full-scale conflict.

Israel continued to conduct airstrikes in Syria, targeting what it claimed were Iranian weapons shipments to Hezbollah. These operations aimed to prevent the group from obtaining advanced missile systems that could threaten Israeli cities.

In 2022, tensions further escalated when Israel and Lebanon engaged in U.S.-mediated negotiations over their maritime border, which involved disputed gas fields. Hezbollah threatened to attack Israeli gas installations if an agreement wasn’t reached, leading to a tense standoff that was eventually resolved through diplomacy. Now, following a rocket attack on the Israeli Druze community of Majdal Shams on 27 July that killed a number of Druze children, Israel is at the point of invading southern Lebanon to try and attrit Hezbollah’s ability to strike into Israel, much as it attempted in 2006. In this, the ineffectual Lebanese government can offer no resistance against an invasion, or even an “incursion”, and calling on Muslim countries for aid could easily trigger a new civil war in the unstable and bankrupt nation.

In the south, the situation in Gaza remained volatile, with periodic flare-ups of violence between Israel and Hamas, which has retained power in Gaza since 2006, when Hamas won Gaza’s first election – then made sure that no other elections occurred to challenge its grip on power. In May 2021, a significant escalation occurred when Hamas and other militant groups in Gaza fired thousands of rockets at Israel. Israel responded with extensive airstrikes on Gaza, resulting in a 11-day conflict that caused substantial casualties and damage. The aftermath of this short conflict saw increased international pressure for a long-term solution to the Gaza situation. However, progress remained elusive, with Hamas maintaining its control over Gaza and continuing to clash with Israeli forces, which would escalate dramatically on October 7th of 2023.

In 2022 and 2023, there were several smaller-scale exchanges of fire between Gaza militants and Israel. These incidents, while not escalating to the level of the 2021 conflict, served to maintain a state of tension and uncertainty in the region.

The ongoing civil war in Syria that began in 2011, and the unstable situation in Lebanon have provided fertile ground for proxy conflicts involving Israel, Iran, and their respective allies. Israel continued its policy of preventing Iranian entrenchment in Syria through targeted airstrikes, while Iran sought to maintain and expand its influence in the region.

The Abraham Accords, negotiated by US President Donald Trump and signed in 2020, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab states, altered the regional dynamics. This realignment put additional pressure on Iran and its allies, as Israel’s diplomatic and strategic position in the Middle East was greatly strengthened.

The conflict between these actors is increasingly playing out in the cyber domain. Both Israel and Iran have engaged in sophisticated cyber attacks against each other’s infrastructure, including attempts to disrupt nuclear facilities, water supplies, and electrical grids. For its own part, rumors persist that Israel was at least partly behind the deployment of the highly destructive STUXNET virus in 2010.

 

 

Covert operations, including assassinations and sabotage, have become more frequent – as with the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh noted above – as the conflict has evolved. These actions, carried out with only the thinnest veneer of “plausible deniability“, have served to maintain tension without triggering open warfare; that situation, however, may be coming to an end.

The United States remains heavily involved in the region – building on its rocky, 20 years “War on Terror” – by supporting Israel while also attempting to prevent a widening conflict. The Biden administration’s efforts to re-engage with Iran on the nuclear issue met with – being charitable – mixed success, complicated by regional tensions and domestic politics in both the U.S. and Iran, as well as its own failings in the disastrous end to United States adventurism in Afghanistan. The Biden-Harris administration has consistently demonstrated that it cannot make any sort of definitive decision, one way or another, on the diplomatic front.

Russia and China also play significant roles in the Levantine conflict, with Russia maintaining its presence in Syria and with China increasing its economic and diplomatic engagement with Iran. In both cases, Moscow and Beijing figuratively smell blood in the water, as they sense the weakness in NATO [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO] as a whole, but also in the United States in particular, as the Biden-Harris team continues to flounder internationally.

 

 

The ongoing conflicts and tensions have had severe humanitarian consequences, particularly in Gaza and parts of Lebanon. International organizations repeatedly called for increased access to provide aid and for all parties to respect international humanitarian law. The ongoing war in Gaza following the October 7 massacre, as well as the Houthi strikes against Red Sea shipping, has only made the situation far worse, with Israel now resolved to end the Gaza question once and for all, leading to worsening violence and rhetoric directed against them in the West, with criticism coming from all sides, driving the Israeli mindset further into an “Us Alone Against The World” outlook.

As of early 2024, the situation remained tense and unpredictable. While full-scale war has been avoided so far, the risk of escalation into a much wider war – a war with the potential to draw in larger powers is increasingly possible. The interplay between Israel, Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas continues to be a major driving factor in regional instability, with implications extending far beyond the Middle East. The international community is attempting to remain engaged, seeking ways to reduce tensions and prevent a larger conflict, but face significant challenges due to systemic internal problems facing Western nations, crushing demographic issues with Communist China, and Russia’s seemingly interminable war in Ukraine.

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
The Militarization of the Poles: Future Warfare On The Frozen Frontier

The Militarization of the Poles: Future Warfare On The Frozen Frontier

Michael Cessna August 2, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

Amid the ongoing chaos of in the world of 2024, other areas of military research and development continue apace. Despite nearly thirty years of warfare in the arid climates of the Middle east, as climate change reshapes the Arctic and Antarctic landscapes, these once-forbidding regions are being strenuously studied as new arenas for potential conflict. Polar warfare, long considered a niche aspect of military strategy, is now gaining prominence as nations vie for resources and strategic advantages in these harsh environments.

Arctic region (orthographic projection) with national borders and land highlighted. 2023. Credit: Heraldry, Isochrone. CCA/3.0.

The Arctic, in particular, has become a focal point of international interest. With an estimated 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil reserves and 30% of its undiscovered natural gas, the region is attracting attention from both Arctic and non-Arctic nations. As ice coverage over the poles recedes, new shipping routes are opening up, promising shorter transit times between Europe and Asia. These developments have spurred a renewed focus on developing and improving military capabilities suited to polar conditions.

The Antarctic Continent, 1928 map. Credit: New York Times. Public Domain.

The challenges of warfare in polar regions are numerous and unique. Extreme cold, unpredictable weather, and long periods of darkness or constant daylight create a hostile environment for both personnel and equipment. Standard military gear often fails in these conditions, necessitating specialized cold-weather equipment and extensive training for troops.

One of the primary concerns in polar warfare is cold-weather logistics. The vast, often empty expanses of the Arctic and Antarctic make supply lines long and vulnerable. Fuel consumption increases dramatically in cold weather, and equipment requires constant maintenance to prevent freezing and malfunction. These factors make theater sustainment a critical aspect of polar military operations.

Naval operations in polar regions present their own set of challenges. Ice-covered waters require specially designed ships with reinforced hulls. Icebreaker ships become crucial assets, not just for clearing paths but also for projecting power and maintaining presence in these regions. Submarines, long seen as the ideal platform for under-ice operations, are gaining renewed importance in polar strategy.

The USCG Healy (WAGB-20) breaks ice around the Russian-flagged tanker Renda 250 miles south of Nome, Alaska, Jan. 6, 2012. DoD photo by Petty Officer 1st Class Sara Francis, U.S. Coast Guard. Public Domain.

Air power in polar regions is complicated by the lack of established airfields and the effects of cold on aircraft systems. However, long-range patrol aircraft and drones are becoming increasingly important for surveillance and maintaining situational awareness over vast Arctic expanses. While the US Navy has only recently resumed carrier operations north of the Actic Circle after a near-thirty year absence, there has a been a steady, if quiet, push to improve operational capabilities for ship-based aviation going on for the last decade or so.

Ground operations in polar environments also require specialized training and equipment. Troops require specialized – and thus, very expensive – training in cold-weather survival techniques and must be able to operate vehicles and weapons in the extreme environments they will encounter. White-out conditions, crevasses, and unstable ice make movement treacherous, requiring expert navigation skills and fast reactions. These aspects of arctic warfare were brought into sharp focus during the Falklands/Malvinas War of 1982, when an attempt to insert a Special Air Service (SAS) team onto Fortuna Glacier on the island of South Georgia, went disastrously wrong, although fortunately without fatalities.

The role of technology in polar warfare cannot be overstated. Satellite communications, crucial for modern military operations, can be unreliable at extreme latitudes. GPS systems also face challenges, necessitating the development of alternative navigation methods. Advanced sensors capable of operating in harsh conditions are becoming increasingly important for detection and targeting in the polar environment.

Several nations are actively developing their polar warfare capabilities. Russia, with the world’s longest Arctic coastline, has been particularly active in militarizing its northern regions. The country has reopened Soviet-era Arctic bases and is developing new icebreakers, including nuclear-powered vessels, as well as hypersonic missiles adapted to the Arctic environment. The United States, Canada, and Nordic countries are also enhancing their Arctic capabilities, conducting regular exercises in the region.

In the Antarctic, while the Antarctic Treaty System prohibits military activity, nations maintain a presence through scientific research stations. However, the potential for future conflict cannot be ignored, particularly as the treaty comes up for potential revision in 2048. The Islamic Republic of Iran, however, is attempting to establish its own presence on the continent, claiming both “property rights” on the continent, as well as stating that the terms of the 1959 treaty system do not apply to them, as they were never signatories to that treaty. It remains to be seen what, if anything, may come of this apparent (hopefully) chest-thumping.

Remaining in the forefront of the Treaty System’s signatories is “Operation Highjump“, now remembered in popular media mostly for various conspiracy theories. In fact, the United States sent a massive force, Task Force 68, totaling some seventy ships, including the aircraft carrier USS Philippine Sea (CV-47), acting as the flagship. Whatever the actual reasons for the expedition, the ability of the United States to operate in the extremes of the Antarctic was one of the factors that ultimately lead to the establishment of the Treaty System a decade later.

A U.S. Navy personnel use a bulldozer to clear a path to facilitate transport of supplies from ships during Operation Highjump in Antarctica. Note the supply ships USS Yancey (AKA-93), right, and USS Merrick (AKA-97) in the background. US Navy photo, c.1947. Public Domain.

The geopolitical implications of increased military activity in polar regions are significant. There are concerns that the Arctic could become a new theater of great power competition, potentially destabilizing the current international order. The Arctic Council, an intergovernmental forum for Arctic nations, has so far managed to maintain cooperation on issues like search and rescue and environmental protection. However, military matters are explicitly excluded from its mandate.

Environmental concerns add another layer of complexity to polar warfare. The fragile ecosystems of the Arctic and Antarctic are particularly vulnerable to pollution and disturbance. Military activities, from exercises to potential conflicts, could have severe and long-lasting impacts on these environments.

As nations develop their polar warfare capabilities, there is a growing need for international dialogue and agreements to prevent militarization from spiraling into conflict. Transparency in military activities, joint exercises focused on common challenges like search and rescue, and agreements on resource exploitation could help maintain stability in these regions. These needs for dialog and agreement, however, will only be effective if strengthened by realistic enforcement protocols, something that has been studiously avoided since 1959.

The future of polar warfare will certainly be shaped by technological advancements: autonomous systems capable of operating in extreme conditions to reduce the risks to human personnel; advanced materials science to provide better cold-weather gear and more resilient equipment; improved satellite and communication technologies could enhance command and control capabilities in these remote regions. These form only the tip of research that can be applied to the issue at hand.

Climate change – from whatever source – will continue to play a crucial role in shaping the polar battlespace. As ice coverage decreases, new areas will become accessible for military operations. However, this also means that the environment will be in constant flux, requiring adaptable strategies and equipment.

As the polar regions become more accessible and strategically important, military planners worldwide are grappling with the unique challenges of potential conflicts in these extreme environments. The combination of harsh conditions, valuable resources, and geopolitical tensions makes the Arctic and Antarctic potential flash-points for future conflicts. As technology advances and climate change reshapes these landscapes, the nature of polar warfare will continue to evolve, presenting both challenges and opportunities for nations with interests in these regions.

War happens everywhere. You either prepare for war in any environment, or you cede that environment to whoever gets there first.

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

  1. Kathleen H. Hicks (2016), Undersea Warfare in Northern Europe
  2. Klaus Dodds and Mark Nuttall (2015), The Scramble for the Poles: The Geopolitics of the Arctic and Antarctic
  3. James Kraska, Editor (2013), Arctic Security in an Age of Climate Change
  4. Shelagh D. Grant (2010), Polar Imperative: A History of Arctic Sovereignty in North America
  5. Brian Garfield (1995), Thousand-Mile War: World War II in Alaska and the Aleutians

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To

 

 

BREAKING: US Citizens Advised To Leave Lebanon

BREAKING: US Citizens Advised To Leave Lebanon

Michael Cessna July 30, 2024 0

 

 

 

BREAKING

Beirut, Lebanon — Rena Bitter, assistant secretary for consular affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, told Americans in Lebanon to “create a crisis plan of action and leave before the crisis begins” in a video on YouTube and X on Monday, July 29, out of fear of a possible Israeli incursion into the troubled Middle Eastern country, as the ongoing war in Gaza seems to be widening, spilling further outside the fighting areas..

On Saturday, July 29, the Iranian-backed terror group Hezbollah staged a rocket attack on the Druze village of Majdal Shams, located in the disputed Golan Heights region, just south of the Lebanese border, and next to the Syrian border, killing some 12 children on a soccer field, and wounding several more. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed “severe retaliation” in response to the attack.

Lebanon’s government, long unstable and virtually bankrupt, has no effective means of controlling Hezbollah’s pseudo-state, which has dominated the southeastern Bekaa Valley region of the country since 1982. The government in Beirut has pleaded for calm, but few people on any side are listening to them.

As of Tuesday, July 30, the airlines Lufthansa, Swiss International Air Lines, Air France, and Turkish Airlines have suspended flights to Beirut, citing the escalating danger of conflict.

This is developing story, and The Freedomist will maintain a watch on this as it develops.

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
Directed-Energy Weapons (DEWs): The Future of Warfare?

Directed-Energy Weapons (DEWs): The Future of Warfare?

Michael Cessna July 26, 2024 0

 

 

 

Long a staple of science fiction, Directed-Energy Weapons (DEWs) are rapidly becoming a reality in modern warfare. These advanced weapons emit focused energy in the form of lasers, microwaves, or particle beams, promising to revolutionize military operations. While experiments with directed energy began as early as the 1930s, the term “LASER” (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) only emerged in 1960 with the invention of the first laser by American engineer and physicist Theodore Maiman.

Theodore Maiman, on the 25th anniversary of the invention of the laser, 1985. Los Angeles Reader Photo. CCA/4.0 International.

Since Maiman’s groundbreaking work, laser technology has revolutionized numerous fields. In our daily lives, lasers are ubiquitous, found in CD/DVD players, barcode scanners, fiber-optic communications, and various medical treatments. From precision measurements to advanced manufacturing processes, the impact of laser technology on modern society is difficult to overstate.

Military applications of laser technology have been equally transformative. As early as 1962, the U.S. military began developing laser-guided targeting systems. By 1967, Texas Instruments had developed the world’s first laser-guided, “smart” bomb, the BOLT-117. This innovation marked a significant shift in air warfare, moving from mass bombing raids with high casualty rates to precise, targeted strikes that minimize collateral damage. The ability to guide munitions with pinpoint accuracy has not only increased military effectiveness but also reduced civilian casualties and collateral damage in combat zones.

BOLT-117 aircraft bomb in the Hill Air Force Base Museum. Photo by Wikimedia User Wilson44691. CCA/1.0 Universal.

In the realm of surveillance and reconnaissance, LIDAR (LIght Detection And Ranging) technology, first developed in the 1960s, has proven invaluable. LIDAR can create highly detailed 3D maps, even penetrating dense vegetation to reveal hidden structures. This capability has profound implications for both military operations and civilian applications. In warfare, LIDAR allows for precise terrain mapping and the detection of camouflaged targets. In the civilian sector, it’s crucial for autonomous vehicle navigation, urban planning, and environmental monitoring.

Despite these advancements, the development of combat-ready DEWs has faced significant challenges. The U.S. Navy’s AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System, installed on the USS Ponce (LPD-15) in 2014, was the first publicly deployed DEW. Designed to counter small UAVs, missiles, and boats, it represented a milestone in DEW development. However, issues with recharge times and beam coherence led to its replacement in favor of the Lockheed-Martin HELIOS (High Energy Laser with Integrated Optical-dazzler and Surveillance) system – currently fitted to the destroyer USS Arleigh Burke (DDG-51).

The U.S. Navy’s AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System (LaWS) aboard USS Ponce (LPD-15) Laser while deployed to the Arabian Gulf in 2014. U.S. Navy photo by John F. Williams. Public Domain.

The HELIOS system represents a significant leap forward in DEW technology. With double the power output of its predecessor, it promises improved performance against a wider range of threats. The system’s integration with the Aegis Combat System on the Arleigh Burke-class destroyers demonstrates the Navy’s commitment to incorporating DEWs into its existing defense architecture.

U.S. Navy fire control team aboard operate the AN/SEQ-3 Laser Weapon System (LaWS) aboard USS Ponce (LPD-15) during an operational demonstration in the Arabian Gulf in 2014. U.S. Navy photo by John F. Williams. Public Domain.

The primary obstacles in DEW development are bulk and power requirements. While progress has been made in reducing system size, power technology lags behind. The slow recharge times of capacitors remain a significant hurdle, though ongoing research promises future improvements. Scientists and engineers are exploring various solutions, including advanced battery technologies, super-capacitors, and even compact nuclear power sources for future DEW systems.

Another challenge facing DEW development is atmospheric interference. Lasers, in particular, can be affected by moisture, dust, and other particulates in the air, potentially reducing their effectiveness over long distances. Adaptive optics and beam control technologies are being developed to mitigate these issues, allowing for more consistent performance in varied environmental conditions.

Despite these challenges, the potential benefits of DEWs are substantial. In conventional warfare, ammunition can occupy up to 50% of an army’s logistical capacity. DEWs could significantly reduce this burden, revolutionizing military logistics. With theoretically unlimited “ammunition” as long as power is available, DEWs could dramatically extend the operational capabilities of military units in the field.

Moreover, as space becomes an increasingly important military domain, the low mass-to-effect ratio of DEWs makes them particularly attractive for orbital and anti-satellite operations. Traditional kinetic weapons are less suitable for space warfare due to the risk of creating debris fields that could endanger friendly assets. DEWs offer the potential for “clean” space combat, disabling enemy satellites without creating hazardous space debris.

The strategic implications of DEWs extend beyond their direct combat applications. Their potential to alter the balance of power has sparked a global race in DEW development. Nations worldwide are investing heavily in this technology, recognizing its transformative potential in future conflicts. This has led to concerns about a new arms race, with countries striving to gain a technological edge in directed energy systems.

As DEW technology matures, it raises important questions about the nature of future warfare. Will the advent of these weapons make conflicts more or less likely? How will they affect military strategies and international relations? The potential for DEWs to serve as both offensive and defensive systems complicates traditional notions of deterrence and military balance.

Furthermore, the development of DEWs has implications for international law and arms control agreements. Current treaties may need to be revised to account for these new weapons, which don’t fit neatly into existing categories of conventional or non-conventional arms. The potential for DEWs to cause temporary or permanent blindness in humans has already led to restrictions on certain types of laser weapons under the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons.

The ethical considerations surrounding DEWs are also significant. While they have the potential to reduce collateral damage compared to conventional explosives, concerns remain about their long-term effects on human targets and the environment. The possibility of DEWs being used for crowd control or as non-lethal weapons such as the Active Denial System (ADS) also raises questions about potential abuse and human rights implications.

In addition to combat applications, DEWs have potential uses in other areas of defense. For example, high-powered microwaves could be used to disable electronic systems, providing a non-kinetic option for neutralizing enemy capabilities. This could be particularly useful in urban environments or situations where minimizing physical damage is crucial.

Research into DEWs is also driving advancements in related fields. The development of high-energy lasers, for instance, has led to improvements in materials science, optics, and power systems that have applications beyond the military sphere. These technological spillovers could have significant impacts on civilian industries and scientific research.

In conclusion, while the path to operational DEWs has been long and costly, the potential payoff appears to justify the investment. As technology continues to advance, we can expect to see more DEW systems deployed in various military contexts. Their development represents not just a new class of weapons, but potentially a paradigm shift in how wars are fought and deterred.

As we stand on the brink of this new era in military technology, the implications for global security and warfare are profound and far-reaching. The successful integration of DEWs into military arsenals could reshape battlefield dynamics, alter strategic calculations, and influence geopolitical relationships. However, realizing the full potential of these weapons will require overcoming significant technical hurdles and addressing complex ethical and legal questions.

War is space is coming. That it has not yet happened is more due to luck than anything else; international pronouncements to the contrary, functional anti-satellite weapons have been long-deployed, although they have not been used in an active conflict to date. In space warfare, mass-to-fuel ratios will be the dominant factors: anything that reduces mass is well worth the developmental expenses. Destructive laser weapons systems, while not yet “ready for primetime“, are almost to the point of active deployment to the battlefield.

The story of directed-energy weapons is still being written, and the coming decades will likely see rapid advancements in this field. As with any transformative military technology, the ultimate impact of DEWs will depend not only on their technical capabilities but also on how they are employed and regulated in the complex landscape of international relations and conflict. The age of energy weapons is upon us, and its effects will resonate far beyond the battlefield.

It is not “war cheerleading” to promote the development of new weapons systems – like it or not, for all of the research on these weapons in the West, there are plenty of other nations which are working just as hard on the same systems, for the same reason.

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To

 

The Digital Battlefield: The Evolution and Global Impact of Information Warfare

The Digital Battlefield: The Evolution and Global Impact of Information Warfare

Michael Cessna July 19, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

NOTE: As we take this article to press – on Friday, July, 19, 2024 – a major cyber event is developing, affecting Windows OS machines running the CrowdStrike antivirus software. At press time, it remains unclear as to whether this is a simple software glitch, or if it is a deliberate attack. 

 

 

One of the most popular terms in the military sphere of late is “information warfare” (IW)…but, what is that, really? Simply out, information warfare is the use of information and communication technologies to gain competitive advantages over opponents. In short, it is the use of broad categories of inforamtion gain advantages.

For propaganda centuries, competing states have used various forms of propaganda (well before the term was invented in the 1920’s), it was not until World War One that Edward Bernays developed the first rudimentary principles of what would become the modern fields of psychological operations (psyops), propaganda, and what I term “directed deep-fake operations“.

With the rise to dominance of increased connectivity and a vastly enlarged reliance on digital systems, for everything from simple communications to to critical financial transaction systems, information warfare is now a critical, and growing component of national security. Finding ways to “attrit” such systems, whether via a more stealthy, long-term approach of systems infiltration or through a sudden, all-out assault, is now a major focus of top-tier national armed forces.

Like all of the many areas of warfare, modern information warfare has its unique shapes, spaces and requirements. Information warfare is now far more than creative fake newspapers, propaganda posters and leaflets:

  • A. Cyberattacks and hacking target critical government and military systems.
  • B. Disinformation and propaganda are used to spread false or misleading information, specifically targeted to influence public opinion.
  • C. Social media manipulation uses platforms from Facebook and Instagram, to TikTok and Minds to amplify directed messages of misinformation and fake news in order to create “echo chambers“, which pigeonhole unwary readers into believing a wholly fictional version of reality.
  • D. Critical to these operations are the use of “deep-fakes” and AI-generated content to create convincing fake videos and audio to mislead or discredit. These videos originally began by digitally grafting the faces of various celebrities onto pornographic videos – because Rule 34 is real – and moved on to spoofing major media and political figures…these tools have only improved in recent years.

There are, of course, many actors involved in making this type of warfare viable. Variously, there are three basic groups actively engaging in these operations: state-sponsored groups deployed by governments to run campaigns designed to influence foreign populations by reshaping their views via mainstream and social media spaces; these also frequently serve to destabilize adversary powers. This is one of the many responsibilities of the Central Intelligence Agency’s “meme division”.

Non-state actors (terrorist groups, “hacktivists”, and other organizations, best lumped together as “anarchists”) use the same information warfare tactics as the state-sponsored groups, but use them for strictly criminal, money-making scams, or as mercenary groups to supplement the state groups in their operations, as has happened in recent years, specifically with Iran’s response to the STUXNET attack of 2010, that seriously damaged Iran’s nuclear material enrichment facility in the city of Natanz.

The main tools being used to facilitate the various operational avenues of attack in information warfare are “bots” and “troll farms”. These vectors employ automated accounts and organized groups spreading content and engaging in online discussions, that are increasingly being driven by ever-improving Artificial Intelligence (AI) algorithms.

Aside from the social media manipulaton sphere, which is best defined as a “soft attack strategy”, the primary attack modes use viruses and “hostile” AI to target critical infrastructure systems to attempt to disrupt power grids, financial systems, hospital operations, local police and fire response systems, water distribution and treatment systems, and other vital services. This is, in fact, the door that was opened by the STUXNET attacks, because that virus – rather than directly attacking the core programming, specifically targets the programmable logic controllers (PLCs), which allow the automation of electromechanical processes such as those used to directly control machinery and various industrial processes, including gas centrifuges for separating nuclear material, as happened in Iran in 2010.

 

 

Globally, various hostile vector systems are used to influence national elections, by attempting to sway voter opinions unnaturally and to undermine electoral processes, although this requires a targetable infrastructure in the target country that allows for manipulation of votes and vote counting through electronic means. Economically, consequences include manipulation of both local and global markets, theft of crucial intellectual property, and significant disruption of business operations, both at the street level, but also the operations of major, “blue chip” companies.

Socially, a dedicated “soft strike” IW campaign can exacerbate even long-dormant divisions within a country and its societies. the exacerbation of existing tensions and/or the creation of new conflicts within populations can have horrifying consequences; Rwanda and the breakup of Yugoslavia, while not directly the result of IW campaigns, come immediately to mind. Information Warfare campaigns often result – intentionally, or not – a serious erosion of trust through declining confidence in media, government institutions, and information sources.

Counter-measures and defensive strategies, to date, are haphazard, with their effects being difficult to measure accurately. Government initiatives, such as the creation of cybersecurity agencies and information warfare units, are themselves frequently seen as suspiciious by those government’s own populations, as are various “media literacy” programs, that seek to educate the public in how to identify and resist disinformation. In this, of course, the governmental responses are fighting against frequently subtle and hard-to-argue points, limiting their effectiveness.

In the private sector, responses such as the development of AI-powered detection tools and enhanced security measures are ongoing. However, these tools and their value remain murky, as the companies deploying them are loathe to talk about them in public, as their very existence depends on those tools remaining secret.

International cooperation through the sharing of intelligence and joint operations to combat threats is also hard to measure, for the simple fact that those measures are also hazy in their effects, at least for the general public, as intelligence agencies and armed forces – for reasons similar to the private sector – are loathe to reveal their operations publicly.

As Information Warfare continues to adapt to new technologies and societal changes, the paramount importance of highly responsive adaptability means that defensive strategies must constantly evolve to meet new threats, in real-time. Global cooperation is needed for nations and corporations to establish norms and combat information warfare effectively. In this, these groups will need to find methods to share their defense strategies…which is a very difficult thing to do for thee groups, even on a good day.

Additional Resources

Edward L. Bernays (1928), Propaganda
James F. Dunnigan (1996), Digital Soldiers

 

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
The Era of Hybrid Warfare – Reality Or Buzzword?

The Era of Hybrid Warfare – Reality Or Buzzword?

Michael Cessna July 11, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

All too frequently, people resort to pithy and catchy buzzwords and phrases to disguise the fact that they really have no idea what to say, but have to say something. We’ve all heard examples: “streamline virtual portals”, “strategize cross-media interfacing“, “maximize enterprise users“, etcetera, etcetera, ad nausea. Sadly – we’re way past ‘alarming’ – militaries, especially in the West, are no different.

For military forces in most parts of the world, sounding trendy is necessary to keep money flowing from their civilian leadership. Thus, at budget time, military leaders tend to appear in front of civilian bureaucrats – most of whom know absolutely nothing practical about anything ‘military’ – with new and scarily indefinable concepts to keep the money spigot turned on. In this, while the military generals and colonels are technically lying, they are doing so because whatever threats their nation may be facing, those threats are not changing very much or very quickly (mostly), but politicians live to be “ahead of the game”, and tossing out buzzwords on the Sunday morning talk show circuit to show how up-to-date they are. And don’t be fooled: the politicians the generals hate the most are not civilians, but those military veterans who go into politics, because they are far less susceptible to Buzzword Bingo.

But, I digress.

Of late, one of the major buzz-terms has been “Hybrid Warfare”. Sounds concerning, right? But what is “hybrid warfare”, exactly? The official NATO definition is, itself, loaded with buzz terms. Simply out, “hybrid warfare” is the combination of “conventional warfare” (i.e., the current war in Ukraine) with all the other stuff: guerrilla warfare, psychological operations and propaganda, “information warfare” (itself, a buzzword), low-level drone warfare, and on and on…essentially, the combination of all the means of waging war, if deployed all at once or even in pieces, is “hybrid warfare”. If this sounds familiar, that’s because it is: this term perfectly describes everything from World War Two to the US and French wars with Vietnam, to Desert Shield/Desert Storm and the recent  “GWOT” (Global War On Terror).

 

USAF aircraft of the 4th Fighter Wing (F-16, F-15C and F-15E) fly over Kuwaiti oil fires, set by the retreating Iraqi army during Operation Desert Storm in 1991. US Air Force photo. Public Domain.

 

The reason this is particular buzzword is relevant, however, is because – as was pointed out in 1940 – effective combat technology has migrated down to the level of the common citizen. Knowledge is like that: if you know how to do a thing, getting the tools and materials is not overly difficult…as Western forces have discovered to their regret over the last quarter-century or so: if you’re wondering why the recent series of wars have been inconclusive, this is one of the main reasons.

 

 

Key Components of Hybrid Warfare

The basic components of hybrid warfare can be defined by the following:

 

Conventional military operations

Traditional military force deployments, and/or shows of military strength have formed the basis of recorded warfare throughout history. When the average person thinks of “war“, this is what they think of: serried ranks of troops in uniform, gobs of artillery and armored vehicles, big, fast-moving jets, and all the other “stuff”.

 

Warfare. Collage – various sources, public domain.

 

Irregular warfare and insurgency

The use of proxies and non-state actors on a regular basis is a relatively new phenomenon, at least when done with any degree of reasoned planning and execution. Arming rebels, insurgents and guerrillas – or jihadist’s – has been done forever and a day, but today, in the glare of news cameras hungry for bloody story meat, the practice is frequently regularized, and given a sheen of legitimacy…whether it is competently done or not.

Another buzzword feature associated with this idea is that of “asymmetric warfare“. This is a “weasel term“, as it essentially means anything the enemy does that seems irrational, but that works in a combat environment. This can be anything from tunneling under perimeter of a “forward operating base” (FOB), to adding peanut oil to conventional engines, something the British SOE and the American OSS did in Europe during WW2.

Military establishments and their (mostly) civilian masters have come to depend absolutely on computer technologies, including the internet. As a result, cyber attacks and information warfare are now serious problems.

Hacking and disruption of critical infrastructure – who remembers the STUXNET virus? – demonstrated both the terrifying levels of damage that a simple computer virus could wreak on highly dangerous manufacturing processes, but also the equally terrifying scale of the potential response.

In like manner, “disinformation” campaigns and social media manipulation, once laughed at by many people, have proven to be an important component on the new battlefield. The ‘edgy’ memes shared over social media, however, are the equivalent to the paper pamphlets of past decades, the crucial difference being that this kind of media can reach a far wider audience, and do so far faster than conventional radio or television spots. For all that, however, the main impact of disinformation campaigns has actually been to undermine the public perception of government in general, as governing bodies around the world – peopled by many who lack any real understanding of technology – desperately try to restrict both free speech as well as social media access, to the extent of developing “caged” social media platforms which they then restrict their citizens to using exclusively, on penalty of arrest. The end result is a rapidly growing distrust of all forms of government.

 

Economic pressure and sanctions

Likewise, the old standbys of economic pressure and trade sanctions are beginning to fail, because there is too much money to be made getting around the sanctions. Even targeted economic measures against key sectors within a hostile state can be overcome, if that state either has friendly economic partners willing to either openly ignore the sanctions, or at least are willing to turn a blind eye to the smuggling.

Cases in point, both Russia and Iran, while both suffering economic hardships initially, have both rebounded quickly, to the point that Rosoboronexport – Russia’s state arms dealer – is working three shifts to produce mountains of military vehicles, equipment and ammunition to supply not only the war in Ukraine, but to fulfill export orders to multiple countries (unlike the West), leaving the failures of the West’s total lack of strategic vision laid bare. The brutal government of Iran, too – like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq – is doing perfectly well for itself; the welfare of their citizenry is irrelevant, as long as they can limit access to news, and can keep the populace at work.

Communist China, with an economy on life support and teetering on the brink of collapse, has been desperately trying to build an international infrastructure based on their “Belt & Road Initiative” to gain enough clout to create exploitable economic dependencies…which, if the collapse of French dominance in the Sahel region of Africa is indication, is a whole different kind of losing strategy.

 

 

Conclusion

The challenges for National Defense in responding to “total warfare“, or “unrestricted warfare” are vast. Far aside from the legal and ethical considerations, are the strains placed on both traditional military and governmental structures, and – most critically – the increasingly negative perception of those institutions, as they flail helplessly, deploying tools and strategies that they do not understand.

And of course, lurking in the background lay the twin threats of A.I. and biotech. As the capabilities of AI increase rapidly, deploying a hostile AI against an “enemy” populace, while likely to be very effective, can easily backfire, sparking a whole host of “science fiction”-like scenarios none of them good.

Far more worrying, is the possibility of very high-tech biological warfare. Conspiracy theories about the recent coronavirus pandemic aside, the potential certainly exists for the truly deranged to deploy a “slate-wiper” virus that they believe will kill just enough people to let them achieve their goals…the problem being, of course, that viruses have a nasty habit of rapidly mutating, rendering vaccines and inoculations against them completely ineffective.

This is not a case of “give peace a chance” – throughout history, there are plenty of madmen, and equally mad states – who take “soft” attitudes as an opportunity to strike.

We can’t tell you what is going to happen. All we can do is try to warn you.

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

  1. David Kilcullen (2011), The Accidental Guerrilla
  2. Qiao Liang, Wang Xiangsui (2015),Unrestricted Warfare
  3. Thomas Ricks (2012), The Generals
  4. James F. Dunnigan (2003), How To Make War, 4th Edition
  5. James F. Dunnigan (1991), Shooting Blanks

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To
The Quiet Revolution You Should Fear

The Quiet Revolution You Should Fear

Michael Cessna July 3, 2024 0

 

 

 

 

 

In the shadows of Silicon Valley, artificial intelligence is quickly reshaping the battlefield, providing a glimpse of a future where wars may be won or lost in milliseconds by algorithms we can barely comprehend. As AI seeps into military strategy, we face the prospect of a new era in warfare — one where the line between human intuition and machine calculation blurs, and a single line of code could spark the next global conflict.

As we witness the disaster that is the is the “Gaza Pier“, driven by the ongoing “Corporate BS Bingo” that replaced decades of actual training and planning, it’s easy to miss new developments, especially with contentious elections at hone, and ground-shaking political shifts overseas.

“Artificial Intelligence” (AI) systems are revolutionizing the military decision-making processes through their ability to rapidly process, analyze, and collate vast amounts of data, far faster than even teams of trained and experienced humans can do. These developing capabilities have several key implications for military strategy, and thus, national security strategies.

The first factor is enhanced situational awareness: AI can integrate data from multiple sources (satellites, drones, ground sensors, etc.) in real-time, at speeds faster than conventional processes. It also provides commanders with a more comprehensive and up-to-date battlefield picture, helping to identify patterns and anomalies that human analysts might miss.

AI can cycle through predictive analysis at high speed, to better forecast enemy movements, and possible intentions, based on historical data and current intelligence information as it comes in. Clearly, this aids in proactive strategy development rather than reactive responses, helping to predict potential geopolitical events and conflicts before they escalate, at levels down to the division level of command, or even lower.

Artificial Intelligence is able to quickly analyze multiple scenarios to determine optimal resource allocation, improving resource optimization, aiding efficiency in troop deployment, equipment distribution, and supply chain management. These points are not insignificant, as they form the critical underpinnings of military operations.

In addition, faster decision cycles, despite the increased potential for errors, allow AI-assisted analysis to significantly reduce the time needed to make strategic decisions. This potential increase in accuracy and speed would prove crucial in fast moving, rapidly developing conflict situations.

These advantages are not without risks, however. The risk of over-reliance on AI recommendations, without human oversight, is a serious ethical issue. This is best demonstrated by the deployment of the STM Kargu, a completely autonomous drone that uses facial recognition technology to identify specific individuals for targeted assassination, without input from a human operator. These drones, according to the United Nations, Turkey executed exactly this type of attack in 2020.

There is a distinct need for some sort of protocol to explain to AI how to understand the reasoning behind strategic suggestions. As well, “friendly” AI needs to be trained to recognize deception tactics, especially those that may come from “adversarial AI”, attempting to manipulate a friendly AI’s decision-making systems and processes.

In that regard, the integration of AI in cyber security and information warfare is transforming both offensive and defensive capabilities, first through enhanced cyber defenses. As in the wider civilian sphere, AI systems can monitor networks in real-time, detecting and respond to threats faster than human operators. Machine learning algorithms can identify new types of cyber attacks by recognizing potential attack patterns. Automated, independent patch management and vulnerability assessment tools, also powered by AI, can enable these systems to aid in their own defense.

Also in that regard, AI-powered cyber attacks are another aspect of this developing realm. The development of more sophisticated and adaptive malware, intended for deployment by AI, can discover and exploit vulnerabilities in target networks more efficiently than manual searching. This holds the potential for AI to coordinate large-scale, multi-vector attacks on hostile cyber networks.

In the realm of information warfare and disinformation, AI has already developed tools for creating and disseminating very convincing fake news and propaganda. Such psychological operations formerly required a massive investment in conventional printing and radio technology, with results that were frequently uneven in performance. The use of natural language processing to analyze and target specific population demographics with tailored disinformation can reshape both civilian and troop viewpoints in near-real time.

AI-generated realistic video and audio, as a result, will soon prove crucial for military deception operations, through challenges in verifying the authenticity of intelligence gathered from open sources, as well as via recovered intelligence report. Development of AI tools to detect deepfakes and other manipulated media is a major aspect of ongoing AI combat developments.

The reason for this kind of focus, as indicated above, lies in the realm of social media manipulation. AI bots capable of influencing public opinion and sowing discord in target populations can potentially undermine a hostile nation’s national strategy – and potentially its active combat operations – by using AI to identify key social influencers and vulnerable groups for targeted messaging, deep fake video and audio, presenting a distorted perspective to a hostile nation or support group’s population.

 

 

But, AI systems can also be used to detect and counter enemy disinformation campaigns, including those conducted by hostile AI’s. The key feature in these types of operations lies in the speed of detection, and in effective countermeasures, as soon as those types of subtle attacks are detected.

In more conventional situations, quantum computing and cryptography hold the potential for quantum-capable AI systems to rapidly break current encryption methods. This is a serious problem, one of extreme concern, as AI holds the potential to crack the “holy grail” of cryptography, by possibly finding a shortcut to breaking the “one-time pad” (OTP) encryption protocol which, despite its faults, is still the most secure system for securing classified transmissions.

 

 

An example of a one-time pad. Image credit: Mysid, 2007. Public Domain.

 

 

Related to this, is the development of AI management for quantum-resistant cryptography, to protect sensitive military communications. In signals intelligence (SIGINT), advanced AI systems for intercepting and decrypting enemy communications can use natural language processing for real-time translation and analysis of intercepted messages.

This list, quite literally, can go on for miles.

The expansion of artificial intelligence into the military sphere is not something to be hand-waved off as a passing fad. Like all developments in military technology, there are both design and deployment cycles, but also countermeasures that can be discovered and implemented.

The Chinese have a saying: “May you live in interesting times.”

That is not a positive…not least, because we do, in fact, live in interesting times.

Act accordingly.

 

 

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

  1. Paul Scharre (2023), Four Battlegrounds: Power in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
  2. Sam J Tangredi (USN, Ret.), George Galdorisi (2021), AI at War
  3. Denise Garcia (2024), The AI Military Race
  4. Thomas Ricks (2012), The Generals
  5. James F. Dunnigan (2003), How To Make War, 4th Edition
  6. James F. Dunnigan (1991), Shooting Blanks

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To

 

One Step Closer – Congress Moves To Automate Draft Registration

One Step Closer – Congress Moves To Automate Draft Registration

Michael Cessna June 15, 2024 0

 

 

 

ICYMI — On May 22, Representative Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), sponsored a bill to automate the registration of all males within the United States aged 18 to 26 into the Selective Service System, also known as the Draft. This comes amid the ongoing disaster of military recruiting numbers.

Now, the House has passed this measure as part of the latest National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Once again, Democrats all about putting your children “behind the trigger”…not theirs. Democrats love war – they just suck at waging it.

The only glimmer of brightness in this morass, is the inclusion of measures curbing various “woke” ideologies, including pro-choice, pro-LGBTQ+, and various lunatic psuedo-environmental “Sciencisms”, guaranteeing some level of delay to the process.

 

 

 

The Freedomist — Keeping Watch, So You Don’t Have To

You may have missed

The SMAW – A Tools of the Trade Joint

The SMAW – A Tools of the Trade Joint

Michael Cessna April 17, 2026 0
The Goose Is Loose – A Tools of the Trade Joint

The Goose Is Loose – A Tools of the Trade Joint

Michael Cessna April 10, 2026 0
The RPG-7: The Titan of the Man-Portable Anti-Tank World – Tools of the Trade

The RPG-7: The Titan of the Man-Portable Anti-Tank World – Tools of the Trade

Michael Cessna April 3, 2026 0
The Old Dog Learns A New Trick – Tools of the Trade

The Old Dog Learns A New Trick – Tools of the Trade

Michael Cessna March 27, 2026 0
Main

Back FREEDOM for only $4.95/month and help the Freedomist to fight the ongoing war on liberty and defeat the establishment's SHILL press!!

Are you enjoying our content? Help support our mission to reach every American with a message of freedom through virtue, liberty, and independence! Support our team of dedicated freedom builders for as little as $4.95/month! Back the Freedomist now! Click here