Technology – Page 4 – The Freedomist

Cryptocurrency and Conflict Financing – Reshaping the Economics of Modern Warfare

Michael Cessna September 6, 2024

In the shadowy world of conflict financing, a new player has emerged: cryptocurrency. As digital currencies like Bitcoin – once derided by many as useless money pits – increasingly gain mainstream acceptance, they are also becoming a tool for those operating outside the law, including insurgent groups, terrorist organizations, and sanctioned states. This technological shift is reshaping the economics of modern warfare and challenging traditional methods of tracking and interdicting illicit funds. Money makes serious violent conflicts and wars possible, and cryptocurrencies are increasingly the preferred go-to for all non-state actors in conflicts…and major nations are not far behind.

The Rise of Crypto in Conflict Zones

Cryptocurrency’s key features – decentralization, anonymity, and borderless transactions – make it an attractive option for groups operating in conflict zones. Unlike traditional banking systems, which can be easily monitored and controlled by governments, cryptocurrencies offer a degree of financial autonomy that’s unprecedented in the digital age. It also holds the potential to radically expand the democratization of warfare, a subject we touched on last week.

In recent years, there have been several high-profile cases of cryptocurrency being used in conflict zones. In 2019, Hamas – the militant group controlling Gaza, responsible for the October 7, 2023 assault into Israel – turned to Bitcoin to solicit donations, bypassing international restrictions on its financing. Similarly, in the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, both sides have leveraged cryptocurrencies: volunteers supporting Ukrainian forces have raised over $200 million in crypto donations, while some Russian-backed separatist groups have also turned to digital currencies to evade sanctions.

Terrorism Financing Goes Digital

The shift from traditional financing methods to cryptocurrency is particularly evident in terrorism financing. Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and other terrorist groups have increasingly turned to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies to fund their operations. These groups often use social media platforms to solicit donations, providing Bitcoin addresses where supporters can send funds anonymously.

The ease of creating online fundraising campaigns with cryptocurrency has led to a new phenomenon: the crowdfunding of terror. In 2019, a website linked to Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups in Syria raised Bitcoin donations for weapons and training. The campaign, which ran on the dark web, promised donors anonymity and the ability to support jihad from anywhere in the world.

This has extended into Asia, as well, as extensive NFT networks have been employed to both raise and transfer cryptocurrencies into fungible cash. Part of this fallout comes in the form of Afghanistan coming to the fore as a clearinghouse for crypto transfers to terror groups, as the lax controls of the ruling Taliban – who returned to power after the bungled and disastrous withdrawal of United States forces from the country in 2021 by the Biden-Harris administration – effectively closing off surveillance and enforcement efforts within the pariah state.

Challenges for Law Enforcement

This new landscape of crypto-enabled conflict financing poses significant challenges for law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Tracking and intercepting cryptocurrency transactions is a complex task, requiring specialized skills and technologies that many agencies are still developing. A major part of this is the reality of the “dark web“, and its associated “darknet markets“. Outside of cryptocurrency transfers, these markets allow all manner of criminal activity, including human trafficking and child pornography, as well as illicit drug trades, all of which terror groups have no issue leveraging such tools.

The catch for law enforcement and intelligence agencies in tracking terrorists and other criminals through the “dark web” lays in the fact that although the core operating principle of the ‘dark web’ – so-called “onion routing” – was developed and patented by the US Navy in 1998, the very nature of the system developed to secure US military and government communications networks means that forcing access remotely is virtually impossible. In fact, the arrest by the FBI of the founder and main operator of the notorious “Silk Road” darknet market in 2013 (which led to his life sentence in 2015) did not involve traditional methods of hacking, but involved an agent infiltrating the “Silk Road” site as an administrator, and using “social engineering” techniques to narrow down Ulbricht’s location, and using his personal security mistakes to finally locate him…”Hacking” really had nothing to do with the takedown of the “Silk Road“, because it cannot be taken down by conventional methods of “hack-attack“.

The pseudonymous nature of most blockchain transactions using the “non-fungible token” protocol that makes cryptocurrencies viable, provides a veneer of anonymity, though it’s not impenetrable. Agencies like the FBI have had some success in tracing Bitcoin transactions related to ransomware attacks and other cybercrimes. However, newer “privacy coins” like Monero offer even greater anonymity, making them increasingly popular among those seeking to avoid detection.

Legal and jurisdictional issues further complicate matters. As cryptocurrency transactions usually cross international borders, questions are raised concerning which agencies have authority to investigate and prosecute any “criminal activity” based on a computer physically located in their countries, not least because a specific instance of criminal activity in one country is not necessarily such in another country, as was demonstrated in 2012, when Hungarian scam artists attempted to run an insurance fraud scheme in the wake of the Costa Concordia disaster. The lack of consistent regulations across countries creates loopholes that bad actors can exploit.

The Humanitarian Dilemma

Interestingly, the same features that make cryptocurrencies attractive for illicit financing also make them valuable for delivering humanitarian aid to conflict zones. In areas where traditional banking systems have broken down, or where governments restrict the flow of funds, cryptocurrencies can provide a lifeline for aid organizations.

For example, during Venezuela’s economic crisis, some aid groups turned to cryptocurrency to deliver assistance, bypassing the country’s dysfunctional financial system and strict currency controls. Similarly, in Afghanistan, some NGOs have explored using cryptocurrencies to continue operations after the Taliban takeover restricted traditional financial channels.

However, this humanitarian use of cryptocurrencies presents its own risks. The same channels used to deliver aid could potentially be exploited by militant groups to divert funds. This creates a complex balancing act for aid organizations and regulators alike, not least as crypto-financing is increasingly being seen as a negative, since it is a “hidden” method of finance.

Looking to the Future

As cryptocurrencies continue to evolve, so too will their impact on conflict financing. The development of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) and the increasing sophistication of decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms will likely create new opportunities and challenges in this space.

Regulators and international bodies are scrambling to keep up. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF), a global money laundering and terrorist financing watchdog, has issued guidelines for regulating virtual assets. However, the effectiveness of these measures remains to be seen, especially given the rapid pace of technological change in the crypto world.

The impact of cryptocurrencies on global power dynamics is also worth considering. As digital currencies potentially weaken the effectiveness of economic sanctions, traditional forms of financial warfare may become less potent. This could lead to a shift in how nations project power and influence on the global stage.

Conclusion

The rise of cryptocurrency in conflict financing represents a significant shift in the landscape of modern warfare. While it offers new opportunities for bad actors to fund their activities, it also presents potential benefits in terms of delivering aid and fostering financial inclusion in unstable regions.

As we move forward, the challenge will be to develop adaptive policies and technologies that can mitigate the risks of crypto-enabled conflict financing while preserving the innovative potential of blockchain technology. This will require unprecedented cooperation between governments, financial institutions, and the tech sector.

The genie of cryptocurrency is out of the bottle, and its impact on conflict financing is here to stay. The responses to this challenge will shape the future of global security in the digital age.

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

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

Michael Cessna August 23, 2024

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

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

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

Michael Cessna August 16, 2024

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:

F/A-18 E/F Super Hornets: Multirole fighters capable of air superiority and strike missions.
EA-18G Growlers: Electronic warfare aircraft for jamming enemy radar and communications.
E-2D Hawkeyes: Airborne early warning and control aircraft.
MH-60R/S Seahawk helicopters: For anti-submarine warfare, search and rescue, and utility missions.
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:

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.
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:

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

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

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.
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:

Project power far from American shores, with the ability to strike targets hundreds of miles inland.
Establish air superiority over a wide area.
Conduct sustained air operations, launching over 100 sorties per day.
Provide a visible deterrent to potential adversaries.
Respond rapidly to crises anywhere in the world.
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:

Anti-ship ballistic missiles: The development of these weapons, particularly by China, has led to increased emphasis on integrated air and missile defense capabilities.
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.
Cyber warfare: Increased focus on protecting the battle group’s networks and exploiting adversary vulnerabilities in the digital domain.
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:

The integration of directed energy weapons for close-in defense.
Development of long-range anti-ship missiles to counter peer competitors.
Exploration of smaller, more numerous carriers to distribute capabilities.
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

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

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

Michael Cessna July 26, 2024

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 Digital Battlefield: The Evolution and Global Impact of Information Warfare

Michael Cessna July 19, 2024

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 Era of Hybrid Warfare – Reality Or Buzzword?

Michael Cessna July 11, 2024

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

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

The Quiet Revolution You Should Fear

Michael Cessna July 3, 2024

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

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

Facebook Suffers No Loss After Jettisoning Canadian State News

Paul Collier May 24, 2024

After Canada attempted to force Facebook to subsidize far-left statis media by passing a news tax targeting social media, Facebook decided to simply no longer allow Canadian state media to be shared on their outlet. A study by the Media Ecosystem Observatory at the University of Toronto found the ban has done nothing to diminish Facebook traffic and interaction.

The study claimed, “We find little evidence that Facebook usage has been impacted by the ban. After the ban took effect, the collapse of Canadian news content production and engagement on Facebook did not appear to substantially affect users themselves. However, the ban undoubtedly had a major impact on Canadian news. Local news outlets have been particularly affected by the ban: while large, national news outlets were less reliant on Facebook for visibility and able to recoup some of their Facebook engagement regardless, hundreds of local news outlets have left the platform entirely, effectively gutting the visibility of local news content.”

Go to Article
Excerpt from www.westernstandard.news

After opting to remove news content its platforms, a study from the Media Ecosystem Observatory at the University of Toronto and McGill found that Facebook has seen no loss in usership despite an overwhelmingly negative impact on Canadian news outlets.

That means instead of being forced to pay for news content, Meta has actually benefitted at the expense of the Liberal government in Ottawa.

Former Director of National Intelligence Warns America’s Enemies are Using Patent Courts to Steal Tech and Sabotage American Industry

Paul Collier May 16, 2024

John Ratcliffe, the former Director of National Intelligence from 2020 to 2021 is warning the federal government about the current state of America’s patent courts, which are allowing foreign nationals to exploit American technology and sabotage American businesses.

Ratcliffe said, “During my tenure as the Director of National Intelligence under President Trump, and while serving on the Homeland Security and Judiciary committees in Congress, we recognized patent trolls’ ability to exploit our judicial system and serve as puppets for adversaries participating in U.S. litigation as undisclosed third parties. State attorneys general, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and Sens. John Kennedy of Louisiana and Marco Rubio and Rick Scott of Florida have recently raised serious concerns about the looming threat of foreign adversaries funneling money into litigation against U.S. companies.”

Go to Article
Excerpt from dailycaller.com

… Numerous threats demand our attention and often capture headlines, such as military buildups, cyber espionage, and disinformation campaigns. Alongside these more high-profile hazards, there is a quietly growing and increasingly pressing national security concern: foreign actors’ attacks on American businesses and intellectual property through our judicial system.

To understand their strategy, it’s important to grasp the current landscape of U.S. patent litigation. Approximately 60 percent of all U.S. patent litigation is brought by non-practicing entities, often called “patent trolls.” Shell companies are created to buy up broad, unused patents and weaponize them through lawsuits targeting businesses. Nefarious third parties — including foreign adversaries — can fund patent trolls and use lawsuits to access sensitive information, gain an unfair competitive advantage, and advance future litigation campaigns against the same company and others in the industry. This practice reflects a potentially coordinated attempt to use lawsuits to steal intellectual property from American businesses.

Broad and invasive court-ordered discovery in patent infringement cases requires divulging a company’s crown jewels — which might include critical confidential information like source code, engineering specifications, and detailed financial data — to hostile actors funding lawsuits or operating behind a patent troll shell company. This information can take months to gather, diverting key personnel away from their primary tasks and racking up huge legal bills. Despite the use of protective orders, bad actors can still manipulate this process by taking photographs of source code, failing to return documents, and engaging in careless handling of highly sensitive information. And a major ransomware attack against a leading eDiscovery service provider highlights that no system is immune from compromise, regardless of security precautions.

Scientists Getting Close to Being Able to Reading Your Mind

Paul Collier May 14, 2024

Caltech’s T&C Chen Brain-Machine Interface Centre has unveiled a study in Nature Human Behaviour that reveals the successful creation of a device that was 79 percent accurate in predicting the word that a subject was looking at.

The study was conducted by implanting microscopic devices into the brains of two volunteer participants. These devices would hopefully read signals from the brain that can convert “text in real time.” The team said of the experiment, “We captured neural activity associated with internal speech – words said within the mind with no associated movement or audio output.”

Go to Article
Excerpt from www.ndtv.com

The team of researchers implanted tiny devices in specific areas of the brains.

Scientists have made “significant” strides in the field of reading people’s minds. According to New York Post, researchers from California were able to decode the thoughts of participants into words with 79 per cent accuracy. The device has been developed by Caltech’s T&C Chen Brain-Machine Interface Centre and will help patients with speech and non-verbal disorders. These ‘speech decoders’ act as brain-machine interface and capture brain activity during inner speech and translate it into language. The technology is making news because of its high accuracy.

The study has been published in Nature Human Behaviour.

The Rise of Crypto in Conflict Zones

Terrorism Financing Goes Digital

Challenges for Law Enforcement

The Humanitarian Dilemma

Looking to the Future

Conclusion

Beginnings

Confrontation In Space

Throwing Rocks

Bright Light Boom

Combat Logistics in Space Warfare

The Future

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Introduction

The Good Ol’ Days

Into the Cold

The Dawn of the Millennium and the GWOT

Conclusion

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

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.

Additional Resources

Key Components of Hybrid Warfare

Conclusion

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

You may have missed

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!!