Technology

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

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.

AI is Learning that Lying Gets the Job Done

Paul Collier May 14, 2024

A recent paper from the Massachusetts Institution of Technology (MIT) suggests Artificial Intelligence (AI) is learning how to use various forms of deception to achieve the goals they were programmed to complete.

Peter S. Park, the paper’s author, said of the paper, ‘Generally speaking, we think AI deception arises because a deception-based strategy turned out to be the best way to perform well at the given AI’s training task. Deception helps them achieve their goals.”

Go to Article
Excerpt from www.thegatewaypundit.com

AI is all the rage, right now, with both the benefits and the dangers of this breakthrough tech being discussed to the exhaustion.

AI is said to help us code, write, and synthesize vast amounts of data. They reportedly can outwit humans at board games, decode the structure of proteins and hold a rudimentary conversation.

But now it surfaces a study claiming that AI systems have grown in sophistication to the point of developing a capacity for deception.

The paper states that A range of AI systems have learned techniques to systematically induce ‘false beliefs in others to accomplish some outcome other than the truth’.

Mortars – The Infantry’s Artillery

Michael Cessna April 5, 2024

Mortars have been used by armies almost since gunpowder was invented. While cannons were direct-fire weapons – meaning that their barrels were more of less level with the ground when fired – mortars, almost without exception, only fire on a near-vertical angle. “Howitzers” are a compromise, firing heavier shells than mortars, but can more easily employ direct-fire.

Due to the technological limitations of shell and fuse design in past centuries, mortars were quickly eclipsed in most armies, being relegated to siege warfare and being used on specially designed warships. During the American Civil War, massive mortars were employed in both sieges, and were mounted on railroad cars. But still, the rudimentary fuse technology severely restricted the weapon’s use.

*13 inch mortar “Dictator” and railroad cars in front of Petersburg, Virginia. 1865. Photo by Matthew Brady. Public Domain.*

By the early 1900’s, however, technology had caught up. When World War 1 settled into its “trench warfare” phase on the Western Front, all sides began looking for anything that could break the deadlock. Among the solutions were massive barrages of cannon and howitzer fires, poison gas, sub-machine guns (SMG’s), heavier machine guns, the earliest tanks, and airplanes, it would be easy to view the mortar as an “also-ran”.

That would prove, very definitely, to not be the case.

In 1915, as the slaughter in the trenches ground on, Sir Wilfred Stokes, KBE, designed a mortar for the infantry that would not only bear his name, but would become the baseline for most infantry mortars for the next century.

The “Stokes Mortar” was a simple steel tube, of roughly three inches in diameter (it was actually 3.2 inches, or 81mm, in diameter). A simple, muzzle-loading design, the Stokes could be rapidly loaded and fired, dropping a steady stream of explosive rounds, up to twenty-five per minute, out to roughly 800 yards. The “bombs”, as the rounds were termed then, used a simple impact fuse…something that could problematic if the ground it landed on was soft or muddy. Aside from that, the Stokes Mortar was an excellent weapon for its time, and the design was quickly copied and deployed by armies around the world, with many armies immediately trying to improve the design.

*Wilfred Stokes with example of his WWI mortar and bombs, c.1916-1918. Public Domain.*

The main improvement that stuck all around the world was to make the ammunition more aerodynamic in shape, vaguely similar to the “Spitzer” bullet, first developed in 1898 to get the optimal performance from the new smokeless powder that was replacing the old type of gunpowder for rifles. This was coupled to “booster charges” – doughnut-like rings filled with powder that provide additional pressure and velocity to the mortar bomb when it is fired – that increased the range significantly; in the modern day, a garden variety 81mm tube can throw rounds out to nearly three miles (4.6km+).

Army Specialist of the 1st Squadron (Airborne), 40th Cavalry Regiment,Task Force Spartan, Afghanistan, loads a new computerized round with two “booster bags” into his 120 mm mortar system, 2012. U.S. Army photo by Spc. Ken Scar, 7th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment. Public Domain.

Tactically, this gave the infantry a powerful tool. Usually deployed at the company level, mortars provide immediate, fast-shooting fire support, able to hurl large amounts of explosives at enemies from behind cover, at short notice, without the need to call to a higher level.

Mortars in the 60- to 81mm range are reasonably light in weight, and can be broken into “man-portable” loads (which are still extremely heavy) for units without vehicles. Larger weapons – both 120mm mortars, but also units like the automatic Russian 82mm 2B9 “Vasilek” mortar – do need to be towed, but they are still light enough to be mounted in the back of relatively lightweight vehicles.

*2B9 Vasilek mortar in Technical museum Togliatti. 2010. Photo by: ShinePhantom. CCA/3.0*

In the “irregular warfare” sphere, analogues to the Stokes Mortar can be built in home workshops with relative ease (NB: This is NOT an encouragement to break the laws in your area; you are on your own, there), but the crippling aspect for do-it-yourself forces lays with the ammunition: although relatively simple in design for the modern day, mortar ammunition requires large amounts of explosives to make any useful quantity. This is such a daunting prospect, that guerrilla armies usually don’t bother with making their own weapons and ammunition, relying on stealing (or, “liberating”, depending on your viewpoint) heavier weapons and ammunition, or buying them on the black market…This is, however, slowly beginning to change.

A major issue with modern “dismounted” mortars is that the recoil of firing the weapon tends to pound it into the ground, continually altering the angle of the tube, which requires continual adjustment to keep the weapon on target. Mounting mortars in vehicles – or on boats – helps to correct this, but the mortar still requires more attention to its sighting controls than conventional cannons and howitzers. In recent decades, serious efforts have been made to develop precision-guided rounds for mortars; and some of them actually work. They remain only a limited option, however, because of their expense – a very serious concern that NATO is discovering has not gone away through “creative financing”.

*Mk 2 Mod 1 81mm Mortar/M2 .50 caliber machine gun combination, on a light mounting for boats and ships, c.1960’s. US Navy photo. Public Domain.*

Another serious issue for dismounted mortars on the modern battlefield is “battlefield radars”. These types of radars have been deployed since the late-1950’s to detect and track artillery rounds as soon as they are fired, allowing “counter-battery” fire (i.e., using your own artillery to directly attack the enemy’s artillery) to become vastly more effective. These units have been steadily shrinking in size, while becoming increasingly capable as technology improves. While unlikely to be encountered in the hands of guerrilla forces and small-sized, poorly equipped armies, that window is slowly closing.

For all of the foregoing, however, mortars remain the “go-to” heavy weapon for infantry companies and battalions around; indeed, in Africa, mortars are essentially the “heavy artillery” for most of the continent’s armies.

Modern mortars are now well over a century old. Better materials, fuses and targeting system have come and gone, but the basic, hand-loaded steel tube throwing a large explosive round that the infantry can easily carry with them has not disappeared – and will not – most likely for another century.

“Old” does not mean “obsolete”.

The ‘Combat Shotgun’ – The Ancient Weapon Still Punching Above Its Weight

Michael Cessna March 22, 2024

Shotguns are ancient technology, as firearms go. It is no stretch to say that the first handheld firearms that we would recognize as such were, in fact, “shotguns” as they usually fired multiple projectiles at ranges within one hundred yards…assuming, of course, that the weapon did not explode in your face. Saint Barbara was devoutly venerated for a reason.

Over the centuries, as metallurgy and chemistry made firearms increasingly reliable (and safer), the shotgun remained the main personal firearm, through the use of ‘buck and ball’ rounds. These combined a large musket ball with a few smaller pellets, essentially a middle ground between the ‘bird load’ used in hunting, the modern “double-aught” general purpose round, and the modern hunting slug.

As rifled weapons developed and matured throughout the 1700’s and into the 1800’s, shotgun-type loads began to fade out in military use. With the development of the ‘Minié ball’ in 1846, shotguns virtually disappeared from world armies as anything more than ‘foraging guns’.

This did not make the shotgun obsolete, however – far from it. Civilian hunting shotguns kept pace with military innovation, albeit for different purposes, and law enforcement still used shotguns for everything from countering rioters to concealed firepower for discrete protection of political figures.

With the United States’ entry into World War 1, however, the shotgun returned to the battlefield, with a vengeance.

In the confused, dirty and brutal world of trench warfare, the common handguns and bolt-action military rifles of the day simply did not function very well, resulting in all manner of impressively ingenious – and extremely vicious – improvised weapons. The German solution to this problem was the invention of the submachine gun, in the form of the MP-18. The Americans, however, brought in shotguns.

*Winchester Model 1897 “Trench Gun” with bayonet, 1921. Public Domain.*

Largely consisting of Winchester Model 1897’s, American units were very familiar with the use of shotguns in recent combat, having used them during the Philippine-American War in 1899, and in the 1916 expedition into northern Mexico, to chase the bandit Pancho Villa. These rapid-firing, pump action shotguns quickly made their presence felt, to such an extent that the Imperial German General Staff – who had initiated modern gas warfare – issued a formal protest over the use of shotguns. When the United States reminded them of the shotgun’s history, and pointed out that the shotgun caused no more unusual damage than their own chemical weapons, the Germans threatened to execute any US soldier captured with a shotgun, or shotgun ammunition. In response, the United States threatened to execute any German soldier captured wielding flamethrowers or serrated bayonets. The Germans not only are never known to have executed any US shotgun troops, but apparently issued some captured 1897’s to their own ‘stormtroopers’ alongside the MP-18.

The Model 1987 Trench Gun, as it came to be called, continued in US military service until at least the 1950’s. As the Vietnam War heated up, however, US troops began to arrive with more modern weapons, such as the equally legendary Remington 870. With better ammunition technology – the old waxed paper or fully metal cased shells, having been replaced with the brass-plastic case ammunition – the modern combat shotgun was born.

*A member of the Marine detachment from the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS THEODORE ROOSEVELT (CVN-71) takes aim with an M-870 12-gauge shotgun during boarding team training in 1991.*

With the ability to deliver devastating close-range firepower, the combat shotgun is an intimidating weapon in the extreme. Most combat shotguns run with eight rounds in their tube magazine, with another round “up the spout” in the chamber. If loaded with double-00 buckshot, that means a combat shotgun can fire about seventy to eighty.32 projectiles at high speed. Few, if any, other weapons can equal this level of fire. Additionally, unlike both pistol-caliber submachine guns and military select-fire rifles, most shotgun loads do not “over penetrate”, or pass through all manner of wall and roof materials, endangering civilians on the other side of those barriers.

*Mossberg M590 breacher shotgun, 2021. Netherlands Ministry of Defence. Public Domain.*

In addition, shotgun shells have evolved over time to fire all kinds of strange loads, from flares to rubber bullets, “bean bag”, tear gas, and door breaching rounds. This flexibility, coupled to ease of use and a generally less alarming appearance to the public, have guaranteed the combat shotgun’s continued use by police, but has also made it a favorite for the military when units have to operate at close quarters.

Despite repeated flirtations with “assault shotguns”, there has never been much real interest in the idea, as no design submitted does any one task in an overly superior way to the combat shotguns currently in service, and any advances in ammunition design can usually be accommodated with minimal changes to the weapon itself.

*The M26 Modular Accessory Shotgun System. 2018. DVIDS photo. Public Domain.*

The shotgun has been used in combat for centuries – and it isn’t going anywhere, anytime soon. Good design works.

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

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

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

The Era of Hybrid Warfare – Reality Or Buzzword?

Key Components of Hybrid Warfare

Conclusion

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

The Quiet Revolution You Should Fear

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

Facebook Suffers No Loss After Jettisoning Canadian State News

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

Scientists Getting Close to Being Able to Reading Your Mind

AI is Learning that Lying Gets the Job Done

Mortars – The Infantry’s Artillery

The ‘Combat Shotgun’ – The Ancient Weapon Still Punching Above Its Weight

You may have missed

Bear Trap: Russia’s African Disaster

The Little Missile That Could – A Tools of the Trade Joint

The Dragon They Loved To Hate – A Tools of the Trade Joint

The SMAW – A Tools of the Trade Joint

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!!