Search

Begin New Search Topic Warfare Political Geography Global Focus

1. La regulación de la inteligencia artificial y la responsabilidad de los Estados en su utilización militar

Author:
Juan Manuel Rodriguez
Publication Date:
01-2025
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Revista UNISCI/UNISCI Journal
Institution:
Unidad de investigación sobre seguridad y cooperación (UNISCI)
Abstract:
El uso militar de la inteligencia artificial plantea numerosas cuestiones de orden jurídico y ético, destacando las referidas a la aplicación de normas internacionales. La complejidad de los sistemas autónomos de armas conlleva interrogantes sobre su adecuación al ordenamiento internacional, necesarios para determinar la responsabilidad por su desarrollo y empleo. Sin normas especiales que los regulen, el soporte normativo básico es el Derecho Internacional Humanitario y el Derecho Internacional de los Derechos Humanos, con problemas específicos que promueven una evolución normativa para regular estas máquinas. La responsabilidad por la vulneración de obligaciones internacionales constituye uno de los aspectos más complejos que rodean a los sistemas de inteligencia artificial. Los problemas se extienden principalmente a la atribución de la conducta, la necesidad de imponer el respeto de las normas a otros sujetos y actores, así como a la garantía de cumplimiento en el desarrollo o adquisición de estos sistemas.
Topic:
Ethics, Artificial Intelligence, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Warfare, and Autonomous Weapons Systems
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. The role of artificial intelligence in modern warfare

Author:
FARAS
Publication Date:
05-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Future for Advanced Research and Studies (FARAS)
Abstract:
The use of artificial intelligence technologies in various armed conflict arenas, such as the Russian-Ukrainian war and the Israeli war in Gaza, has sparked numerous discussions about their nature, risks to international and regional security, and the sustainability of the conflict. These experiments have shown that weapons supported by artificial intelligence can be more accurate than those directed by humans, which can potentially reduce collateral damage, including civilian casualties, damage to residential areas, and the number of soldiers killed or injured. However, it also raises concerns about the possibility of committing disastrous mistakes.
Topic:
Artificial Intelligence, Armed Conflict, Russia-Ukraine War, 2023 Gaza War, and Warfare
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Private Finance and the Quest to Remake Modern Warfare

Author:
Michael Brenes and William D. Hartung
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft
Abstract:
Official Washington is all in on promoting a new type of warfare based on military applications of AI and other emerging technologies. This determination was on full display last year when the Biden administration unveiled the “Replicator” initiative, an attempt to develop swarms of high-tech weapons systems at relatively low cost, and in numbers capable of overwhelming any potential adversary. But the history of so-called miracle weapons offers ample reasons to doubt Replicator’s supposedly transformative potential. Previous innovations, from the “electronic battlefield” in Vietnam to drone warfare in the Global War on Terrorism, did not, in fact, revolutionize war as we know it. Cutting-edge technology is no substitute for sound strategy or a realistic assessment of what military force can achieve. Unfortunately, so far, at least, these lessons from history have been no match for the boosterism of venture capital (VC) firms that pride themselves on disrupting industries and overturning conventional wisdom. While estimates of total VC funding of emerging military technology vary widely, it is clear that private investments in emerging weapons technologies are large and growing, driven by a handful of major Silicon Valley players, including Peter Thiel’s Founders Fund and Andreessen-Horowitz. Companies backed by these firms, including Palantir, Anduril, and SpaceX, have already landed major contracts for weapons systems that incorporate next-generation technology. These firms and their allies in the Pentagon and Congress are determined to move full speed ahead on the development and deployment of weapons based on AI and other technological innovations, despite many unanswered questions about the costs and risks involved. While the bulk of Pentagon funding still goes to the “big five” contractors — Lockheed Martin, RTX (formerly Raytheon), Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman — VC-backed startups aspire to become the future of military contracting, and they hope that AI and other emerging technologies will be their ticket. These startups may prove to be more nimble and innovative than the bloated, top-heavy firms that currently dominate the arms industry, but they should not be allowed to operate with impunity. Congress must establish ground rules that prevent military startups from exploiting the procurement process in ways that pad their bottom lines while providing flawed systems — outcomes that we have seen all too often from their traditional rivals. What is most important, the rush to profit from emerging military tech cannot be allowed to short-circuit the careful scrutiny and wide-ranging public debate that must precede any move toward a brave new world of autonomous warfare in which human intervention in the kill chain is significantly reduced, if not eliminated. This brief offers policymakers a framework for ensuring that unsupported promises to “reinvent” warfare don’t exacerbate the cycle of corruption and waste that has all too often plagued the Pentagon’s procurement process, to the detriment of our safety and security.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Diplomacy, Finance, Grand Strategy, and Warfare
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

4. Strategic Instability: Challenges for Deterrence and the Changing Character of Warfare

Author:
Philip Ritcheson
Publication Date:
07-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Fletcher Security Review
Institution:
The Fletcher School, Tufts University
Abstract:
The Cold War was replaced by what the late commentator Charles Krauthammer termed a “Unipolar Moment.” The Soviet Union disintegrated without the Cold War turning hot, and the United States led a broad international coalition to reinforce the rules-based international order in the First Persian Gulf War. Some thought that without an ideological alternative to liberalism, there was an “end to history.” Meanwhile, a sense of strategic complacency set into the United States as it forgot that it needed to compete geostrategically, resulting in hubris. Still, the United States was in an enviable position of not having to seriously account for strategic escalation with an adversary. That said, autocracy regained its footing in Russia, and a multi-dimensional form of competition emerged with China. In the background, terrorists planned, prepared, and conducted the September 11, 2001 attacks, and the United States focused on the Global War on Terror and linkages between rogue regimes, terrorists, and Weapons of Mass Destruction. In Europe, a growing NATO alliance seemed more focused on diplomatic engagement than military capability development and deterrence.
Topic:
Diplomacy, Deterrence, Instability, and Warfare
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

5. Breaking the Newtonian Fetish: Conceptualizing War Differently for a Changing World

Author:
Ben Zweibelson
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:
Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:
Explaining what a military’s social paradigm concerning conflict and war is requires a theoretical approach to both frame the core constructs and offer feasible alternatives. This article introduces social paradigm theory for military application and how most modern, technologically advanced militaries sustain a Newtonian-styled worldview concerning warfare and what constitutes war. The Newtonian-styled war paradigm gained prominence during the last five centuries, yet is now becoming increasingly insufficient and possibly irrelevant. The integration of ever-increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence into nearly all aspects of warfare will require new ways of thinking and how teams of humans and AI systems collaborate in complex security contexts immediately. The new combination of the space domain, cyberspace, those military forces associated with these new domains, and special operations activities are of increased focus for how and why conflict may change, particularly within an overarching traditional nuclear deterrence between state competitors. This requires a military paradigmatic shift, moving away from Newtonian constructs.
Topic:
Military Strategy, Artificial Intelligence, Warfare, Complexity, Force Design, and Emergence
Political Geography:
Global Focus, United States of America, and Space

6. The Void Above: The Future of Space Warfare and a Call to Update the Rule of International Space Law

Author:
Alan Cunningham
Publication Date:
03-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
Journal of Advanced Military Studies
Institution:
Marine Corps University Press, National Defense University
Abstract:
In an age where space warfare is becoming more likely and a militarized space is already a reality, it is imperative to develop a strong legal framework to try and prevent nation-states from engaging in warfare. By implementing legal standards, improving on the existing legal framework, and taking input from outside legal sources, outer space can be made safer and the potential for armed conflict more protected against.
Topic:
International Relations, International Law, International Security, Military Affairs, Space, Warfare, and Space Law
Political Geography:
Global Focus and Space