Search

Begin New Search Topic Emerging Technology Political Geography United States of America

1. Protecting Freedom of Thought: Mitigating Technological Enablers of Disinformation

Author:
Alexa Raad
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
It has been said that a lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. Social media and internet ad-supported business models that capitalize on capturing attention have introduced powerful technological enablers that are supercharging the targeting, dissemination and amplification of false information online. Influence operations have been quick to use these tools to manipulate and compromise freedom of thought. Assuming these ad-based business models are here to stay, at least for now, steps must be taken to address the problematic elements that influence operators are leveraging. Remediation efforts must both prevent amplification of harmful content, and increase the risk, cost and complexity to the influence operator. Alexa Raad describes frameworks that can be used to analyze the stages, tactics, techniques and procedures used in influence operations, and outlines the need in the United States for regulation in four areas — actions which, alongside effective public-private collaboration and increased media literacy, would help to “mitigate the pollution of our information ecosystem and protect our freedom of thought.”
Topic:
Security, Governance, Regulation, Internet, Disinformation, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

2. NATO: Waging High-Tech Warfare

Author:
Yury Belobrov
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Journal Article
Journal:
International Affairs: A Russian Journal of World Politics, Diplomacy and International Relations
Institution:
East View Information Services
Abstract:
THE rapid technological progress observed in the last decade throughout the world, especially in China and Russia, threatens the established sources of military and industrial dominance of the collective West on the world stage. NATO views this as an alarming trend, and in an attempt to stop it, bloc members are making a determined effort to preserve their militarytechnological leadership and the international order structured around their policies. To this end, they are initiating a new arms race, partially through the active incorporation into the military sphere of the latest breakthrough technologies (Emerging and Disruptive Technologies – EDT), which, they believe, can reverse the emerging multipolarity of international relations and radically change the nature of future wars. Thus, the Allies are stepping up collective efforts to master innovative technologies and introduce them into the operational activities of NATO and all member nations to ensure their victory in future high-tech wars. They emphasize the urgency of adapting the armed forces of said countries to the realities of global technological advancement. As the communiqué adopted at the Alliance summit in Vilnius in 2023 directly stated: “We are accelerating our own efforts to ensure that the Alliance maintains its technological edge in emerging and disruptive technologies to retain our interoperability and military advantage including through dual-use solutions.”1 The US, as the main sponsor of NATO militarism, demands that its allies and partners closely and expeditiously collaborate on the creation of novel weaponry utilizing these emerging technologies and dramatically increase investment in various EDT projects and adapt their armed forces to them. Under the US’s diktat, Brussels and its American allies are creating new bureaucratic and financial entities. Private businesses and academic and research institutions are also being drawn into this sphere. To speed up this process, at the urging of Washington at the NATO summit in Brussels in 2021, a strategic initiative was launched to create the NATO Defense Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA), which will manage and coordinate all this activity within NATO. The main task of this organization is to form an innovative technological network that unites R&D centers, innovative start-ups, defense enterprises, and military agencies in order to simultaneously and rapidly master all types of dual-use EDT technologies and implement them in the civilian and military fields. In addition to these efforts, a decision was also made to form a €1 billion NATO Innovation Fund to finance venture capital companies developing dual EDT in areas of strategic importance to NATO. Essentially, these decisions by the alliance are aimed at mobilizing European resources, primarily to strengthen American military power. Of course, the main efforts to field the latest technologies are being undertaken by the largest member nations.
Topic:
NATO, International Cooperation, Weapons, Innovation, Emerging Technology, High-Tech Wars, and Military and Industrial Advantage
Political Geography:
Russia, Europe, and United States of America

3. Reclaiming leadership: Australia and the global critical minerals race

Author:
Ian Satchwell
Publication Date:
04-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
Abstract:
Climate policy, geopolitics and market forces are coalescing to deliver Australia a global leadership opportunity in critical minerals. To grasp that opportunity, Australia needs both to utilise its domestic mineral endowment and its mining knowledge and technology and to leverage the global footprint of Australian companies to help build a global supply chain network. How Australia responds will not only determine economic benefits to the nation but will also affect the world’s ability to achieve minerals security and the sustainability required for the global energy transition and inclusive economic growth. The global energy transition and other high-technology applications have increased demand for critical minerals, particularly in countries that have strong complex manufacturing industries. At the same time, the concentration of production of many critical minerals, the dominance of China in supply chains and its actions to restrict supply and influence markets, are disrupting both minerals production and availability. In response, developed nations have formulated critical minerals strategies and entered into bilateral and multilateral agreements, involving supplier nations and customer nations, to build alternative supply chains that are more diverse, secure and sustainable. Australia has committed in multiple agreements to work with like-minded nations to achieve this. This report is intended to provide the government with a road map to ‘step up’ to (re)activate Australia’s global mineral leadership.
Topic:
Climate Change, Science and Technology, Leadership, Alliance, Emerging Technology, Minerals, and Energy Transition
Political Geography:
Australia, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

4. Campaigning to Dissuade: Applying Emerging Technologies to Engage and Succeed in the Information Age Security Competition

Author:
Bryan Clark and Dan Patt
Publication Date:
07-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
The People’s Republic of China (PRC) presents the United States with its most comprehensive economic and security rival since Great Britain during the nineteenth century. Starting in 2018, US defense strategies have highlighted the threat that the PRC poses to US allies, and successive presidential administrations and Congresses responded by increasing defense budgets to expand US military capability and capacity. Despite these efforts, numerous assessments now show that modernization of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) has eroded—and in some missions overcome—US military superiority. Absent large and politically fraught increases in defense spending, continued expansion and improvement of today’s US force are unlikely to regain broad overmatch against the PLA in the Western Pacific. Instead, the United States will need new strategies and operational concepts to deter PRC aggression. Recognizing this imperative, the 2022 US National Defense Strategy (NDS) attempted to move in a different direction from its predecessors through two new lines of effort called “campaigning” and “integrated deterrence.” However, in unclassified documents and speeches by defense officials, both the essence of integrated deterrence and the mechanism of campaigning remain unclear. 1 Emerging technologies offer the US military a way to put these new concepts into action, sustaining its ability to prevent conflict and gaining an upper hand in the strategic competition with China despite the PLA’s “home team” advantages. The United States remains the world leader in operational and technological innovation, as evidenced by decades of advancements in networking and computing—marked recently by the rapid commercialization of artificial intelligence (AI). Building on the 2022 NDS, this report proposes a strategy for campaigning that would exploit information technologies to dissuade China from pursuing acts of aggression against allies such as Taiwan. The primary objective of the proposed campaigning model is to shape PRC government decision-making, especially that of the PRC military, in ways that are conducive to long-term regional stability and prosperity. A whole-of-government effort like that implied by the 2022 NDS would be the most effective form of campaigning because it could exploit the PRC government’s numerous vulnerabilities, from its appalling record on human rights to its loss of economic momentum and its growing demographic challenges. However, this report focuses on actions the US military can take by itself or with allied militaries to dissuade future PRC aggression. In the proposed approach, campaigning is an ongoing sequence of probing, signaling, adapting, and acting by the US military and intelligence community, coupled with and informed by instrumentation of the information environment. In addition to demonstrating US resolve, campaigning should enable the US to estimate competitor habits, preferences, and fears. These estimates would guide future campaigning activities and inform US force planners regarding a competitor’s uncertainty and areas of concern. Armed with increasing insight about adversary beliefs, campaigning actions would aim to shape an opponent’s preferences and priorities away from violent paths to their goals and toward scenarios that are more aligned with US interests. In offering an approach to dissuasion, this report diverges from the strategy of deterring war primarily through threats of denial or punishment. This construct has dominated US defense strategy since the Soviet Union collapsed because conventional dominance enabled the US military to credibly stop or reverse an act of aggression and nuclear weapons provided the capability to impose existential punishment. Today, the PRC’s status as a peer competitor makes denial and punishment less credible. The US government will instead need to prevent conflict before it becomes imminent.
Topic:
Security, Defense Policy, Economics, Science and Technology, Strategic Competition, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:
China, North America, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

5. Unalone and Unafraid: A Plan for Integrating Uncrewed and Other Emerging Technologies into US Military Forces

Author:
Dan Patt and Bryan Clark
Publication Date:
08-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
During the Cold War, the United States Department of Defense (DoD) led global research and development (R&D) and in the process created what are now commonplace technologies, including the internet, precision weapons, and the global positioning system. However, since then the DoD has struggled to incorporate new advancements as initiatives to transform the force or implement a new offset strategy have failed to substantially change the US military’s design or capability development processes. In large part, the DoD’s adoption difficulties result from the center of technological innovation shifting from governments to the private sector, increasingly making the military a technology customer rather than a creator. This is the case with artificial intelligence (AI) and uncrewed systems, which are already upending long-standing approaches to modern warfare. The challenge of integrating these new technologies, many of which are commercially derived, therefore provides a good case study for how the DoD could reform its processes and organizations for innovation. To that end, this study evaluates how the US military could realize more timely development, deployment, and integration of relevant uncrewed systems, and illustrates its proposed methods using examples from the US Navy. The Navy and DoD will need the operational advantages that AI-enabled uncrewed vehicles could offer. Against a resident major power like the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the US military cannot continue to rely on its historical dominance to deter and defeat aggression. Instead, the DoD will need to attack the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) strategy of system destruction warfare by fielding a force that is less predictable, more adaptable, and increasingly resilient. Uncrewed systems could enable such an approach by unlocking the operational innovation of US servicemembers, who could—like their counterparts in Ukraine today—use uncrewed systems to grow the variety of tactics and effects chains that they can employ, which could undermine PLA planning and concepts and afford US forces the capacity to sustain a protracted conflict. The ability of uncrewed systems to provide resilience and adaptability depends on scale. A small fleet of vehicles cannot be simultaneously applied against multiple mission threads or effects chains and will lack the capacity to support extended operations. Uncrewed systems can enable scale by foregoing robust self-defense and focusing on a narrow set of functions to lower their cost and complexity. These limitations will require that uncrewed systems be combined with other uncrewed systems and crewed platforms in systems of systems (SoS), which could exacerbate the US military’s long-standing struggles to integrate forces between and within each service branch. Realizing the benefits of uncrewed systems will therefore demand that the DoD establish routinized processes for integrating new mission threads and SoS. Otherwise, the US military services will only be able to field individual uncrewed systems that replace crewed platforms in existing use cases. US military services are already attempting to improve their ability to integrate SoS through initiatives in experimentation, rapid acquisition, digital interoperability, and Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2). However, as this report describes for the US Navy, these efforts tend to focus on long-term service objectives rather than near-term operational problems and use a top-down process of systems engineering to guide requirements for future capabilities. This traditional approach assumes that the US military has the time to develop new systems and retains a substantial technological edge over its rivals, but neither condition is likely to endure in the context of the US-PRC competition. To bring uncrewed systems into the force more quickly and gain the resulting operational advantages, the DoD will need to flip its traditional acquisition approach and adapt US military tactics or mission threads so they can integrate uncrewed systems that are available today. This bottom-up method of “mission integration” contrasts with the DoD’s predominant approach of systems engineering and reflects best practices emerging in commercial manufacturing or distribution, where the fastest and most effective way to assimilate robotics is to adjust the organization’s workflow as opposed to developing robots that replace humans in existing workflows.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Armed Forces, Emerging Technology, and Military
Political Geography:
Afghanistan, South Asia, North America, and United States of America

6. Choking off China’s Access to the Future of AI

Author:
Gregory Allen
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
On October 7, 2022, the Biden administration announced a new export controls policy on artificial intelligence (AI) and semiconductor technologies to China. These new controls—a genuine landmark in U.S.-China relations—provide the complete picture after a partial disclosure in early September generated confusion. For weeks the Biden administration has been receiving criticism in many quarters for a new round of semiconductor export control restrictions, first disclosed on September 1. The restrictions block leading U.S. AI computer chip designers, such as Nvidia and AMD, from selling their high-end chips for AI and supercomputing to China. The criticism typically goes like this: China’s domestic AI chip design companies could not win customers in China because their chip designs could not compete with Nvidia and AMD on performance. Chinese firms could not catch up to Nvidia and AMD on performance because they did not have enough customers to benefit from economies of scale and network effects. Because of the new export controls, revenues that formerly flowed to U.S. chip companies will now go to Chinese chip companies, offering a viable path to economies of scale and competitive performance. In the short term, this policy will significantly harm Chinese AI data center companies. However, blocking U.S. AI chip designers from selling their world-leading chips is actually good for China in the longer term because it will strengthen China’s domestic chip design ecosystem. While the reasoning in this criticism is sound, it does not imply that the Biden administration’s actions are self-defeating. Rather, it shows how the policy as disclosed in September was incomplete. A policy like this would not make sense if that is the only step the administration planned to take. Clearly something was missing, and industry experts have been waiting for the other shoe to drop ever since. On October 7, the other shoe dropped. The Biden administration announced a massive policy shift on semiconductor exports to China as well as revised rules for how the lists of restricted parties are managed. In recent decades, U.S. semiconductor policy has been primarily market driven and laissez faire. With the new policy, which comes on the heels of the CHIPS Act’s passage, the United States is firmly focused on retaining control over so-called “chokepoint” (or as it is sometimes translated from Chinese “stranglehold”) technologies in the global semiconductor technology supply chain. The most important chokepoints in the context of this discussion are AI chip designs, electronic design automation software, semiconductor manufacturing equipment, and equipment components. The Biden administration’s latest actions simultaneously exploit U.S. dominance across all four of these chokepoints. In doing so, these actions demonstrate an unprecedented degree of U.S. government intervention to not only preserve chokepoint control but also begin a new U.S. policy of actively strangling large segments of the Chinese technology industry—strangling with an intent to kill.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Hegemony, Artificial Intelligence, Rivalry, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

7. Breaking Down the Arguments for and against U.S. Antitrust Legislation

Author:
Caitlin Chin
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)
Abstract:
In many areas of the world, including the European Union, United Kingdom, South Korea, and Australia, governments are considering new legislation to check the market power of a few dominant technology platforms. Yet some of the most sweeping proposals are taking place within the U.S. Congress. In October 2020, the majority staff of the House Subcommittee on Antitrust, Commercial, and Administrative Law published a set of recommendations to promote competition in technology markets, the result of a 16-month investigation that directed attention to the actions of Alphabet (the parent company of Google), Amazon, Apple, and Facebook (now Meta). The House Judiciary Committee advanced six bills in June 2021 that paralleled many of these recommendations, focusing on the anticompetitive impacts of self- preferencing, mergers and acquisitions, data accumulation, and network effects related to digital platforms. Meanwhile, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to advance the American Innovation and Online Choice Act and Open App Markets Act in early 2022. While antitrust reform has seen broad bipartisan support in Congress, members of both parties have also expressed concerns that these bills might have unintended consequences. For example, many of the newly proposed restrictions would only apply to “covered platforms” that meet certain size or categorical criteria—which, under current market conditions, would primarily include Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, and Meta. In turn, some critics have asserted that unequal rules could create arbitrary winners or losers in the marketplace and even benefit foreign competitors or bad actors at the expense of U.S. technological innovation. To put these issues into context, below is an overview of seven major bills under consideration in the U.S. House and Senate as well as the related challenges, commentary, and controversies that surround them.
Topic:
Science and Technology, Legislation, Antitrust Law, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America

8. China Promotes Emerging Technology for Dual Use: The Case of Blockchain Technology

Author:
Takahiro Tsuchiya
Publication Date:
05-2021
Content Type:
Research Paper
Institution:
Japan Institute Of International Affairs (JIIA)
Abstract:
In recent years, the United States and China have entered into a new conflict over advanced science and its application in emerging technologies. China places particular emphasis on artificial intelligence (AI), blockchains, quantum information science, and neuroscience applications as emerging technologies that could impact security in the future. In the following paragraphs, I will take blockchain technology as an example and discuss how China, which places importance on this technology, aims for "technological hegemony" through dual use (both military and civilian use).
Topic:
Artificial Intelligence, Blockchain, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

9. Standards for a Secure 5G Infrastructure

Author:
Michel Girard
Publication Date:
03-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre for International Governance Innovation (CIGI)
Abstract:
Fifth-generation (5G) networks are the building blocks of the new digital economy; therefore, standardization of these networks is essential to building a strong foundation. A North American Technology Trust can help Canada, Mexico and the United States work together to develop common standards needed to build, maintain and operate a safe and reliable 5G infrastructure. These standards, guided by a 5G technology road map and safety code, will help maximize the benefits of 5G networks and related technologies for users across the continent. This policy brief is a contribution to a workshop focusing on the future of 5G in North America. The 5G Beyond Borders workshop, organized by the Wilson Center, CIGI and Tecnológico de Monterrey, discussed how strategic cooperation at the North American level can directly shape the future of 5G and lay the groundwork for expanded North American competitiveness in a range of emerging technologies.
Topic:
Regional Cooperation, Science and Technology, Infrastructure, 5G, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:
Canada, North America, Mexico, and United States of America

10. Health Technology Assessment for the US Healthcare System

Author:
Aspen Institute and USC Schaeffer Center For Health Policy & Economics
Publication Date:
03-2020
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Aspen Institute
Abstract:
The USC Schaeffer Center for Health Policy & Economics and the Aspen Institute’s Health, Medicine & Society Program have together established an advisory panel to consider how the U.S. can better link the price of health technologies to the benefits they provide to patients while ensuring a sustainable healthcare ecosystem that supports innovation.
Topic:
Health, Science and Technology, Health Care Policy, and Emerging Technology
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America