Future warfare, full spectrum conflict and our options
As Sino-Indian border skirmishes hint at a war between the two countries
A lot has been written on the recent Sino-Indian border skirmishes in the Ladakh area, with the Pakistani analyst community expecting possible conflagration of the conflict and India’s potential military embarrassment at the hands of a stronger China. I have maintained all along, such expectation is too far-fetched as China and India would never — wittingly or unwittingly —walk up to the brim; and that the era of conventional warfare, as we have known, is over. My previous two columns were dedicated to future warfare. This column culminates the discussion, but first some thoughts on the Sino-Indian stand-off.
Expecting India to do the US bidding in standing up to China in the resurrected Great Game 2.0 is not knowing India of Chanakya Kautilya (370-283 BC), also called Vishnugupta or the Indian Machiavelli, who said, “Do not reveal what you have thought of doing, but by wise council, keep it secret being determined to carry it into execution.” Thinking India to ditch its largest trading partner with an annual bilateral trade of just under $100 billion; and a neighbour that is destined to rise as a great superpower, on a changed global chessboard post-Covid-19, is naïve at best and delusional at worst.
India has historically conceded against formidable adversary. That historic constant — based on deep study of all elements of Indian national power potential, enveloped by a deep identity crisis and complex — does not change, Modi or no Modi. India under Modi, the strongman of RSS and the Hindutva Brigade, however, will change the mode of conflict with China choosing from an array of tools out of the playbook of hybrid warfare, as my previous columns tried to map-out.
With Pakistan, India will continue its policy of attempted politico-military coercion, incremental operational/tactical escalation, economic strangulation and diplomatic legitimacy for its behaviours. India will employ extensive perception-management tools like SMNs, deep fakes, shallow fakes, Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven “social bots”, etc. against Pakistan.
The traditional construct of warfare has shifted broadly from “limited warfare” to “total warfare” to ‘full spectrum warfare” in the future. Limited war entails employment of any combination of traditional services like the army, navy and air force; a total conflict employs all traditional arms and services. Whereas, a full spectrum conflict would involve limited and/or full employment of all “hybrid” capabilities — including non-traditional capabilities like networks (including SMNs), media in all forms, electronic and digital tools, space and nuclear leverages, etc. — in symmetric and/or asymmetric military, perceptual, virtual and societal warfare, etc. Available literature has generally discerned following broad trends in technology inspired, AI-based, future warfare.
First, waging war may seem “easier” as distant killing by remote-controlled machines (killer robots, drones, etc.), in a more abstract combat, would make such violence more tolerable and palatable for our societies, hence more likely.
Second, the break-neck speed of technological innovation would remain uneven across states, causing misperceptions about the adversary’s military capabilities (and actual balance of power), leading to miscalculations.
Third, the ensuing misperceptions and potential miscalculations might increase fear, uncertainty and risk. For instance, “second strike” capability is an important component of nuclear deterrence, dissuading a potential aggressor against going nuclear, given the victim’s ability to survive and strike back. But stealth and other technologies, i.e., hordes of undersea and long-range aerial drones — undetected by radars, etc. — can neutralise potential second strike platforms like submarines and nuclear capable missiles with practically no early warning. Such capabilities might embolden states to launch a pre-emptive strike without fearing second-strike retaliation.
Fourth, at some stage in the future, autonomous, AI-driven machines might run amok. A recent wargame by the US Centre for Gaming involving China against the US, Japan and South Korea combined, had initially speculated only robots destroying each other in unnoticed or uncared for combat till later human casualties. Human casualties caused machines to escalate in unexpected ways that humans couldn’t control. Accordingly, there is now industry-academia collaboration to create “humanistic” or “human-centered” AI that helps humans rather than replacing them. The product is called “centaur weapon systems” requiring human control, contrary to “lethal autonomous weapons” like AI-based robot killers, etc.
Fifth, the private sector has invested more in AI specific R&D during the last five years than governments, weakening state control of talent. For example, Uber recruited robotics researchers in 2015. Accumulation of cutting-edge technologies — increasingly in the private sector — makes public-private partnership the way to go. Falling prices may result in availability and proliferation of these dual-purpose technologies, including surveillance, drones, encryption, AI and genomics, to unwanted, state and non-state actors.
Sixth, social media-savvy Millennials and Generation Z, are increasingly assuming responsibility for defending citizenry through the private sector, shifting away from state control. The recent discontent against state authority in the US and Europe after the brutal murder of George Floyd, is just tip of the iceberg. This will change national security paradigms towards decentralised and networked self-defense.
Seventh, cyber-crime would flourish in the technology-rich environment with hacker-soldiers in demand. This becomes an increasingly ubiquitous threat to states, multinational companies and even influential individuals, warranting cyber forces and cyber strategies. The internet security company, McAfee, and Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimate more than $400 billion, as the annual loss to global economics because of cybercrime; this equals the combined defence expenditure of EU or Asia.
Eighth, there is no agreed code of conduct for potential conflict concerning the four global commons — outer space, high seas, atmosphere and Antarctica, as lack of natural borders makes it hard for international legal frameworks and governance institutions to do so. Potential conflict in these areas would be unregulated, hence may spin out of control.
The cited trends in the future call for robust international regulatory mechanism to address the possible long-term security implications of developments in as diverse fields as big data, machine learning, nanotechnology, synthetic biology and proliferation of malicious actors besides waging wars in space, etc.
Looking ahead, Pakistan needs to form academic-industry centres of excellence jointly under NUST and JSHQ (including army, PN and PAF experts) and SPD to develop organisational structures expandable into force structures, as resources become available, in order to: explore and develop civil and military-grade AI; build an outline space structure, translatable into space force; deter and respond to virtual, societal and perceptual warfare; liaise with China/PLA and other allied countries and forces; and advise the MoFA regarding international legislative efforts for global commons. The long journey starts with a single step.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 11th, 2020.
Expecting India to do the US bidding in standing up to China in the resurrected Great Game 2.0 is not knowing India of Chanakya Kautilya (370-283 BC), also called Vishnugupta or the Indian Machiavelli, who said, “Do not reveal what you have thought of doing, but by wise council, keep it secret being determined to carry it into execution.” Thinking India to ditch its largest trading partner with an annual bilateral trade of just under $100 billion; and a neighbour that is destined to rise as a great superpower, on a changed global chessboard post-Covid-19, is naïve at best and delusional at worst.
India has historically conceded against formidable adversary. That historic constant — based on deep study of all elements of Indian national power potential, enveloped by a deep identity crisis and complex — does not change, Modi or no Modi. India under Modi, the strongman of RSS and the Hindutva Brigade, however, will change the mode of conflict with China choosing from an array of tools out of the playbook of hybrid warfare, as my previous columns tried to map-out.
With Pakistan, India will continue its policy of attempted politico-military coercion, incremental operational/tactical escalation, economic strangulation and diplomatic legitimacy for its behaviours. India will employ extensive perception-management tools like SMNs, deep fakes, shallow fakes, Artificial Intelligence (AI)-driven “social bots”, etc. against Pakistan.
The traditional construct of warfare has shifted broadly from “limited warfare” to “total warfare” to ‘full spectrum warfare” in the future. Limited war entails employment of any combination of traditional services like the army, navy and air force; a total conflict employs all traditional arms and services. Whereas, a full spectrum conflict would involve limited and/or full employment of all “hybrid” capabilities — including non-traditional capabilities like networks (including SMNs), media in all forms, electronic and digital tools, space and nuclear leverages, etc. — in symmetric and/or asymmetric military, perceptual, virtual and societal warfare, etc. Available literature has generally discerned following broad trends in technology inspired, AI-based, future warfare.
First, waging war may seem “easier” as distant killing by remote-controlled machines (killer robots, drones, etc.), in a more abstract combat, would make such violence more tolerable and palatable for our societies, hence more likely.
Second, the break-neck speed of technological innovation would remain uneven across states, causing misperceptions about the adversary’s military capabilities (and actual balance of power), leading to miscalculations.
Third, the ensuing misperceptions and potential miscalculations might increase fear, uncertainty and risk. For instance, “second strike” capability is an important component of nuclear deterrence, dissuading a potential aggressor against going nuclear, given the victim’s ability to survive and strike back. But stealth and other technologies, i.e., hordes of undersea and long-range aerial drones — undetected by radars, etc. — can neutralise potential second strike platforms like submarines and nuclear capable missiles with practically no early warning. Such capabilities might embolden states to launch a pre-emptive strike without fearing second-strike retaliation.
Fourth, at some stage in the future, autonomous, AI-driven machines might run amok. A recent wargame by the US Centre for Gaming involving China against the US, Japan and South Korea combined, had initially speculated only robots destroying each other in unnoticed or uncared for combat till later human casualties. Human casualties caused machines to escalate in unexpected ways that humans couldn’t control. Accordingly, there is now industry-academia collaboration to create “humanistic” or “human-centered” AI that helps humans rather than replacing them. The product is called “centaur weapon systems” requiring human control, contrary to “lethal autonomous weapons” like AI-based robot killers, etc.
Fifth, the private sector has invested more in AI specific R&D during the last five years than governments, weakening state control of talent. For example, Uber recruited robotics researchers in 2015. Accumulation of cutting-edge technologies — increasingly in the private sector — makes public-private partnership the way to go. Falling prices may result in availability and proliferation of these dual-purpose technologies, including surveillance, drones, encryption, AI and genomics, to unwanted, state and non-state actors.
Sixth, social media-savvy Millennials and Generation Z, are increasingly assuming responsibility for defending citizenry through the private sector, shifting away from state control. The recent discontent against state authority in the US and Europe after the brutal murder of George Floyd, is just tip of the iceberg. This will change national security paradigms towards decentralised and networked self-defense.
Seventh, cyber-crime would flourish in the technology-rich environment with hacker-soldiers in demand. This becomes an increasingly ubiquitous threat to states, multinational companies and even influential individuals, warranting cyber forces and cyber strategies. The internet security company, McAfee, and Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) estimate more than $400 billion, as the annual loss to global economics because of cybercrime; this equals the combined defence expenditure of EU or Asia.
Eighth, there is no agreed code of conduct for potential conflict concerning the four global commons — outer space, high seas, atmosphere and Antarctica, as lack of natural borders makes it hard for international legal frameworks and governance institutions to do so. Potential conflict in these areas would be unregulated, hence may spin out of control.
The cited trends in the future call for robust international regulatory mechanism to address the possible long-term security implications of developments in as diverse fields as big data, machine learning, nanotechnology, synthetic biology and proliferation of malicious actors besides waging wars in space, etc.
Looking ahead, Pakistan needs to form academic-industry centres of excellence jointly under NUST and JSHQ (including army, PN and PAF experts) and SPD to develop organisational structures expandable into force structures, as resources become available, in order to: explore and develop civil and military-grade AI; build an outline space structure, translatable into space force; deter and respond to virtual, societal and perceptual warfare; liaise with China/PLA and other allied countries and forces; and advise the MoFA regarding international legislative efforts for global commons. The long journey starts with a single step.
Published in The Express Tribune, June 11th, 2020.