Impact of Advanced Computing on Military Planning

This RAND report is one of the more sober and useful contributions to the AI-in-warfare debate. Instead of hype, it frames AI through 4 enduring military competitions: Quantity vs Quality Hiding vs Finding Centralised vs Decentralised C2 Cyber Offence vs Cyber Defence That framing matters because AI does not replace strategy. It shifts balances. 1. Quantity may regain strategic relevance. AI-enabled uncrewed systems could make “affordable mass” more viable. Attritable systems combined with precision could offset reliance on exquisite platforms at least in certain missions. The future force may not be smaller and smarter but larger and networked. 2. The hiding–finding competition becomes sharper, not settled. AI will enhance sensor fusion and targeting and deception. Sophisticated camouflage, spoofing, signature management, AI-enabled misinformation could keep the competition contested. 3. Mission command remains critical. AI does not eliminate the need for human decision authority. Information access, not just cognitive processing, is the limiting factor in command models. AI may support decision cycles, but it doesn't erase the need for distributed trust-based command structures. 4. Cyber defence could strengthen but not dominate. AI may help defenders manage scale and speed, making networks more resilient. But cyber offense will also adapt. Diving deeper. - Overconfidence in “AI-enabled mass.” Mass without integration, sustainment, EW resilience, secure data pipelines becomes expensive confetti. - Underestimating deception and counter-AI. If everyone assumes AI gives superior visibility, adversaries will focus on blinding, spoofing, corrupting the sensing layer. - Command friction. If AI tools are layered onto legacy C2 without doctrinal reform, we risk cognitive overload, unclear authority lines, brittle decision cycles. - Cyber dependency concentration. More AI means more software, more connectivity, more attack surface. If resilience isn't designed in from the beginning, vulnerabilities scale faster than capability. - Transition mismanagement. The report highlights the need for a deliberate transition plan. Fielding AI too fast without trust, testing, training creates risk. Too slowly creates irrelevance. - Assuming first-mover advantage is permanent. Adaptive adversaries close gaps quickly. AI advantage isn't a static asset but a moving competition. - Are we trying to use AI to reinforce old force structures? Or are we prepared to rethink force design, procurement, training, doctrine, political risk tolerance? AI doesn't simply upgrade platforms. It shifts cost curves, changes tempo, alters detection dynamics, affects escalation pathways. If we focus only on the technology layer, without adjusting organisational and strategic foundations, we will miscalculate. AI isn't a silver bullet but an accelerant which amplifies both strengths and weaknesses #AIinDefence #MilitaryStrategy https://lnkd.in/d3AZgU9P

How AI is Changing the Way We Concentrate Combat Power In military strategy, we’ve long prized the principle of mass—concentrating superior combat power at a decisive point to overwhelm an adversary. From Napoleon and Clausewitz to J. F. C. Fuller, military theorists have framed aligning mass against decisive points (objective) as the critical factor in seizing and retaining the initiative in war. But in the 21st century, mass isn’t just about having more soldiers or firepower. It’s about converging effects across domains—cyber, space, air, land, sea—and using data-driven insights to gain tempo and decision dominance. Information plays a more critical role than ever and as a result artificial intelligence is reshaping how we gather and analyze insights to see fleeting advantages in time and space. Modern mass hinges on this information advantage—identifying precise moments where combining different capabilities achieves disproportionate effects. It’s why the Army’s concept of multidomain operations focuses on convergence: harnessing tools from multiple domains in sync with maneuver forces. Relative combat power calculations shift. Yes, old fashion mass still matters, but having more stuff absent agentic insights and understanding leads to diminishing returns. Look at Russia’s struggles in Ukraine: throwing large numbers of troops into the fight without the ability to synchronize effects leads to attrition, not breakthrough. AI can help us avoid that trap by helping commanders see battlespace and anticipate how to generate the right effects at the right time, across multiple domains, while maintaining humans in the loop for critical ethical and operational decisions. Put bluntly, the new operational art is waged through algorithms. Failing to do so invites being on the wrong end of the next Austerlitz. If we’re going to adapt successfully, we need a new era of experimentation—wargames, simulations, and iterative exercises that integrate highly sensitive capabilities from space, cyberspace, and the electromagnetic spectrum. These forums, akin to interwar professional military education, will refine both our operational concepts and the AI agents designed to support commanders. By aligning our “schoolhouses” with frontline innovation, we empower leaders to harness AI in generating modern mass—placing a premium on tempo, precision, and broad information advantage. The future of mass remains about focusing combat power for decisive outcomes. Yet, in this next evolution, data and algorithms have joined soldiers, attack aviation and artillery in the fight. The principle stays the same; the methods are changing. https://lnkd.in/eiZwRMT9 #Army #AI #operationalart #strategy

Reflecting on the #SommetActionIA, it's clear that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing military operations and presenting both opportunities and challenges for #NATO. Accelerating the OODA Loop: AI significantly accelerates our Observe, Orient, Decide, Act (OODA) loop, enabling us to gain a crucial advantage by operating inside our adversaries' decision cycles. AI can condense tasks that typically take a day into an hour, leading to faster and more informed decisions. Data as the New Gold: In the age of AI, data is paramount. AI's power lies in its ability to process and leverage vast amounts of data. Mastering data is therefore essential for maintaining a competitive edge. The "fog of data" requires careful evaluation of data reliability. NATO Data Interoperability: For NATO, data interoperability is critical. Our ability to share data and create common data standards is crucial for effective collaboration and leveraging AI's full potential. Establishing data architectures with hyperscalers and on-premise solutions, and defining data standards for sharing is needed. AI and Mass Robotics: AI is the mandatory step toward the integration of mass robotics in military operations. The rise of drone swarms necessitates AI for mission design and execution, reducing the need for human operators. Divesting from expensive legacy systems to invest in low-end, scalable, autonomous solutions is needed. Dual-Use Technology: AI is a dual-use technology, offering substantial benefits to both the military and the private sector. Adapting reliable civilian AI applications for military use presents a significant opportunity. This "redualization" of the defense sector sees tech companies creating products applicable to both civilian and military domains. The integration of AI in the military field is not limited to a simple question of technology; it requires a profound transformation of mentalities and practices within the armed forces. To fully exploit the potential of AI, it is essential to recognize that the adoption of this technology primarily involves a change in behavior at all levels. Key points that I believe should be considered to successfully achieve this transition: Adoption > Innovation: AI integration requires a fundamental change in behavior at all levels. We need to reassess expectations, incentives and leadership approaches. Evolved Missions: AI-based solutions, such as unmanned systems, require us to adopt new defense strategies and foster understanding. Cognitive Advantage: We must prepare for cognitive warfare by recognizing how AI influences perceptions and decision-making. Resilience and Sovereignty: It is imperative to balance the benefits of AI with data sovereignty and operational resilience. Adopt new sovereignty tools. Leadership MUST lead by example: Digital transformation requires leaders to champion change and invest in AI training for all military personnel. https://lnkd.in/eNePJ7ts

AI is no longer just a chatbot. It is becoming part of real battlefield decision making. During the recent Israel Iran conflict, reports suggest that US Central Command used Anthropic’s AI model Claude to assist in intelligence analysis, target evaluation and battle simulations. The AI was not pulling a trigger, but it was processing massive volumes of data to support military decisions where seconds matter. And yet, despite being used in active operations, the US government has now terminated its contract with Anthropic and labeled the company a supply chain risk. Why? Because Anthropic refused to remove certain safety guardrails. The company has taken a clear position that its AI should not be used for mass domestic surveillance or fully autonomous lethal weapons. In other words, AI can assist humans, but it should not replace human judgment in life and death decisions. The Pentagon sees this differently. From a national security perspective, any restriction that limits operational flexibility is a concern. In times of conflict, speed and technological advantage can define outcomes. This is not just a contract dispute. It is a defining moment in the balance of power between governments and AI companies. Who sets the red lines for artificial intelligence? Should private tech firms have the authority to refuse certain military applications? As AI becomes more deeply embedded in defense systems, these questions will shape not only the future of warfare but also the future of governance, democracy and global power structures. We are entering an era where algorithms sit closer to the center of strategic decision making. The debate has only just begun.

New Strategic Report Release “China’s Multi-Domain Offensive Options Against Taiwan: A Computational Iterative Wargame Analysis” Prepared by the GSMSG team, this report models likely PLA courses of action across land, sea, air, space, cyber, and information domains. Using extensive computational iterations, we simulated both Red and Blue force strategies to identify the most effective patterns of offense and defense. While the Red Team plan is published here, Blue Team countermeasures remain restricted for OPSEC reasons. This analysis provides insight into modern multi-domain warfare, escalation risks, and implications for U.S. and allied defense planning. #Strategy #NationalSecurity #ComputationalWargaming #GSMSG #Taiwan #PLA #IndoPacific #DefenseAnalysis Irregular Warfare Center (IWC) Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) American Enterprise Institute The Brookings Institution U.S. Department of State General David H. Petraeus, US Army (Ret.)

Automated warfare: here’s how AI is taking control of defense Artificial intelligence is transforming defense. Not just armed drones. It’s changing everything: command chains, decisions, logistics, cyberattacks. And it does so faster than any human. Stay with me until the end. This isn’t future speculation. It’s happening now, without rules or limits. The turning point came with the war in Ukraine. Ukrainian forces deployed a system called Delta, a software that collects data from multiple sources and suggests targets. Satellite images, intercepts, coordinates. All in real time. But who makes the final decision, the commander or the machine? In the United States, the Department of Defense created the JAIC (Joint Artificial Intelligence Center). The goal is clear: integrate AI into every phase of defense. Since 2023, new military systems have been designed to analyze scenarios and recommend actions in seconds. But if they make a mistake, who’s accountable? At least 30 countries are now developing autonomous war technologies. Yet none have signed binding agreements to limit them. There is no treaty requiring human oversight or banning autonomous weapons. Existing conventions are outdated. They don’t cover situations where an algorithm decides who should die. Talking about “AI ethics in defense” doesn’t just mean killer robots. The real issue is automated decision-making. When AI gives the order, human judgment shrinks. If the command comes from a so-called intelligent system, who has the courage to stop it? What needs to happen? Demand transparency in algorithms. Enforce human control at all levels. Create clear, enforceable international rules. Introduce a new role, digital military ethics officer. A calculation error cannot justify civilian deaths. A war fought by machines will never be a war without consequences. If we delegate defense, we also delegate responsibility. #ArtificialDecisions #MCC #AI