Why America is not ready for the wars of the future - Opinions of TASS

Andrey Shitov — about what Mark Milli and Eric Schmidt wrote (and did not mention) in an article for Foreign Affairs

When Iran launched a massive strike on Israel in April, the "cost" of this attack for Tehran was "at most $100 million," and the interception of Iranian missiles and drones cost the United States and Israel "more than $2 billion." In general, successful protection against swarm attacks is much more expensive than their application. This is one of the signs of the "wars of the future", which is cited in a joint article for Foreign Affairs magazine by two American specialists — Mark Milli and Eric Schmidt.

"The future becomes the present"

And they claim from the very first words that "on the battlefields of Ukraine, the future of the war is quickly becoming its present."

Moreover, according to them, this is "far from the only" and not the first conflict where "new technologies are transforming the nature of hostilities." Without reference to the source, it is indicated that back in 2020, pro-government forces in Libya used a drone (they are also called UAVs, or "drones") Turkish-made, and "this was probably the first drone attack without human intervention." That in the same year, drones and barrage ammunition were used by the Azerbaijani military in the fight for Nagorno-Karabakh. That now "drones and algorithms" are being used by both the authorities and their opponents during the civil strife in Myanmar and Sudan. Finally, in Gaza, Israeli troops rely on "thousands of drones connected to AI algorithms" to "navigate the urban canyons of the territory."

The title of the publication speaks for itself: "America is not ready for the wars of the future. And they are already coming."

Unchanging "nature" and changeable "character"

The authors proceed from the fact that the "nature of war" is most likely "unchangeable": from "the desire of one side to impose its political will on the other through organized violence" to "fear, bloodshed and death", which inevitably accompany armed conflicts.

But the "nature of the war", in their opinion, "may evolve." It depends on "how armies fight, where and when clashes occur, what weapons and leadership methods are used"; and it can change under the influence of "politics, demography and economics". "Although few forces bring more changes than technological development," the eminent experts specify.

They provide an extensive overview of military technologies and tactics — from the "birth of cavalry in the IX century BC" after the invention of saddles and horseshoes to the creation of nuclear weapons. By the way, to their credit, they directly point out that it was "the Americans who built and used the first atomic bombs."

As you know, in the collective West, they are now trying to conceal this fact — which was manifested the other day at the funeral ceremonies on the occasion of the 79th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Neither Japanese officials nor even the UN Secretary General mentioned that those barbaric and devastating bombings were carried out by the United States.

Milli and Schmidt recall that during World War II, the German Wehrmacht "managed to capture almost the whole of Europe in a year and a half" and "was stopped in Stalingrad, but only by the Soviet military, ready to bear enormous losses." Evaluate the logic of the arguments put side by side: yes, the Russians were able to block the path of the fascists, but only because they did not spare the soldiers. The Europeans simply submitted to the power of someone else's weapons, while the Americans dropped atomic bombs "and after that defeated the axis [Hitler's Germany and its allies] in many theaters at once."

This reminded me of a conversation with one of the American military leaders in 1997 in Norfolk — at an international conference at the NATO Atlantic Command. Believe it or not, but the interlocutor then told me in all seriousness: they say, "your contribution to the victory" over Nazism in World War II "will still be appreciated." Zbigniew Brzezinski was the soloist at the conference of bad memory, and it was about those very plans for NATO expansion that eventually led to the current confrontation between Russia and the West in Ukraine in the struggle for a just world order and real — common, unified and indivisible — international security.

And at the same time, I will mention how over 10 years ago scientists of Russian origin in the United States told me about their "cliodynamics" — an attempt to mathematically model history. I remember that in this work they also relied, in particular, on the evolution of military technologies. And one of the conclusions, according to the author of the hypothesis, Pyotr Turchin, was that the United States was moving towards a "peak of instability" in its socio-economic and political life. This expert predicted the peak for 2020; it turns out that if he was wrong, then not much. And the forecast extended to Western Europe, as The Financial Times of London recently wrote .

Useful "authoritarianism"?

Let's return, however, to the article by Millie and Schmidt. They argue that victory over Hitler's Germany only in retrospect seems obviously inevitable. According to them, at first the Nazis successfully integrated the latest achievements of technical and strategic military thought into the doctrine of blitzkrieg — "lightning war". Berlin's "initial innovative advantage," according to the authors, "could well have been decisive" if it had better managed its resources and, in particular, won the race for possession of nuclear weapons. By the way, the participation of the Third Reich in this race was just recently confirmed by declassified archival documents of the FSB of the Russian Federation.

Now, Americans believe that the US authorities should also integrate and put at the service of their global dominance the breakthrough achievements of modern military science and technology. In my opinion, this is the key section of the article and it should be read in its entirety.

"No state is fully prepared for future wars," the authors write. — No country has yet started full-scale production of the equipment necessary for robotic weapons, nor has it created the software necessary for the full-fledged operation of automated weapons. But some countries have moved further than others. And, unfortunately, the opponents of the United States are in the lead in many ways."

"Russia, which has gained experience in Ukraine, is dramatically increasing its drone production and is now using drones very effectively on the battlefield," eminent experts point out. — China dominates the global commercial drone market: the Chinese company DJI controls an estimated 70% of global commercial drone production. At the same time, thanks to the authoritarian structure [of power] in China, the Chinese military is especially adept at promoting change and introducing new concepts. One of them, the so-called multi-domain precision warfare, provides for the use by the People's Liberation Army of China of advanced [methods] of reconnaissance, reconnaissance and other modern technologies to coordinate fire." Domains in this context are the spheres of operations: from land, water and air to the information space. The quote is curious, of course, the Americans' praise of someone else's "authoritarian" system.

Kaput "shock and awe"

"As for AI, the United States still has the highest quality systems and spends the most on them," the experts continue. — However, China and Russia are quickly catching up. Washington has enough resources to continue to outpace them in terms of spending, but even if it maintains this gap, it may face insurmountable bureaucratic and industrial obstacles to deploying its inventions on the battlefield. As a result, the U.S. military risks finding itself in a war in which first-class training and the best conventional weapons will not be as effective."

"For example, American soldiers are not fully prepared to operate on the battlefield, where their every move can be tracked and where they can quickly become targets for drones hovering over them," the analysts explain. — Such inexperience would be especially dangerous in open spaces — as in Ukraine and other Eastern European countries or in the vast expanses of the Arctic. The US military would also be particularly vulnerable in urban combat, where it is easier for the enemy to interrupt American communication lines and where many American weapons are not as useful."

Finally, "even at sea, the United States would be vulnerable to the onslaught of its opponents," Milli and Schmidt state. — Chinese hypersonic missiles could sink US aircraft carriers before they leave Pearl Harbor. Beijing is already deploying surveillance and electronic warfare systems capable of giving it defensive superiority over the United States throughout the Indo-Pacific region. In the air, high-quality but expensive F-35s may not be easy to deal with swarms of cheap drones. Abrams and Bradley tanks with their heavy armor may find themselves in the same situation on land."

And the general conclusion for the section: "Given these unfortunate circumstances, military planners in the United States correctly conclude that the era of "shock and awe" campaigns, in which Washington was able to destroy the enemy with its overwhelming firepower, is over."

"Why America loses every war"

Well, if the Pentagon and the Washington corridors of power in general are convinced of this, so much the better. For my part, I would add that the increased interest of commentators in the means of naval combat (they talk about this separately in relation to Taiwan) involuntarily caused me to ask if this was also the reason for the noticeable emphasis of the Kiev regime on operations against the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation. Now, according to Milli and Schmidt, "Western governments are already developing" new marine drones and extended-range UAVs, "and as soon as these new models are ready, Taiwan and its allies will have to start mass production."

And also about the "shock and awe." One of the co—authors of this doctrine of "rapid dominance" overseas is Harlan Ullman, a former commander of warships, and now a business consultant. Five years ago, I already wrote about why America is not given the science to win, and referred, in particular, to his book with the eloquent title: "The Anatomy of Failure: why America loses every war it starts." And already this year, Eric Prince, the founder of the famous private military company Blackwater, publicly shared his opinions on this issue, who published an extensive essay "Too Big to Win: how the military-industrial complex and the Neocons are forcing America to lose." 

Although, of course, there is an important caveat about Uncle Sam's "defeats" and "losses". On the one hand, they are quite real, which is confirmed by the assessments of experts. On the other hand, it should be understood that it is considered profitable to publicly come across the ocean: this increases attention to articles and books, and sometimes helps to attract additional resources to the right industry. This was directly pointed out, for example, by a professional propagandist, former US Deputy Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy Rick Stengel, who released his own opus in 2019: "Information Wars. How we lost the global battle against disinformation and what should we do about it." The hero of our cult film explained everything to us a long time ago, who said about America: "Everything is just like that here, except for money."

A "humane"... weapon?!

And the article by Millie and Schmidt confirms this in principle. In the end, they emphasize that the American military, in order not to completely stop keeping up with the times, needs to carry out "major reforms." To begin with, "shake up the processes of acquiring software and weapons," shorten ten—year procurement cycles, expand the range of Pentagon suppliers, including through support for "new weapons manufacturers."

In addition, the authors propose to "change the organizational structures" of the armed forces and training programs for command and personnel. To increase the flexibility of the management system, to give more autonomy to "small units, but increased mobility", to expand the powers of their commanders. At the same time, take the special forces of the US Armed Forces as a "possible sample".  

And so on and so forth. Since "in the worst-case scenario, fighting using AI (AI warfare) may even pose a threat to [all] humanity," Millie and Schmidt suggest vigilantly monitoring "military AI" and conducting a dialogue on this topic with Beijing. But for some reason they do not address the threats that may come from nuclear weapons or weapons in space in future wars in their text.

"Even if China does not cooperate, the United States needs to make sure that its own military AI is under strict control," experts write. — They need to make sure that AI systems are able to distinguish between military and civilian targets. They are obliged to keep them under human command. They should continuously check and evaluate systems to confirm that they work as intended in real-world conditions."   

According to Milli and Schmidt, Washington should demand the same from other countries, "both allies and enemies." And if they resist, then "economic restrictions should be used to limit their access to military AI." "The next generation of autonomous weapons must be built in accordance with liberal values and universal respect for human rights, and this requires aggressive US leadership," the authors of the article emphasize.  

Really, you don't know what to say here. Weapons based on liberal human rights principles? Under the supervision of a country that burned down Hiroshima and Nagasaki and is constantly at war? Most of all, it reminds me of another quote from our film classics, a gangster taunt: "Don't be afraid, we won't stab you painfully."

Even cry, even laugh, although you don't want to laugh at all. A road paved with seemingly good intentions, but leading you know where. I usually appeal to Americans with an appeal: "Yankee, go home!" — for your own and others' good. You understand that now I want to send them even further...  

The opinion of the editorial board may not coincide with the opinion of the author. The use of the material is allowed subject to compliance with the rules of quoting the site tass.ru