By: Alexa Wehsener and Philip Reiner
Technology for Global Security (T4GS) is passionate about providing opportunities through which the public and private sectors can interact on critical issues, ideally fostering relationships and developing a bridge between communities in the process. As we recently noted, hosting cybersecurity tabletop exercises (CTTXs) is one way we accomplish this bridge-building.
Over the past year, T4GS has hosted CTTXs with a genesis around the threats posed by distributed-denial of service (DDoS) attacks. Last summer in Washington D.C., we hosted a group of experts representing the tech industry, federal government, and cybersecurity policy communities. These experts participated in a scenario in which a simulated cyberattack occurred on U.S. and allied critical infrastructure. The simulation was designed to explore the inevitable vulnerabilities, biases, and communication challenges that have yet to be adequately addressed in the current cyber crisis response protocol. …
By: Alexa Wehsener and Philip Reiner
At Technology for Global Security (T4GS), we do not accept the argument that there is a divide between technology companies and Washington D.C. Quite simply, there are differing cultures across all domains — we embrace that fact and thrive on it. More importantly, we accept that technology is moving faster than policy can keep up — which requires earnest, trustworthy venues for the honest exchange of ideas and tools.
As part of our suite of solutions to these challenges, T4GS conducts public-private cybersecurity tabletop exercises (CTTXs) to examine current trends and potential future crises. These games force players to actively imagine what is possible, question their assumptions, and collaborate with others outside their comfort zones. …
TECHNOLOGY FOR GLOBAL SECURITY
May 6th, 2019
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Today, nine states have nuclear weapons and fourteen states have nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) systems. How multiple nuclear-armed states interact in nuclear-prone conflicts is poorly understood. National NC3 capabilities are technically dissimilar and operate in different governance and cultural systems. Of note, there are no common standards of NC3 performance. Additionally, the impact of NC3 systems on the risk of nuclear war in regional flashpoints is a new factor in the decisions of the global nuclear weapons states. …
A TECHNOLOGY FOR GLOBAL SECURITY PODCAST
Featuring Paul Bracken, Peter Hayes, and Philip Reiner
Listen to the full podcast here: https://www.tech4gs.org/dr-paul-bracken.html
OVERVIEW
In this podcast, Paul Bracken analyzes the big structures and large processes of nuclear multipolarity. A framework for analyzing this global system is developed, one made up of national command and control plus the “system dynamics” of their interlinked behavior. The paper underscores how advanced technologies — cyberwar, drones, and anti-satellite weapons (ASAT) — affects NC3. The structures include the national command and control of at least eighteen countries, to include nine nuclear weapon states, “shared” weapons in NATO, missile defense, and key intelligence nodes in select countries. …
AUTHOR: PAUL BRACKEN
TECHNOLOGY FOR GLOBAL SECURITY SPECIAL REPORT
May 14, 2019
I. INTRODUCTION
In this essay, Paul Bracken analyzes the big structures and large processes of nuclear multipolarity. The structures include the national command and control of at least eighteen countries, to include nine nuclear weapon states, “shared” weapons in NATO, missile defense, and key intelligence nodes in select countries. Processes include the delegated flow of launch authority, innovation, and digitization in many forms. A framework for analyzing this global system is developed, one made up of national command and control plus the “system dynamics” of their interlinked behavior.
Paul Bracken is professor of management and political science at Yale University. …
Technology for Global Security and the Center for Global Security Research
Introduction
Artificial intelligence has burst upon the national security scene with an intensity to surprise even the most veteran observers of the national policy discourse. The renewed spike of interest is driven in part by popular characterizations of novel AI techniques as revolutionary, ostensibly on par with the discovery of fire, electricity, or nuclear weapons.1 It is also driven in part by the rapid absorption of nascent AI-based technologies — primarily driven by novel machine learning techniques — into diverse sectors of the global economy, often with transformative effects (as for example in the sciences and in social media). It is also driven, however, in large part by the great power ambitions of America’s competitors and potential adversaries. Echoing the 19th century naval strategist Alfred Mahan (“Whoever rules the waves rules the world”), Russia’s President Putin has stated that the nation that rules in AI “will be the ruler of the world.”2 China’s leader Xi Jinping is perhaps less demonstrative publicly, but has committed to making China the dominant global AI power by 2030, following what was widely heralded as China’s “Sputnik moment” after the loss by Lee Sedol to AlphaGo in 2016.3 There are mounting fears that the United States is woefully under-prepared to manage these new challenges, and that the United States will end up “offset” due to the sheer scale at which the Chinese intend to deploy AI. Could AI disrupt and reshape the strategic international balance, as blue water navies and nuclear weapons did in previous eras? Might it do so in a manner so severe that it leads to war? Is an AI arms race underway?4 …
Technology for Global Security and the Center of Global Security Research
Introduction
As the 21st century geopolitical balance shifts in uncertain ways, there is an increasing eagerness to deploy AI technologies into both the physical and digital battlefields to gain both tactical and strategic advantage over adversaries. However, the nature of increasingly powerful and unpredictable AI demands a measured and balanced approach to deploying these tools before the limitations, risks, and vulnerabilities are fully understood and addressed. Indeed, these technologies may not currently be “ready for primetime”, on a number of levels. We begin this discussion — meant to be a series of posts on this domain of issues — focused on the following. …
Technology for Global Security and the Center of Global Security Research
Introduction
On June 29, 2018, Technology for Global Security and the Center for Global Security Research hosted a roundtable discussion to explore how artificial intelligence related techniques and tools will impact international security policymaking. The discussion specifically investigated the potential security implications of these technologies as they are considered for use in military capacities. The discussion was attended by a mix of academics, research scientists, venture capitalists, civil society, and industry. This discussion was the first in a series of workshops to better understand the potential role AI will play in international stability and deterrence. This summary is an attempt at capturing the essence and critical takeaways from the discussion.
As the 21st century geopolitical balance shifts in uncertain ways, there is an increasing eagerness to deploy AI technologies into the both the physical and digital battlefields, to gain both tactical and strategic advantage over adversaries. However, the nature of increasingly powerful and unpredictable AI demands a cautious approach to releasing it before the limitations, risks, and vulnerabilities are fully understood and addressed. The consensus among the discussants was that these technologies are not currently “ready for primetime”, on a number of levels. First, assumptions regarding the ability for AI technologies to “predict” are over-hyped. Second, an increase in power in a specific task does not translate to unrelated tasks: the current generation of AI remains limited to constrained environments — which warzones are not — making the deployment of current AI technologies in a military context highly unpredictable. As one participant explained, “machine learning is still very reactive — its just not sustainable.” The human-machine interface remains an extremely important element of the development of these technologies, which was highlighted in the discussion of the ‘black-box’ problem, which makes it difficult for the user to understand the exact process by which the tech comes to it’s conclusions/decisions. …
SUNIL DUBEY, TECHNOLOGY FOR GLOBAL SECURITY
“But I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin”
- John the Savage [1]
Introduction
By 2030, over 65% of total world population will live in cities and urban regions. Cities are engines of global economic growth and prosperity with rising levels of social inequalities and environmental degradations. Cities are also the major targets of conventional and economic threats and wars. Cities are hub of intellectual resources and technological talent pools while attracting the most disruptive technological advancements for its security, safety and biological threats. Cities are the location where social media, including rumor, fake news, and false alarms — are experienced most directly. In some instances, social media propagation of false news drives extraordinary violence — including outright mob lynching to major changes in the seat of governments. Social media is also exploited by non-state actors like criminal and terrorist networks, as occurred in major terrorist attacks and threats. Cities, particularly developing cities, are ill prepared to address the rising impact of social media and on-line communication platforms on the safety, security and resilience preparedness during emergency situations, like natural disasters, wars and nuclear threats. This paper identifies four major themes related to cities and develops six theoretical principles where capacity building through applied and in-person training contributes towards cities preparedness for major threats and occurrences, including nuclear and biological threats. It considers the persistence of rising threats in Indo-Pacific region and major challenges faced by developing cities in capacity building towards resilience and threat posed by conventional and non-conventional weapons by state and non-state actors. …
About
