Episodes

  • Jonathan Klug and Mick Ryan – On White Sun War: The Campaign for Taiwan

    Jonathan Klug and Mick Ryan – On White Sun War: The Campaign for Taiwan
    Sep 19 2023
    Jonathan Klug and Mick Ryan – On White Sun War: The Campaign for Taiwan In this podcast, US Army Col. Jon Klug and retired Australian Major General Mick Ryan discuss Ryan's most recent book, White Sun War: The Campaign for Taiwan, and its potential implications for future warfare. Keywords: artificial intelligence (AI), Taiwan, China, United States, space, cyberspace  
    Show More Show Less
    14 mins
  • Anthony Pfaff and Adam Henschke – The Ethics of Trusting AI

    Anthony Pfaff and Adam Henschke – The Ethics of Trusting AI
    Jul 18 2023
    C. Anthony Pfaff and Adam Henschke – The Ethics of Trusting AI Based on the monograph Trusting AI: Integrating Artificial Intelligence into the Army’s Professional Expert Knowledge and the Parameters article "Minotaurs, Not Centaurs: The Future of Manned-Unmanned Teaming," this episode focuses on the ethics of trusting AI. Who is responsible when something goes wrong? When is it okay for AI to make command decisions? How can humans and machines work together to form more effective teams? These questions and more are explored in this podcast. Keywords: artificial intelligence (AI), manned-unmanned teaming, ethical AI, civil-military relations, autonomous weapons systems Read the transcript: C. Anthony Pfaff and Adam Henschke – The Ethics of Trusting AI
    Show More Show Less
    28 mins
  • Paul Scharre and Robert J. Sparrow – AI: Centaurs Versus Minotaurs—Who Is in Charge?

    Paul Scharre and Robert J. Sparrow – AI: Centaurs Versus Minotaurs—Who Is in Charge?
    Jun 28 2023
    Paul Scharre and Robert J. Sparrow – AI: Centaurs Versus Minotaurs—Who Is in Charge? Who is in charge when it comes to AI? People or machines? In this episode, Paul Scharre, author of the books Army of None: Autonomous Weapons and the Future of War and the award-winning Four Battlegrounds: Power in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, and Robert Sparrow, coauthor with Adam Henschke of “Minotaurs, Not Centaurs: The Future of Manned-Unmanned Teaming” that was featured in the Spring 2023 issue of Parameters, discuss AI and its future military implications. Read the article here. E-mail usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast. Keywords: artificial intelligence (AI), data science, lethal targeting, professional expert knowledge, talent management, ethical AI, civil-military relations Episode transcript: AI: Centaurs Versus Minotaurs: Who Is in Charge? Stephanie Crider (Host)  The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.   You're listening to Conversations on Strategy.   I'm talking with Paul Scharre and Professor Rob Sparrow today. Scharre is the author of Army of None: Autonomous Weapons in the Future of War, and Four Battlegrounds: Power in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. He's the vice president and director of studies at the Center for a New American Security.   Sparrow is co-author with Adam Henschke of “Minotaurs, Not Centaurs: The Future of Manned-Unmanned Teaming,” which was featured in the Spring 2023 issue of Parameters. Sparrow is a professor in the philosophy program at Monash University, Australia, where he works on ethical issues raised by new technologies.   Welcome to Conversations on Strategy. Thanks for being here today.  Paul Scharre  Absolutely. Thank you.  Host  Paul, you talk about centaur warfighting in your work. Rob and Adam re-envisioned that model in their article. What exactly is centaur warfighting?  Scharre  Well, thanks for asking, and I’m very excited to join this conversation with you and with Rob on this topic. The idea really is that as we see increased capabilities in artificial intelligence and autonomous systems that rather than thinking about machines operating on their own that we should be thinking about humans and machines as part of a joint cognitive system working together. And the metaphor here is the idea of a centaur, the mythical creature of a 1/2 human 1/2 horse, with the human on top—the head and the torso of a human and then the body of a horse. You know, there's, like, a helpful metaphor to think about combining humans and machines working to solve problems using the best of both human and machine intelligence. That's the goal.  Host  Rob, you see AI being used differently. What's your perspective on this topic?  Robert Sparrow  So, I think it's absolutely right to be talking about human-machine or manned-unmanned teaming. I do think that we will see teams of artificial intelligence as robots and human beings working and fighting together in the future. I'm less confident that the human being will always be in charge. And I think the image of the ccentaur is kind of reassuring to people working in the military because it says, “Look, you'll get to do the things that you love and think are most important. You'll get to be in charge, and you'll get the robots to do the grunt work.” And, actually, when we look at how human beings and machines collaborate in civilian life, we actually often find it’s the other way around.   (It) turns out that machines are quite good at planning and calculating and cognitive skills. They're very weak at interactions with the physical world. Nowadays, if you, say, ask ChatGPT to write you a set of orders to deploy troops it can probably do a passable job at that just by cannibalizing ex...
    Show More Show Less
    32 mins
  • C. Anthony Pfaff and Christopher J. Lowrance – Trusting AI: Integrating Artificial Intelligence into the Army’s Professional Expert Knowledge

    C. Anthony Pfaff and Christopher J. Lowrance – Trusting AI: Integrating Artificial Intelligence into the Army’s Professional Expert Knowledge
    Jun 22 2023
    C. Anthony Pfaff and Christopher J. Lowrance – Trusting AI: Integrating Artificial Intelligence into the Army’s Professional Expert Knowledge Integrating artificially intelligent technologies for military purposes poses a special challenge. In previous arms races, such as the race to atomic bomb technology during World War II, expertise resided within the Department of Defense. But in the artificial intelligence (AI) arms race, expertise dwells mostly within industry and academia. Also, unlike the development of the bomb, effective employment of AI technology cannot be relegated to a few specialists; almost everyone will have to develop some level of AI and data literacy. Complicating matters is AI-driven systems can be a “black box” in that humans may not be able to explain some output, much less be held accountable for its consequences. This inability to explain coupled with the cession to a machine of some functions normally performed by humans risks the relinquishment of some jurisdiction and, consequently, autonomy to those outside the profession. Ceding jurisdiction could impact the American people’s trust in their military and, thus, its professional standing. To avoid these outcomes, creating and maintaining trust requires integrating knowledge of AI and data science into the military’s professional expertise. This knowledge covers both AI technology and how its use impacts command responsibility; talent management; governance; and the military’s relationship with the US government, the private sector, and society. Read the monograph here. Email usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast. Keywords: artificial intelligence (AI), data science, lethal targeting, professional expert knowledge, talent management, ethical AI, civil-military relations Episode transcript: Trusting AI: Integrating Artificial Intelligence into the Army's Professional Expert Knowledge  Stephanie Crider (Host)  You're listening to Conversations on Strategy. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government.   Joining me today are Doctor C. Anthony Pfaff and Colonel Christopher J. Lowrance, coauthors of Trusting AI: Integrating Artificial Intelligence into the Army's Professional Expert Knowledge with Brie Washburn and Brett Carey.   Pfaff, a retired US Army colonel, is the research professor for strategy, the military profession, and ethics at the US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute and a senior nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council.   Colonel Christopher J. Lowrance is the chief autonomous systems engineer at the US Army Artificial Intelligence Integration Center.   Your monograph notes that AI literacy is critical to future military readiness. Give us your working definition of AI literacy, please.  Dr.  C. Anthony Pfaff  AI literacy is more aimed at our human operators (and that means commanders and staffs, as well as, you know, the operators themselves) able to employ these systems in a way that not only we can optimize the advantage these systems promise but also be accountable for their output. That requires knowing things about how data is properly curated. It will include knowing things about how algorithms work, but, of course, not everyone can become an AI engineer. So, we have to kind of figure out at whatever level, given whatever tasks you have, what do you need to know for these kinds of operations to be intelligent?  Col. Christopher J. Lowrance  I think a big part of it is going to be also educating the workforce. And that goes all the way from senior leaders down to the users of the systems. And so, a critical part of it is understanding how best AI-enabled systems can fit in, their appropriate roles that they can play, and how best they can team or augment soldiers as they compl...
    Show More Show Less
    24 mins
  • Roger Cliff – China’s Future Military Capabilities

    Roger Cliff – China’s Future Military Capabilities
    May 22 2023
    Roger Cliff – China's Future Military Capabilities The 2022 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America identifies China as the “pacing challenge” for the US military. This podcast examines the process by which China’s military capabilities are developed, the capabilities China’s military is seeking to acquire in the future, and the resulting implications for the US military. To date, all the extant studies have merely described the capabilities the People’s Liberation Army is currently acquiring. The monograph goes further by drawing on the Chinese military’s publications to identify and discuss the capabilities the People’s Liberation Army seeks to acquire in the future. The monograph finds China’s military is engaged in a comprehensive program to field a dominant array of military capabilities for ground, sea, air, space, and cyberspace warfare. Countering these capabilities will require the United States and its allies to engage in an equally comprehensive effort. The monograph’s findings will enable US military planners and policy practitioners to understand the long-term goals of China’s development of military capabilities and to anticipate and counter China’s realization of new capabilities so the United States can maintain its military advantage over the long term. Read the monograph here. Email usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast. Keywords: China, PLA,  People's Liberation  Army, cyber warfare, space Episode Transcript: China's Military Capabilities  Stephanie Crider (Host)  You're listening to Conversations on Strategy. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army, War College, or any other agency of the US government.  Joining me today is Dr. Roger Cliff, a senior intelligence officer and former research professor of Indo-Pacific affairs in the Strategic Studies Institute at the US Army War College. He's the author of China's Future Military Capabilities.   It's great to talk with you again, Roger. Thank you for making time to speak with me.  Dr. Roger Cliff  I'm glad to have this opportunity.  Host  Let's get right to it. Why did you write this monograph? Why now?  Cliff  This monograph was prompted by my observation that many of the US Army's long-term planning documents had set the year 2035 as the target for the capabilities that they described the Army seeking to develop. And that struck me because the Chinese military has also identified 2035 as the target year for its modernization program. So, they have a three-step program, the first step of which I guess is now complete, which was to largely complete the process of mechanization by 2020 and then to have basically completed its overall modernization progress by 2035 and then to become a world-class military by mid-century. So, I was struck by the coincidence that both the (US) Army and the Chinese military had chosen 2035 as their target years.  Host  What do we know about China's process for developing military capabilities?  Cliff  We actually know quite a bit about this process. It starts with the issuing of what are called the military strategic guidelines. These are a set of principles that the Chinese top leadership issues that describe the types of military conflicts the Chinese military needs to prepare for, who the most likely adversaries are, and what the nature of future military conflict is likely to be. They are not issued on a regular basis. They're issued whenever the leadership feels like they need to be revised or reissued. The most recent revision occurred in 2019. Prior to that, it happened in 2014, 2004, and 1993. So, you can see there isn't any specific pattern other than I t generally happens about once every 5–10 years. The rest of the process, however, is quite regularized, and it's tied to the Chinese government's over...
    Show More Show Less
    8 mins
  • Zenel Garcia and Kevin Modlin – Revisiting “Sino-Russian Relations and the War in Ukraine”

    Zenel Garcia and Kevin Modlin – Revisiting “Sino-Russian Relations and the War in Ukraine”
    May 18 2023
    In this podcast, Zenel  Garcia and Kevin  Modlin draw on recent visits of Chinese officials to Russia to support their contention that Sino-Russian relations are a narrow partnership centered on accelerating the emergence of a multipolar order to reduce American hegemony and illustrate this point by tracing the discursive and empirical foundations of the relationship. Additionally, they highlight how the war has created challenges and opportunities for China’s other strategic interests. Read the article here. Email usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast. Keywords: China, Russia, Ukraine war, strategic partnership, multipolarity Episode Transcript: Revisiting "Sino-Russian Relations and the War in Ukraine"  Stephanie Crider (Host)  You're listening to Conversations on Strategy. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College or any other agency of the US government.   Joining me today are doctors Zenel Garcia and Kevin Modlin, authors of “Sino-Russian Relations and the War in Ukraine,” which was published in the Autumn 2022 issue of Parameters.   Welcome back, Zenel and Kevin.   I wanted to invite you back to revisit your article. It was published about six months after Russia invaded Ukraine. You pointed out in your piece that it's not enough to say China has taken Russia's side in the Russian war against Ukraine. China's response has created an opportunity to, and I'm quoting you here, “accelerate the emergence of a multipolar order to reduce American hegemony.”   You paint a picture of China and Russia not as allies but as two countries that see each other as key poles in a multipolar order. What I want to focus on today is the China-Russia relationship and how it has developed since last August. With the recent Xi-Putin meeting, there was also discussion of what that relationship entails. Some see it as transactional. Others see it as an emerging alliance. What do you think?  Kevin Modlin  Thank you, Stephanie, for having us again.   When we think about what's transpiring in light of the war in Ukraine, as well as just the evolving relationship with Russia and China, I think it's important to pause and notice how many countries are moving away from Russia and how that actually contextualizes our conversation. So, because of the number of countries that are distancing from NATO countries in Central Asia and India and Japan, that makes it more obvious who Russia is near to. And perhaps it can emphasize or contribute to a perception that we think that they are drawing closer to China under those types of circumstances. It's more noticeable when you have one person standing with another person in that type of scenario.   However, whether it be articulated in the sense of a multipolar order or just in the general relationship, we actually see numerous examples where they've maintained something of a status quo in their interactions. So they continue to avoid committing to each other, which I think is the central argument. There is a robust debate among academics of what entails an alliance and everything I think Zenel and I are going to emphasize and say the delineation point is to what degree do states commit to each other.   And of course, Russia is constrained and who they can partner with and trade and other transactions. So, of course, they're going to interact more with China in those regards. But they're also continuously seeking to avoid arrangements. And even when they met, a number of people noticed as Zenel will note, natural gas pipeline initiatives and other projects have been stalled. That's worth revisiting.  Zenel Garcia  To build up from what Kevin was stating, the way in which China and Russia are interacting, especially even in recent months, with the two foreign ministers meeting,
    Show More Show Less
    19 mins
  • Lukas Cox – On Countering Terrorism on Tomorrow’s Battlefield and Critical Infrastructure Security and Resiliency

    Lukas Cox – On Countering Terrorism on Tomorrow’s Battlefield and Critical Infrastructure Security and Resiliency
    May 10 2023
    In this episode of Conversations on Strategy, Lukas Cox shares his thoughts on being an intern working on two collaborative studies for NATO. Read the collaborative study Countering Terrorism on Tomorrow's Battlefield: Critical Infrastructure Security and Resiliency (NATO COE-DAT Handbook 2) here. Read the collaborative study What Ukraine Taught NATO about Hybrid Warfare here. Email usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the monograph. Keywords: NATO, Ukraine, critical infrastructure, security, infrastructure resiliency Episode Transcript: On Countering Terrorism on Tomorrow's Battlefield and Critical Infrastructure Security and Resiliency Stephanie Crider (Host)  You're listening to Conversations on Strategy. The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army, War College, or any other agency of the US government.   Today I'm talking with Lucas Cox, who at the time of this recording was an intern with the Strategic Studies Institute and a graduate of the University of Washington's Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies. He assisted with two collaborative studies: What the Ukraine, Taught NATO About Hybrid Warfare and Countering Terrorism on Tomorrow's Battlefield: Critical Infrastructure Security Resiliency.   Welcome, Lucas.  Lukas Cox  It's a pleasure to be here. Thank you.  Host  Tell us how you ended up working on not one, but two books for the Army War College.  Cox  So, this is all a great opportunity from my dear professor and mentor Dr. Sarah Lohmann. She's a University of Washington professor at the Jackson School, which is where I got my undergrad in international studies. And so, we do this great project called “the task force.” It's sort of a capstone project. And it's a great opportunity to work as a team and to get into the real sort of meat of policy issues and present our findings to actually someone on the ground, someone that's actually in the field, which is something that you don't really get at four years in the university, especially in Washington state where we're away from the the policy world.   And so, I had the privilege of being in her task force and being chosen as the chief liaison for our task force to deal with NATO Center of Excellence for Defense Against Terrorism (COE-DAT), as well as everyone here at SSI under the guidance of Dr. Carol Evans. That led to me leading the writing of the first chapter of this main book.   I was able to present our findings on that chapter remotely at two conferences in Turkey at the COE-DAT at conferences over there and there's another one coming up in October, which I'd love to attend as well. And so that led me to the great opportunity that Dr. Evans and Dr. Lohmann said, “Why don't you come aboard and keep working on these projects and sort of see the project through for that book at least?”  And then the energy security hybrid warfare book is another project of Dr. Lohmann's that she's been working on for the last couple of years, at least, with NATO Science and Technology Organization. Those are two simultaneous projects, and I volunteered to help in any way I could with those. It's been really exciting.  Host  It sounds exciting. What do you see as the most important take away from the chapter you wrote for the critical infrastructure book?  Cox  I had the great pleasure of wrapping up my internship here over in Upton Hall at the US Army War College, and I chose the issue of foreign acquisition of European infrastructure. And so, this is an issue that has to do . . . it's continent wide . . . it has to do with the EU and with NATO and with the US, as well. Is that over the past few decades, a lot of critical infrastructure (and when we say that a lot of it is infrastructure that's needed for military operations), it's become privatized,
    Show More Show Less
    8 mins
  • Wuraola Oyewusi – “Medical Resilience and Pandemics” from Countering Terrorism on Tomorrow’s Battlefield CISR (NATO COE-DAT Handbook 2)

    Wuraola Oyewusi – “Medical Resilience and Pandemics” from Countering Terrorism on Tomorrow’s Battlefield CISR (NATO COE-DAT Handbook 2)
    May 9 2023
    Wuraola Oyewusi – "Medical Resilience and Pandemics" from Countering Terrorism on Tomorrow's Battlefield CISR (NATO COE-DAT Handbook 2) Medical resilience is a key critical infrastructure in a nation’s preparedness against vulnerabilities. Pandemics such as COVID-19 are potent disruptors of this infrastructure. Health systems that are considered low-resourced have adapted and deployed seemingly simple but effective methods to survive such disruptions. Read the collaborative study here. Email usarmy.carlisle.awc.mbx.parameters@army.mil to give feedback on this podcast or the monograph. Keywords: medical resilience, pandemics, COVID-19, low-resourced health systems Episode Transcript: Medical Resilience in Pandemics   Stephanie Crider (Host) The views and opinions expressed in this podcast are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government. You’re listening to Conversations on Strategy. Today, I’m talking with Wuraola Oyewusi, author of “Medical Resilience and Pandemics,” in Countering Terrorism on Tomorrow’s Battlefield: Critical Infrastructure and Resiliency Handbook Two (Countering Terrorism on Tomorrow’s Battlefield: Critical Infrastructure Security and Resiliency Handbook 2). Welcome to Conversations on Strategy. I’m really glad you’re here. Wuraola Oyewusi Thank you, Stephanie. I’m glad I’m here too.  Host Your chapter explores medical resilience as a component of critical infrastructure as well as using low-resourced health systems to build resilience. Will you please briefly expand on that?  Oyewusi The work on this chapter focuses on a low-resourced health system (that) has managed to build a resilience against a disruption—this time around, a pandemic—uh, specifically, (coronavirus disease 2019 or) COVID-19. We explored Nigeria as a system that . . . it’s definitely not high resourced. The health-delivery system is not high resourced. And we explored some of the things that were done during the COVID-19 pandemic. Host Let’s talk about that in a little bit more detail. Like you said, your case study focused on Nigeria and COVID-19. How did Nigeria handle COVID-19? Oyewusi So, I’m going to give a bit of context. The first COVID-19 case—recorded one, I think we should emphasize that—was in February . . . February 27, 2020. Right when the whole world was finding out, that was when we found out about that in Nigeria, too. Another clear context that we should have as we go into our discussion is that Nigeria’s epidemic response is carried out in the context of a fragile and underresourced, existent health-delivery system. That means that, even before the pandemic, the system was overstretched, there was a lot of people. There were challenging fault lines already, and then we now had the disruption like COVID-19. So to help you understand this use case, one of the indexes that was used to gauge a country’s preparedness during the pandemic was the number of (intensive-care unit or) ICU beds to the population. Germany had about 29 beds to 100,000 people. The US had about 34 to 35 ICU beds to 100,000 people. Turkey had 48 beds to 100,000 people. But in Nigeria, we had about 0.07 beds to 100,000 people. So, I think that would lay down a context for why we are discussing this and how a disruption to critical infrastructure, like a  pandemic, was done in Nigeria. Host What are some key lessons learned from Nigeria on managing pandemics? Oyewusi I’m going to discuss that on the three key items. The first one: There was leveraged experience and infrastructure. The second one: There was civilians, data analysis, and public data sharing. And the third one, which is probably one of the most interesting, are the nonpharmacological interventions. We have established that the system is overstressed. And, given the proportion of ICU to 100,000 people,
    Show More Show Less
    8 mins