Indian Strategic Studies: 08/10/24

10 August 2024

The Killing of Dawa Khan Menapal and the Fall of Afghanistan’s Republic

Freshta Jalalzai

On August 6, 2021, I awoke to a haunting truth: My dear friend and former colleague, Dawa Khan Menapal, was silenced forever. A dedicated journalist, he served as the deputy spokesman for Afghanistan’s last president, Ashraf Ghani, and was the head of the Afghan government’s Media and Information Center at the time of his assassination in the heart of Kabul.

As the Afghan government teetered on the precipice of collapse, Kabul transformed into a haunting tableau of high-profile killings. Many of the victims – government officials, journalists, religious figures – had well-known faces. The violence had entered a new and chilling phase: High-profile explosions had been supplanted by a wave of assassinations across the country, instilling a pervasive sense of fear. This shift not only heightened the tension in the streets of the Afghan capital, but also eroded the trust that many had placed in the Afghan security forces. The very fabric of society seemed to fray, as each shocking event further underscored the precariousness of life in a nation beset by turmoil.

Yet, I could never have imagined that Menapal would become one of the casualties. He was not the kind of man whose absence one could easily envision; his vibrant spirit seemed indomitable, a beacon of resilience that promised to persist even in the darkest of times.

Bangladesh as color revolution on India’s doorstep

Chan Akya

Indian intelligence agencies, rarely the epitome of self-assured success, have rarely been caught as flat-footed as they were over the weekend when Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina hurriedly evacuated her palatial residences for a rather modest government guest house on the outskirts of Delhi.

In a matter of a few hours, the former “Iron Lady” of Dhaka found her position, and perhaps prospects for her life itself, quite unviable, when the head of the armed forces (who happened to be her niece’s husband) communicated the troops’ refusal to fire at “student” protestors who were gathering in force across the country.

Adding salt to the injury, various democracies such as the United States and the United Kingdom refused or revoked her visa after the events that brought former Grameen Bank chief and Nobel prize winner Muhammad Yunus to power as interim prime minister.

Such epochal events in a country of nearly 175 million have hardly raised much more than a shrug even amidst a relatively slow (political) news cycle in August across the Western world.

Good news, bad news in Japan’s military reawakening

Grant Newsham

Chinese leader Xi Jinping has done what no American president ever could. He got Japan to get serious about defense after decades of pathological overdependence on US forces.

But here’s the problem: Being serious about defense and actually being able to defend oneself are different things. Japan already has a large and powerful defense force – on paper at least. Its military power has been rated #7 in the world.

And in recent years Japan has undertaken to double defense spending, buy and develop long-range missiles, signed defense agreements with several foreign countries, is poised to establish a Joint Operations Command and is pushing the Americans to operationalize their US Forces Japan headquarters.

And the Japan Self Defense Force (JSDF) is doing more and increasingly complex exercises with the Americans, the Australians and others.

That’s the good news. But here’s the not-so-good news: the JSDF still isn’t a real fighting force. It’s not prepared to fight a war in terms of organization, logistics, command and control, hardware and weaponry, combat-casualty replacement, reserve forces, or even psychologically.

Growing Chinese Threat Makes Taiwan World’s Most Dangerous Flashpoint, Defense Analysts Warn

Bill Gertz

The growing threat of a Chinese military attack makes Taiwan one of the most dangerous global flash points for years to come, according to a think tank report.

The report details military and nonmilitary methods Beijing is preparing to use to coerce the self-ruled island democracy into capitulating.

“Taiwan’s strategic significance and the far-ranging damage from its coercive annexation by China would be a devastating loss from which the United States could neither fully retreat nor readily recover,” the report said.

The report says Chinese President Xi Jinping will soon reach the apex of his power and thus be free to pursue his announced goal of taking over the island, located 100 miles off the southern Chinese coast.

The mounting danger requires stronger American deterrence, said the report, noting that catastrophic results could include the loss of access to Taiwan’s world-class advanced computer chip manufacturing sector.

After Awami League Government Falls, Anti-BNP Hashtags Flood Social Media in Bangladesh

Saqlain Rizve

On August 5, the world may have witnessed a pivotal moment in history, as Generation Z (born between 1997-2012) led what could be considered the first successful revolution of its kind. This demographic, often criticized by older generations for their preoccupation with digital technology and virtual worlds, has proven such stereotypes wrong in Bangladesh. Commonplace discussions that once relegated these young individuals to mere gadgets and fantasies have been upended by their actions.

The event should have garnered global celebration and praise, as these young individuals boldly stood up to an autocratic regime that had been in power for 15 years. This regime was notorious for its human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, abductions, false cases, and rampant corruption. It was led by the former prime minister and president of the Awami League (AL), Sheikh Hasina, who has since fled and is reportedly seeking political asylum in India.

What began as a peaceful protest demanding reforms to the government job quota system quickly escalated into calls for Hasina’s resignation after more than 300 individuals, including students and children, were killed by law enforcement. The use of lethal force, including shootings from helicopters in various parts of the capital, intensified public animosity toward the AL and Hasina.

The Will and the Power: China’s Plan to Undermine Pax Americana

Robert D. Blackwill & Richard Fontaine

From Washington’s Farewell Address to Biden’s national security strategy, the core U.S. national interest, unsurprisingly, has not changed: to ensure the fundamental security of the homeland and its people in freedom. As Alexander Hamilton put it, “Self-preservation is the first duty of a nation.” Vital U.S. interests are all increasingly threatened by China and can be defined as the following:

1) To prevent the use and reduce the threat of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and catastrophic conventional terrorist attacks or cyber attacks against the United States, its military forces abroad, or its allies.

China’s burgeoning intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) and nuclear capabilities present a threat to the American homeland and its forces abroad. China plans to increase its stockpile of strategic nuclear warheads from an estimated 500 in 2022 to 1,500 by 2035. This rise is accompanied by increased infrastructure-building to produce and separate plutonium. Beijing is reportedly constructing 300 new missile silos in the country’s western desert—a tenfold increase over the number operational in 2022—in addition to its arsenal of an estimated one hundred road-mobile ICBM launchers.

Improving U.S. South China Sea Strategy by Addressing China’s Ideological Drivers

As is the case with most analysis of China’s international relations, much of the discourse surrounding Beijing’s approach to the South China Sea (SCS) fails to accurately diagnose the ruling Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) ideological and strategic underpinnings. As the dust settles following China’s June 17 confrontation with the Philippines over Second Thomas Shoal, U.S. policymakers must understand what drives the CCP—and its approach to the SCS—in order to develop a sound strategy that advances U.S. interests in this critical body of water.

What is the SCS and Why Does It Matter?

The South China Sea is a hotly contested waterway in Southeast Asia. Six governments claim portions of the Sea: China, Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Brunei. Most disputes are over maritime features in the Spratly and Paracel Islands groups, which are strategically located for military and resource exploration purposes. Since four of the 10 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members are SCS claimants, ASEAN has been engaged in a decades-long negotiation with China on implementing a Code-of-Conduct for the SCS. However, differing interests within ASEAN hamstring the organization’s unity, complicating negotiations with Beijing. The almost century-long conflict over SCS sovereignty between various stakeholders stems from the Sea’s strategic and economic significance.

US Calls on All Parties In Middle East To De-Escalate Tensions

Jim Garamone

The U.S. government is monitoring the situation in the Middle East and calls on all parties to de-escalate regional tensions, said Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh.

The Defense Department has bolstered forces in the Middle East to improve U.S. force protection measures including deploying F-22 Raptors and moving the USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group into the area. Other ships are standing by to respond in the event of attacks from Iran or Iranian-backed groups in the region.

The steps were taken to “increase support for the defense of Israel, and to ensure the United States is prepared to respond to a various number of contingencies,” Singh said. “The secretary and the department remain intently focused on de-escalating tensions in the region and pushing for a cease-fire as part of the hostage deal to end the war in Gaza.”

Iran and Iranian-backed groups have threatened to attack Israel, but Singh did not comment on the imminence of any attacks. “We’ve, of course, seen the public messaging that has come out — whether it be from Hezbollah or from Iran — and that’s why the secretary made the decision that he did to bolster our force posture in the region,” she said. “And of course, our commitment to the defense of Israel remains ironclad.”

Clashes between Arab tribes, SDF forces in Syria pose challenge to US

Beatrice Farhat

Several Syrian pro-government and pro-Iranian groups launched a major attack against the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), which are backed by Washington, in Syria’s eastern province of Deir ez-Zor, leading to violent clashes on Wednesday in some of the heaviest fighting in more than a year in the area, where US troops are deployed as part the international coalition fighting the Islamic State (ISIS).

The warring sides exchanged heavy artillery and mortar shelling, while US helicopters struck positions belonging to Arab tribal forces, leading to several casualties, according to local reports.

What happened

The clashes began on Tuesday night and continued throughout Wednesday after Syrian government forces and allied militias launched a ground attack against the SDF in the eastern countryside of Deir ez-Zor, on the eastern bank of the Euphrates River.

US, UK ‘Reconnaissance’ Planes Hit Houthi Targets In Hodeidah

Saeed Al-Batiti

The US and UK military on Thursday attacked Houthi targets in Yemen’s western province of Hodeidah for a second time in 24 hours.

The Houthi-run Al-Masirah said “reconnaissance” aircraft carried out two strikes on the Al-Jabanah area of Hodeidah. It did not name specific sites or say if there were any casualties or damage to property.

The attacks came a day after US and UK forces targeted Houthi sites in Taiz province.

The US Central Command said on Thursday morning that its forces had destroyed two Houthi drones, a ground control station and three anti-ship cruise missiles in areas controlled by the militia. It added that Houthi weapons posed a threat to US-led marine coalition ships as well as other naval and commercial vessels in international waters.

“This reckless and dangerous behavior by Iranian-backed Houthis continues to threaten regional stability and security,” it said.

Paul Nitze: A Career of Thinking About the Unthinkable

Francis P. Sempa

The publication of a new biography of Paul Nitze, who served in national security posts in Democrat and Republican administrations between 1940 and 1989, is a good moment to reflect on the need for knowledgeable, informed, and courageous experts to help guide and, at times, provide critical assessments of American national security policies. Nitze’s career is a testament to the invaluable contributions that such experts can make to help presidents and other policymakers navigate the often dangerous international political arena. In Nitze’s case, this meant thinking about the unthinkable — nuclear war — for more than 40 years.

Paul Nitze was seven years old and was vacationing in Austria with his family in August 1914, when the First World War began. Like his friend and colleague George Kennan, Nitze came to regard war as having a devastating impact, according to his autobiography From Hiroshima to Glasnost, “on the structure of civilization, the disillusionment and brutalization of man and his humanity . . . such that the civilized world was never again the same.”

“Knowing Your Enemy”: James Schlesinger and the Origins of Competitive, Tailored Deterrence Strategies

Kyle Balze

In the years ahead, the United States will confront an unprecedented geopolitical challenge that threatens its far-flung alliances and, more directly, the security of the American homeland. For the first time in the nuclear age, the United States will face two peer nuclear adversaries, China and Russia. The bipartisan Strategic Posture Commission recently addressed this unparalleled situation, concluding that the United States “must urgently prepare for the new reality, and measures need to be taken now to deal with these new threats.”[1]

But how should the United States prepare for a two-peer threat environment? The strategic sensibility of James R. Schlesinger, a pioneering Cold War strategist who confronted the rise of a peer nuclear adversary, can help address this question. Given the confounding nature of the emerging strategic landscape, it may seem puzzling to turn to the past. Schlesinger, after all, thought and wrote about deterring just one great-power adversary, the Soviet Union.

Notwithstanding this glaring difference, Schlesinger recognized a fundamental feature of peacetime competition that transcends time, space, and number of peer rivals: Adversaries hold distinctive values and behavioral tendencies that defy “rational” mirror-imaging. Moreover, a wise competitor, as Schlesinger understood, will exploit his opponent’s self-damaging proclivities to secure competitive advantages. U.S. nuclear strategy, as such, should be tailored to adversary thinking—not that of American planners. The totality of Mutual Assured Destruction—the idea that the nuclear balance is irreversibly stalemated—has not nurtured a community of like-minded nuclear powers. Nor has it erased the need to compete for comparative advantage.

The New National Defense Report Misses the Point

Doug Bandow

The American public must be informed, explains the Commission on the National Defense Strategy in a new report. Despite war propaganda daily flooding Washington, the CNDS complained that people “have been inadequately informed by government leaders of the threats to U.S. interests—including to people’s everyday lives—and what will be required to restore American global power and leadership.”

In the Commission’s view, the United States is at great risk. Threats are multiplying around the globe. Only great effort can save the country. Americans must turn over more of their money and sacrifice more of their liberties. They must be scared into compliance.

In fact, this is nonsense. For decades the United States has been the most secure great power ever. The U.S. has dominated its continent and entire hemisphere since the mid-19th century. Surrounded by deep waters east and west and weak neighbors north and south, America is largely invulnerable to attack.

Which enabled it to become the most dominant great power ever. With middling effort at home, the U.S. turned into the decisive power abroad. World War II left America as the globe’s most powerful nation, with half the world’s economic production as a foundation for the world’s most sophisticated military. Almost all of its allies remain dependent on US money and production. Today’s world is becoming multipolar, but military threats against the continental US remain minimal, other than assorted nuclear arsenals, most importantly Russia’s.

The Riots In Britain Represent The Total Failure Of Britain’s Governing Class

John Daniel Davidson

The rioting in Britain is what happens when a country’s political class tries to depoliticize mass immigration — smearing anyone who objects to it as “far-right” — and then imposes a policy of mass immigration by force. At some point, the people revolt.

Britain’s liberal elites have latched onto online misinformation and racism from the far-right as an explanation for the riots. But the real explanation is that Britain’s leaders have sold their countrymen out for decades, importing an unassimilated foreign population against the wishes of native Britons. That is a recipe for social unrest, civic strife, and ethnic conflict, which is exactly what Britain’s ruling class has brought about.

Set aside the triggering incident — in this case, a horrifying knife attack that left three little girls dead in Southport, a town in northwest England. It doesn’t matter that the accused attacker, 17-year-old Axel Muganwa Rudakubana, is neither a Muslim nor an immigrant, but merely the son of Rwandan immigrants. What matters is that this attack was the latest in a long string of attacks by non-native Britons against the native population, and that it occurred in the context of ongoing mass immigration. The riots have been labeled “anti-Muslim” and “far-right” by the government and the corporate press, but they are really anti-immigration, and not at all restricted to the far-right. Demonstrators have been quite clear about this, chanting “stop the boats” and “we want our country back.” Those are reasonable sentiments for ordinary citizens to express about their homeland, whatever Britain’s ruling elite might say.

Netanyahu at War

Eric Cortellessa

For the past 10 months, Benjamin Netanyahu has refused to apologize for leaving Israel vulnerable to Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attack. After the deaths of 1,200 people and the abduction of hundreds more, a traumatized Israeli public heard abject admissions of responsibility from the heads of the Israel Defense Forces and Shin Bet, the country’s domestic security service, but none from Netanyahu, who had been Prime Minister for almost a year when the attack happened, and had presided over a more than 10-year strategy of tacit acceptance of Hamas rule in Gaza. His only apology was for a social media post blaming his own security chiefs for failing to foil the assault. So, early in a 66-minute conversation with TIME on Aug. 4 in the Prime Minister’s office in Jerusalem, the question is, Would he make an apology?

“Apologize?” he asks back. “Of course, of course. I am sorry, deeply, that something like this happened. And you always look back and you say, Could we have done things that would have prevented it?”

For Netanyahu, who first occupied the dowdy Kaplan Street offices in 1996, it’s a fraught question. Through a combination of electoral vicissitudes, sweeping regional changes, and his own political gifts, his almost 17-year cumulative tenure is longer than that of anyone else who has led Israel, a country only two years older than he is. Over that span, Netanyahu’s political endurance has been built around one consistent argument: that he’s the only leader who can ensure Israel’s safety.

Kursk raid will not shift war in Ukraine’s favour

Bethany Elliott

“Russia does not control the border,” said Andrii Kovalenko, the head of the Centre for Countering Disinformation at Ukraine’s National Security and Defence Council, on Tuesday. “Russian soldiers are lying about the controllability of the situation in the Kursk region”, he claimed.

This startling announcement came in response to one of the largest incursions into Russian territory of the war so far. The Russian Ministry of Defence reported that up to 300 Ukrainian troops this week attacked Moscow’s positions near Nikolaevo-Darino and Oleshnya in the Kursk region of Russia. While the MoD was emphatic that the situation on the border was “not critical” and the Ukrainians had been “repelled” — additionally refuting reports circulating on Ukrainian Telegram channels that Russia’s troops had abandoned their positions — it yesterday admitted that fighting is ongoing. Other reports indicate that Moscow lost two combat helicopters in the surprise raid, while prominent Russian military blogger Rybar claimed that Ukraine had captured Nikolaevo-Darino, taken two other settlements and almost surrounded Russian troops in Oleshnya.

In terms of how this serves Kyiv in the broader war, perhaps the most significant effect will be psychological. The attack is, in every sense of the word, striking. Seeing Russian President Vladimir Putin forced to publicly address the incident and refer to it as a “major provocation” demonstrates that Kyiv’s forces are still capable of taking not only the initiative but also of taking Moscow by surprise. This will provide a much-needed morale boost to Kyiv’s weary forces and to its — also weary — allies, both desperate for any signs that Kyiv can still succeed on the battlefield.

Russia declares state of emergency in Kursk as Ukraine pushes incursion

Ketrin Jochecová, Joshua Posaner, Nette Nöstlinger and Jan Cienski

Russia declared a state of emergency in the Kursk region late Wednesday as Ukrainian forces continued a cross-border attack there.

"To eliminate the consequences of enemy forces coming into the region, I took the decision to introduce a state of emergency in the Kursk region from Aug. 7," the acting governor of the Kursk region, Alexei Smirnov, said in a post on Telegram Wednesday evening.

The Russian military said clashes with Ukrainian forces in the Kursk region have been occurring since early Tuesday, in an incursion that Russian President Vladimir Putin called “a large-scale provocation.”

Despite some international worries that the attack may provoke Russia, the European Union said that Kyiv was within its rights to fight on Russian territory.

U.S. Warns Iran of ‘Serious Risk’ if It Conducts Major Attack on Israel

Michael R. Gordon, Lara Seligman

The U.S. has warned Iran that its newly elected government and economy could suffer a devastating blow if it were to mount a major attack against Israel, a U.S. official said.

The warning has been communicated directly to Tehran as well as through intermediaries, said the official, who declined to provide specifics.

“The United States has sent clear messaging to Iran that the risk of a major escalation if they do a significant retaliatory attack against Israel is extremely high,” said the official.

Those messages have also put Tehran on notice “that there is a serious risk of consequences for Iran’s economy and the stability of its newly elected government if it goes down that path,” the official added.

The Biden administration has been mounting an intensive campaign to discourage Iran, its proxies and Israel from undertaking military action that would escalate tensions in the region as Washington tries to salvage prospects of a cease-fire in Gaza.

Can Ukraine Get Back on the Offensive?

Mick Ryan

Toward the end of 2023, the Russian military was presented with an opportunity to truly transform the war in Ukraine. Kyiv’s ground forces had run out of steam in their southern counteroffensive. Ukraine had blown through large quantities of munitions and air defense interceptors and was struggling to resupply its lines. At the same time, a controversial bill to expand mobilization stalled in Ukraine’s parliament, as the country’s manpower shortages became acute. It only passed parliament in April after months of debate, coming into force in May. And in the United States, support for Ukraine was fracturing along party lines, holding up a $61 billion aid package in Congress.

But over the past six months, Russia has generally failed to capitalize on this convergence of openings. It has launched air and missile attacks against Ukraine’s power grid—dramatically reducing the country’s capacity to generate electricity—and it has terrorized civilians. Yet Russian ground forces have managed to gain only small bits of land. All in all, the amount of territory seized by Russia since January 2024 adds up to around 360 square miles, an area roughly two-thirds the size of New York City. It is hard to describe these gains as a success when they came at the cost of more than 180,000 Russian casualties, according to Western intelligence estimates.

The Link Between Two Wars

George Friedman

Over the past few days, two statements have come to redefine the Middle East – though they were issued not by Israel or Hamas but by the belligerents in a conflict more than a thousand miles away. The first came from Moscow, which said the conflict in Ukraine would be resolved by the end of 2024. The other came from Kyiv, which gave a similar timeframe for a resolution.

Russia’s strategy at the outset of the invasion was to crush Ukraine quickly and decisively. Ukraine’s strategy was to resist long enough to exhaust the Russian will to fight. Neither was successful, and the war has pressed on for over two years. The announcements that the conflict would soon be over, then, were more of a problem for Russia than Ukraine since its reputation for having a formidable army was shattered. In war, success can turn into failure in a matter of days, and the two statements did not seem to be a coordinated effort. Nothing is certain until it is done. Still, the rationale behind both statements seems sound considering the history and current state of the war.

Filling the Void Left by Great-Power Retrenchment: Russia, Central Asia, and the U.S. Withdrawal from Afghanistan

Charles E. Ziegler

As a continental land power, Russia historically has aspired to exercise hegemony in four bordering regions: Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Pacific littoral. Initially weakened after the breakup of the Soviet Union, Russia’s limited military and economic capabilities constrained its influence among the newly independent former Soviet republics throughout the 1990s. Upon taking office in 2000, Russian President Vladimir Putin initially focused on reasserting Russia’s position in Eastern Europe, the South Caucasus, and Central Asia. Moscow then announced a “pivot” toward Asia in Putin’s third presidential term from 2012 to 2018. In the following years, however, Russia has struggled to expand its influence in the Pacific littoral.1 Nonetheless, the close strategic partnership with China, which is the most important component of the pivot, has secured Russia’s strategic backyard and enabled it to concentrate on Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, and Central Asia.

When, in August 2021, the United States hastily abandoned its two-decades-long campaign in Afghanistan, Russia was positioned to take advantage of the power vacuum to secure its position as a geopolitical force in Central Asia. No other great power challenged Moscow for primacy in the region. China continued to expand its trade and investment in Central Asia, including Afghanistan, but Beijing has also appeared willing to stand on the sidelines as Russia tackled security challenges in the region, such as the Kazakhstan crisis in January 2022. 2 Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, however, has impacted Moscow’s position in Central Asia and the Caucasus, where Russia has asserted vital national interests. How can we explain Moscow’s inability to capitalize on America’s withdrawal from a region where Russia has substantial historic, cultural, and economic ties?

Race riots put Britain on collision course with Elon Musk

Esther Webber and Vincent Manancourt

Britain’s in the grip of its worst race riots in decades. And Elon Musk just can't help himself.

The billionaire X owner sparked fury in the British government this weekend after he responded to incendiary footage of the far-right disorder that's sweeping the country by saying "civil war is inevitable."

The post on X was roundly condemned by U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer's office, which said there was “no justification” for Musk’s comments.

But Musk doubled, tripled, then quadrupled down after that dig. Responding to a statement from Starmer vowing his government would “not tolerate attacks on mosques or on Muslim communities,” the X boss effectively accused the British prime minister of wearing blinkers. “Shouldn’t you be concerned about attacks on all communities?” Policing of the unrest "does seem one-sided," he offered in a third post.

Will We Survive the Next 100 Years?

Peter Singer

In May, experts from many fields gathered in Montenegro to discuss “Existential Threats and Other Disasters: How Should We Address Them.” The term “existential risk” was popularized in a 2002 essay by the philosopher Nick Bostrom, who defined it as referring to risks such that “an adverse outcome would either annihilate Earth-originating intelligent life, or permanently and drastically curtail its potential.”

To appreciate the distinction between existential risks and other disasters, consider climate change. In some scenarios, runaway global warming could render most of the Earth too hot for humans to continue to live there, but Antarctica and some of the northernmost regions of Europe, Asia, and North America would become inhabitable.

That would reduce the potential of intelligent life on Earth, perhaps for millennia, but eventually the planet would cool, and the survivors’ descendants would repopulate it. If these are indeed the worst-case scenarios, then climate change, disastrous as it could be, is not an existential risk.

In the West, ties between space and defense are strengthening

Bogdan Gogulan

The RAND research group, whose aim is to look for ways to fix public policy issues in the United States and make communities safer, healthier and richer, published on June 24 a report called “China’s Growing Risk Tolerance in Space.” It was a detailed study, using open-source information from China’s defense sector. This included leader speeches, white papers, military training documents and writings on People’s Liberation Army strategy and rules. One key finding was that Chinese leaders perceived a global shift, with China rising to overtake the U.S. as the supreme world power. They also found that Chinese military leaders viewed the U.S. as a major threat and didn’t want to work with the U.S. to stop global crises from escalating.

It isn’t surprising, then, that the U.S. and China are closely monitoring what one another does in space. These countries, after all, are the contestants in the new Space Race: the competition to become the world’s dominant space power. It’s certainly true that China, despite being a space-faring nation for decades, has ramped up its defensive efforts in recent years, making major progress in a range of space-related areas such as satellite communication, navigation, earth observation, human space flight and space science. The recent and successful landing of a module on the dark side of the moon is testimony to that. And the U.S. has created the U.S. Space Force and the U.S. Space Defense Agency, or SDA – clear indications of how it understands the role of space in the world today.

Is The AI Bubble About To Burst?

Bernard Marr

Following a turbulent few weeks in the stock market, there’s a lot of speculation that the AI “bubble” may be about to burst.

Many companies that are involved in AI have seen the value of their stock rocket dramatically over the past year or so. The most celebrated example is Nvidia, whose stock price has more than tripled since last summer. Others heavily invested in AI, such as Google and Microsoft, have also seen large increases.

Big leaps in stock price—particularly when they seem difficult to link to the generation of real value—are sometimes seen by analysts as an indicator that prices are due for a correction.

It’s hard to shake the feeling that we’ve seen all of this before. The hype and excitement around the newly emerged internet, which peaked in early 2000, was swiftly followed by the bursting of the "dot-com bubble." Many companies went out of business, the economy experienced a significant downturn, and many jobs were lost.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)