Indian Strategic Studies: 10/02/24

2 October 2024

China's high-altitude heliports in Tibet a sobering reminder of threat to India along LAC

The Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) presents unique challenges for air infrastructure superiority, with its high altitude and rugged terrain. While the expansion of airports and deployment of fighter jets and sophisticated radar systems have been traditional measures of this superiority, a less recognised but equally critical aspect is China's increasing rotary-wing capabilities at extreme altitudes.

Our research reveals that nearly 90% of heliports in the TAR are located at elevations between 3,300 and 5,300 m (10,000–17,400 ft), with 80% concentrated above 3,600 m. These advancements signal that China's once-significant limitations in helicopter operations at such altitudes are swiftly diminishing.

China's critical military infrastructure at higher altitudes is rapidly expanding in the challenging environment of the TAR. A vital part of this expansion is the proliferation of high-altitude heliports and helipads, which are quickly becoming crucial nodes in the People's Liberation Army (PLA) ground and air operations strategy.

These helipads, strategically placed near the Line of Actual Control (LAC) between India and China, disputed areas with Bhutan, and critical infrastructure like surface-to-missile (SAM) sites and military barracks, serve as logistics hubs. Their role in facilitating rapid troop and equipment movement underscores their strategic significance.

U.S.-India Security Cooperation: Thriving through Turbulenc

Richard M. Rossow

If the last four years have proved anything about U.S.-India strategic relations, it is that the partnership can thrive during turbulence. U.S.-India leaders can increasingly take trust for granted. The priority now is to seek new ways to deepen security collaboration that meet the two nations’ shared goals. India is strategically and geographically important, both as a pillar of strength in an uncertain region and as a military heavyweight facing its own serious challenges with China. It is vital for the next U.S. administration to quickly fill key roles that manage the relationship and affirm continued support for nascent areas of cooperation that will improve military coordination and interoperability.

Security cooperation between the United States and India continues to break new ground. In the last four years, India has taken steps that might have been hard to imagine two decades ago.

Four things stand out. First, on military interoperability, India joining the multination Combined Maritime Forces (CMF) based in Bahrain and taking on joint missions has been underplayed publicly. Just a few months after becoming a full member, the Indian Navy carried out its first vessel interdiction as part of its commitment. Second, the U.S. Navy has started to utilize Indian shipyards for repair work. Thus far, three Indian shipyards have been approved by the U.S. Navy to perform repair work on ships. Third, India is allowing the United States access to strategic geographies. In March 2024, the U.S. Coast Guard held sea exercises in collaboration with India in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, directly at the mouth of the Strait of Malacca, a vital shipping lane. And fourth, the Quad was elevated to an annual leaders-level summit.

Iran And Pakistan’s Defence Against Afghan Instability – OpEd

Dr. Sahibzada Muhammad Usman

Iran’s decision to construct a 300 km concrete wall with barbed wire along its border with Afghanistan is a significant geopolitical development. The $3 billion project, intended to curb cross-border terrorism, smuggling, and illegal immigration, particularly in the wake of the Taliban’s takeover in 2021, highlights the escalating security challenges in the region. Iran’s border fortification is part of a larger strategy aimed at protecting its citizens from the instability and threats emerging from Afghanistan.

In the initial stages, Iran has already completed over 10 kilometers of the wall and plans to fortify an additional 50 kilometers. The scale and scope of this project underscore the growing need for stronger border security, particularly given the perceived rise in terrorism and the unchecked movement of extremist groups across the Afghan border. The Iranian government views these measures as essential in safeguarding its citizens and territory from the spillover effects of terrorism and instability in Afghanistan. By constructing this wall, Iran reinforces the fundamental right of every nation to protect its borders and ensure the safety of its people.

How China Soured on Nepal

Atul Kumar

On July 29, China’s Ambassador to Nepal Chen Song publicly mocked Nepal’s efforts to locate two missing buses and their passengers following a landslide at Simaltal on the Narayanghat-Mugling road. His comments specifically targeted the Indian assistance to local rescue and search teams, ridiculing Nepal’s tendency to seek support from its southern neighbor.

The ambassador’s remarks drew widespread criticism in Nepal, both in the media and among parliamentarians, who condemned his insensitivity toward the grieving families and his unnecessary intrusion into a domestic matter.

This incident is part of a broader pattern of interference b Chen in Nepal’s internal affairs, often resulting in diplomatic blunders. In the previous year, he had similarly mocked Nepal’s electricity trade and other economic relations with India, attracting similar condemnation. In May 2024, he engaged in a contentious exchange on social media with a local journalist over a report on China’s loan to Nepal for Pokhara International Airport.

China On The Edge Of Recession – Analysis

Peter St. Onge

China is on the edge of recession — excluding Covid, for the first time since 2008 — as new data showed all-important manufacturing contracted for the fourth month in a row with particular weakness in new orders.

In other words, what they’ve got is a backlog, then it’s a cliff.

Manufacturing makes up a third of China’s economy — much more than the US. The collapse of China’s property — another third of China’s economy — is adding further fuel to the fire.

Offices Emptier than Covid

London’s Financial Times reports that office buildings in China are emptier than they were during the Covid lockdowns. FT notes that work-at-home hasn’t taken off in China, implying the main driver of empty offices is layoffs.

In Shanghai, office vacancies are at 21%. In Shenzhen, China’s central export hub, vacancies are at 27%. These are both much worse than vacancies during Covid lockdowns.

ASML’s Dilemma: Balancing AI Chip Innovation In Times Of USA-China Tech War – Analysis

Girish Linganna

In the summer, the United States pushed its allies, including the Netherlands, to tighten export rules on semiconductor equipment manufactured by Advanced Semiconductor Materials Lithography (ASML) Holding NV—a joint venture between Philips and ASM International and a Dutch multinational corporation founded in 1984—being sent to China. The US government took this step to limit China’s access to advanced technology that could strengthen its military power.

In response, the Dutch government recently regained control over the company’s exports, while still following US policies. This led to stopping ASML’s shipments of advanced chip-making machines to China. The decision reflects the ongoing geopolitical tensions over technology exports and the balance between national security and economic interests.

ASML: Pioneering Advanced Chip-Making Tech

ASML focuses on developing and making photolithography machines, which are essential for producing computer chips. ASML’s unique EUV lithography technology works on a very small scale, using light with a wavelength of just 13.5 nanometres (nm) to print microchips. A 13.5-nm chip is mainly used for making advanced processors for such devices as smartphones and computers. It enables smaller, faster and more efficient chips used in AI, high-performance computing and mobile devices.

The key to Ukraine is in Beijing

Gabriel Elefteriu

President Zelensky has a new “victory plan,” which he has brought with him on his visit to the United States this week. It has been kept secret and will only be made public after President Biden sees it. The mystery and sense of anticipation created around this great unveiling rank as yet another Ukrainian PR masterstroke. This story now has the entire West holding its breath for the magic solution that has so far eluded everyone else. Of course, nothing of the sort is really on the cards.

Ending a war of this size and brutality will require more than a try at media alchemy: “narratives” don’t tend to transform into frontline military units. The tragedy of hard choices and the necessity of facing the full facts of this conflict cannot be avoided, no matter how good the speeches or how clever the symbolism of signing artillery shells in Biden’s hometown of Scranton, PA.

This is not to say that these things don’t matter – far from it. Shaping global opinion in his nation’s favour and boosting the morale of his heroic people is absolutely the duty of the Ukrainian president. Information warfare and strategic communications matter hugely in the 21st century. “Winning” on this intangible battlefield contributes directly to Zelensky’s enduring priority of obtaining more international support – military, financial and diplomatic – for Ukraine.

US and allies call for 21-day ceasefire between Israel and Hizbollah

The US and France have led international calls for a 21-day ceasefire between Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hizbollah, hours after an Israeli military chief told troops to prepare for a potential ground offensive in Lebanon.

The initiative, backed by the G7, EU, Australia and three Arab nations, on Wednesday called for a swift endorsement of the truce, in a statement issued on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York.

While no deadline was set, US officials said they expected responses from the parties including the governments of Israel and Lebanon in “the coming hours”.

One senior US administration official said a temporary ceasefire could “shake things up” and create space for a longer-term resolution to the conflict between Israel and the Lebanese militant group along their shared border, while helping avert the threat of a wider regional war.

While the Biden administration described the initiative as a significant breakthrough, it was not clear whether Israel or Hizbollah would accept it. Hizbollah on Wednesday fired a ballistic missile at the Tel Aviv area for the first time, one of its deepest strike attempts on Israel so far.

The Pager Attack: Tactical Brilliance or Strategic Dead End?

Monte Erfourth

Introduction

The conflict between Hezbollah and Israel has intensified dramatically over the past year, with Hezbollah persistently launching attacks from Lebanon into northern Israel. In response, Israel has employed various strategies, culminating in a high-profile "pager attack" this month. This brilliantly conceived and executed action involved detonating booby-trapped communication devices used by Hezbollah operatives, marking a significant shift in Israel's approach to Hezbollah. Whether this tactical success fits into a broader, long-term strategy or merely serves as a short-term measure to degrade Hezbollah’s operational capability temporarily. Given Hezbollah's expansive stockpile of missiles and rockets, getting this strategic moment right is of great importance to this close American ally.

Background of the Conflict

Since October 7, 2023, Hezbollah has launched over 8,000 rockets, missiles, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) into Israeli territory, targeting both civilians and military bases in the north. This relentless bombardment has forced Israel to evacuate close to 70,000 people from border towns, creating a de facto buffer zone within Israel’s territory. The evacuation has not only had severe social and political consequences but has also represented a significant victory for Hezbollah in terms of psychological and military positioning. The group has managed to inflict sustained damage without triggering a full-scale Israeli invasion.

Iran Plays the Long Game While the U.S. Focuses on Side-Shows

Josef Joffe

When mayhem erupts in the Middle East, the Biden Administration reflexively reaches for the band-aid of a ceasefire as if a small strip could staunch a hemorrhage. For months, the U.S. has invested in a hapless Hamas deal. Yet Antony Blinken, the Secretary of State, resembles the horse in Animal Farm, who pledges after each setback: “I shall work harder.” A U.S. official just confided to the Wall Street Journal: “No deal is imminent. I’m not sure it ever gets done.”

Surely not in the weeks to come, as Israel has turned against Hezbollah, which began to rain missiles on the country’s North right after the Hamas massacre of 1,200 on October 7. Yet old reflexes don’t die. “We don’t believe,” NSC spokesman John Kirby told Israelis, that “escalating is in their best interest.”

The handwringing stretches from Washington to the UN General Assembly. Yet neither Hamas nor Hezbollah is the real problem. Nor are the Houthis far South, who want to close down the Red Sea, a premier global shipping lane.

The real problem is Tehran. "The Three H" are not autonomous actors, but stand-ins for Iran, America’s mightiest enemy in the Greater Middle East. Iran has paid, trained, and armed them all. Let them fight and die for the greater glory of the Islamic Republic. The playbook is an easy read. Hit Israel, Washington’s only reliable ally, and wound the American giant it dares not take on directly. So, demoralize him to kick him off the Mideast chessboard.

Netanyahu’s war to end all wars

Daniel Williams

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, having rejected a US-initiated Gaza ceasefire and calls from Western allies to avoid a wider Middle East war, has put into motion his own more bellicose plan: to secure Israeli military dominance in the region he feels has slipped away.

Netanyahu considers Hamas’s military defeat a first step toward closing loopholes left over from the conclusion of past wars that, in his mind, guaranteed future ones. The Israeli leader clearly wants only decisive victories.

Beyond the military and political destruction of Hamas, Netanyahu’s wider goals are to:Eliminate armed opposition in the West Bank and dismantle the Palestinian Authority that governs parts of the territory.Erase the ability of Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim army and political party in Lebanon, to threaten Israel militarily.Undermine Iran’s leadership of the anti-Israel “Axis of Resistance,” which includes not only Hezbollah but also Syria and Houthi rebels in Yemen, the Shiite Muslim organization that has been blocking ship traffic in the Red Sea that leads to the Suez Canal.Put an end to the “two-state solution,” a peace formula long promoted by the United States that would grant Palestinian sovereignty over the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.

Special Briefing: The war comes to Lebanon

Patricia Karam, Nimrod Goren, Charles Lister & Brian Katulis

With the lack of headway on the Gaza front, Israel has turned its attention to Lebanon and effectively launched what looks like the third Israel-Lebanon war. On Monday, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) officially dubbed their campaign “Operation Northern Arrows,” with the declared objective of creating the conditions conducive to the return of displaced citizens to northern Israel. Having broken all previous unofficial rules of engagement that guided Israel’s cross-border conflict with Hezbollah, the Israeli government now seems to have made the decision, with the implicit support of the United States, to wholly destroy the Tehran-backed Lebanese militant group.

Last week, Israel initiated covert operations against Hezbollah members by detonating successive beeper and two-way radio explosions that incapacitated thousands of Hezbollah personnel. It thereafter launched targeted strikes that sought to decapitate Hezbollah’s top command-and-control structure, including the commander of the elite Radwan Force. Israel has since expanded its airstrikes and is in the process of a relentless bombardment to destroy Hezbollah’s infrastructure, targeting storage depots, buildings, and weapons caches. The IDF has struck some 1,300 targets to date, which has killed at least 550, wounded over 1,800, and already displaced thousands, sowing panic and widespread fears that, like Gaza, Lebanon will be reduced to rubble. Meanwhile, Hezbollah has launched rockets and drones deep inside Israel and reiterated its pledge that it will not stop until a truce is reached in Gaza, even though such an outcome looks less likely by the day.

Ecuador’s Power Crisis

Ecuador is grappling with a 1,000-megawatt energy shortfall due to poor maintenance of existing dams, failure to secure new power generation contracts and the worst drought in 61 years. In response, the government imposed nationwide blackouts from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., Monday through Thursday; implemented teleworking for the public sector; carried out preventive maintenance at hydro plants; and tightened security due to gang violence.

More than 78 percent of Ecuador’s electricity comes from hydroelectric sources, but the drought has slashed their capacity. The largest plant, on the Coca River, has a 1,500 MW capacity but faces issues, including cracks in its turbine manifolds. The drought, worsened by El Nino and deforestation, has depleted reservoirs, while unsustainable farming practices further degrade soil and reduce water retention.

The West Must Carefully Consider True Meaning of Putin’s Red Lines

Boris Bondarev

Russian President Vladimir Putin, in an interview with Russian media following the Forum on United Cultures, once again threatened Western countries. In his speech, Putin emphasized that allowing the use of Western, primarily US-made, weapons in strikes on Russian territory would mean direct participation of North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries in the Kremlin’s war against Ukraine (Kremlin.ru; Lenta.ru, September 12). This statement caused great controversy in the Western political environment, but it is worth taking a more sober look at the situation.

This is not the first time Putin has threatened war with NATO countries. Poorly veiled threats of using nuclear weapons were made on the first day of the so-called “special military operation” when Putin declared that if anyone tried to interfere in the conflict, the response would be unimaginably harsh, using all available measures (see EDM, March 7, 2022). Moreover, Putin instructed his defense minister to put Russia’s strategic nuclear forces on special alert. This caused much controversy in the expert community, as such a regime is not prescribed in the relevant nuclear strategy documents. Putin’s signal was clearly intended to stop Western countries from helping Ukraine, but it did not work (RBC, February 27, 2022). Since then, various Russian officials have repeatedly threatened the use of nuclear weapons, raising the topic with varying degrees of persuasiveness and eloquence. A hawkish example is former Russian president and current Deputy Chairperson of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev, who repeatedly warns of a possible nuclear response in all forms of media available to him (Rossiiskaya Gazeta, July 23, 2023; RBC, February 7; T.me/medveev_telegram, June 28, September 14).

Putin’s Silence on Kursk Offensive Might Be a Giant Mistake

Ryan Bauer

It has been over a month since Ukraine began its offensive into the Kursk region in southwestern Russia. Russia’s media apparatus has continually downplayed the significance of the incursion and President Vladimir Putin has only publicly discussed it a few times. Putin’s relative silence on the issue suggests a lack of critical leadership qualities.

Putin’s failure to engage in trustworthy and transparent public communication is hardly surprising given his record of minimizing his public role in crises to skirt responsibility for failures and shift blame onto others. This time, however, Putin’s lack of response has led to criticism from supporters, suggesting cracks in his approach.

Throughout his presidency, Putin has repeatedly failed to project leadership qualities in times of crisis, particularly in recent years. One example is the 2004 siege of a school in Beslan by Chechen rebels. Survivors decried the mishandling of the hostage crisis and heaped criticism on Russian leaders including Putin, who sought to shift blame to regional leaders.

Why the Next Secretary of Defense Should be a Civilian

Benjamin Giltner

With the U.S. presidential election about a month away, analysts and pundits continue to speculate about who Harris or Trump will bring into their administrations. Yet, one crucial point overlooked is the sort of individual who will serve as secretary of defense. In other words, would a Harris or Trump administration appoint a civilian or military official to the position? The United States Code asserts that the secretary of defense can only be “appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” However, there have been a total of three exceptions to this rule—two of them from the Trump and Biden administrations.

The next administration should return to basics and appoint a civilian as secretary of defense. Appointing a former military officer to the position seems understandable on the surface. After all, members of the armed services possess a keen expertise in warfare that most of the population cannot match. However, while knowledge of warfare is an obvious need for the Department of Defense, it is only one part of the job.

The position of secretary of defense serves as the bridge between politics and war. The office develops America’s defense strategy, which involves political, societal, and economic considerations, not just military ones. For instance, some of the job’s duties include deciding on the funding appropriation among each branch of the armed forces and helping to create a conventional and nuclear force posture to keep America safe.

Trump Says Zelenskyy Takes Billions While Refusing To ‘Make A Deal’ To End War

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump accused Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy on September 25 of taking billions of dollars from the United States while at the same time refusing to “make a deal” to end Russia’s full-scale invasion.

Trump, who has been highly critical of the aid Washington has disbursed to Kyiv, said Ukraine should have made concessions to Russian President Vladimir Putin in the months before Russia’s February 2022 attack.

“Any deal — the worst deal — would’ve been better than what we have now,” Trump said. “If they made a bad deal, it would’ve been much better. They would’ve given up a little bit and everybody would be living, and every building would be built, and every tower would be aging for another 2,000 years.”

Trump made the remark at a campaign rally in North Carolina as Zelenskiy attended the UN General Assembly in New York ahead of a visit on September 26 to Washington, where U.S. President Joe Biden is expected to announce an additional aid package.

The Russo-Ukrainian War And Mackinder’s Heartland Thesis – Analysis

Kyrylo Cyril Kutcher

In 1904, Sir Halford J. Mackinder, one of the founders of classical geopolitics, conceptually divided the world into three parts: the pivot area of northeastern and central Eurasia, the surrounding area of an inner crescent of remaining Eurasian and North African territories, and an outer crescent of all the remaining oceanic countries. His notion was that any malicious power able to organize the defined pivot area, which became known as the ‘Heartland,’ and accumulate sufficient highly mobile manpower, inevitably becomes aggressive toward its neighbors on all sides.

Mackinder warned that if anyone succeeds in adding a substantial oceanic frontage to the Heartland, they might constitute a “peril” to the world’s freedom. In Mackinder’s view, Eastern Europe is the key region which empowers the land empire claiming the Heartland. Within this geopolitical framework, it can be argued that the Russian claim over Ukraine is not a mere land grab, but an attempt to substantially increase Heartland’s manpower and resources for further expansion beyond currently defined borders. Russia’s defeat in Ukraine is thus crucial for preventing a new global war and subjugation of the wider free world by the resurgent power in the Heartland, along with its geostrategic allies.

How Much Does the Present Resemble the Unpreparedness Before WWII

Julian Spencer-Churchill

How Much Does the Present Resemble the Tragic Years of Unpreparedness Before Hitler’s World War?

In a 1933 speech, lamenting the rise of Hitler, British member of parliament Winston Churchill complained that “Not one of the lessons of the past has been learned, not one of them has been applied, and the situation is comparably more dangerous.” A year earlier, he identified the pillars of peace as the strength of the French Army and the prevalent anti-war sentiment but warned that all of this could be undone if no one intervened against German rearmament. In 2024, with persistent threats of escalation by Russian President Vladimir Putin in his war in Ukraine, and associated Chinese intimidation of Taiwan and Iranian menacing of the Straits of Hormuz, an observer can be forgiven if they sense a similarity in the unpreparedness of the democracies to the events of the 1930s. There are important differences. Whereas France and Russia were the primary states concerned and militarily prepared for a resurgent Germany in the 1930s, today only the U.S. is ensuring that it is making the necessary investment in its navy, nuclear deterrent, aircraft and missiles, commensurate with China’s naval threat. The rarity of conscription, low levels of defense spending, and the prevalent political complacency across Europe, Canada, and even in Taiwan, has given Russia and China a greater than the two-year lead enjoyed by Hitler in his rearmament.

Big Tech’s Coup

Marietje Schaake

On August 30, the Brazilian Supreme Court banned X—the social media platform formally known as Twitter—from its country’s Internet. The ban was the culmination of a months-long fight between Elon Musk, the platform’s owner and the world’s richest man, and Alexandre de Moraes, one of the court’s justices. Moraes was tasked with investigating the role of online disinformation in attempts to keep former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro in power, despite losing the election. As part of these duties, Moraes had ordered X to take down hundreds of accounts spreading disinformation. In response, the platform accused the justice of censorship. Musk withdrew the representatives X legally needed to operate in Brazil, which eventually led the justice to prevent Brazilians from accessing the platform altogether.

Musk did not take kindly to the decision, comparing Moraes to an “evil tyrant.” But Musk did not confine his anger to harsh denunciations. According to reporting by The New York Times, he actively worked around the order. First, Musk encouraged Brazilians to use virtual private networks (VPNs) to evade the blockage. Then, his Starlink satellite network, which provides Internet service to subscribers directly from space, continued providing access to the site. Finally, X rerouted its Internet traffic through new servers, allowing it to circumvent Brazil’s telecommunication controls altogether.

Israel proves UN is a powerless organisation

Mark Seddon

My old boss Ban Ki-moon, former secretary-general of the United Nations, was fond of remarking to anyone who would listen: “SG also stands for scapegoat.” That’s because if anything went wrong regarding matters of global peace and security, it would inevitably be laid at the UN’s door — and that of the secretary-general in particular.

Fast-forward to this week, as the UN General Assembly convenes in New York, and incumbent Secretary-General António Guterres must contend with a brewing crisis in Lebanon, not to mention a series of long-running conflicts around the world. What can he say to persuade member states that the UN Charter can still be upheld in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, in war-torn Ukraine, and now potentially in Lebanon?

In each case, the permanent members of the UN Security Council have shown contempt for the Charter, and have repeatedly undermined and refused to accept the most basic tenets of international law. Time and time again the veto, which was designed to be used in upholding the Charter, has become the device to negate it; the principal offenders are the United States and Russia and their respective allies. Guterres has this week pushed for major Security Council reform, yet intractable divisions will likely prevent the Secretary-General from getting his way.

Cyberspace Solarium Commission 2.0 Brings Much to Think About for the Next Presidential Administration

Emilio Iasiello

The CSC 2.0 emerged in 2022 from the original 2019 CSC, a congressionally mandated body committed to developing a strategy to enhance U.S. cybersecurity. Certainly, there are arguments to be made that the original CSC was a success. Getting any significant percentage of things done on a long list of “to dos” especially at the government level is noteworthy. Though what is inherently missing in this accomplishment is an accounting of how this implementation has created a more resilient cybersecurity ecosystem in the United States. It would be beneficial to see what the cybersecurity landscape looked like before these recommendations were implemented, and what it looks like now for a more comprehensive cause-effect understanding of why these recommendations were made in the first place. In other words, how have these implemented changes enhanced a specific area, and are there any attack deterrent metrics that reflect that improvement?

Nonetheless, the United States is about to elect a new president, and although cyber has not topped the major issue of voters, the new president will have to address cybersecurity at some point. Unfortunately, there has been little talk by either candidate on the issue, which leaves us with what one former president did during his tenure, and what the other did during her tenure in the current administration. Much of the CSC’s initial implementation occurred during Biden’s presidency, suggesting that a future Harris administration could follow the game plan already in place. While this may change, there has been no articulation on the part of Harris of changing things up. Therefore, chances are she will just continue what’s been done. During his presidency, Trump did put forth his own cybersecurity strategy and sign a few cybersecurity-related executive orders. Chances are that the continued implementation of the initial CSC and the future implementation of 2.0 will largely be determined by how they fit into each candidate’s strategic and policy plans. In either case, one thing is clear: United States’ cybersecurity must be a continuous process, and not just a list of things to be checked off and forgotten.

Why Vinod Khosla Is All In on AI

Astha Rajvanshi

When Vinod Khosla had a skiing accident in 2011 that led to an ACL injury in his knee, doctors gave conflicting opinions over his treatment. Frustrated with the healthcare system, the leading venture capitalist proffered, in a hotly debated article, that AI algorithms could do the job better than doctors. Since then, Khosla’s firm has invested in a number of robotics and medtech companies, including Rad AI, a radiology tech company. The self-professed techno-optimist still stands by his assertions a decade later. “Almost all expertise will be free in an AI model, and we’ll have plenty of these for the benefit of humanity,” he told TIME in an interview in August.

One of Silicon Valley’s most prominent figures, Khosla, 69, co-founded the influential computing company Sun Microsystems in the 1980s, which he eventually sold to Oracle in 2010. His venture capital firm Khosla Ventures has subsequently placed big bets on green tech, healthcare, and AI startups around the world—including an early investment of $50 million in 2019 in OpenAI. When OpenAI’s CEO, Sam Altman, was briefly fired last year, Khosla was one of the investors who spoke out about wanting Altman back in the top job. “I was very vocal that we needed to get rid of those, frankly, EA [Effective Altruism] nuts, who were really just religious bigots,” he said, referring to the company’s board members who orchestrated the ousting. He contends with their concerns: “Humanity faces risks and we have to manage them,” he said, “but that doesn't mean we completely forgo the benefits of especially powerful technologies like AI.”

Slick Sleeves

MAJ Ryan Crayne

Butter Bars

I arrived at my new platoon naked—or perhaps worse than naked. In fact, I would rather have been missing my pants than the fabric I was actually divorced from. Up to that moment, I had done everything a 2nd Lieutenant was supposed to have done. I had graduated from my Infantry Officer Basic Course, and I had attended and passed both Airborne and Ranger School, yet I was still missing something. When I joined my platoon of roughly 30 Paratroopers, there were 59 total 82nd Airborne patches on our cumulative uniforms. From the most junior private to my new platoon sergeant, every single Soldier had recently returned from a deployment to Afghanistan; I could read their deployment history plainly in the unit patches proudly displayed on both shoulders of each Army Combat Uniform (ACU). One of my new sergeants, while telling me about their deployment, referenced his dual AA patches. Ironically, he claimed he had an “unbeatable hand” with his “four-of-a-kind Aces,” and then he gestured toward my bare shoulder. The empty pile tape on my right sleeve, where a deployment patch would reside once I had earned one, was a distinct marker of my perceived incompetence stemming from a lack of combat experience. I had not done the job—and until I had, I would be part of a lesser caste.

For me and for many others, the absence of a combat patch has a corresponding effect on confidence. As a junior officer, even though I was technically in charge of this platoon, my validity had yet to be earned.

Find, Fix, Commit: How Commanders Will Win the Next Conflict with Software

CPT Matthew Moellering

Introduction

The military that best integrates modern software practices into warfighting will gain a decisive advantage in contemporary conflict. Skeptics may consider the fusion of software and combat to be unattainable, or even impractical, but this new battlefield reality is here to stay. Various Army and DoD units are already using cloud platforms and commercial software practices to quickly deliver applications,1 but the current efforts fall short of the demands of modern warfare. In this new era, where algorithms and machines dictate the tempo of conflict, software has become the new arsenal. In this article, we introduce a new framework, forged from industry best practices, that seeks to revolutionize our warfighting capabilities by seamlessly integrating software, data and cybersecurity, all tailored to the unique needs and challenges of our military forces.

Every Soldier Fights with Software

Take a moment to imagine Sergeant John Smith, a Soldier out on patrol in 2025, equipped with two essential items: an automatic rifle and a cell phone known as an End User Device (EUD). The operating system for this EUD is called Android Team Awareness Kit (ATAK),2 and this EUD is a crucial tool on the front lines. It allows Smith to communicate with his squad, send reports to higher command and to control a drone for aerial surveillance—all without exposing himself to enemy fire.