Indian Strategic Studies: 10/10/24

10 October 2024

What the West Gets Wrong About the Global South

Simon Radford, Aidan Irwin-Singer & Marie-Magdalena Bradova

The first president of Ghana, Kwame Nkrumah, proclaimed after his country’s independence, “We face neither East nor West: we face forward.” The recent GLOBSEC Forum in Prague brought together a star-studded lineup of the Western political and military establishment. The conference welcomed presidents and prime ministers, military leaders, and heads of major development banks to discuss issues ranging from artificial intelligence to climate change to pandemics to supply chains.

One panel, moderated by one of the authors and featuring insights from panelists from the Global South with a range of professional backgrounds, both echoed Nkrumah’s outlook and provided a central insight that Western leaders would be wise to heed. Only by moving beyond attitudes shaped by outdated, Cold War-era assumptions, the panelists argued, could the assembled leaders work together to craft lasting solutions to the challenges of our time.

The panel identified multiple challenges in how the “West”—a term that encompasses the United States, its European allies, and, in some cases, Japan, Australia, and South Korea—engages with the Global South. As Oby Ezekwesili, a former World Bank economist, pointed out, even the Cold War-era term “Global South” is problematic and fails to capture contemporary realities. A term such as “Global Majority” would more accurately reflect contemporary geopolitical realities since 88 percent of the world’s population now lives in these regions.

The lost art of understanding the enemy - Opinion

Alexander Casella

On October 1, 1970, China’s People’s Daily published a picture on its front page showing American writer Edgar Snow standing next to Mao Zedong on the Tien An Men gate tower. Snow, the author of the acclaimed “Red Star Over China”, had met Mao in Yenan in 1936, and while not himself a Communist, never hid his sympathies both for China and its new regime.

Coming at a time when relations between Washington and Beijing were beginning to thaw, the picture was supposed to convey a powerful message to the US political establishment. By appearing in public with an American, Mao showed that he personally endorsed a resumption of bilateral relations. But it was all for naught.

In Mao’s eyes, Snow was an American. But in the eyes of the American establishment, he was just another Communist sympathizer. Thus, while the writing was on the wall, the message never got through because the intended recipient did not know how to read. It thus took more time and effort to convince Washington that China was ready to talk.

Iran Will Feel Israel’s Wrath Like Never Before

Alex Vatanka

After Iran’s second direct missile attack on Israel in less than six months, all eyes are on Israel’s next move. Reports suggest that Jerusalem plans a massive revenge that might include striking Iran’s oil and nuclear facilities and other strategic sites. Tehran has said that in that sort of development, it will retaliate in kind. If so, a soft landing out of this latest crisis might not be possible. In April, the last time Iran and Israel engaged in a high-risk round of tit-for-tat, both sides quickly opted to stand down, perhaps motivated by President Biden, who urged Israel to “take the win” and move on. It remains to be seen if de-escalation will be possible on this occasion.

But one thing is clear. The government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is putting pressure on Tehran to choose between its ideological resistance to Israel’s right to exist and the core national interests of Iran, which are not linked to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But Israel does not expect Tehran to stand down. In his latest message to the Iranian people, Netanyahu vowed that Iran will be free from the Islamist regime “sooner than people think,” a statement that the Iranian leadership will interpret as Israel preparing to go for the regime’s jugular. In short, since October of last year, Tehran has wanted to stick its long game of squeezing Israel to exhaustion through a protracted war of attrition with Iran’s Arab proxies. Still, the Israelis are throwing a spanner in the works and hope to derail Tehran’s plans.

Why Iran Struck Again

The Middle East on Fire

Mona Yacoubian

Iran’s ballistic missile strikes on Israel on October 1 have raised fears of an all-out war in the Middle East. The deepening spiral of bloodshed began on September 17 and 18 with the detonation across Lebanon of thousands of pagers and two-way radios used by Hezbollah operatives—one analyst deemed the unprecedented Israeli operation “the most extensive physical supply chain attack in history.” Ongoing airstrikes in Beirut and southern Lebanon have marked the most significant Israeli barrage in 11 months of tit-for-tat escalation. On September 27, Israel dealt Hezbollah a devastating blow by killing its leader Hassan Nasrallah in an airstrike on a Beirut suburb. Despite reeling from these latest reverses and the evisceration of its command structure, the Shiite militia continues to lob missiles at Israel. Stunned and outraged, Iran—Hezbollah’s patron—fired around 200 ballistic missiles at Israel; at least one person was killed in the West Bank. Iranians are now bracing for Israeli retaliation. The cycle of violence, it appears, is far from over.

This latest episode underscores the near-complete breakdown of deterrence in the Middle East. Both state and nonstate actors are taking huge risks. As a standalone operation, the pager attack could have signaled Israel’s resolve to compel Hezbollah to de-escalate or face a catastrophic war. But Israel’s decisions to assassinate Nasrallah, intensify strikes on Lebanon, and even commence a ground invasion suggest a grimmer possibility: the pager operation was merely meant to put Hezbollah on the back foot as a prelude to a more expansive Israeli military intervention.

Hezbollah: Down But Not Out

Ali Rizk

That Hezbollah was dealt an unprecedentedly painful blow with the assassination of its leader Hassan Nasrallah is not up for debate. While Israel succeeded in taking out the Lebanese movement’s former leader, Abbas al-Musawi in 1992, the latter’s tenure was short-lived, having been appointed as secretary general of Hezbollah only one year prior to his assassination. Nasrallah, by contrast, sat at the helm of the organization for 32 years, during which it witnessed its golden era. Under his leadership, Hezbollah military operations forced Israel to end its occupation of Lebanon in May 2000. A 33-day war between Hezbollah and Israel in 2006 ended in what was at best a draw for the Israeli side, shattering the image it once enjoyed as an invincible military and greatly boosting the popularity of the Lebanese movement in the Arab world.

The assassination of Nasrallah is the culmination of a security-intelligence war waged by Israel that is unparalleled in recent history. A mass detonation of pager devices belonging to Hezbollah members left 12 people dead—including innocent civilians—and thousands injured. While Israeli leaders denied culpability, Lebanese and American officials have revealed that Israel was behind the late September operation.

Earthquakes in the Middle East

Richard Haass

The Middle East resembles nothing so much as an earthquake zone with multiple fault lines. This week, fighting increased sharply along one of those lines, Israel’s border with Lebanon and more specifically, between Israel and Hezbollah. This in turn triggered activity along another fault line, as Iran, Hezbollah’s backer, retaliated by firing ballistic missiles at Israel, which has vowed to respond severely. Less clear is what will come next, either along these particular fault lines or elsewhere in the region.

What made escalation all but inevitable were rocket strikes by Hezbollah against Israel in the aftermath of Hamas’s 7 October 2023 attack. Israel evacuated some 60,000 citizens from the northern border to shield them from the risk of attacks similar to Hamas’s, but the mounting exchanges of fire between Hezbollah and Israel made it impossible for them to return safely.

What enabled the emergence of this new front, however, is that the situation in Gaza had reached something of a new equilibrium. Over the past year, Israel has sharply degraded the military threat posed by Hamas. Between 10,000 and 20,000 of its fighters have been killed, with many of its leaders either assassinated or forced into indefinite hiding in Gaza’s labyrinth of tunnels. Israel determined that it could safely shift its focus to its northern border and Hezbollah.

Israel is reshaping the Middle East in its favourFrom magazine issue

Paul Wood

Iran has fallen into the trap set by Israel. It has taken the bait after months of failing to respond to a series of devastating – and humiliating – attacks, which decapitated its Lebanese militia, Hezbollah, and killed the leader of Hamas in Tehran. But the regime may have self-immolated by firing missiles at Israel on Tuesday night, an attack meant to inflict real harm – which inevitably means an Israeli response. Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, may now get the war that some have accused him of wanting all along: a war to destroy the regime in Tehran, fought with American help. The hardliners on both sides are running things. The past week has shown there is no such thing as ‘escalating to de-escalate’ – only escalation. The window for diplomacy is closing and what happens next depends on an American president in the dying days of his administration.

Tuesday night’s attack was only the second time that Tehran has targeted Israel directly. The first was in April, when it fired about 300 missiles and drones. Those were not Iran’s most effective weapons and Israel’s Iron Dome air defences had little trouble intercepting them. It was performative and many saw through the performance. This time was different. There were fewer missiles, about 180 according to the Israelis, but they were among the most advanced that Iran has, the Fattah-1 hypersonic missile that travels at five times the speed of sound. Phone video showed them streaking through the sky, impossibly fast. They are still quite inaccurate and those that weren’t blown up in the air fell on open ground. The only casualty was a Palestinian worker from Gaza, killed by the tail section of a rocket that dropped from the sky as he was crossing a deserted road in the West Bank.

How Israel Could Strike Back at Iran

Tom O'Connor

And with Tehran threatening to respond to such moves with even greater force, the scope and scale of the looming Israeli operation could determine whether or not the Middle East ultimately slides into an all-out war after a year of tit-for-tat escalations.

Sima Shine, a former head of Mossad's Research and Evaluation Division, told Newsweek that she believed it was not in the interests of Israel, Iran, or the United States to enter into such a total confrontation.

Yet, she warned, "It will be difficult not to deteriorate to a full-scale war because, at the end of the day, Israel will probably retaliate in a way that needs to deter Iran from continuing."

Such a strike, she said, would likely be pursued "in a wider way" than the relatively quiet Israeli strike near a nuclear site following a previous Iranian missile and drone barrage fired against Israel in April. That Iranian strike was conducted in response to the killing of Iranian military personnel at a diplomatic compound in Syria.

Weaponizing Technology: The Psychological And Behavioural Impact Of IEDs In Modern Warfare – OpEd

Dr. Shalini Mittal

Historical Roots of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs)

Improvised Explosive Devices or IEDs are any explosive devices that are constructed or detonated in ways other than the conventional military ways. They are frequently described as a new technology. The term “Improvised Explosive Device” was coined by the British Army during the ethno-nationalist conflict in Northern Ireland that lasted from 1960s to 1998.

However, it is important to note that IEDs have a lengthy history. In the 16th century, the Dutch used explosive laden ships termed as ‘hellburners’ to fight against the Spanish in Antwerp. In 1800 an unsuccessful attempt was made to kill Napolean with help of explosives planted in horse carts. Yet other examples of IEDs from history include Mario Buda’s improvised wagon in the Wall Street bombing of 1920, suicide car bombing at the Bath School massacre in 1927 and the use of large vehicle borne IEDs in the Beirut Barracks bombings of 1983.

The Psychological Appeal of IEDs: Cost, Access, and Impact

While in the past the use of IEDs was fairly limited, they became significantly more widespread and impactful during the Iraq war beginning in 2003. Following which the use of IEDs spread to other conflict zones such as Afghanistan. Usually, use of IEDs is observed in ‘asymmetric warfare and power dynamics’ where one side is significantly weaker. While the conventional military forces may be better trained and equipped, use of IEDs offers opportunity to the weaker forces to strike from a distance, instill fear and disrupt army operations.

A Wider War in the Middle East, From Hamas to Hezbollah and Now Iran

David E. Sanger

The long-feared “wider war” in the Middle East is here.

For the last 360 days, since the images of the slaughter of about 1,200 people in Israel last Oct. 7 flashed around the world, President Biden has warned at every turn against allowing a terrorist attack by Hamas to spread into a conflict with Iran’s other proxy force, Hezbollah, and ultimately with Iran itself.

Now, after Israel assassinated the Hezbollah chief, Hassan Nasrallah, and began a ground invasion of Lebanon, and after Iran retaliated on Tuesday by launching nearly 200 missiles at Israel, it has turned into one of the region’s most dangerous moments since the Arab-Israeli War of 1967.

The main questions now are how much the conflict might intensify, and whether the United States’ own forces will get more directly involved.

Israel's New Rules of War

Robert D. Kaplan

October 7, nearly a year ago, changed Israeli calculations in ways that are still being revealed. The very bestiality of the event, with its torture, murder, mass rapes, and the like, was an expression of both Palestinian blood hatred and Iranian grand strategy. Soon after the event, the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hassan Nasrallah, described October 7 as “great,” “blessed,” “heroic,” and “courageous,” even as his Shiite group rained down missiles on northern Israel, forcing 60,000 civilians to flee south.

Repelling such a war of annihilation is not pretty, especially for a democracy governed by the consent of the governed, which is therefore charged by its citizenry with protecting their physical and material well-being. Indeed, democracy entails obligations that are not always benign. This naturally leads to adjustments in the military rules of engagement. Remember, there is a profound difference between imagining the worst that your enemy might do to you and then palpably experiencing it. October 7 left nothing to the imagination. It would have been both immoral and irresponsible if Israeli military thinking had not evolved as a consequence.

West Needs a Rapid Rethink as Russia Inches Forward

Nico Lange

There is bad, but not disastrous, news for Ukraine from the eastern front. After more than two and a half years and several failed major attacks, Russia is making significant progress near Vuhledar for the first time. The town lies on the hinge between the eastern front and the southern front.

Its impending loss worsens the situation in southern Donbas and deprives Ukraine of the opportunity to disrupt Russian logistics on the land route to occupied Southern Ukraine. The logistical importance of Crimea is diminishing as a result.

Even though the situation near Kupiansk, Kupiansk, and Vuhledar is developing negatively for Ukraine, Russia is falling well short of the goals it has set itself — recapturing the Kursk region by October 1 and taking the entire Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts by the end of 2024.

And it is suffering very high losses of 800-1,000 soldiers a day, although it is recruiting around 1,000 soldiers a day by paying astronomically high salaries. Russian men are often pressured by their families to report to the front to collect these high sums, albeit at the cost of life and limb. It has additionally lost many more than 600 armored vehicles, during the early assaults alone.

Five reasons why Israel’s 7-front war is so hard to win

Gabriel Elefteriu

Over the past three weeks Israel has delivered an exceptional masterclass in intelligence-led military operations. Through the use of exploding pagers and radios, precise airstrikes, and a special bombing run against Hassan Nasrallah’s multi-storey bunker, all timed to perfection, the Israelis decapitated almost the entire command structure of Hezbollah – the region’s largest and most potent terrorist organisation.

Success on this scale, claiming so many top-level targets – including Nasrallah himself, the monster terrorist-in-chief – in such a short space of time, is absolutely astounding and unprecedented.

It follows the Gaza campaign – unleashed in response to Hamas’s barbaric 7 October terrorist attacks – whose main operations have largely concluded. This, too, has been a military success in the sense of Israel achieving its immediate objective of crippling Hamas, destroying its tunnels and retaking effective control of Gaza.

The COVID Cover-Up: Did U.S. Intelligence Agencies Play a Role?

Jeff Smith

A new scientific report on the origins of COVID-19 has renewed debate on exactly what caused the deadliest event of the 21st century. It is the latest in a string of academic papers by a small group of elite scientists arguing that the pandemic was the result of a “natural spillover” event. And like each of its predecessors, the report’s underlying data and conclusions are quickly being debunked by more objective scientists.

However, the purpose of the report was likely not to convince but to distract; a ruse to throw off the scent. It was necessary because a growing body of experts and everyday Americans are increasingly convinced by the growing body of evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic was not the product of a natural spillover event but a lab leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Arguing over the possibility of a natural spillover also distracts from another important question : What part did the U.S. government play in obscuring the origin of the virus?

We have more answers today, thanks to a bipartisan commission organized by the Heritage Foundation, which released a damning report last summer quantifying the full cost of the pandemic. Not only did the pandemic kill over 28 million people worldwide and 1.1 million Americans, it cost the U.S. economy alone $18 trillion in terms of “excess deaths,” income lost, chronic conditions like Long COVID, mental health costs, and education losses.

Gaza, Ukraine being fought on techno-battlefields. Indian military is 3 decades behind - Opinion

Lt Gen H S Panag (retd)

A recent post by a learned colleague on social media listed 15 tactical essentials that any army must follow to survive on a battlefield that’s shaped by a quantum leap in military technology. These lessons have emerged from the Russia-Ukraine and Israel-Gaza/Hamas/Iran wars, where new-age weapons and combat support systems have been successfully employed.

I will discuss these essentials, related to the fundamentals of tactics—firepower, protection, and mobility—that armies have employed since time immemorial to capture or defend ground, or, at the macro level, territory. Despite all technological advancements, capturing or defending ground still has to be done physically. However, the impact of military technology and the relative dominance of these three fundamentals have dictated tactics over time.

Transparent battlefields & lethality of PGMs

Modern surveillance and reconnaissance tools—such as satellites, drones, aircraft, radars, and electronic/cyber interception—have made the battlefield transparent. These technologies can pinpoint all static and moving targets, which can then be targeted with near 100 per cent hit probability by air- or ground-based precision-guided munitions (PGMs) and drones.

U.N. Chief Barred from Entering Israel

Shannon McDonagh

Israel's foreign minister announced Wednesday that U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres has been declared "persona non grata" and barred from entering Israel.

Foreign Minister Israel Katz accused Guterres of bias, citing his failure to condemn Iran's recent attack on Israel.

"Anyone who cannot unequivocally condemn Iran's heinous attack on Israel does not deserve to step foot on Israeli soil."

"This is an Israel-hating Secretary-General, who gives support to terrorists," he said.

The decision widens the rift between Israel and the United Nations, amid rising tensions in the region.

Earlier today Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei criticized Western presence in the Middle East, calling it a source of conflict.

Russian Disinformation Targets the European Union

Sergey Sukhankin

As Russia’s war with Ukraine continues, Russian disinformation campaigns are being unveiled across Europe. In September, a consortium of European media outlets leaked records of the operations of the Social Design Agency, a Moscow-based company reportedly leading Russia’s propaganda campaign (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, September 17). Russia conducts disinformation campaigns through various mediums, predominately on social media through memes, fake accounts, and falsified content. On May 15, an EU briefing in Brussels declared that Russia remains the most significant threat regarding the spread of anti-EU disinformation, primarily through the manipulation and weaponization of information (X.com/VeraJourova; DW, May 15). Because Russia perceives the European Union as politically and socially divided, economically stagnant, and a weak military entity, Moscow will continue, and even strengthen, its anti-EU disinformation campaign in the near future. As Russia’s war in Ukraine continues and Europeans become tired of the prolonged conflict, fewer people will be engaged and thus more susceptible to disinformation coming from Russia.

Being a target of a Russian disinformation campaign is nothing new to the European Union. Since 2015, EU officials and disinformation experts have traced over 17,000 instances of Russian-generated anti-EU propaganda. The first half of 2024 was marked by 1,500 cases alone. According to EU officials, Russia’s current disinformation campaign revolves around three key ideas: the spread of anti-Ukrainian agendas; anti-EU themes and narratives; and the glorification of Russia, its military-political leadership, diplomacy, and economic “achievements” (DW, May 15).

Russia Updates Nuclear Doctrine, Lowering Threshold for Use of Nuclear Weapons (Part 1)

Alexander Taranov

On September 25, Russian President Vladimir Putin chaired a meeting of the Permanent Conference of the Security Council on Nuclear Deterrence, updating the country’s nuclear policy (Kremlin.ru, September 25; see EDM, September 30). The updated Basic Principles of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence expanded the category of states and military alliances against which a nuclear response could be conducted. The timing of these updates coincides with debates in the West over whether to allow Ukraine to use long-range weapons against targets on Russian territory and is likely a tactic to deter this authorization.

On the one hand, Russia mirrored the wording of its doctrinal documents from the 2000s. In particular, the 2000 Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation declared that the country reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies. More to the point, the document suggested that nuclear weapons could be used in response to a large-scale conventional attack in situations critical to the national security of the Russian Federation (Kremlin.ru, April 21, 2000).

Israel’s “Limited, Localized” Invasion of Lebanon Is Sparking a Regional War

Jonah Valdez

After nearly a year of unrelenting attacks in Gaza, Israel further escalated and expanded its war by invading Lebanon late Monday. Iran responded the following evening by launching ballistic missiles into Tel Aviv, stoking fears that the region is on the precipice of an even broader war.

The Israeli military has tried repeatedly to minimize the perceived scope of its attacks, describing its ongoing invasion of Lebanon as “limited, localized, and targeted ground raids” against Hezbollah. Such semantics are also in play in the U.S., where President Joe Biden publicly called for a ceasefire, while reporting suggests the White House privately condoned Israel’s expansion of its war into Lebanon.

“Increasingly we’ve seen Israel use words like ‘targeted’ and ‘limited,’ words that try or seek to convey that this is somehow acceptable,” said Mai El-Sadany, executive director of the D.C.-based think tank Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy. “And yet we know from the last year — in Israel’s war in Gaza and this latest front in Lebanon — that these are euphemisms for, at the end of the day, what may very well amount to be war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

U.S. and Allies Sound Alarm Over Their Adversaries’ Military Ties

Edward Wong

Call it the Axis of Anger.

It is ripped from the pages of the World Wars or the Cold War: a coalition of powers working to strengthen one another’s militaries to defeat America’s partners and, by extension, the United States.

That is how the Biden administration characterizes Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, as those nations align more closely. U.S. officials have been sounding the alarm in speeches and closed-door talks around the world, most recently at the United Nations General Assembly in New York that ended over the weekend.

As the conflict in the Middle East widens — and as the world watches for whether Iran will retaliate against Israel for the killing on Friday of Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and its strikes across Lebanon — U.S. officials feel an even greater sense of urgency.

Yet the partnerships are not as unified as they might appear, and U.S. officials say they still see ways to slow that trend.

Russia's Military After the Ukraine War: Enter the Gray Zone?

Mikhail Troitskiy

Russia’s war against Ukraine has exposed significant flaws in the design and execution of its military operations. Some analysts argue that the Russian military will emerge from the war seriously weakened, unable to afford another campaign against its neighbors or other countries. However, other observers characterize the Russian military as adaptable and capable of not only altering operational tactics during the war but also identifying strategic opportunities for future operations based on observations of adversary behavior.

While Russia’s operational capabilities after the war will largely depend on the condition of its army, navy, and air force, its capacity to carry out new operations is likely to be significantly enhanced thanks to the extensive experience gained during the conflict in Ukraine.

One of the strategic insights Russia, and possibly China, India, and others, may have gleaned is the cautious response by major Western powers to Russia’s aggressive territorial expansion under the umbrella of nuclear deterrence. Although various effective tactics may offset the conventional advantages of large military fighting near its borders, like Russia in Ukraine or potentially China in Taiwan, the role of nuclear weapons in shielding expansionist actions has proven more significant than previously believed.

Fire for Effect in Ukraine

John Nagl and Dan Rice

The United States has now approved the provision of air-to-ground AGM-154 precision cluster glide bombs to Ukraine. This completes the full family of cluster munitions for artillery, HIMARs rockets and aircraft thirty-two months after the Russian invasion of that country. Cluster munitions incorporate a number of smaller bomblets that scatter upon impact, vastly increasing the destructive power of the weapons. America has been slow to provide cluster munitions to Ukraine, doing so sparingly and haltingly. It is now time to deliver all of these different types of cluster munitions in large quantities to destroy the Russian Army in Ukraine. In artillery terms, it is time to FIRE FOR EFFECT and provide the quantities of ammunition Ukraine needs to win the war.

The slow increase in capabilities provided to Ukraine cost Ukrainian lives and territory. At first, US howitzers and HIMARs were deployed without cluster munitions. Instead, Ukraine was provided with much inferior high explosive artillery shells (HE) and HIMARS rockets with single HE warheads.

Inside the Marine Corps’ first-ever littoral regiment

JENNIFER HLAD

Four Marines in helmets and flak jackets are stacked outside a rusty metal building covered in faux brick and wood. The first enters the doorway with his rifle at the ready, followed by the other three, while 2nd Lt. Alex Willbanks observes inside.

Other than the color of the camouflage, the scene is virtually indistinguishable from Marine pre-deployment training at the height of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. But instead of a traditional infantry unit preparing for a counterinsurgency fight in the desert, these Marines are part of the Corps’ first-ever littoral regiment, getting ready for a potential future war in the Pacific.

Back in 2008, Willbanks was one of the young enlisted Marines just learning how to clear a room before he deployed to Afghanistan with 1st Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment. Now he’s back as an officer in the two-year-old 3rd Marine Littoral Regiment, passing on his hard-earned knowledge to new Marines.

How Businesses Can Take Advantage Of Open-Source Intelligence

Tom Madsen

While open-source intelligence (OSINT) is often linked to government intelligence agencies uncovering information about people and organizations—or even exploited by cybercriminals—this represents only part of its potential.

NATO and the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) officially recognize OSINT as a tool of service and the DoD even defines OSINT as: "Derived exclusively from publicly or commercially available information to address specific intelligence priorities, requirements or gaps."

There are many valuable ways to leverage online information for your business. By using easily accessible data, you can gain insights that can lead to positive and profitable outcomes.

From Cyber Threats To Business Insights: The Dual Nature of OSINT

Most of us know about things like phishing and how the availability of online information can allow cybercriminals to lure potential victims and scam or extort money from them. But OSINT is "hands-on" and accessible for most of us, both in good and bad ways.

Lockheed Martin’s Stacy Kubicek on using multidomain tech in defense

The defense industry has long endeavored to equip forces with enhanced communication by connecting technologies across land, sea, air, and space. This goal might seem easily attainable in today’s smartphone-enabled world, but aging hardware, fragmented install bases, and inconsistent standards across devices and networks may weaken secure communications.

As adversaries continue to deploy electronic warfare capabilities, defense forces could benefit by eliminating system frailties and creating a strong multidomain operating (MDO) environment that incorporates the most secure and sophisticated technologies, including emerging AI applications. McKinsey associate partner Christian Rodriguez recently met with Stacy Kubicek, vice president and general manager of sensors and global sustainment at Lockheed Martin’s Missiles and Fire Control Division, at the Farnborough International Airshow to discuss what’s next for multidomain operations. An edited transcript of the conversation follows.

Christian Rodriguez: Where do we stand in the journey toward MDO capabilities?

Stacy Kubicek: This is what everybody’s thinking about, and I’ve definitely heard it talked about at Farnborough. Lockheed Martin has made MDO a focus in connecting air, land, sea, space, and even cyber capabilities.

Christian Rodriguez: How have recent global events catalyzed innovation and changed the pace of MDO?

Stacy Kubicek: There’s been a huge change and shift in urgency as of late. I think that’s one of the biggest things that Lockheed has been focusing on: How do we change from a platform-centric warfare model to more of a mission-centric model?

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)