Hiders and Finders in the Urban Environments of the Future

            The U.S. Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) has an eye towards the future, with its Mad Scientist Initiative conducting regular conferences and providing grants to experts and technologists forecasting how warfare will change over the century. One of the papers produced by a recent Mad Scientist Conference was featured on the Modern War Institute’s podcast, and its authors (retired Maj. Gen. David Fastabend and Ian Sullivan) described their vision of how the operational environment will change over the next 32 years.  They foresee a shift from forces fighting for cities, to forces fighting in cities as the proliferation of “finders,” or sensors both overhead and on the ground, drives militaries to try to be better “hiders.”

            They envision three basic options to safeguard key forces and systems—mobility, dispersal, and dormancy.  Notionally, if systems and key forces are mobile, they are harder for the enemy to hit in the opening salvo of a war, but in a pinch, nations can limit the damage of an initial attack by dispersing their forces and systems around their territory.  The best option, especially for systems that don’t require constant human interaction, is dormancy—a dispersed series of weapons systems that don’t produce waste or activity and can blend in seamlessly with their surroundings because they don’t operate until called upon to strike.  Regardless of which route nations take, Maj. Gen. Fastabend believes that the urban environment provides the overhead cover that systems and forces will need to escape detection.

            Don’t tell that to another of the Mad Scientist Initiative’s speakers, Frank Prautzsch, who described his belief that “there’s [no] chance for the element of surprise in the megacity,” in a March 2016 address about the future of urban warfare.  The sensors that Mr. Prautzsch cites are the commercially available, networked devices that constitute the internet of things (IOT), which he reckons could be deployed even by asymmetric adversaries to gain an improved picture of the battlefield within the megacity.  He’s hardly alone in his assessment.  Alfred Crane and Richard Peeke also presented a paper at the 2016 Mad Scientist Initiative, in which they argue that the data analytics technologies being developed by commercial entities could be used by a variety of actors to exploit IOT both offensively and defensively during urban operations.  The belief that IOT will enable a Dark Knight-esque perfect surveillance of a massive city for forces on the ground overlooks its disadvantages in the face of its competition—miniaturized, survivable drones.  

            First, as Mr. Prautzsch acknowledges, the GIS community does not have a very good grasp on what cities look like either underground or inside buildings, and even if information warfare units can access IOT devices inside a building and determine whether there are people near them, that information is not actionable intelligence until you can assign a distinct location to the device.  That would involve building out a floor plan, which no PlayStation camera or coffee maker will help with, by establishing the locations of individual devices on a single router, which will be difficult unless the router is operating on a multi-antenna, timing-advanced system, which would be overengineered for an indoor space, and repeating the process for every single IOT device in the building.  

            Compare asking a brigade-level information warfare asset to exploit the IOT devices in a building versus sending out a pocket-sized drone to map the corridors in front of you as you go.  Which of those options do you think the average infantryman would choose?  The one that involves waiting for geeks to do something that could take hours or days and not be accurate, or the one that projects what’s around the corner right onto his heads-up-display without having to ask for permission?  IOT devices could be useable for the Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield and establishing patterns of life for High Value Targets, but its tactical application will never beat the efficiency of squad or even team-level drone technology.  As for those of you hoping to take Maj. Gen. Fastabend’s advice and hide ICBMs or MLRSs inside urban structures, maybe just don’t get Alexa.

Cuttin' Grass and Kickin' Ass: Autonomous Robots in the Future

Technological innovations throughout history have changed the face of warfare.  Nations who were able to adopt the newest technologies and incorporate them in their tactical and strategic battle plans had a marked advantage over other nations that lagged behind.  One of the newest technologies that may revolutionize warfare is the coupling of artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics to create autonomous and semi-autonomous robots.  The evolution and development of autonomous weapon systems has been met with concern by some who question the morality of employing such weapons.  However, autonomous robots and weapons systems will play and important role in the future of warfare and the world will not be able to completely stop their employment.

The morality of utilizing autonomous weapon systems in warfare has undoubtedly raised concerns throughout the world.  Recently, over 100 leaders in the technology field sent an open letter to the United Nations requesting a ban on automated weapons.  These specialists believe that autonomous weapons systems are morally reprehensible and deserve to be banned under the UN Convention on 21 nations (I don't count Palestine) are calling for a ban on autonomous weapon systems.   Of the nations calling for a ban, only a few, if any, would be likely to obtain the technology and employ it as a means to lessen the combat power gap between its rivals.  So, who is attempting to open Pandora's box?
Certain Conventional Weapons.  While their concern is understandable, only

The US and China are leading the way when it comes to autonomous weapon systems with ol' Vlady Putin picking up slack in the back.  In 2016, the Chinese held a month-long competition titles "Overcoming Obstacles 2016" in which teams competed in multiple categories by demonstrating the capabilities of their autonomous robots.  In addition, China has announced plans to develop an autonomous multi-role surface vessel named the D3000.

Indeed, the United States is the current leader of the pack when it comes to autonomous weapon systems.  The DARPA developed anti-submarine warfare ship "Sea Hunter" is the first autonomous ship to be launched for testing by the US.  The Sea Hunter has recently completed its sea trial and has C-RAM and the M15 Phalanx CIWS.  Although the US may be in the lead, Russia has expressed interest in automated weapon systems and has been testing their tech as well.
been turned over to the Office of Naval Research for further development.  The US has also met with success in developing defensive automated technologies such as the

Russia recently held a series of tests at a proving ground outside of Moscow in which they tested the Nerekhta.  This unmanned ground vehicle is still being developed but Russia has indicated its desire to use these as an autonomous ground cruise missile (of sorts).  Colonel Pomazuev of the Russian military stated at a recent weapons testing that Russia already has a semi-autonomous tank with a remotely operated turret in the works.

What is clear from all this is that Russia and China have demonstrated their position on how they plan to utilize autonomous robots in warfare.  This is not surprising as China and Russia are desperately trying to close the power gap with the US.  Technologies such as autonomous weapon systems will give those who wield them an advantage.  Autonomous robots will be developed and they will play a definitive role in warfare.  More than likely, the role will encompass both lethal and non-lethal tasks as countries struggle to close the power gap.


Photo Credit: Runaway & Big Think