Expanding the Business of Defense To Emerging Markets


As the defense budgets face downward pressure in the US and Europe, emerging markets are poised to spend more than a trillion dollars on defense over the coming decade, creating business opportunities for Western defense firms. A recent Frost & Sullivan analysis of 10 emerging markets concluded that between 2015 and 2025, emerging markets in Southeast Asia, South America, the Middle East and elsewhere would spend more than $1.2 trillion on defense. Over that period, military expenditures in Colombia, Kuwait, Malaysia, Morocco and Singapore are expected to see 3.6 percent compound annual growth rate, while Angola, Azerbaijan, Peru, Qatar and South Korea can anticipate a CAGR of 2.8 percent. Much of that spending will be on personnel, operations and maintenance, leaving relatively modest amounts for new equipment. While the first group will spend an average of $9.5 billion a year combined on new equipment, the second will spend an average of $18.95 billion a year combined, primarily driven by South Korea and Qatar’s acquisition spending. While some emerging markets are rapidly developing countries and some boast more established economies, the three main drivers for their increased defense spending are similar, said Alek Jovovic, an analyst with Avascent. 

First, governments want to develop what Jovovic terms “sovereign technical capabilities,” with spillover domestic benefits. “They look at the defense sector and they see certain things came out of defense spending that were just good for countries from a technological perspective. It drives broader industrial development,” he said.

Second, they want the ability to defend themselves as needed without relying on equipment from foreign suppliers. 

Third, boosting defense spending helps create high-quality jobs. “These are all trends that are remarkably similar, no matter what the threat context is, no matter where the country is,” Jovovic said.

Earlier this year, the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies noted that global defense spending rose by 1.7 percent in 2014, the first year of growth since 2010. But the geographical distribution of defense spending is changing, with less coming from the US (which accounted for 38 percent of the global total in 2014, down from 47 percent in 2010) and Europe. “By contrast, defense outlays are rising in many emerging economies, particularly Asia, the Middle East and Russia,” IISS noted in its report Military Balance 2015. “In the Middle East and North Africa, nominal defense spending is estimated to have risen by almost two-thirds since 2010. Factoring in exchange rate and inflationary effects, this equates to a 40 percent increase in real defense outlays over the period.” The shift in defense spending creates opportunities for Western defense contractors as demand for sophisticated weapons will likely outpace emerging countries’ abilities to produce them domestically. As a white paper published by Avascent in March noted, the US has a leading position in these markets, but political friction between the US and its allies leaves an opening for competition from European, Israeli, Russian and Chinese defense companies. While mature markets in Western Europe and Northeast Asia continue to offer major competitive opportunities over the next 10 years, “many opportunities will be found in fast-growing emerging markets which have less well-developed industrial capacity to fulfill the requirements of rapidly expanding militaries,” the Avascent white paper states. “A growing share of revenues for most Western defense suppliers will come from these emerging markets.” For example, 95 percent of defense contracts in Gulf Corporation Council countries between 2010 and 2014 went to foreign companies, with the lion’s share going to the US (73 percent) and Western Europe (24 percent). In the coming decade, 64 percent of GCC contracts are up for grabs, according to Avascent projections. Similarly, the US (41 percent) and Western Europe (31 percent) were the largest defense suppliers for Southeast Asia between 2010 and 2014, but 63 percent of contracts for the coming decade are uncommitted. “On one side it is good news, because a number of new markets that aspire to world-class defense products and services to some smaller degree,” Jovovic said. “On the challenging side, these are sometimes hard markets to do business in. They require a bit of a paradigm shift, you have more partnering, more collaboration with folks on the ground.”

In a survey conducted in October by McKinsey & Company, defense industry executives largely predicted declining defense spending in North America and Europe versus growth in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific. The Middle East (77 percent), India (50 percent), US (33 percent), South Korea (33 percent) and the UK (23 percent) were seen as the most attractive markets, with Japan (20 percent), Brazil (10 percent), Indonesia (10 percent), Canada (10 percent) and China (7 percent) rounding out the top 10. “Declining budgets in the Western world and growth in Asia and the Middle East give rise to an overwhelming trend in the defense industry: affordability,” the McKinsey report states. “About 85 percent of executives believe that their customers will shift their focus from procuring systems with the highest possible performance to ones that are more affordable.”

Curated by N. Jafry & C. Pacheco

Advertisements

Strength Through A Diverse Military

army diversity military

According to a new research sponsored by the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity in the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and Rand Corporation highlights that troop cuts could reduce gains made in racial and gender diversity of the military since the 1990s. The report, titled “Force Draw downs and Demographic Diversity: Investigating the Impact of Force Reductions on the Demographic Diversity of the U.S. Military,” looked at multiple draw down scenarios to examine the potential effects on women and racial minorities. The cuts to “non tactical operations” jobs could have an adverse effect on female and black service members, and in some cases, Hispanic service members. Cuts involving troops with longer service could adversely affect black personnel, but cuts to troops with shorter service could adversely affect women. Tightening test standards as part of a strategy to cut recruitment could also result in adverse impact on female, black and Hispanic recruits. Under budget pressure, the Army is planning to reduce from about 490,000 currently to 450,000 by the end of 2017, and possibly to 420,000 by 2019 thus creating the smallest Army since before World War II.
The Marine Corps and the Air Force are also planning workforce reductions, although they will be smaller. “During major draw down periods, the services must balance reducing the budget, ensuring fair treatment for current service members and retaining people with the right skills,” said Maria C. Lytell, lead author of the study and a senior behavioral scientist at Rand. “One aspect that hasn’t been factored in much during past draw downs is retaining a demographically diverse workforce,” she said. The cuts are expected to rely more on separations versus lowering recruitment as with previous draw downs in the 1990s.The services are limited in how they can use demographic information in the cuts.
.

Article Contributed By

Celso Pacheco & Naved Jafry

Military Innovations That Can Change The Future

military innovation main pageWe may have a love hate relationship with the Military, but just over three decades ago mad science projects within the military literally transformed the world we live in today. When a group of researchers with military money set out to test the wacky idea of making computers talk to one another in a new way, using digital information packets that could be traded among multiple machines rather than telephonic, point-to-point circuit relays. The project, called ARPANET, went on to fundamentally change life on Earth under its more common name, the Internet. Currently $3 billion is split across 250 programs that may have national security implications but, like the Internet, much of what the military funds can be commercialized, spread and potentially change civilian life in big ways that its originators didn’t even conceive. Here are our top picks for what we called the future of everything.
Atomic GPS
military innovation quantum gpsThe Global Positioning System, or GPS, which DARPA had an important but limited role in developing, is a great tool but maintaining it as a satellite system is increasingly costly. A modern GPS satellite can run into the range of $223 million, which is one reason why the Air Force recently scaled back its procurement. DARPA doesn’t have an explicit program to replace GPS, but the DARPA-funded chip-scale combinatorial atomic navigation, or C-SCAN, and Quantum Assisted Sensing, or QuASAR, initiatives explore a field of research with big relevance here: the use of atomic physics for much better sensing. If you can measure or understand how the Earth’s magnetic field acceleration and position is effecting individual atoms (reduced in temperature), you can navigate without a satellite. In fact, you can achieve geo-location awareness that could be 1,000 times more accurate than any system currently in existence, say researchers. The British military is investing millions of pounds in a similar technology. Researchers associated with the project forecast that they will have a prototype ready within five years. The upshot for quantum navigation for any military is obvious. It arms them with better and more reliable situational awareness for soldiers and equipment and better flying for missiles. Perhaps, more importantly, a drone with a quantum compass wouldn’t require satellite navigation, which would make it much easier to fly and less hackable. The big benefit for everybody else? Future devices that understand where they are in relation to one another and their physical world won’t need to rely on an expensive satellite infrastructure to work. That means having more capable and cheaper devices with geo-location capability, with the potential to improve everything from real-time, location-based searches to self-driving cars and those anticipated pizza delivery drones. The most important civilian use for quantum GPS could be privacy. Your phone won’t have to get signals from space anymore to tell you where you are. It would know with atomic certainty. That could make your phone less hackable and, perhaps, allow you to keep more information out of the hands of your carrier and the NSA.
Terehertz Frequency Electronics and Meta-materials
military innovation meta technologyThe area of the electromagnetic spectrum between microwave, which we use for cell phones, and infrared, is the Terehertz range. Today, it’s a ghost town, but if scientists can figure out how to harness it, we could open up a vast frontier of devices of that don’t compete against others for spectrum access. That would be a strategic advantage in a time when more military devices use the same electromagnetic spectrum space. Research into THz electronics has applications in the construction of so-called meta-materials, which would lend themselves to use in cloaking for jets and equipment and even, perhaps, invisibility. On the civilian side, because THz radiation, unlike X-ray radiation, is non-invasive, metamaterial smart clothes made with small THz sensors would allow for far faster and more precise detection of chemical changes in the body, which could indicate changes in health states. There’s the future doctor in your pocket.
A Virus Shield for the Internet of Things
military innovation internet of thingsCISCO systems has forecast 50 billion interconnected devices will inhabit the world by the year 2020, or everything from appliances to streets, pipes and utilities through supervisory command and control systems. All of that physical and digital interconnection is now known as the Internet of Things. The High Assurance Cyber Military Systems program, or HACMS, which DARPA announced in 2012, is trying to patch the security vulnerabilities that could pervade the Internet of Things. The agency wants to make sure that military vehicles, medical equipment and, yes, even drones can’t be hacked into from the outside. In the future, some of the software tools that emerge from the HACMS program could be what keeps the civilian Internet of Things operating safely. This breakthrough won’t be as conspicuous as the Internet itself. But you will know its influence by what does not happen because of it – namely, a deadly industrial accident resulting from a catastrophic cyber-security breach. (See: Stuxnet.). Without better security, many experts believe the Internet of things will never reach its full potential. In a recent survey by the Pew Internet and American Life Project about the future of physical and digital interconnection, Internet pioneer Vint Cerf, who was instrumental in the success of ARPANET, said that in order for the Internet of things to really revolutionize the way we live it must be secure. Barriers to the Internet of Things include failure to achieve sufficient standardization and security. HACMS could provide the seeds for future security protocols, allowing the Internet of things to get off the ground.

Rapid Threat Assessment
military innovation rtpThe Rapid Threat Assessment, or RTA, program wants to speed up by orders of magnitude how quickly researchers can figure out how diseases or agents work to kill humans. Instead of months or years, DARPA wants to enable researchers to “within 30 days of exposure to a human cell, map the complete molecular mechanism through which a threat agent alters cellular processes, This would give researchers the framework with which to develop medical countermeasures and mitigate threats. How is that useful right now? In the short term, this is another research area notable primarily for what doesn’t happen after it hits, namely pandemics. It took years and a lot of money to figure out that H5N1 bird flu became much more contagious with the presence of an amino acid in a specific position. That’s what enabled it to live in mammalian lungs and, thus, potentially be spread by humans via coughing and sneezing. Knowing this secret earlier would have prevented a great deal of death. In the decades ahead, the biggest contribution of the program may be fundamental changes in future drug discovery. If successful, RTA could shift the cost-benefit trade space of using chemical or biological weapons against U.S. forces, this could also apply to drug development to combat emerging diseases.
Overall the future points us in a direction where all of this power, and all of this hype, emerges from a source almost unfathomably small with major implications. The next of things in military innovation in a few short years could leapfrog current technologies from present day computations as humans evolved from jelly fishes.

This article is curated by Celso Pacheco & Naved Jafry

Why The Army Should Stay Strong

army strong top_10_active_duty_armiesAccording to the 2012 and 2014 defense plans the U.S. Army will no longer size its main combat forces with large-scale counterinsurgency and stabilization missions in mind. This is world view, we believe is a major conceptual mistake that may eventually decimate our Army and will cause increasing harm to our sacred founding principles with time if we buy into the idea. The active-duty Army is already below its Clinton-era size and only slightly more than half its Reagan-era size. Reductions to the Army Reserve and Army National Guard have been almost as steep. None need grow at this juncture, but the cuts should immediately stop. As of chart shown above, we already now rank below Pakistan and North Korea in numbers and with the leap frogging of technological advances our opponents may soon have the strength to make us irrelevant on any ideological or military battlefield.

This may seem to many as far fetched but if history has taught us anything it may be just truer than ever that an ounce of precaution could be far better than a pound of cure. To maintain counterinsurgency and stabilization capacity, as well as a robust deterrent against possible threats such as the NATO by the Russians, South Korea by North Koreans, the Muslim world by Political Islam, Southeast Asia by China and most importantly the elephant in the room, a possibility of a South Asian Nuclear War.strong army political instability

According to Michael E. O’Hanlon from Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence, A nuclear confrontation would be devastating in South Asia, enormously disruptive to the world economy, and highly dangerous to the whole planet (particularly with the prospect of loose nukes afterwards). An Indo-Pakistani war remains a real possibility today. There have already been three or four, depending on whether one counts the Kargil crisis of 1999, and it is remarkable that there have not been more. If the nuclear weapons threshold were crossed in the future, a foreign military role could become much more plausible, particularly to reinforce a ceasefire. To date, Delhi in particular has eschewed any foreign role in diplomacy over Kashmir or related matters. But in the aftermath of the near or actual use of nuclear weapons, calculations could change dramatically such a world could be characterized by a far different political psychology than today’s. The path to war could begin, perhaps, with a more extremist leader coming to power in Pakistan. Imagine the dangers associated with a country of 200 million with the world’s fastest-growing nuclear arsenal, hatred of India and America, numerous extremist groups, and claims on land currently controlled by India. Such an extremist state could take South Asia to the brink of nuclear war by provoking conflict with India, perhaps through another Mumbai-like attack.

Why could nuclear weapons be employed, even after 70 years of non-use globally? Even if it was the provocateur, Pakistan could come to fear for its own survival in this type of scenario. Having aided a group like Lashkar-e-Taiba, with its extremist anti-Indian views, Pakistan would have given India ample grounds for retaliation. Even a limited Indian conventional counterattack, perhaps influenced by its so-called Cold Start military thinking, could quickly put Islamabad, Lahore, and other Pakistani cities at risk. In such a situation, Pakistan might well see military logic in the use of several nuclear weapons against Indian troops, facilities, or other tactical targets. It is not even out of the question that Pakistan could conduct some attacks over its own territory. If the weapons were detonated a kilometer or so up in the air, the effects of the explosions could be catastrophic to people and military equipment below, without creating much fallout due to dirt and rock upheaval that would later descend on populated areas downwind.Beyond their immediate military effects, such attacks would signal Islamabad’s willingness to escalate. Despite the huge risks, there would be few better ways of making a threat to attack Delhi credible than to cross the nuclear threshold in tactical attacks. Presumably, Pakistanis would have to assume the possibility of Indian attacks against Pakistani armed forces. But that might be a risk the country’s leadership would be willing to accept, if the alternative seemed to be defeat and forced surrender after a conventional battle. It’s not clear whether Indians would interpret such a finely graduated nuclear attack as a demonstration of restraint, particularly if any of the Pakistani attacks went off course and caused more damage than intended. Thus, the danger of inadvertent escalation in this kind of scenario could be quite real. It might not even take nuclear attacks by Pakistan to cause nuclear dangers.

A role for U.S. troops?
strong army US deployments scenerios
If such an Indo-Pakistani war with nuclear implications began and international negotiators became involved, it’s imaginable that an international force could be proposed to help stabilize the situation for a number of years. Kashmir might be administrated under a U.N. mandate and protected by a U.N.-legitimated force, with an election eventually determining the region’s future political status. The fact that nuclear conflict might have occurred by this point would have raised the stakes enormously for both sides, making it hard for any leader to accept a simple ceasefire absent a credible political process. The mission could last a decade or more, time enough to allow for a calming of tensions, for political transitions in both countries, and for Pakistan to clamp down on terrorist groups.
India in particular would be adamantly against this idea today. But things could change fundamentally if such a settlement, and such a force, seemed the only way to reverse the momentum toward all-out nuclear war in South Asia. American forces would likely need to play a key role, as others might not have the capacity or the political confidence to handle the mission. It is estimated that an international force numbering into the low hundreds of thousands of troops could be needed for an extended period.
Is such a scenario likely? Hardly. Is it crazy or implausible? we don’t think so. Could we really sit it out if it happened? we fear not. Can we design the future American Army without factoring in such possibilities? In fact, it would be a big mistake. As we consider questions from the imminence of possible sequestration this fall on the proper size, character, and cost of the U.S. military under our next president, such considerations must factor clearly in our minds. We may not have an interest in ugly stabilization missions, but they may have an interest in us. In fact we argue that In many cases, the needed response may entail not just trainers and drones, but brigades and divisions.

This opinion piece is contributed by Celso Pacheco Jr. and Naved Jafry

army strong front

THE CASE FOR AMERICA’S MILITARY BASES ABROAD

military bases 2
We have somewhere around 800 U.S. military bases outside the 50 states and Washington, D.C. and there are hundreds of thousands of troops and hundreds of thousands of family members living on and around these bases. The vast majority of U.S. bases overseas were built during or after World War II; many of them, of course, were in Germany and Japan. So they were bases of occupation initially and over time, transitioned to bases that some locals felt were a continuation of occupation and others embraced in a variety of ways. But this network – really unprecedented network of bases grew up in World War II, shrunk a bit after the end of the war and then basically has stayed in place ever since. There was a shrinkage of the base network at the end of the Cold War. But a massive network of still remained in place.

military bases 3Many argue that there have been a number of harms that these bases have inflicted on local communities there have been accidents, crimes committed by U.S. personnel, environmental damage whole range of damage that people were quite upset about. As the Cold War developed, we see France evict the United States in the mid-1960s. We see countries like Trinidad and Tobago evict the United States, also in the 1960s, and we see growing protest movements in places like Okinawa that continue to the present.
But we think that the US bases are increasing national security or the security of the world. It’s important also to point out that a major way in which the United States engages with the rest of the world is through these military bases. Most of our foreign hosts want us there. When the US Army recently began planning on moving out of Heidelberg Germany, that city hired a lobbyist to lobby the US Congress to change that decision. Let me restate that–they fought to have the US Army stay. Eastern European countries are also clamouring for our troops to be stationed there. Overseas base are NOT “extraordinarily costly compared to keeping U.S. troops in the United States. They are more expensive, but not greatly so. And the benefits are enormous. Daily interactions with our allies are what builds trust and interoperbility. Virtual presence is no presence. Moreover most of the nations in which we maintain permanent bases are important allies and appreciate our presence as that presence has contributed to a lasting peace on their soil since the end of World War II. It is truly a win win for them, and not having to deploy to defuse a crisis in motion makes a good deal for us too.

military bases 4Overall we think any analysis to shut or remove the bases has to be done not in sweeping terms, but on a case by case, nation by nation basis. There may be a few of our installations that are a net negative, but the real money and most of our effort is well spent in securing peace in important regions of the world.

This Opinion piece is contributed by Celso Pacheco & Naved Jafry

Using Technology Against A City

cyberattack 3Cybercriminals haven’t knocked out a city’s ability to operate yet, but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen. According to security experts cities’ increasing dependence on technology and the haphazard ways those systems sometimes connect could leave them vulnerable to someone looking to cause chaos. Cities, like the rest of the world, now rely on a lot of computers. But the systems used to make even the most sensitive systems run can still contain security flaws. While the risk of an actual attack may not be imminent, the threat is looming large over cyber security researchers who warn that local governments aren’t prepared. The digital pathways between all of the entities and organizations in a city is often not well managed. In many cases, there’s no overarching security architecture or even understanding of holistically what the city looks like.
Researchers have already discovered vulnerabilities with new technology being used in many cities. Last year, researchers found that traffic monitoring system used in dozens of U.S. cities, including Washington, D.C., could allow a malicious hacker to falsify traffic data and manipulate stop lights. District officials say the city is reviewing the security of its traffic sensors. A few years ago, two Los Angeles traffic engineers pleaded guilty to hacking into the city’s traffic system and slowing down traffic at key intersections in support of a labor protest.
In 2008, the Telegraph reported that Polish police believed a 14-year-old was responsible for a tram derailment that injured 12 people — a feat he supposedly pulled off with a modified television remote control that took control of the steering and signals on the tram system. In a research presented at the Black Hat USA cybersecurity conference in Las Vegas earlier this month. Gregory Conti, a professor who teaches cybersecurity at West Point, and Tom Cross, the chief technology officer at cybersecurity firm Drawbridge Networks states that transportation systems are a key pressure point for cities, places where technology that is otherwise well secured might intersect in ways that make them vulnerable to a targeted attack. this could cascade throughout a city, according to Each person is looking at their little silo and defending their department or agency to varying degrees of success but they don’t appreciate the relationships between their piece of the puzzle and other people’s pieces.
cyber attack 4In some cases, older industrial systems never designed to be online end up making their way onto the Internet. Researchers using Shodan, a search engine used to identify systems connected to the Internet, have routinely discovered traffic lights, water treatment facilities and even power plant controls online. This summer, researchers said they found security vulnerabilities that could potentially be used to shut down a nuclear power plant. The vulnerabilities involved networked ethernet switches used in industrial environments disclosed the problems to the switch makers and said that fixes are coming. But they worry that the slow patching process for these types of issues may leave some affected systems vulnerable for years.
Even finding those sort of problems can be difficult. Gaining access to power and water treatment plants is difficult and these types of industrial facilities are not traditionally targeted by financially motivated cybercriminals, so researchers are less likely to look for potential problems. But nation-state or politically motivated attackers might take an interest in these types of industrial facilities in the future and to make matters worse, attackers are getting stronger while the sophistication level of attackers are increasing across the board.
Sophisticated malware that has traditionally only been accessible to government agencies can end up in the hands of cybercriminals and one day may be used by someone aiming to cause destruction.
Cities worried about cybersecurity risks often struggle to attract the right expertise and secure enough resources to address these issues over the long term and the risk management approach cities apply to traditional forms of attacks should also be used in the digital realm. cyber attackNot everyone is convinced that cities are facing a cybersecurity crisis just yet: James Lewis, a senior fellow focused on cybersecurity at the the Center for Strategic and International Studies, says cities are likely only going to be a target for pranksters in the immediate future — not cyberattacks aimed at creating real world damage. “There’s been a tremendous amount of increase in vulnerability, but that does not translate into an increase in risk.
But pranksters hacking traffic signs to warn about a zombie apocalypse aren’t what keeps researchers up at night. The real threat isn’t that someone will simply launch a cyberattack against a city, it’s that the attack will be designed to do as much damage as possible and the worst case scenario is someone thinks it all through and shatters our false sense of security.

References-: DARPA, Scientific America and Andrea Paterson report in WP

The Advent Of A Hypersonic Weapons Race

     hypersonic weapons      Just when we thought that humanity have reached the peak of making weapons lethal enough, major powers are now competing to make weapons even faster than ever before. Breakthroughs such as the Falcon HTV-2 are an unmanned, rocket-launched aircraft that can glides through the Earth’s atmosphere at approximately 13,000 miles per hour. The United States, Russia and China are waging a secret arms race that could soon usher in a new generation of high-speed weapons never before seen in warfare. In one test, a missile built by Boeing flew more than 230 miles in just four minutes. In another, a prototype designed by Lockheed Martin blasted off like a rocket and streaked back through the atmosphere at more than 20 times the speed of sound. China has reportedly tested its version over a lake in Inner Mongolia and in February, Russia joined the fray when it tested a similar model that intelligence experts assert could be designed to carry a nuclear warhead.
Super hypersonic weapons are intended to attack targets many times faster than the speed of sound have become the newest hope for military commanders seeking to gain an edge over potential adversaries. While most details and the level of funding remain classified, some predict they could be perfected within the next five years. Critics both inside and outside of the military fear these futuristic missiles could be dangerously destabilizing, but Congress is pushing to accelerate development of these weapons. The missiles could render obsolete even the most advanced missiles defences and provide a new means to deliver nuclear warheads, prompting some to call for an outright ban.
Those who are sounding the alarm, including some members of the military itself, will have to turn the tide of growing enthusiasm. As one senior Pentagon weapons scientist recently assured Congress, hypersonic weapons “will provide us an advantage in a contested environment in the future.” A top missile-builder, Raytheon, calls hypersonic weapons “the new frontier of the missile business.” And new legislation working its way through Congress, which seems firmly on board, urges the Pentagon to step up development, including seeking new ways to defend against hypersonic missiles. The U.S. is seeking conventional hypersonic weapons, not nuclear ones. But China and Russia are believed to be developing weapons that carry both types of warheads, likely designed to evade U.S. or other missile defense systems. One much-discussed Chinese system, the DF-21D, is built to launch from a rocket and then plunge down from space to attack U.S. aircraft carriers in the Pacific.
The skeptics warn that their use in war would almost certainly ratchet up the stakes of a conflict to dangerous levels at dangerous speeds. With nuclear technology the adage that ‘you can’t put the genie back in the bottle’ is widely used. What if we are standing at the threshold of a technology that we could keep in the bottle before it runs amok in the international system? Overall I assert that the window for action is open right now and the U.S. should weigh the long-term strategic advantages of these weapons against the possible risks that they could destabilize the international system and may very well have the opportunity to lead the world out of an arms race that no one can survive through.

References and courtesy: DARPA, CFR, DOD and defense expert Philip Ewing