I often listen to the radio; it seems you get a little more in-depth coverage on a given issue. The topic that prompted this blog post was the ethics associated with Artificial Intelligence (AI) as it is applied to warfare, and by extension, the automation of warfare. The prospect of war is a grim, I dedicate most of my thought on how to prevent it; but if the fight comes, as it has so many times, we should be prepared. Most importantly, however, we need to effect positive relations with world actors through aggressive engagement, the construction of a world narrative and trade.
Precarious Cross Roads & the Unstable World Order
Presently, the USA, primarily and NATO hold world hegemony. NATO, of late, has inducted states that are less sturdy actors than the post WW2 “core group”. So within NATO, there are some fissures forming. NATO’s present organizational structure is sluggish to discipline bad actors. While NATO is clearly intact, and clearly the most successful alliance in history – external political pressures have had it appear to be a paper tiger at times. The fact is, in recent history, most “aggressive” military engagement has taken place under the banner of “a coalition” rather than NATO. While one appreciates the level headiness and prudence of NATO’s leadership, if ever there has been a time for a posture of strength, it is now. Greater effort on the part of NATO members to effect adequate resourcing and cohesion is critical.
While the USA and NATO still hold sway militarily, there are potential configurations that could emerge that would challenge NATO. As was the case pre WW1, where there were four, more or less at par actors with uneasy alliances in play, the world today has a somewhat similar circumstance emerging – or rather, a similar circumstance could emerge if we are tardy in spotting the trend and responding to it.
The Crumbling of the Westphalian Establishment
State sovereignty has been the cornerstone of world order. This order was effective in large measure historically because various modalities of discourse, interpersonal and public, were contained intra-nationally – states populations were to a degree isolated from one another. Even with the emergence of the television mass media era, there was a filter on the data that moved from one population to another. Now, as is widely evident, data moves between individuals nearly seamlessly regardless of jurisdiction.
The tendency is to view the “state” in geophysical terms, a group of people “own” the territory within a set of boundaries and that area is theirs’ to manage. The truth is more abstract than that, the “state” is really determined by the strength of its narrative and the degree to which that narrative effects cohesiveness in the population or a collective identity.
The combination of these two realities is contributing the Balkanisation of the world order, as well as, introducing disruption and volatility to public opinion.
Click here: MY PROFESSIONAL WEBSITE
Mitigation of threat – engagement engagement engagement and more engagement
Engagement is lacking in many ways, the full engagement between state leadership is lacking, deeper administrative engagement into the second and third tiers of respective administrations and finally, and most importantly, engagement of the world population generally. Engagement of the world population offers the largest opportunity to effect peace via a “shared” narrative and is grossly under-addressed worldwide.
A role Canada can play effectively in conjunction with other countries of “like mind” is to begin a concerted, well-financed and sustained effort to inform the world citizens of the value of our system and way of living. The value of personal sovereignty, property rights, the social surplus of markets, secular imperatives and the notion of a progressive thrust in governance. Canada, via the CBC, in a joint venture with the BBC, ABC and others could initiate a worldwide program to aggressively engage populations. This is the quintessential oz. of prevention; $10 billion here would very likely stave off many of hostilities that loom on the horizon and keep my grandsons from the horrors of war. “Better to jaw jaw jaw than war war war” as Mr. Churchill taught us. “We” the “West” have spent trillions upon trillions in preparation for war, I submit, if we had spent 10 cents on every dollar directed to military spending toward evangelising the miracle that is the Canadian way of living, we would have created a functional world narrative and be further away from war now, rather than inching closer.
Militarily Oriented Geo-Political Up and Comers
At the fall of the wall, Russia was open to us and we frittered away the goodwill there. Now, again, rather than engage Mr. Putin, a man of conscience and a strong leader, we’ve alienated him further. We have grown in influence in Eastern Europe, but, at the cost of Russia’s goodwill. There is a growing anti-western sentiment amongst Russia’s young people that is a product of the lamenting of the transformation from the Soviet order to present day Russia and perceived slights from the west.
China has been extremely successful in converting from a fully command and control economy to a partially free market economy. Much of their success has been due to access to western markets. China has an operating model that parallels the operating model that brought the British Empire to prominence, authoritarian government and corporatist socio-economic structure. There may have been an opportunity through the course of China’s evolution for the west to impart its core values in a stronger way, in some instances we’ve failed.
There are a number of other geopolitical areas of concern that threaten world stability, their exploration is outside the scope of this document, it suffice to say for the purpose of this document, that their threat as a causal agent in igniting a large confrontation is recognized – by way of example – the dynamics that emerged between the US and Russia in recent events in the Middle East.
The reason I call attention to Russia and China is that they’ve taken a “competitive stance” with the west. Competition can make us better; the challenge is that the ultimate competition, the unbridled confrontation between two or more global actors is a terrifying prospect.
Resolve – if a fish rots from the head, civilisations rot from the core, or rather, the disintegration and diffusion of core ideals.
The progression of Western civilisation has had, as an ostensible core value FREEDOM and this core value has been shored up in large measure by governance that has, under the adversarial realities of democratic government, hybridized social policy with a fairly well supported “free” market. This uneasy association has generated a standard of living unparalleled in human history. One thing that is most concerning today, however, is the willingness for this core element of western society to be compromised, prostituted or directly attacked within our society and its abuse ignored in jurisdictions outside our ambit.
The freedom from coercion and the freedom to act (complete liberty) as a core value, has advanced all people in the west. It was the dream of the “founders” of the enlightenment to create a state of being whereby people have a choice in belief, to build their lives founded on the discoveries of the critical mind, love and the metaphysical contemplation of their preference. The protection, enhancement and propagation of this core value will make the unparalleled prosperity we’ve enjoyed in the West available to the rest of the world.
Churchill once said “courage is the most important virtue of all, as it guarantees the rest”, the core value of freedom, is the core value that ensures all the advancements the people pursue, and as such, it is the most important core value. It is our obligation to take this inheritance that has come at so much cost, by so many, and care for it. If this is true, and if all means of peaceful resolve are gone then perhaps war will become the only means to protect it.
The Ultimate Competition – What are you prepared to do? - The Hammer
War is an event that occurs when all else has failed, it is the ultimate failure in human relations. When it occurs, our participation should have been motivated by the desire to defend that which we hold dear. Defining what we hold dear is a key element of understanding the various thresholds for taking a war footing, defining what we hold dear is outside the scope of this document as well – people usually know good from evil because they taste it.
The Canadian Military is charged with defending Canada. In the context of world order, we derive most of our security from our association with NATO and our proximity to the US. Defending an area the size of Canada with a population the size of ours is a challenging at best; particularly so if Canada had to “go it alone”.
AI and automation are critical components of any future military development. I would argue that wars of the future will be won on a given participant’s ability to hold a reserve of raw resources and convert those raw resources into actionable assets the fastest. To my mind, the question is how to use AI and automation, rather than whether to use them. The ability to leverage resources and minimize the use and risk exposure of personnel should be pursued with vigour – we need to be the best and the fastest, period.
Perhaps what we are prepared to do in our defence should be determined by what others have done in the past. We know that in history there have been actors willing to breach all international protocols in the unbridled pursuit of power. We know that in the face of that aggression “we”, “the West”, used Nuclear weapons in warfare. The answer is, in the ultimate competition, we have to be prepared to do anything necessary to win. Are there morally dictated gradations of engagement? Yes, however, ultimately, our actions are determined by the zeal of the aggressor.
OTHER THINKING ON THE SUBJECT
