Friday News Roundup — May 29, 2020
The Transpacific Spat; Polarization and Recovery; Eroding Nonproliferation; Russia in Libya; The Advanced Battle Management System Puzzle; Plus News You May Have Missed
Good morning this Friday from Washington, D.C. This week marked another grim milestone as more than 100,000 Americans have now died in the COVID-19 outbreak, but there are also growing signs of progress in the fight against the disease. Today, with two weeks of improved infection data, D.C. begins Phase One of its reopening process. Restaurants will be able to do outdoor seating with some limitations, barbershops and salons will be able to open, and more shops will be able to do curbside pickup. The English Premier League, NHL, and NBA are moving towards reopening, and we hope that the MLB can soon do the same. Some states are even setting up guidelines for summer camps to reopen. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, Thomas Jefferson wrote, as is the price of containing an epidemic, but many Americans yearn for a return to something that could someday approximate normalcy.
Over the past 48 hours, we have also seen violence and injustice that should shock all Americans. At a time when tensions are high, we encourage our leaders to continue to be advocates for peace, justice, and bridging, rather than deepening, the divides in our society.
At the Center, we continued our new normal with a fascinating conversation with Max Brooks, author of The Zombie Survival Guide and World War Z. He spoke to us about how fiction can help communicate complex ideas to the public and why we need to invest in creative thinking and leadership to meet the challenges we have not even considered yet. The video of that conversation is available here. Today, we are speaking with August Cole, co-author of Ghost Fleet, which is mandatory reading in the Pentagon, and the new novel Burn-In. Our own Joshua Huminski reviewed Burn-In, calling it “Michael Bay meets Stephen Hawking.”
Dan and Glenn addressed the importance of 5G infrastructure, and why it must be incorporated into future stimulus or proposed infrastructure measures. Dan also looked, along with investment advisor Michael Farr, at how U.S.-China tensions are another headwind markets face. Joshua also has a new review of Becoming Kim Jong-Un: A Former CIA Officer’s Insights into North Korea’s Enigmatic Young Dictator by Dr. Jung H. Pak. We will be hosting Dr. Pak for a conversation about her new book on Monday, as well as a discussion with Dr. Mark Galleoti, one of the most insightful observers of Vladimir Putin’s Russia on Thursday. We hope you’ll join us.
This week, Dan analyzes the latest about Hong Kong, Taiwan, and where U.S.-China relations may be headed — and if we’re prepared. Erica looks at what the economic fallout of COVID-19 is doing to our politics. Michael argues that resuming nuclear tests would be bad for a number of reasons. Joshua looks at how Russia’s involvement in Libya has been less-than-subtle. Ethan talks us through the acquisition process for the Air Force’s next-generation Advanced Battle Management System, and how it could transform command and control. As always, we finish with some news you might have missed.
The U.S.-China Breakup
Dan Mahaffee
In tracing the arc of U.S.-China relations, the question has long been how the economic interdependence of the two powers would shape the geopolitical competition. Unlike the Cold War, where we could plan on the continued isolation of the Soviet economy, the U.S. and Chinese economies have come together during an era of globalization and the growth of global supply chains. Even as a more strident tone came from both Washington and Beijing over the past years, the importance of the economic relationship prevailed.
On both sides, though, even before the pandemic, economic relationship started to fray. In the United States, we began to question our over-reliance Chinese supply chains and its influence from Wall Street to Hollywood to Silicon Valley. Politicians on both sides of the aisle began to account for the cost of decades of intellectual property theft and China’s failure to live up to trade agreements. The wholesale destruction of Uighur culture was no longer ignorable. Post-COVID, these trends are becoming more rapid and the political heat is growing. As Hong Kong, Taiwan, trade, and commerce become hot button issues, we must ask ourselves if we’re ready for the consequences of a true breakup.
While the Chinese leadership may not be concerned about their own 2020 electoral politics, pre-COVID, maintaining a stable U.S.-China economic relationship was key for both President Trump and General Secretary Xi’s prospects. With his economic record serving as the foundation for President Trump’s argument for re-election, the phase one trade deal was to serve as evidence for how the U.S. economy would benefit from President Trump’s leadership and policies towards China. Even as concern about the pandemic grew, President Trump continued to put the best face on his relationship with Xi and the Chinese leadership. Now, with the U.S. pandemic toll climbing above 100,000 lives lost, it’s blame, rather than complements, being sent towards Beijing. From U.S. listings of Chinese stocks to sanctions on Chinese officials over Xinjiang, cutting off advanced technology trade to a reevaluation of Hong Kong’s autonomy, U.S. responses to Chinese actions demonstrate a willingness to use economic ties as leverage.
For the Chinese Communist leadership, while there is no concern about electoral politics, economic performance is also paramount to the party’s legitimacy. Alongside the vehement and vocal protection of Chinese national interests, the Chinese government has long rested upon the bargain that rising economic standards, along with patriotic indoctrination, would forebear any further demands for political freedoms. As China’s economy has grown, they have managed to pull this off, raising questions about our own assumptions about the relationship of economic engagement and the spread of liberal values. However, now, with the pandemic derailing the Chinese economy and questions about its future growth path, the party will turn to old school nationalism and territorial expansionism. Thus, it is no surprise to see a hardline towards Hong Kong, increased pressure on Taiwan, border tensions with India, continued adventures in the South China Sea, and a push for technological independence.
A hardline towards Hong Kong demonstrates how the Chinese leadership fears any challenge to their authority, as well as their willingness to jeopardize economic ties with the rest of the world. Their pandemic diplomacy, albeit ham-handed, has become increasingly assertive. Even where they once sought to emphasize their economic ties with Europe and Asian neighbors, the increasingly aggressive tone has backfired and questions about Chinese influence are being raised from Australian college campuses to the halls of the European parliament. Whether or not allies still feel they must continue to balance their security relationship with Washington or their economic ties with Beijing is one thing, but assumptions about China are changing.
As the United States seeks to redefine the future relationship with China, we must carefully consider how we approach it. As we stand ready to acknowledge that the status quo on Hong Kong or Taiwan cannot last, what are we doing to protect, in reality and not just rhetoric, the people standing up to Beijing and are we ready to help defend Taiwan diplomatically — and militarily? Are we ready to make the needed investments and soup-to-nuts reforms in our military to deal with an opponent where we cannot assume the budgetary or technological superiority on which American military power has long relied?
When it comes to pressuring China on the economic front, we must make sure that our policies don’t have the unintended consequence of weakening American companies and empowering the marketplace strength of foreign competitors and Chinese firms. In a global marketplace, with international supply chains, we can no longer take American dominance for granted. We must also consider how major American companies and their innovation and industrial leadership benefits from doing business around the world, including China. How can we ensure that we’re supporting R&D, innovation, and a well-educated populace? Can we build alternative trade blocs to protect our supply chains and that of our allies and partners? We’ll certainly need to stand together to counter China’s state-backed champions — and continue to empower the Chinese reformers who know the dangers of their own isolation. Finally, we must also realize that this competition will require us to place a greater emphasis on ensuring our own values. Being the best America possible will be key in a competition that will require us to wield influence as much as military and economic might.
If the storm in U.S.-China relations is coming, these are all the matters that must be considered by policymakers, as the rupture between the countries will likely be the true dividing line from the geopolitics of the 20th century and the beginning of those of the 21st.
How the Pandemic’s Economic Fallout will Shape Our Politics
Erica Ngoenha
If there was any hope that the coronavirus pandemic would bring the American people together to fight a common — if invisible — enemy, it was quickly dashed. It was subsequently doused in gasoline and lit on fire as armed protestors staged rallies across the country decrying stay-at-home orders while angry neighbors on Nextdoor, a popular community-based social media platform, rage-posted about the proliferation of mask-less joggers.
Fresh off of impeachment trials and in the midst of a presidential election year, the pandemic came at the worst possible time for the American polity. We have never been more divided as a country. We are all living through different versions of the crisis based on our political ideologies. Media echo chambers reinforce pre-conceived ideas that shape or cloud our view of the pandemic and appropriate policy responses. As states and localities across the country begin the process of opening up, we face the next challenge, recovering from the economic impact of the crisis.
Economists are no longer predicting a “v” shaped recovery with a quick return to normal. Recently released CBO projections predict unemployment rates at 15% with the figures only stabilizing at the end of next year at around 8%, more than double the unemployment rate at the start of this year. The job market has not looked this bleak since the Great Depression. Already, 39 million Americans have filed for unemployment. A working paper authored by a trio of economists at the University of Chicago estimates that 42% of current layoffs will lead to permanent job loss. If the early stages of the virus had ripple effects on our politics, the long-term recovery could present a seismic event.
This was the case after the 2008 financial crisis. Much of the political dynamics currently at play are rooted in the aftermath of that event. The financial collapse gave rise to the Tea Party, which in turn paved the way for President Trump’s victory in 2016. At the same time, it fueled fury on the left that eventually gave rise to a new wave of progressive politics best popularized by Senator Bernie Sanders. In other words, the response to the 2008 crisis laid the groundwork for the intense political polarization we are facing today.
This phenomenon tracks with historical trends. Researchers have found that heightened polarization is a common response to financial crises. Severe economic disruptions tend to hurt moderate politicians and provide an opening for new voices on the ideological poles. These politicians by the very nature of their electoral mandates are not incentivized to cooperate with the other side which impedes effective governing.
Harvard Professor Gautam Mukunda makes the case that the U.S. government’s focus on shoring up the financial sector and not ordinary Americans during the 2008 financial crisis, “corroded the bonds of trust required for the functioning of democracy” which paved the way for populist outsiders to challenge the ruling elite. We are already seeing history repeat itself. Recent news reports that large restaurant chains like Shake Shack and Ruth’s Chris secured tens of millions of dollars in loans through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) while many small businesses failed to secure much needed help triggered public outrage. Several beneficiaries ultimately returned the money amidst the ensuing backlash, but the echoes of the Wall Street not Main Street bailouts from 2008 are hard to ignore.
So what does all of this mean for our politics? Historical trends would suggest that we are opening ourselves up to even deeper political divisions. It seems impossible that our politics could get any worse, but in our current state we cannot even agree on the nature of the problem. The widely-discredited viral video “Plandemic” which garnered nearly 8 million views argues that coronavirus was purposely released to boost vaccination rates, among a number of other wild conspiracy theories. All major social media outlets have scrubbed the video from their websites, but the video’s popularity is a symptom, not a cause. A recent Pew Survey showed that 23% of Americans believe the unproven and dubious claim that coronavirus was intentionally created in a lab. A subset of the American public is well primed to believe conspiracy theories about the origins of the virus. Polarization can get much worse if we cannot even agree on the basic facts that have led us to this point.
As partisanship intensifies, our politics will give rise to political voices on the ideological extremities. Donald Trump is the ultimate populist outsider. It is difficult to imagine a stronger figure in his vein coming to the fore as a disrupter on the right. On the left, Bernie Sanders is often considered Trump’s facsimile, but he just lost a second bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. For now, the Democratic base has eschewed welfare state politics in favor of a more centrist approach. However, a Biden loss in November coupled with the continued downturn of the economy could push the scale in favor of progressives. There are standard-bearers waiting in the wings, namely the new crop of progressive lawmakers led by the so-called “squad” in the House of Representatives.
A more likely outcome is the “acceleration of history” theory advanced by diplomat and current president of the Council on Foreign Relations Dr. Richard Hass. The trends that have led us to this point will continue and strengthen, the media landscape bifurcating along a left-right continuum (the cable news channel OANN has emerged as potential challenger to Fox news for viewers on the right); Americans self-sorting into like-minded communities; politicians moving further to the ideological poles to retain election advantages; and politics functioning as an identity rather than an ethos.
As a result, the economic recovery will be tainted by increased partisanship. However flawed, the bailout packages that ultimately brought the economy back from the brink in 2008 had to be agreed upon in a bipartisan manner. Members of Congress had to cross the aisle to pass a comprehensive legislative agenda aimed at staving off disaster and kick-starting the recovery. While the current Congress managed to pass the CARES Act and four other pieces of coronavirus directed legislation, a fifth package has fallen victim to political gamesmanship. The HEROES Act passed by the House earlier this month has been widely panned by the Republican majority in the Senate. As we move closer to the election, political compromise will be harder to achieve.
While the federal government could shirk its responsibilities in the initial response to the crisis in favor of state-led plans, economic recovery from a massive financial disruption must be directed by Washington. How that recovery is crafted will have a lasting impact on our politics in the years to come.
We’ll Meet Again — But Hopefully No Time Soon
Michael Stecher
Last week, the Washington Post reported that the Trump administration had discussed violating one of the great post-Cold War taboos, testing a nuclear weapon. Several people with knowledge of the meeting spoke to the Post on background and described resuming testing as “very much an ongoing conversation,” but that the administration had decided to pursue other responses to threats emanating from Russia and China. A U.S. nuclear test would be a self-own of colossal proportions, undermining our national security for aspirational gains that have almost no chance of being realized. The report of a single meeting should not cause us to all flip out too much, but, in the context of the Trump administration’s work to undermine the arms control framework, it also cannot be ignored.
According to the Guardian this meeting took place at the Deputies Committee of the National Security Council (NSC) on May 15. Within the NSC structure, there are multiple, nesting groups. At the highest level is the NSC itself, a body created by statute that is chaired by the president or vice president and includes the National Security Advisor, heads of the Departments of Defense, State, Treasury, Energy, Justice, Homeland Security, Office of Director of National Intelligence, Joint Chiefs of Staff, occasionally the Representative to the United Nations and Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and anyone else the president invites. These are the meetings where the president makes the big national security decisions. Before issues are presented to the president for decision, they are discussed at the Principals Committee, which is all the same people (minus the president and vice president), and chaired by the National Security Advisor. This is where policies are vetted for final decision.
The Deputies Committee consists of the #2s at these organizations and is chaired by Deputy National Security Advisor Matthew Pottinger. It is, as the Army Command and General Staff College describes it, the “Engine of the Policy Process.” It is not a working level group; agency deputies are generally the institutional ninjas who oversee the operations of their organizations in the service of the principal’s policy agenda. That nuclear testing was discussed at one of these meetings means that it was discussed at senior levels across the national security and intelligence communities.
The question at issue was whether a “rapid test” might help the administration gain leverage in (as yet theoretical) trilateral arms control conversions with Russia and China. The Defense Department clarified that a test “with limited diagnostics” could take place within a few months, but that a “a fully diagnostic test … [with] lots of data [and] all the bells and whistles” would take years to set. So any test would not significantly add to the United States’s understanding of its nuclear weapons stockpile, but would have some sort of signaling value for other countries.
It is not clear, however, exactly what that signal would be. In a speech at the Hudson Institute on May 21, the Special Presidential Envoy for Arms Control and nominee to be Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Marshall Billingslea gave some clues. Ambassador Billingslea complained that Russia and China have systematically violated other arms control agreements and that China in particular has “steadfastly refused” to engage in an international dialogue about its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. This mirrors other Trump administration statements about their decisions to end the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and the Treaty on Open Skies, as well as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which expires next year.
Ambassador Billingslea added that trilateral arms control treaties were the only way to prevent a three-way arms race, but, if that happened, “We know how to win these races. And we know how to spend the adversary into oblivion.” This statement is nonsense. The United States and Russia combine to possess around 90% of all nuclear warheads, even after decades of net declines in deployed warheads. China has never displayed much interest in participating in the kind of mad-dash warhead construction that characterized U.S. policy in the late 1950s or Soviet policy after 1975. Every country has its own vision for the purpose of its nuclear weapons stockpile and it is clear that China’s current vision is that it maintains a slowly growing number of warheads to hold the United States and regional players at risk in the event of a general war. This contrasts with the U.S. and Soviet (later Russian) vision, which is to be able to threaten to eradicate all life on Earth, even if the other side has already begun to eradicate all life on Earth with a massive first strike.
China would probably prefer the United States get caught up in an expensive investment in nuclear weapons. A key element of competitive strategy is figuring out what your adversary is predisposed to do, but which would be an inefficient allocation of their resources. Competitive strategy is why the United States built the B-1 Lancer bomber — the Soviets so feared heavy bombers that they systematically over-invested in air defenses for its population centers, which threatened the United States far less than tanks, mechanized infantry, missiles, or just about anything else. Similarly, the Chinese would prefer that the United States focus on squirrels and shiny objects rather than try to offset its force projection strategy in the South and East China Seas.
India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Iran would take notice, however, if the United States tested a nuclear weapon. These are all countries with various levels of nuclear aspirations and might be interested in conducting tests either for scientific or signalling reasons of their own. There is very little chance that leaders in these countries would only perceive the signal that the Trump administration wants to send with a nuclear test — they would understand that the global consensus against nuclear proliferation was fraying even further and hot zones in the Persian Gulf, South Asia, and the Korean Peninsula would get even hotter if these countries conducting their own tests.
Arms control negotiations are extremely difficult and technical and the Trump administration has spent 3 years undermining decades of work dedicated to containing the risk of nuclear war. Integrating China into more arms control frameworks would be excellent — stabilizing dyadic competition between nuclear-armed states is generally a good thing. Conducting a nuclear test, however, would do little to make that integration happen and the Trump administration has demonstrated that they are primarily focused on de-institutionalizing and potentially destabilizing the relationships the United States already has. We have to hope that the leak of the details of this Deputies Committee meeting attracts enough pushback that this idea disappears again, perhaps back into the underground cavern that would otherwise be used for a nuclear weapons test.
From Little Green Men to Large Tan Aircraft
Joshua Huminski
Russia’s involvement in Libya got a bit more exposure than perhaps Moscow had wanted at the end of May. In two separate incidents, the extent of Moscow’s activities in North Africa were exposed on the international stage.
First, Turkish-backed Libyan government forces captured an advanced SA-22 Greyhound surface-to-air missile system. Also known as a Pantsir-S1, the system is believed to have arrived in Libya via the United Arab Emirates. According to reports a Turkish drone struck the system or a vehicle near the system at a base controlled by Moscow-backed Khalifa Haftar’s Libyan National Army (LNA) before it became operational, allowing Libyan forces to take possession of the vehicle.
That the SA-22 was in Libya was something of an open secret, first appearing in the country in 2018, but subsequently appearing on social media. According to other reports, at least three of the systems have been neutralized by Turkish drones, but independent confirmation is not forthcoming. That it came from the United Arab Emirates is not surprising as both Russia and the UAE are backing Haftar.
Later, U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) issued a strongly worded statement about the arrival of Russian MiG-29 Fulcrums to Libya allegedly to support Russian-backed private military contractors from Wagner. The aircraft arrived in Libya after transiting through Syria where they were repainted to mask their Russian-origin. The Libyans are unable to arm or operate these aircraft without Russian support (either directly or via Wagner contractors, who are often seconded from the Russian military).
According to Gen. Stephen Townsend, commander, U.S. Africa Command, “For too long, Russia has denied the full extent of its involvement in the ongoing Libyan conflict. Well, there is no denying it now. We watched as Russia flew fourth generation jet fighters to Libya — every step of the way. Neither the LNA nor private military companies can arm, operate and sustain these fighters without state support — support they are getting from Russia.”
A United Nations report alleged that Russia deployed 1,200 Wagner private military contractors to Libya in support of Haftar. Operating from the Eastern part of Libya, Haftar hopes to secure the remainder of the country from the Tripoli-based Government of National Accord. Backed by Turkey, the Government is facing Haftar, who is backed by Russia, the United Arab Emirates, and Egypt. According to the UN, “Their [Wagner] deployment has acted as an effective force multiplier for (Haftar).”
The Wagner group is believed to be close to President Vladimir Putin and is controlled by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a Kremlin-linked financier, also known as “Putin’s Chef” for his stake in Moscow-based restaurants and catering businesses. A spokesman for Prigozhin denied he has any involvement with Wagner. He is also alleged to have financed and directed the Internet Research Agency, which was involved in the 2016 U.S. election interference.
Unsurprisingly, Russia denied that it had sent any aircraft or personnel to Libya. The Russian Ministry of Defence said it would “not comment right now” and Vladimir Dzhabarov, first deputy head of the upper house’s international affairs committee denied any deployments from Moscow.
Gen. Townsend added, “Russia is clearly trying to tip the scales in its favor in Libya. Just like I saw them doing in Syria, they are expanding their military footprint in Africa using government-supported mercenary groups like Wagner.”
In AFRICOM’s assessment, Russia’s involvement in Libya is a strategic effort to ensure long term basing from which it can influence activities in the Mediterranean and Southern Europe. According to Gen. Jeff Harrigian, commander, U.S. Air Forces in Europe-Air Forces Africa, “If Russia seizes basing on Libya’s coast, the next logical step is they deploy permanent long-range anti-access area denial (A2AD) capabilities… If that day comes, it will create very real security concerns on Europe’s southern flank.”
Russia’s use of Wagner is unsurprising and is in keeping with Moscow’s overall strategy of deniability, even if it is paper thin at best. The use of a private military contractor allows Moscow to keep their hands nominally clean while ensuring that their interests, be it in Syria or Libya, are advanced. The fact that the MiGs were monitored from takeoff to repainting to deployment, while potentially embarrassing, is unlikely to change Moscow’s calculus given how much of an open secret it already is for Libya and Russia-watchers.
Wagner allows Moscow to turn up the tensions as needed and maintain Libya as a frozen conflict, unlikely to be won by either Haftar’s forces or the Government of National Accord. Much like Syria, instability and the perpetuation of conflict is in some ways more attractive than resolution. By increasing tensions, Moscow can contribute to the migrant crisis and create chaos in southern Europe, while generating revenue for the Kremlin’s allies such as Prigozhin, and advance its interests all at the same time.
Advanced C2 Acquisitions gets bold
Ethan Brown
This space of the round-up has spilled much ink in 2020 describing the futuristic Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2), and its parent “Advanced Battle Management System” (ABMS). What hasn’t been available for analysis has been the roadmap (ways and means) for getting this program out of the conceptual/prototypical and into the assembly line. Based on recent announcements by Dr. Will Roper (Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisitions, Technology & Logistics) we finally get a glimpse of how the DoD (spearheaded by the Air Force) is planning on sourcing the components and expertise to make this vision of futurized, integrated C2 a reality.
The Air Force Materiel Command virtually opened for ABMS-focused pitches this month despite continued COVID-19 limitations, with an emphasis on Data analytics, Machine Learning, and Artificial Intelligence. These three disciplines in technological security and system capability are areas which Dr. Roper has stressed for months as critical in supporting the rapid DoD capabilities modernization that the AMBS infrastructure. Unlike the stuffy and formal contract awarding process of yesteryear, Dr. Roper is pushing for contracts supporting the high-priority ABMS initiative to be awarded to developers in as little as a month- a radical shift in the acquisitions process and one aligned with the sentiments of the CSPC’s work over the last few years on the National Security Space Program. “We want fresh blood in the ABMS competition pool…commercially focused [companies] that know a lot about data, machine learning, AI, and about analytics, those are going to be the most important parts of the Advanced Battle Management System” Dr. Roper stated when talking about the expanding acquisitions field.
The endeavor to proliferate and streamline the acquisitions and contract awarding process has been met with some ire at federal levels. In particular, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has decried the lack of a business case or fully fleshed out acquisitions plan for ABMS. As the system is about as deep into the tech jargon world as possible, the criticism from the GAO is understood; the development for the ABMS system of systems is not characterized by fixed capability requirements, and is adopting a Silicon-valley method of four-month upgrade processes. By its very construct, ABMS is difficult to define to a federal oversight mechanism like the GAO, but also emphasizes the need for flexible, adaptive commercial contributions to the architecture.
ABMS Elevator Pitch
ABMS doesn’t fit in a box because it is something that has never been done before, a point regularly made and the locus for the continued series of pitches targeting commercial solutions, despite the COVID-19 pandemic. Admittedly, the potential for risk increases when the outcome isn’t as clear, but soliciting the innovative minds of the private industry to solve this issue is precisely the approach necessary to achieve a tangible (if not yet fully realized) outcome. The fact that ABMS, whose embryonic conceptualization was a small-scale replacement model for the JSTARS & AWACS fleet of C2 aircraft, has grown into one of the DoD’s top priorities speaks volumes about the influence of ideas and hope for public/private integration.
As a (very) brief refresher, the ABMS is the future system of systems being driven by the U.S. Air Force as the massive fused network designed to integrate the entire (read- #Joint) command and control enterprise of the Department of Defense and Intelligence Community. In the same manner that the Internet of Things (IoT) will be enabled by the 5G network, so too will the ABMS be enabled by the JADC2 infrastructure. It means that across the spectrum of classification, the entire Joint Force- from the Submarine Captain to the F-35 Combat Air Patrol Flight Lead, to the NSA White Hat Hacker to the Army Ground Force knuckle-dragger on patrol, everyone will be able to access the fusion of sensor data and situational awareness information across the battle space. Most importantly, task force and combatant commanders are no longer the sole proprietors of this kind of fused/Joint Operations Center (JOC) locus of information- everyone gets to tap into the reservoir simultaneously.
But wait, just like Billy Mays, there is more (the ABMS defies standard elevator pitches it would seem). The ABMS construct is going to integrate the missile and space defense architectures into that same Defense industry system (#ofsystems), meaning the national security enterprise could become connected at a level only dreamt of during the GWOT era of Blue Force Trackers and AFATDS. While those (proprietary) dinosaurs were innovative ideas in their own right, the integration of such tools that worked up *AND* down the chain of command was never realized due to simply, a lack of capacity.
Moving Forward
The next fight, whatever and wherever it is, is all but assured to be one where connectivity will be challenged. But the next fight is just as likely to be driven by, as well as won and lost through, information sharing. But how to collect and distribute information at varied classification levels, across the full spectrum of operations in a peer confrontation? Simply, it requires innovation rivaling any collective efforts since putting a human being on the moon as a microcosm of the Cold War. Those space race programs were largely built around brilliant minds being recruited into the vast infrastructure of the NASA umbrella, a decidedly public enterprise venture.
The modern world has moved far beyond those models of programmatic development, which means private industry is now the critical component for making the science fiction of ABMS come to life. Fortunately, officials like Dr. Roper have realized this as well, and are driving towards that outcome by extending the invitation to private industry problem solvers.
The views are of the author, and do not reflect the views, position, or policy of the U.S. Air Force or Department of Defense.
News You May Have Missed
Bad State Data Hides Coronavirus Threat as Trump Pushes Reopening
Aida Olivas
As the country pushes to reopen, data on the virus has been altered or kept from the public at the state and federal levels. Certain states have been found to overcount tests administered and undercount the number of deaths, while others refuse to report any pertinent health data as much as possible. With a lack of clear direction concerning health protocols from the federal government, states and cities have continued to take matters into their own hands. The misinformation has persisted with high ranking government officials and federal agencies as the CDC reports that their testing numbers were inflated. Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services has cited data and statistics from independent organizations with misleading comments that are vastly different from the study results. In response, experts warn such actions will lead to much less trust in statements from government officials and the government itself.
Democrats Call on FTC to Investigate Allegations of TikTok Child Privacy Violations
Aida Olivas
The growing popularity of the social media platform, TikTok, has brought forth concerns of alleged child privacy violations. The Federal Trade Commission has been called to investigate the possibility of TikTok “not deleting personal information…from users under…13”, having an unclear privacy policy, and “not making “reasonable efforts” to ensure the parents or guardians of users were aware of the information being collected”. These allegations come after recent national security concerns about the Chinese owned site being used for espionage by the Chinese government which TikTok has regularly denied.
U.S. Planning to Cancel Visas of Chinese Graduate Students
Aida Olivas
Between 3,000 to 5,000 Chinese students could lose the visas allowing them to study in the United States as the Trump administration believes them to be tied to the Chinese military. The canceled visas are thought to be partially in response to China’s decision of its national security legislation concerning Hong Kong, but the main reason is stated to be to decrease espionage and intellectual property theft believed to be committed by Chinese nationals on university and college campuses. Students whose visas are cancelled will also face expulsion from their schools while those who are currently abroad will not be permitted to return. This decision is highly likely to create further tensions and deteriorate the two countries’ relationship which is already strained by trade disputes and Coronavirus.
Pennsylvania Democrats Say Republicans Hid a Lawmaker’s Positive Virus Test
Aida Olivas
Under pressure from past remarks and party stances, a Pennsylvanian state House member neglected to inform opposing party colleagues he had been in contact with about his positive test diagnosis for Coronavirus. Staff members he had been in contact with were informed but the news was not publicized and lawmakers from the opposite side of the aisle who were also in contact with Representative Andrew Lewis were not notified. This prompted many cries of outrage and disbelief, with one state House member, Representative Brian Sims (who had recently undergone a medical procedure), stating the decision to not inform others put the lives of members and their families at risk. With Representative Lewis being one of the most high profile and vocal members against the economic shutdown and downplaying the dangers of the virus, there have been accusations of hiding the information to maintain party optics especially as it has been revealed that the state House Republican leadership was aware of the diagnosis.
The views of authors are their own and not that of CSPC.