National Security 101
National Security 101
My takeaways from 10 days talking to the Stanford community in Washington, DC
4 think tanks, 3 skiffs, 10+ government executives, 20 pages of notes, and 12 curious, somewhat overwhelmed honor theses students…in short the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) 2024 Washington D.C. Honors College trip. While we came to jumpstart our thinking on our thesis writing, I’ve left thinking about much more than just AI security.
Alumni of the CISAC program, and interdisciplinary application based, year long Stanford thesis program, can be found all around DC from Tarun Chhabra at the National Security Council to Michael Sulmeyer at the Department of Defense.
I’ve synthesized my learnings into two articles: this one on the national security landscape and my next one on pursuing careers in government (I’m looking at you seniors). I will not be attributing any direct quotes to organizations or people to preserve the anonymity of our agenda.
Overall themes
It is unclear where the United States will draw its red lines in regard to Russia’s actions against Ukraine and their support for Israel in the middle east.
America’s vision as a world superpower (“the project” as the Obama administration labelled it) is inconsistent with rising domestic calls for isolationist and realist foreign policy.
Even without intention, history (personal or global) constantly frames leaders’ decisions and suggests the importance of studying historical psychology and empathy (shoutout Dr. Story).
Foreign policy and politics are becoming intermestic, in other words inherently intertwined. In fact, the president’s central portfolio is foreign policy (although our national debates don’t seem to reflect this).
Despite our large defense budget, the Department of Defense (DoD) does not have enough resources to manage America’s role in the world and thus makes time and resource trade offs on the daily (thanks Josh for the framing).
I’ll now dive deeper into some of the regional and thematic categories we discussed, starting with terms than overall thoughts.
🇺🇦 Ukraine/Russia
Crime of aggression = the planning, preparation, initiation, or execution of an act of aggression by a world leader in violation of the United Nations Charter
Ukraine was the topic least discussed in our time, although lessons from the war rang through in many conversations. Our speakers talked about the region mostly in the context of understanding what Russia’s longterm accountability would look like to the international community. In international courts, Russia’s “mother crime” will always be considered its initial crime of aggression to Ukraine.
🏜 Israel, Gaza and the Middle East
Principle of distinction = belligerents are required to distinguish between combatants and protected civilians in armed conflict
Principle of proportionality = a determination of how appropriate a military response is given an initial action and the civilian tradeoff
N7 = an elite special force
Red sea chokepoint = critical maritime passage that connects Red Sea to the Indian Ocean but has recently been subject to piracy and terrorist threats coming from Yemen
Key quote: “The Iraq war was one of the great strategic errors and a huge waste– Is Israel making the same mistake?”
A speaker framed Israel’s mindset on the war as always fitting into three paradigms: 1) the regional conflict can be solved 2) it can be managed 3) it will be completely destructive. Scholars seemed most worried about the transition of the conflict from a localized to regional war, and overall agree that the two state solution is the best path forward. I was particularly curious about understanding the difference between intent and impact in Israeli military action. Although speakers disagreed overall on if and to what extent Israel had violated the principle of proportionality, they seemed to agree that there was international violation in the beginning of the war because of 1) a lack of prioritization of terrorist targets 2) the classification of maximal strategic objectives as military objectives.
🇨🇳 China
Pacific Rim Partnership (PIPIR) = an economic and strategic alliance initiative that fosters economic cooperation, trade, and strategic alignment among member countries in the Pacific region.
Guardrails = measures to prevent misunderstandings and miscalculations that could lead to unintended escalation particularly between China and the US
The recurring phrase defense officials used regarding Taiwan was “Today is not the day,” meaning they are doing everything in their power to make sure Xi Jin Ping does not wake up one day and feel strong enough and think “Today is the day” I will attack Taiwan. That being said, the Department of Defense was clear in saying they do not officially support Taiwan independence. The year 2027 is being used as a benchmark in the community because that year marks the 100th anniversary of the founding of the PLA and a key assessment (and even demonstration) of military milestones). More than just Taiwan, The United States also must manage tensions in the South China Sea and is allocating resources to particularly defend our ally the Phillipines. On the industry side, our conversations have made me curious: if the Chinese value proposition is rapid production, what is the American value proposition? My thesis will argue that it can be security.
🇮🇳 India, Brazil and other Emerging Powers
The quad = a special alliance between the US, Australia, Japan, India (China’s definitely feeling the FOMO on this one)
Strategy of non alignment = India, Brazil, Turkey and other nations’ choice to stay neutral in global conflicts and alliances between US and China to tactically work with all partners
Alliances (in comparison to partnerships) = partnerships without limits
BRICS = an acronym representing an influential group of emerging economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa)
From talking to embassies, we learned that the India and United States relationship has transitioned from one a management to working relationship. In the past, India has had a heavy reliance on Russia for weapons but is now using a strategy of non alignment to diversify their weapons partnerships and become more self reliant. Many of these emerging economies are becoming spotlights for tech companies who are now starting to put data centers in Brazil and the UAE specifically (Zhenwei’s thesis explores some of this investment).
📲 Emerging technologies (AI, space, etc.)
NOFO = Notice of funding opportunities (particularly given to companies)
Fiduciary duty = legal and ethical obligation for a company to act in the best interests of their share holders
Derisking = reducing exposure to potential risks or threats in a relationship or system without completely severing ties
Decoupling = the process of separating or disengaging economic, technological, or strategic systems between countries or blocs
Technopolitics = the increasing intersection between technology and geopolitics
UN Convention on Cybercrime (Budapest Convention) = treaty addressing computer crime by aligning national laws and improving investigative techniques
Indigenization = the process of making technology more relevant to a local culture or population, often by using domestically produced items instead of imported ones
Effective accelerationism = a philosophical movement that supports rapid technological progress, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), as a solution to global problems
Key quote: “We don’t have a technology problem. We have a technology adoption problem.”
The State Department emphasized the need for an “open, reliable, and interoperable cyberspace.” They particularly talked about digital diplomacy, and the increasing importance of undersea cables. I was personally interested in how we determine safety vs security risks. One representative aptly explained, “We have a present safety risk, but a future security risk.” The most present risk on policymakers’ minds seems to be deepfakes.
Emerging technology intersects with every topic explored above. It has me wondering, should we be using AI to determine laws of proportionality? On a larger scale, how do we improve AI auditing? Currently the U.S AI Safety institute struggles to hire auditors because of pay cuts and equity challenges.
🚀 Nuclear and Space
New START = treaty between US and Russia to reduce and limit strategic offensive arms
Dual Capable platforms = military systems that can be used for both conventional and nuclear warfare
Article IV of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 prohibits the placing nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in orbit around Earth (amongst other questions)
Samiya Rana questioned our speakers about low yield nuclear weapons which are smaller and more tactical weapons (ask her about her thesis!!). Russia recently implied that they intended to put nuclear weapons in space violating the Outer Space Treaty and raising the question of how to verify the presence of offensive weapons in space (ask Iso Porteous about her thesis!)
⚡️ Energy and Infrastructure
BUILD act = established the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC) which promotes private investment in developing countries
Threat magnifiers = any element that amplifies the potential danger or negative consequences of a threat without being a direct threat itself (e.g. rising temperatures)
Threat multiplier = a factor or condition that increases the frequency, probability, or scope of existing threats (e.g. AI for ransomware)
Infrastructure and re-industrialization became bingo words on this trip. I most appreciated Dr. Kahl’s assessment that future investment needs to be focused on three areas:1) clean energy 2) computing power and 3) the defense industrial base.
That brings us to the end of this meaty article on all things national security. I hope I have left you with the terms and basic knowledge to sound like a national security work in your next coffee chat.
I’ll leave you, dear reader, with a quote from one of our speakers, “We are in a presidential campaign fought in the trenches and we can’t see the horizon.” While this November’s election will be pivotal, I urge you to peek above your informational or personal trench and consider a horizon where no individual truly changes the nature of threats we will face—space, nuclear, regional—in the next 20 years. How will you contribute?
—DG