Ukraine’s June 1 assault on air bases across Russia has already ushered in a new conventional wisdom: The expensive, human-crewed weapons (tanks, planes, ships) that have long defined the world’s “advanced” militaries have been rendered obsolete by inexpensive drones. However, this view is incomplete, and perhaps dangerously misleading. Today’s drone warfare offers sobering lessons that go far beyond the vulnerability of expensive legacy weapons; and the looming integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into drone warfare would make the current situation look positively quaint.
Consider the lessons of the Ukraine war so far. First, the impact of drones goes far beyond legacy weapons. Drones have indeed rendered tanks and armored personnel carriers extremely vulnerable, so Russian ground assaults now frequently use troops on foot, motorcycles or all-terrain vehicles. This has not helped, because drones are terrifyingly effective against people as well. Casualties are as high as ever — but now, drones inflict over 70 percent of casualties on both sides.
Drones are also effective against almost everything else. Ukraine has used drones to destroy Russian targets as varied as weapons factories, moving trains, ammunition stores, oil refineries, ships and ports. It could be worse; in fact, Ukraine has shown great restraint, considering Russia’s barbaric conduct. Airport terminals, train stations at rush hour, athletic and concert stadiums, pharmaceutical factories, hospitals, schools, nursing homes — all are equally vulnerable.
Illustration: Constance Chou
Two additional sobering lessons from Ukraine concern how drone warfare depends on its industrial base. First, speed and responsiveness are critical. Drone technology, weapons and tactics now evolve at a blinding pace. A new drone would be useful for only two to six months. The other side develops countermeasures, requiring the development of new products, against which new countermeasures are developed, and so on.
At first, the drones used in Ukraine were crude weapons, radio-controlled by a pilot who needed to be nearby. As drones became more sophisticated and lethal, jamming was used to block their radio signals, which led to frequency changes and then frequency hopping, which was then countered by multi-frequency jammers, which then engendered drones that attack jamming equipment. Then Russia developed drones controlled via fiber-optic cable — impervious to jamming. Ukraine tries to track the cable to its source and kill the pilots (with drones). Now Ukraine has fiber-optic drones, too.
Guidance is ever more sophisticated, so that drones can evade radar by flying very low or using stealth technology, but drone detection and tracking systems have also advanced, employing networks of cellphones and microphones connected to audio analysis software, as well as using Lidar, radar and cameras.
In this ferocious environment, falling even a month behind is fatal. Normal defense industry procedures are totally inadequate, and most US drones and drone producers have proved to be hopelessly slow, expensive and unusable. In response, Ukraine’s drone industry and military developed a revolutionary model of weapons research and development (R&D), production, and deployment, based on direct, continuous communication between frontline units and drone producers. Ukraine’s military command and Ministry of Digital Transformation have even developed a points-based system that publishes continuously updated rankings of military units’ performance based on verified drone kills.
Here, Ukraine benefited from having a strong start-up ecosystem, which supports a weapons industry (with hundreds of companies) capable of designing, producing and fielding a new weapon in a matter of weeks. This year, Ukraine would produce more than 4 million drones, most of them models that did not exist even a year ago. Unfortunately, Russia has adapted as well, also relying heavily on private start-ups.
Drone warfare in Ukraine provides yet another lesson for the US and Europe: the need to address Chinese dominance of the global drone industry.
Ukraine evolved its own drone industry because the US and NATO had almost none of their own, much less one with the speed and flexibility required, and because China has gradually tightened supplies to Ukraine in favor of Russia. About 80 percent of the electronics used in Russian drones are sourced from China. While Ukraine was initially highly dependent on China, it has reduced its reliance to perhaps 20 percent, most of that obtained covertly.
Yet US and European defense R&D and procurement remain slow and uncompetitive, which cripples their ability to defend against drones, as well as their ability to use them. Although few people realize it, the US and NATO now desperately need Ukraine for its drone expertise. Ukraine is now the only country that could possibly match Chinese and Russian technology and reaction time in a war. Without Ukraine, and without modernizing their own forces, NATO and the US would suffer horrific casualties in a war with Russia or China — and might even lose.
Moreover, AI would change everything. Ukraine’s June 1 operation used 117 drones, each controlled by a skilled operator, and reports suggest that something like half were defeated by Russian defenses — jamming, mainly — because the drones needed to be in radio communication with their controllers. Had they been autonomous, there could have been a thousand of them. With AI, there is no need for pilot communication, and thus no effective jamming, greatly increasing drone range and lethality. Five years from now, it would be terrifyingly easy to launch preemptive strikes on conventional targets.
AI also increases the lethality and precision of drones used against people. Chinese researchers have already demonstrated drone swarms navigating through a forest and then re-forming as a swarm after passing through. This is not just about warfare; it also works for terrorist attacks. True, the required AI functionality still demands far more computing power and memory than can be put into a small drone. Nor is it cheap. Nvidia chips, for example, cost up to US$50,000 each, so even one powerful AI processor would make most drones prohibitively expensive.
However, that is changing fast, driven by the goal of putting serious AI capabilities into every phone. When that happens, those same capabilities would be available to every drone weapon. With the sole, vital exception of AI processors, the entire supply chain for both phones and drone weapons is dominated by China.
Stuart Russell, an AI specialist at the University of California, Berkeley, has long argued for an arms-control treaty to prevent the spread of small, mass produced, AI-controlled drone weapons. He even underwrote the production of a short film, Slaughterbots, which dramatizes the risks these drones could pose in the wrong hands. At a dinner years ago, he told me that it would soon be easy to target individuals using facial recognition or, say, everyone wearing a cross, a yarmulke, or any other religious or political symbol.
Since any meaningful treaty is unlikely in the current geopolitical environment, we must prepare for a world that probably will contain such weapons, but the Western defense establishment increasingly looks like the typical “legacy” company that has been caught off guard by technological disruption. In markets, legacy resistance can be costly, but the costs are purely monetary. In warfare, they can and will be deadly.
Charles Ferguson, AI editor at Project Syndicate, is a technology investor, policy analyst, and the director of many documentary films, including the Oscar-winning Inside Job.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
The stocks of rare earth companies soared on Monday following news that the Trump administration had taken a 10 percent stake in Oklahoma mining and magnet company USA Rare Earth Inc. Such is the visible benefit enjoyed by the growing number of firms that count Uncle Sam as a shareholder. Yet recent events surrounding perhaps what is the most well-known state-picked champion, Intel Corp, exposed a major unseen cost of the federal government’s unprecedented intervention in private business: the distortion of capital markets that have underpinned US growth and innovation since its founding. Prior to Intel’s Jan. 22 call with analysts
RSS