No
longer
relegated
to
a
side-show,
tech
is
embedded
into
virtually
every
new
piece
of
gear
entering
the
battlefield
As
military
and
tech
gather
to
address
the
frosty
world
defense
conditions
and
what
the
intersection
of
technology’s
role
is
with
those
at
AFCEA
West,
it’s
clear
that
the
global
warfighting
world
has
changed.
No
longer
relegated
to
a
side-show,
tech
is
embedded
into
virtually
every
new
piece
of
gear
entering
the
battlefield,
and
that
is
changing
the
perceived
responsibility
of
tech
–
tech
can
now
kill.
Long
gone
are
the
days
of
hackers
in
your
mom’s
basement
patching
kernels
–
tech
now
wrestles
with
making
itself
good
enough
to
go
to
war.
While
rebooting
a
server
solved
many
tech
problems,
it’s
harder
in
a
missile.
Also,
it
simultaneously
depersonalizes
war
and
brings
terror
right
into
your
face.
The
prevailing
belief
is
that
future
conflicts
will
be
largely
robot-on-robot,
and
yet
they
will
have
destructively
powerful
impact
on
people
running
for
their
life
and
pipe
them
right
to
our
screens
in
a
very
personal
way.
Also,
because
tech
can
seem
far
less
personal,
sensors
can
be
sent
farther
into
a
conflict
without
fully
committing
a
force
if
they’re
destroyed,
changing
the
geopolitical
optics
of
what
it
means
to
go
to
war.
I’m
not
sure
we
ever
intended
this,
but
tech
platforms
will
be
the
future
of
proxy
wars.
One
conversation
surrounded
mining
harbors
to
thwart
ship-based
attacks,
but
one
panelist
argued
that
we
should
just
let
the
tech
do
it.
No
need
to
blow
up
ships
in
a
harbor
if
you
can
stop
a
country’s
ability
to
transfer
products
because
you
hacked
the
cranes
needed
to
load
and
unload
cargo
containers,
which
could
have
a
similarly
paralyzing
effect.
Speaking
of
effect,
there
is
a
school
of
thought
that
tries
to
tie
data
feeds
directly
into
a
person
holding
a
weapon,
so
that
person
can
more
clearly
focus
on
the
net
effect,
and
just
use
data
as
an
enabler.
But
thinking
further
ahead,
the
whole
defensive
constellation
could
be
directly
brought
to
bear
on
a
specific
effect
by
feeding
swarms
of
data
to
swarms
of
weapons
who
could
ALL
focus
on
a
specific
effect,
say,
restricting
a
beach
landing.
This
disaggregated
approach
can
become
a
force
multiplier
at
scale,
which
is
far
more
effective
than
a
specific
data-enabled
fighter
with
a
great
night
scope
that
can
paint
a
dot
to
suggest
a
target
for
a
drone.
Turns
out,
bringing
swarms
of
data
to
the
battlefield
of
the
future
is
tough,
very
tough.
While
in
theory
we
could
argue
that
the
parts
to
accomplish
it
are
largely
there,
we
know
from
tech
ecosystems
that
playing
together
nicely
is
devilishly
difficult,
especially
in
an
adversarial
environment,
like
when
people
are
shooting
at
your
equipment
and
data
links
vaporize
in
a
pile
of
shrapnel
the
shape
of
a
mushroom
cloud.
Either
way,
geopolitical
forces
have
entered
a
kind
of
a
tech
arms
race,
trying
to
procure
and
implement
rafts
of
sensors
and
convince
us
all
why
that
would
be
for
the
best.
It’s
hard
to
conceptualize
the
future
of
war
and
conflicts.
It’s
also
going
to
be
far
harder
to
spot
what
could
be
used
as
a
weapon.
Tech
stacks,
after
all,
can
have
multiple
purposes
within
the
same
machinery.
What
might
seem
to
be
an
innocent
ice-breaking
ship,
for
example,
can
also
focus
on
a
primary
role
of
extensive
high-resolution
mapping
for
future
military
initiatives,
and
no
one
would
be
the
wiser.
Meanwhile,
securing
it
all
will
be
daunting
at
the
very
least,
and
an
ongoing
challenge
for
the
foreseeable
future.
Also,
we
continue
to
hope
tech
will
be
used
to
make
the
world
better,
not
tear
it
apart
at
the
seams,
we
still
hope
for
that,
dream
about
it,
and
work
towards
it.
About Author
