From Neural Networks to Satellites: The Emerging Battlefields of the 21st Century
Analyzing the implications of cognitive warfare and the US Space Force
Welcome back, hearty readers.
This week, I have two reports to share with you all. Their topics include:
What is cognitive warfare and how can we build an ontology to understand it?
What are the current challenges to the development of the US Space Force?
Quick Tanks is a weekly collection and summary of the latest long-form analytic content on the topics of US defense, force structure, innovation, and policy considerations. We strive to aggregate all of the key sources of analysis and present brief, neutral summaries to help keep you informed. Should you feel inclined to learn more about any study, please reference the full report via the links provided.
The sponsor of the newsletter is the Hudson Institute’s Center for Defense Concepts + Technology.
Tank you for sharing and subscribing, and happy reading.
Cognitive Competition, Conflict, and War
An Ontological Approach
By Robert “Jake” Bebber
Hudson Institute
Link to PDF; Link to Report Page
Focus: This report explores the emergence of cognitive warfare, which manipulates cognition to destabilize sociocultural, economic, political, and military systems. It aims to provide an ontological framework for understanding and operationalizing the cognitive space in the context of national security decision-making.Analysis: The report relies on a comprehensive literature review, drawing from sources in neuroscience, technology, and social psychology to proposes use cases and tool dimensions to structure the ontology.Argument: Cognitive warfare represents a significant and evolving threat to national security, which traditional defense mechanisms are ill-equipped to address. The report posits that an ontology of cognitive warfare is crucial for understanding and countering these threats effectively. It emphasizes the need for national security institutions to adapt to the cognitive domain by developing new strategies, tools, and collaborative frameworks.Insights:
Cognitive warfare leverages human cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias, to manipulate perceptions and behaviors.
Advances in neuroscience and biology are being utilized to develop neuroweapons and interventions that can influence cognitive and emotional states.
Social media and digital platforms are critical vectors for cognitive warfare, enabling the dissemination of targeted disinformation and propaganda.Recommendations: National security agencies should continuously refine the cognitive warfare ontology provided to keep pace with evolving threats. Moreover, the ontology should be integrated into existing security protocols to enhance threat assessment and response capabilities.This Hudson Institute report is a pivotal exploration into the realm of cognitive warfare. Highlighting the convergence of neuroscience, computational technologies, and algorithm-based models as significant drivers of this new warfare paradigm, the report emphasizes the urgent need for an ontological framework to systematically address and counter these cognitive threats.
“The United States’ precision-strike advantage has eroded, and disruptive technologies like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and synthetic biology are reshaping warfare dynamics. China and Russia are contesting and, in some cases, achieving overmatch against the US military, with ambitions of reshaping the global order.
The emergence of cognitive warfare—which manipulates cognition to destabilize sociocultural, economic, political, and military systems—poses a unique threat to America and its allies. This type of warfare differs from information warfare in that it aims to influence how, not what, people think, feel, and act, altering the cognitive space from individual to population levels. Key components of cognitive warfare include its tactical and strategic use, manipulation of the way people think, reliance on brain science and data, and ability to employ multiple engagement modes. The use of algorithm-based computational propaganda and the ability to create self-sustaining feedback and amplification loops are significant features.”
Tool Dimension of Cognitive Warfare
To illustrate the multifaceted nature of cognitive warfare, the report categorizes it into five distinct tool dimensions:
Tools exploiting cognitive biases and perception: These tools manipulate individuals' inherent cognitive biases and perceptual vulnerabilities to shape opinions and behaviors. Example: Using confirmation bias to reinforce false narratives in disinformation campaigns.
Tools involving neuroscience and biology: These involve leveraging advances in neuroscience and biology to influence and control cognitive processes. Example: Developing neuromodulating substances that can alter emotional and cognitive states.
Tools exploiting social psychology and group dynamics: These tools manipulate group behavior and decision-making through social psychology principles. Example: Creating polarization and discord within groups by exploiting social identity theory.
Tools employing techno-social applications: These use information technology to disseminate narratives and conduct social engineering. Example: Using social media platforms to spread propaganda and influence public opinion.
Tools related to information technology: These encompass cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns, and critical infrastructure disruption. Example: Launching cyberattacks to compromise and manipulate essential information systems.
Forces Shaping Global Power Competition
Transitioning from these tool dimensions, the report then examines the broader forces shaping global power competition, emphasizing how technological and scientific advancements are influencing the gravity of cognitive warfare.
Firstly, emerging trends in neuroscience are enabling the development of both soft and hard weapons, as state actors invest heavily in neuroweapons and synthetic biology to manipulate cognitive and emotional states, creating new threats in the cognitive domain. Concurrently, the proliferation of data, ubiquitous sensors, and powerful computational technologies is driving the growth of cognitive warfare capabilities, with AI and machine learning algorithms automating the generation of targeted content, deepfakes, and personalized disinformation, while autonomous systems execute covert offensive operations in cyberspace.
Moreover, the attention economy, driven by algorithm-based business and marketing models, is shaping consumer preferences and behavior, often at the expense of individuals' well-being. Neuroscience insights inform the design of persuasive content and interfaces, contributing to the manipulation of human behavior in the cognitive domain. The convergence of these forces is leading to cognitive campaigns that are potentially achieving system-destructive effects, particularly in the United States. The American polity is exhibiting signs of these campaigns, such as increased political polarization, public health challenges, social media addiction, hesitancy to use force, and the influence of foreign-controlled platforms like TikTok.
Need for an Ontology
An ontology is essential for cognitive warfare as it organizes the diverse aspects of this complex field into a structured framework. Importantly, this systematic categorization enables the development of comprehensive strategies and epidemiological approaches to address the intricacies of cognitive threats. By defining classes, attributes, and relationships, an ontology aids in identifying vulnerabilities, formulating countermeasures, and enhancing national security resilience against cognitive manipulation.
The Ontology
The report categorizes the cognitive warfare space into six top-level classes, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding and countering cognitive threats:
Actor: Entities involved in cognitive warfare, such as individuals, groups, or state actors. Example: Influencers on social media platforms spreading disinformation.
Process: Methods and strategies used in cognitive warfare. Example: Psychological operations targeting group dynamics.
Space: The digital and physical realms where cognitive warfare occurs. Example: Social media platforms as battlegrounds for influence operations.
Event: Specific incidents or campaigns designed to manipulate cognition. Example: A coordinated disinformation campaign during an election.
Tangible: Physical tools and technologies used in cognitive warfare. Example: Neuromodulating devices that affect brain activity.
Intangible: Non-physical elements, such as narratives and cultural influences, used to manipulate cognition. Example: Spreading ideological content to create social division.
Recommendations
The report concludes with several recommendations for operationalizing the cognitive space for national security:
Refine and expand the ontology to accommodate evolving cognitive threats.
Integrate the ontology into existing security protocols and practices to make it indispensable for threat assessment and response.
Foster collaboration among experts from various fields, including psychology, technology, and security studies, to refine the ontology and enhance its capabilities.
Develop decision visualization models based on the ontology for effective threat detection and identification of opportunities for employment.
To better understand the importance of an ontology for cognitive warfare, I highly recommend reading the full report.
Space to Grow
Foundational Opportunities and Challenges for the U.S. Space Force
By Hannah Dennis
Center for a New American Security
Link to PDF; Link to Report Page
Focus: The report provides an in-depth analysis of the Space Force's establishment, progress, and ongoing challenges since its inception. Specifically, the report examines the service’s efforts to define its strategic concept, develop an organizational structure, and foster a cohesive service culture amidst external skepticism and internal challenges.Analysis: The author analyzed official Space Force documents, public statements, and doctrine, and conducted interviews with Space Force servicemembers (guardians) ranging from junior enlisted to senior leadership. The research was completed by the end of 2022.Argument: To succeed, the Space Force needs a well-articulated strategic concept, an organizational plan that institutionalizes that concept, and a vision for a distinct service culture. So far, the Space Force has not yet fully achieved these goals, facing challenges in defining its role, fostering cultural cohesion, and communicating its purpose to the public and partners.Insights:
Space is crucial for US daily life and military operations, but the Space Force struggles to convey its importance due to the domain's complexity and classification.
The service's small size enables agility but creates challenges when interacting with larger bureaucracies and partners.
Public perception of the Space Force is influenced by science fiction, hindering understanding of its real-world mission.Recommendations: See below for the full list of recommendations.Historical Context and Strategic Importance
The creation of the US Space Force in December 2019 marked a significant shift in the nation's approach to space as a critical domain for national security. During the Cold War, space played a vital role in providing early warning systems and supporting nuclear command, control, and communications, thereby contributing to strategic stability between the United States and the Soviet Union. In the post-Cold War era, space capabilities became increasingly integrated into US conventional warfare, enabling advancements in surveillance, precision strike, and overall military effectiveness. However, as potential adversaries like China and Russia developed capabilities to neutralize US space assets, it became clear that space was no longer a sanctuary but a contested domain.
The establishment of the US Space Command (SPACECOM) in August 2019 was an initial step to address the growing threats in space, but it became evident that a separate military service was necessary to organize, train, and equip forces specifically for space operations. As such, SPACECOM focuses on employing space forces in military operations while the Space Force is responsible for presenting ready forces and developing the doctrine, capabilities, and expertise needed to secure US interests in space.
Importance of a Unifying Narrative
A cohesive strategic concept, organizational plan, and service culture are crucial for the Space Force's success, enabling the service to justify its existence, motivate its members, and effectively accomplish its purpose. The Space Force has struggled to clearly define its strategic concept both internally and externally. Internally, the Space Force has done a better job of explaining the problem it was created to address than the solution it offers. The Space Capstone Publication outlines three aspects of the Space Force's role: (1) to preserve freedom of action in the space domain; (2) to enable joint lethality and effectiveness; and (3) to provide independent options to US national leadership, supporting operations in, to, and from space, as a domain in itself. However, externally, the Space Force has failed to effectively communicate both the problem and the solution to the public.
The Space Force is attempting to embody three core values—agility, innovation, and warfighting spirit—to align and distinguish itself from other services. Efforts to promote agility include maintaining a small size, implementing mission command, and adopting a relatively flat hierarchy. Innovation is fostered through an emphasis on technological fluency, partnerships with the commercial space sector, and efforts to reform acquisition practices. The warfighting spirit is intended to highlight similarities between the Space Force and other services, but inconsistent rhetoric and a lack of well-developed theory have hindered the effectiveness of this value. Despite efforts to institutionalize these values through organizational decisions and culture-building initiatives, shortcomings remain in each area.
Challenges Faced by the Space Force
The report identifies three major challenges the Space Force faced in its initial years:
The Partnering Challenge: The Space Force must establish itself as an individual service and compete for resources while figuring out how to integrate with other services. Its unique features, such as its small size, larger contractor population, and close commercial relationships, can make it difficult for other services to understand and work with the Space Force effectively. The Space Force's relationship with the Air Force is particularly important, as it relies on the Air Force for many essential services and personnel.
The Public Understanding Challenge: Generating public understanding is part of the Space Force's duty to the American people, but several factors have impeded this understanding. The association with science fiction in popular culture has made it difficult for some to take the Space Force seriously. The distant, intangible, and technical nature of the space domain makes it challenging for the public to grasp the importance of space operations. Additionally, the high level of classification surrounding space operations and capabilities hinders public understanding of the Space Force's activities and contributions to national defense.
“The Space Force has been challenged in creating public buy-in because of the science fiction aspect of current public perception of the service. Pop culture and familiar sci-fi concepts filled the early vacuum of information when the service was created. The Space Force tried to forge a unique brand, conceiving original cultural artifacts including its motto, Semper Supra (‘always above’) and song by the same name. Unfortunately, what began as a joke from the public was reinforced by certain official branding and organizational decisions, and public response has likely not been what many hoped. The service named its members “guardians” and created a seal reminiscent of the Star Trek emblem. It named one of its components Space Operations Command (SpOC), and it developed unique uniforms with baggy pants. The perceived close relation between many of these choices and popular science fiction made it hard for some to take the Space Force seriously.”
The Warfighter Question: The Space Force has grappled with defining the role and identity of its members as "warfighters," given the unique characteristics of space operations and the limited direct physical risk to most personnel. The service has sought to emphasize the warfighting spirit and the importance of space as a contested domain. But inconsistencies in the use and emphasis of the warfighter label have contributed to confusion and debate both from the public and within the ranks, with some viewing a warfighter designation as essential to the service's purpose while others see it as misaligned with the predominantly supportive nature of its operations.
If these challenges remain unresolved, the Space Force risks failing to secure necessary resources, losing public and governmental support, and ultimately struggling to fulfill its mandate. Addressing these issues is crucial for the service to establish its legitimacy, operational effectiveness, and long-term viability.
Recommendations
The report offers the following key recommendations for the Space Force:
Clarify the service's position on the warfighter label: The Space Force should engage in an internal dialogue to reach a clear, consistent understanding of what it means to be a warfighter in the context of space operations. Once a consensus is reached, the Space Force should communicate this position consistently to its members, partners, and the public to resolve ambiguity and present a unified identity.
Lower classification barriers, where feasible: While acknowledging the need to protect sensitive information, the Space Force should strive to reduce classification levels on space activities and capabilities wherever possible. Increasing transparency will enable the service to more effectively communicate its contributions, successes, and challenges to the public, bolstering understanding and support for its mission.
Leverage history and current events to educate the public: The Space Force should develop a proactive public engagement strategy that draws on historical examples and current events to illustrate the critical role of space in everyday life and national security. By highlighting instances where space capabilities have made a tangible difference, such as in disaster response, scientific discovery, or military operations, the service can help bridge the gap between the abstract nature of space and its real-world impact.
Avoid science fiction distractions and focus on substance: While acknowledging the influence of pop culture and science fiction on public perceptions of space, the Space Force should be cautious about leaning too heavily on these associations in its branding and communication efforts. Instead, the service should focus on conveying the serious, real-world nature of its mission and activities.
I urge you to read the full report to better understand the Space Force's importance and how it can grow in the coming years.