Quick Tanks: The Best of Long-Form Defense Analysis, Briefly
A weekly review of the long-form content from the national security policy, defense policy, and related technology analysis community.
Welcome back, security scholars.
This week, I have two insightful reports to share with you all. Their topics include:
How will advances in biotechnology change the future nature of warfare and what are their strategic implications
An analytical approach for comparing how the US and China are developing critical military technologies
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.
Plagues, Cyborgs, and Supersoldiers
The Human Domain of War
By Luke J. Matthews, Mary Lee, Brandon De Bruhl, Daniel Elinoff and Christopher A. Eusebi
RAND Corporation
Link to PDF; Link to Report Page
Focus: The report examines the strategic implications of recent advances in biotechnology for warfare, particularly focusing on engineered pathogens, Internet of Bodies (IoB) technologies, and genomics.Analysis: The report utilizes a mix of qualitative and quantitative analyses. Data sources include published literature, patent analysis, and expert consultations.Argument: Ongoing innovation in biotechnology poses risks and opportunities for warfighting, with the United States well positioned in some areas but lacking in others compared to strategic competitors. Insights: Certain cultural values make countries differentially able to control the spread of dangerous pathogens, and the US is relatively disadvantaged in these cultural factors. Moreover, China is rapidly catching up to the United States in areas like brain-computer interface patents.Recommendations: The report provides both near- and long-term recommendations for US policymakers. See below for the full list.This RAND report underscores how biotechnology could fundamentally reshape conflict, as developments in engineered pathogens, Internet of Bodies (IoB) devices, and genomics confer both unprecedented opportunities and risks. While the human body is not necessarily a new warfighting domain, the report projects an intensifying biotechnology arms race that deeply links human bodies with national security.
On engineered pathogens, the report highlights their significant potential as covert strategic weapons, especially if coordinated with kinetic actions. Indeed, a transmissible pathogen’s intrinsic ambiguity makes attribution difficult. Meanwhile, a pathogen can deplete a country’s forces, disrupt its supply chains, and generally degrade its warfighting capabilities. The report also underscores how cultural values influence a country’s ability to resist a pathogen’s spread, as countries with less cultural tightness and higher cosmopolitanism — like the US — are more vulnerable.
Furthermore, emerging IoB technologies, like wearables, implants, and brain-computer interfaces (BCIs), offer warfighting benefits. With IoB technologies, the services could better track soldiers’ fitness, commanders could communicate more efficiently, and soldiers could control systems with BCIs if they lost the use of a limb. However, IoB technologies also expose risks. Specifically, the report notes scenarios where artificial lenses open up espionage opportunities and hacking BCIs in policymakers could affect their moods, altering their decision-making and the US international reputation. Morover, the IoB field grows evermore critical because China is rapidly closing the gap with the US when it comes to IoB development.
In terms of genomics, the report discusses the potential of genomic enhancement to increase soldier endurance, although this is a distant capability. However, more imminent genomic surveillance technology to screen recruits' genetic propensities could optimize assignments to specialized roles. As for research dominance, the US has historically led in genomics, but China is making serious strides in key areas such as sequencing, proteomics, and gene editing, potentially challenging U.S. supremacy in this field.
“Should the challenges of genome-phenome associations be solved in the near future, then genomic data may be useful to identify traits in warfighting forces that could be used in a predictive sorting model. For example, if a nation-state needed to employ a military draft and the relevant genomic and phenotypic data were adequately collected and stored, then a learning algorithm might sort candidates into the proper class of job for the term of service or perhaps develop a hierarchy of associated jobs using demand. These data, properly collected, can be crosswalked with other data sources to identify key traits for recruitment. Genomic surveillance will only be a value-add, however, if it predicts potential or future phenotypic traits that are not easily observable through phenotype itself. For example, a genetic test that predicted height or strength would seem relatively useless because these features are more easily and inexpensively observed in the phenotype directly. In contrast, a genetic test that predicted the potential for an individual to master a specialized BCI after weeks or months of training might be highly valuable if this future potential were not readily observable phenotypically.”
To aptly prepare for the risks of biotechnology, the report prescribes several near- and long-term recommendations.
Near-Term Recommendations:
Revise the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) to include stronger protections like independent monitoring of high-risk labs.
Pursue bilateral bioweapon treaties with countries on the advantaged side of bioweapon use or divest from supporting their biolabs.
Continue scrutinizing adversary biotechnology advancements for BWC violations.
Resist anti-vaccine populism that compromises military readiness.
Be vigilant about entities that misuse biotechnologies and enhance IoB device security.
Allocate funding to identify and manage genomic surveillance risks and opportunities.
Develop guidance on integrating biological warfighting capabilities across services and with allies.
Long-Term Recommendations:
Develop warfighting conventions on the use of invasive bioelectronic devices like brain-computer interfaces.
Develop ways to employ genomic surveillance to improve military personnel selection and assignment.
Encourage research on strategies to anticipate and counter adversary biotechnology threats.
To better engage with the analysis and insights, I highly recommend reading the full report.
Comparative Analysis of U.S. and PRC Efforts to Advance Critical Military Technology
Volume 1, Analytic Approach for Conducting Comparative Technology Assessments
By Sarah Harting, Daniel Gonzales, Michael J. Mazarr and Jon Schmid
RAND Corporation
Link to PDF; Link to Report Page
Focus: The report is centered on developing a methodology to compare US and People's Republic of China (PRC) efforts in advancing critical military technologies.Analysis: The analysis integrates multiple methods, including literature reviews, quantitative data analysis, and expert engagements. Key data sources include government reports, scientific publications, patents, and technology assessments.Argument: Effectively comparing complex innovation ecosystems requires a multidisciplinary approach that accounts for the technological, operational, economic, organizational, and other factors shaping technology development and deployment.As the high-stakes technology competition between the US and China intensifies, the defense community urgently requires an analytical framework to comprehensively compare critical military technology development between the two rivals. This RAND report offers precisely such an invaluable approach. The report outlines a rigorous 5-part process to assess and compare critical technology development in both countries across areas like directed energy, hypersonics, biotech, and more.
The first task focuses on establishing a contextual baseline for each discrete technology area under examination. This entails framing the strategic rationales behind pursuit in both countries, delineating precise definitions and scope, identifying essential components for transitioning to operational systems, and evaluating current status and trends. This groundwork crucially anchors the ensuing comparative analysis.
The second task focuses on evaluating the research and development activities underway, using an innovative model that examines the national innovation ecosystems sustaining technology advancement. The model incorporates metrics across 15 elements like research funding, organizational infrastructure, technology transition processes, and testing infrastructure. For example, the report suggests measuring patent output as one indicator of development progress.
The third task centers on gauging the operational effectiveness of critical technology systems once fielded. This entails defining the operational problems each country aims to solve with the technology, the specific military missions and tasks it would support, the feasibility and significance of its contributions, and factors affecting costs and survivability against countermeasures. Directed energy technology for air and missile defense offers one case for analysis.
The fourth task involves identifying and assessing countermeasure systems that could defeat, degrade, or mitigate a critical technology capability. The dimensions for evaluation include descriptions of current and emerging countermeasures, the extent of their operational use, and challenges posed by their technical complexity and integration.
Lastly, the cross-cutting fifth task accounts for international R&D activities, knowledge gaps, analytical limitations, and recommendations to address them to enable continual refinement of future comparative assessments.
This framework promises to benefit policymakers and DoD leadership as they navigate intense great power technological competition. I highly encourage you to read the full report and stay tuned for the follow-up comparative analysis.