Cold Eye: Getting rid of the hype about emerging military technologies is a big existential issue

Forbes article by William Hartung on April 19, 2024

In Washington, there is a boom in applying cutting-edge technologies such as artificial intelligence to military systems, and even more so in Silicon Valley, where venture capital firms and military start-ups are driving this pace by investing billions of dollars and overhyping the benefits of moving toward automated warfare.

Roberto Gonzalez, author of a new paper for Brown University's The Cost of War Projects, offers a much-needed correction to some of the uncritical cheers that have accompanied the emerging military-technology debate. Contrary to the claims of their advocates, these so-called miracle weapons do not guarantee lower cost, better results, saving lives, deterring China, and generally making the world a more peaceful and secure place. Many of these arguments are being made by a new generation of technovanists, many of whom will earn billions of dollars if we follow the high-tech path they are so strenuously advocating.

Indeed, if we hastily deploy these new weapons without adequate discussion or scrutiny, we could pave the way for a permanent war in the world, an unexpected carnage, and perhaps even an unexpected nuclear conflict that would end the world. Reducing the time it takes to go from identifying a target to destroying it, shortening or "killing chain" times, reducing or eliminating human input, can lead to unprecedented catastrophes. That is why we urgently need to take seriously the latest analytical report of the Brown War Cost Project, which is not only a guide for discussion, but also a clarion call for action.

Roberto J. Gonzalez is a professor of cultural anthropology at San Jose State University and the author of Virtual Warfare: a great primer on the brave wars and surveillance of the new world being carried out by the Pentagon and Silicon Valley's new-age military hawks. His new dissertation follows on from that 2022 book.

The most important point is that the military-industrial complex, which Dwight D. D. Eisenhower warned about more than 60 years ago, is changing, and, not in a good way. Gonzalez begins his article by noting that "the center of the U.S. military-industrial complex has slowly shifted from the Capital Ring Road to Silicon Valley" and that "a new political economy is emerging, driven by big tech, venture capital, and private equity firms." While this development has been touted as heralding a much-needed wave of innovation that will replace a system centered on costly, slow-moving, and constrained military-industrial giants like Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon, the risks involved in this shift have not been given the attention they deserve. As Gonzalez points out, many military leaders see the shift to a Silicon Valley-driven arms complex as an imperative and a source of "indispensable tools of warfare."

There are already signs that these "indispensable tools" are nothing more than a façade. For example, a recent article in the Wall Street Journal revealed the poor performance of U.S.-supplied drones in Ukraine. The article opens with a discussion about small drones sent to the front lines in Ukraine by the Silicon Valley company Skydio. The result is a complete reversal of the conventional wisdom that emerging American technologies are proving their worth on the battlefield in Ukraine:

"Most U.S. startups produce small drones that fail to function in the real world, which has dashed hopes that a battle-tested badge will bring sales and attention to the startup. This is also bad news for the Pentagon, which needs a reliable supply of thousands of small drones."

"U.S.-made drones tend to be expensive, faulty and difficult to repair," said drone company executives, Ukrainians on the front lines, Ukrainian government officials and former U.S. Department of Defense officials. "Ukraine has found a way to get tens of thousands of drones and drone parts from China. The military is using ready-made Chinese drones, mainly from the Shenzhen company DJI. "

It's not supposed to be like this. Venture capital firms and arms companies are pouring billions of dollars into small drones and other emerging technologies, hoping to use the war in Ukraine as a proof-of-concept and marketing tool for their systems. After all, what could be more appealing than buying "battle-proven" technology? Unfortunately, reality doesn't work out for those looking to cash in on a new age war. For the rest of us, perhaps this setback for the new-age warriors will at least create some political space to slow down the frenzied quest to deploy new military technologies.

But don't expect embarrassing news about Ukraine to stop money from flowing to AI-driven systems, driverless vehicles, and robot warfare without a public backlash. The newly published article "The Cost of War Projects" outlines this emerging pattern:

"The Pentagon's new spending stream is destined to go to different types of defense contractors: giant tech companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Oracle, HP, Dell, Motorola and IBM, but also a combination of hundreds of small startups backed by venture capital firms... Examples include Anduril Industries, Shield AI, HawkEye 360, Skydio, Rebellion Defense, and Epirus, among others.

Gonzalez has determined that there is already a large amount of money involved: "Between 2019 and 2022, the total value of the contracts awarded by the U.S. military and intelligence agencies to major technology companies reached at least $53 billion."

Placing current developments in historical context, Gonzalez recalls the Pentagon's long history of funding Silicon Valley companies that have helped turn a predominantly agricultural region into a high-tech hub. The article "The Cost of War Projects" states that from the '50s to the '90s of the 20th century, the largest employer in Silicon Valley was the arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin, is just one example of the key role that military funding has played in the scientific and technological revolution. Lockheed Martin's Sunnyvale plant recently sparked protests over Lockheed Martin's weapons fueling Israel's brutal, criminal assault on civilians in Gaza.

In a way, the surge in business opportunities for non-military products ranging from laptops to cell phones has led some Silicon Valley companies to focus more on business opportunities than to work exclusively for the Pentagon. However, Gonzalez argues that the rift between the Pentagon and Silicon Valley is not as big as the conventional narrative suggests. In any case, the Pentagon has been working in recent years to push Silicon Valley companies to become more directly involved in the military again, with the late Ashton Carter serving as defense secretary in the last two years of the Obama administration, of which he was the most active leader. The effort was largely successful, with big tech companies such as Microsoft, Amazon, and Google securing large military contracts, as well as emerging companies such as Peter Thiel's Palantir and Palmer Lucchi's Anduril.

And, Gonzalez brilliantly portrays the ideology and agenda of the New Tech Evangelist, which includes the following:

"The AI hype machine, the exaggerated claims about the effectiveness of AI, the overestimation of China's military and technological capabilities, the belief that only the United States has the ability and obligation to protect the world's democracies, and the belief that the best way to maintain American dominance is through a largely unregulated free market that prioritizes the needs of businesses."

Gonzalez referred to the role played by "an interconnected network of tech executives, venture capitalists, think tank analysts, academic researchers, journalists, and Pentagon leaders" in driving the new agenda, and they "saturated the media with a terrible scenario: they claim that the United States is about to lose an epic battle for global geopolitical and economic supremacy, unless it can overtake China in the 'AI arms race'".

Both technologists and a growing movement have objected to the hasty funding and deployment of AI-powered weapons, demanding that U.S. companies and the U.S. government stop supporting Israel's war against Gaza, which the International Court of Justice has argued can be considered genocide. Israel's use of artificial intelligence, instead of sparing civilians, has accelerated the speed and scope of destruction of Gaza is just the latest example of why we need to think twice before acquiescing to the advent of a world dominated by automated warfare. Now is the time to act.