globalization of technology impact on us military · in times of change, learners inherit the...

Mr. Alan ShafferMr. Alan ShafferDirector,Director, Plans & Programs, ODDR&EPlans & Programs, ODDR&E

April 19, 2007April 19, 2007

Globalization of TechnologyImpact on US Military

Globalization of TechnologyImpact on US Military

Some Opening Thoughts• In times of change, learners inherit the Earth, while the learned find

themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists”

Eric Hoffer

• The future has a way of arriving unannouncedGeorge Will

• Research is what I am doing when I don’t know what I am doingWerner Von Braun

• There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their homeKen Olson, President, DEC, 1977

• Everything that can be invented has been inventedCharles Duell, Commissioner US Patent Office,1899

• If you don’t know where you are going, you might end up someplace else

Yogi Berra

Shocks from the Past Century

In retrospect, these shocks were the product of longIn retrospect, these shocks were the product of long--term trendsterm trends

Pearl Harbor

Fall of the Soviet Union

Atomic Revolution

9/11 Attacks

• Emergence of MAD and escalation management

• Led to two-front war; Made intelligence a core element of operations

• Reduced role of military in society

• Space as a military domain

• Led to the drawdown of the U.S. military – shifted focus to peace-keeping missions

• Made homeland defense and irregular warfare central military missions

Strategic shocks can change how we think about security and the role of the military, e.g.:

Sputnik

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Great Depression

Katrina

• Increased military role in managing domestic catastrophes

• Reinforced isolationist tendencies in the U.S.

• Recognition of vulnerability – led to international engagement and industrialization for war on home front

• Nuclear warfare and capability become primary military mission

• Space leveraged for national power and prestige

• End of bipolar world

• Redefined security for the American public – CT emerges as USG focus

• American public looks to the federal, rather than local, government for disaster relief

Note: Size of circle indicates impact

Demographics

GovernanceScience & Technology

Environment

Conflict

Economy

Categories of trends

Cold War

1957 20

0119

41

1945

-1955

1989

-1991

1929

2005

Impl

icat

ions

for:

Mili

tary

Secu

rity

FROM OUSD (Policy) – Future Shocks Study

Technology and the Modern World• “The conjunction of 21st century internet speed and 12th century fanaticism

has turned our world into a tinderbox”Tina Brown ,Washington Post, 19 May 2005

• “The challenge of the defense planner and strategist is not to avoid being surprised. Rather, it is to plan against some of the more dire potential effects of surprise…’.”

Colin Gray, Transformation and Strategic Surprise

• “It is this convergence -- of new players, on a new playing field, developing new processes for horizontal collaboration -- that I believe is the most important force shaping global economics and politics in the early 21st century. Sure, not all three billion can collaborate and compete…but even if we're talking about only 10 percent, that's 300 million people -- about twice the size of the American work force. And be advised: the Indians and Chinese are not racing us to the bottom. They are racing us to the top.”

Thomas Friedman, The World is Flat

Overview

• Global Technology Development Trends

• Technology Case Studies: Past, Present and Future

• Quadrennial Defense Review

National R&D Funding Levels

International R&D trends

Source: National Science Foundation, S&E Indicators 2006

• R&D expenditures are increasing robustly around the world, driven by both governments and industry.

F ig u re 1 . E stim a ted w o rld w id e R & D ex p en d itu res: 1 9 9 0 -2 0 0 2

N O T E : B illio n s o f cu rren t d o llars con v erted w ith p u rch asin g p o w er p a rities .E U d a ta sin ce 19 9 8 in clu d e 1 0 n ew m em b er cou n tr ies .S O U R C E : O E C D , M a in S c ien ce an d Tech n o lo gy In d ica tors d a ta b ase , N ov em b er 20 0 4

1 9 9 0 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 8 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 20

2 0 0

4 0 0

6 0 0

8 0 0

B illio n s o f d o lla rs

U n ited S ta tes

E U

O E C D

O E C D + n o n m em b ers

Internationalization of R&D

• Firms’ cross-border R&D investments are on the increase.

F ig u r e 3 . R & D e x p e n d itu r e s o f fo r e ig n -o w n e d f ir m s in th e U n ite dS ta te s a n d o f U .S .-o w n e d f ir m s a b r o a d : 1 9 9 0 -2 0 0 2

S O U R C E : U .S . D ep a r tm e n t o f C o m m e rc e , B E A , S u r v ey s o f F o re ig n D ir ec t In v es tm en t in th e U n ited S ta te s a n d U .S . D ire c t In v e s tm e n t A b r o a d ; a n d N a tio n a l S c ien ceB o a rd , S c ien c e & E n g in ee r in g In d ica to rs 2 0 0 6 , a p p en d ix ta b le s 4 -4 9 a n d 4 -5 1 .

1 9 9 0 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 20

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

3 0

B illio n s o f d o lla r s

F o re ig n su b s id ia r ie sin th e U n ited S ta te s

U .S . su b s id ia r ie sa b r o a d


R&D Spending as a Percentage of GDP

EuropeanUnion$204B

US$292B

Japan$112B

Korea$24B

Singapore$2B

Taiwan$14B

Russia$17B

China$85B

India$39B

Iran$0.3B

Niche Competitors

Emerging Challengers

Established Powerhouses

StrugglingAspirants

R&D Spending Growth

The R&D Spending Landscape - Selected Entitiesa

UNCLASSIFIED

aR&D spending as a percentage of GDP and spending grow th are defined in Figures 1 through 3. R&D spending levels are in current billions of PPP dollars.bGrow th rates are calculated since 2000, except for Russia, which was calculated since 1992 due to high uncertainty in the regression since 2000. Sources: OECD, Main Science and Technology Indicators Volume 2005; UNESCO, Science Report 2005; Indian Ministry of Science and Technology, Science and Technology Annual Report 2004-2005; H. Arfaei, "Status of Scientific Research -- Iran 2005", April 2005; CIA World Fact Books, 1981-1990, 1997- 2004; and World Bank, Development Indicators database, 1981-1990, 1997-2004.

b

(Circle size reflects R&D spending levels.)

Global Technology (R&D) Spending and Growth

High technology exports

• High technology exports are expanding, but European, Japanese, and U.S. export shares are shrinking as those of China and other Asian exporters are rising.

Figure 11. Export market shares in high technology goods: 1990-2003

NOTE: Asia-8 includes South Korea, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines,Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand.SOURCE: Global Insight and S&E Indicators 2006

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 20030

10

20

30

40

Percent

U.S.A.

EU

Japan

China

Asia-8


U.S. trade balance – high tech industries

• The trade balance of U.S. high technology industries has turned negative

F ig u r e 1 2 . U .S . t r a d e b a la n c e fo r f iv e h ig h te c h n o lo g y in d u s tr ie s :1 9 9 0 - 2 0 0 3

N O T E : I n c lu d e s a e r o s p a c e ; p h a r m a c e u t ic a ls ; o f f ic e a n d c o m p u t in g e q u ip m e n t ; c o m m u n ic a t io n e q u ip m e n t ; a n d s c ie n t i f ic in s t r u m e n ts .S O U R C E : G lo b a l I n s ig h t a n d S & E I n d ic a t o r s 2 0 0 6

1 9 9 0 1 9 9 1 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 3 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 5 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 7 1 9 9 8 1 9 9 9 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 3-8 0

-6 0

-4 0

-2 0

0

2 0

4 0

B il l io n s o f d o l la r s


Rising Powers: The Changing Geopolitical Landscape

Globalization Changes Everything

Comparison of Scientists & Engineers (S&Es)

Source: Money Magazine: 2005

Growth of educated Asian populationNational Science Foundation

• International S&E labor force data can only be approximated.

Figure 20. Population 15 years and older with tertiary education,by country/region: 1980, 2000

SOURCE: Adapted from R.J. Barrow and and J. Lee, Center for InternationalDevelopment: International Data on Educational Attainment, 2000

31.1%

5.4%

4.1%

9.9%

2.9%1.7%0.3%

3.1%2.9%

1.5%13.4%

1.8%1.0%

20.8%

27.1%

10.5%

7.7%

6.4%

2.9%2.3%

1.6%2.8%

2.2%1.5% 7.0%2.3%1.5%

23.9%

United States China India Japan Phillipines South Korea Thailand

Germany United Kingdom France Russia Brazil Mexico Other

1980: 73 million 2000: 194 million


Trends• Increasing

– International Science and Technology Relative to the US

– Industrial Globalization of R&D

– Pace of Technology Development

– US Trade Balance in High-Tech Goods

• Decreasing

– US Production of Global Scientists and Engineers relative to

World

US High Technology Advantage not Assured

Competition Increasing

Therefore, Have to Work on “High Payoff” Areas

Overview


• Technology Case Studies: Past, Present and Future• Rand 2006• Office of Secretary of

Defense (Policy) Future Shocks

• Quadrennial Defense Review

• Not a DoD Study, but a Study of the Future Technology “Shocks”

• Looked at Technology Growth, Needs and Opportunities

• Assessed Which Nations are Poised to Adapt, Lead

2006 Rand Study The Global Technology Revolution

2006 RAND Study*: Top 16 Technology Applications

⇒

Cheap solar energy⇒

Rural wireless communicationsCommunication devices for ubiquitous information access anywhere, anytime

• Genetically modified (GM) crops⇒

Rapid bioassays⇒

Filters and catalysts for water purification and decontamination

⇒

Targeted drug delivery

• Green manufacturingUbiquitous RFID tagging of commercial products and individuals

⇒

Hybrid vehiclesPervasive sensors

⇒

Tissue engineering⇒

Improved diagnostic and surgical methods

⇒

Wearable computersQuantum cryptography

• Cheap autonomous housing

* The Global Technology Revolution 2020, In-Depth Analyses

Need to understand the second-order effects of emergent technologies on the DoD

Direct Military Application

⇒

Indirect Military Application

• No Military Application

Selected Countries Capacity to Acquire the Top 16 Technology Applications*

* The Global Technology Revolution 2020, In-Depth Analyses

Scientifically advanced

Scientifically proficient

Scientifically developing

Scientifically lagging

OUSD(Policy): Strategic Futures Effort

• Assess the defense implications of long-term “trends” and potential “strategic shocks” to:

– Generate defense strategies to shape the strategic environment over the next two decades.

– Predispose the national security establishment toward defense strategies that can help us hedge against a range of plausible alternative futures

UNCLASSIFIED

UNCLASSIFIED

Generate forward-looking proposals for changes in the roles, mission, and capability needs of the military

Initial Findings: DoD Future Technology Shocks Study

• Held at Irvine Ca, Nov 2006

• The Most Probable Future Technology Shocks areas are:

Biotechnology Nanotechnology InformationTechnology

Potential Military Applications:- High Energy Fuels - Advanced Materials - Assisted Decision Making- Bio-based Computers - Energy Storage / Distribution - Aided Target Recognition

Genomics: Development Timeline1865: Gregor

Mendel discovers laws of genetics

1953: Double-helical structure of DNA described

1984: First public discussion of mapping the human genome

1988: Human Genome Organization formed

2003: Human Genome Project completed

US Bio-Tech Science & Technology Good

Genetic Engineering and Research Applications Very Strong in Europe, Korea, Singapore…

Nanotube Timeline Projection

}

Molecular electronics, NEMS, Composite materials

}

Textiles, CBR filters, biomedical

}

Batteries, fuel cells, H2 storage, ultra-capacitors, RAM, MEMS, microelectronics, FED

Volume Production MWNT (SWNT?)Japanese pilot plant: 100 g/hr (MWNT)Netherlands – nanotube transistor conceptChinese – 3mm long nanotubeExperimental demo - H2 storage, FED

Japanese discovery (1991)

2020

2015

1995

2005

2010

1990

2000

Nanotechnology – Rapid Technology Evolution/Application Cycle

• The carbon nanotube—was discovered by Sumio Iijima (Japan) in 1991 – 1995, researchers recognized

carbon nanotubes were excellent sources of field- emitted electrons

– By 2000, the “jumbotron lamp,” a nanotube-based light source was available as a commercial product

• By contrast, the period of time between the modeling of the semiconducting property of germanium in 1931 and the first commercial product (the transistor radio) was 23 years.

Nanotechnology World Investment (%)

10

15

20

25

30

35

2001 2002 2003 2004

United States Japan W. Europe OtherSource: Sean Murdock, Testimony before the Research Subcommittee of US, June 29, 2005

The Communication Revolution --The Pace of IT Development is Accelerating--

• Fifteen years ago, only scientists were using (or had even heard about) the Internet, the World Wide Web was not up and running….

• Twenty years ago the use of desktop personal computers was still limited to a fairly small number of technologically advanced people. The overwhelming majority of people still produced documents with typewriters….

• Fifteen years ago, large and bulky mobile telephones were carried only by a small number of users in just a few U.S. cities…..

…… And these technologies are not the domain of a few countries

Globalization 101.org website

Overview


• Technology Case Studies: Past, Present and Future

• Quadrennial Defense Review• Change in DoD Strategic Framework• Implications for DoD Technology

QDR Priority Formulation

• Balanced what the US wants to protect against (Strategic Challenges) and outcomes the US wishes to accomplish (Strategic Outcomes)

• Strategic Challenges• Traditional• Irregular Warfare • Combating WMD• Disruptive

• Strategic Outcomes

• Defeat Terrorist Networks• Defend the Homeland in-Depth• Shape Choices of Countries at Strategic Crossroads• Prevent the Use of WMD

QDR In A Banner – A Shift in Emphasis from “Kinetic” to “Non-Kinetic” Systems

• Potential technology focus areas:– Biometrics and Biological exploitation– Information technology and applications– Persistent Surveillance Technology– Networks and Communication– Human, Social, Cultural, and Behavioral Modeling – Language – Cognitive Enhancement– Directed Energy– Autonomous systems– Hyperspectral sensors– Nanotechnology – Advanced Materials– Energy and Power– Affordability – Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction Technologies– Energetic Materials

Science and Technology Enabling Technology Priorities

Summary

• Rest of world is getting smarter and the rate of technology change is increasing

• Entire US technical structure needs to work closely, as a team

• More Needs for System Engineering

• Need exists to stretch conventional wisdom

• DoD technical efforts migrating for new US strategic framework

Decade of Strategic Evolution

Strategic Capability

High

Moderate

Low

Perc

eive

d C

apab

ility

Em

phas

is

LesserContingencies

FutureNear Peer

Major Theater War

’93 Bottom-Up Review

High

Moderate

LowPerc

eive

d C

apab

ility

Em

phas

is

LesserContingencies

FutureNear Peer

Major Theater War

’01 QDRHigh

LowPerc

eive

d C

apab

ility

Em

phas

is

LesserContingencies

FutureNear Peer

Major Theater War

’06 QDR

High

Moderate

LowPerc

eive

d C

apab

ility

Em

phas

is

LesserContingencies

FutureNear Peer

Major Theater War

’97 QDR


Strategic CapabilityStrategic Capability

2 MTWsState-on-StateCross Border Conflict

2 MTWsState-on-StateCross Border Conflict

Smaller Scale Contingencies

1-4-2-1

Ungoverned AreasAsymmetric Threats

Future Peer

GWoT / ungoverned areasIrregular WarfareLow-end Asymmetric

1-4-2-1(State-to-State War)

Disruptive technologiesSuperiority in theCommons (Space, Cyber, Seas, Air)Dominance in Close(direct contact, CNO,littoral)

Industrial AgeNear Peer

Desert StormSoviet Collapse

Desert StormSoviet Collapse

Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda,Haiti

Somalia, Bosnia, Rwanda,Haiti

Citadel I & IICitadel I & II 11 Sept / GWoTOEF / OIFNew Asymmetries

11 Sept / GWoTOEF / OIFNew Asymmetries

Decade of Strategic Evolution

Low

Perc

eive

d C

apab

ility

Em

phas

is

LesserContingencies

FutureNear Peer

Major Theater War

’04 Defense Strategy


GWoT / ungoverned areasIrregular WarfareLow-end Asymmetric

1-4-2-1(State-to-State War)

Disruptive technologiesSuperiority in theCommons (Space, Cyber, Seas, Air)Dominance in Close(direct contact, CNO,littoral)



Capabilities to Defeat Terrorist Networks

• Persistent surveillance• Locate, tag, and track terrorists in denied areas• Capabilities to fuse intelligence• Language and cultural awareness• Non-lethal capabilities• Joint coordination, processes and systems

• Urban warfare capabilities• Prompt global strike• Riverine warfare capabilities

Non-kinetic capabilities

Kinetic Capabilities

All These Capabilities are Joint, Coalition Centric

Capabilities to Defend the Homeland In Depth

• Interoperable, joint command and control• Enhanced air and maritime awareness• Consequence management • Broad spectrum medical

countermeasures



Capabilities to Prevent the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction

• Locate, tag, track, and characterize• Stand off fissile material detection• Wide area persistent surveillance• Capabilities to “render safe” WMD• Non-lethal weapons



Capabilities to Shape the Choices of Countries at Strategic Crossroads

• Improved language and cultural awareness• Persistent surveillance (penetrate and loiter)• Cyberspace shaping / defense• Secure broadband communications• Integrated defense against all missiles

• Prompt, high-value global strike• Air dominance• Undersea stealth

Non-kinetic capabilites

Kinetic

Most of These Capabilities are Joint, Coalition Centric

globalization of technology impact on us military · in times of change, learners inherit the...

Documents