Disruptive Technologies for the Militaries and Security

Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies 132

Ajey Lele

Disruptive Technologies for the Militaries and Security

Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies Volume 132

Series editors Robert James Howlett, Bournemouth University and KES International, Shoreham-by-sea, UK e-mail: [email protected] Lakhmi C. Jain, Centre for Artificial Intelligence, Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, NSW, Australia; Faculty of Science, Technology and Mathematics, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT, Australia; KES International, UK e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

The Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series encompasses the topics of knowledge, intelligence, innovation and sustainability. The aim of the series is to make available a platform for the publication of books on all aspects of single and multi-disciplinary research on these themes in order to make the latest results available in a readily-accessible form. Volumes on interdisciplinary research combining two or more of these areas is particularly sought. The series covers systems and paradigms that employ knowledge and intelligence in a broad sense. Its scope is systems having embedded knowledge and intelligence, which may be applied to the solution of world problems in industry, the environment and the community. It also focusses on the knowledge-transfer methodologies and innovation strategies employed to make this happen effectively. The combination of intelligent systems tools and a broad range of applications introduces a need for a synergy of disciplines from science, technology, business and the humanities. The series will include conference proceedings, edited collections, monographs, handbooks, reference books, and other relevant types of book in areas of science and technology where smart systems and technologies can offer innovative solutions. High quality content is an essential feature for all book proposals accepted for the series. It is expected that editors of all accepted volumes will ensure that contributions are subjected to an appropriate level of reviewing process and adhere to KES quality principles.

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8767

Ajey Lele

Disruptive Technologies for the Militaries and Security

123

Ajey Lele Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses New Delhi, India

ISSN 2190-3018 ISSN 2190-3026 (electronic) Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies ISBN 978-981-13-3383-5 ISBN 978-981-13-3384-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3384-2 Library of Congress Control Number: 2018962126 © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore

Preface

This book is about contributing to the ongoing debate on disruptive technologies from a strategic perspective. This book identifies some of the important emerging technologies having relevance for the warfare. The common theme of the book is to examine the nature of disruption such emerging technologies could bring into the military domain. It is important to acknowledge that gaining a full understanding of every technology discussed in this work is not possible, essentially since these technologies are still under the process of development. This work presents an analysis based on open-source information and discussions carried out with the experts on the subject. This work essentially debates on the strategic relevance of various disruptive technologies and is envisaged to offer possible ways in which the technology and policy counters would need to evolve in the future. I owe my gratitude to the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi, and my Director General, Mr. Jayant Prasad, for encouraging me to undertake this work. Thanks are also due to my colleagues, Mr. Munish Sharma and Ms. Natallia Khanieja, for their help. I would like to thank Mr. Mukesh Kumar from IDSA library for useful assistance. Lastly, my gratitude to my mother (Sushila), wife (Pramada) and son (Nipun) for their support. The comments in this manuscript reflect my own personal views. New Delhi, India September 2018

Ajey Lele

v

Contents

Part I 1

2

Section One

The Context of Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Technological Imperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.1 Technology and National Power . . . . . . . . . 1.1.2 Natural Determinants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.3 Politics and Polity Determinants . . . . . . . . . 1.1.4 Cultural Determinants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.5 Ideological and Psychological Determinants . 1.1.6 Theories of Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1.7 Laws for Growth of Technology . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.1 Innovation and Globalization . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.2 The S-Curve of Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2.3 Innovation, Technologies and the Shift in Techno-economic Paradigms . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Disruption Versus Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . .

3 3 5 7 8 8 10 11 17 18 19 20

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

21 23 24 25

Defence and Disruptive Technologies . . . 2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Technology and Warfare . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Disruptive Technologies in Defence . 2.4 Emerging and New Technologies . . . 2.5 Disruptive Military Technologies . . . 2.5.1 Tanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5.2 Transportation Systems . . . . 2.6 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

29 29 31 33 36 38 38 40 41 42

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . .

vii

viii

Contents

Part II

Section Two

3

Hypersonic Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 About the Hypersonic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Account of Advance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 The Development of Hypersonic Technology . . . . . . . 3.4 Launch Systems and Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Investments by Major Powers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.1 Hypersonic Weapons Programme of the USA 3.5.2 Russia and Hypersonic Weapons . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.3 China’s Hypersonic Programme . . . . . . . . . . 3.5.4 India’s Hypersonic Programme [46] . . . . . . . 3.6 The Deterrence Dilemma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.6.1 Nuclear Rivalries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.7 Countermeasures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

47 48 50 52 54 56 57 60 62 64 65 67 69 70 71 75

4

New 4.1 4.2 4.3

Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Advanced Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Few Vital Strategic Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.1 Graphene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.2 Silicene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.3 Germanane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.4 Phosphorene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.5 Antimonene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.6 Stanene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.7 Metamaterials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.8 Molybdenum Disulphide (MoS2) [40] . . . . 4.3.9 New Solar Cells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.10 Shape Memory Alloys [48] . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.11 Self-healing Artificial Material . . . . . . . . . 4.3.12 BAM (Boron, Aluminium and Magnesium ‘Ceramic’ Alloy) [56] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.13 Aerogel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.14 Kevlar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3.15 Polymetallic Nodules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79 79 81 84 84 85 86 87 88 88 89 90 90 91 92

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

93 93 94 95 96 96

Contents

ix

5

Additive Manufacturing (AM) . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 About the Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1.1 History of 3D Printing . . . . . . . 5.1.2 Advantages and Limitations [7] . 5.2 Applications [8] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.3 Military Usages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

101 101 102 103 104 105 108 108

6

Inexhaustible Power Resources . . . . . . . . . . . 6.1 Historical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.2 Relevance of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 Inexhaustible Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.1 Water Resources . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.2 Solar Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.3 Wind Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.4 Geothermal Energy . . . . . . . . . . 6.3.5 Biomass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 Energy and Defence Agencies . . . . . . . . 6.5 Technology Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.6 Inexhaustible Technologies: Vital Facets 6.7 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

111 111 112 114 115 115 116 116 117 117 119 120 125 125

7

Next-Generation Genomics . . . . 7.1 Human Genome Project . . 7.2 Debating NGS . . . . . . . . . 7.3 Military and NGS . . . . . . . 7.4 Pathogens in Warfare . . . . 7.5 Genomics: Bane and Boon 7.6 Closer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

127 127 128 130 132 135 136 136

8

Artificial Intelligence (AI) . . . . . . 8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.2 Categories of AI . . . . . . . . . 8.3 AI Technologies . . . . . . . . . 8.4 Military Applicability of AI . 8.4.1 AI and C4ISR . . . . 8.4.2 AI and Robotics . . . 8.4.3 AI and LAWS . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

139 139 141 143 145 146 147 148

x

Contents

8.4.4 AI 8.4.5 AI 8.5 Closure . . References . . . . .

and Virtual Reality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 and Cybersecurity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153 . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

155 155 157 160 164 165

10 Cloud Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1 What Is Cloud Computing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1.1 SaaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1.2 PaaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.1.3 IaaS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.2 Future Trajectory and Applications of Cloud Computing . . 10.3 Cloud Computing for Defence Applications . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4 Cloud Computing in Defence: Global Canvas . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.1 Cloud Computing in the United States (US) Department of Defence (DoD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.2 Cloud Computing in China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.3 Cloud Computing in United Kingdom (UK) Ministry of Defence (MoD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.4.4 Cloud Computing in Australia’s DoD . . . . . . . . . 10.4.5 Cloud Computing and India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.5 Challenges in Adopting Cloud Computing . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.6 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

167 167 169 169 171 172 173 176

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

180 180 181 181 183 184

11 Internet of Things (IoT) . . . . . . . 11.1 The Idea of IoT . . . . . . . . . 11.2 IoT Connectivity . . . . . . . . . 11.2.1 RFID System . . . . . 11.3 IoT and Military Operations 11.4 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9

Big Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.1 Context for Big Data 9.2 Advanced Analytics . 9.3 Military Applications 9.4 Closure . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . . .

. . . . 176 . . . . 179

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

187 187 189 190 191 195 195

12 Blockchain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.1 Understanding Blockchain . . . 12.2 Blockchain in Defence Sector 12.3 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

. . . . .

197 197 199 201 202

Contents

Part III

xi

Section Three . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

205 205 207 209 211 213 214

14 Disarmament, Arms Control and Arms Race . . . . . . . 14.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.2 Disarmament and Arms Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3 Arms Race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3.1 The Hypersonic Challenge . . . . . . . . . . . 14.3.2 The Challenges from 3D Printing and AI . 14.4 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . .

217 217 217 224 225 227 228 228

13 Industry 4.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.1 Industrial Revolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.2 Conceptualizing the Fourth Revolution . 13.3 Smart Factories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 Defence Industry and Smart Factories . 13.5 Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

. . . . . . .

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

About the Author

Dr. Ajey Lele is Senior Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (IDSA), New Delhi, where he also heads the institute’s Centre on Strategic Technologies. He began his professional career as Indian Air Force Officer and took early retirement (retiring as Group Captain) to pursue his academic interests. He holds a master’s in physics, as well as a master’s and M.Phil. in defence and strategic studies, and completed his doctorate at the School of International Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi. He has contributed articles to various national and international journals, websites and newspapers. His book publications include Strategic Technologies for the Military (Sage), Asian Space Race: Rhetoric or Reality? (Springer) and Mission Mars: India’s Quest for the Red Planet (Springer).

xiii

Introduction

Purpose Today’s world has been shaped by humans themselves to a certain extent, the humans being the most dominant species. They try to keep this world running by their presence and actions. They are keen to keep the world prospering because they want to exist, survive, prosper and succeed. Largely, over the centuries, humans have developed an art of living together and working jointly to ensure the existence of their race. For this purpose, they developed various procedures and practices to be followed by themselves (could view this as a society). To make their survival easy and successful, humans always try to find some mechanisms to bind themselves together. Humans are mostly societal in nature (one such instrument that binds them together could be called as a community). Since ancient era, humans have attempted to gather knowledge based on observations and investigation (call this as science). This awareness by the humans about how some events (like why trees grow, why it rains) in this world occur and realization that they could make this system function as per their own requirements has led to the development of science and technology. All this has been found essential for the survival of the human race. The human race has understood the importance of living together for their survival and future progress. Humans have understood that one of the major reasons for their relatively safe existence for so long has been their ability to innovate and experiment. This process of experimentation to find solutions for various difficulties the society faces could be considered as the origin of the human quest for technology, and it has been observed that the answers to find solutions to various challenges faced by them are found in the realm of technology. Now, for centuries the world has been found progressing owing to the interaction of society with science and technology. The part of societies (could be called as groups, nation states or states) are known to use technologies for their survival and progress. On occasions, some of these groups are known to pick fights with each other, essentially to establish the supremacy of their group, and such domination on occasions leads to wars. Also, there is an effort for grabbing the natural resources. Even today,

xv

xvi

Introduction

such fights are taking place and likely to take place in future too. For winning (or surviving) in these fights, humans have understood that they can use the same technologies which they have been successfully using for their existence and progress. Understanding the need and rationale for the usage of such technologies for the survival of the groups/states, humans have started modifying these technologies according to them to fight. Human quest for supremacy could be considered as one of the important determinants behind innovation and development of military specific technologies. Broadly, technology is said to have evolved as a response to the various requirements of society. Also, based on the nature of available technology (and knowledge of science), the humans have attempted to find the use of this expertise for their progress and on various occasions have also modified it to suit their requirements. From primitive era to the present day, the fields of science and technology have evolved substantially. Researchers have attempted to analyse the process of the evolution of the human race based on various parameters. Some of them have related the progression of mankind directly (or indirectly) based on technology-connected parameters like the three-age system (labelling of history into time periods divisible by three), i.e. Stone Age, Bronze Age and Iron Age. At present, the era of Industrial Age, Information Age and Digital Age is in vogue. Globally, societies are found becoming more advanced and becoming more progressive. All this is becoming possible chiefly owing to the technological developments and humans creating as a system (industry) for quick adaption to new technologies. Broadly, technologies have taken centre stage of human life for many centuries now. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the future survival of the human race and technology dependency has established unswerving dependability by now. Presently, it has been professed that coming decades could observe human dependence on technology so much that eventually a stage could come when machines would start dictating even on human behaviour. The progress of technology development has been both linear and nonlinear. Technology development could also be said to have happened owing to both scientific and non-scientific reasons. The development of technology also depends on social, political and financial support. Technologies are found to have their own shelf lives. However, on occasions, these lives need not necessarily get extended, because the technology itself is irreplaceable or the scientists are not able to provide a better substitute or the options are not financially viable. There is an antithesis to this technology development and induction too. Overdependence on technology is found leading to degradation of the environment, increasing labour problem, dividing the societies among the haves and the have-nots and bringing in the digital divide. Mostly, such issues have not stood the test of time in very many cases. These problems are known to arise owing to information deficit, mismanagement on the part of the governments, lack of education and at times owing to the non-democratic dispensations. However, one specific case merits attention, that is, the case of plastics, once considered as a path-breaking technology. However, over the years humans have understood ill effects of plastics on the environment.

Introduction

xvii

Technology development is an ongoing process. Apart from the direct utility of particular technology, the demonstration of technological superiority is another important aspect in modern-day power politics. Innovation allows both development of new technologies and finding alternatives to the existing technologies. The need and process for finding alternatives depend on various factors like environmental requirements for avoidance of pollution, to find alternatives to critical metals/materials which are in short supply, need for superior technology or owing to financial aspects or for some social reasons. On occasions, the market witnesses an entry of altogether a new form of technology which upsets the existing structures of technology diffusion. The decision to adopt to this distinctive ends upsetting the financial calculations of the markets temporarily, but on occasions real disruption takes place and the earlier technology directly gets replaced by the new technology. Technological developments do impact the progress in various sectors. Depending on the need of the sector, specific technological investments are made. From social sectors comprising health, education, human development to critical infrastructure sectors including energy, cyber to key defence sectors such as aerospace and missiles, every sector of society has major technology dependence. In the defence arena, various technologies are known to have played a significant role. Historically, it has been observed that various technological innovations originate in the defence arena and subsequently make inroads in the civilian domain (e.g. the Internet). Also, the defence sector is much responsive to the technological developments which may not be the case for sectors of society. There is always an attempt by the military leadership to hunt for new technologies either for replacing the existing fighting systems or for juxtaposing on their existing military structures in order to improve the performance. The level of technology dictates the strategies used to provide warfighting capability of a country. Any change in technology leads to the modifications in the combat plans. Such changes have large-scale ramifications from equipment invitatory to manpower planning to training to import of equipment. In a broader sense, technologies detect the defence doctrines of the states. Technologies would define their military industrial complex and defence-related export/import policies. All this could impact on their strategic and foreign policy calculus. Hence, for any state, it is extremely important to watch the progress made in technology realm which has (direct or indirect) defence utility. Innovation of any new military technology or development of any specific novel applications for existing technologies has the potential to ‘interrupt’ the existing strategic balance, both regionally and globally. For any military, it is important to have an idea about the ongoing trends in technology and the possible future of the technology. States would also be required to know the military-specific technology interests of their adversaries. Investments made towards the development of new technologies and their possible defence applicability need to be watched. At the backdrop of all above, this work debates on ‘disruptive technologies’ and their possible military and security applications.

xviii

Introduction

Nature of Work This work debates and discusses the present and future of disruptive technologies from a military perspective. The endeavour is to discuss various critical and advanced elucidations about the revolutionary strategic technologies. The idea is not so much about extrapolating the future of technology in a strict sense but is more about understanding the defence-specific disruptive technology paradigm. It is important to note that technology may have been and would remain as an important part of warfare; however, there is much more to warfare. Hence, technology should not be viewed as absolute to warfare. It is well understood that technology alone cannot assist to win any military campaign or a war. However, technological superiority always offers the militaries an advantage. More importantly, technology also has a great deterrent value. Hence, on occasions military technologies could even play a role to avoid wars. It is important to effectively manage the new technologies by identifying their strategic utility and by defining their role in the existing military architecture and identifying the possible contributions they could make towards improving the overall system. Such actions would demand doctrinal changes. This work debates on disruptive technologies and innovations in the strategic realm and issues associated with their strategic management. The work does not claim to be a treatise on military disruptive technologies nor it does chronicle all military disruptive technologies. It is important to recognize that on occasions there is a very thin line between what could be considered as disruptive and what is not. There could be differing views about which technology could be identified as disruptive and which should not be. In the overall technology domain, there are specific fields where it is easier to identify and appreciate the disruptive technology explicitly like a conventional telephone getting replaced by mobile telephone. However, particularly in the context of military technologies it is always not possible to distinctively identify a technology which has been directly replaced by a specific disruptive technology. Although normally the process of development in technology realm is mostly found incremental, on occasions suddenly a new innovation emerges making military leadership to use it to replace unarticulated needs. Also, there could be a debate in some cases, on the issues about ‘nominating’ any new technology as a disruptive technology. At times, some of the new technologies need not necessarily be disruptive in nature and they could be a mere improvisation of existing technologies. However, owing to vested interests or misinformation there exists a danger that some of the new technologies could be sold under different labels and it is important to keep track of such activities. This work advances by accepting such possibilities.

Introduction

xix

Summary of Approach Technology is a fundamental agent of social change. It offers new possibilities to innovate, design and develop new instruments to bring in change in both civilian and military fields. Military establishments have repeatedly monitored groundbreaking developments in the history of science and technology and have adapted them to suit their requirements. If not initially, but as an outcome of military research and development, new technologies are known to frequently find military applications, which, in some cases, have disruptive effects on the conduct of warfare. These effects could be both positive and negative. Today, the overall progress in military technology development has bettered the possibility of improvements in the mobilization and application of force but has also created more powerful capabilities of harm and destroy. Contemporary innovations in artificial intelligence, robotics, autonomous systems and Internet of Things, 3D printing, nanotechnology, biotechnology, material science and quantum computing are projected to bring major social transformations. How these and some other emerging technologies would be relevant to defence architectures is not yet fully understood and needs further scrutiny. The emerging military competences derived from new technologies could impact both war and peace. Observing and analysing such developments are essential for understanding the future of warfare and global security.1 This work debates on disruptive technologies at the backdrop of conceptual, theoretical (international theory), technological and operational (military) themes. These themes, however, are not necessarily discussed in a ‘stand-alone’ manner but find references as per their orientations in specific sections of the debates. Also, no gradation of disruptive technologies has been attempted since many of these technologies are found having their own lifecycles of developments: some have reached to a certain phase of maturity, while some are still at embryonic level. Hence, discussions on specific disruptive technologies are structured accordingly with the central focus on defence applicability where possible.

Research Approach It is important to note that much of the information discussed in this work is based on presently continuing projects and initiatives. Some of the technologies debated are in an early period of their development. Hence, from a military perspective the process of convergence about their utility has just begun and no investments (financial and industry) in terms of the development of military-specific aspects have been found. Obviously, detailed literature (say research papers, books, 1

https://www.sipri.org/research/armament-and-disarmament/emerging-military-and-security-technologies, Accessed on 30 June 2017.

xx

Introduction

declared government policies) on various issues discussed in this book is yet to emerge. Most of the ideas available are based on the reports of the task forces formulated by various technology and security agencies. Mostly, the Internet has been found as a useful platform to catch the ongoing debate. There could be two reasons associated with this: one, the reach of the Internet is universal and faster; two, most of the disruptive technologies discussed are information technologybased technology and the Internet could be considered as an obvious medium for the discussions. Today, most of the global defence establishments are in the process of understating the nuances of possible military applications of disruptive technologies. Possibly, being early days, mostly a ‘guarded’ discussion on the subject and new ideas takes place. They fully understand the need to keep their military plans for disruptive technologies secret. More importantly, every defence establishment would have their own norms of secrecy. All this limits the availability of the information in the open source. Author has carried out various informal discussions with the scientists’ community and military leadership. Many of them have expressed their desire to keep the discussions only at the informal level. For the Internet-based literature, as far as possible care has been taken to look for authentic sources. Presently, there are various reputed publications also available in electronic format which have been referred to in this work.

Structure of the Book Broadly, the book has been divided into three major parts. The first part is more theoretical and introductory in nature, while the second part debates different types of disruptive technologies, and the issues which would have an impact on the overall growth of these technologies are discussed in the third part. The essentials about specifics discussed in various chapters in all the three parts are given at the beginning of each part.

Part I

Section One

This part is an introductory section and debates the theme from a theoretical perspective. Broadly, both the chapters in this part address academic issues in regard to the application of technology for use in warfare. The discussions cover a broad technology paradigm in general and defence technology in particular. Various features of technologies in the different realms of life from cultural to political to strategic are deliberated upon. This is a discussion on various relevant international theories in order to appreciate how technologies could be placed under a conceptual framework upon which their geostrategic values could be analysed. Military agencies all across the globe are investing in innovation with a view that various breakthroughs in defence technology arenas could offer them better solutions for existing challenges and also could present a new technology vision if a major disruptive invention occurs. In view of this, a detailed discussion on innovation has been carried out. In addition, a section of this part develops the general thought of technology and warfare and then focuses more critically on the disruption of technologies in the military domain. Here, discussions are carried out in respect of few important military disruptions in the past with a view that these deliberations could help develop a context for reviewing possible future military technology disruptions.

Chapter 1

The Context of Technology

The call for recognizing that technologies could revolutionize the defence architecture of nation states assumes a significant burden of proof. Such assumption is important because assumptions are the foci for any theory. It is important to undertake an investigation at a conceptual stage to recognize the role of technology in human development. This essentially because technology has single-handedly brought the major change in human life. During last few centuries, it has been observed that various technologies have initially got developed as a part of military projects. Hence, the ‘investigation’ of a technology development and its growth as such could also lead towards establishing and examining the role of technologies in the military domain. The aim of this chapter is to develop a perspective that examines technological development through a theoretical construct and reiterates its significance in terms of strengthening defence architecture.

1.1 Technological Imperatives Technology forms the subtext of human development. History is replete with instances of technology serving as catalyst in the grand narrative of human development. From basic necessities like food, air, water, clothing and shelter, to structural requirements like security, technology has played a tremendous role in every field of human growth and survival. While humanity has always been dependent on nature for its survival, it is not nature untouched but nature modified that demonstrates the measure of human genius. Upon examining the process of food acquisition for survival from an anthropological perspective, it was seen that humans have progressed from being gatherers to hunters to farmers and finally evolved into settlers. History and archaeology have witnessed the discovery/invention of tools and instruments aimed at making survival more efficient. From a sociohistorical perspective, one can safely state that humans have made remarkable progress from stone-based tools to factories and from caves to cities. Essentially, the march of human progress has © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 A. Lele, Disruptive Technologies for the Militaries and Security, Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies 132, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3384-2_1

3

4

1 The Context of Technology

been aided by the development of various technologies, which in turn have served as catalysts for further evolution. From metallurgy to artificial materials, weaving to printing, steam engine locomotives to aircraft and space plane, nuclear and solar energy to identifying energy resources on the moon, gunpowder to missiles—there are multiple arenas of technological innovation and development that are responsible for the evolution of mankind. Fundamentally, technology is the baseline that has impacted and eventually shaped both culture and society for centuries. The broadest sense of the term technology encompasses human capabilities and is responsible for enabling humans to perform tasks which they could not have performed otherwise. For this purpose, certain tools are invented, designed and manufactured [1]. In the present day and age, technology plays a key role in the life of an individual as well as the functioning of an organization or a governmental system. Since the industrial age, technology has transformed the world both scientifically and commercially. Technologies that were overlooked at one point in time have ended up revolutionizing human history and development. The transistor can be considered an example of an overlooked technology that eventually had far-reaching effects across the social and technological spectrum. The 46th page of the New York Times issue of 01 July 1948 mentioned the invention of the transistor, a device which could potentially have numerous applications in radio technology by replacing the vacuum tube. This electronic component was demonstrated for the first time on 30 June 1948 at Bell Telephone Laboratories. The chief feature of this device was that its action was instantaneous. This was possible because there was no workup delay that used to take place in the vacuum tube, since no heat was getting developed. Scientists explained that the transistor is a resistor or semiconductor device which could amplify electoral signals as they were transferred through it. During its early developmental stage, most people were under the impression that it was merely a component to replace vacuum tubes, not realizing the tremendously crucial effect it would have in the field of computer development. During those days, computers used to occupy large rooms and their operation required human attendants who could replace the burned-out elements among their overheated vacuum tubes. Some decades later, the same computing power (and much more) was found easily crammed inside a pocket device that cost around US $10, thanks to the microchip and the transistors on which it was based [2]. Quite a few similar technological discoveries have played a major role in the graph of human progress and evolution. The most fascinating aspect of technology, however, is its evolutionary and adaptable nature. It is important to appreciate the fact that despite being developed for a specific purpose, some technologies were modified and provided innovation for altogether different purposes. For example, cell phones (mobile phones) were originally developed as a unit for remote wireless communication. Since then, however, phones have been implanted with GPS chips that provide information about the device’s geographical position. Such innovations, while increasing human convenience, have come at the cost of individual liberties since it is possible to identify the location of an individual. The tracking feature provided by cell phones has led to an ideological reversal where data from cell companies is now more significant for intelligence

1.1 Technological Imperatives

5

agencies than individual users. This has led to an ethical debate surrounding the right to individual privacy and the technology’s role as a tool for state observation. This debate is emblematic of the amorphous nature of technological theorization and the problems that stem from non-regulation of such a nascent and vulnerable discourse. Technological developments, whether knowingly or unknowingly, directly or indirectly, have influenced various social, economic and security aspects of human life. From a macroscopic perspective, technology has played an important role as an axis of power for nation states by aiding in the facilitation and maintenance of national security, territorial integrity, autonomy, sovereignty and national development. Furthermore, technology has become an imminent part of foreign policy owing to its increased importance for defence, diplomacy and communications. Several adaptations of technology have provided modern nation states with the tools required for addressing their political, economic, military and modernization challenges, and navigating traditional and non-traditional security issues that shape decision-making processes. In recent times, the technologies that have exercised a major influence on human lives have been information and communication technologies (ICTs). These technologies can be said to have single-handedly influenced the functioning, operations and security perceptions of governmental, commercial, educational and scientific infrastructures and services of socio-economic relevance and command and control systems. The growing interdependency between the modalities of state power and ICTs has extended towards operational fields and critical services such as transportation, energy distribution, banking and command and control systems as well. Technology has played and continues to play an unquestionably central role in the march of human progress; however, theorization about it has been scant, diffused and haphazard, to say the least. Technological advancement is certainly central to the story of human development, and while there is a tremendous amount of literature surrounding the same, it would be prudent to compile it in a structured fashion by using different theoretical perspectives. In order to truly understand the impact of technology on the military, society and economic growth of a nation state, it is necessary to engage in a more interdisciplinary research and examine theories and concepts of international relations alongside those of technology, globalization, ideology and culture. This chapter aims to provide a broad overview of the prevalent theoretical models of analysing technology as well as the need for more nuanced research regarding the same. It is tremendously important—more so now than ever before—to identify the need for intensive focus on the theoretical formulations that enable a deeper understanding of the impact of technology on humans.

1.1.1 Technology and National Power Power is often defined as ‘the ability to achieve one’s purposes or goals’ [3]. Such goals could be achieved in different ways. It manifests in the ability to influence others and fulfil one’s purpose. National power is therefore defined as the state’s ability

6

1 The Context of Technology

to use the various resources at its command for the pursuit of national objectives [4]. Various schools of thought in the field of international relations have theorized the core constituents of power in different ways. The realist school of thought places national interest at the core of their argument using the rationale that nation states form the fundamental building blocks of international negotiation and identity formation. These nation states, therefore, have a tenuous relationship with power and are constantly engaged in a struggle—overt and covert—for dominance. Proponents of this school believe that nation states use power to maximize their interest in the international system and the tenuous peace and stability humans enjoy are therefore an outcome of the balance of power. National interests vary from country to country and range from the preservation of political autonomy and territorial integrity, to the security of natural resources and the expansion of political and economic systems. One of the foremost proponents of the realist school of thought, Hans J. Morgenthau, had identified certain factors (please refer to Table 1.1) that contribute to national power1 such as geography, population and natural resources. He broadly divided these core constituents into permanent and temporary elements [5]. Morgenthau further theorized that national power is relative to the powers of other nations (more so that of adversaries) and not absolute. By this statement, he was referring to the fact that a nation does not have abstract power in and of itself, but only possesses power in relation to another actor or actors in the international arena [6]. The emphasis on relative, and not absolute power, is derived from the realist conception of the international system based on the Hobbesian State of Nature—an anarchical environment [7]. All states have to rely upon their own resources to secure their interests [8]. These resources then become the key drivers of social and national progress. In recent years, technology’s role in this race for survival and supremacy has increased manifold and is prominent in the manifestation of resources into real national power. It requires technology to convert population into population dividend, harness the natural resources, develop industries, and so on. Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, there has been an increased merger between the critical infrastructure (CI) of nation states and information and communication technologies (ICTs). This increased interdependence is due to rapidly proliferating technology, increased globalization and the economic, social and cultural integration of the world. All of this can be attributed to the advances made in information and communication technologies, which are now redefining and reformulating the concept of national power. Modern-day nation states have become more interdependent with new channels of interactions having evolved over the years. There has been an increase in the seamless flow of goods, services, finances, and technologies across borders. ICTs and other such emergent technologies are also shifting the structural underpinnings of international relations. The emerging influence of non-state actors such as advocacy groups, think tanks, private corporations and terrorist groups has altered the methodologies used to assess the concept of national power today. The elements of power, as defined by Hans J. Morgenthau, can be broadly divided into four categories: 1 Your

Article Library. National Power: Elements, Evaluation and Limitation.

1.1 Technological Imperatives

7

Table 1.1 Elements of national power Natural Politics and polity Cultural

Psychological and ideological

Geography

Quality of the government

Economic development

Ideology

Resources

Leadership

Technology

Education

Population

Efficiency of bureaucracy

Military preparedness

Strategic autonomy

Diplomacy

Intelligence network

National character and morale Nation building and national integration Intention to pursue power

The table is based on various sources available on this subject. There are critical assessments of the Morgenthau work like Algosaibi [9]

1.1.2 Natural Determinants The location, size, topography, boundaries, and climate of a nation state and geographical settings under which the state is located would have some influence on the state’s overall national power potential. A number of geopoliticians and strategists have emphasized the imperative influence that geography has on statecraft. They have varying takes as to which elements should be considered for ensuring dominance and maintaining power projection—for example, Sir Halford Mackinder argued for better control of the heartland, while Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan maintained that sea power was the key to world dominance [10]. While their approaches may vary, both believed that natural surroundings needed to be utilized efficiently before moving towards dominating a global world order. Aside from these topographical and geographical elements, certain demographic factors existing within states also form key modalities in determining the spread of national power. Some of these would be education, health and the age distribution of the population, all of which play a significant role in how a country is perceived globally. For instance, a highly literate, educated, trained and productive population becomes an invaluable resource that improves a country’s developmental graph, through superior quality of manpower, while the opposite would hold true for a population that is illiterate and resource deprived. Trend analysis for the past few years indicates that mineral resources, aside from demographic and topographical factors, have been guiding global geopolitics in substantial ways. There is constant competition among nation states to gain control of strategically important resources such as oil, natural gas, uranium and rare-earth elements. A nation state that possesses installed industrial capabilities and can utilize natural resources has a clear advantage over states that lack such capabilities. Control of natural resources is imperative for national power because they underlie the various modalities of state power, like the industrial and manufacturing base, and transportation and energy sources, which in turn fuel a modern economy. Mining and utilizing these resources, however, requires a tremendous technological infusion. It is important to note that not only does technology pave the

8

1 The Context of Technology

way for a continental or maritime power to project its strength through military and naval platforms; it also fuels the development of human and natural resources.

1.1.3 Politics and Polity Determinants A nation’s political structure is usually dependent on its constituents, comprising of the government, the various military and paramilitary forces, and the bureaucracy. The quality of the government in power, the leadership and efficiency of the bureaucracy and the quality of the diplomacy all help project a certain image of the state in international forums. A state that has a well-organized and effective administrative structure can fully utilize its potential. Governance practices guide the development patterns of human beings and employment in agriculture, industry and service sectors. Good governance practices include securing justice, empowering the workforce, generating employment and ensuring the efficient delivery of services. Good governance helps create an environment in which sustained economic growth becomes achievable [11]. Political structures need their instruments—the judiciary and the bureaucracy—to function smoothly and to maintain security and efficacy. While the legal framework and judicial structure is an instrument that determines the performance of a government, diplomacy manages international relations and helps further foreign policy objectives through representation and negotiation of alliances, treaties and agreements. Technology has a major role to play in these as well as more direct aspects of governance. For example, delivery of services through e-governance initiatives and employment generation in welfare states has been achieved primarily by technology. Furthermore, technology is changing conventional means of diplomatic negotiations as most of the alliances, treaties and agreements being signed are primarily outcomes of technological developments in areas of space, nuclear development, defence and security.

1.1.4 Cultural Determinants The collective manifestation of human intellectual achievement, such as economic and technological development, can be categorized under the broad label of cultural progress. Economic development extends into various other sectors like industry, employment, technology and military. Economic activity brings in capital, competition and innovation in all the allied sectors. Natural resources are converted into national power constituents through industries, services and skilled manpower. The outcome of vast economic activity is usually efficiency and innovation within existing systems, which enables technological progress and makes the economy an important constituent of national power. The technological prowess of a nation is directly linked to an improved research culture, which leads to further innovation in sectors critical to social development. Similarly, strategic and military technologies are also

1.1 Technological Imperatives

9

examples of dimensions that are directly and beneficially impacted by technological advancements and economic activity. The might, preparedness and advancement of the armed forces are also instrumental for measuring national power. An agile, sophisticated military that is spread across land, air and sea elevates a nation’s prestige in the international arena. For example, USA’s use of electronic warfare and swift deployment of forces across the three dimensions during the Gulf War established it as the sole superpower in the post-Cold War era. In the contemporary world, security environment, intelligence gathering, analysis and dissemination form integral functions of successful statecraft. Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu had also emphasized the use of spies to gain intelligence and insight into activities of the adversary. An efficient intelligence network, complemented with technology, keeps nation states abreast with the development of their adversaries’ strategic interests. Aside from hegemonic structures of power like the military and paramilitary forces, there are also modalities of soft power that help with a nation’s image projection. One major school of liberalism that privileges a non-state-based approach would be economic liberalism. The proponents of economic liberalism believe that economic institutions and economic interdependence form emergent networks of power that can rival traditional state-to-state diplomacy. This theory provides fundamental support to theories of alliance formation, wherein states can achieve their objectives by aligning with other nation states to achieve mutual goals. Their alliance helps boost national power as their strengths are combined against common adversaries. A country’s soft power capabilities can be used to facilitate cooperation through alliances rather than coercion. Globalization is largely responsible for the emergence of transnational networks and technological, economic and political interdependence. It has blurred the physical aspects of borders and enabled seamless flow of information. Culture is also a major tool for conducting diplomacy via the projection of soft power. As Joseph Nye states, it is one of the three primary tools through which a country exerts its soft power. He states, ‘In international politics, the soft power of a country rests primarily on three resources: its culture (in places where it is attractive to others), its political values (when it lives up to them at home and abroad) and its foreign policies (when they are seen as legitimate and having moral authority)’.2 With the emergence of the modern technological age, soft power can be projected through propaganda and through a collusion of cultural and technological proliferation. Evidence of this can be seen in America, where since the time of the Cold War it has garnered widespread support for propagating the notion of democracy and creating an atmosphere of fear against the opposing communist ideology. At the time, radio broadcasting served as the Internet and disseminated information the way computers do today. The drastic change that has occurred, however, is that post globalization, there has been an increase in multiple narratives that take into account varying subject positions. Information is no longer disseminated in a linear hierarchical process with an active disseminator and a passive receiver. Information sharing has become an active act of ‘consuming’ and ‘sharing’ the various facets of knowledge as available in a globalized world order. Cultural preferences are also 2 Nye,

2014.

10

1 The Context of Technology

being shared across countries, as seen through the spread of Yoga to East Asian states and the emergence of Confucius Institutes across the globe. In fact, America’s Hollywood itself is a cultural industry that has permeated global consciousness, much like the India’s Bollywood. Culture serves to negotiate the terrain between the ‘difference’ between peoples and the desire to ‘unite’ for the sake of humanity. It becomes an effective tool of colonizing the imagination and influencing a mindset which then shapes policy and intra-state interaction.

1.1.5 Ideological and Psychological Determinants Elements of power are also enforced through the ideological and psychological prism of a nation state, which provides the means to convert its natural, political and cultural constituents into power. Ideology acts as a wider framework that helps align the capabilities of a nation state for the pursuit of power. Ideologies condition the citizens of state into believing in certain systems of functioning and treating the ‘order of things’ as ‘status quo’. On a macroscopic level, they also serve as signalling mechanisms that provide insight into the diplomatic methods and modes of statecraft that nations might be more inclined towards. Social Constructivism, as a school of thought, aims to bridge the chasm between actors and identities, and examine how their functioning impacts each other, how agents at the individual level influence national objectives and how national ideologies condition individual actors. This ideological posturing can range from governing ideologies such as democracy and autocracy to economic ideologies of capitalism and socialism. They provide insight into the psychological motivations of a nation and represent the relationship it shares with other countries, in terms of assertiveness or submissiveness. One major modality of state power that directly impacts ideological projection is education. Education received at the elementary, primary, secondary and higher levels provides the impetus for aligning the thought process of the emergent workforce towards the desired direction of development, such as science and technology, arts or business. A nation state needs to maintain its autonomy and political independence while making strategic decisions in international relations. An internally integrated nation is better equipped to deal with emerging security challenges and the competitive global environment. The multiple ethnicities and religious faiths of the nation should be integrated in its pursuit of national goals and lead to nation building, which is a strong indicator of national power because it projects a unified vision of the nation. Resources like material capabilities and intangible assets are auxiliaries to power and can only be transformed when they are accompanied by a nation state’s intent to pursue power and assume the responsibility that comes along with it—playing a larger role in international debates, issues and decision-making. The conceptualization of national power by the realist school of thought holds relevance in explaining world politics, as nation states strive to gain power in both absolute and relative terms. Technology plays a key role in converting national power determinants into real national power, which has led to a tremendously intense com-

1.1 Technological Imperatives

11

petition among them in areas of technology, and more broadly, national security post the Second World War era. The military power that science and technology demonstrated in the two world wars compelled nations to recognize the importance of this field and accept it as an integral part of national policy [12]. There exists a deep relationship between the evolution of technology and the societal change it brings.

1.1.6 Theories of Technology Technology and innovation have been historically linked to human progress since time immemorial. Theories of technology date back to ancient Greek philosophy and began with the separation of skill/wisdom and knowledge into Techne and Episteme by Plato and Aristotle. Since then science and technology have been moulded into many shapes, owing to the multicultural/multidisciplinary approach to technical specialization adopted by the pre-positivists of the analytic tradition. While technological progress has existed since the invention of the wheel, the most relevant movement to impact our modern understanding of technology is the industrial revolution. Since then, society has made tremendous progress in terms of increasing its wealth and energy consumption, aiding/abetting transportation, providing affordable medicine and improving the overall standard of life. The expansion of high-speed rail, road and air transportation within and between national borders has brought about significant changes to the structure of society itself. Sometimes technology brings in transformational changes that alter the paradigms under which society operates, and the best example of such a cataclysmic shift is the advent of information technology [12]. There are many theoretical frameworks that attempt to analyse the emergence and impact of technology on society. Theorists have attempted to use philosophical, analytical and sociological approaches in order to understand the intricate nexus between technological innovation and its resultant social impact. These philosophies range from the analytical philosophies of technology as practised by Maarten Franssen, the Social Constructivist tradition, the Actor—Network theory (ANT) as envisioned by Latour [13], to the question of feminist technology [14] studies as examined by Donna Harraway, and Wendy Faulkner and few others have all tried to understand this evolutionary phenomenon in various ways. This chapter attempts to examine a few of similar ways and provide a broad understanding of the interconnectivity that can be traced between technological progress and critical thought. Technological Determinism. Technological Determinism is a theory that considers technology as autonomous and states that technology energies the development of social structures and cultural values [15]. This is one of the most wide-ranging academic debates to currently exist, with the two poles vociferously argued by Leo Marx and Jacques Ellul. Marx believes that it is foolish to provide a term such as technology with causal power

12

1 The Context of Technology

and states ‘We have made technology3 an all-purpose agent of change. Compared to other means of reaching our social goals, the technological has come to be seen as the most feasible, practical and economically viable’ [16]. He goes on to elaborate that technology, as such, makes nothing happen (Ibid). Jacques Ellul, on the other hand, is one of the foremost proponents of technological determinism and the theory supporting the autonomous nature of technology. He draws from a Weberian tradition of rationalization and instrumentality, stating ‘Technological Determinism is the thesis that technology somehow causes all other aspects of society and culture’ [17]. This theory about social change is extended to state that ‘changes in technology dictate changes in society.’ (Ibid) and identifies technology as ‘the prime mover’ in history. According to technological determinists, certain technical developments such as communications technologies, media or just technology in general form the sole/prime antecedent that becomes the cause for changes in society, and technology is seen as the fundamental condition underlying the pattern of social organization [18]. Furthermore, determinists hold the view that the expansion of technology is discontinuous and its growth is not a gradual or evolutionary process, but a series of revolutionary leaps forward [19]. For example, computer technology had an unprecedented impact on society as computers moved from military and research facilities to the desktops of households. Similar changes in social interaction were brought about by cell phones that ensured the exchange of voice, data and video in real time. It can be established that new technologies have transformed different strata of society, social interactions and institutions. That being said, it would be flawed to presume that such a direct causative link exists between technological progress and social evolution. The relationship is more insidious than that, as each factor influences its counterpart in complex ways. In fact, the rate of dispersion of technological innovation is guided and influenced to a large extent by various external/social factors such as investment, communication and the nature of the society. Social Construction of Technology and the Empirical Programme of Relativism. With the increased interdisciplinary nature of the modern world, recent years have witnessed the emergence of sociological theories of technologies. Two of the key theories are the Empirical Programme of Relativism (EPOR) and the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT). These theories fall on the other end of the totem pole in the debate about technological autonomy and the causative effects of technological determinism. The EPOR approach attempts to demonstrate the ‘social construction of scientific knowledge in the “hard sciences” [20]’. It uses empirical findings to determine the relationship between social impact and technological progress. EPOR comprises of three stages: the first analyses ‘interpretative flexibility’; the second examines social mechanisms that limit this flexibility, and the third attempts to engage with ‘closure mechanisms’. The third stage, however, has never been carried through. SCOT—a relatively newer methodology of impact analysis—attempts to use a ‘multidirectional’ model to chart the developmental process of technology and sociopolitical contexts to trace a techno-cultural narrative. Unlike 3 The

word technology and everything it has come to represent in the current world order.

1.1 Technological Imperatives

13

technological determinism, SCOT theorists believe that human actions shape the society that gets embedded in societies. Scholars who support SCOT imply that the scope for any type of technology to be accepted or rejected depends on the society which it is getting introduced to, being used in and has stakeholders in. SCOT includes interpretative flexibility, which basically means that every technological artefact has its own characteristics and shortcomings. The acceptance and rejection of this artefact, however, depend on how various social groups within a society judge it. This could be noticed in the Android versus iPhone debate, where certain groups prefer Android phones owing to their hardware flexibility in terms of storage while other groups prefer iPhones because of Apple’s efficiency and performance. It is important to notice that Nokia has lost out on its handset sales (adoption-faster rates of production by the others) after Android and Apple phones began competing in the market. At least more than half of their shortcomings have been solved in updated releases of their operating system software and mobile phones. Technological variations in a certain product depend on what the society refers to as ‘the problem’. An artefact is developed to counter the problem by providing a practical solution. Here, the concept of ‘relevant social group’ becomes significant. An identified problem needs to be a commonality within a social group for the development of a solution to cater to that particular social group. Another concept of the SCOT school of thought is ‘design flexibility’, which has two primary features—improving the existing features by designing additional features and catering to a wide array of social groups; and serving as an alternative to technologies being completely disrupted. Actor–Network Theory (ANT). Delineating a clear-cut cause-and-effect relationship between society and technology would be foolish given the interdependence of the two today. The debate between technological and social determinism often falls prey to extremist reduction, with hardliners on either side leaning towards logical absurdity to validate their claims. Most scholars prefer a more centred approach that analyses the simultaneous impact of social and technological evolutionary processes. There is a third theory termed Actor–Network Theory (ANT [21]) that examines social and technological trajectories through the lens of networks of relationships. The basis for ANT is that the network is shaped by actors that are human as well as technological. Each entity that is a part of ANT is treated as a modality in itself. Similar to the Foucauldian model of micropolitics, all entities exist in a mutually constitutive way that causes the network to function without a lag. The three major proponents of this theory are Bruno Latour, Michel Callon and John Law. Latour [21] believes that separating and hierarchizing human and non-human elements of a network would upend the symmetry of the evolutionary process. ANT, therefore, is more interested in the processive aspect as opposed to the outcome of the relationships and concentrates on how associations between the actants are made and transformed. Proponents of the theory [23] believe that material artefacts can become parts of another network with the actants remaining the same. The roles of the actants and the

14

1 The Context of Technology

networks transform and reconfigure in relational patterns continuously. In the case of disruptive technologies and sociotechnical controversies, a term called ‘the black box’ is defined to add simplicity to actant–network connections. Black boxing a set of connected chains tends to stabilize a network. When a chain becomes complex, the introduction of a new technological artefact serves to conceal the chain inside a black box that has already solved the complexity of the chain. This way, all the actors in the concealed chain become a single-point actor. This process is called punctualization [24]. Hence, the new technological artefact would be seen as simplifying the use of the preceding technology. All things considered, the complexities of ANT cannot be explored through such a brief overview. Nevertheless, it should be stated that there could be few limitations even with such an equalizing theory. By scaling down the value of the actors to the same basal level, the theory tends to gloss over the specific composition of the actors. This could range from the race/culture/age/gender of the human actors to the geographical/political/social context of the non-human actors. While it helps to provide a baseline, the loss of contextuality could also lead to a loss in precision, because such tangible differences are bound to interrelationally affect the functioning of any network. Another disadvantage with ANT is the act of black boxing itself, because when a researcher focuses on one actor, he/she tends to blindside the developments taking place in other actor–network relationships. The evolution of other black boxes, therefore, might lead to repetition, obsolescence and ambiguity. Diffusion of Innovation Theory. The Diffusion of Innovation Theory primarily explains the manner in which newly developed technologies migrate towards or away from their intended usage at the time of creation. Diffusion is the ‘process by which an innovation is communicated through certain channels over a period of time, among the members of a social system’. An innovation is ‘an idea, practice or object that is perceived to be new by individuals or other units of adoption’. ‘Communication is a process by which participants create and share information with each other to reach a mutual understanding’ [25]. According to this theory, technological innovation is communicated through particular channels over time, among the members of a social system. The four major factors that influence the diffusion process are the innovation itself, how information about the innovation is communicated, time and the nature of the social system into which the innovation is being introduced [26]. Joseph Schumpeter (1942) distinguished three stages in the process by which a new, superior technology permeates a marketplace: invention, which constitutes the development of a scientifically or technically new product or process for the first time; innovation, which is accomplished when a new product or process is made available in the market; and diffusion (or dissemination), which is the process that makes a successful innovation gradually available and accessible for use in relevant applications, through adoption by firms or individuals [27]. How newly developed technological innovations impact economies, societies and humans depend largely on the technological changes incorporated to meet social demands. Many internal and external factors are responsible for the diffusion of innovation within an economy. In

1.1 Technological Imperatives

15

an integrated global economic system, the interaction among intellectuals, scientific community, industries and academia has conflated the rate of diffusion of novel ideas. Technology and Globalization. Another interesting debate that can be attributed to technological progress is whether globalization contributed to the evolution of technology or if technology served as a catalyst for globalization. Keeping the broader debate in mind, technology may be defined as the socialized knowledge of producing goods and services, described with five important elements: production, knowledge, instruments, possession and change [28]. The multifaceted process of globalization has lifted barriers across states and evolved a highly comprehensive system with free flow of trade, commerce, ideas and people, enabling economic integration, cultural exchange and social interaction. One of the major drivers of economic globalization has been the reduced cost of transportation and communication as a result of technological progress and innovation. The rise of neoliberalism has led to changes in the patterns of interactions among global economies, and new sectors, such as services/financial services, have emerged along with the exponential growth in production, marketing and flow of goods across the globe. This phenomenon has facilitated the exploitation of technologies developed by individual states and collaborations for technological development and innovation. The effects of technological changes on global economic structures have transformed the way companies and nations organize production, trade goods, invest capital and develop new products and processes. This permits both developed and developing countries to harness technology more efficiently and create higher standards of living for all involved [29]. Since the patterns of technology development are difficult to identify, their study leads to laws which govern the process or help in modelling or developing postulates of theory [30]. Different studies bear different results, but their aim is to predict the agile technology environment in the form of laws, so that the decision-making processes can adapt to these changes swiftly. Impact of Technology on Offence–Defence Balance and Balance of Power. The offence–defence theory argues that conflict and war are more likely to occur when military operations have an advantage over defensive operations, while peace and cooperation are more likely when defensive operations have an advantage. The offence–defence balance is predominantly determined by the state of technology and its applicability in military operations [31]. The shift in balance towards offence is the primary reason for the arms race that exists among nations today. While technological change favouring defence brings in security to the nation state, it also leaves them vulnerable in the face of military modernization. Unfortunately, mostly the processes of offence–defence remain interlinked. For example, the advancing arms race in South Asia is led by the development of offensive military capabilities by India and Pakistan, where India’s threat perception is guided by China’s technological development while Pakistan perceives India to be an immediate threat and proceeds to develop its offensive retaliatory capabilities against the country.

16

1 The Context of Technology

Technology and geography are the two main factors that determine whether offence or defence has an advantage [32]. The offence–defence balance is influenced by technology; more specifically, there are two types of changes that affect the balance—weapons innovation and non-military technological innovation [33]. The two are interlinked, as the development of weapon systems is driven by innovation in military technology and drawing expertise and research from defence research establishments including both governmental and private organizations. Over the years, some advances in technology made in the civilian and commercial spheres have ended up influencing the development of military weaponry. Distinguishing between the two spheres is becoming increasingly difficult given the rapid pace of technological advancement and proliferation. Furthermore, the changes being brought about through innovations in weapons technologies, along with commercial and civilian technological development, might provide the basis for further military modernization alter the offence–defence balance as well. In order to alter the offence–defence balance drastically, a specific technology would need to enable a nation state to utilize its weapons for either offensive or defensive military operations. The six major areas of defence that are influenced by technological innovation are mobility, firepower, protection, logistics, communication and detection [34]. These core operational areas are driven by innovations in technology, as the evolution of military forces is directly proportional to mobility and striking capabilities that overpower the enemy. The introduction of trucks, railways, aircraft and other modes of transportation for varying operational needs enabled the forces to strike deep within the territory of the adversary, favouring offence over defence. Another example of a drastic innovation can be seen in the deployment of radar systems which were used for detecting incoming aerial attacks. Radar systems—as they initially emerged—serve as an example of innovating and improving defensive technologies. However, in the present form, radars are mounted on aerial platforms and used to detect targets on the ground, tilting the usage of technology towards offence. The emergence of drones and other automated technologies also represent this shift from defensive to offensive capabilities and the grey area between civilian and military technologies. The balance of power has been, and continues to remain, a central concept in the theory and practice of international relations—particularly realist and neorealist schools of international relations. In the international system, a nation state has to protect itself from other nations or groups of nations by matching its power against their power. In order to pursue and maintain an equitable balance of power, nations can either increase their own power or form alliances with other states. An example of the former would be the military modernization of Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA), which has raised implications for the balance of power in the Himalayan region as well as across the globe. China is developing offensive as well as defensive elements of military strength in the form of aircraft, aircraft carriers, submarines, ballistic missiles and so on. The national security of a state, therefore, is enhanced when military capabilities are distributed in such a manner that no one state holds an uncontested position of dominance. Furthermore, in the contemporary world security environment, a nation

1.1 Technological Imperatives

17

state faces various traditional as well as non-traditional threats, primarily emerging from non-state actors such as terrorist and criminal organizations. Amidst changing threat perceptions, nation states need to keep developing military capabilities, and this is where technology plays a key role in maintaining security at the physical borders as well as within the national boundaries.

1.1.7 Laws for Growth of Technology It has always been difficult to predict the future of technology, as the growth of technology is influenced by several factors in addition to pure science. These factors include investments, human resources, government policies and market forces. As a result, there are many contradictory views regarding the prediction of future trajectories that might be attributed to technology. While some scholars argue that the growth of technology is steady, others perceive it to be exponential. Some believe that technological growth is discreet while others claim that it could be disruptive. Technology has been a puzzle for eminent researchers studying the field as well as for academics and businessmen. The founder of International Business Machines (IBM), Thomas J. Watson, predicted in 1946 that the world would need just five computers [35]. Intel’s business strategy depends on making newer microprocessors radically faster than previous ones to entice buyers to upgrade their PCs. One way to achieve this was to building chips with vastly more transistors in each device. For example, ‘the 8088 found in the first IBM PC had 29,000 transistors, while the 80386 unveiled four years later included 275,000, and the Core 2 Quad introduced in 2008 had more than 800,000,000 transistors. The Itanium 9500, which was released in 2012, had 3,100,000,000 transistors. This growth in transistor count became known as Moore’s law, named after company cofounder Gordon Moore, who observed in 1965 that the transistor count on a silicon chip would double approximately annually; he revised it in 1975 to a doubling every two years’ [36]. There are relationships between the cost and scale of production. For instance, economies of scale suggest that the cost of a product falls once the scale of production is increased. The interplay of market forces has been a key determinant in this regard. Various push and pull factors and the demand–supply calculus have also influenced the growth rate. The role of the government is central in the development of technology through policies that guide infrastructure and human resources development, capital and collaboration. Taiwan’s case is an apt example where, following the Science and Technology (S&T) Policy of 1959 [37], significant research institutes, science parks and technology forums were established to engage businesses, governments, academia and research scholars towards drafting and reviewing S&T policies. At present, Taiwan possesses world’s largest computer hardware industry [38]. The question that arises, therefore, is why there has not been a single theory such as Darwin’s to explain the development, evolution or proliferation of tech-

18

1 The Context of Technology

nology. Conflicting views have complicated the understanding of innovation when new breakthroughs are made, and debates have ranged between polar extremes of whether society propels technological growth or technology shapes social evolution. Has globalization altered the acceleration of growth or has technology enabled globalization? Is there a demand pull or a technological push? Are changes driven by inventions or through the evolution of existing systems? How do state policies govern innovations in technology? The concept of the predictable evolution of technological systems, proposed by Genrikh Altshuller [39], implies that while various factors like the efforts of individuals producing breakthrough inventions, market forces, political conditions, cultural traditions, etc., may affect the pace of this evolution (speed it up or slow it down), they cannot significantly alter its direction.4 The evolution of technology has been accelerating smoothly and following an increasingly self-catalysing trajectory. Technology is moving towards true autonomy [40] by working as an independent force. It is noteworthy that innovation is brought about by changes in principles applied within a system. For example, aircraft engines were powered by piston-propeller principles, which were replaced by (subsonic to supersonic) engines based on the principle of gas turbines and jet propulsion. This new principle increased both the speed and the efficiency of aircraft engines. The electronic signals that were carried by vacuum tubes earlier are now carried by transistors made of semiconductors, which also drove the expansion of radio broadcasting, television, radar and signal processing while reducing the size of equipment drastically. Inventions, therefore, work in tandem with improvements to propel the growth of technology. Alvin Toffler is a famous futurist. He argues in this book, ‘Future Shock’ [41], that technological innovation consists of three stages, linked together in a self-reinforcing cycle. The first stage is the creative, feasible idea; the second is its practical application, and the third stage is its diffusion through society. He argues that the diffusion of technology and the embodiment of a new idea, in turn, help to generate newer creative ideas. Today, there is evidence that the time between each of the steps in this cycle has shortened. New ideas are put to work more quickly than ever before, and the time between the original concept and its practical application has been radically reduced.

1.2 Innovation The world today is undergoing rapid changes full of uncertainty and complexity. Factors like technological changes and globalization are expediting the changes in the areas of business, education and society. As a result of its transformational impact on industries, innovation has become the new imperative of management [42]. It forms the basis of demarcation between leaders and followers in the industry as the competition for finding better solutions to important problems keeps increasing. Fierce 4 Innovation

on Demand: chapter 5.

1.2 Innovation

19

market competition is actually one of the key driving forces behind organizations bringing in the culture of innovation in order to maintain competitive advantage or provide Unique Value Propositions to their customers or users. Innovation also brings in the growth and profit which are imperatives for the survival of the organization. Innovation is a process by which creativity is applied to every facet of an organization’s value chain, from the beginning to the end, in order to develop new and better ways of creating value. It can also be seen as the refinement or development of an original invention into usable techniques or products [43]. The process of innovation is not restricted to research and development centres, laboratories or the technological sphere; rather it is the behavioural character which spreads across an organization’s value chain and improves its products, processes and services. Innovation happens in an ecosystem where organizations pull in financial resources, human resources, technology, organizational frameworks as well as networks of suppliers, vendors, professionals and partners.

1.2.1 Innovation and Globalization We live in a globalized world order that has enhanced participation and integration in terms of world trade, liberal economic policies, information and communication technologies, etc., under the dome of a global capital market, which is contributing to the unprecedented speed and wide cross section of innovations. There is a shift in the international business environment as multinational corporations spread their research and development activities across the globe and move towards a collaborative model. This model has already been experienced by the international collaborations in basic research. The production of Boeing 787 aircraft has been a result of global collaborative effort in design and development. The composite wing boxes of the aircraft are manufactured by the Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation of Japan, aircraft control surfaces by Alenia Aermacchi of Italy, and some of the aircraft structural components by the Korean Air Aerospace Division of South Korea. The passenger doors are manufactured by Latécoère from France, while the cargo doors, access doors and crew escape door work were contracted to Saab Aero structures of Sweden. The aircraft rudder is supplied by China-based Chengdu Aircraft Industrial Co. Ltd., and interestingly, the computer-aided testing and flight test computing software were handled by HCL Technologies from India. Another Indian company, TAL Manufacturing Solutions Limited, supplied aircraft structural components such as floor beams. The power distribution and management systems and air conditioning have been manufactured by Hamilton Sundstrand of the USA. Boeing has developed a network of suppliers for the 787 Dreamliner aircraft and are involving them in various activities from design, testing and production to component procurement. Under the dynamic ecosystem of market forces and globalization, it is incredibly difficult to anticipate the trajectory of technological growth. In the commercial sector, innovators assess the needs of customers and try to fulfil them. Similarly,

20

1 The Context of Technology

defence manufacturers strive hard to anticipate and fulfil the needs of the armed forces. Innovation strategy is therefore guided by an analysis of business/market conditions, technological environment and the available human, capital and intellectual property resources. The entire process of innovation is a team effort involving inputs from a variety of organizations in the industry and academia, which is fostered by network-based collaborations that are currently spreading across the world in the era of globalization. These characteristics lead to a degree of risk and uncertainty pertaining to investments, the development of skill bases.

1.2.2 The S-Curve of Innovation Every innovation undergoes a surge, maturity and slowness in its growth and saturation phases, leading either to an eventual phasing out of the product or to sustained improvements. Innovation can be understood as an iterative process utilized for refinements in existing product lines. It can involve minor incremental adaptations and improvements to individual components of a complex system or instigate radical changes to the systems that emerge out of new technologies or combinations of existing technologies [44]. For example, mobile handset manufacturers like Samsung, Nokia or Apple continuously launch the upgraded models of their handsets. In the defence industry, refined platforms and upgrades are a part of the sustained innovation strategy. The computer chips fabricator, Intel, retains its leadership in the industry not just because of new products and upgrades, but the speed with which Intel ramps up production and brings new products into the market, thereby rendering other and sometimes its own products obsolete. Innovations impact human behaviour and society to a large extent. Some innovations improve human lives, while others are responsible for fundamentally changing the ways of life [45]. Technology can change the way we communicate, travel, work and interact. One of the most radical innovations of recent times has been the cell phone, which stimulated the advent of industries that manufacture handsets, provide network services and develop software and applications. Similarly, the emergence of televisions, another radical innovation, led to the emergence of television set manufacturers, broadcasters and producers. Such innovations have changed the landscape of human interaction through modes of advertising, distribution of multimedia, information consumption, so on and so forth. The S-Curve framework is used to depict the growth of a variable. This broad mathematical model was found useful for a variety of fields including physics, biology and economics. It has major relevance for judging the maturation of innovations too. Innovation cycles are normally represented by a curve which is flatter at the start and the end and steeper in the middle (S shape) (Fig. 1.1). One of the most interesting examples in this regard is the case of the audio industry, more specifically cassette tapes. Phillips invented the cassette tape for the recording of audio signals, which essentially led to a boom in the music industry. Initially, cassette tapes were played on cassette players, which were bulky in nature and

1.2 Innovation

21

Fig. 1.1 Technology life cycle [46]

required electric connections as a power source. With innovation and development, however, Sony invented the Walkman, which was a portable cassette player that merely required batteries to source its power. Subsequently, the market matured and several other industries (like TDK and Maxwell) began producing diverse gadgets. All these phases can be plotted to the ferment, take-off and maturation phases of the S-Curve. While the competition certainly increased, it did not disrupt technology. On the contrary, the discontinuity phase occurred when Sony and Phillips developed the compact disc. This disrupted the market and began a new S-Curve. Similar models can also be found in a range of industries, like the communications, semiconductor and jet engine sectors, to name a few. Models that conform to the S-Curve paradigm of innovation can be used to analyse different industries at various stages of development and maturity cycles to posit a theory that might be able to explain the successes and failures [47] of these individual technologies.

1.2.3 Innovation, Technologies and the Shift in Techno-economic Paradigms The relationship between technological innovation and economics is conceptualized using the theory of changing techno-economic paradigms. Studies have shown that

22

1 The Context of Technology

eras of intense technology change are characterized by rapid development, which brings in growth opportunities and social changes. It is noteworthy that the nations which are most adept at facilitating and stimulating the institutions for innovation and tapping into emerging techno-economic paradigms are also more likely to achieve higher measures of growth in terms of economy, industry and societal development. Such economies reap the benefits of new technologies for the growth of their industrial and services sectors. The history of technological growth indicates that major inventions provide the groundwork for further inventions. Major breakthroughs trigger the development of new industries, which further enhance the growth of economy. This builds up a techno-economic paradigm that drives reorganization, increases the efficiency of a nation state’s manufacturing base and modifies the social and institutional structures that serve as its frameworks for sustainability. As a result, emerging industries are able to replace the existing or established ones as the growth engines of the economy, while the prevailing paradigms are made obsolete and transformed by new ones [48]. Over the centuries, various changes have been witnessed during various industrial revolutions from the growth of stream engines, the use of electricity in heavy industries, the automobile revolution and most recently, the emergence/of various new technologies based on biological sciences and in the field of information and communication technology. The interaction between the emergence of new technologies and larger economic and social patterns of behaviour can be understood, according to Schumpeter [49], as a process of creative destruction. The effects of a techno-economic paradigm have a close association with Schumpeter’s idea of ‘creative destruction’, which means that it is capable of sustaining a lengthy growth cycle resulting from the emergence, disappearance and reconfiguration of various sectors. At the macro level, various nation states react differently to the effect of a technological paradigm, determining whether or not it succeeds and is able to keep pace with the growth of the world’s economy [50]. The five major waves5 of technological revolution [51] have proved that new technologies not only possess the potential to disrupt earlier ones, but on occasions also allow the simultaneous coexistence of various technologies. The emergence of various new technologies provides numerous opportunities for start-ups or new firms to explore the markets. At the same time, this also poses difficulties for existing firms to sustain themselves. Issues of sustainability can also be attributed to the obsolescence of some occupations and shifts in the structure of employment, both of which lead to changes in the terms of trade between regions and countries. In other words, new technologies bring with them conditions for the establishment of new economic terms [52]. In the context of paradigm shifts, innovation occurs when core technologies become increasingly pervasive and exert influence over wider realms of production as well as distribution of products and services in other segments or industries 5 The

first wave was the Industrial Revolution; the second, the Age of Steam; the third, the Age of Electricity; the fourth, the Age of Mass Production; and the fifth, the rise of information and communication technologies and networks.

1.2 Innovation

23

[52]. For example, the steam engine influenced not only transportation (by land, railroad and sea), but all modes of industrial production and manufacturing as well. Similarly, other core technologies like electricity became crucial for manufacturing, transportation, telecommunications and daily functioning in general while also becoming indispensable for industrial and household applications [53]. Largely, the trend in last two centuries highlights that during major technological advances, there is a clear disruption of existing core technologies and modes of economic operation, which in turn leads to the emergence of a new techno-economic paradigm. The process of this emergence is a result of the interaction among the technological, economic, institutional and social spheres [54]. Alternatively, it is evident that not all advances in technology are disruptive to the point of creating substantial changes in economic and social conditions.

1.3 Disruption Versus Innovation There is a very thin line between innovation and disruption. There could be some confusions about the difference between innovation and disruption. It is always not black and white, but there could be actual distinctions. To use a simple logical analogy, just like every square is a rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares; similarly, disruptors are innovators, but not all innovators are disruptors. Broadly, innovation and disruption are similar since they are both makers and builders [55]; however, there are some key differences between the two. While both acts destabilize the status quo, the effects of disruption and innovation on society are very different. Businesses need to innovate to survive, but do they really need disruption for progress as well? A disruption is defined as the displacement of an existing technology or market. It is an act that leads to systemic changes, while innovation usually has more positive connotations and is correlated with upgradation (even if that is not always the case). Innovation is seen as a rational process while disruption is considered unpredictable, irrational and damaging. For example, the convergence of technology and transport—vis-a-vis services like Uber—could be termed disruption whereas converting an existing taxi (a vehicle run on petrol) into an electronic taxi (vehicle running on the batteries) could be associated with innovation since the latter is ‘just a new way of doing something’). As mentioned earlier, disruption is unpredictable and there is little to no control (by the society or the industry) over the change or what that change portends for the future. This does not necessarily mean it is always a negative thing, in fact, some people consider disruption a higher form of innovation [56]. There is a view [57] that companies keeping constant tabs on the happenings within technology and business domains can judge trends, recognize that disruption is inevitable and adopt it as an active business strategy. Conceptually, the two ideas of improving currently prevalent technology and coming up with a paradigmatic shift that makes current technology obsolete form the basis of most discussions about technological progress between the spectrum of innovation and disruption. Some commonly used terms in this regard are Sustaining

24

1 The Context of Technology

Innovation and Disruptive Innovation. Sustaining technologies are the ones that are known to improve a product or a service; however, such improvement occurs a bit differently compared to standard market expectations. Aside from these two concepts, a slightly more tenuous concept has emerged in the twentieth century, called Creative Destruction (1942). This concept has been formulated by the famous twentieth century economist, Mr. Joseph Schumpeter (also credited for the concept of entrepreneurship). The concept emerged in support of his primary thesis, to validate his basic argument that capitalism would lead to its own destruction [58]. The phenomenon of creative destruction refers to the incessant ‘product and process’ innovation mechanism by which new production units replace outdated ones. Technologically, creative destruction can be referred to as the phenomena of a civilization shifting from agricultural practices to the Industrial Revolution, steam boats to railroads, from railroads to airplanes, telegrams to telephones, and from newspapers to the Internet. It is argued that the process of creative destruction is an essential part of economic growth and fluctuations/hindrances to this process can have severe short- and long-term macroeconomic costs [58]. While this theory attempts to create a grandstanding narrative for human progress, it ends up simplifying the progressive paradigmatic shifts in the society by attributing all major changes to large corporations. This is not necessarily the case with most paradigmatic shifts, and the limitations of this theory were highlighted when Clayton Christensen (2009) presented an alternative model that has since been termed Christensen’s ‘disruption’. He demonstrated that unlike what Schumpeter’s theory suggests about disruption coming from ‘large companies’, most historical cases of disruption show that it came from smaller ones [59]. Issues like the innovators’ dilemma are a predicament for both the scientific and the business community because not all innovations are created equal. Some of them fail to find traction with the markets and end up being unsustainable. There are also multiple cases of innovations turning out to be worthless. On 27 May 2010, Time Magazine [60] published a list of The 50 Worst Inventions of All Time. The success of innovations, therefore, depends on its acceptability by society.

1.4 Closure Technology in general and defence technology in particular has witnessed amazing growth over last few centuries. There are multiple dimensions for understanding the emerging/new technology paradigms and the processes of technology development. Largely, there has been acceptance to absorb new technological revolutions within society (with their normative ideas). The progression of various industrial revolutions demonstrates that humans have realized the importance of technology for their survival and growth. Humans have been using and deploying technologies in every field of life, from heath to wealth creation. Since the First World War, it has been observed that nation states are placing national interests at the core while dealing with technology. It is, therefore, crucial to understand how technologies would shape the context for future conflicts.

References

25

References 1. Grubler, A.: Technology and Global Change, vol. 20. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998) 2. Riordan, M., Hoddeson, L.: Crystal Fire, vol. 8–8. W.W. Norton & Company, New York 3. Nye, J.: Bound to lead: the changing nature of American power. Basic Books, New York (1990) 4. Lele, A.: Power dynamics of India’s space program. Astropolitics 14(2–3), 120–134 (2016) 5. Your Article Library. National Power: Elements, Evaluation and Limitation (2018). http:// www.yourarticlelibrary.com/india-2/national-power-elements-evaluation-and-limitations/ 48489/. Accessed 20 Feb 2018 6. Jablonsky, D.: National Power: U.S. Army war college guide to strategy, the air university, United States Air Force (2001). http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army-usawc/strategy/ 08jablonsky.pdf. Accessed 12 Mar 2018 7. Gallarotti, G.M.: More Revisions in Realism: Hobbesian Anarchy, the Tale of the Fool, and International Relations Theory, vol. 68. Division II Faculty Publications (2008). https:// wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/div2facpubs/68. Accessed 03 Oct 2018 8. Ferraro, V.: Political Realism: Mount Holyoke College (2018). https://www.mtholyoke.edu/ acad/intrel/pol116/realism.htm. Accessed 08 Jan 2018 9. Algosaibi, G.A.R.: The theory of international relations: Hans J. Morgenthau and his critics. Background 8(4), 221–256 (1965). https://www.pc.gov.pk/uploads/pub/4th-CPEC-PaperConference-on-EoNP-2.pdf. Accessed on 25 Sept 2018 10. Hattendorf, J.B. (ed.): The influence of history on Mahan. In: The Proceedings of a Conference Marking the Centenary of Alfred Thayer Mahan’s the Influence of Sea Power Upon History, 1660–1783, Naval War College Press, Newport, Rhode Island, 1991, op cit 11. Singh, B.P.: The challenge of good governance in India: need for innovative approaches. In: Second international conference of the Global Network of Global Innovators organized by Ash Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation and John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University during March 31–April 2, 2008, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. http://www.innovations.harvard.edu/cache/documents/1034/103461.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec 2017 12. The Deepening Relationship Between Science and Technology and Society (2018). http://www. mext.go.jp/component/english/__icsFiles/afieldfile/2011/03/03/1302821_001.pdf. Accessed 23 Jan 2018 13. Latour, B.: On actor-network theory: a few clarifications. Soziale Welt 47(4), 369–381 (1996) 14. Lohan, M.: Constructive tensions in feminist technology studies. Soc. Stud. Sci. 30(6), 895–916 (2000) 15. Adler, P.S.: Technological Determinism (2018). http://www-bcf.usc.edu/~padler/. Accessed 2 Oct 2018 16. Marx, L.: Technology: the emergence of a hazardous concept, technology and culture (2010). http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Marx-TC-2010-51.pdf. Accessed 21 Feb 2018 17. Ellul, J.: The ‘Autonomy of the technological phenomenon’. In: The Technological Condition: An Anthology (2018). http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/papers/autonomy.pdf. Accessed on 12 Feb 2018 18. Edward, H.: Digital public administration and e-government in developing nations: policy and practice (2013) 19. Surry, D.: Diffusion theory and instructional technology (2018). http://ascilite.org/archivedjournals/e-jist/docs/vol2no1/article2.htm. Accessed 02 Feb 2018 20. Pinch, T.J., Bijker, W.E.: The social construction of facts and artifacts from. In: The Social Construction of Technological Systems (2018). http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_ 5110/bijker2.pdf. Accessed 02 Feb 2018 21. Latour, B.: On actor-network theory. A few clarifications plus more than a few complications (2018). http://www.bruno-latour.fr/sites/default/files/P-67%20ACTOR-NETWORK.pdf. Accessed on 21 July 2018

26

1 The Context of Technology

22. http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Cressman-ABriefOverviewofANT.pdf. Accessed on 22 Sept 2018 23. Mützel, S.: Networks as culturally constituted processes: a comparison of relational sociology and actor-network theory. Curr. Soci. 57(6), 871–887 24. Adam, A., Gluch, P., Julin, J.: Using actor-network theory to understand knowledge sharing in an architecture firm (2018). http://publications.lib.chalmers.se/records/fulltext/202355/local_ 202355.pdf. Assessed on 22 July 2018 25. Rogers, E.: Diffusion of Innovations (1995) 26. Surry, D.W.: Diffusion theory and instructional technology (1997). http://www2.gsu.edu/ ~wwwitr/docs/diffusion/. Accessed 12 Mar 2018 27. http://www.oecd.org/env/cc/2956490.pdf, and http://www.academia.edu/1053409/ TECHNOLOGY_AND_INNOVATION. Accessed 21 Feb 2018 28. http://mediaif.emu.edu.tr/pages/atabek/GCS7.html. Accessed 7 Jan 2018 29. http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=1101&page=1. Accessed 17 Mar 2018 30. http://www.innovation-america.org/tracking-technological-evolution. Accessed 17 Mar 2018 31. http://www.stanford.edu/class/polisci211z/2.3/Lieber%20IS%202000.pdf. Accessed 5 Jan 2018 32. http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/trachtenberg/guide/jervissecdil.pdf. Accessed 9 Feb 2018, p. 194 33. http://slantchev.ucsd.edu/courses/pdf/lynn-jones%20-%20offense-defense%20theory% 20and%20its%20critics.pdf. Accessed 2 Feb 2018, p. 667 34. file:///C:/Users/USER/Downloads/2539240.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2018, pp. 61–62 35. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/feb/21/computing.supercomputers. Accessed 24 Sept 2018 36. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Intel#ref338628. Accessed 28 Aug 2018 37. Rise of a Technological Powerhouse. www.taiwan.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=44954&ctNode= 1906&mp=999, and https://www.taiwan.gov.tw/. Accessed 13 July 2018 38. Chengappa, B.M.: India-Taiwan relations: shifting strategic priorities. In: Vinod, M.J., Ger, Y., Kumar, S.S.Y. (eds.) Security Challenges in the Asia-Pacific Region, p. 131. Viva Books, New Delhi (2009) 39. Mann, D.: An introduction to TRIZ: the theory of innovative problem solving. Creativity Innov. Manage. 10(2), 123–125 (2001) 40. Smart, J.: A brief history of intellectual discussion of accelerating change. http://www. accelerationwatch.com/history_brief.html. Accessed 24 Dec 2017 41. Toffler, A.:. Future Shock. Random House, Inc., New York (1970) 42. http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2013/03/07/how-to-manage-innovation-2. Accessed 9 Dec 2017 43. Maital, S., Seshadri, D.V.R.: Innovation Management, vol. 29 44. Dodgson, M., Gann, D., Salter, A.: The Management of Technological Innovation, vol. 3 45. Maital, S., Seshadri, D.V.R.: Innovation Management, vol. 59 46. http://www.galsinsights.com/the-innovation-s-curve/. Accessed 15 Apr 2017 47. http://www.galsinsights.com/the-innovation-s-curve/, and http://innovationzen.com/blog/ 2006/08/17/innovation-management-theory-part-4/. Accessed 1 June 2017 48. Perez, C.: Technological revolutions and techno-economic paradigms. Working paper on technology governance and economic dynamics, vol. 20 (2009) 49. Joseph Alois Schumpeter (1883–1950) was an economist and one of the 20th century’s wellknown intellectuals. He is best known for his 1942 book “Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy” 50. http://www.eclac.org/publicaciones/xml/2/33282/chapterIV_2008-118-SES.32-INGLESWEB-OK.pdf. Accessed 20 Dec 2017 51. Desha, C., Hargroves, K.C.: Informing engineering education for sustainable development using a deliberative dynamic model for curriculum renewal. In: Proceedings of the Research in Engineering Education Symposium, Madrid (2011) 52. http://in3.dem.ist.utl.pt/laboratories/pdf/5_6.pdf. Accessed 24 Feb 2018

References

27

53. http://in3.dem.ist.utl.pt/laboratories/pdf/5_6.pdf. Accessed 14 Mar 2018 54. http://in3.dem.ist.utl.pt/laboratories/pdf/5_6.pdf. Accessed 23 Mar 2018 55. https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehoward/2013/03/27/you-say-innovator-i-say-disruptorwhats-the-difference/#1567dc4a6f43. Accessed 28 Dec 2017 56. https://www.activategroupinc.com/2015/09/is-there-a-difference-between-innovation-anddisruption/. Accessed 13 Aug 2017 57. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sponsored/business/the-elevator/12168170/business-innovationversus-disruption.html. Accessed 14 Aug 2017 58. https://economics.mit.edu/files/1785. Accessed 2 June 2017 59. https://seanmalstrom.wordpress.com/2010/11/02/the-end-of-the-schumpeter-prophecy/. Accessed 26 Nov 2017 60. http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/05/27/the-50-worst-inventions-of-all-time/. Accessed 1 June 2017

Chapter 2

Defence and Disruptive Technologies

2.1 Background For many centuries, organized warfare, as it is understood today, was an unfamiliar idea for mankind.1 During the Stone Age, when wars (or fights/skirmishes) were fought for food, resources or survival, the methodology was very different from the kind of warfare humans engage in today. Large-scale armies and structuring differences aside, even the most basic tools used to attack an adversary or defend self were simplistic and crafted from easily available resources. Since the pre-war period (commonly understood as the period before the Second World War), documentation of wars has become increasingly accessible. The available evidence leads us to infer that technologies did impact warfighting in those periods. From both pre- and postwar history, it has emerged that technology has been an intricate part of defence strategies for many decades and played an important role in shaping military doctrines and rules of warfare. More importantly, technology appears to have been at the centre of deciding outcomes of war, often shaping the course of history through its presence or absence. The evolution of technology has impacted the outcome of various conflicts. It is important to recognize that technology has had a major impact on the process of warfighting. It is not merely weapons or weapon systems that influence war, but also peripheral technological developments that play a major role in deciding the outcomes of war. Technologies that allow us to build roads, vehicles and communication equipment, among other things, play an important role in deciding the course of war. Broadly, infrastructure goes a long way in dictating the character of organizations, logistics, intelligence, strategies, even outcomes of battles [2]. Different types of technologies have different roles to play, and the nature of their impact on warfare differs accordingly. For example, small arms, light weapons and landmines serve as

1 For

a detailed historical account of warfare, please refer [1].

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 A. Lele, Disruptive Technologies for the Militaries and Security, Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies 132, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3384-2_2

29

30

2 Defence and Disruptive Technologies

tactical weapons, while nuclear weapons and ballistic missile defence systems are strategic weapons. Therefore, the question that emerges is: Can technologies influence the future of war? Historically, there have been several instances to support this argument. The use of nuclear weapons against Japan led to Second World War ending in the favour of the USA. The Gulf War of 1991 is also an excellent example of the use of technology combined with tactical innovation. It demonstrated the importance of electronic warfare and eventually defined the outcome of the war. The warfare landscape is moulded by innovation in the research and development of technology, as well as the integration of these developments with tactical and strategic realms. For example, Blitzkrieg was a tactic used by German forces during Second World War. It was an innovative method to gain speed using coordination and swift movement among mechanized infantry with aerial support. There are various other examples that prove that technology has consistently impacted the modus operandi of warfare since the beginning of armed conflict. In the current day and age, unprecedented technological change has impacted every sphere of life and consequently has had significant implications for national security. Nuclear weapons, the development of military platforms, intelligence gathering and countering terrorism are all examples of the central role played by technology today. The exponential trajectory of technological weapons—specifically 1750 onwards—has transformed modern warfare and its diffusion across the globe [3]. The inventor for explosives is not known, but the consensus is that it originated in China around the tenth century. The first discovered plastic explosive was gelignite in 1875, invented by Alfred Nobel. The advent of aircraft and submarines in the early years of the twentieth century and nuclear weapons in the later years has resulted in shaping the modern warfare in unimaginable ways. Horses were the backbone of the cavalry. Soldiers mounted on horsebacks in the battlefield to engage in mobile combat and outpower their opponents who were usually on foot. By the First World War, the horse-based cavalry was phased out in order to pave the way for armoured tanks that dominated the battlefield in operational mobility. Similarly, the usage of hot air balloons for reconnaissance2 in the battlefield was taken over by aircraft, which were designed for different purposes like surveillance and reconnaissance. A further shift in technology occurred when unmanned systems were brought in for high endurance missions dedicated to intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) activities. A modern armed force employs a wide array of technologies which have either evolved over long duration of time or disruptively made inroads into defence operations across land, sea, air and space. These technologies include (but are not limited to) robotics, wireless communication, cryptography, lasers, rockets, radars and remote sensing. The most significant fact, however, is that the numerous developments that have occurred across the spectrum are now poised to change the essential contours of the military technology. The exponential growth of unmanned and increasingly autonomous robotic systems, 2 The first major-scale use of

balloons in the military occurred during the American Civil War with the Union Army Balloon Corps established and organized by Prof. Thaddeus S. C. Lowe in the summer of 1861.

2.1 Background

31

the power of data mining technologies, the potential of additive manufacturing and directed-energy weapons could dramatically alter the offence–defence balance in key military competitions [4]. The fact that technology impacts warfare is evident from the role it played during both the world wars. During the First World War, tanks changed the landscape of the battlefield and continued to dominate the battlespace until the evolution of unmanned (aerial and ground) systems. The operations that were spread across wide geographical areas needed improved communication within the forces, which propelled innovations in communication technology. As a result, many new disciplines in warfare emerged, such as network-centric warfare, command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR), signals intelligence (SIGINT), communications intelligence (COMINT), electronic intelligence (ELINT), image intelligence (IMINT), electronic warfare. These developments are now poised to transform technology in the military sphere and are categorized under the ambit of disruptive technologies.3 Furthermore, additional developments and innovations in the realms of computer science, manufacturing, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, lasers and cyberspace are being made on a daily basis. The net result contains tremendous potential for applications in the defence and military sectors, ranging from unmanned systems to data mining, directed-energy weapons to cryptography and so on. These modifications and evolutions improve the striking capability of militaries across the world.

2.2 Technology and Warfare Mankind has come a long way since its use of primitive offensive weapons such as stones, spears, bows and arrows for self-defence (defence shield). Similarly, the tools and techniques used by the armies in older civilizations have developed as well. Historically, in warfare, the side that possesses technological superiority is at an advantage. In the present context, defence forces use advanced technologies in the form of aircraft, precision-guided weapons, unmanned vehicles and missile systems. The numerous innovations that took place during the first half of the twentieth century helped shape the methods of warfare adopted during the two world wars. The world witnessed the emergence of some tremendously sophisticated technologies such as radars, jammers and nuclear weapons that have innumerable applications for the civilian sphere in sectors of aviation and energy as well. For example, the use of observation balloons for intelligence gathering and spotting of enemy formations was prominent during the First World War. In 1917, Nikola Tesla laid down the premise of the modern radar, based on the principles of the reflection of electromagnetic waves. This technology was then further developed by the US Navy in 1940 to 3 The

word ‘disruptive’ connotes an interruption or upset to the orderly progression of an event, process or activity. ‘Disruptive’ can also imply confusion or disorder or a drastic alteration in structure. In short, it entails a discontinuity.

32

2 Defence and Disruptive Technologies

locate enemy crafts and ships. The end of the Second World War instigated the need for better technology in warfare, which in turn fuelled competition among nation states to produce the best technologies under shrinking time frames. This led to the rise of satellites, communication technology, ballistic missiles, jet engines, and other innovations that are critical for today’s combat operations. Historical evidence has proven that military priorities play a major role in the development of technology. Military needs have been known to influence specific technologies and their scientific development [5]. The need for nuclear weapons, satellites and Internet navigation systems for military applications played a key role in the development of these fields, which were then repurposed and further innovated for civilian/non-military usage as well, particularly in sectors of energy and aviation (air traffic control, nuclear power, nuclear medicine). The overall development of technology happens in an ecosystem where experts from the fields of mathematics, sciences and engineering collaborate in applied and fundamental research to address existing gaps. There are some fields which might not be directly applicable to the military domain, but countless others are fundamental to the process of military modernization. Militaries and the national security that they help uphold form a fundamental axis of power in any society, and for the sake of survival, their priorities continue to influence research programmes. For example, mathematics, while not directly linked to military applications, is nevertheless essential for cryptography. The field of cryptography has gained a substantial amount of attention since the First World War due to its applications in secure communication. There have been serious attempts by the National Security Agency of the USA to either weaken cryptography standards [6] or have backdoors [7] in them to gain access to ciphertexts, owing to national security imperatives. Military and national security needs have been guiding the trajectory of many technologies under development, with the active involvement of governments in research and development infrastructures. Some interesting propositions relating technology and warfare include [8]: (1) Technology, more than any other outside force, shapes warfare, and, conversely, war (not warfare) shapes technology. (2) Military technology is, however, not deterministic. Rather, (3) technology opens doors. And, finally, (4) these characteristics of military technology are easier to see in the modern period than previously, though they have always been at work. It is argued that technology shapes warfare (the conduct of war), not war. The distinction between warfare and war is such that war is a condition in which a state might find itself in, and warfare is a physical activity conducted by armed forces in the context of war. As per this observation, technology defines, governs and circumscribes warfare; it is the instrument of warfare and drives changes in warfare more than any other factor. However, much technology may change warfare, and it never determines warfare—neither how it will be conducted nor how it will turn out (this is just one of many opinions regarding the issue). It is, however, technology that opens up new domains of warfare. Land/surface warfare moved to the sea with the advent of naval ships in the nineteenth century. The invention of the aircraft led to further evolution and opened up a new domain with aerial warfare, as aircraft were pressed into strategic bombing, air support and air superiority roles around the mid-twentieth-century mark. The use of space and cyberspace

2.2 Technology and Warfare

33

for military purposes has emerged as the fourth and fifth domain of warfare, respectively; both have been manifestations of technology in the later part of the twentieth century. Furthermore, given increasing interconnectivity, all domains of warfare now intersect with each other. Space is instrumental to modern warfare—it enables communication, navigation, cartography, maritime domain awareness, battlefield domain awareness—and is progressively being used for ballistic missile defence purposes as well. Furthermore, technologies like anti-satellite weapons have emerged as threats to space-based assets that serve as key enablers of warfare. Hence, broadly, each technology could shape, define, circumscribe and govern a new kind of warfare [9]. The dynamics of warfare are constantly changing on the basis of the developments in technology. This interdependence is one of the key reasons for military strategists to keep a tab on the way innovations are taking shape of path-breaking technologies in the wide spectrum of sciences. While the outcome of the world wars was dictated by the industrial mass production of weaponry, innovation is going to guide the future of the armed forces. Agility and swift deployment in remote geographical areas is the need of the hour. That this has been foreseen by the military establishment is evident from the trust put by nation states in the institutionalization of research and development and its integration with the industry. While the tools used to conduct warfare have evolved at different places at different times in the history of armed conflicts, in the modern globalized world, there has been an institutionalized and rationalized mechanism for continuously and systematically innovating military technology [10].

2.3 Disruptive Technologies in Defence The term ‘disruptive technology’4 has its origins in the commercial world and has become one of the most widely accepted scholarly words used to explain the influence of technological manifestation on decision-making processes. The dual-use nature of technology and its interchangeable usage in both commercial and military arenas make military technology susceptible to disruption. Since commercial and military ecosystems are different in terms of consumption and utility, an analysis of the conceptual model of disruptive technology—particularly in terms of military technology—needs revision. Innovation in the commercial sector is driven by demand forecasts, as technology serves a consumer base that is typically spread across the globe in large numbers. Furthermore, the products are manufactured in large quantities, and a significantly large inventory is maintained. Consumers of military technology, on the other hand, are primarily the armed forces, and given the lethal nature of the technology, the export of military hardware is governed by stringent arms control regimes. Since the consumers of military technology are limited in number, the production of military hardware is based on the exact demand generated and 4 The

word ‘disruptive’ connotes an interruption or upset to the orderly progression of an event, process or activity. “Disruptive” can also imply confusion or disorder, or a drastic alteration in structure. In short, it entails a discontinuity.

34

2 Defence and Disruptive Technologies

inventories are not maintained for off-the-shelf procurement. Furthermore, research in defence is heavily funded by the governments of nation states, while research in the commercial sector is guided by the efforts and investments of private establishments in their respective domains of operation. For instance, research in the pharmaceuticals sector of India is carried out by Dr. Reddy’s Labs or Ranbaxy, in order to build new markets and maintain competitive advantage. The research in defence, on the other hand, falls primarily under the ambit of governmental institutions such as the Defence Research and Development Organization for security reasons, either in their own laboratories or at universities funded by these establishments. Disruptive technologies are those revolutionary technologies that suddenly and unexpectedly displace an established technology from the market. There have been numerous instances of disruptions in the recent past, such as digital cameras replacing film cameras,5 mobile phones replacing wire line telephones, portable computing devices replacing desktops. In the realm of defence and security, a disruptive technology represents a technological development that significantly changes the rules or conduct of conflict within one or two generations. Such a change forces the planning process of the defence establishment to adapt itself and align its long-term goals according to the developments [11]. Defence establishments build their capabilities around indigenous technology bases or the technologies available to them through procurements as per the defence budgets. Any disruption in technology would force its military leadership to be vigilant about developments that are capable of changing the conduct of operations. For instance, the growing influence of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has brought in the concept of network-centricity to modern-day warfare. The armed forces are moving towards improving agility in their strategic and tactical operations, and this is enabled by the use of ICTs to integrate platforms and overcome geographical limitations. The unprecedented growth rate of technology makes it difficult to analyse the risks and impacts of technology on the core functions of an organization. For instance, the rate of growth of semiconductor fabrication displaces existing platforms by increasing the efficiency and reducing the size of devices substantially. Therefore, in the case of the military, by the time forecasted changes based on current technology are implemented, the same technology has already evolved into a more complex form, thereby making the implemented changes obsolete. This dynamic evolutionary process and the inability of militaries to keep up with it has been identified as a challenge in a report on disruptive technology and US Defence Strategy, published by the Centre for New American Security.6 Additionally, the phenomenon of globalization has led to a further diffusion of military technology and has made acquiring technology relatively cost-effective, due to increased access and diversified marketplaces. The world today is more interconnected, and as a result, an innovative idea or a breakthrough in a small arena is capable of triggering significant disruptions in the technological industry across the globe. These two key drivers of disruption—the constant evo5 For

example, Eastman Kodak, the dominant company in the photography industry for a century lost its relevance with the emergence of digital imaging technology and smartphones. 6 CNAS game changers.

2.3 Disruptive Technologies in Defence

35

lution of technology and the rising interconnectedness of a globalized world—have reduced the time frame that policy-makers, defence planners, research organizations and institutions have to respond to and align with the changing trajectory of disruptive technologies. In the context of varying ecosystems, the conceptual model developed by Prof. Clayton Christensen for disruptive technologies needs to be applied in the analysis of defence technology. In terms of social impact, disruptive technologies or innovations fundamentally change the patterns of human communication and interaction.7 For defence application, a disruptive technology may be offensive, defensive, or ‘spin-off’. Offensive applications of technology provide ‘transformational’ new capabilities, while defensive applications indicate that the capability has been developed as a response to counter someone else’s advantage. However, technology is rarely so clear cut in its functioning and, more often than not, serves a dual purpose. Commercially developed technologies that have military applications could be designated as ‘spin-offs’.8 Research in the fields of science and engineering has led to the emergence of novel technologies. While the disruptive potential of new technologies might not be apparent initially, but when the technology is applied or combined in an innovative way, it generates a disrupting effect. In certain cases, however, a scientific or technological breakthrough can lead to a disruptive technology that can change the status quo to such an extent that it leads to the demise of an existing infrastructure.9 A new term to encompass the offset caused by such technologies in the defence sphere is ‘game-changing’ technology. It is defined as the ‘technology or [a] collection of technologies applied to a relevant problem in a manner that radically alters the symmetry of military power between competitors. The use of this technology immediately outdates the policies, doctrines and organizations of all actors’.10 The figure below [12] shows a modification of the Henderson—Clark Model (1990). Such models essentially divide the technological knowledge required to develop new products, and subsequently to introduce innovations, alongside two new dimensions: knowledge of the components and knowledge of the linkage among them, called architectural knowledge.

7 Assessing

socially disruptive technological change: 211.

8 ADA524679. 9 Committee 10 CNAS

on forecasting: 11. game changers: 11.

36

2 Defence and Disruptive Technologies

2.4 Emerging and New Technologies In general, the term ‘emerging technology’ is understood better than ‘disruptive technology’. The term disruptive signifies discontinuity, and therefore, new technologies that can be used for warfighting by replacing and effectively discontinuing earlier technologies can be called disruptive technologies. However, this tends to be an extremely simplistic way of looking at the induction of new technologies and replacing existing technologies in the military domain. There are occasions when new technologies are introduced for non-technical reasons as well. It is not the purpose here to discuss the ‘politics’ behind technological induction; however, to maintain the larger context, it is essential to mention that ‘merit’ might not always be the case for military technology being assimilated into the system. “Emerging technologies” are gaining considerable attention globally, not only in the field of international security but also in the fields of economics and business. These technologies have the potential to change ‘the rules of the game’, whether that ‘game’ is the balance of military power between security actors or the balance of competitive advantage between incumbent companies and new entrants in a market. These technologies are also getting recognized as new technologies that are at different stages of development. The technologies that are at a nascent level of development and are characterized by considerable uncertainty pose the question, ‘will their apparent technological promise be fulfilled and if so, how long would it take?’

2.4 Emerging and New Technologies

37

[13]. In the literature, at times the terms ‘emerging technologies’, ‘new technologies’ and ‘disruptive technologies’ are used interchangeably. A disruptive technology can even change the status of an available infrastructure, leading to its demise [14]. In the military context, it is essential to understand places where disruptive technologies could be considered an extension of existing technologies or warfighting techniques. For example, the induction of the supersonic aircraft led to changes in the doctrinal manner of thinking of the armed forces, which led to a ‘disruption’ in the ways various aerial platforms were used for warfighting. But, actually is a simple increase in the speed of existing aircraft be termed as ‘disruptive’? It would be more accurate to characterize this change as an enhancement of technology rather than disruptive in character. During the Cold War era, various path-breaking military technological developments were found to have taken place. Many technologies that were developed had major civilian utilities (realized on a later date) as well, but were primarily developed for military use. It is important to appreciate that in the years from Second World War to the Cold War, the key focus of major military technology development projects was on nuclear projects. The chief agenda of the then superpowers (the USA and the USSR) was to develop technologies that could add more ‘strength’ to their nuclear arsenal. Radars, computers, networks, satellite-based navigational systems like the GPS and various reconnaissance mechanisms gained prominence during this period. Few of them could be categorized as new technologies, few were upgraded versions of existing technologies, and few were disruptive technologies. Today, it can be said that the overall exploitation of the electromagnetic spectrum has become disruptive in nature. The maturation process of any technology usually follows a very complex track. The challenge is to convert scientific findings into a workable and useful technology module and subsequently induct and operationalize it as part of the military system. The period of the industrial revolution (1760–1830) was followed by major technological breakthroughs in various civilian and military fields, which have, over the years, made fundamental transformations in military technologies as well. Growth in military technology in the twenty-first century has been more in the form of upgrading existing technologies and juxtaposing information technology tools with existing systems. With the development of newer applications in the IT field, parallel developments are also being witnessed in the military technology sector. Hence, in the present context, it becomes very difficult to differentiate between upgraded technologies and disruptive technologies. The assessment of the efficiency of any military technology happens mostly during wars. For understanding the impact of disruptive technologies, they have been identified at the backdrop of major wars/periods of war/war eras. During the First World War and Second World War periods, various technologies made their entry into the battlefield and some of them ended up revolutionizing the concept of warfighting itself. Since these wars were prolonged, there were enough opportunities for military leadership to test out the efficacy of the technology introduced and also carry out changes, if required. In comparison, modern wars last only for a few days. While various new military technologies did make their presence felt during the

38

2 Defence and Disruptive Technologies

Cold War period, their major showcasing was witnessed during the 1991 Gulf War. Subsequently, in the post-9/11 era, conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq also witnessed the deployment of new technologies particularly robotic technologies. Interestingly, there have also been some occasions where the demonstration of some technologies has been visible during periods of peace. The so-called accidental bombing (7 May 1999) of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade that killed three people and ended up exhibiting the Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) is one such example. Essentially, this weapon munition system offers major advantages over conventional bombs dropped from aircraft. Furthermore, there are disruptive technologies in the civilian domain that have indirectly enhanced specific military capabilities. For example, as mentioned earlier, digital photography has largely displaced the concept of using ‘films’ for photography, despite the latter practice being in vogue for almost 150 years. The presence of the digital image allows militaries and news agencies to transmit real-time images. Such capabilities also have major relevance for sharing appropriate intelligence.

2.5 Disruptive Military Technologies Generally, technological development in the twenty-first century is demonstrative of the difficulty in clearly delineating which existing military technology could be directly replaced by potentially disruptive technologies. In the past, however, there have been examples that have exhibited the influx of disruptive technologies. Some cases that have had a major impact on military thinking, doctrines, policies and practices over the years are discussed below.

2.5.1 Tanks The First World War (1914–1918), also known as the Great War, is considered to have been one of the most lethal conflicts ever fought in recent history, killing almost 9–10 million combatants. It has also been stated that before this war, military tactics were normally devoid of smart use technology. It was during the latter part of the war that new military technologies started making their presence felt on the battlefield. One of the most potent offensive weapons (that could even be called a weapons platform) called the tank made its entry during this war and remains tremendously relevant even for twenty-first-century warfare. The concept of a tank—a vehicle that could have armour, firepower and all-terrain mobility—had been mooted for almost a decade before the beginning of the Great War. It was the actual commencement of this battle, however, that led to urgency towards its development. The core idea was to develop an engine driven machine with an armoured shelter and caterpillar tracks capable of crossing trenches and providing fire support. Initial research for this military platform took place in the

2.5 Disruptive Military Technologies

39

Great Britain and France. The vehicle was originally nicknamed ‘Little Willie’ and was produced during Aug/Sep 1916 at William Foster & Co. The first demonstration of this vehicle was given to the British Army on 2 Feb 1916, with the French fielding their first tank in April 1917. Eventually, however, it was the French who showed more interest in this platform and opted for the production of many more tanks [15]. It is important to appreciate the role technology played during First World War, within the context of that period’s ground realities. It was a significantly prolonged war and offered varying challenges to military leadership. Ironically, in those days, technical organizations in the armies were not held in high esteem and their activities tended to be ignored by conventional staff officers, who believed in the sanctity of personal combat. In most armies, the ruling cliques were the cavalry or the infantrymen, while technologists were drawn from the artillery, engineers and the random handfuls who had become involved with mechanized transport vehicles. The former were out of their depth in technology and mistrusted the technologists, who, frequently in desperation, were compelled to cause friction with a hard sell for their wares [16]. The general approach adopted towards military evolution has thus far been to multiply existing weapon systems so that more soldiers can be armed. Efforts have been made to increase the production of guns, machine guns and other weaponry for this purpose. Trench warfare was a major challenge in the beginning of the war. The challenge was to look for instruments which could demolish the trench barrier. Wheeled motor vehicles fitted with machine guns were used for some time, and they, along with a few other modified vehicles, were put to use on the battlefield with limited success. The military requirement at the time was to have an instrument which could breach the trench challenge. Huge armies were found stuck in an almost static trench system. In First World War, the tank was introduced for the explicit role of breaking through hurdles covered by artillery and machine-gun fire. Tanks were viewed as a modern equivalent of the cavalry [17]. First World War witnessed the introduction of two major breakthrough technologies—battle tanks and gas (chemical weapons). Germans were the first to use gas as a weapon in First World War. There have been differences of opinions among historians regarding the specifics of the campaign that initiated the use of tanks in First World War. The Battle of Cambrai (20 November–7 December 1917), which was the British campaign, usually gets credited for the initial use of battle tanks. Some disagree and claim that it was actually the French forces that had deployed a significant number of tanks in the battlefield, few months before the British forces [18]. There are evidences to suggest that the tanks first went into action on the British side [19] during the Battle of the Somme on 15 September 1916. Some broke down or sank into craters, and some collapsed dugouts or their crews became disorientated. There were also triumphs [20]. It has been recorded that in the Battle of Cambrai, 378 tanks were used en masse. They aided an advance of five miles, before half were damaged or broke down. Arguments raged over how best to use them, as ‘infantry support or a fully mechanized army?’ Crucially, British commanders supported them and they kept developing in form and use while being used along with infantry [21].

40

2 Defence and Disruptive Technologies

It can therefore be safely argued that the tanks made inroads into the battlefield during First World War and provided their owners with the elements of surprise and technical superiority. Since then, tanks have offered not only military superiority but a psychological advantage to its possessors.

2.5.2 Transportation Systems The speed and efficiency with which military forces can be deployed are a significant factor in determining military advantage over adversaries. For example, the development and establishment of rail transport was in full swing during the Civil War, and the use of the railroad by General Ulysses S. Grant for moving troops and supplies in the Civil War was a great tactical advantage that allowed him to quickly and continually bring the fight to the Confederate army [22]. In general, it would not be erroneous to state that the railways have played an important role in warfare since First World War (1914–1918). Over the years, they have emerged as vital instruments of warfighting machinery. Since First World War, the British, French and German railways have been efficiently undertaking various tasks related to war. In that era, this new mode of transportation had overshadowed other modes of transportation used for warfighting. The first definite proposal for the use of railways for strategic purposes was advanced as early as 1833 by Friedrich Wilhelm Harkort, a Westphalian worthy. A participant in the Napoleonic Wars, he subsequently showed great energy and enterprise in the development of steam engines hydraulic presses, iron-making and other important industries in Germany. He had argued that the railways were capable of transporting large bodies of troops to a given point much faster than if they marched by road. He had also done calculations to show what the actual savings in time were, and physical strain would be lessened in transporting troops through rail instead [23]. In the World War—era literature on the subject of railways and wars, the focus has been on the discussion how railways led to a tremendous escalation in the scale of warfare and were increasingly used in strategic ways to conduct military operations [24]. For nearly a century, the railways had been a central part of the infrastructure of empires and a vital tool of modern warfare. Similarly, aircraft are another important transportation platform. This technology, however, should not be assessed as disruptive technology against the railways. Seen holistically, it is a disruptive technology that challenged the age-old ideas of transportation. From the warfare point of view, its utility has meaning well beyond its use as a transportation platform. Its invention allowed humans to penetrate the vertical third dimension for domination during warfighting. Furthermore, transport aircraft and helicopters have an intrinsic role in passenger movements and have also been significant in undertaking various tasks related to warfare. Overall, airpower provides freedom from the friction visible in surface operations [25]. While air travel has afforded us the ability to move away from the restrictions of movement on the

2.5 Disruptive Military Technologies

41

earth’s surface, it has also attracted the attention of military leadership across the world as an essential modality for achieving battlefield superiority. Even before the invention of powered flight, humans had sought to take to the air to gain advantage in war. Initially, the military uses of flight were focused on reconnaissance—particularly, for gaining a bird’s-eye view of the battlefield [26]. Human activity at sea became possible with the invention of ships and vessels. The technologies for transportation at sea have demonstrated tremendous change over the years, and even today, constant improvement is happening in these technologies. Military airpower ended up revolutionizing the concept of warfare at the beginning of First World War. The mobility and firepower of airpower ended up actually challenging the idea of warfare prevalent till then and made it a standout among the other platforms and mechanisms of warfighting. The presence of airpower did not disrupt any technology as such, but what it did end up disrupting was the notion of warfighting itself. States realized that they could own military platforms in air to help them fight wars. Various disruptions occurred in warfighting not only because of the evolution of air and sea-based platforms but also due to the presence of ground/sea support systems and different forms of weapon systems. Emergence of radar system, both for air- and sea-based platforms and sonar systems, made a ‘sea change’ towards the operating of these platforms. Developments in the communication systems, particularly with the idea of secure (encrypted) communication, gave these military platforms an edge over the conventional ways of warfighting.

2.6 Closure Technologies play an extremely important in deciding the futures of war. History demonstrates that innovation leads to enhancement of military capabilities. Normally, the generation of new ideas and/or knowledge in various fields of life is known to directly or indirectly impact the methods of warfighting. Innovation leads to the developments in technologies, products, processes and services. Certain technologies are known to have unexpectedly displaced established technologies in the military domain, leading them to be described as disruptive technologies. Such technologies have made a lasting impact in various military-related fields, from intelligence gathering to contributing in actual combat. The need for disruptive innovation is felt more when available solutions are insufficient, for that is when military leadership expects the development of new technologies to provide them innovative solutions to address emerging threats. Major technological disruptions have the strength to change the nature of warfighting, and because of this, nation states are known to evolve new doctrines for waging wars.

42

2 Defence and Disruptive Technologies

References 1. Sabin, P., Van Wees, H., Whitby, M. (eds.): The Cambridge history of greek and Roman warfare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007) 2. Van Creveld, Martin: Technology and War, p. 311. Brassey’s, London (1991) 3. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/war_tech_gallery.shtml. Accessed 24 June 2017 4. Brimley, S., FitzGerald, B., Sayler, K.: Game Changers: Disruptive Technology and U.S. Defense Strategy, p. 7 (2013) 5. http://www.uow.edu.au/~bmartin/pubs/01tnvs/tnvs02.html 6. Kaufman, C.R.P.: Network Security. Pearson Education, Delhi (2005) 7. Gargiulo, J.: S-Box Modifications and Their Effect in DES-like Encryption Systems. https://www.sans.org/reading-room/whitepapers/vpns/s-box-modifications-effect-deslike-encryption-systems-768 (2002). Retrieved 12 Feb 2014, from SANS Institute InfoSec Reading Room 8. Roland, A.: War and Technology. http://www.fpri.org/articles/2009/02/war-and-technology. Accessed 30 June 2017 9. http://www.fpri.org/articles/2009/02/war-and-technology 10. http://www.fpri.org/articles/2009/02/war-and-technology 11. Ruhlig, K., Wiemken, U., Fraunhofer: Disruptive Technologies, Widening the Scope (2006) 12. https://www.google.com/search?q=impact+of+system+reinforced+overturned+linkages+ changed+unchanged+radical+innovation&sa=X&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ved= 2ahUKEwiynd3s2uTdAhUYSX0KHcAzCGwQ7Al6BAgGEA0&biw=1366&bih=619# imgrc=fctDG4ZvOdSAaM and http://innovationzen.com/blog/2006/08/11/innovationmanagement-theory-part-3/. Accessed 12 Aug 2018 13. James, A.D.: Emerging Technologies and Military Capability, Policy Brief, pp. 2. S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Singapore (2013) 14. Persistent Forecasting of Disruptive Technologies: Committee on Forecasting Future Disruptive Technologies; National Research Council, p. 11. The National Academics Press, Washington, D.C. (2010) 15. Watson, G.: World War One: The Tank’s Secret Lincoln Origins (2014). http://www.bbc.com/ news/uk-england-25109879. Accessed 10 May 2014. http://europeanhistory.about.com/od/ worldwar1/a/World-War-Ones-New-Weapons-Gas-And-Tanks.htm. Accessed 20 May 2014 16. Macksey, K.: Tank Warfare, pp. 25–26. Rupert Hart-Davis Ltd., London (1971) 17. Simpkin, R.: Tank Warfare, p. 33. Brasseys Publishers Ltd, London (1979) 18. Hammond, B.: Cambrai 1917: The Myth of the First Great Tank Battle. Orion Publishing (2009) 19. Matt, B.: How Britain Invented the Tank in the First World War. 8 Jan 2018. https://www. iwm.org.uk/history/how-britain-invented-the-tank-in-the-first-world-war. Accessed on 30 Aug 2018 20. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwone/gallery_tank.shtml 21. Wilde, R.: World War One’s New Weapons: Gas and Tanks. http://europeanhistory.about.com/ od/worldwar1/a/World-War-Ones-New-Weapons-Gas-And-Tanks.htm 22. Keefe, J.C.: Disruptive Technologies for Weapon Systems: Achieving the Asymmetric Edge on the Battlefield. WSTIAC Q. 7(4), 1–7 (2007) 23. Pratt, E.A.: The Rise of Railpower in War and Conquest 1833–1914, p. 2. P. S. King & Son Ltd., London (1915) 24. Wolmar, Christian: Engines of War, p. xi. Public Affairs, New York (2010) 25. Singh, J. (ed.): Air Power and India’s Defence, p. 8. Knowledge World, New Delhi (2007) 26. A Brief History of Air Warfare. http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_airwar.html. Accessed May 2013. And Keefe, J.C.: Disruptive Technologies for Weapon Systems: Achieving the Asymmetric Edge on the Battlefield. WSTIAC Q. 7(4), 1–7

Part II

Section Two

War is considered as a last resort after all peaceful options fail to resolve the issue. Just War philosophy broadly presents a thought that war can be morally justified. It is argued that a war has to be waged by a legitimate authority and should be fought as a means in self-defence. It is dishonest to target innocent civilian population, and the use of disproportionate military force would be avoided. The collateral damage should be avoided, and the basic aim for any war should be to restore peace. However, it has been observed that adhering to the Just War philosophy is a very tall order. Still, globally there have been various efforts to ensure that human rights abuse gets avoided. Some leaders have also been punished for the various war crimes committed by them over the years. The issues related to the war ethics does get addressed on various occasions in true spirit. However, warfare would always have some deviations since the focus during warfighting would always be towards gaining victory at any cost, and hence, the aspects of the following rule/norms would always remain secondary. The twentieth- and twenty-first-century conflicts have shown that on various occasions avoiding civilian casualties becomes unavoidable owing to the blurring of lines between soldiers, non-state actors and non-combatants. This makes states to depend more on technology to fight wars. History demonstrates that, classically, technology governs warfighting. Advancements in various weapons and weapon systems are known to dominate the methods of war waging, and nation states are known to evolve their war doctrines accordingly. However, the geostrategic backdrop for the use of technology in the context of the Just War policies was typically based on the period when armies used to fight wars along a known front line and against known enemies. Typically, the notions of morality and culture get viewed differently depending on the nature of the threat and geostrategic realities at that point in time. There always exists a possibility of selective interpretation to rules of engagement, and suitable justifications are offered to guard the interests of individuals, groups or states. At the same time, every action has a major bias towards the technology available at that

44

Part II: Section Two

point in time for war waging. Broadly, the tactics get devised based on particular technologies. But, it would be incorrect to assume that just because various military technologies are available for warfighting every technology would be used on the battlefield. Certain technologies which allow us to create destructive weapons like nuclear weapons are preferred more as deterrence technologies than usable technologies for the warfighting. At the same time, when a particular technology becomes capable and reaches to a level of maturity then the weapons do get developed either for deployment or for deterrence. The Quadrennial Defence Review (2006 QDR) of the US Department of Defence (DoD) identifies four tactics an enemy can use to challenge their military capabilities: a traditional strategy (conventional warfare), an irregular strategy (insurgencies), a catastrophic strategy (mass destruction terror attack) and a disruptive strategy (technological surprise, such as a cyberattack or an anti-satellite attack). In fact, the emergence of any specific disruptive technology has the potential to change the overall landscape of warfare. It could also impact traditional, irregular and even nuclear strategies depending on the type of the technology. In the military context, new technologies end up replacing or upgrading the old technologies. But, every new technology should not be viewed as a disruptive technology. Modern technologies do provide multiple options to military leadership; however, not necessarily every new technology will disrupt the existing technologies/weapon systems. When disruption occurs, it impacts historically devised military strategies and changes the pattern of technology usage in warfighting. How does the disruption happen? Is there any scientific method to understand the possibility of the emergence of new technologies which could have the potential to disrupt? It is important to note that in case of military technological disruption it could be prudent to study the overall technology disruption. This is because various possible technological disruptions could have a direct or indirect impact on militaries. Many of the futuristic disruptive technologies could potentially come out of non-military applications. At present, the best possible option could be to recognize the most suitable disruptive (for militaries) technologies from the predictions made for overall technology disruption. Normally, explicit defence concerns are known to guide the process of military technology development. Hence, one approach could be to broadly deduce the strategic concerns for the future and estimate the technology requirements accordingly. Such assessment could be made based on the existing military technologies and weapon systems. This assessment could be made by using various techniques like extrapolation, discussion with experts (Delphi technique), undertaking simulation exercises and literature survey. Also, it would be important to factor in the quality of available technological expertise, existing ecosystem for innovation, research and development and budgetary support for any such assessment. Largely, the present forecasting methods could be broken into four groupings: judgmental or intuitive methods; extrapolation and trend analysis; models and

Part II: Section Two

45

scenarios and simulation.1 From military commanders’ and policy-makers’ point of view, it is crucial to analyse and identify past and present technological aspects which could influence the future changes in the military technology realm. Presently, some more nuanced tools based on the assessment of patent development paths, k-core analysis and topic modelling analysis are available. Such techniques help to analyse the complex relationship between important highly cited patents and technological disruptiveness.2 Technology forecasting is not about accurately predicting the future but is more about minimizing the surprises. Here, the estimation should be about the possible trend for technology development. Mainly, during the Cold War era (say around the 1970s/80s period) various technological innovations essentially got originated at well-established “techno-clusters” and national and corporate laboratories.3 Today, the situation is a bit different and scientific research is found taking places in various parts of the world in both public and private spheres. It is not necessary that new technologies would be born only in the laboratories of developed countries. This makes the task of understating the evolution and impact of new disruptive technologies more difficult. Military planners are concerned with the emergence of new technologies that could trigger sudden, unexpected changes in security policies and military doctrines. Forecasting disruptive technologies is a difficult proposal. Every forecasting technique could have some limitations, and as such, any forecast is more about presenting the possible trend. This work is not about employing some specific techniques towards forecasting of disruptive technologies. Here, there are debates on disruptive technologies as an important field of comprehensive military architecture. The purpose is to highlight some of the new and emerging technologies which are getting deliberated as possible military disruptive technologies. The identification4 of possible disruptive technologies for this work is done based on various available forecasts on this subject, discussions in the literature and authors’

1

Persistent Forecasting of Disruptive Technologies, Committee on Forecasting Future Disruptive Technologies, National Academy of Sciences, The National Academies Press: Washington D.C, 2010, p.3. 2 Abdolreza Momenia and Katja Rostb, “Identification and monitoring of possible disruptive technologies by patent-development paths and topic modelling”, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Volume 104, March 2016, p.26. 3 Persistent Forecasting of Disruptive Technologies, Committee on Forecasting Future Disruptive Technologies, National Academy of Sciences, The National Academies Press: Washington D.C, 2010, p.1. 4 http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2014/11/1/2014november-top-10-disruptivetechnologies-for-a-new-era-of-global-instability and https://www.intelligenthq.com/technology/ 12-disruptive-technologies/ accessed on 31 July 2017.

46

Part II: Section Two

interaction with experts. Subsequent chapters in this part carry out discussions on the technologies identified below: 1. Hypersonic weapons 2. New materials 3. 3D printing 4. Inexhaustible energy sources 5. Next-generation genomics 6. Artificial intelligence 7. Big data 8. Cloud computing 9. Internet of Things (IoT) 10. Blockchain

Chapter 3

Hypersonic Weapons

The proprieties of sound have fascinated humans for a long time. The first known theoretical treatise on sound was provided by Sir Isaac Newton in his Principia (1687). Since then, scientists have been researching on quantifying the speed of sound. The speed of sound estimated by Newton was around 15% less than the actual (the standard value for speed of sound1 has been decided based on the experimentation carried out during 1963). On 14 October 1947, the sound barrier was broken for the first time in a manned level flight in a Bell X-1, piloted by Chuck Yeager. With this began the age of the supersonic aircraft. Objects which move at supersonic speeds2 actually travel faster than the speed of sound. Many modern-day military aircraft fly at supersonic speeds, and so does a bullet fired from a gun. The space shuttle also flies at supersonic speeds during parts of its mission. Even the passenger aircraft Concorde (1976–2003) used to fly at supersonic speeds. The London to New York flight used to take around 3 h against the routine flying time of 8–9 h on a regular flight. Since the invention of an aircraft, speed has been central to various developments for flying machines (spacecraft, unmanned vehicles, missiles, etc.). Over the years, significant progress has been made to ensure that the flying platforms (manned or otherwise) move with great speeds. Along with speed, manoeuvrability is also an important element in designing any flying machine. The process of evolution of flying machines witnessed a major breakthrough during the early years of the twenty-first century: On 16 November 2004, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

This chapter is an updated version of author’s earlier work titled Hypersonic Weapons, IDSA Occasional Paper No. 46, 2017. 1 The

speed of sound is the distance travelled per unit time by a sound wave while propagating via an elastic medium. This speed depends on the tempterature of the air, and at 15 °C (at sea level), it is about 1225 km/h, while in dry air—say at 20 °C—it is 1236 km/h. Broadly, it could be said that a distance of one kilometre gets coverd in 3 s. 2 Supersonic speed is the rate of travel of an object that exceeds the speed of sound (Mach 1). © Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019 A. Lele, Disruptive Technologies for the Militaries and Security, Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies 132, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3384-2_3

47

48

3 Hypersonic Weapons

(NASA), the famous US space agency, flew the X-43A aircraft nine times faster than the speed of sound (Mach 9.6) [1]. When such high speeds are reached by any flying platform, they are termed hypersonic vehicles. Theoretically, speeds that are five times higher than the speed of sound (Mach 5) belong to the category of hypersonic. The term hypersonic was coined by an aerodynamic engineer called Hsue-shen Tsien at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 1946 [2]. This paper discusses hypersonic platforms, mainly in the context of their military relevance.

3.1 About the Hypersonic The twenty-first century is facing various asymmetric threats. There have been cases when even a truck has been converted as a weapon to kill—for example, in Nice, France (14 July 2016), a truck was deliberately driven in a crowed place, killing more than 80 people. Also, the world witnessed one of the most horrific terror attacks in history, on the World Trade Centre in which the platform of a passenger aircraft was converted into a weapon. Even a satellite can be converted into a weapon platform if it is armed with weapons such as tungsten rods for a kinetic bombardment or a kinetic orbital strike. Alternatively, a small satellite like a nano- or microsatellite has the potential to also get used as a space mine to damage a target satellite. Apart from such weapon platforms, there are occasions where missiles do not carry any specific warheads but only metal pieces to hit targets, and may be described as kinetic energy weapons. Such weapons could be launched from a missile silo or from other platforms. Normally, a vehicle occupied by humans could also be considered as a platform. Even supersonic speed aircraft are occupied by humans, though not always. Platforms which travel at hypersonic or superhypersonic speeds (normally in space) are known as spacecraft or space planes/shuttles. Sometimes they are occupied by humans. In any discussion about the hypersonic, the words platform/s and weapons are used interchangeably. There is a very thin line between hypersonic systems and hypersonic missiles. Presently, the strategic utility of hypersonic technology is mainly in the realm of missiles, and lesser attention is being given to developing hypersonic military platforms which would be occupied by humans. However, private industry is known to be developing space planes for human travel for the purposes of promoting space tourism. To appreciate the conceptual design of a hypersonic platform, a detailed assessment of various geometrical configuration parameters affecting the aerodynamic performance of the vehicle is required to be carried out [3]. A Hypersonic Platform. Anything that moves through air reacts to aerodynamics, and the rules of aerodynamics explain how platforms in air are able to fly. The speed of sound varies in response to the temperature of the surrounding air. Sound waves are known to move

3.1 About the Hypersonic Table 3.1 Categories of speed Speed regime Mach

49

km/h

Application