The Future of Deterrence

Technology Innovation, Talent, and Competition

Welcome to Futurence!

Futurence is a portmanteau of future and deterrence. (Finding short domains is hard.)

What is deterrence? Why am I exploring its future, especially in the context of technology innovation?

Deterrence and Technology

Deterrence is the strategy of discouraging unwanted actions, especially military aggression, by making adversaries fear the consequences.

Note that defense and deterrence are related but distinct. As an analogy, if defense is like mastering karate, then deterrence is wearing the black belt for everyone to see. The goal is to prevent the fight from ever happening.

Effective deterrence has always depended on technological advancements, from ancient chariots to modern nuclear arsenals. Yet the deterrence power of emerging technologies is temporary; what is innovative today will become standard tomorrow. To maintain power, a nation’s military technology must constantly innovate.

Defense tech innovation demands collaboration between top technologists, academics, and the military to accurately understand warfighters’ future needs. Certainly, some of the best and brightest work for the government; a few of my most talented grad school friends took positions at national labs after their PhDs. Silicon Valley even has a long history with the defense industry. As Steve Blank recounts,

The 10x expansion in the number of engineers in the valley in the 1950’s came from the military and microwaves – before the semiconductor boom. And these microwave engineers were working at startups – not large companies. You never heard of them because their customers were the department of defense, the intelligence community and most often their devices were embedded in classified systems

However, for years, the majority of top graduates have opted for traditional Silicon Valley or Wall Street firms. As Charlie Munger says, “Show me the incentives, and I’ll show you the outcome.” For smart, driven graduates, the lure of Silicon Valley or Wall Street—where they can join equally ambitious peers and earn substantial rewards—is hard to resist.

Furthermore, the illusion of lasting post-Cold War peace has shaped career decisions, reducing attention to defense and deterrence technology. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has dispelled this misconception, bringing renewed awareness to the enduring nature of global conflict. Maybe new graduates will increasingly see technology innovation as a means to build a secure future for the United States and their own children.

That said, it takes two to tango.

The U.S. government struggles to engage with leading technologists and instead turns to prime contractors like Lockheed Martin. These primes are experts in developing high-cost, conventional systems such as aircraft carriers, fighter jets, and missile defenses. However, the future battlefield centers on software, AI, drones, and robotics—fields dominated by Silicon Valley, not traditional defense companies.

Some startups pursuing military contracts struggle to even get a chance, as evidenced by Palantir's lawsuit against the US Army to be considered in a competition. As reported by Defense News:

The protest -- filed through Palantir's lawyers Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP -- argues that the lawsuit was necessary because the Army should be stopped from moving forward on an unlawful and risk-prone software development project that would reinvent the wheel at a very high price. The protest also sought to show the court that Palantir's data-management product — Palantir Gotham Platform — does exactly what DCGS-A is trying to do and comes at a much lower cost.

Fortunately, modern pioneers such as SpaceX, Palantir, and Anduril are paving the way for other startups.

Falling Behind

Since the Cold War, America’s capacity to deter future threats has weakened as collaboration between technologists and the government faded. This is not only a US problem; our allies are in even worse shape. 

Meanwhile, some global powers like China have avoided this problem, maintaining strong military-civilian partnerships and recognizing the strategic value of technological innovation.

Remember the recent China balloon controversy? It gave us a peek into China’s “civil-military fusion” in action. From the Wall Street Journal,

Attention has shifted to Chinese high-altitude balloons in the midst of U.S. allegations that they have been developed to conduct surveillance from the edge of space. Like other such programs, including the development of a homegrown airliner and its version of a GPS-like satellite-based navigation system, China’s balloon endeavors blur the lines between civilian research, profit-oriented businesses and Beijing’s military objectives.

“Civil-military fusion,” as China’s government calls it, isn’t wholly new, but it has come into sharper focus for the U.S. during the decadelong leadership of Xi Jinping.

I’m not endorsing China’s incentive structures for fostering collaboration, but they’re clearly effective. Meanwhile, the U.S. is slipping behind, hindered by a lack of clear strategy, urgency, and compelling incentives.

Looking Ahead

How can civilian technologists strengthen the United States' ability to dissuade, deter, and defend? And how might the United States military learn to work with innovative private companies?

The first step is awareness.

Futurence is my attempt to probe the intersection of technology, strategy, and policy to increase civilian awareness and support. I’ll often touch on the semiconductor supply chain as it’s near and dear to my heart, but I’ll also expand beyond chips to any relevant technology and policy.

There’s already a lot of positive progress we’ll unpack together over time. Here’s a taste from the House Armed Services Committee’s bipartisan Future of Defense Task Force Report 2020:

Advancements in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum computing, and space, cyber, and electronic warfare, among others, are making traditional battlefields and boundaries increasingly irrelevant. To remain competitive, the United States must prioritize the development of emerging technologies over fielding and maintaining legacy systems. 

Technological advancements in artificial intelligence and biotechnology will have an outsized impact on national security; the potential of losing this race to China carries significant economic, political, and ethical risks for the United States and our free democratic allies for decades to come. Winning this race requires a whole-of-nation approach where the distinct advantages of both America’s private and public sector are harnessed and synthesized.

Thanks for reading, and please join me on my journey!