TAKETHETHRONE/INNER SANCTUMVECTORN360™

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ISSN 2833-0455

Welcome to this groundbreaking issue of Inner Sanctum Vector N360™, where innovation meets global insight. In a world driven by rapid technological advancements and shifting geopolitical landscapes, the voices featured in this publication stand as beacons of knowledge.

This issue brings together an extraordinary panel of experts, each offering a unique perspective on the challenges and opportunities shaping our future. From transformative advances in AI and cybersecurity to strategic insights on international defense and diplomacy, these thought leaders are reshaping paradigms and inspiring progress.

With contributors from diverse fields and regions, this issue represents a truly global perspective.

Our mission at Inner Sanctum Vector N360™ has always been to challenge conventional thinking, spark meaningful conversations, and empower our readers with actionable insights. With each page, we aim to take you deeper into the critical discussions that will define the next generation of global innovation and strategy.

To our contributors—thank you for your brilliance and dedication. To our readers —thank you for trusting us to be your gateway to the future.

Let’s continue to shape tomorrow, together.

Warm regards,

2

Nayib Armando Bukele President of El Salvador

5

COL Grant Newsham China Sickens America

27

Dr. Adib Enayati The Convergent Algorithm

41

Linda Restrepo The Illusion of Compliance in AI

121

103

David M. Luna Executive Director International Coalition Against Illicit Economies (ICAIE) Dr. Hans C. Mumm Advanced Robotics

143

COL Pete Atkinson Where Earth Ends Army Begins

163

Dr. Robert McCreight Dancing with the Devil

177

3

4

When I first came to the United Nations General Assembly in 2019, I knew that many did not know or had not heard of El Salvador.

And if they did, it was only through negative references: either as the most violent country in the world or the country of gangs. Others didn’t even know where it was located. But, thank God, that has changed significantly in a very short time.

5

F

ive years after that first speech, I stand here as the President of a country that now has a voice in the world.

In my previous speeches before this General Assembly, I spoke about the quest for our true independence. For decades, we were chained by the consequences of an imported civil war and then by a false peace, which left more deaths than the war itself.

I also spoke about the importance of remembering that the first responsibility of a government is to its own people, as well as the significance of taking our destiny into our own hands.

“

We were naïve to think that other countries would save us, or that other nations would grant us our freedom out of sheer goodwill. We had to understand this in order to summon the courage to break our chains ourselves and claim our legitimate right to be free.”

In the past five years, El Salvador has been reborn. We returned the streets of our country to our people and established a flourishing tourism industry, hosting international surfing, sports, and entertainment events. We gave thousands of Salvadorans, who fled due to war and poverty, a country to return to.

We transformed our nation—from once being the murder capital of the world to the safest place in the Western Hemisphere. This has been the greatest challenge our nation has ever overcome.

Under President Nayib Bukele's leadership, El Salvador has undergone a significant transformation, evolving from one of the world's most dangerous countries to one of the safest in the Western Hemisphere. This change is largely attributed to Bukele's aggressive crackdown on gang violence and criminal organizations.

Mass Incarceration of Gang Members In March 2022, following a surge in homicides, Bukele's government declared a state of emergency, suspending certain civil liberties to facilitate mass arrests. This initiative led to the detention of over 81,000 individuals, many suspected of gang affiliations. The construction of the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a maximum-security prison with a capacity of 40,000 inmates, was a pivotal component of this strategy. As of June 2024, CECOT housed approximately 14,532 inmates. Wikipedia

Judicial Reforms and Prosecutions Bukele's administration has also targeted the judiciary, prosecuting Supreme Court judges and other officials accused of corruption or hindering anti-gang efforts.

These actions aimed to dismantle systemic obstacles within the legal system, ensuring more effective enforcement of anti-crime measures.

Impact on Crime Rates These stringent policies have yielded notable results. El Salvador's homicide rate plummeted from 51 per 100,000 inhabitants in 2018 to 36 per 100,000 in 2019, further decreasing to 17.6 per 100,000 by 2021. El Salvador Info By 2023, the country reported a homicide rate of only 2.4 per 100,000 people, positioning it as one of the safest nations in the Western Hemisphere.

6

Although there is still a long way to go and many things to achieve, we are within reach of true independence and on the path to full freedom.

El Salvador’s transformation has no comparison, and our success is undeniable— anyone can visit El Salvador and see it for themselves.

Salvadorans—regardless of whom they voted for in the past, the town or city where they were born, how little or how much they had, or whether they are inside or outside our borders—have united to work and support every decision that allows El Salvador to be a country where people live peacefully and happily. A place where spiritual aspirations transcend material ones.

T

oday,

the world looks at El Salvador’s example and asks:

How can a nation rise so quickly?

But perhaps that’s not the question they should be asking. Perhaps they should ask: How is the world falling so quickly?

They say El Salvador swims against the current because it has become safer while the world becomes more dangerous, and the Salvadoran people have grown more optimistic while most people in the modern world grow increasingly pessimistic.

And yes, they are right.

The world has become divided, depressed, worried, hostile, and hopeless—at an unprecedented speed. Today, the free world is no longer free.

This is not an exaggeration; tragically, we see undeniable proof of this decline every day. The threats of new wars persist.

When the free world became free, it was thanks to principles of freedom of expression, equality before the law, unity, and respect for private property. But once a nation abandons the principles that make it free, it’s only a matter of time before it loses its freedom entirely.

The consequences are unfolding before our very eyes.

In some cities of the so-called first chocolate bar or a razor. In other cities, world, stores must lock away their the streets no longer belong to the products behind glass doors to prevent people but have fallen into the hands of theft—and I’m not talking about homelessness, gangs, organized crime, expensive items but simple things like a and drugs.

7

8

9

You cannot claim the title of the

“free world” if your people

aren’t even free to walk the streets without fear of being harassed, robbed, or killed.

We are also witnessing, in real time, the erosion of freedom of expression. Just a decade ago, the West was the bastion of free expression. Now, it is lectured by the very entities it once denounced.

The largest social media platforms were forced to censor their users at the request of governments. Citizens of Western countries have been arrested for sharing posts on social media. Governing parties have tried to ban their political opposition.

These are not accusations or conspiracy theories; these are proven and documented facts.

“

You cannot earn the respect of the people if you do not respect the people.”

This didn’t start recently, but we notice it more because it has accelerated in recent years, and this acceleration means we are approaching a grim tipping point. We are on the brink of a new dark age for humanity.

As Salvadorans, we recognize the symptoms of decay when we see them because we have experienced them all. We lived through the stages of our nation’s fall, one by one. And now, we see those stages once again, but this time on a global scale.

W

e cannot, nor do we desire to, tell other countries what to do.

Each country must make its own decisions and do what is best for its people.

We can only offer a word of warning from a friend who has been through a dark time and fought the battle of its life to emerge from it.

We cannot change the course of the world. El Salvador is just a small country— the smallest on the entire continent. This is bigger than us; in fact, it is bigger than any single nation.

We cannot prevent the dark times ahead. But what we can do is become a refuge from the approaching storm and preserve hope.

10

“

In El Salvador, we do not imprison our opposition.

We do not censor opinions. We do not confiscate the property of those who think differently. We do not arrest people for expressing their ideas.”

In El Salvador, your freedom of expression, as well as your private property, will always be protected.

In El Salvador, we prioritize the safety of innocent citizens over the comfort of criminals. Some say we have imprisoned thousands, but the reality is that we have freed millions.

Now, it is the good people who live free, without fear, with their freedoms and human rights respected.

We want our people to prosper. That is why we encourage innovation and foster new ideas. We understand that a free and secure space is necessary for new concepts to flourish. Visions must be explored, tested, and experimented with—not stifled by outdated regulations or fear of change.

In El Salvador, you will find a space to pursue your ambitions, whether in technology, finance, medicine, energy, the arts, culture, music, or architecture.

CLOSURE “ A few years ago, El Salvador used to be one of the darkest places on the planet. But in a short time, our nation has been reborn. Because we reminded ourselves that freedom is taken—it is neither given nor granted—and, like everything worthwhile, it requires care and maintenance.

Today, El Salvador is a safe place for progress and innovation, but also for family and the pursuit of purpose.

In the new El Salvador, there is room for everyone. We offer this safe space to our people and to those who wish to share and contribute to our vision.

It won’t be easy. In fact, the next step is even harder. We have freed our country, but we must maintain that freedom in a world that is increasingly less free.”

11

12

El Salvador has left its past behind, and we swear never to return to it.

Perhaps it is too late to avoid the dark times the world faces today, but it is not too late to build an ark and weather the storm. May God bless humanity.

Thank you very much.

Nayib Armando Bukele

13

14

E

xpanding the Vision: From Natural Riches. To Bitcoin Revolution El Salvador's Bitcoin Transformation

El Salvador's Bitcoin transformation under President Nayib Bukele is a pioneering economic and technological initiative that has drawn global attention.

In September 2021, El Salvador became the first country to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender. The Bitcoin Law, championed by Bukele, mandates businesses to accept Bitcoin alongside the U.S. dollar.

This bold move aimed to foster financial inclusion, attract foreign investment, and reduce dependence on traditional banking systems.

15

Key Goals: •

Financial Inclusion: With over 70% of Salvadorans unbanked, Bitcoin offers a digital gateway to financial services.

•

Remittances: By leveraging Bitcoin, cross-border transactions are faster and cheaper, significantly benefiting the 20% of GDP derived from remittances.

•

Innovation: The launch of the Chivo Wallet and Bitcoin ATMs aimed to promote adoption, while plans for Bitcoin Bonds and Bitcoin City highlight Bukele's vision for crypto-driven development.

Despite mixed adoption rates and global skepticism, this transformation has placed El Salvador at the forefront of cryptocurrency innovation, cementing its image as a bold, forward-thinking nation. 🌟 Spotlight on El Salvador's Natural Treasures 🌟 1. Coffee: Renowned for its premium coffee beans, El Salvador's lush mountains produce some of the finest coffee in the world. With rich volcanic soil and a perfect climate, coffee farming is both a cultural and economic cornerstone.

2. Volcanoes: Known as the "Land of Volcanoes", El Salvador boasts over 20 majestic volcanoes. These iconic landmarks not only shape the country's breathtaking landscape but also power its innovative energy sector.

3. Beaches: From surfing hotspots like El Tunco to serene shores along the Pacific coast, El Salvador’s beaches are a paradise for tourists and locals alike, contributing to a growing eco-tourism industry.

4. Geothermal Energy: Thanks to abundant volcanic activity, El Salvador harnesses geothermal power to lead the region in renewable energy production. With facilities like Ahuachapán and Berlín, the country is paving the way for clean energy and environmental sustainability.

16

“E s p a ñ o l ”

"The following is the Spanish translation of the article written by President Nayib Bukele for our bilingual audience.”

17

Período de Sesiones de la Asamblea General de la ONU. Cuando vine por primera vez a la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas en 2019, sé que muchos no conocían o no habían oído hablar de El Salvador. Y si lo conocían, solo tenían malas referencias: o el país más violento del mundo o el país de las maras. Otros, ni sabían dónde quedaba. Pero, gracias a Dios eso ha cambiado significativamente en muy poco tiempo. Cinco años después de aquel primer discurso, vengo acá como Presidente de un país que ahora sí tiene voz en el mundo.

En mis discursos anteriores ante esta Asamblea General, les hablé sobre la búsqueda de nuestra verdadera independencia. Por décadas, estuvimos encadenados por las consecuencias de una guerra civil importada y luego, por una falsa paz, que dejó más muertos que la propia guerra. También les hablé de la importancia de recordar que la primera responsabilidad de un gobierno es con su propio pueblo; así como de la trascendencia de tomar nuestro destino en nuestras propias manos.

“

Fuimos ingenuos en pensar que otros países nos salvarían, o que otras naciones nos regalarían nuestra libertad por simple bondad. Tuvimos que entenderlo, para luego tener la valentía de romper nuestras cadenas nosotros mismos y reclamar nuestro derecho legítimo a ser libres.”

En los últimos cinco años, El Salvador renació. Devolvimos las calles de nuestro país a nuestra gente y establecimos una floreciente industria turística, siendo sede de eventos internacionales de surf, deporte y entretenimiento. Le dimos a miles de salvadoreños que huyeron de las guerras y de la pobreza, un país al cual regresar.

Hicimos de nuestra nación, que fue una vez la capital mundial de los homicidios, el lugar más seguro del hemisferio occidental. Fue el desafío más grande que nuestra nación ha superado, y aunque todavía nos queda un largo camino por recorrer y muchas cosas por lograr, estamos al alcance de la verdadera independencia y en el camino hacia la libertad plena.

La transformación de El Salvador no tiene comparación y nuestro éxito es innegable, cualquiera puede visitar El Salvador y comprobarlo. Los salvadoreños, independientemente de por quienes hayan votado antes; del pueblo o la ciudad donde hayan nacido; de lo poco o mucho que hayan tenido; de si están dentro o fuera de 2 nuestras fronteras; se han unido para trabajar y apoyar cada una de las

18

decisiones que permitan a El Salvador ser un país donde la gente viva tranquila y feliz. Donde las aspiraciones espirituales, más allá de las materiales, trasciendan a todos.

Hoy, el mundo mira el ejemplo de El Salvador y se pregunta: ¿Cómo puede una nación levantarse tan rápido?. Pero tal vez esa no sea la pregunta que deberían hacer. Tal vez deberían estar haciendo otra pregunta: ¿Cómo es que el mundo está cayendo tan rápido? Dicen que El Salvador nada contra la corriente, porque se volvió más seguro mientras el mundo se volvía más peligroso y el pueblo salvadoreño se volvió más optimista, mientras la mayoría de la gente en el mundo moderno se volvía cada vez más pesimista.

Y sí, tienen razón.

El mundo se ha vuelto dividido, deprimido, preocupado, hostil y sin esperanza. Y lo ha hecho a una velocidad sin precedentes.

el mundo libre

Hoy, ya no es libre. Esto no es una exageración; trágicamente, vemos pruebas innegables de esta decadencia cada día. Las amenazas de nuevas guerras continúan. Cuando el mundo libre se volvió libre fue gracias a sus principios de libertad de expresión, igualdad ante la ley, unidad y respeto por la propiedad privada. Pero, una vez una nación abandona los principios que la hacen libre, es solo cuestión de tiempo para que pierda su libertad por completo.

Las consecuencias se están desarrollando ante nuestros propios ojos. En algunas ciudades del llamado primer mundo, las tiendas necesitan asegurar sus productos detrás de puertas de vidrio con llaves, para evitar robos. Y no hablo de productos caros, sino de cosas sencillas como una barra de chocolate o una rasuradora. En otras ciudades, las calles ya no pertenecen a la gente, sino que han caído en manos de la indigencia, las pandillas, el crimen organizado y las drogas. No puedes reclamar el título del mundo libre si tu gente ni siquiera es libre para caminar por las calles sin temor a ser acosada, robada o asesinada.

También estamos siendo testigos, en tiempo real, de la erosión de la libertad de expresión. Hace apenas una década, Occidente era el bastión de la libertad de expresión. Ahora es sermoneado por aquellos mismos a quienes solía denunciar. Las plataformas más grandes de redes sociales fueron obligadas a censurar a sus usuarios a petición de los gobiernos.

19

Ciudadanos de países occidentales han sido arrestados por compartir publicaciones en redes sociales. Los partidos gobernantes han intentado prohibir a su oposición política.

Estas no son acusaciones ni teorías de conspiración; son hechos comprobables y documentados. No se puede ganar el respeto del pueblo si no se respeta al pueblo. esto no comenzó hace poco. Pero lo notamos más porque se ha acelerado en los últimos años, y esta aceleración significa que nos acercamos a un tenebroso punto de inflexión. Estamos ante una nueva era oscura de la humanidad. Como salvadoreños, reconocemos los síntomas de la decadencia cuando los vemos, porque hemos pasado por todos ellos; vivimos las etapas de la caída de nuestra nación, una por una. Y estamos viendo una semejanza de esas etapas una vez más, pero esta vez a una escala global.

No podemos, ni deseamos, decirles a otros países qué hacer. Cada país debe tomar sus propias decisiones y hacer lo que sea mejor para su gente. Solo podemos ofrecer una palabra de advertencia de un amigo que ha pasado por una época oscura y ha librado la batalla de su vida para salir de ella. No podemos cambiar el curso del mundo. El Salvador es solo un país pequeño, el más pequeño de todo el continente.

Esto es más grande que nosotros; de hecho, es más grande que cualquier nación.

No podemos prevenir los tiempos oscuros que se avecinan. Pero lo que sí podemos hacer es convertirnos en un refugio ante la tormenta que se aproxima y mantener la esperanza.

“

En El Salvador, no encarcelamos a nuestra oposición. No censuramos opiniones. No confiscamos los bienes de quienes piensan diferente. No arrestamos a las personas por expresar sus ideas. En El Salvador, tu libertad de expresión, así como tu propiedad privada, siempre estarán protegidas.”

En El Salvador, priorizamos la seguridad de nuestros ciudadanos inocentes sobre la comodidad de los criminales. Algunos dicen que hemos encarcelado a miles, pero la realidad es que hemos liberado a millones. Ahora son los buenos los que viven libres, y sin miedo, con sus libertades y derechos humanos siendo respetados.

Queremos que nuestra gente prospere. Por eso fomentamos la innovación y alentamos las nuevas ideas.

20

Entendemos que se necesita un espacio libre y seguro, para que nuevos conceptos florezcan. Las visiones deben investigarse, probarse y experimentarse. No deben ser sofocadas por regulaciones anticuadas o el miedo al cambio. En El Salvador, encontrarás un espacio para perseguir tus ambiciones, ya sea en el campo de la tecnología, las finanzas, la medicina, la energía, las artes, la cultura, la música o la arquitectura.

Hace unos años, El Salvador solía ser uno de los lugares más oscuros del planeta.

Pero en poco tiempo nuestra nación renació. Porque nos recordamos a nosotros mismos que la libertad se toma, no se da ni se regala, y como todo lo que vale la pena tener, necesita cuidado y mantenimiento.

Hoy, El Salvador es un lugar seguro para el progreso y la innovación, pero también para la familia y para la búsqueda de propósito. En el nuevo El Salvador, todos tienen cabida. Ofrecemos este espacio seguro a nuestra gente y a quienes deseen compartir y contribuir a nuestra visión.

No será fácil. De hecho, el paso siguiente es aún más difícil. Hemos liberado nuestro país, pero debemos mantener esa libertad, y debemos hacerlo en un mundo que es cada vez menos libre. El Salvador ha dejado atrás su pasado, al que juramos nunca más volver. Tal vez sea demasiado tarde para evitar los tiempos oscuros que enfrenta nuestro mundo hoy, pero no es demasiado tarde para construir un arca y capear la tormenta.

Que Dios bendiga a la humanidad.

Muchas gracias.

Nayib Armando Bukele —————————

21

22

23

24

President Nayib Armando Bukele Ortez The Visionary Leader Redefining El Salvador’s Future Born on July 24, 1981, in San Salvador, Nayib Bukele has emerged as one of the most dynamic and influential leaders of the 21st century. The son of Olga Ortez de Bukele and Armando Bukele Kattán, a businessman and imam of Palestinian descent, Bukele demonstrated entrepreneurial talent early, leading a company by age 18 and later owning Yamaha Motors El Salvador.

Elected in 2019 with a sweeping majority, Bukele broke decades of two-party dominance, cementing his role as a transformative figure in Latin America. His leadership has redefined governance, both in El Salvador and beyond.

A Global Pioneer Bukele’s bold reforms have inspired leaders worldwide. From combating crime to embracing technology, his strategies are being replicated globally. Advocating for

a united Latin America—a coalition modeled after the United States—Bukele seeks to amplify regional power and global influence.

Unprecedented Political Success With approval ratings consistently exceeding 80%, Bukele has revolutionized leadership through direct citizen engagement, particularly via social media. This unparalleled connection has secured his domestic dominance and earned international recognition as a trailblazer.

Global Recognition and Influence Dubbed the “World’s Coolest Dictator,” Bukele’s unorthodox leadership style has sparked admiration and debate. His bold vision and unapologetic commitment to progress have solidified his legacy as a leader who challenges the status quo.

A Legacy of Transformation Bukele’s presidency marks a defining period in El Salvador’s history. His ambitious reforms, technological innovation, and fearless governance continue to shape the nation’s future.

25

26

27

N

ot surprisingly, the People’s Republic of China has been conducting biological weapons research for many years.

But at least it doesn’t much publicize what it is doing (not on purpose, anyway).

In 2015, a dozen facilities—identified as part of the Chinese government’s defense establishment, and another thirty locations connected to the People’s Liberation Army—were said to be involved in biological weapons development activity.

The U.S. Department of Defense believes the People’s Liberation Army has both biowarfare capabilities and delivery systems. The PRC admits this, but claims that its research and whatever it has in the arsenal are for defensive purposes only.

Notice that under China’s doctrine of Military-Civil Fusion, not to mention that pesky National Intelligence Law, civilian facilities conducting biological research are required to share know-how and resources with military counterparts.

So, what are they thinking? We have had some troubling glimpses. For example, in 2015, eighteen Chinese “military scientists and weapons experts” wrote a paper: “The Unnatural Origin of SARS and New Species of Man-Made Viruses as Genetic Bioweapons.”

28

The paper reportedly describes how coronaviruses can be “artificially manipulated into an emerging human disease virus, then weaponized and unleashed in a way never seen before,” possibly even causing “the enemy’s medical system to collapse.”

The Biological Weapons Convention requires signatories to reveal past and present activities related to biological warfare programs. For the last two years, the PRC has refused to meet with U.S. officials to discuss worries about PRC biowarfare. And, as we covered, after SARS, the PRC worked to neuter the World Health Organization so it can’t interfere again.

T

hat said, as far as we know, the People’s Republic of China has not intentionally launched a bioweapon attack.

It can be argued, however, that by closing off Wuhan once the coronavirus outbreak couldn’t be hidden in late 2019—while still allowing Chinese to travel throughout the world—the CCP opportunistically seeded the rest of the globe with the COVID-19 virus.

I’ll steer clear of the debate over where the COVID-19 virus came from. But we know it came from Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Even the Chinese government called it the Wuhan flu when it first hit.

The main competing theories are that the virus came from an animal market or from a nearby virology lab—probably the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). The WIV is known to have done research work on coronaviruses and is the PRC’s only Level 4 biosafety lab—where the most dangerous work is performed. Washington Post columnist Josh Rogin reported that in 2018, U.S. diplomatic officials had, in fact, expressed concern over safety protocols after visiting the Wuhan Lab.

R

egardless, the Chinese government’s behavior from the time of the outbreak until now suggests the communists are hiding something. It’s been a continuous series of lies and obfuscations, and a total lack of meaningful cooperation with international efforts to investigate the origins of the disease.

29

Intentionally launched or otherwise, the ensuing COVID-19 pandemic over the next two years (and counting) gave Chinese biowarfare researchers a good look at the effects of a biological attack on an enemy.

“

They may like what they’re seeing— with a few bugs worked out.

Consider the damage to the United States, and all without firing a shot. Also consider the effects of China’s ongoing political warfare campaign.

For starters, COVID-19 was a powerful piece of economic warfare. It brought the United States economy that was humming along to a standstill. In fact, the virus threw the economy in reverse, as the U.S. government shut down business and left millions jobless as a result.

When Senator Tom Cotton suggested the virus might have come from the Wuhan Institute of Virology and that basic inquiries were warranted, he was savaged by the Washington Post, the New York Times, most of the media, and America’s pundit class. They accused him of peddling debunked conspiracy theories.

A year later, when the possibility of a lab leak was accepted by elites, the Washington Post apologized—in part.

President Trump was similarly condemned as a racist and xenophobe for pointing out the obvious—that the virus came from the People’s Republic of China. Such was the hatred that it became nearly impossible to handle the normal business of running the country—as Trump’s opponents made sure they did not let the crisis go to waste.

As previously mentioned, the pandemic likely cost Donald Trump a second term as president—to Beijing’s advantage. The Trump administration was the first one in fifty years to take effective action against the PRC’s aggressive and predatory behavior against the United States and its allies.

The

PRC’s longstanding elite capture efforts further paid off during the

COVID pandemic. Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Health and President Trump’s lead medical advisor, was the public face of the administration’s pandemic response. He was curiously uninterested in the virus’s origins and outright dismissed the idea that WIV was the source.

30

He was later shown to have more connections to Chinese virology research institutions than he first let on.

Also running cover for the PRC was Peter Daszak of the EcoHealth Alliance. He repeatedly insisted the virus couldn’t have come from the lab.

Why? Because the Chinese said so.

He was not exactly a disinterested party, having worked with Wuhan Institute of Virology for sixteen years on bat research.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health (Dr. Fauci’s group) funded him. Even better for the Chinese, the director general of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, had deep connections with the PRC, as we saw in the international organizations chapter. He provided cover as well, particularly in the early days of the outbreak. He praised Chinese cooperation with the WHO and rejected the idea of a lab leak.

President Trump took on the World Health Organization since it provided cover for the PRC instead of insisting that Beijing cooperate and live up to its obligations under WHO rules. Trump threatened to halt U.S. funding and suspend America’s membership in the WHO. The chattering class, of course, vilified him—because he was Trump. Max Boot from the Council of Foreign Relations published a Washington Post opinion piece, complaining, “Threatening to leave the WHO during a global health crisis is the geopolitical equivalent of injecting Clorox as a coronavirus remedy.”

It was all about Trump: get rid of Trump, and everything would be fine, at least for the Chinese. The CCP also saw no end of Americans who, for their own reasons, wanted the same outcome as Beijing.

COVID-19 was immensely effective as psychological warfare in other ways, too — not just the illness, but the responses to it were astonishing. The Wuhan- originated COVID-19 virus created such terror that Americans, who saw themselves as the freest people on the planet, submitted to so-called lockdowns in the name of public health.

Students and preschoolers went to remote learning. The harmful effects of two years of this anti socialization on young (and not so young) children are now being recognized: lockdowns have hurt children’s cognitive and social development.

31

32

33

This was another COVID-19 win for America’s enemies that will play out years from now.

Unemployment and enforced idleness were similarly harmful, ushering in attendant psychological and mental problems and increasing alcohol and drug abuse.

Additionally, in the summer of 2020, there was an indirect connection between COVID-19 and the widespread rioting and attacks on government buildings that followed the unfortunate death of George Floyd while he was in police custody. As any warden knows, keeping people in lockdown can breed a riotous response.

America’s gaping political divide widened even further during the pandemic. The extreme leftist fringe—think Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—had always existed in American politics, but now came to have real influence on the nation’s governance.

The U.S. military was similarly hamstrung—and frightened—by the virus.

Training and exercises were particularly affected. As mentioned earlier, one of the U.S. Navy’s aircraft carriers dropped off its normal patrol in the Western Pacific and pulled into Guam, its skipper afraid of a COVID outbreak.

The controversy over emergency-approved vaccines caused still more disruption in the U.S. forces and led to the forced separation of many troops who refused to take the vaccines. The irony of all this is the COVID virus is not very harmful to service members, given that most of them are young and fit. But that’s the psychological clout we’ve given COVID-19.

financial warfare.

COVID-19 also was potent as It led to massive U.S. government spending to counter the effects of the economic downturn. This further debased the U.S. dollar and ultimately led to the highest inflation in forty years—making life difficult for all citizens. It also threatens the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency, something China has been angling to overcome for many years.

34

“

So you see how it works: biological warfare ties into other warfares—such as financial warfare, economic warfare, psychological warfare, international organization warfare, media warfare, etc., and all are mutually reinforcing.”

The cumulative effect wears down the opponent and creates entropy, affecting their ability to resist or to conduct kinetic operations.

It took decades to destroy Baltimore. Many other locations were pushed as far in just two years restaurants run by the same family for generations were closed, storefronts boarded up, people fled the downtowns, addiction and dropping out of school increased, all problems created in the name of public health.

The COVID case study, or test run, depending on how you look it, had a global effect as well.

It hit America’s allies (and every other country) just as hard. It shook alliances as nations closed borders—and started to see neighbors as frightening instead of friends.

The PRC’s biological warfare experts (and the CCP leaders) were no doubt taking notes.

The lesson: before making your move, hit your enemy with a bio-attack that is amplified by tame media, international organizations, and local elites—and your forces (already vaccinated with the right drugs) will have a much easier time.

Indeed, COVID suggests that even just making the enemy think he is under biological attack might be enough.

“

Another big advantage of bio-weapons: you have plausible deniability if you do it right—for example, by releasing it in another country. You might also have friendly enemy citizens willing to obfuscate on your behalf.”

We just saw it happen for two years with COVID-19. Things got so insane that it was forbidden in many quarters to even say or write that the coronavirus came from China.

35

As one observer noted at the time regarding the taboo of suggesting COVID came from the Wuhan laboratory,

“If you see a giraffe walking down the street, you might at least check at the zoo to see if they had a giraffe that’s gone missing.”

COVID Is Just One Item on the Biological Warfare Menu In recent years, socalled gene editing research and experimentation in the PRC has been reported and has gotten overseas attention. This is because a Chinese scientist claimed to have created genetically modified human babies, or CRISPR babies —a reference to the specific gene-editing technique.

Reportedly, this technique has a dual use for potential biological warfare—to include plagues that destroy certain crops or designing diseases that can target a specific race based on genetic makeup.

According to Bill Gertz, a U.S. official speaking anonymously in 2020 expressed concern over Chinese biological testing on ethnic minorities. Gertz cites a 2017 book in which a Chinese general said that, owing to biotechnology advances, “specific ethnic genetic attacks” could happen in future warfare.

PLA super-soldiers are rumored. Former DNI Ratcliffe said that China is conducting experiments on PLA soldiers to create soldiers with “biologically enhanced capabilities.”

And so, there’s plenty to worry about.

Yes, but...

But certainly, the Chinese communists would never use biological weapons. That would be too awful to contemplate.

Well, given they seem to be in the “anything that works” business, maybe not. In other words, if it weakens the enemy, it’s good for Beijing. It increases China’s relative Comprehensive National Power.

36

B

ut surely, the PRC signed the Biological Weapons Treaty?

Remember the law fare section? The PRC has signed a lot of treaties and agreements. And it’s hard to name one they have scrupulously obeyed when it was not in Chinese communist interests.

But the PRC doesn’t want to harm its reputation?

That ship has long since sailed. And anyway, it values fear more than a genial pat on the back from the international community.

But isn’t the PRC is afraid of potential casualties?

Up to a point, maybe, but only if the casualties are the top people in the Chinese Communist Party and their relatives.

Remember that the CCP is responsible for the deaths of at least fifty million of its own citizens—in peacetime and good weather—since taking over in 1949. It may be willing to take its chances, especially if it ends up with its main enemy, the United States, on the ropes.

With the Chinese Communist Party, it is all about power, dominance, and ultimately control. If a weapon contributes to that, it’s worth having in the arsenal. If you need to calibrate on PRC willingness to use biological weapons, consider this May 2022 Global Times headline, and remember that the virus came from China: “200,000 U.S. Children Orphaned by COVID-19 Grill Washington’s Conscience: Global Times Editorial.

“

Beijing does not appear to have a

conscience. That which it has done, and works, it might do again.”

37

38

Col. Grant Newsham (Ret.) is a distinguished U.S. Marine Corps veteran, respected author, and leading expert on Asia-Pacific defense and security matters. With decades of professional and military experience in the Indo-Pacific region, Col. Newsham has been at the forefront of U.S. strategic engagement in Asia.

During his military career, Col. Newsham served in several pivotal roles, including as the first U.S. Marine Liaison Officer to the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force, where he played a key role in establishing Japan’s amphibious capabilities. He also served as the reserve head of intelligence for Marine Forces Pacific and as the U.S. Marine Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, contributing significantly to strengthening U.S.-Japan defense cooperation.

Beyond his military service, Col. Newsham has had a multifaceted career in diplomacy, law, and the private sector. As a U.S. Foreign Service Officer, he specialized in East and South Asian affairs, focusing on insurgency, counterinsurgency, and economic development. As an international attorney, he advised on trade and public international law. His corporate tenure includes senior executive roles at Morgan Stanley Japan and Motorola Japan, where he worked extensively on regional business strategies.

Col. Newsham is currently a Senior Fellow at the Center for Security Policy and a Research Fellow at the Japan Forum for Strategic Studies. His research focuses on Asia-Pacific defense, economic, and political issues, where he provides insights into the region's evolving security dynamics.

In 2023, Col. Newsham authored the critically acclaimed book "When China Attacks: A Warning to America," which became an Amazon best-seller. The book draws on his extensive knowledge and experience to address the growing challenges posed by China's strategic ambitions and their implications for U.S. national security.

For further reading on Col. Grant Newsham’s strategic insights, please refer to his book, When China Attacks: A Warning to America, where he explores these topics in depth.

39

40

41

The rapid advancement of missile technology in recent years, particularly in the domains of hypersonic flight and ballistic missile systems, has presented unprecedented challenges to traditional missile defense systems. As adversaries develop more sophisticated delivery vehicles capable of unpredictable trajectories and enhanced evasive maneuvers, existing missile defense frameworks struggle to keep pace. These new threats, armed with advanced guidance systems and evasive capabilities, undermine traditional defense mechanisms that rely heavily on linear predictive models.

In this evolving battlefield, the need for an innovative, adaptive approach to missile defense has become clear. This paper introduces the Convergent

Algorithm, a revolutionary

concept designed to redefine terminal defense and offense by incorporating advanced artificial intelligence, multilayered defense architectures, and predictive algorithms.

The Convergent Algorithm concept stands apart from current missile defense systems by focusing on a fully integrated, adaptive response to missile threats, particularly during the terminal phase.

Most existing defense systems, such as the Patriot and Terminal High Altitude

Area Defense (THAAD) systems, operate within defined parameters for intercepting threats based on ballistic trajectories and predictable flight paths.

However, with the rise of hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs) and other maneuverable re-entry vehicles, these defense systems are increasingly challenged.

The Convergent Algorithm is not merely an upgrade to existing technologies but rather a paradigm shift in how missile defense and offense are approached. It introduces a multilayered, self-learning algorithm capable of anticipating and countering the unpredictable flight behaviors of modern missile systems.

42

43 Integrated Defense Platforms: Bridging Earth and Space © Linda Restrepo

The Evolution of Missile Defense and the Need for Innovation Traditional missile defense systems are designed around the principle of detecting, tracking, and intercepting incoming projectiles at different phases of their flight boost phase, midcourse

phase, and terminal phase. While advances have been made in each of these areas, especially with systems like the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and THAAD, the introduction of hypersonic missiles has significantly altered the threat landscape.

H

ypersonic weapons, which can travel at speeds exceeding Mach 5 and maneuver unpredictably, make traditional midcourse and terminal defense strategies less effective. Their speed and ability to evade interceptors compress decision-making windows, rendering most linear interception algorithms inadequate.

What makes hypersonic threats especially formidable is their combination of speed, altitude, and maneuverability. Unlike traditional ballistic missiles that follow predictable parabolic trajectories, hypersonic glide vehicles can alter their course mid-flight, making them difficult to track and intercept.

These characteristics, combined with advancements in stealth technologies and decoy deployment, require a defense system capable of dynamic realtime adaptation. This is where the Convergent Algorithm offers a transformative approach. Rather than relying on fixed predictive models, it uses Counter-Counter Predictive Defense (CCPD) to anticipate and react to evasive maneuvers, creating a non-linear, multidimensional defensive perimeter.

Converging Factors for a Holistic Missile Defense System The central concept behind the Convergent Algorithm is the convergence of multiple data streams, sensors, and defensive layers into a unified response mechanism. At its core, the algorithm operates by fusing information from ground, air, and space based sensors to create a real-time map of the threat environment.

This information is continuously analyzed and updated, allowing the system to rapidly adjust its predictions based on incoming data, including changes in the missile’s trajectory, speed, and behavior.

44

One of the key innovations in the Convergent Algorithm is its ability to operate autonomously within a multi-layered defense architecture. Unlike traditional systems that may rely on centralized command structures, the Convergent Algorithm is fully decentralized, allowing each layer of defense—from space-based early warning systems to ground-based interceptors—to function independently if needed.

This decentralized approach ensures that the system remains functional even in contested environments where communication networks may be disrupted or electronic warfare (EW) measures are deployed.

The Convergent Algorithm also introduces a novel concept for interception called PreTerminal State Engagement. In traditional missile defense, interception during the terminal phase is considered the final opportunity to neutralize an incoming threat.

However, the Convergent Algorithm introduces the idea of engaging the target before it reaches its terminal descent, utilizing Smart Reusable Hybrid Terminal Vehicles (SRHTVs). These interceptors can be deployed in layers, establishing a multidimensional mesh capable of engaging and neutralizing highly maneuverable hypersonic threats before they can pose a direct risk to critical assets. By extending the defensive engagement window, the Convergent Algorithm significantly improves the probability of a successful interception.

Integrating Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning A key component of the Convergent Algorithm is its integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML). While many modern defense systems incorporate some level of automation, the Convergent Algorithm takes this to a new level by allowing the system to learn and adapt based on predicative modeling, Realtime and previous engagements.

T

he algorithm continuously refines its predictive models, using real-time data analysis to improve its interception capabilities. For example, if a missile employs previously unknown evasive maneuvers or decoy techniques, the algorithm learns from this behavior and adjusts its parameters for future engagements. This self-learning aspect ensures that the Convergent Algorithm remains effective even against rapidly evolving threats.

45

Moreover, the Convergent Algorithm can integrate data from multiple sources, including satellite-based intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) systems, ground-based radars, and airborne sensors, to provide a comprehensive view of the threat environment. This multilayered data fusion allows the system to make faster, more accurate decisions about how and when to engage a target, significantly enhancing the effectiveness of terminal defense operations.

Strategic and Operational Impact The strategic implications of the Convergent Algorithm extend beyond its technical capabilities. By decentralizing command and control and enabling real time, autonomous decision-making, the Convergent Algorithm provides a solution that can adapt to the unpredictable nature of modern warfare. Its ability to neutralize both hypersonic and ballistic threats makes it an essential tool in maintaining air and missile defense superiority. Furthermore, by introducing advanced interception mechanisms like the SRHTVs, the Convergent Algorithm can effectively counter the saturation attack strategies employed by adversaries to overwhelm missile defense systems.

From an operational perspective, the Convergent Algorithm’s decentralization makes it highly resilient in contested environments. In scenarios where adversaries employ electronic warfare (EW) tactics to disrupt communications or disable key components of missile defense networks, the algorithm ensures that individual layers of defense can continue to operate autonomously. This distributed defense capability enhances system survivability, even in environments where communications or command centers are compromised.

A New Era in Missile Defense With the Convergent Algorithm The Convergent Algorithm represents a significant leap forward in missile defense technology, offering an innovative solution to the complex challenges posed by modern hypersonic and ballistic missile threats. By integrating AI-driven predictive models, autonomous interception mechanisms, and a decentralized defense architecture, the Convergent Algorithm provides a future proof solution capable of evolving alongside the threats it is designed to counter. As missile technologies continue to advance, the ability to anticipate, adapt, and respond to unpredictable threats will be critical in ensuring national and global security. The Convergent Algorithm, with its multilayered, adaptive approach, stands at the forefront of this new era in missile defense and offense.

46

47 Futuristic Orbital Launch System © Linda Restrepo

The History of Hypersonics The history of hypersonics, defined as speeds exceeding Mach 5 (five times the speed of sound), is a story rooted in the quest for faster, more efficient, and more lethal flight technologies. It has seen dramatic advancements over the last century, driven by military imperatives, space exploration ambitions, and technological breakthroughs.

To understand the current state of hypersonic systems, it is essential to trace their origins and the stages of development that have shaped the field.

Early Conceptual (Before 1940) Beginnings The concept of hypersonic flight can be traced back to the early 20th century, when pioneering aerodynamicists began exploring the possibilities of faster-than-sound speeds. German engineer Ludwig Prandtl made significant contributions to supersonic flight theory in the 1920s and 1930s, which laid the groundwork for future hypersonic studies. However, at that time, practical development was still beyond the reach of existing propulsion technologies and materials, and most efforts were focused on reaching supersonic speeds.

World War II and the V-2 Rocket (1940s) The first major step toward hypersonic flight came during World War II with the development of the V-2 rocket by Nazi Germany. Although the V-2 itself was not a hypersonic weapon, it laid the foundation for high-speed propulsion. The V-2 was capable of reaching supersonic speeds and altitudes that surpassed any prior missile technology, and its development provided critical lessons in rocket science.

The post-war period saw many German scientists, including those from the V-2 program, absorbed into American and Soviet aerospace research. These efforts soon contributed to the birth of modern rocketry and the space race, both of which would accelerate the pursuit of hypersonic capabilities.

The Early Cold War Era (1950s) With the onset of the Cold War, hypersonic flight became a strategic goal for both the United States and the Soviet Union. The development of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) demonstrated the feasibility of reentry vehicles that could achieve hypersonic speeds as they re-entered the Earth’s atmosphere. The United States’ X-15 program, initiated in the late 1950s, aimed to explore hypersonic flight through an experimental aircraft capable of reaching Mach 6.7. The X-15 project

48

produced invaluable data on high-speed flight, heat resistance, and control at extreme velocities.

It became one of the first true hypersonic platforms, although its flights were relatively brief and focused primarily on scientific experimentation.

During the same period, the Soviet Union was also making progress, particularly with the development of high-speed reentry vehicles for its ICBM arsenal. The Cold War rivalry spurred tremendous investment in hypersonic research, with military applications at the forefront. The allure of a weapon system that could evade conventional defenses by traveling at extreme speeds, combined with the desire to dominate space, set the stage for further advancements.

Hypersonic Missiles and Vehicles (1960s–1980s)Space The 1960s marked a period of consolidation and experimentation for hypersonic technologies. One of the key breakthroughs came with the development of the Dyna-Soar program, an ambitious U.S. Air Force project aimed at building a hypersonic spaceplane capable of both military and civilian uses. Although the Dyna-Soar program was eventually canceled due to budget constraints and technological challenges, it laid critical groundwork for later efforts, including the Space Shuttle.

In the 1970s and 1980s, attention began to shift towards space exploration, and much of the hypersonic research was redirected to the development of reusable space vehicles. The Space Shuttle, first launched in 1981, was a significant technological leap, with hypersonic speeds achieved during its reentry phase.

Although not a hypersonic cruise vehicle, the Space Shuttle provided essential insights into the challenges of managing extreme heat loads, materials fatigue, and aerodynamics at high velocities.

In

parallel, both the U.S. and the Soviet Union continued to explore hypersonic missile technology, recognizing the potential for maneuverable reentry vehicles that could defeat missile defense systems. This period saw the development of Multiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs), which while not hypersonic cruise missiles, would travel at hypersonic speeds during the terminal phase of flight, becoming a crucial element of nuclear deterrence strategies.

49

The Post-Cold War Interlude and Renewed Interest (1990s–2000s) Following the end of the Cold War, hypersonic research slowed considerably, particularly in the military sphere. Budget cuts, shifting defense priorities, and technological challenges dampened enthusiasm for the continued development of hypersonic vehicles.

However, the pursuit of hypersonic technologies was not abandoned entirely. The mid-1990s saw renewed interest in the form of the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) program in the United States, an ambitious but ultimately canceled effort to develop a single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO) hypersonic vehicle.

The NASP project did not yield operational hardware, but it contributed significantly to hypersonic propulsion research, particularly in scramjet engine technology.

Around the same time, the concept of “Prompt Global Strike” emerged as a key element of U.S. strategic planning. This concept sought the development of weapons that could hit any target on Earth within an hour, and hypersonic cruise missiles were seen as a potential means of achieving this capability. However, practical challenges related to propulsion, guidance, and materials limited progress during this period.

The Rise of Hypersonic Weapons Programs (2010s) The early 21st century saw the emergence of new strategic imperatives that revitalized hypersonic weapons development. The rise of near-peer competitors, particularly China and Russia, prompted the U.S. and its allies to reinvigorate efforts to develop hypersonic technologies, both for defense and offense. China’s successful flight tests of the DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle in the early 2010s demonstrated a leap in capabilities, sparking concerns about the potential for a “hypersonic arms race.”

Russia also made significant strides, culminating in the announcement of the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle in 2018. The Avangard, capable of speeds exceeding Mach 20, was designed to be launched atop an ICBM and evade existing missile defense systems with high-speed maneuvers.

In response, the United States accelerated its hypersonic programs, focusing on both glide vehicles and hypersonic cruise missiles.

During this period, the development of scramjet propulsion systems began to show promise, particularly in the form of experimental vehicles like the X-51 Waverider.

50

The Waverider demonstrated sustained hypersonic flight using an airbreathing scramjet engine, reaching speeds of Mach 5.1 during a successful test in 2013.

This marked a key milestone in the development of hypersonic cruise missiles, which could potentially provide the military with fast, long-range strike capabilities that are difficult to defend against.

Current (2020s) State of Hypersonics As of the early 2020s, hypersonics has become a key focus of military strategy for several major powers, with the United States, China, and Russia leading the way in development. Hypersonic weapons are seen as a potential game changer due to their ability to travel at speeds that make them nearly impossible to intercept with current missile defense systems.

The U.S. Department of Defense has prioritized hypersonic weapons in its research and development budget, focusing on systems such as the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW) and the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW). These systems aim to provide the U.S. military with the capability to strike targets at extreme ranges with minimal warning, enhancing deterrence against adversaries.

C R

hina has continued to develop its hypersonic capabilities, with reports of successful tests of hypersonic glide vehicles and cruise missiles, such as the DF-17, which is believed to be operational. China’s focus on hypersonics is part of a broader effort to modernize its military capabilities and challenge the U.S.’s dominance in the Indo-Pacific

region.

ussia, meanwhile, has positioned its hypersonic systems as a key part

of its nuclear deterrent. The Avangard system is already reportedly deployed, and Russia is developing other hypersonic weapons, including the zircon hypersonic cruise missile, which is designed for anti-ship and land-attack roles. These developments have sparked concerns that hypersonic weapons could destabilize global strategic stability, as they compress decision-making times in a conflict scenario.

Despite these advancements, significant challenges remain. The development of effective hypersonic propulsion systems, such as scramjets, is still in its early stages, and there are substantial hurdles in terms of guidance, targeting, and materials capable of withstanding the extreme heat generated at hypersonic speeds. The integration of hypersonic systems into operational military forces will require

51

advancements in sensor networks, command and control systems, and missile defense.

Moreover, the proliferation of hypersonic technology raises concerns about arms control and escalation dynamics. As hypersonic weapons become more widely available, there is the potential for a new arms race, with countries seeking to develop countermeasures and defenses against these systems.

The history of hypersonics is one of technological ambition, geopolitical rivalry, and persistent challenges. From its early conceptual origins to the cutting-edge weapons systems of today, hypersonic technology has evolved dramatically, but it still faces significant hurdles before becoming a dominant force in military strategy. The current state of hypersonics reflects both the promise and the perils of this technology, with nations racing to develop systems that could redefine the nature of warfare in the 21st century.

As hypersonic systems continue to mature, they are likely to play a critical role in the defense strategies of major powers.

Understanding Defense: Challenges, and Developments Terminal Concepts, Current Developments Terminal defense refers to the phase of missile defense operations that involves intercepting and neutralizing ballistic missiles, hypersonic glide vehicles, or other high-speed threats in the final stage of their flight, as they approach their target.

This phase is particularly critical because it offers the last opportunity to defend against an incoming threat before it impacts its intended target, making terminal defense the most urgent and time-constrained phase of missile defense. To effectively grasp the complexities of terminal defense, it is important to explore its foundational principles, the technologies involved, the challenges it faces, and the current advancements shaping its future.

The Stages of Missile Defense To understand terminal defense, it is first necessary to recognize the different stages of missile defense. Generally, missile defense is divided into three phases: boost phase, midcourse phase, and terminal phase.

• Boost Phase: This is the earliest phase, when the missile is launched and still accelerating. Defending against a missile during this phase offers a crucial advantage since the missile is slow and vulnerable. However, this is also the

52

shortest phase and is geographically constrained, as defense systems must be in proximity to the launch site.

• Midcourse Phase: The missile coasts through space, and it is during this phase that it follows a predictable ballistic trajectory. Midcourse defense offers the longest interception window but can be complicated by decoys or multiple warheads (MIRVs).

• Terminal Phase: This is the final stage when the missile re-enters the Earth’s atmosphere and speeds toward its target. Terminal defense occurs within this phase, and it must be fast, accurate, and precise due to the limited reaction time and the high speed of the missile.

The Fundamentals of Terminal Defense Terminal defense systems are designed to intercept incoming threats at short ranges and within very tight time constraints. These systems must operate under immense pressure as they target missiles or warheads traveling at hypersonic speeds, often in excess of Mach 10. Any failure in this phase can result in catastrophic damage to the target area, whether it be a military installation, city, or key infrastructure.

There are two primary methods of intercepting a missile during the terminal phase: hit-to-kill and explosive fragmentation.

• Hit-to-Kill Interception: This approach involves direct collision with the incoming warhead or missile, destroying it through sheer kinetic energy. Hit-to-kill technology is incredibly challenging due to the precision required to strike a target traveling at such high speeds. However, it avoids the potential risks of detonating a missile’s warhead near the defended area.

• Explosive Fragmentation Interception: This method involves the use of explosive warheads that disperse fragments in the path of the incoming missile, damaging or destroying it through the impact of shrapnel. While this method may not require as much precision as hit-to-kill, it can still pose risks, particularly if the intercepted missile is nuclear or carrying a highly destructive payload, since it may not fully neutralize the threat before impact.

Challenges Defense in Terminal The terminal phase of missile defense presents unique challenges that stem from the speed, maneuverability, and unpredictability of the incoming threat. Below are the key issues complicating terminal defense efforts:

53

• Speed and Reaction Time: Ballistic missiles and hypersonic vehicles in the terminal phase travel at extraordinary speeds, often exceeding Mach 10. This leaves only seconds or minutes for the defense system to detect, track, and intercept the threat. The extremely short engagement window places immense pressure on sensors, fire control systems, and interceptors, all of which must operate flawlessly under tight time constraints.

• Atmospheric Re-entry: During the terminal phase, missiles or hypersonic glide vehicles re-enter the Earth’s atmosphere, which presents additional complications.

Atmospheric re-entry generates intense heat and stress on both the incoming vehicle and the interceptor. Defense systems must be capable of withstanding these harsh conditions and accurately guiding interceptors through turbulent environments.

• Decoys and countermeasures: Many modern missiles and reentry vehicles deploy decoys or other countermeasures during their midcourse phase to confuse missile defense systems. These decoys may be radar or infrared reflective, making it difficult for terminal defense systems to discern the actual warhead from false targets. Discrimination between real and fake targets becomes increasingly difficult in the terminal phase due to the rapid closing speeds.

• Maneuverability: Hypersonic glide vehicles (HGVs) and some advanced ballistic missiles have the ability to maneuver during their terminal phase, making their flight paths unpredictable. Unlike traditional ballistic missiles, which follow a parabolic trajectory, HGVs can alter their course to evade interceptors, posing a significant challenge for terminal defense systems, which must quickly adjust their targeting and interception paths.

• Maneuverability of Terminal Defense Components: Terminal defense systems are generally designed to protect a specific area, such as a city or military base, and their effective range is relatively limited compared to other missile defense systems.

This means that they may not be able to provide wide area coverage, especially against multiple simultaneous threats.

• Technological and Cost Constraints: The development and deployment of effective terminal defense systems require substantial investment in advanced technologies, including sensors, interceptors, and computing systems capable of handling the demands of high-speed missile defense. The cost of developing and maintaining these systems can be prohibitively high, especially for smaller nations.

54

Key Systems Terminal Defense Several missile defense systems have been developed specifically to address the challenges of terminal defense. Below are some of the most prominent systems in use or under development today; • Patriot Missile Defense System The Patriot missile defense system, developed by the United States, is one of the most well-known terminal defense systems in the world. It has been used in combat since the Gulf War in 1991 and has undergone numerous upgrades to improve its performance against ballistic missiles.

The Patriot system uses radar to detect and track incoming threats, and it employs hit-to-kill technology to intercept them. The latest version, the Patriot PAC-3, is specifically designed to intercept ballistic missiles in the terminal phase. It has a range of around 35 kilometers for ballistic missile threats, making it suitable for point defense of specific targets, such as military bases or critical infrastructure.

One of the key advantages of the Patriot system is its mobility, allowing it to be deployed quickly to different locations as needed. However, its relatively short range means that it is best used for localized defense rather than wide-area coverage.

• Terminal High Defense (THAAD) Altitude Area The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system is another U.S.developed missile defense system designed to intercept ballistic missiles in their terminal phase. Unlike the Patriot system, which operates at lower altitudes, THAAD is designed to intercept missiles at higher altitudes, typically in the exoatmosphere or upper atmosphere.

THAAD uses hit-to-kill technology, relying on the kinetic energy of the interceptor to destroy the incoming missile. Its higher altitude interception capability provides an additional layer of defense, allowing for the interception of missiles before they descend into the atmosphere and pose a direct threat to their target.

THAAD is considered a highly effective system for defending against short- and medium-range ballistic missiles, and it has been deployed in various regions, including South Korea, to defend against potential missile threats from North Korea. However, like the Patriot system, it has a limited defense radius and is designed primarily for point defense.

55

56 Futuristic Orbital Defense Command Center © Linda Restrepo

• Aegis (BMD) Ballistic Missile Defense The Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense system, developed by the U.S. Navy, provides both midcourse and terminal phase missile defense capabilities. The Aegis system is unique in that it is deployed on warships, making it a highly mobile and flexible defense platform capable of protecting both land and sea-based assets.

Aegis BMD uses the Standard Missile-3 (SM3) and Standard Missile-6 (SM-6) interceptors to engage ballistic missiles. While the SM-3 is primarily used for midcourse interception, the SM-6 is designed for terminal phase interception, providing a layered defense capability.

Aegis BMD has been deployed on U.S. Navy destroyers and cruisers, as well as on land based installations in Europe as part of NATO’s missile defense strategy. Its versatility and mobility make it a critical component of both regional and global missile defense architectures.

• Iron Dome (Israel) and David’s Sling Israel has developed a highly sophisticated missile defense architecture to defend against a wide range of missile and rocket threats. Two key components of this architecture are the Iron Dome and David’s Sling systems, both of which provide terminal phase defense.

The Iron Dome system is specifically designed to intercept short-range rockets and artillery shells, making it highly effective for defending against threats from terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Iron Dome uses a combination of radar and interceptor missiles to engage incoming threats, and it has demonstrated a high degree of success in combat.

David’s Sling, on the other hand, is designed to intercept medium—to long-range missiles in the terminal phase. It fills the gap between the shorterrange Iron Dome and the longer- range Arrow system,

57

which is designed for exo-atmospheric missile defense. Together, these systems provide Israel with a multilayered defense against a wide range of missile threats.

Emerging Technologies Terminal Defense As the missile threat landscape evolves, new technologies are being developed to enhance terminal defense capabilities. Some of the most promising advancements include: • Directed Energy Weapons: Laser-based systems have the potential to revolutionize terminal defense by providing a near-instantaneous response to incoming threats. Unlike traditional interceptors, which must physically collide with or detonate near the missile, directed energy weapons can engage targets at the speed of light, potentially allowing for multiple engagements within the limited time window of the terminal phase.

• Hypersonic Defense Systems: The rise of hypersonic weapons has posed new challenges for terminal defense, as traditional missile defense systems may struggle to keep pace with the maneuverability and speed of hypersonic glide vehicles. In response, nations like the U.S. are developing specialized defense systems designed to track and intercept hypersonic threats, which will likely rely on advanced sensors, AI-driven targeting, and new interceptor technologies.

• Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning: AI and machine learning are increasingly being integrated into missile defense systems to improve decisionmaking speed and accuracy. AI can help terminal defense systems quickly analyze sensor data, track incoming threats, and prioritize targets, all within the extremely short timeframes required for successful interceptions.

• Multilayered Defense Architectures: Terminal defense systems are becoming part of broader, multilayered missile defense architectures that integrate sensors, command-and-control systems, and interceptors from different phases of missile defense. This approach allows for multiple engagement opportunities and increases the overall chances of a successful interception.

The Future of Terminal Defense As missile technologies continue to advance, so too must terminal defense systems evolve to keep pace with emerging threats. The rise of hypersonic missiles, in particular, poses a significant challenge, as these weapons can outmaneuver and outrun many existing defense systems. However, ongoing research into new

58

technologies, such as directed energy weapons, advanced sensors, and AI-driven systems, offers hope for the future.

In the coming years, we can expect to see the development of more sophisticated and capable terminal defense systems that are capable of defending against not only traditional ballistic missile threats but also hypersonic glide vehicles and other advanced weaponry. These systems will need to be highly adaptable, mobile, and capable of operating in complex, multi-domain environments.

Terminal defense is a vital aspect of modern missile defense strategies, providing the last line of defense against a wide range of missile threats. While significant challenges remain, particularly in the face of emerging technologies like hypersonic weapons, ongoing advancements in interception technology, sensor capabilities, and command-and-control systems are helping to ensure that terminal defense remains a critical and effective component of national and global security strategies.

The Convergent Algorithm and the Convergent Defense Concept proposed by Dr. Adib Enayati in this paper is a revolutionary approach to terminal defense and offense.

Understanding Detection Mechanisms and Challenges The first stage in dealing with a threat is detection, which involves identifying and categorizing it. Understanding detection mechanisms is crucial as it helps us recognize constraints and flaws in existing systems, enabling us to address and rectify these issues.

Detection of objects in the sky and on the surface is conducted using radar (Radio Detection and Ranging) systems, while for submersible threats, SONAR (Sound Navigation and Ranging) is employed. Radio waves are transverse electromagnetic waves that propagate through the atmosphere at the speed of light (299,792,458 meters per second), although atmospheric conditions can slightly affect their propagation. In contrast, sound is a physical wave that requires a medium for propagation.

Radar systems are configured in various classes to surveil a wide range of threats, each with their own set of operational constraints affecting performance.

Object detection in radar systems is influenced by factors such as the object’s size, composition, and movement speed. These factors affect how radar systems configure their pulses. Key parameters for radar operation include:

59

Effective Range: Maximum distance at which the radar can detect objects.

Blind Speed: Speeds at which moving objects may not be detected due to the Doppler effect and Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF) relationship.

Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR): Ratio of the signal power to the background noise power, crucial for detecting objects above the noise floor.

These parameters depend on various pulse configurations and radar characteristics: Pulse Repetition Frequency (PRF): Rate of pulse transmission, influencing range and velocity measurements.

Frequency: Determines range capabilities.

System Noise and Thermal Noise: Internal noise affecting radar performance.

Interference: External signals that can degrade radar performance.

Reflection and Dispersion: Behavior radar waves upon hitting objects.

Power/Amplitude: Strength of the radar signal.

The radar equation incorporates the Radar Cross Section (RCS), which measures how detectable an object is based on its size, shape, and material. Thus, SNR is influenced by RCS, among other factors, and determines the radar’s ability to detect targets above the noise floor.

In summary, the effective detection of objects by radar systems is a complex interplay of the object’s properties and the radar’s operational parameters, with SNR being a critical factor that includes the consideration of RCS. Let us have a quick look at the extended radar equation: The radar equation is a fundamental formula used to predict the power received by a radar system after it transmits a signal and it reflects off a target. This equation helps in understanding how various factors affect radar performance. At the first glance, we see a lot of parameters that are contributing to the radar system’s performance where: • Pr: Received power by the radar (W)

60

• Pt: Transmitted power (W) • Gt: Gain of the transmitting antenna (dimensionless) • Gr: Gain of the receiving antenna (dimensionless) • λ\lambda: Wavelength of the radar signal (m) • σ\sigma: Effective reflection surface (m²), or radar cross-section (RCS) • R: Slant range from the radar to the target (m) • Kα: Loss factor (dimensionless) • Az: Effective reflection surface (m²), or radar cross-section (RCS) • ti: Pulse length (s) • nR: Noise figure of the receiver (dimensionless) • d: Clarity factor of the display (dimensionless) • Re: Distance of the absorbing medium (m) • K: Boltzmann’s constant (1.38 × 10−231.38 \times 10^ {-23}1.38 × 10− 23 J/ K) • T0: Absolute temperature in Kelvin(K) • γ\gamma: Reflected beam angle (dimensionless) • δR\delta: Break-even factor (dimensionless) • He: Effective height of the radar beam above the Earth’s surface (m) These parameters are integral to the development of radar systems, forming a complex equation. However, I will not delve into all of them here, as this is not a radar course.

significantly contributes to their performance. Signal processing is essential for radar systems to detect and categorize signals received by their receivers promptly.

It is important to note that radar systems also rely on advanced software for signal processing, which

Moreover, radar systems must be resilient against electronic countermeasures like jamming. They

61

need to analyze critical parameters such as Time of Arrival (TOA) and Direction of Arrival (DOA) of detected signals, prioritize and classify threats, and relay data to interception components in real time.

When it comes to the detection of the incoming threats, the space borne ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) is the key. Employing a robust early warning system remains the key in the early warning and modern missile defense but considering that a full-scale orbital suppression scenario is in effect, or the satellite sensory systems and the strategic networks are knocked out in a surprised or pre-emptive manner; then the reliance will be on the groundbased sensory networks for detection, categorization and termination. Orbital Suppression is a novel concept that I have introduced in my Mechanics of Spaceborne Warfare Series.

The hostile vectors capable of hypersonic flight speeds armed with hypersonic glide vehicles are the most dangerous types of threats as these factors limit the detection and interception timeframe and if the warhead is capable of conducting smart evasive maneuvers, then it presents the ultimate challenge for the air and missile defense systems. I want to dive deeper and explain the re-entry with a calculated example. But before that I want you to remember why scramjet technology matters as you read the detailed example as with the current technologies, the impact speeds are subsonic or supersonic at best while with the scram jet, the impact can be at hypersonic speeds meaning the projectile will not reduce speed as the reentry happens as opposed to the current mechanism.

Take a deep breath and let us proceed.

So, let us assume the following: The speed and time of impact of a reentry vehicle (RV) during reentry depend on several factors, including its initial altitude, mass, shape (aerodynamics), atmospheric drag, and the effects of gravity. To calculate these values, we can break the process into several phases: • Initial altitude: The starting altitude of the RV, typically in low Earth orbit (LEO), which ranges between 160 km and 2,000 km.

• Mass of the vehicle: Affects the impact of gravity and air resistance.

62

63

Propulsion Revolution: The Power Behind Next-Gen Launch Systems © Linda Restrepo

• Drag forces: Earth’s atmosphere slows the vehicle down, with the drag increasing as the vehicle descends and encounters denser layers.

• Ballistic coefficient (BC): A measure of how aerodynamic the RV is, which impacts how it decelerates through the atmosphere.

• Gravitational force: Constant acceleration due to Earth’s gravity, approximately 9.81 m/s².

Now, 1. Entry speed (atmospheric reentry point): The RV typically enters the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds, ranging between 7.8 km/s to 11 km/s, depending on its initial velocity in orbit and whether it is returning from LEO or a higher altitude.

2. Drag force: As the RV descends, atmospheric drag increases exponentially. Drag force FD can be described using:

Where: ▪ CD: is the drag coefficient (typically between 0.5 and 2 for blunt bodies), ▪ ρ: is air density (varies with altitude), ▪ A: is the cross-sectional area of the RV, ▪ V: is velocity at a given point in the atmosphere.

3. Deceleration due to drag: The Velocity of the RV decreases rapidly during atmospheric reentry. To simplify, assuming exponential drag, the RV’s velocity will decrease in phases. The most significant deceleration occurs between altitudes of 100 km and 30 km. As the RV enters the atmosphere, it begins encountering air particles, which exert a resistive force (drag). The drag force is proportional to the square of the vehicle’s speed and the density of the air

64

4. Final velocity at impact: Depending on the RV’s design and descent profile, the terminal velocity (just before impact) can range from supersonic to subsonic. For a typical ballistic reentry vehicle, the final velocity could be around 1 km/s to 3 km/s, unless slowed further by parachutes or other deceleration mechanisms.

5. Time of descent: The time from atmospheric entry to impact can be approximated by considering the total energy lost to drag and gravitational forces.

A rough estimate can be given by integrating velocity over time, but typical descent times from 120 km to the surface are between 5 to 15 minutes.

Simplified Example Calculation:

Assuming: • Reentry from an altitude of 200 km, • Entry speed of 8 km/s, • No active deceleration (such as parachutes), • Ballistic coefficient of 100 kg/m².

We can break the reentry into two phases: a free-fall until significant drag, and then deceleration through the atmosphere.

1. Free-fall phase: Without atmospheric drag, the vehicle would accelerate under gravity, but in this case, it maintains an orbital speed close to 7.8 km/s.

2. Atmospheric deceleration: As the vehicle hits denser layers of the atmosphere (around 90 km), drag becomes significant. Using simplified models of drag, the velocity will drop from 7.8 km/s to about 2–3 km/s near the surface.

3. Time of descent: The free-fall part (from 200 km to 100 km) takes about 2–3 minutes. The deceleration phase lasts another 5–10 minutes depending on how drag builds up. Total descent time can be estimated to be 7–13 minutes.

Example Results simplified: • Impact speed: Between 1–3 km/s, depending on the vehicle’s aerodynamic properties and deceleration mechanisms.

• Time of impact: Approximately 713 minutes from reentry altitude (200 km) to ground level, heavily influenced by drag in the lower atmosphere.

65

And to visualize the example in a 60 second’s window of re-entry: As you can see in the example above the current technologies are unable to provide an impact velocity at the hypersonic speeds. A scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) could impact at hypersonic speeds, but this still depends on several factors. Scramjets are designed to operate at hypersonic velocities, typically above Mach 5 (roughly 6,100 km/h or 3,800 mph), and they sustain these speeds by utilizing air breathing propulsion. However, whether a scramjet would actually impact at hypersonic speeds depends on the mission profile and whether the scramjet engine remains active during descent.

The majority of the vehicles and warheads that you can see advertised by the adversaries’ modern capabilities claimed to be hypersonic, are a large fuselage which is a large booster which contains the stages required to achieve the orbital altitude and a section with modified highly aerodynamic vehicle. As you have read earlier, it is to improve the ballistic coefficient of the warhead for re-entry to achieve higher speeds, while some may achieve the Mach speed with artificial boosting, they are still far from being an actual hypersonic warhead during terminal phase.

Another factor is the stealth characteristics of a reentry vehicle which can aid evade radar detection and a possible firing solution in the terminal phase as opposed to launch and flight duration where the space-based sensory networks can monitor and track the threats.

So, how this will affect the interception and the terminal defense is the question that is currently formed in your minds and I wish to answer that in the next section.

66

Understanding Scramjet Scramjets, or supersonic combustion ramjets, represent a sophisticated class of airbreathing engines specifically designed to operate at hypersonic speeds (above Mach 5). Their unique operational mode allows them to combust fuel in a supersonic airflow, making them an attractive option for sustained hypersonic flight. However, their functionality is constrained to a specific range of atmospheric conditions, primarily because they require both adequate atmospheric density for air intake and sufficient speed for efficient combustion. This presents limitations when considering their application in terminal-phase hypersonic vehicles, such as re-entry systems.

Scramjets and Atmospheric Layers Scramjets rely on atmospheric air for combustion, which distinguishes them from rocket engines that carry their own oxidizer. This reliance on atmospheric oxygen means that scramjets function optimally only within certain altitude and speed ranges. Typically, scramjets operate between 20 km and 40 km in altitude, where the atmosphere is still dense enough to provide the necessary oxygen for combustion but thin enough to minimize drag at hypersonic speeds.

At lower altitudes, the increased air density leads to excessive drag and heating, which not only affects the structural integrity of the vehicle but also disrupts the scramjet’s ability to efficiently combust fuel. At higher altitudes, the air becomes too thin to sustain combustion, rendering the engine ineffective. This altitude dependency explains why scramjets are used primarily for midcourse flight and not for terminal descent.

How Scramjets Work The fundamental principle of a scramjet is based on the ram effect, where air is compressed by the vehicle’s high-speed motion. At hypersonic speeds, the compression is so intense that it creates conditions similar to those found in a combustion chamber without requiring moving parts such as turbines. Scramjets operate in a supersonic airflow regime, where the incoming air is decelerated to subsonic speeds, fuel is injected and mixed with the compressed air, and the resulting combustion provides thrust. The thrust-to-drag ratio is favorable only at very high velocities (Mach 5–10).

However, the scramjet’s dependency on external atmospheric oxygen means that it cannot function effectively outside a specific speed range (typically Mach 5–15) or altitude window. At very high speeds and altitudes, scramjet combustion becomes

67

less efficient as the air density decreases. On the other hand, at lower speeds and altitudes (closer to ground level or during terminal descent), the air density increases too much, causing excessive drag and heat dissipation, leading to structural challenges and engine inefficiency.

Limitations in Terminal Phase Descent The terminal phase of a missile’s flight refers to the final moments before impact, when the projectile re-enters the denser parts of the atmosphere and experiences tremendous deceleration due to atmospheric drag. In this phase, most re-entry vehicles (RVs) are subjected to intense heat and forces that affect both their speed and structural integrity. Terminal velocities tend to decrease rapidly, especially for non-powered vehicles like traditional ballistic missiles, which often slow down to subsonic or low supersonic speeds before reaching their targets.

In contrast, scramjets, being air-breathing engines, are inherently unsuitable for this part of the flight. As the vehicle descends into denser layers of the atmosphere, the air density and drag forces increase exponentially. This environment is incompatible with scramjet operations for several reasons: A. Airflow Disruption: In the lower atmosphere, the air becomes too dense, and the compression ratio increases to the point where airflow through the scramjet becomes chaotic. This prevents the engine from maintaining efficient combustion.

B. Thermal Stress: Hypersonic speeds generate immense heat, which is exacerbated at lower altitudes due to increased air resistance. Scramjets,

which are already subject to extreme heat in normal operation, cannot handle the added stress of low-altitude flight without risking structural failure.

C. Decreased Efficiency: Even if a scramjet could maintain combustion at low altitudes, the efficiency of fuel combustion decreases significantly due to the high drag forces, which would slow down the vehicle far too rapidly for effective thrust generation.

For these reasons, scramjets are not suitable for use in terminal phase descent, where drag forces and air density are no longer conducive to the high-speed airbreathing propulsion they rely on. Instead, scramjets are primarily mid-course engines, designed to sustain high velocities at altitudes where air is present but not overly dense.

68

Using Scramjets in Terminal Vehicles While scramjets are impractical for the actual terminal phase of a missile’s flight, they still have an important role to play in hypersonic vehicle design. In particular, scramjets can be used for: A. Boosting Terminal Vehicles to Hypersonic Speeds: Scramjets can power vehicles through the midcourse phase of flight, ensuring that the vehicle reaches hypersonic speeds before it begins re-entry. In this scenario, the scramjet propels the vehicle to extreme speeds in the upper atmosphere, and once the scramjet reaches its operational limits, other propulsion methods or unpowered glide mechanisms can take over for the final descent. While the vehicle will lose some speed due to atmospheric drag, it can still maintain significant velocity in the terminal phase.

B. Hybrid Propulsion Systems: A potential solution to the scramjet’s altitude limitation is combining it with rocket propulsion for terminal vehicles. Scramjets could power the vehicle through the majority of its flight at high altitude, but once the vehicle descends into the lower atmosphere, where scramjet efficiency drops, a rocket booster could engage to sustain or increase speed during terminal descent.

Since rockets are not reliant on atmospheric oxygen, they can function effectively at all altitudes, including the lower atmosphere, providing the necessary thrust for maintaining hypersonic speeds.

C. Boost-Glide Systems: Another promising application of scramjets is in boostglide hypersonic vehicles. In this approach, a vehicle is initially powered by a scramjet during the midcourse phase, allowing it to reach high altitudes and hypersonic speeds. After the scramjet burns out, the vehicle enters a glide phase, using its high-speed momentum and aerodynamic design to sustain hypersonic speeds even as it reenters the atmosphere.

This method allows the vehicle to maintain a high velocity without the need for continuous propulsion. Though speed will decrease somewhat due to atmospheric drag, the vehicle can still achieve a rapid terminal descent, maintaining a significant portion of its hypersonic velocity.

Interception Constraints The concepts of an effective air defense perimeter incorporate several principles essential to air defense operations. These principles guide the development of an Area Air Defense Plan (AADP) to establish an effective Air Defense Zone (ADZ).

Principles such as mass, mixture, and mobility ensure the deployment of sufficient SHORAD (Short-Range Air Defense) and HIMAD (High-to-Medium Air Defense)

69

systems to achieve a favorable kill ratio. These systems are strategically positioned to cover various azimuths and elevations, ensuring mutual protection within the area. An Integrated Air Defense Zone comprises multiple categories of air defense and radar systems, complemented by electronic warfare capabilities, to counter a broad spectrum of threats.

One of the most notable challenges is the saturation attack concept, where an attacker employs a large swarm of retarded drones to overwhelm Air and Missile Defense (AMD) components within an Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) zone. This concept relies on deploying swarms of drones strategically to overload radar and interceptor systems, leading to engagements that deplete and degrade interception capabilities. Ultimately, this strategy aims to facilitate precision strikes against critical assets within the air defense zone or IAMD.

S

ubsequently, in the terminal phase the decoys are deployed which

mimic the precise behavior of an actual warhead as opposed to the static decoys. These decoys are designed to mislead the sensory systems which are analyzing the thermal signatures and flight path behavior in comparison to the other projectiles to detect their legitimacy, weight and speed as a parameter for the indentation of the decoys and target prioritization.

An interceptor missile has a limited fuel onboard which is why the employ solid fuels to achieve a rapid boost and achieve supersonic or hypersonic velocities after which they will glide towards their targets. Just like the target itself if they try to overcorrect and chase the target, they lose speed rapidly which is why the modern interceptors have a more predictive behavior as opposed to chasing the targets. It is also notable to mention that the targets evasive maneuvers are often useful as the interceptors may lose speed and fuel intensely as they try to correct their interception course to their targets. The convergent algorithms are useful in upgrading the existing arsenals as well as we further dive into the subject.

A co-orbital interceptor, such as the RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 (SM-3), must achieve the required speed to engage threats effectively during their flight trajectory. The interceptor is designed to ascend to high altitudes to intercept ballistic missiles during the midcourse phase of flight, which occurs in space. This is why current interceptors like the SM-3 are multi-staged, employing solid fuel boosters that provide the necessary thrust to reach these altitudes and speeds quickly.

70

In the context of missile defense, the interceptor’s firing solution involves calculating the trajectory to engage descending threats. However, the SM-3 primarily operates in the midcourse phase, targeting missiles outside the atmosphere rather than in the terminal phase of descent. For terminal interception, other systems such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) or Patriot systems are utilized, which are specifically designed for engaging threats as they reenter the atmosphere.

Another critical issue is the cost of conventional kinetic interceptors. Balancing production costs with interceptor effectiveness poses a logistical challenge for defense manufacturers. Interceptor missiles must be both accurate and effective, as these factors significantly influence the kill ratio and overall system performance.

Understanding the Threat Behaviors Different hostile weapon systems behave differently based on their inherit designs and features. Projectiles can express different behaviors in the terminal phase, the conventional ballistic missiles and projectiles have something that I would call a direct behavior, their trajectories can be predicted using predictive algorithms to calculate the direct point of impact and therefore the commanders can choose whether to engage based on the impact zone. The speed of the projectiles is also limited to their design features which are not relatively high. This can also enable the air and missile defense systems to predict and prioritize the fire control against the projectiles to save the interceptors and reduce costs.

Another form of behavior is what I would call a random behavior. This behavior usually involves glide vehicles which are designed to hop randomly by increasing and decreasing their angle of attack to travel farther at a random path yet they are still ballistic projectiles. This random behavior can make the interception difficult but their inherent design features and limits making this behavior not so random after all as it can still be predicted using advanced trajectory analysis algorithms.

Another form of behavior and is what I would refer to as the predictive behavior which is the most dangerous types of behavior. This smart mechanism involves the incorporation of complex flight guidance mechanisms which are often seen in strategic systems due to their high costs but as the technology advances and components become cheaper these can be incorporated across the spectrum. The onboard evasion mechanisms are aware of the defensive positions on earth and its flight path and it is able to adjust course to avoid interception based on the information it has, the terminal vehicle is also capable of detecting the incoming interceptors with an active radar on board and employ evasive maneuvers and deploy active and passive countermeasures to maximize its survival.

71

The issue in this form of behavior is usually the loss of speed as the evasion mechanism kick in which are usually compensated for by adding an artificial booster or engine to the terminal vehicle. This can lead to the increase in size and form of the terminal vehicle as it has to house an engine block even if it is a blended design.

Another behavior is the hybrid behavior. The incoming projectile can mimic the behavior of a ballistic trajectory while suddenly shifting to an active behavior and therefore deceiving the existing air missile defense systems predictive behavior by deploying what I call a Counter-Predictive Defense (CPD) mechanism.

Introducing the Convergent Algorithm and Its Component in Terminal Defense As I have previously discussed my vision for the modern space borne warfare in my Mechanics of Spaceborne Warfare series and further on in the Revolutionizing the Modern Electronic Combat; I have left a very important part of my methodology so that I could expand to this paper. What I have named the Convergent algorithm in terminal defense is a collection of logic sets that can be used and enhanced to create the ultimate terminal defense system.

My vision for the convergent algorithm is to enable the existing multilayered defensive perimeters to add a robust and reliable layer in the terminal defense parameter. The concept that I am about to introduce to the world is a fruit of my nightshade advanced polymorphic defense and warfare doctrine.

Many nations are working on the hypersonic technologies yet the United States maintains the technological advantage and advancements in this field and then majority of the countries that are focused on the development of the scramjet hypersonic are hostile and by introducing my convergent algorithms I wish to take any advantages that they have or will gain, away from them and give the United States the ultimate defensive capabilities just as I have given it the mechanics of space borne warfare and the ultimate advantage in the electronic warfare in my latest publications.

Adversaries like Russia, China, North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran all have been focusing on developing hypersonic even in its malformed terminology.

Their material science has been improved to overcome the obvious challenges of the hypersonic flight; while focusing to enhance their predictive terminal guidance to avoid overcorrection and loss of velocity while achieving the hypersonic speeds with artificial boosting.

72

They have expanded their arsenals and have built ballistic, cruise and hybrid solutions to penetrate the advanced air and missile defense systems of the United States. The Convergent Algorithm would present an opportunity to build an array of advanced defensive arsenal across the spectrum but as always, the cost to benefit ratio should be maintained.

My Convergent Algorithm theory is designed to strengthen the national security infrastructure of the United States. While the global defense landscape is increasingly interconnected, I firmly believe that certain advancements should prioritize U.S. strategic interests to ensure we maintain a competitive edge.

As someone who has worked on defense solutions and electronic warfare, I have always had one vision and that has been to ensure that the United States achieves nothing short of absolute superiority across the board. I have introduced tens of novel concepts and written modern space and electronic warfare doctrines with a focus on both offense and defense yet those solutions are not complete without the introduction of my convergent Algorithm. While I wish to introduce the algorithms; I will introduce its parameters and the way it is supposed to function; however, I refuse to dissect the idea as this publication is actively read and monitored by the adversaries and I still wish to maintain the fog of war on this.

The most advanced missile defense array is multilayered and has a lot of components working in harmony to achieve maximum effectiveness. The components that are put together to function as a single unified defensive array with superior situational awareness range from the space-based Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (SBISR) to ground and airborne systems.

These components each perform a critical function but they are also actively studied by the adversaries. The idea is to break the symmetrical capabilities by innovation in defensive technologies in order to achieve a form of superiority and that cycle is a never-ending cycle in the chain of defense.

I believe that every layer of a modern defense array itself should be layered with different solutions as the part of my defense in depth doctrine and in this document, I solely focus on the terminal defense. I want to present a new way of thinking about the terminal defense and the way it is conducted.

Currently there are excellent solutions built worldwide that are in charge of different contexts of the air and missile defense which can cover endo-atmospheric and exoatmospheric interceptions. The convergent algorithm can be the foundation for a new generation of the air and missile defense systems, one that can close the dispute on the defense against the most advanced threats. Those familiar with my

73

publications understand the mentality of my forward thinking so without further a due let us dive into it.

T

he Convergent Algorithm

The convergent algorithms as I happen to name it, is the new way of thinking about terminal defense in a predictive manner. The algorithm takes several key components into account as the final layer of defense. This mechanism involves extreme precision. The convergence of factors and parameters and the unifications of them in building the perfect defensive mechanism for the terminal defense is why I named it as it is.

The convergent algorithm has several key components which I am going to discuss, but before so, it is important to note that early warning and detection remains and undeniable part of any modern air and missile defense system. The ability to detect threats while they are in the early stages of preparations and launch and to be able to track the threats remain a key component of the convergent algorithm.

Trajectory and flight path analyses provide valuable insights about the scale and impact of the threat. Being able to understand the trajectory of the incoming threats is easy when we are talking about conventional ballistic trajectory but as we face modern threats such as glide vehicles and hypersonic glide vehicles the trajectory analysis becomes less and less relevant as the smart designs enable the warheads to shift directions in a rapid sequence.

The sudden shift of trajectory will cause the sudden loss of velocity and easier tracking and targeting of the projectile and it is useful in subsonic and hypersonic speeds it is not an advantage in the terminal phase or re-entry speed of Mach 25.

Besides, it is important to understand that the modern guidance and correction modules are predictive which means the onboard terminal guidance mechanism has the ability to detect the incoming threats based on predetermined information or Realtime information as the interceptors illuminate the target for interceptions.

Not to mention the modern warheads have stealth capabilities to counter the air and missile defense systems detections and the velocity of these projectiles are often contributing to their evasion and success. That is why a general multilayered defensive perimeter is established to avoid the terminal interceptions as much as possible.

74

As you can understand, there are a lot of components which can make terminal defense extremely complex and difficult but the convergent algorithms and the arsenal that I present you with can become an effective response to these threats and introduce the layered approach to the terminal defense.

If you have read my previous paper titled “Revolutionizing Electronic Combat: Mastering Anti-Drone and Autonomous Robotics Operations” you understand my revolutionary approach to modern warfare and the artificial intelligence in modern warfare.

As we have studied the behavior of the projectiles in the last section. The convergent algorithm is introduced to counter the counter-predictive Defense (CPD) behavior and more.

The Convergent Algorithm ventures beyond the zero and ones. It is a living mechanism which actively evolving its own understanding of the adversarial threats and the weaknesses in the existing air and missile defense array that it is a part of.

The general parameters involved in the development of a Convergent Algorithm form its Counter-Counter-predictive Defense (CCPD) mechanism to actively predict the behavior of the incoming threats. Its behavior is linked to a chain of continued Defense and Attack Mechanisms (CCDAM) to ensure it is at maximum readiness.

The Convergent Algorithm is a Cognitive Defense Framework that can learn, predict and guide the interception capabilities in the terminal defense and attack. The convergent algorithm can be used offensively as well.

The birth of the convergent algorithm is the death of linear and Linear-Predictive (LP) approaches in air and missile defense. Unlike the Artificial Intelligence integrated guidance and defense, the convergent algorithm shifts the paradigm of modern defense not only by incorporation of an advanced and unique algorithm with adaptable Realtime parameters, but with introducing an effective arsenal of defensive mechanism to stratify defense and offense.

In essence the convergent algorithm takes several parameters such as the active and passive defensive formations of the friendly forces on the ground, air and space in order to map out the weaknesses and potential evasion routes as well as rapid categorization of the incoming threats.

Their trajectory, monitoring the active and passive countermeasures used by the threats, point of impact and expressed behavior of the threat as siphoned from the sensory systems in place alongside the Primary threat parameters, auxiliary

75

76 Multi-Layered Defense Systems: The Future of Integrated Security © Linda Restrepo

environmental data that might affect the projectile and the interception.

As soon as the primary threat parameters are established and the threat identification is done; the convergent algorithm dictates the launch of the reusable interceptors over the area of impact in order to establish the terminal perimeter. The terminal perimeter is controlled and governed by the convergent algorithm with full weapon release authority in order to eliminate the unnecessary obstacles in terminal defense.

T

ake note while the convergent

algorithm commands its own arsenal of terminal defense mechanism, every existing defensive terminal defense component falls under the command and control of the convergent algorithm to maximize their effectiveness and to avoid misfires and friendly fires across the terminal perimeter.

The algorithm then smartly would map out the projectile’s behavior and then feed the revised probability table to the interception mechanism in various layers of the terminal perimeter. It is called convergent algorithm because its power and effectivity come from the parameters that are fed to it as they converge in its core.

I would like to introduce a new phase of interception in terminal defense, which is called Pre-Terminal state. This phase is the actual phase that the convergent algorithm and the components that it is driving has the authority to engage. This is the phase that the projectile is expected to make re-entry; however, the algorithm dictates the launch of its outer layer interception components such as the Smart

77

Reusable Hybrid Terminal Vehicles (SRHTVs). As the projectiles are in the boost phase and as soon as the primary and auxiliary parameters are established.

The Convergent Algorithm drives a very unique interception mechanism. Once involves launching multilayered terminal interceptors with autonomous capabilities to ensure that there are several chances to eliminate the threat in the terminal phase.

The Convergent Algorithm employs a multilayered defensive perimeter utilizing Smart Reusable Hybrid Terminal Vehicles (SRHTVs) introduced by me for the first time here to generate a multilayered perimeter for the terminal defense with rapid deployment and high endurance for prolonged missions.

The concept of the SRHTVs is what I introduced for the first time in the nightshade advanced polymorphic defense and warfare doctrine yet they are just a small part of the operational section of the convergent algorithm and this component itself is set to cover various sections of the atmosphere. This is a process that I would like to refer to as the stratification of the terminal defense.

The SRHTV is a reusable vehicle capable of carrying its specialized payload in various altitudes and establishing orbit in various predefined sectors to achieve layered coverage as well as rapid response time, these vehicles are capable of forming a multilayered defensive mesh network for rapid and reliable firing solution against highly maneuverable and fast threats. The fact that these are reusable carriers and they can commit to a rapid launch sequence, making them ideal for a terminal defense in a highly contested theater at home and abroad even against the most advanced threats.

The proposed vehicles are not only meant to intercept but they are mean to surveil and guide as the components of the established mesh defensive mechanism in order to bypass the detection and evasion constraints of the threat. The proposed system with the aid of the convergent algorithm defines a four-dimensional tracking and engagement environment with rapid threat detection and elimination sequencing utilizing the mesh network governed by the convergent algorithm.

These effectively will result in rapid establishment and expansion of the terminal perimeter, Sequencing the behavior of the threat with respect to the general defensive perimeter, predicting the threats behavior and rapidly forming interception sequences across a multilayered mesh where upper and lower defensive components of the mesh network can simultaneously engage for a multidirectional termination of the threat.

78

A key component under the command and control of the convergent algorithm is the ground-based components of it as opposed to the air and space-borne components of it. The components that I have not dissected in this are the ground and space borne components of the convergent algorithm. These components are crucial to the convergent algorithm and the way it is operating towards a successful terminal defense yet the convergent algorithm does not rely on any of these components alone to commit to a successful defense as each component can be suppressed or eliminated. We have seen this in the concept of orbital suppression simulations.

As I have dissected the various behaviors of the incoming threats, you have a better understanding that how the adversaries would change their way of thinking and the way they design their weapon systems. Imagine if they are able to incorporate the scramjet in their smart terminal vehicles and push for a new area of warfare where the principle of mutually assured destruction becomes irrelevant due to the fact that the air and missile defense becomes irrelevant. The convergent algorithm aims to shift the paradigm of the air and missile defense and offense.

Another area of the focus for the convergent algorithm can be the hypersonic defense on the horizontal plane against the low-flying hypersonic threats. For this the convergent algorithm is integrated with the Multidirectional Illuminators and other components introduced in my previous paper titled “Revolutionizing Electronic Combat: Mastering Anti-Drone and Autonomous Robotics Operations” to establish the surveillance and termination mechanisms against the low altitude hypersonic threats though the intercept components would be different and operate differently as opposed to the terminal defense of strategic and tactical systems.

U

ltimately; The convergent algorithm becomes the strategic weapon

of choice itself. The terminal defense with the convergent algorithm is aiming to stratify the terminal defense as we know it. This new concept not only enabling the enhancement of the existing air and missile defense mechanisms but it now can help to build a reliable terminal defense protocol that can eliminate the most advanced threats including the scramjet enabled hypersonic reentry vehicles.

The offensive part of the convergent algorithm involves mastering and mustering all tools of the modern and future warfare. I have given a very clear path to it by

79

offering the mechanics of space borne warfare and revolutionizing the electronic combat in my series.

Convergent Algorithm in the Defense of Enhanced Saturation Attacks (ESA) Saturation attacks remain a key issue in air and missile defense. But the science behind the attacks goes far beyond just firing full salvo waves at the intended targets and hoping to penetrate the air and missile defense systems. A finely crafted saturation attack has several parameters in its design which demands precision and coordination.

A well-designed saturation attack targets the air and missile defense systems critical components on the ground in which the idea is to force the outdated and linear algorithms to force a response to this precision targeting of its critical components at the same time of firing a salvo to the intended target. This is will cause the linear algorithms to prioritize its survival in the favor of mission continuity. In this attack scenario, the air and missile defense are left with a choice to either saves itself or the asset its protecting.

That is only a part of a fine-tuned saturation attack, the launch configuration of the attack also matters. The closer the flight path and timing of the launch of the projectiles are; they can travel towards the target in a tight formation and diverge prior to the impact.

The launch formation on the ground matters when a fine-tuned attack is intended.

This is important because the closer the flight paths are the harder it is going to be for the long-range surveillance radars to distinguish the targets and the harder it is going to be for the fire control radars to acquire a firing solution and if the targets have stealth properties, then that would add another layer of difficulty to the interception process.

Other factors include the velocity and the capabilities of the projectile. Whether or not they have active or passive countermeasures or they have electronic warfare components among their launch groups.

A notable innovation of mine in the nightshade has been the development of Firefly Terminal Electronic Attack vehicle (FTEAV) which can be mounted on various vectors to be launched among the other projectiles to provide electronic warfare capabilities for the launch group. The system is designed to perform active electronic attacks and home in towards the air and missile defense components on impact as the part of the group and its terminal phase.

80

This not only provides reliable cover and protection for the attack, but it is designed to eliminate the active electronic components of the air and missile defense systems. This is the first time I am openly disclosing this innovative approach and it is the first time it has been done ever in the world with such functionality.

“

Now, as you have noticed by now, there is a colossal difference between the linear algorithms and the Convergent Algorithm.”

The linear algorithms have centralized components and rely on their survival even if they are controlled by the artificial intelligence and are part of a unified air and missile defense system. The linear algorithms are linear in approach and cannot fend off a fine-tuned saturation attack if its critical components are targeted.

On the Other hand, the convergent algorithm is fully decentralized and its multi-layered and stratified approach alongside fully capable autonomous components are able to actually function even if the ground or air and even space components are suppressed or eliminated. The convergent algorithm is designed to be decentralized and function independently if needed, even in the highly contested theaters where electronic attacks are present and loss of capabilities are expected.

Hypersonic Weapons: The Challenge to Existing Missile Defense Systems and Why the Convergent Algorithm Is Key The rapid evolution of hypersonic weapons has emerged as one of the most significant technological threats to modern missile defense systems. Unlike traditional ballistic or cruise missiles, hypersonic weapons possess unique capabilities that challenge existing interception frameworks. Traveling at speeds exceeding Mach 5 (over 6,100 kilometers per hour), these weapons combine extreme speed, maneuverability, and altitude flexibility, making them incredibly difficult to detect, track, and intercept.

Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGVs) and hypersonic cruise missiles (HCMs) are designed to exploit the gaps in missile defense systems, particularly during the midcourse and terminal phases of flight. Current missile defense systems—such as the Aegis, THAAD, and Patriot systems—are ill equipped to handle these advanced threats.

81

This argument examines why hypersonic weapons can penetrate existing missile defense systems and explores how the Convergent Algorithm, a novel concept in missile defense, offers a transformative solution to counter these emerging threats.

A. Speed: Compressing the Decision Making Window The most immediate and obvious challenge that hypersonic weapons pose is their speed. Traveling at speeds between Mach 5 and Mach 20, these weapons significantly compress the decision-making window for missile defense systems.

Traditional ballistic missiles, while fast, follow predictable parabolic trajectories that allow defense systems to detect and calculate the missile’s path early in flight, providing adequate time for response.

In contrast, hypersonic weapons, especially hypersonic glide vehicles, can shift trajectories and evade interceptors by exploiting their speed. When a weapon travels at hypersonic velocities, defense systems must detect, track, calculate, and launch interceptors within mere minutes or even seconds. Current missile defense architectures, which rely on linear, preprogrammed algorithms, are not designed to process the immense influx of data required to respond to hypersonic threats in real time.

This speed compresses the engagement window to the point where by the time a missile defense system detects a hypersonic threat, it may already be too late for an effective interception. Hypersonic missiles reach their targets before traditional defense systems can coordinate a sufficient response.

B. Maneuverability:Evading Traditional Interception The second key feature of hypersonic weapons is their maneuverability. Unlike traditional ballistic missiles, which follow a fixed trajectory, hypersonic weapons especially glide vehicles—can alter their path mid-flight. This unpredictable maneuverability allows them to evade early detection systems and complicates the trajectory prediction models that traditional missile defense systems rely on.

Midcourse interception, which is typically the longest phase in missile defense, becomes nearly impossible when a hypersonic vehicle can make unpredictable turns or adjustments. Existing missile defense systems rely on predictive algorithms that calculate where the missile will be based on its initial trajectory. However, once a hypersonic vehicle shifts course, these predictive models break down, leaving defense systems effectively blind.

82

This makes traditional linear interception strategies ineffective, as the interceptors launched to meet the missile midcourse may be directed toward where the missile was, not where it is headed. Hypersonic weapons’ ability to evade interception through rapid, agile maneuvers highlights the inadequacy of current systems that are not designed to track constantly changing flight paths at such high velocities.

C. Altitude Flexibility: Overcoming Layered Defenses Hypersonic weapons operate within an altitude range that further challenges traditional missile defense systems. Most hypersonic weapons, particularly glide vehicles, can travel in the atmosphere at altitudes between 20 and 100 kilometers, which falls between the operating ranges of most traditional missile interceptors.

For instance, systems like THAAD are optimized for intercepting threats in the upper atmosphere (above 40 kilometers), while the Patriot system is designed for lower-altitude engagements.

Hypersonic weapons operate in a gray zone between these ranges, evading the engagement windows of both high-altitude and low-altitude defense systems. This altitude flexibility renders many missile defense systems ineffective, as the interceptors designed to operate within a specific range cannot reach hypersonic threats during critical phases of flight.

This challenge is further compounded by the fact that hypersonic weapons can perform maneuvers during their descent, meaning that even in the final moments before impact—when traditional defense systems like the Patriot are supposed to engage their ability to intercept is limited by the unpredictable nature of the hypersonic vehicle’s movements.

D. The Convergent Algorithm: A Solution to the Hypersonic Threat In light of the severe challenges posed by hypersonic weapons—speed, maneuverability, and altitude flexibility—the Convergent Algorithm represents a vital advancement in missile defense. The Convergent Algorithm fundamentally shifts the paradigm of missile defense from static, pre-programmed models to dynamic, realtime learning systems that can adapt to the evolving threat environment.

Unlike current defense systems, which rely on linear algorithms that predict missile trajectories based on initial data, the Convergent Algorithm introduces CounterCounter Predictive Defense (CCPD), an adaptive mechanism that anticipates and reacts to evasive maneuvers.

83

By continuously analyzing real-time data from a network of sensors—including ground-based, air-based, and space-based systems—the Convergent Algorithm is capable of generating a multidimensional map of the threat environment.

This allows it to predict where a hypersonic weapon will maneuver, rather than simply reacting to where the weapon was.

The Convergent Algorithm introduces the concept of Pre-Terminal State Engagement, which extends the defensive window by engaging the threat before it reaches its terminal descent. Through the use of Smart Reusable Hybrid Terminal Vehicles (SRHTVs), the algorithm establishes a multilayered mesh that targets hypersonic weapons during their most vulnerable phases—midcourse and early terminal when their speed and maneuverability begin to reduce due to atmospheric drag. By attacking the threat earlier in flight, the Convergent Algorithm maximizes the probability of interception, providing more opportunities for success than traditional systems that rely solely on terminal-phase engagement.

E. Decentralization: A Key Advantage in Contested Environments A further strength of the Convergent Algorithm lies in its decentralized architecture.

Traditional missile defense systems are highly centralized, requiring communication between interceptors and command centers. In contested environments, where adversaries may employ electronic warfare (EW) to disrupt communications, these centralized systems can become disabled or rendered ineffective.

The Convergent Algorithm overcomes this vulnerability by decentralizing command and control across multiple layers of defense. Each layer, from space-based early warning systems to ground-based interceptors, can function independently, ensuring continued functionality even if one layer is compromised. This decentralization also increases system survivability in saturation attack scenarios, where adversaries seek to overwhelm missile defense systems with multiple, simultaneous threats.

H

ypersonic weapons represent a quantum leap in missile

technology, exploiting the limitations of traditional defense systems through speed, maneuverability, and altitude flexibility. As adversaries increasingly develop and deploy these advanced systems, the shortcomings of current missile defense architectures become starkly apparent. The Convergent Algorithm offers a

84

85 Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) system in action. © Linda Restrepo

revolutionary solution, moving away from fixed, linear approaches toward adaptive, real-time learning systems that can predict, intercept, and neutralize hypersonic threats.

Through its decentralized, multi-layered approach, the Convergent Algorithm maximizes the effectiveness of terminal defense while extending the engagement window into earlier phases of flight. In doing so, it provides a future-proof solution for countering the most formidable threats on the modern battlefield.

Expanding the Convergent Algorithm: Revolutionizing Air Defense Beyond Terminal Defense While the Convergent Algorithm was initially conceived as a solution to the unique challenges posed by modern missile threats, particularly in terminal defense, its potential extends far beyond this singular application. The Convergent Algorithm’s ability to analyze, predict, and respond to rapidly evolving threats make it an ideal framework for air defense systems at all stages of engagement. By integrating its real-time learning capabilities, decentralized architecture, and advanced interception strategies into various layers of air defense, the Convergent Algorithm has the potential to revolutionize how modern defense systems operate.

This argument examines how the Convergent Algorithm can enhance air defense systems by improving early detection, midcourse engagement, and overall strategic coordination. It also explores how the algorithm’s ability to anticipate and adapt to threats can offer substantial improvements in defending against both manned and unmanned aerial vehicles, including drones, cruise missiles, and stealth aircraft.

A. Enhancing Early Detection and Tracking In air defense, early detection of incoming threats is critical for a successful response. The ability to identify, classify, and track hostile aircraft or missiles early in their flight path increases the available time for decision-making and interception. Traditional air defense systems rely heavily on ground-based and airborne radar systems to provide early warning, but these systems face limitations when it comes to detecting stealth aircraft, low-altitude cruise missiles, and drones.

The Convergent Algorithm offers a revolutionary solution by integrating data from multiple sensor platforms, including space-based, airborne, and ground-based systems, to create a comprehensive, realtime map of the threat environment. Its decentralized approach allows for multi-domain integration, meaning data from satellite-based surveillance systems can be fused with ground-based radar, infrared

86

sensors, and airborne early warning platforms to provide a holistic view of potential threats.

More importantly, the Convergent Algorithm employs predictive models that can identify anomalous behavior in air traffic patterns, offering earlier detection of stealth aircraft or swarm drone attacks. By continuously learning from previous engagements and real-time sensor inputs, the algorithm refines its detection capabilities, making it increasingly difficult for adversaries to exploit gaps in radar coverage or sensor blind spots.

Combined with previous revolutionary ideas presented in the “Mechanics of Spaceborne Warfare Series” and “Revolutionizing Electronic Combat: Mastering Anti-Drone and Autonomous Robotics Operations,” the convergent algorithm becomes unparalleled in the future defense and warfare.

This ability to anticipate incoming threats before they become visible to traditional radar systems gives air defense operators more time to engage targets and provides them with probability-based targeting data that enhances the accuracy of early intercepts with high degree of accuracy and success. Its ability to learn and adapt in real time gives it a unique and revolutionary advantage that unmatched and unparalleled.

B. Midcourse Engagement: Extending the Defense Window One of the key limitations of existing air defense systems is their reliance on either terminal-phase or boost-phase interception for high-speed threats. Systems like the Patriot or Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) are optimized for engaging threats at the final stages of their flight paths, while boost-phase interception relies on engaging the threat shortly after launch. However, the midcourse phase which often offers the longest window for interception—remains a weak link in many modern defense strategies.

The Convergent Algorithm can revolutionize midcourse engagement by utilizing real-time tracking and adaptive targeting to neutralize airborne threats while they

87

are still in midflight. By integrating its decentralized command architecture, the Convergent Algorithm enables multilayered defense systems to coordinate their intercepts without the need for a centralized command structure, reducing response time and increasing operational efficiency.

For instance, in defending against cruise missiles, the midcourse phase is the ideal window for interception because it provides sufficient time for defense systems to deploy interceptors while minimizing collateral damage. Current defense systems face challenges in tracking cruise missiles during this phase due to their ability to fly at low altitudes and evade detection. The Convergent Algorithm’s multi-domain sensor fusion—which includes data from radar, optical sensors, and satellite-based systems—provides real-time tracking updates that allow interceptors to adjust their flight paths dynamically.

Lastly, the algorithm’s Counter-Counter Predictive Defense (CCPD) system enables it to predict evasive maneuvers that airborne threats might take, improving the chances of interception during midcourse engagement. By continuously updating the interceptor’s course based on real-time data from the threat environment, the Convergent Algorithm maximizes the probability of a successful intercept long before the threat reaches its terminal phase.

C. Defending Against Swarm Drone Attacks The rapid proliferation of drones, particularly swarm drone technologies, poses a new and complex challenge for air defense systems. Swarm drones overwhelm traditional defense systems through sheer numbers, flying in unpredictable patterns to confuse radar and interception systems. These drones can be deployed in large numbers to overwhelm a defense system’s sensors, saturating its ability to track and target individual drones effectively.

The Convergent Algorithm provides a sophisticated solution to this problem through its decentralized, multi-layered defense architecture linked with the revolutionary and novel ideas and concepts presented in my “Revolutionizing Electronic Combat: Mastering Anti-Drone and Autonomous Robotics Operations.”

Unlike linear defense systems, which rely on a hierarchical chain of command, the Convergent Algorithm allows each layer of defense to operate autonomously.

Ground-based sensors, airborne interceptors, and even autonomous anti-drone systems can coordinate their responses without relying on centralized commands, making the defense system more resilient to saturation attacks.

88

Additionally, the Convergent Algorithm’s multidimensional threat mapping capabilities enable it to track multiple drones simultaneously, analyzing their flight paths to identify patterns and predict future movements. By doing so, the algorithm can prioritize targets and choose the right solutions more efficiently, ensuring that the swarm is neutralized without exhausting the system’s resources and maintaining high readiness for subsequent attacks.

The Convergent Algorithm’s artificial intelligence (AI) integration allows it to adapt to new tactics that adversaries may deploy. For instance, if a swarm changes its behavior mid-attack—such as splitting into smaller groups to overwhelm multiple areas of a defense zone—the Convergent Algorithm can dynamically reassign interceptors and adjust its targeting protocols in real time, ensuring a proportional response.

D. Countering Stealth Aircraft and Low-Altitude Threats Stealth technology remains a significant challenge for modern air defense systems, as it allows hostile aircraft to evade radar detection by reducing their radar crosssection. Low-altitude threats, such as cruise missiles or stealth bombers, can exploit natural terrain to avoid detection, making them especially difficult to engage with traditional radar systems that are designed to track higher-altitude targets.

The Convergent Algorithm addresses this challenge by employing multi-spectral sensor integration, which allows it to detect and track low-altitude and stealth threats even when traditional radar systems fail. By integrating infrared, optical, and radar data, the algorithm can create a more accurate picture of the battle space, identifying targets based on their heat signatures, electromagnetic emissions, or even anomalous flight behavior.

Once detected, the Convergent Algorithm employs its adaptive engagement strategies to ensure that stealth aircraft or low-altitude threats are intercepted before they can reach critical assets. For example, if a stealth aircraft is detected, the algorithm can dynamically adjust its engagement strategies by deploying airborne interceptors or activating ground-based missile systems based on the target’s altitude and speed. This flexibility allows the system to tailor its response to

89

the unique characteristics of stealth and low-altitude threats, maximizing the chances of interception.

E. Decentralized Command: Increasing System Resilience A key advantage of the Convergent Algorithm in air defense is its decentralized command and control structure. In modern warfare, adversaries often use electronic warfare (EW) techniques to disrupt or disable centralized command networks, rendering traditional air defense systems ineffective. By decentralizing the decision making process, the Convergent Algorithm ensures that each layer of defense—whether space-based sensors, ground-based interceptors, or autonomous drones—can continue to operate independently even in contested environments.

This decentralization also enhances system resilience in multi-domain warfare scenarios, where adversaries may attempt to strike at multiple layers of defense simultaneously. By distributing the decision making process across all layers of defense, the Convergent Algorithm ensures that even if one component is compromised, the remaining layers can continue to operate autonomously and effectively.

In saturation attack scenarios, where adversaries attempt to overwhelm a defense system with multiple threats, the decentralized architecture allows the Convergent Algorithm to allocate resources more efficiently. Instead of waiting for centralized commands, each layer of defense can autonomously engage its designated targets, ensuring a faster and more effective response to multiple simultaneous threats.

The Convergent Algorithm offers a transformative approach to air defense systems, far beyond its initial application in terminal missile defense. By integrating realtime learning, multi-domain sensor fusion, and decentralized command and control, the algorithm addresses many of the challenges posed by modern air threats, including stealth aircraft, swarm drones, and low-altitude cruise missiles. Its ability to adapt to evolving threats and predict evasive maneuvers makes it a key innovation in extending the defense window into the early detection and midcourse engagement phases.

As adversaries are developing increasingly advanced aerial technologies, the Convergent Algorithm provides air defense operators with the tools needed to maintain superiority, ensuring that no threat whether hypersonic missile or lowflying drone—can penetrate the defense network undetected. By applying the Convergent Algorithm to the full spectrum of air defense, The United States can create a future-proof, resilient system capable of defending against the most sophisticated airborne threats.

90

The Convergent Algorithm in Space Warfare A very important aspect of my work has been the modern space warfare and the convergent algorithm is inseparable in it. Increased Space Situational Awareness (SSA), Enhancing Orbital Suppression Capabilities in offense and Defense, defending against anti-satellite kinetic and non-kinetic anti-satellite weaponry alongside utilization of the spaceborne assets to enhance the algorithm itself are the major area of focus for the convergent algorithm.

As Adversaries aim to contest the United States superiority across the five domains of the modern warfare; A key focus of them has been the space. While I have presented all the tools and concepts to the United States to dominate the final frontier; I cannot help but notice the presence of a failed leadership and initiative to grasp the utter importance of the subject as they remain satisfied with the status quo in which they are rapidly falling behind.

“

Nonetheless, I wish to expand the convergent algorithm to the final frontier for both offensive and defensive scenarios.”

As we have established the importance and the clear contrast between the convergent algorithm and all existing linear and enhanced algorithms, the domain of space yet is the most challenged primarily because the final frontier holds the key. I have extensively discussed the subject of space warfare in my “Mechanics of Spaceborne Warfare Series” but one thing that was lacking to complete the subject was the convergent algorithm.

Satellite surveillance and the space borne sensory networks are indispensable to air and missile defense and while I have extensively focused on the force protection principle and called for the enhancement of the terrestrial capabilities in order to establish redundant terrestrial networks in the events, I would call for the establishment of convergent algorithm and its components for space defense and protection of the space assets.

The ability to actively protect the space borne assets as opposed to just sitting back and hope that the adversaries would not target friendly assets as they creep into establish symmetry as opposed to maintaining the battle asymmetry in our favor with constant innovation with a forward-thinking approach is what the convergent algorithm brings to the table.

The convergent algorithm can guide orbital defense assets in order to monitor the hostile activities, dissect their attacks and even guide the suppression scenarios in

91

air, space and missile defense. This is the blueprint to supremacy and the future where the United States becomes the only dominant force in the final frontier and beyond.

I do not wish to expand on the offensive capabilities that I have crafted for the convergent algorithm but I would emphasize that if the convergent algorithm becomes dominant it can shift the paradigm of defense and warfare as we know it and while I have been named the father of modern space and electronic warfare, I will continue to advance and enhance the concepts to ensure that the United States achieves nothing short of absolute superiority across the spectrum.

How the Convergent Algorithm Can Reshape Space Defense and Offense As I have revolutionized the very definition of space warfare with my “Mechanics of Spaceborne Warfare Series,” the increasing militarization of space has introduced significant challenges and opportunities for global defense systems. As more nations develop space-based assets—ranging from communication and surveillance satellites to orbital weapons platforms—space has emerged as the next contested domain of warfare.

Traditional missile and air defense systems, while highly advanced in defending terrestrial assets, struggle to address threats originating from or targeting spacebased systems. The Convergent Algorithm, originally designed to revolutionize air and missile defense, has the potential to extend its capabilities into space, reshaping both space defense and offense.

By leveraging its decentralized, adaptive framework, the algorithm can provide a future-proof solution that integrates orbital defense with terrestrial defense systems, offering unparalleled flexibility, precision, and resilience in an increasingly contested domain and it is a great addition to the revolutionary path that I have established.

A. The Evolving Threat Landscape in Space Space has become a critical component of modern warfare, as satellites and other orbital assets provide the backbone for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), navigation, and communications. However, as space becomes more militarized, these assets are increasingly vulnerable to anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, orbital kinetic kill vehicles, cyber-attacks, and electronic warfare.

Adversaries like China and Russia have demonstrated capabilities to target spacebased systems, presenting a new set of strategic challenges for global defense.

92

Traditional defense systems, while effective at protecting ground-based targets from missile threats, do not adequately address the unique vulnerabilities of space assets.

The current approaches to space defense rely heavily on predictive models and linear algorithms, which struggle to adapt to the unpredictable nature of spacebased threats, including the maneuverability of orbital debris, space mines, and the speed of ASAT weapons.

The Convergent Algorithm offers a paradigm shift in this area, enabling defense systems to move beyond reactive defense and embrace a proactive, predictive strategy that anticipates and neutralizes threats before they materialize.

B. Multi-Domain Integration for Space Defense One of the most significant advantages of the Convergent Algorithm is its ability to integrate multiple domains—land, air, and space—into a unified defense framework. In the context of space defense, this means that the algorithm can coordinate data from space-based sensors, terrestrial radar, and airborne ISR assets to provide a real-time, comprehensive view of the battle space.

By integrating data across domains, the Convergent Algorithm enables defense systems to track and predict the movements of space-based threats with unparalleled accuracy. For example, the algorithm can fuse data from satellite-based early warning systems with ground-based radars to track the launch of ASAT weapons and predict their trajectories. This allows for midcourse interception—a critical capability in space defense where the window for interception is often limited due to the high speeds of orbital threats.

The algorithm’s ability to stratify defense ensures that space-based assets can be defended at multiple layers. If a satellite or orbital station is threatened by an ASAT weapon, the algorithm can direct Smart Reusable Hybrid Terminal Vehicles (SRHTVs) or other interceptors to engage the threat in the midcourse or terminal phase. This layered defense approach ensures that even if an attack bypasses the outer defense perimeter, there are still opportunities for interception before critical assets are destroyed.

C. Decentralized Command and Control in Orbital Defense Traditional space defense systems are highly centralized, relying on a single command structure to manage and direct interception efforts. This makes them vulnerable to electronic warfare and cyber-attacks, where adversaries can disrupt or disable centralized command networks. The Convergent Algorithm introduces a

93

decentralized command structure, allowing individual defense layers to operate autonomously, even in contested environments.

In an orbital defense context, this decentralization means that space-based assets— such as satellites, orbital interceptors, and space-based sensors—can continue to operate even if terrestrial command centers are compromised. Each layer of defense, from space-based interceptors to terrestrial missile defense systems, can make independent decisions based on real-time data, ensuring that no single point of failure can cripple the defense network.

The algorithm’s ability to function autonomously allows it to respond to multiple simultaneous threats, a critical capability in saturation attack scenarios where adversaries launch multiple ASAT weapons or coordinate space debris strikes. The Convergent Algorithm can allocate resources dynamically, ensuring that each threat is neutralized without overwhelming the defense system’s capabilities.

D. Adaptive Learning and Predictive Offense in Space In addition to its defensive capabilities, the Convergent Algorithm has the potential to revolutionize space offense. As the algorithm continuously learns from engagements, it improves its ability to predict adversary behaviors and countermeasures, making it a valuable tool for preemptive strikes and offensive operations in space.

For example, in a scenario where adversaries are preparing to launch an ASAT weapon or deploy a kinetic kill vehicle, the Convergent Algorithm can anticipate the attack by analyzing patterns in launch preparations, satellite movements, and communications traffic. Once the threat is identified, the algorithm can coordinate a preemptive strike using space-based or terrestrial assets to neutralize the threat before it can target friendly satellites or orbital stations.

The algorithm’s ability to predict adversary maneuvers is particularly valuable in space, where objects travel at extremely high velocities and engagements are often decided in seconds. By using Counter-Counter Predictive Defense (CCPD), the algorithm can anticipate the evasive maneuvers of hostile satellites or interceptors, allowing it to deploy SRHTVs or other space-based weapons with pinpoint accuracy.

Additionally, the Convergent Algorithm’s offensive capabilities extend to disrupting adversary space-based ISR networks. In an orbital offense scenario, the algorithm can coordinate attacks on adversary satellites by deploying cyber-attacks, electronic jamming, or even kinetic strikes to disable their ability to gather intelligence or communicate with terrestrial forces. The decentralized nature of the algorithm

94

ensures that offensive operations can continue even in the event of countermeasures or electronic disruption.

E. Impact of the Convergent Algorithm on Orbital Warfare The strategic implications of integrating the Convergent Algorithm into space defense and offense are far-reaching. As space becomes an increasingly contested domain, nations that can effectively protect their space-based assets while neutralizing adversary capabilities will hold a significant strategic advantage. The Convergent Algorithm offers a future-proof solution that addresses the key challenges of orbital warfare, including the ability to operate in contested environments, defend against hypersonic threats, and coordinate offensive operations in real time.

B

y integrating space defense with terrestrial and air defense systems, the Convergent Algorithm creates a unified framework that is adaptable to any threat environment. This ensures that nations equipped with this technology can not only defend their orbital assets but also disrupt adversary operations and dominate the space domain.

Furthermore, the algorithm’s self-learning capabilities ensure that it evolves alongside the threats it faces. As new forms of ASAT weapons, orbital debris, or space-based threats emerge, the Convergent Algorithm will continuously adapt, ensuring that space defense systems remain effective and resilient in the face of evolving challenges.

The Convergent Algorithm has the potential to reshape both space defense and offense by providing a decentralized, adaptive, and proactive framework that integrates multi domain data, anticipates threats, and ensures real-time decisionmaking across the space domain. Its ability to defend against emerging orbital threats, coordinate offensive strikes, and ensure the survivability of space-based assets makes it a game changer in modern warfare. As the militarization of space continues, the Convergent Algorithm will be a critical tool in ensuring that nations maintain dominance in space and can protect their vital orbital infrastructure. By extending the capabilities of missile defense into space, the Convergent Algorithm truly represents the future of global defense strategies, providing a comprehensive solution to the evolving challenges of orbital warfare.

95

The Birth of Future Warfare Era

With the birth of the Convergent Algorithm, I welcome you to the Future Warfare Era (FWE). The term Future Warfare ventures beyond the existing linear and the current incorporation of the Artificial Intelligence as a smart mechanism incorporated in the current defensive and offensive technologies. The artificial intelligence is not the driving factor of the Convergent Algorithms yet it is a tool used by it.

T

he term defines when forward thinking becomes a dominant factor in innovative warfare technologies. All of my series especially the Mechanics of Spaceborne Warfare series and the Revolutionizing Electronic Combat: Mastering Anti-Drone and Autonomous Robotics Operations which granted me the title of father of modern space and electronic warfare, involves tens of novel and forward-thinking concepts aimed to ensure that the United States is the dominant force in the future warfare era.

96

“

The convergent algorithm is going to be the dominant driving force in this era and the smart incorporation of it will open a world of possibilities in defense and offense.”

Adversaries such as China, Russia, North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran or any adversary in the making, will not have any chance to challenge this Algorithm.

I even would argue not to share the technology with any so-called Allies to maintain the edge and supremacy across the spectrum.

- Dr. Adib Enayati-

For further reading on Dr. Enayati’s work and conceptual frameworks, visit or explore his published materials on spaceborne and electronic warfare.

97

98

r. Adib Enayati’s pioneering concepts have reshaped how we think about defense in the 21st century. As a thought leader in spaceborne and electronic warfare, his work challenges conventional approaches and offers innovative strategies for addressing the rapidly evolving landscape of global threats.

D

Among his most notable contributions is the development of the 7 Principles of Spaceborne Warfare, a forwardthinking framework that redefines the role of space in modern defense strategies. His Concept of Orbital Suppression explores groundbreaking methods for neutralizing adversarial capabilities while minimizing collateral damage, providing a fresh perspective on spacebased conflict resolution.

In addition to spaceborne warfare, Dr. Enayati has advanced theoretical approaches in electronic deterrence, anti-drone technologies, and cybersecurity frameworks, such as the Aegis Framework for active defense and the Arbiter Framework for adaptive strategic response. His ability to integrate AI, robotics, and emerging technologies into these concepts highlights his deep understanding of the technological drivers shaping defense innovation.

Dr. Enayati’s work is widely regarded for its ability to spark critical discussions within defense and academic circles.

While his frameworks remain largely conceptual, they serve as intellectual blueprints for exploring uncharted territories in defense strategy and innovation. By addressing the intersection of technology and strategy,.

Enayati continues to influence how nations and institutions approach the complex challenges of modern security.

99

E

ditorial Perspective: Shaping the Future of Defense

As the technologies showcased in this report converge, they illuminate the extraordinary evolution of modern defense.

Hypersonic glide vehicles, directed energy weapons, and multilayered defense architectures are not just tools of innovation— they represent a transformative leap in global security and strategy, with artificial intelligence at their core. Dr. Adib Enayati’s unique journey, shaped by an international education and global perspective, has informed his innovative contributions to modern defense strategies. His work exemplifies the value of diverse experiences in shaping groundbreaking ideas.

100

AI is not merely a supporting element; it is the brain powering these systems, enabling real-time decision-making, predictive analytics, and seamless integration across air, ground, and space domains. The synergy of these advancements opens unparalleled opportunities to enhance security, drive innovation, and maintain a strategic edge.

Yet, these breakthroughs bring a clear imperative: it is critical for the United States and its allies to remain at the forefront of this development. The balance of peace and power hinges on leadership in these cutting-edge technologies. Falling behind risks not only diminished influence but also vulnerabilities in an increasingly complex global landscape.

At Inner Sanctum Vector N360™, we are committed to exploring such transformative developments, bridging the gap between groundbreaking ideas and their implications for society. As we advance into a new frontier of defense, this is more than a conversation about technology; it’s a call to lead, innovate, and secure the future.

The future of defense isn’t merely on the horizon—it is being built today.

-Linda Restrepo-

101

103

Introduction: The Myth of Compliance in AI AI regulation remains a topic of intense debate, often tangled in the complexities of compliance frameworks that fail to address the true scope of the issue. This article presents a bold, original analysis, drawing on the latest insights and real-world examples to reveal why current approaches may create an illusion of compliance without achieving meaningful oversight. While recent reports from respected scholars and policy experts echo some of these challenges, we push beyond conventional narratives to offer a fresh, critical perspective on the evolving landscape of AI regulation.

Regulating AI: The Myth of Compliance We understand the challenges and the potential backlash that might arise from taking a strong, critical stance, especially when addressing a topic as sensitive and politically charged as AI regulation. However, adhering to a fact-based, ethical approach is essential. By presenting well-researched, transparent, and balanced information, we uphold scholarly rigor and integrity while contributing to a vital conversation that must be had.

Our position is clear: to support this endeavor by crafting content that is thoroughly backed by data, clear examples, and insights from credible sources, such as the recent comprehensive report from Stanford University, and additional studies from government and academic institutions.

This analysis remains grounded in reality, focusing on practical issues rather than sensationalism. By highlighting real-world challenges and potential solutions, this piece seeks to serve as a constructive critique rather than a divisive attack. Ultimately, presenting these facts empowers our readership to

104

make informed decisions and encourages meaningful dialogue on how to improve AI governance. It’s about holding entities accountable in a way that fosters progress, innovation, and ethical standards.

Navigating the Complex Landscape of AI Regulation in the United States: A Reality Check Artificial Intelligence (AI) has moved beyond futuristic speculation—it's a driving force reshaping our world today. From healthcare and finance to education and entertainment, AI systems are integrating deeply into our daily lives. Yet, as the technology evolves, so too does the urgency to regulate it.

Unfortunately, the current approach to AI regulation is a fragmented patchwork driven by political jockeying, rather than a cohesive, forwardthinking strategy. Here, we explore the realities of this disjointed regulatory landscape, the roles of various agencies, and why this situation is both problematic and potentially dangerous.

1. Key Areas of Focus in AI Regulation: The call for AI regulation is centered around several critical areas, each with its own set of challenges: • Transparency and Explainability: AI systems must be able to explain their decisions, particularly in sensitive sectors such as healthcare, finance, and criminal justice. Without transparency, trust in AI systems is eroded.

• Data Privacy: How AI systems collect, process, and store personal data is a growing concern. This includes compliance with existing privacy laws like the GDPR in Europe, which has set a global precedent for stringent data protection standards.

• Bias and Fairness: AI algorithms must be tested rigorously to ensure they do not perpetuate or

exacerbate biases based on race, gender, age, or other characteristics. Despite this, biases continue to emerge, raising questions about accountability.

• Accountability and Liability: Establishing clear lines of responsibility for AI outcomes is crucial. For instance, who is liable if an autonomous vehicle causes an accident—the manufacturer, the software developer, or the user?

• Safety and Security: As AI systems become more prevalent, so does the risk of cyberattacks and misuse.

Ensuring the security of these systems is paramount, especially in high-stakes environments.

105

2. A Fragmented U.S. Regulatory Landscape: Currently, multiple U.S. agencies are vying for dominance in the AI regulatory space, each approaching the issue from their own angle, creating a chaotic environment for developers, businesses, and international collaborators.

Here’s a closer look at some key players: • Federal Trade Commission (FTC): The FTC has taken a stance on deceptive practices and bias in AI. It has warned companies against using misleading AI claims and emphasized the need for fairness.

However, its guidelines lack legal enforcement power.

• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST): NIST has proposed frameworks for managing AI risks, including efforts like the Generative AI Public Working Group.

These frameworks are designed to guide best practices, but they are not binding regulations, leading to limited compliance.

• Department of Commerce: This department has been actively involved in promoting U.S. AI competitiveness, focusing on trade policies and innovation.

Yet, its guidelines often prioritize economic growth, sometimes at the expense of stringent regulation.

• Department of Defense (DoD): With initiatives like the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC), the DoD focuses on integrating AI into national security strategies.

Unfortunately, its interests are specific to defense, leaving civilian applications under-regulated.

• U.S. Congress: While there have been several attempts to introduce bills (e.g., the Algorithmic Accountability Act), no comprehensive legislation has been passed.

106

Most legislative efforts remain stalled due to political disagreements.

In

essence, the U.S. AI regulatory landscape is a mess—a political theater where different players are jockeying for position without clear direction. This fragmented approach dilutes the potential for effective regulation, leaving developers, businesses, and global partners in a state of uncertainty.

Defining AI: What Are We Really Regulating?

Before diving into the complexities of AI regulation, it’s essential to ask a fundamental question:

“What exactly are we trying to regulate?”

107

The argument for regulating AI often treats the technology as if it were a single, monolithic entity that can be uniformly controlled through a cohesive set of rules.

However, this perspective oversimplifies the reality of how AI is developed, deployed, and integrated into our world today.

AI is not one unified program; it is a diverse ecosystem of hundreds of thousands of AI systems, each created for different purposes and objectives. Some AI models are developed to improve healthcare diagnostics, while others power financial algorithms, manage supply chains, or even recommend music playlists.

The truth AI is a patchwork of diverse, decentralized systems.

• Each of these programs is designed, trained, and deployed by different entities—ranging from tech giants and startups to academic institutions and government bodies.

• They are built on varied data sets, influenced by distinct ethical frameworks, and driven by a wide array of goals, from public service to profit maximization.

108

109

• This diversity presents a significant challenge for regulators. How do you create a regulatory framework that accounts for the vast differences between an AI system designed to recommend social media content and one built to diagnose cancer?

The biases, ethical considerations, and potential risks associated with each of these applications are vastly different. Attempting to treat them as a single, uniform entity under the law risks stifling innovation in areas where AI could have a profound positive impact.

Furthermore, this fragmented reality means that AI regulation cannot be a

"one-size-fits-all" solution.

Regulations must be adaptable and nuanced, capable of addressing the specific risks and ethical dilemmas posed by different types of AI.

For instance: • Generative AI Models: Systems like OpenAI’s GPT or Meta’s LLaMA have created waves by generating human-like text, images, and even code. These systems raise concerns about misinformation, copyright infringement, and deepfakes. Regulating them requires specific guidelines that address these unique challenges.

• Autonomous Systems: Self-driving cars, drones, and automated factory robots operate in physical spaces, where safety is a critical concern.

Regulations must focus on reliability, fail-safes, and accountability in case of accidents.

• AI in Healthcare: Here, the focus is on accuracy, transparency, and patient safety. Regulation must ensure that AI models can explain their decisions, have been rigorously tested for bias, and that patient data is securely handled.

110

The Challenge of Regulating a Decentralized Ecosystem The decentralized nature of AI development means that the U.S. government is not just dealing with a handful of companies; it’s grappling with a vast, intricate network of developers, ranging from major corporations to individual programmers.

Each developer has their own motivations, ethical standards, and technical expertise. Some build AI systems to solve complex scientific problems, while others develop AI to increase engagement on social media platforms

“

The Inescapable Challenge of Bias in AI Development: No matter how much money is poured into regulation, agencies, or political initiatives, one fundamental truth remains:

bias cannot be fully regulated.”

Each AI developer, consciously or unconsciously, embeds their own perspectives, assumptions, and biases into the systems they create. This makes it impossible to establish a universal standard that can address every nuance of human influence. Efforts to regulate AI must go beyond technical fixes and acknowledge the deeper, inherent biases that shape AI behavior, which cannot be eliminated simply by legislation or oversight.

Bias

is an intrinsic issue that requires acknowledgment, not just technical solutions. Moreover, many AI programs are open-source, allowing anyone with coding skills to modify and deploy them.

This democratization of AI development has led to incredible innovations but also raises significant regulatory challenges.

111

For example, how can regulators enforce rules on AI models that are modified, repurposed, or enhanced by developers across the globe? Who is responsible if an open-source AI tool is misused, and how can regulation address this without stifling the creativity and collaboration that open-source communities thrive on?

The Illusion of Compliance: Domestic vs. Foreign Standards One of the critical flaws in current AI regulation is the disparity in how compliance is enforced across different entities.

While U.S. companies are expected to adhere to strict guidelines, there are concerns about whether foreign collaborators, particularly those from countries like China, are held to the same standards. Recent reports have highlighted how foreign entities can exploit regulatory gaps to gain access to critical technology, bypassing oversight mechanisms that would otherwise enforce stringent compliance.

This disparity contributes to the illusion of compliance, where regulations

appear robust on paper but fail to address the practical challenges of global collaboration. Without ensuring that all participants, domestic and foreign, are held to the same standards, true compliance remains an unachievable goal.

The Risk of Malicious Programming: An even more concerning issue is the possibility of deliberate manipulation by programmers who knowingly incorporate biased or harmful data into AI systems for political, financial, or other motives.

unintentional bias,

Unlike which stems from flawed datasets or algorithms, this involves a conscious decision to skew outcomes to serve specific agendas. Whether it's to influence political discourse, generate profits, or target particular demographics, the danger of such intentional actions underscores the limits of current regulatory frameworks.

D

etecting and preventing these manipulations requires more than just technical oversight—it demands stringent accountability mechanisms and robust, enforceable standards that can address both intentional and unintentional misuse of AI.

112

Regulating the Unregulatable: The Illusion of Control So while various agencies vie for control of AI through compliance requirements

even the average person can clearly see the inconsistency of these efforts. that look robust on paper,

The issues discussed above—disparities in compliance standards, the risk of malicious programming, and the challenges of regulating a decentralized ecosystem demonstrate a fundamental flaw in the current approach to AI regulation.

These examples reveal that existing frameworks are not equipped to handle the complexities and evolving nature of AI development.

How can there be any meaningful regulation of AI when the very structure of compliance is riddled with loopholes, technical challenges, and geopolitical vulnerabilities?

“The reality is that these "glitches" in the system

make true compliance unattainable.”

Efforts to regulate AI often provide a sense of control, but in practice, they fail to address the nuanced and multi-layered risks associated with AI development.

Without a cohesive and adaptive regulatory framework, the current approach offers little more than an illusion of compliance.

It’s also important to recognize that the competition for regulatory authority can sometimes be driven by the need for funding and resources. Agencies seeking to position themselves as leaders in AI regulation may emphasize their role to secure additional budgets, which underscores the complexities of navigating the regulatory landscape.

However, without a cohesive strategy, this can lead to fragmented efforts that fail to address the actual challenges at hand. This brings us full circle and back to the fundamental question we originally propounded:

What exactly are we trying to regulate?

113

Leveraging the US Government Cybersecurity Report: A Case Study in the Illusion of Compliance The 2024 Report on the Cybersecurity Posture of the United States provides a comprehensive overview of the growing challenges in AI and cybersecurity. It highlights critical vulnerabilities ranging from supply chain risks to the complexities of AI integration. However, the report also exemplifies a broader issue present in many governmental and regulatory frameworks: a strong focus on describing problems but a lack of concrete, actionable strategies to address them.

The Real Cost of Political Theatrics: When you have multiple agencies issuing conflicting guidelines, who exactly is supposed to comply? How will these agencies coordinate to implement these guidelines effectively, especially when the rules are vague and non-binding?

The stark reality is that the U.S. government’s current approach makes compliance

a guessing game. Without clear, enforceable regulations, the private

sector is left to self-regulate, which, as history has shown, can lead to serious ethical and security issues.

The recent Stanford report underscores this point, highlighting how the U.S.'s

hands-off, laissez-faire approach, characterized by voluntary commitments and non-binding standards, is in stark contrast to the European Union's AI Act, which enforces strict regulations based on risk levels. The U.S. government’s reluctance to pass comprehensive legislation appears less about practicality and more about political positioning, as different agencies rush to claim their piece of the AI regulatory pie.

No Muscle, No Impact: Even if all these guidelines from different agencies were to be followed, they lack the muscle needed to enforce compliance. There is little or no funding dedicated to AI oversight, and without it, there are no resources to ensure that rules are being followed, nor penalties to enforce them.

When the rules are voluntary, how can we ensure that companies will not prioritize profit over safety, ethics, and compliance?

Moreover, without substantial penalties for violations, why would any entity feel compelled to change its practices? For the U.S. government’s approach to be taken

114

seriously, it must be backed by legislation that provides real consequences for failing to adhere to established standards.

The Challenge of Enforcing AI Regulations Across Borders: One of the critical points that often goes overlooked is how any of these regulations would be enforced across borders. AI is a global industry, and any attempt to govern it must consider how rules apply not only to U.S. developers but also to international collaborators, partners, and even adversaries.

Can the U.S. government enforce its guidelines on the thousands of AI programmers and developers spread across the globe, let alone the hundreds of thousands within the country? The reality is that without international cooperation, U.S. regulations will have little impact on a global scale.

Countries like China have already established strict controls over their AI industries, aimed at advancing their national goals.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government’s reluctance to pass comprehensive legislation creates a regulatory vacuum that companies, both domestic and foreign, can exploit. A Reality Check on Self-Regulation The Stanford report outlines how most current generative AI models are developed by a few private companies with access to vast data and computation resources. These companies are now being tasked with self-regulating—a practice that, while cheaper and faster than government oversight, is deeply flawed.

S

elf-regulation assumes that private entities will act in the public interest, but in a hyper-competitive market where time-to-market is crucial, the incentive to cut corners can lead to significant risks.

History has shown that without stringent oversight, companies often prioritize their bottom line. We’ve seen this before in sectors like finance and pharmaceuticals.

Why should we expect AI to be any different?

115

The Way Forward: Cohesion, Accountability, and Real Muscle The U.S. needs a cohesive, unified approach to AI. regulation. This means creating a central regulatory body that has the authority and resources to set enforceable standards and hold companies accountable.

It is not enough to rely on voluntary commitments and overlapping guidelines. We need real penalties for noncompliance and dedicated funding to ensure robust oversight. Moreover, U.S. policymakers must understand that AI is not just a technological issue but a geopolitical one. The race to control AI development is already underway, with countries like China and the EU making bold moves to set the rules of the game. If the U.S. wants to remain a leader in this field, it must act decisively to create regulations that are as innovative as the technology they seek to govern.

Global Approaches to AI Regulation • European Union (EU): The EU is at the forefront with its Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act), a proposed regulation that seeks to classify AI systems by risk level (minimal, limited, high, and unacceptable) and impose requirements accordingly. It emphasizes transparency, data governance, and accountability, especially for highrisk applications.

• United States: The U.S. does not have a comprehensive federal law on AI but has seen efforts like the Algorithmic Accountability Act, which aims to require companies to audit AI systems for bias and risks. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has also released frameworks for AI risk management.

• China: China is heavily investing in AI but also implementing regulations to control the technology. For instance, China’s Personal Information Protection Law (PIPL) sets rules for data usage, and there are specific guidelines for the deployment of AI in areas like facial recognition and automated decision-making.

• United Kingdom: The UK is taking a more sectoral approach, proposing frameworks that encourage innovation while addressing concerns around safety, fairness, and accountability. The UK government plans to release specific guidelines and work with industries on best practices.

The fast pace of AI development makes it challenging to set clear, long-lasting standards. What works today might not be sufficient tomorrow. There is a delicate balance between regulating AI to prevent harm and allowing room

116

for innovation. Over-regulation could stifle growth, while under-regulation might lead to significant risks.

Focus on High-Risk AI: Regulators are prioritizing the oversight of high-risk applications (e.g., healthcare, criminal justice, finance) where AI’s impact on individuals and society is most significant.

Time to Stop the Political Theater AI has the potential to revolutionize industries, drive

innovation, and solve some of the world’s most pressing problems. However, the reality of U.S. AI regulation

remains disjointed and ineffective, perpetuating an illusion of compliance without delivering the robust oversight

needed. It’s time for lawmakers and stakeholders to

move beyond political posturing and adopt a unified, adaptive approach.

-Linda Restrepo-

117

118

Linda Restrepo is a recognized leader in Cybersecurity, Artificial Intelligence, and Exponential Technologies. With advanced degrees in Technology, her career focuses on the intersection of technology, research, and strategy.

As the Director of Education and Innovation at the Human Health Education and Research Foundation, she has played a pivotal role in driving initiatives that bridge technological advancements with global challenges.

Restrepo has been instrumental in Corporate Technology Commercialization at the U.S. National Laboratories, translating cutting-edge research into realworld applications.

Her collaborative work with the CDC on cross-border Emerging Infectious Diseases highlights her dedication to addressing critical health and security issues.

Additionally, her expertise includes Global Twin Plant Industrial Development, where she has collaborated with nations such as Mexico, China, and others to advance cross-border manufacturing and industrial integration, as well as Oil Spill Analysis in the Gulf of Mexico, demonstrating her versatility in tackling complex environmental and industrial challenges.

Her contributions extend to research on Global Economic Impacts, and she serves as the President of a global government and military defense research and strategic development firm.

Her leadership has shaped innovations and strategies that influence defense technologies and national security policies. Restrepo’s dedication to advancing these fields is underscored by her being cleared to Top Secret for a specific project through the Department of Defense.

Restrepo is the Editor-in-Chief of Inner Sanctum Vector N360™, a global technology publication known for its forward-thinking insights and contributions from leading experts. Her editorial vision has established the magazine as a platform for critical research and analysis in AI, cybersecurity, and emerging technologies.

Restrepo’s career reflects a commitment to advancing technology, education, and strategic development. Her work continues to shape the evolving landscape of global innovation and 119 defense.

120

121

GETTING AHEAD OF THE GAME IN A N E W M U LT I - P O L A R W O R L D A C R O S S TO DAY ' S S P EC T R U M O F T H R E AT S , CONVERGING ECOSYSTEMS OF C R I M I N A L I T Y, A N D H Y B R I D (IRREGUL AR) WARFARE David M. Luna Executive Director International Coalition Against Illicit Economies (ICAIE) DoD Counternarcotics and Counter Transnational Organized Crime (CTOC) Program Threat Convergence in a New Multi-Polar World Today I will highlight the: - cascading effects of today’s spectrum of threats in an ecosystem of criminality and corruption overlayed with hybrid (irregular) warfare in a new multipolar world;

- Further, through a prism of convergence, I will offer some ideas for leveraging more dynamic threat intelligence and innovation for risk mitigation, disruptions and investigations of illicit threat networks, and dismantling their threat finance operations; and

- ways to support U.S., international partners, and public-private partnerships strengthen their combined efforts to combat cross-border serious crimes and illicit threat networks.

122

Let me emphasize that despite many successes, the global ecosystem of criminality and corruption has expanded greatly today compared to even a decade ago, fueled by criminal opportunists and profit driven-illicit entrepreneurial networks working feverishly to exploit a multitude of new, lucrative criminal economies, including synthetic drugs, contraband pharmaceuticals, and the illegal mining of gold and strategic minerals.

Illicit actors have evolved and diversified across new security landscapes, including by leveraging greater vulnerabilities across the digital world, online marketplaces, dark spaces of the Internet and alliances with deeply criminalized states.

Moreover, active measures and geo-strategic corruption by hostile malign states such as China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, and others, have further financed chaos and insecurity to not only weaken Western democracies, but to fulfill their shared ambition of creating a multipolar world order untethered to the norms of democratic governance and rule of law.

This confluence of organized crime, criminalized states and hybrid warfare has expanded illicit economies globally by orders of magnitude, in ways democratic governments are struggling to understand, map and confront.

Authoritarian regimes, driven less by ideology and more by the desire to stay in power indefinitely, encourage and manipulate politically backed criminal and militia proxies to control prime illicit spaces and conduct criminal activities that corrode governance, political, and market institutions in order to achieve their geopolitical aims, power, and wealth.

These regimes and criminal proxies wreak untold environmental havoc across the world, especially in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa, creating damage that will take generations to repair.

Unfortunately, across almost all of today’s illicit industries, we are losing the war against organized crime and illicit threat networks due to outdated intelligence analysis, the lack of understanding of the scale of these challenges; speed, connivance, and use of sophisticated technologies by criminals. The problem is exacerbated because governments are not making these threats a top national security priority, nor are they making the requisite adaptations and investments necessary to effectively counter such transnational threats.

As a result of the magnitude of the mayhem wrought by the scale of expanding illicit economic vectors, burgeoning insecurity, and culture of impunity in

123

criminalized hot spots, the international law enforcement and security communities are under even more pressure, often out-resourced, outmanned, and sometimes, out-gunned. At this point in time, security forces have become largely reactionary instead of proactively working to mitigate the risks and threats posed by organized crime and illicit threat networks.

Without a new baseline understanding of the new global transnational criminal structures, this will not change to meet the challenges.

Of course, there are exceptions for certain threats posing an existential national emergency and require a full spectrum “move heaven and earth” approaches to degrade. Examples would be the current fight against fentanyl in the United States, or shortly after 9-11, against terrorist financing and terrorism-related crimes.

Here let me thank not only the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and other law enforcement agencies, for their hard work 24-7 to save American lives by disrupting the illegal fentanyl trade, our military on combating terrorist threat networks overseas, and inter-agency colleagues for their courage and valiant efforts to date in addressing these critical issues.

Despite the complexities of the new transnational criminal trends, today’s business model remains relatively simple related to Greed Crimes. If dirty money can be made, the more, the better. The following 3 truisms hold more than ever across ecosystems of criminality: 1. “The Love of money is a root of [many] evils.” (1 Timothy 6:10) 2. “Organized crime is free enterprise at its freest.” (Hank Messick) 3. “Wherever there is power, greed, and money, there is corruption.” (Ken Poirot) Moving forward, preventing other crimes and threats here and abroad, before they metastasize into more serious harms, must remain a first-tier national security priority.

Unless we up our game and get ahead with the required political will, resources, and energies needed to push these security boulders up the hill, the battle against many of today’s cross-border crimes will remain a Sisyphean task.

China’s Financing a Global Ecosystem of Criminality and Corruption In the case of the fentanyl crisis, we must push China to take more forceful actions to crack down on the production of illicit fentanyl precursors, and end state subsidies as well.

124

More broadly, China needs to take greater initiative to find pragmatic ways to not only prosecute the fight against crime and corruption in China, but also the specified unlawful activities (SUAs) that it propels globally that are destabilizing and threatening our economy, our citizens, and our national security.

Let me make a few other points regarding China’s criminality and corruption that contribute to expanding many illicit economies these days, before I pivot my remarks to other emerging criminal threats and illicit vectors the require more policy attention and a more robust and coordinated response from the law enforcement, security and intelligence communities.

As the U.S. and China try to find pathways to renew possible economic and trade bilateral cooperation, it will also be important for the United States to be frank with China on their need to take the fight against corruption more seriously inside China, as well as combatting transnational crime, foreign bribery, and malign influence as part of their external and international policy agendas.

As a former co-chair of the China-U.S. Anti-Corruption Working Group (ACWG), I am not surprised to read about the magnitude of high-level corruption within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Before we develop targeted initiatives and actions to address any national security threat, it is important for the US Government to have a clearer, more accurate picture of the threat environment and the key drivers.

Understanding the threat environment is a critical first step to better develop better national security responses.

This is why the on-going intelligence assessment and estimate of the scale of highlevel CCP corruption and Chinese criminality is instrumental in providing greater clarity in designing critical policy levers so that the U.S. can target China’s center of gravity (corruption) and hold Beijing more accountable across an array of crimes that are truly harming U.S. national security.

I would also encourage the Intelligence Community (IC) to undertake a new national intelligence estimate (NIE) on the breath and scale of today’s transnational criminal threats to the national economy and citizen security across key global illicit markets.

125

Through numerous ICAIE reports and Congressional testimonies that we have provided in recent years, we have briefed the U.S. Congress on how China’s involvement in expanding illicit economies around the globe has had a triple whammy effect. It: 1) increases tremendous illicit wealth for its ruling CCP elite; 2) finances China’s global ambitions to be a superpower by 2049 in a multi-polar world as President Xi Jinping has openly stated; and 3) hurts U.S. national security, American competitiveness, and innovation.

In fact, ICAIE has in recent years reported on how CCP Inc. has leveraged corruption, illicit markets, and predatory trade and lending practices to become the world’s largest player in almost every major sector of transnational crime including counterfeits, trafficking in weapons, humans, wildlife, illegally-harvested timber, fish, and natural resources, theft of IP and trade secrets, illicit tobacco, organ harvesting, and other crimes.

Several trillion U.S. dollars in illicit proceeds every year are generated from predicate offenses for money laundering that touch China’s jurisdiction and markets, and are often used to finance China’s authoritarian regime.

China has also helped Russia, Iran, and others evade international sanctions, including on their oil exports.

According to this ICAIE report, China may very well be the biggest money laundering hub in the world and the CCP Inc. one of most profitable transnational illicit trade syndicates.

On so many fronts, China poses a serious geopolitical and CTOC threat, given its proclivity to make money on crime and the laundering of dirty monies of drug cartels, kleptocrats, terrorists, sanctioned rogue states and pariahs, and also through asymmetrical maneuvers to steal Americans’ personal identifiable information (PII), trade secrets, and intellectual property, as well as conducting foreign malign influence campaigns against the United States.

As FBI Director Christopher Wray has underscored in recent years, China remains the “biggest threat” to our national security and homeland. Not only because of its active involvement in the illegal fentanyl and methamphetamine trades but across other transnational crimes, cyber intrusions, hybrid warfare, and of course, political interference operations as Secretary of State Antony Blinken underscored just last week.

126

These Chinese threats will require even more attention as numerous illicit industries driven by China (and Chinese triads) continue to expand including in the Western Hemisphere, especially during their current economic downturn.

This is why the “Americas Act” before Congress can begin a process to win back market share and lost hemispheric influence through investment and trade incentives in Latin America, then replicating it to other regions.

Undoubtedly, China must become a more responsible stakeholder in the international community across numerous market security areas, and the U.S. must be tough and hold its feet to the fire.

Let me now turn to some evolving trends related to today’s transnational criminal organizations that similarly thrive from chaos, coercive violence, ecosystems of criminality, and corruption to build and sustain their illicit empires, and sometimes act as useful proxies to China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and other authoritarian regimes.

Latin America Criminal and Security Threats In the Americas, multi-billion-dollar illicit economies across Latin America, long centered on the cocaine and narcotics trade, are expanding as criminals and other illicit networks diversify to new commodities, markets and methodologies.

The region’s transnational criminal structures are undergoing a volatile, profound reordering and restructuring, with long-term strategic repercussions in the years to come for the United States and its key allies in the hemisphere.

New actors, new markets, and new products are driving fragmentation among traditional groups, and consolidation of criminalized economies from the Bolivarian Joint Criminal Enterprise (BJCE) led by the Maduro regime in Venezuela to numerous other strategic alliances among TCOs, kleptocrats, business elites, and ideologically agnostic authoritarian states.

It is this crime-threat convergence and competition among different actors that is driving the growing instability and corruption.

It is now an often-violent race to control of strategic infrastructure, trafficking and smuggling routes, critical spaces where the state is absent or co-opted as a partner.

The criminal groups consolidate their control through fear and brutality and use their territorial control and to accumulate greater power and wealth.

127

We see this being played out, for example, in Venezuela, Nicaragua, Bolivia, Brazil, Ecuador, and Haiti. The same dynamic is playing out throughout the Sahel and subSaharan Africa, Europe, Southeast Asia, and other areas of high levels of organized crime, violence, corruption and kleptocracy, armed conflicts, and other cross-border illicit threats.

In Mexico, the Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG) has displaced the Sinaloa cartel as the dominant criminal network. The CJNG and other cartels and gangs have further co-opted the Mexican government at the federal, state, and local levels, and have expanded their illicit pipelines from primarily drug and illegal opioid trafficking, to a diversified portfolio. Their activities now include other contraband and illicit goods such as fake pharmaceuticals, weapons, human trafficking and smuggling, wildlife, as well as investments in numerous sectors including agriculture, mining (and “green” minerals), transportation, hospitality and gaming, etc.

On fake pharmaceuticals, CJNG’s expanded and diversified economic profile across the Americas now includes a growing dominance in the illicit trafficking of fake medicines and counterfeit pharmaceuticals, a multi-billion illicit industry which endangers the public health of safety of citizens across the Western Hemisphere.

In Mexico alone, some reports have found that 60 percent of commercially sold pharmaceuticals are falsified, counterfeited, expired, or stolen. Some pills are even laced with deadly fentanyl and highly addictive meth.

The medicines are sold online, in the informal economy, and in professional brickand-mortar pharmacies, where CJNG liaisons coerce pharmacists and storekeepers to sell and store them alongside real medicine.

Confiscated fake medicines have included treatments for HIV, cancer, osteoporosis, diabetes, blood pressure, cholesterol, and obesity.

Outside of Mexico, the CJNG and other cartels are seeking dominance in Central America and stretching their illicit empires into South America with newer alliances, where they can control more ports through bribery and intimidation and thereby introduce new products into illicit markets.

Costa Rica represents a prime expansion area for criminals, due to its large international ports, lightly monitored coastline, lack of strong law enforcement entities, and geographic proximity to the deeply criminalized Ortega regime in Nicaragua, creating a nexus among different global markets.

128

Costa Rica, with functional infrastructure and easy access to the dollarized international financial system, is especially attractive following the consolidation of criminal networks in neighboring countries, particularly the Ortega regime’s expansion into illicit gold, drug trafficking and precursor imports.

Expansions by CJNG and other TCOs in the Americas is putting these groups in contact with Chinese triads and Eurasian criminals especially in the ports, and money laundering havens.

The reality is such that traditional criminal actors based in Colombia and Mexico are now competing with – and sometimes collaborating with – new actors such as transnational gangs in Brazil and Central America, as well extra-regional, nontraditional actors.

The convergence is facilitated by the growing, ideologically agnostic criminalized authoritarian model spreading across Latin America, where staying in power through alliances with transnational criminal structures has rendered ideology almost meaningless, has opened new possibilities for formerly antagonistic criminal groups.

In many cases, one-time ideological opponents are no longer enemies, but potential partners who can provide or purchase specific criminal services and financial rewards.

Take for example MS-13, which primarily operates in the Northern Triangle of Central America (El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala) with franchises across the United States, the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC), based in São Paulo (and active in most Brazilian states), and the Tren de Aragua in Venezuela.

• The MS-13 now operates in Mexico, concentrated in Tijuana and other key border areas.

• The PCC has expanded is operation to Bolivia, Paraguay, Argentina, Africa and Europe.

• The Tren de Aragua has operations in Ecuador, Peru, Chile and Central America.

These groups are building alliances that could allow them to expand their operations in unprecedented ways.

In the changing pattern related to global crime, these groups – no longer localized prison born gangs but transnational criminal enterprises – are becoming more diversified, deeply enmeshed in the global drug trade, illicit economies and armed conflicts in the hemisphere, and in other parts of the world.

129

These newer hybrids are rapidly amassing formal political power and seeking new alliances with each other and other state and non-state armed actors to achieve their goals of becoming major political forces embedded in the state, as the MS-13 has successfully done in El Salvador under the Bukele administration.

In Ecuador, the brazen assassination of leading presidential candidate Fernando Villavicencio by an Ecuadorian gang, Los Lobos, believed aligned with Mexico’s Jalisco New Generation cartel, created chaos earlier this year. The gang leader escaped prison setting off a wave of violence across the country and coordinated riots in seven prisons.

A rival gang, the Choneros, backed by Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel, called for peace in a statement apparently issued from Mexico City. But the reality is both gangs are fighting for criminal supremacy in Ecuador, aligned with other transnational organizations creating more violence.

Over the past five years, Ecuador’s homicide rate has risen almost 700 percent, from 6 homicides per 100,000 people to 42, as the local gangs, their Mexican cartel rivals and extra-regional mafias vying for trafficking routes have made the nation the most violent in the hemisphere.

But the collapse of Ecuador’s rule of law is another manifestation of the diversification, expansion, and joint ventures among today’s leading TCOs, where rival gangs and alliances fight over strategic ports used as shipping points, especially those near the leading cocaine-producing countries of Colombia and Peru.

Illicit threat networks are finding Ecuador’s weak border controls, dollarized economy that facilitates money laundering, and the increasing presence of the Chinese in those ports to be attractive.

Ecuador also has to deal with external threats posed by the Albanian and Eurasian mafias now embedded in the port city of Guayaquil, who coordinate the warehousing of cocaine from Colombia, and coordinate with other transnational fixers including Italian mafia on the subsequent distribution in Spain, the UK, Germany, and other European markets. Ecuadorian fruit and flower companies are often used as fronts for these criminal activities.

From a trans-regional perspective, the fragmenting and realigning of organized crime operations across borders has seen the rise of Eastern European, Chinese, Turkish, Italian and Balkan syndicates vying for market share in Latin America, and reciprocally, increased illicit trade by the cartels, the PCC, and other Latin criminal networks in lucrative overseas illicit markets.

130

Panama continues to serve as a central logistics hub for multi-continental criminal organizations and its role came into further focus in November 2022, when a multijurisdictional task force arrested 49 people in Dubai, Spain, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands, all with alleged ties to a transnational-networked 'Super Cartel'.

Defendants were allegedly coordinating a massive drug trafficking operation out of Panama with support from leading cartels in Ireland, Italy, Dubai, Bosnia, the Netherlands, and Morocco.

According to Panama’s attorney general, Panamanian nationals had been helping the Super Cartel move drugs and maintain communications around the world.

Italian organized crime, in particular groups with ties to the ‘Ndrangheta’, are also expanding their presence in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Uruguay to open new drug trafficking routes to Europe.

Panama’s Atlantic port and free trade zone (FTZ) of Colón is also a favored drug hub for the Colombian criminal group, the Urabeños, also known as the Gulf Clan (Clan del Golfo), and the Gaitanista Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (Autodefensas Gaitanistas de Colombia – AGC).

Colón is a logistical hub notorious for illicit trade, corruption, drugs, illicit tobacco products, gangs, violence, and money laundering, as are other ports and FTZs in the Americas such as the mega-port of Brazil’s Santos or TBA or the port of Vancouver.

The massive levels of corruption fueled by enormous inflows of illicit funds, along with multiple, persistent armed conflicts among and between state and non-state actors, and sophisticated influence operations by Russia, China and Iran are key drivers of the regional decline in democratic governance and the wave of authoritarian populism in the hemisphere.

This significant reordering of illicit networks structure in the Western Hemisphere is not taking place in a vacuum.

In many parts of Latin America, a perfect storm is brewing. Growing economic, criminal and political stresses are eroding institutions and economic prospects, creating opportunities for Muslim extremist radicalization, and undermining a commitment to democracy and the rule of law.

This is exacerbated by major disinformation campaigns undertaken by China, Russia, and Iran, was well as predatory activities of these and other malign networks operating more brazenly across the region in the absence of a strong U.S. presence.

131

In Panama, for example, China is leveraging bribery of government officials to win concession rights to control the port of Colón and other critical infrastructure along the Panama Canal. Alarmingly, China already owns, controls or operates important sections of more than 40 major ports across Latin America, many of which Chinese triads are also quite active.

Another significant concern is China’s growing network of facilities in Latin America related to its civilian space and satellite programs with defense capabilities. These ground stations have the potential to expand Beijing’s global military surveillance network in the southern hemisphere and areas close to the United States. China is also literally buying islands across the Caribbean (e.g., in Antigua and Barbuda), building special economic zones, and likely planning to use these commercial outposts for military purposes.

Russian proxies are selling some of the more advanced surveillance technologies to state and non-state criminal actors across the hemisphere, greatly enhancing their ability to monitor and attack political enemies, law enforcement, journalists, human rights workers and anyone else they perceive as a threat.

At the same time, the Rabbani Network and Iranian Hezbollah Illicit Network are making billions of dollars from illicit trade and financing the information space to shape anti-democracy messages in the region.

In a confluence of geo-security interests, China, Russia, and Iran continue to strengthen intelligence and military ties to weaken democratic institutions, expanding illicit economies, and bolster autocratic governance in Latin America, if not globally.

And where there is authoritarian revanchist power and revisionist mischief, criminal and militia proxies are not far behind.

These emerging security trends in ecosystems of criminality and corruption in Latin America are also being witnessed in other regions of the world that offer new challenges to law enforcement and policy communities.

These security risks are far-reaching and threaten to accelerate the negative trends unless dealt with effectively and decisively.

Global Trends Criminal networks are similarly infiltrating and penetrating legal businesses and commercial pathways in Europe by exploiting corrupt nodes to advance their criminalities.

132

In a recent EUROPOL report, over 800 threatening criminal networks were identified, with more than 25,000 members operating inside the European Union.

According to EUROPOL, 86% of those networks are able to infiltrate the legal economy to hide their activities and launder their criminal profits.

Similar to Latin America, ports and FTZs in Europe are targeted by TCOs to control the movement of both licit and illicit goods that are often hidden among the thousands of containers. Shipping companies and unions are often co-opted by criminals to enable the trafficking and smuggling of drugs, and other contraband.

An emerging trend in Europe, and carrying over to Latin America and other parts of the world, is migrant smuggling. Due to conflicts, climate change, pandemics, and humanitarian plight, migrant smuggling has become a very lucrative business for criminals, with 90 percent of migrants paying smugglers to help them to reach the EU. It is estimated that migrant smuggling generates an annual turnover of between $5 to $6 billion worldwide.

If we examine Africa, one can see a further deterioration of governance structures and the rule of law as criminals, kleptocrats, hostile militias, terrorist groups, corrupt military, customs, and police officials carve out trafficking corridors. For example, this is happening along the Sahel illicit superhighway, involving drugs, weapons, humans, maritime piracy, terrorist financing, and other crimes.

In fact, sub-regional African hubs of illicit activities have the highest criminality in the world, according to research by the Global Initiative against Transnational Organized Crime (GITOC). They serve as a stronghold for criminal actors, whose influence is aggravated by prolonged conflicts and insecurity that make the region especially dangerous.

Gateway crimes and illicit activities such as weapons, drugs, fuel trafficking, cattle rustling, artisanal gold mining, fake medicines, illicit cigarettes, and wildlife poaching are at the heart of providing revenue for terrorist groups; revenue which is essential to their survival and ability to finance their infrastructure and expansion.

To safeguard their interests amid stiffer competition, traffickers have hired armed groups to act as protective militias. They have also cut deals with corrupt state officials, whether to shield their business activity from official scrutiny or to buy the services of the military to protect their convoys.

133

Traffickers have also become legitimate businessmen and even entered national politics, allowing them to then work with others to hollow out state institutions, coopt state security forces and, in effect, turn the state into a criminal enterprise and to bankroll militias, their partners in crime.

In states captured by militia groups such as Russia’s Wagner Group, Hezbollah, or through China’s Belt and Road Initiative, crime and corruption have further destabilized Africa with measurable democratic backsliding, the propping up of brutal dictators with human rights abuses, and a bonanza of pillaging, especially of gold and critical minerals.

In Southeast Asia, criminal syndicates in the Mekong Basin and ASEAN markets thrive across sprawling transnational zones of criminality and a convergence of crimes, including financial fraud, extortion, and money laundering especially with the proliferation of unregulated new casinos and online gambling controlled by such criminal organizations and non-state armed actors such as militias and paramilitary units.

Industrial scale money laundering operations originating in Southeast Asia's Mekong region have gone global. It's the infrastructure handles the proceeds of scams -- such as the recent pig butchering cases targeting American citizens – as well as child pornography, trade in human body parts, illegal gambling, drug trafficking and people trafficking, and sexual exploitation.

The Mekong is notoriously the home of high-end restaurants where one can order bear claws as appetizers, a $1000 pangolin soup, other expensive endangered wildlife meats, and wash it all done with an aphrodisiac wine elixir made from tiger bones or rhino horn.

Cross-border crime in the region is also linking the world's most dangerous criminals and allowing them to scale up and automate money laundering and cryptocurrency networks across the digital world. This activity is increasingly also linked to terrorist financing as well as sanctions evasion.

The tens of billions of dollars in illicit profits derived from illicit economies dwarf the formal economy, and have corroded state institutions and flowed into poorly governed jurisdictions with weak regulatory enforcement or into semi-autonomous enclaves beyond state authorities’ reach*, particularly in Myanmar’s Shan State, or in Laos’ Golden Triangle Special Economic Zone, which some have called, “the world’s worst special economic zone”.

In the ongoing wars in Ukraine, Israel-Gaza, and other hotspots, new opportunities have also arisen for TCOs and illicit threat networks to profit from the violent conflict and insecurity through numerous smuggling ventures, trafficking in

134

weapons and illicit goods, illicit financial flows, and sanctions evasion. Syria’s illegal captagon trade allows it to ride out the war.

It is true that technology transforms old crimes giving bad actors and networks greater reach and scale: Digital criminals are increasingly exploiting emerging technologies and encrypted communications in the new Metaverse, using them to commit crimes against children, data theft, digital money laundering, financial scams, counterfeiting, ransomware, phishing, and online sexual harassment, as well as violent extremism, terrorism, terrorist financing, malign influence and disinformation, theft of 3D virtual/cultural property, trespassing in private virtual spaces, and robbery from an avatar.

In a nutshell: transnational crime is a booming business around the world and across the digital world alike.

Solutions So what does one do about the immediate and horizon threats that you will be examining this week?

While there are no easy solutions to today’s security complexities, it is important that we stay ahead of the game with a meaningful framework with welldefined objectives and means that help to achieve some of the ends you are working toward.

In the advice of Walter Gretzky to his son Wayne: “Skate to where the puck is going, not to where it’s been.”

Although many lessons can be learned from past criminal investigations and methodologies about how criminals conduct their illicit activities, in an emerging multi-polar world where adversaries do not respect rules, norms, and are bent on reshaping the international order, breaking the cycle of corruptive influence and the economic power of illicit threat networks within ecosystems of criminality requires more anticipatory protocols and robust enforcement.

So we must go where the puck is going and get ahead of the active measures by criminals and illicit threat networks that are exploiting Boyd's OODA loop -observe, orient, decide, and act -- faster than law enforcement and security agencies.

This is especially true where bad actors and threat networks recognize that international reactions to their criminal actions and malign operations require more energies for the defenders of justice, democracy, and the rule of law to dislodge, disrupt, dismantle, and defeat their illicit activities, maneuvers, criminal market

135

offensives, and deliberately driven chaos within the ecosystems of criminality and corruption.

Transnational criminal organizations, China, Russia, and other illicit threat networks have perfected this strategic dark art: act first and faster than countervailing security forces when undertaking subversive activities. Using this tactic, these bad actors are expanding illicit markets or capturing states through coercive corruption, laundering dirty money, and achieving geopolitical dominance through aggression, control of territories, ports, global supply chains, and digital spaces.

Action beats reaction.

This entails more robust threat horizon measures including: - integrating threat intelligence overlays and the full dimensions of threat convergence in national strategies so that we can better anticipate changing threat environments, and to protect U.S. national security interests from TCOs and illicit threat networks.

- sharing threat intelligence in timely manner to mitigate harms, and help generate future capabilities and operations towards optimal success is also very important.

This further requires not only testing good game-changing policy ideas, but also developing more innovative multi-dimensional approaches and holistic, whole-ofsociety frameworks before the bad guys act on their criminalities and seize new market share or do more damage.

Additionally, we need to make criminal threat convergence a first-tier national security priority, as well as include it in the National Intelligence Priority Framework (NIPF) so that there can be greater information-sharing across sectors, more joint and coordinated law enforcement operations with committed partners overseas, and more leveraging of national assets and resources.

A few final few words on the need to devote more attention to confronting the enablers and drivers of organized crime and horizontal threats, including the use of ports and newer money laundering methodologies: Crime-terror enablers and proxies are increasingly exploiting diasporic communities through coercive pressures, and act as extralegal enforcers for their authoritarian and criminal clients and benefactors. They are mobilizing diasporic communities to conduct activities in furtherance of criminality and corruption, political interference activities, and malign influence operations.

136

As noted earlier, “divide and conquer” strategies are intended to weaken U.S. influence and sow divisions among allies and law enforcement communities.

If we look at Canada in recent years, it has become a crime convergence zone and forward operational hub for the world’s most notorious crime groups and threat networks including the likes of Joaquín 'El Chapo' Guzmán and the Sinaloa cartel, Chinese drug kingpin Tse Chi Lop, Hezbollah Financier Altaf Khanani, and other bad actors, and professional enablers and drivers in the sectors of technology and maritime shipping (e.g., Vancouver port), and as platforms for financing global insecurity.

For example, if you examine the so-called CCP police stations in North America, as certain investigative journalists have done in recent months, you have a nexus of PRC Intelligence Services operators converging with local Chinese triads in cities, often in the Fujian transnational crime networks. Such police stations are physically and mentally projecting Beijing’s political power to influence the diaspora community politically. They are connected to underground casinos, human trafficking and money laundering networks, and are connecting with other businesses to clandestinely fund influence and election interference.

Through the long-standing ties and use of diasporic communities and the Chinese triads, Hezbollah financiers, and oligarchic Eurasian and Balkan entrepreneurs and mafias, reinforced by targeted subversive operations by China, Iran, and Russia, an array of sinister illicit activities and active measures have had a disrupting and destabilizing impact on the political, governance, security, and business structures, and in some cases, have inhibited counter intelligence and law enforcement efforts through corruption in North America, Europe, Africa, and other parts of the world.

As I have underscored, dark commerce across illicit economies is facilitated by criminalized ports, and whoever controls such strategic infrastructure can move illicit goods and contraband in any country or region, and can export to flood markets around the world.

In some risky ports and FTZs as well as nearby financial safe havens, dirty money is laundered to fund greater criminality and insecurity.

In some cases, criminal networks arrange the infiltration of ports and coordinate local networks of corrupt port insiders, and even law enforcement, to enable illicit goods and contraband to reach demand markets, in furtherance of cross-border smuggling and trafficking operations.

The abuse of any one risky port or FTZs can cause serious security ripple effects across markets and supply chains globally.

137

The ingenuity of criminals in finding novel ways to launder money or financial value seems both infinite and troubling.

As my ICAIE colleague, John Cassara, a former U.S. intel and law enforcement official, frequently underscores, criminals motivated by greed work with professional enablers and facilitators to utilize trade-based money laundering, black market exchanges, hawala, flying money, daigou, mirror swaps, M-payments, cryptocurrency and other digital assets to launder dirty money, including for the drug cartels and other transnational criminal groups.

These days aided by professional enablers, criminals are using a variety of cryptocurrencies in online businesses and marketplaces, both on the publicly accessible clear web and the dark web, to generate and mix money, and to move commodities.

They're using a range of social media apps to market goods and to operate different businesses, including the trafficking of drugs and precursors, and for human trafficking. At the core it's all about profit, and these technologies allow them to generate and move large amounts of money and value very quickly.

Finally, through political interference and malign influence operations, hostile authoritarian networks and their enabling proxies are polluting the truth through disinformation, curated messages and false narratives designed to penetrate the West’s information spaces, sow discord, divide communities, and further weaken a community of democracies and the international rules-based order.

In closing, to me the beauty of the Fibonacci sequence has in many respects illuminated clarity – that which is not only scientifically exponential, but also beautifully intelligent, to reflect the possibilities for new innovative pathwayssolutions and that illustrate the potential of our minds, as powerful as the secrets of the fibonacci spirals.

As we innovate new possibilities from each idea or brainstorm, we craft a forcemultiplying trajectory that may lead exponentially to further discoveries and pathfinding actions (effective solutions that can be implemented and expanded), help us to better navigate today's chaos, manage change tomorrow, and bring enduring peace to multi-dimensional security challenges and illicit vectors.

The U.S. must also invest in developing innovative, evidence-based, and forward intelligence strategies with public and private sector partners to have more timely and accurate insights into the intentions, capabilities, and actions of criminals by harnessing open source, “big data,” artificial intelligence, and advanced analytics.

138

We must also leverage international cooperation to disrupt and dismantle illicit supply chains by deploying intelligence and law enforcement resources in both key domestic convergence zones and international threat streams.

ICAIE is expanding greater energies in threat intelligence to harness a coalition of dedicated networks across sectors to fight corruption, illicit economies, foreign malign influence by authoritarian powers, and other destabilizing threats including through a new strategic foresight ICAIE Peace and Security Sustainability (ICAIE PASS) Foundation, and a new Mapping Latin America Security Threats Program lead by ICAIE Senior Advisor Douglas Farah.

Without significantly more U.S. leadership, creativity, and understanding the neural connections of today’s cross-border threats, many of the current trends may soon be irreversible against the criminality crushing societies in many parts of the world.

We must continue to outfox and react faster to the deviant machinations of criminals, money launderers, enablers, and illicit threat networks with our unified, combined, and multinational powers and steadfast resolve.

If we break their corruptive and economic power, financial strength, and sever these newer strategic alliances and their use of enablers and proxies across today’s transnational security landscapes and online criminal markets, we can begin a process to render them less powerful by depriving them of their wealth, infrastructure, logistics, and safe havens.

“

Otherwise, if we fail to thwart the collective influence of criminals and illicit threat networks whose ambition is to thrive in a more chaotic multi-polar world, impunity will reign over the rule of law.”

And that’s a wrap! Getting Ahead of the Game in a new Multi-Polar World in 30 minutes.

Thank you.

David M. Luna

139

140

David Luna is a former U.S. diplomat and national security official, renowned as a global strategic thought leader and advocate for security, democracy, and peace. With over 20 years of experience, he has been a leading voice on combating corruption, illicit trade, threat finance, terrorism, and the "dark side of globalization," addressing the root causes of insecurity and instability worldwide.

Luna has worked across 95+ countries, engaging in anti-crime policy, capacity-building, and publicprivate partnerships to advance U.S. foreign policy and national security objectives under four successive Administrations. He collaborated with over 150 member states and numerous international organizations to combat global threats and promote the rule of law.

Currently, Luna chairs the Business at OECD Anti-Illicit Trade (AIT) Expert Group, the AIT Committee of the U.S. Council for International Business (USCIB), and the Peace and Security Committee of the United Nations Association-NCA. He is also a Senior Fellow for National Security and Director of the AntiIllicit Trade Institute (AITI).

Previously, he served as Chair of the OECD Task Force on Countering Illicit Trade and Vice-Chair of the World Economic Forum’s Global Agenda Council on Illicit Trade and Organized Crime.

Luna specializes in risk management and threat mitigation, working with governments, businesses, and civil society to strengthen the rule of law, secure supply chains, and confront convergence crimes such as corruption, organized crime, and terrorism. His expertise extends to developing global strategies that leverage collective action, risk frameworks, and transformative technologies to address complex security challenges.

Through his leadership, Luna champions sustainability, peace, and security for humanity, fostering innovative solutions to safeguard global stability and prosperity.

141

142

143

ADVANCED ROBOTICS – TRANSFORMING HUMANITY: THE AUTONOMOUS SYSTEMS SHAPING OUR FUTURE DR. HANS C MUMM The discussion will include autonomous systems’ current and future integration into human experiences and the human acceptance factor.

A Look Back in History and Humanity’s Desire to Integrate Technology The first industrial revolution is said to have taken over a hundred years, yet the Information Revolution has only taken thirty years.

How does a planet-wide revolution condense into a shorter timeframe? Is humankind equipped for this change, or are we failing to recognize the

masses seemingly being left behind? To answer these questions, we need to examine our desire to automate essential processes in food production, transportation, healthcare, and our workforce, to name a few.

The world is in simultaneous multiple revolutions for the first time in

history. The fact that we are in an autonomous/robotic revolution at the same time as a biotech revolution is creating the ability for the fifth revolution to take hold faster than any other humankind changes in history.

144

The ability to move into a true knowledge revolution with artificial intelligence, quantum technologies, virtual worlds, and self-organizing entities is harnessing a future humans may not be ready for, as historically, laws, policies, governance, leadership, and human wisdom have lagged behind humankind’s revolutions.

The fourth industrial revolution is characterized by disruptive technologies, and “trends such as the Internet of Things (IoT), robotics, virtual reality (VR), and artificial intelligence (AI) are changing the way modern people live and work. The

integration of these technologies into manufacturing practices is known as Industry 4.0.” (Wigmore, 2024) As humans and machines begin their metaphorical dance together, humanity must make many decisions on how to shape its current and future thoughts about the makeup of our societies, what constitutes productivity, and whether productivity is indeed the goal of human existence. Do we need to consider altering this thought process now that, for the most part, AI, robots, and processing machines will take over our productivity needs?

In the fifth industrial revolution, there are eight recognized unmanned autonomous systems: (1) unmanned boats, (2) unmanned air vehicles, (3) unmanned submarines,(4) unmanned surface vehicles, (5) free-roaming humanoids, (6) exoskeletons, (7) nano biologics, and (8) autonomous cyber systems.

As all these systems begin to communicate together by integrating goalseeking and acting as a singular system, the industry will witness the adoption of simplistic tasks into a fully integrated architecture. This complete integration is an issue today with minimal capabilities; autonomous architectures

are outpacing policymakers’ and world leaders’ abilities to draft and approve policies, laws, and governance necessary for advanced technologies and autonomous systems.

A

s humans and machines integrate, what it means to be an employee or work at a job will change, and “Corporations need to consider the management of intelligent machine assets in many of the same ways we manage humans.” (Mumm &

145

Brand, 2020) Human employees are trained, evaluated, and corrected via training and other means as work is accomplished.

However, machines, AI simulations, and robots are considered “physical assets and are managed as such…a thinking machine is capable of choices, actions, and decision-making, much like that of its human counterpart.

If a machine can make an autonomous decision or action, the behavior of the

machine must be managed.” (Mumm & Brand, 2020) This infers that autonomous employees (AE) should also be held responsible for the outcomes of those decisions or actions.

As we move into the fifth industrial revolution, “training, monitoring, and development programs must be considered for managing the AE in many of the same ways we manage human employees.” (Mumm & Brand, 2020)

Our Current Reality: Is It the Jetson’s Utopia, or Are We Closer to the 1980s?

In the 1960s, a futuristic cartoon known as The Jetsons offered us a glimpse of what the future might look like. Decades after the television show went off the air, the world still uses this show as the benchmark for our technology timeline. Matt Novak further discussed this idea in a September 19, 2012 article, as he stated, “Although it was on the air for only one season, The Jetsons remains our most popular point of reference when discussing the future.” Novak, 2012) The Jetsons featured flying cars, robot housemaids, and a carefree lifestyle that allowed machines to do most of the work, with humans thinking. The Jetsons’ eutopia did not include pollution, as the world, through television, indicated that this new eutopia would be one without issues or challenges.

The reality sixty-four years after The Jetsons leaves much to be desired compared to the television show. Humanity hasn’t quite achieved the Jetson’s level of technological eutopia. However, we have moved far beyond the 1980s in our technology and how autonomous systems can integrate into our human world.

Agriculture – Are We Done with Manual Field Labor?

Consider that in 1876, “George Lambert patented the first mechanical corn planter.

Case produces its first traction engine, which provided power to the rear wheel and the belt pulley while being the first to address the problems of boiler explosions and sparks” (Staff, 2023).

146

It has taken technology over one hundred fifty years to get to “today’s precision age that automatically guides high-powered tractors and combines. Farm equipment has evolved through the ages to meet the earth’s ever-growing population’s food, fuel, and clothing needs.” (Staff, 2023) As we move into the 20th century, most sectors of the economy have a strong desire for and need for autonomous systems. Yet, technology growth is not evenly distributed across sectors or populations. Historically, the farming industry has pushed to produce more products with less land and, in less time, with a smaller workforce. The difficulty of obtaining and retaining farm labor has created a need for autonomous farm equipment.

The ability of the average family-owned farm to integrate this autonomous equipment can be a challenge, as many factors affect the equipment’s ability to operate effectively and safely. As depicted, many systems must communicate and be custom-integrated into a farm environment.

The world’s population is more than “three times larger than in the mid-twentieth century. The global human population reached 8.0 billion in mid-November 2022

from an estimated 2.5 billion people in 1950, adding 1 billion people since 2010 and 2 billion since 1998.” (Global Issues: Population,” 2024). There is now a recognition that “robotic farming will play an undeniably significant role in future sustainable agriculture.”(Roshanianfard, Noguchi, Okamoto, & Ishii, 2020) With pressure on the agricultural sector to produce more food for a growing population while accomplishing this with fewer workers and maintaining a profit, “the development of agricultural robot technology is the inevitable requirement of agriculture.” (Yucheng et al., 2021) Today’s agricultural equipment is being retrofitted for autonomous features and to gather data required to create purpose-built agrarian robots. This integration will not be without its challenges, including the fact that autonomous systems might develop processes that far exceed human abilities.

Defense Industry – Are Autonomous Systems the Way to Civilize the Uncivilized The use of autonomous systems in warfare is well documented and continues to expand as conflicts arise. This increase in the use of autonomous systems is

driving technological advances in both the civilian and military realms.

147

With the addition of autonomous and unmanned systems on the battlefield, we should consider whether there is such a thing as a bloodless war.

“

Do robots fighting on the battlefield somehow make an uncivilized activity more civil? If metal, plastic, and silicone are taking the punishment, does that potentially equate to less harm to humans?”

In reading the ancient book The Art of War urges that war should be avoided and that diplomacy is the preferred method for settling disputes.

H

owever, if war is unavoidable, “it should be fought strategically and psychologically to minimize damage, and the wasting of resources.

Warfare should only be a last resort, and heading into battle is already admitting defeat.” (“The Art of War,” 2023) The Art of War is based more on philosophy and military strategy in looking at the human cost; however, with robots fighting the war, the human toll is less. Does that mean humanity will accept the upheaval of war more easily because robots can be substituted for the role of a warfighter?

The integration of multiple autonomous systems for missions is being witnessed now in the Israel and Hamas conflict. Israel’s arsenal includes a four-legged dog robotic solution that carries a rolling, flying sensor package for intelligence reconnaissance and surveillance missions. This integrated package can “enter dangerous places and minimize human casualties, making it an invaluable asset on the modern battlefield. In an evolving warfare environment, blending high-tech solutions with traditional methods is crucial, and the V60 excels at bridging that gap.” (Boguslavsky, 2024) Meanwhile, as casualties mount in Ukraine, so does the pressure to achieve decisive battlefield advantages with fully autonomous weapons – robots that can

148

choose, hunt down, and attack their targets all on their own without needing any human supervision (Dawes, 2023).

Currently, semi-autonomous weapons, like loitering munitions that track and detonate themselves on targets, require a “human in the loop.” The machines can recommend actions but require their operators to initiate them (Dawes, 2023).

Autonomous architectures are outpacing policymakers’ and world leaders’ abilities to draft and approve policies, laws, and governance necessary for advanced technologies and autonomous systems.

Job growth in the drone and autonomous systems for the defense industry continues to grow with little indication of slowing down anytime soon. The ability to use and reuse consumer-based autonomous systems by nation-states and organizations illustrates how this dual-use technology can move the consumer and the military markets quickly into a future that is not well regulated, controlled, or with proper laws, policies, or authorities documented, and enforceable by any one country or world governing body.

In a December 2021 article by James Dawes titled UN disagrees on ‘killer robot’ ban as nations pour billions into autonomous weapons research,” Dawes offers the concept that by failing to put limits on autonomous weapons, humanity is giving up its final stopgap measure “against war crimes and atrocities: the international laws of war…the idea that people can be held accountable for their actions even during wartime, that the right to kill other soldiers during combat does not give the right to murder civilians.” (Dawes, 2023) The International Committee of the Red Cross, the custodian of international humanitarian law, insists that commanders’ and operators’ legal obligations “cannot be transferred to a machine, algorithm, or weapon system.”

Right now, human beings are held responsible for protecting civilians and limiting combat damage by ensuring that the use of force is proportional to military objectives (Dawes, 2023).

The question of ethics and the future of humanity has been at the forefront with the ease and use of autonomous systems. The ubiquitous nature of the technology and the ease of obtaining the needed hardware and software to build these machines give a group of high school students similar technological capabilities as the large, industrialized nations.

149

150

When nations, warring factions, or terrorist organizations send robots to kill humans and other robots, is humanity simply attempting to make an uncivilized activity civilized?

Workplace Changes – The New Robotic Employee Car manufacturers are known for their use of automation in the production of automobiles. The BMW factory in South Carolina is moving to the next generation of automation as it begins to integrate humanoids into its workforce.

The company known as Figure has created what it says “is the first-of-its-kind AI Robotics company bringing a general purpose humanoid to life.” “Figure,” 2024).

The founder and CEO of Figure, Brent Abcock, stated, “We met the [BMW] team about nine months ago,” he continues. “They’ve integrated a lot of robotics into that [Spartanburg] plant. They wanted us to help solve further automation issues with more dexterous and mobile manipulation.”(Blain, 2024) One issue of moving from human workers to automation is the need to retool, train, and integrate the humanoid. However, Figure indicated that “useful work in the real world is Figure’s sole focus. General-purpose robots are designed in humanoid form so they can directly take over physical tasks performed by humans, using the same tools and access methods.” (Blain, 2024) That allows humans and machines to work at the same stations, using the same tools, saving some of the standard technology integration start-up costs.

For many years, Amazon has used robots and AI to operate efficiently and effectively. Amazon is now moving into a new phase of humanoid robotics that will work alongside their human counterparts. Amazon states, “Ensuring robotics are collaborative and support employees are central to how we design or deploy systems like Sequoia and Digit. Over the last ten years, we’ve rolled out hundreds of thousands of robotics systems while creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs.”

(Dresser, 2023)

Indeed, Amazon is at the forefront of the fifth industrial revolution, allowing humans and machines to operate in symbiotic relations for the good of all. Amazon is “employing over 750,000 robots to work alongside its employees.

151

The world’s second-largest private employer employs 1.5 million people. While that’s a lot, it’s a decrease of over 100,000 employees from the 1.6 million workers it had in 2021.” (Naysmith, 2024) Amazon is a frontrunner in using advanced AI and robotics. However, there appears to be a broader trend for adopting and accepting robotics integration into the workforce that can quickly reshape industries and labor markets. This shift needs careful oversight, as organizations that rely on a “human to make an intelligent decision have some oversight in place of employees…an equally in-depth system of management is called for when managing intelligent machines, focusing on differences in the decision-making and task completion methodology.” (Mumm & Brand, 2020) In Pasadena, California, the new CaliExpress by Flippy is opening soon. It is reported that customers can order a meal from a kiosk and then watch robots grill their burgers, fry their French fries, and serve the meal, all without substantial human intervention.

John Miller, a board member of Miso Robotics and the creator, states, “To our knowledge, this is the first operating restaurant where both ordering and every single cooking process are fully automated…The marriage of these various technologies to create the most autonomous restaurant in the world is the culmination of years of research, development, and investment.” (Blain, 2023) Like fast food restaurants and production line activities, landscaping tasks can be highly repetitive and labor-intensive. Lawn mowing, in particular, because the same task has been done repeatedly at the exact location for years. The Electric Sheep company now “partner(s) with culture-driven landscaping companies, empowering its people to do more of what they already do well.” (“Electric Sheep,” 2024).

Electric Sheep aims to “help us automate the unstructured world. (“Electric Sheep,” 2024) The company offers a line of robotic landscaping tools that “use deep learning to solve autonomy, eliminating costly robotic stacks that need intricate mapping and rules.

The result is a data-driven algorithmic solution that thinks like a brain” (Electric Sheep, 2024). Electric Sheep offers the opportunity for AI to learn in real-world settings, “accelerating the path to AI for the physical world.”

152

“Electric Sheep” 2024). The corporate vision is to have robots and humans work side by side in the landscaping industry.

Integrating humans and machines into the workforce quietly moves forward as the fifth revolution takes hold. The challenge of humanity is preparing the workforce and the world for this change.

Healthcare and The Robotic Revolution Many decades ago, having a doctor make a house call was an ordinary course of their duties; now, it is a rarity. Then, the era of hospital and doctor’s office visits, along with the influence of medical insurance providers, changed the landscape of the healthcare industry to what it is today. The goal of integrating big data, AI, advanced technologies, and robotics is to revolutionize the healthcare industry in ways that most people have not considered and that some may not be comfortable with for their daily and long-term care.

Looking at the latest developments in AI applications and how they impact industries such as healthcare, autonomous vehicles, and robotics, one must also look at the opportunities and challenges companies and entrepreneurs face in developing AI applications.

Simultaneously, they must attempt to predict some of the disruptive and transformative impacts that AI could have on the business sector, the economy, and society in the future.

In April of 2021, Nvidia estimated that “by 2030, there will be a shortage of 15 million healthcare workers.” Nvidia is working on solving some of these issues as they are creating a virtual AI nurse with which patients can interact. So far, we’ve worked with hospitals to create a prototype that can pre-assess up to 400 diseases and refer patients to the relevant hospital department” (De Pacina, 2024).

In March 2024, it was announced that “Nvidia has collaborated with Hippocratic AI to develop generative AI agent for healthcare that purportedly outperforms human nurses on video calls while being more cost-effective” (De Pacina, 2024)

Extensive testing has been performed by over “1,000 nurses and 100 physicians; the bots have reportedly shown superior performance compared to human nurses and other rivals, including OpenAI’s GPT-4 and the LLaMA 2 70B Chat” (De Pacina, 2024).

153

154

The accuracy of the AI and the financial implications of this system need to be weighed against a human nurse’s experience, emotional support, and holistic approach to patient care. While a machine might technically be correct in diagnosing, weighing other factors, such as the patient’s emotional well-being, might be more difficult for the AI agent to integrate into its technical calculations.

N

ano-biologics is one of the newer robotic applications. It might take some getting used to it, as the thought of injecting a micro-sized robot into our bodies as therapy might seem like science fiction. However, it is a reality today as antimicrobial-resistant bacteria are becoming more pervasive and difficult to eliminate.

According to the CDC, “nearly 5 million deaths worldwide in 2019 with more than 2.8 million people in the US coming down with some kind of treatment-resistant infection every year”. (Franco, 2024) These new”superbugs” are taxing our current protocols on how to deal with them as “germs continue to evolve to evade our ways of killing them, scientists are racing to expand the arsenal we can use against them” (Franco, 2024). A promising treatment is using a bacteriashredding micromotor that offers light-activated propulsion.

These new “four spikes on a new nanocrystal developed in Spain spin up under light and move through a liquid, blasting any bacteria unfortunate to be in their path. The development could spell trouble for bacteria that resist traditional drug treatments” (Franco, 2024) Science fiction will meet reality and spin headlong into ethics, religion, and possible class warfare, as the ability to use AI and robotics allows humans to live far beyond our ancestor’s life span. Imagine having a fully functioning brain with an injured or diseased body; the life limitation is in the body itself, not the brain’s ability to function, so why not just replace the body and allow the person to continue to live?

The solution may lay with a company known as Brainbridge, which is reported to be “the world’s first revolutionary concept for head transplant system, employing cutting-edge robotics and artificial intelligence to ensure successful head and face transplantation procedures with improved outcomes and faster recoveries” Head Transplant System” 2024). BrainBridge’s mission is to” pioneer transformative medical interventions that extend the boundaries of human health and recovery” “Head Transplant System,” 2024).

155

BrainBridge is building what they say is a”groundbreaking device that will represent a landmark achievement in the fields of neuroscience, human engineering, and artificial intelligence” The entire process is thought out from preparation of the patience, the actual surgery, and into the recovery stage as “The BrainBridge Head Band, equipped with a Brain-Computer Interface, allows patients to communicate their needs during recovery, control devices, and execute tasks independently using their thoughts, enhancing autonomy and quality of life.” (“Head Transplant System,” 2024)

A New Era of Entertainment Begins During the Roman Empire, there were chariot races. The Industrial Revolution offered auto racing and almost any type of motorsport humans could invent, including air races. In the fifth revolution, the autonomous industry is seeing a quick shift into the world’s entertainment medium.

Drone races are a sport that is not only socially accepted but also big business, even for the sports betting industry. In August 2021, Yogonet, Gaming News stated, “The Drone Racing League (DRL), the global, professional drone racing property, today announced a deal with DraftKings Inc. to make the sports technology and entertainment company an Official Sports Betting Partner of DRL.” (“The Drone Racing League, DraftKings announce sports betting agreement,” 2024) DLR President Rachel Jacobson stated, “We’re thrilled to partner with DraftKings to transform our high-speed race competition into the ultimate sport to bet on.” (“The Drone Racing League, DraftKings announce sports betting agreement,” 2024) Auto racing has been a pastime for several decades, with advanced technology being developed for the cars and drivers skilled enough to drive over 200 mph. The auto racing industry is now taking the next steps in its evolution into the autonomous vehicle racing arena. A project known as the Indy Autonomous Challenge stated, “We’re not just adapting to the evolving landscape of autonomous technology; we’re actively shaping it. By conquering the challenges of high-speed mobility, we’re crafting solutions that promise to revolutionize highway travel, ensuring safety, efficiency, and a new paradigm in autonomous driving. (“CES 2024 RECAP: Charting The Future of Autonomous Mobility,” 2024)

156

The sport evolved through technological and physics advances as air races became popular. Now, it has its league, television rights, and a worldwide following in the millions. This desire for humans to fly is manifesting in the jet suit industry, and in February 2024, the world’s first jet suit races took place in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

Gravity Industries, the firm that put on the jet suit races, indicated that “the closest analogy would be that dream of flying … and then go wherever your mind is taking you,” Gravity has been in the spotlight for many years for its jet suit technology, including when “Gravity previously drew worldwide attention when it equipped one of its jet suits on a U.K. Royal Marine, who landed on a ship at sea several years ago” (Gambrell, 2024) The entertainment industry is continuously remaking itself according to what society finds riveting and willing to spend their time and money on. The old entertainment standards, such as a deck of cards or a board game, are still available and sell in incredible numbers each year. However, it is hard to beat the speed, excitement, technology, and money in the new entertainment mediums. These new entertainment venues will be challenging to win when you consider the ability to watch live races at the Indianapolis Speedway with autonomous cars, drone races, or jet-suit races. Who would not want to fly in a jet suit? What an adrenaline rush, and how exciting it is to see humans fly. It does take a little of the thrill out of winning at gin-rummy.

157

158

“

Conclusions

Humankind’s desire to automate, produce more, and live a richer, more meaningful existence is now transforming its very nature with autonomous systems. How we work, play, live, learn, and even take care of our health is impacted by autonomous technologies.

Yet, many of these technologies use AI, self-learning, and some form of quantum computing to become self-sufficient and complete the assigned tasks. This creates ethical, legal, and moral challenges that are not being addressed in the speed and manner required to ensure this technology supports humankind in the future.

The possibility of widening the technology gaps in advancing nations appears to be dismissed through the concept that now, these nations can leapfrog into the future through autonomy.

Although these concepts might have good intentions, even the most advanced nations cannot keep up with the laws, policies, ethics, regulations, and leadership required to integrate and successfully implement autonomous systems for the good of all involved.”

-Dr. Hans Mumm-

159

160

Dr. Hans C. Mumm is a nationally recognized expert in national security, emerging technologies, and autonomous systems, with over 31 years of service in government and the private sector. He served as Division Chief for Cybersecurity at the Of ice of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and led groundbreaking initiatives in cybersecurity and risk management.

During Operation Iraqi Freedom, he gained fame as the creator of CENTCOM’s "Iraqi Regime Playing Cards," one of the Defense Intelligence Agency’s most successful information operations.

Dr. Mumm's expertise spans UAVs, AI, robotics, and advanced fuel systems, including the development of a helicopter capable of lying on ive fuels without modi ication. He has authored six textbooks, including "Unmanned Aircraft in the Cyber Domain," and the international bestseller "Lightning Growth." His innovations have earned numerous awards, including recognition in the U.S. Congressional Record, 23 military medals, and the People of Distinction Humanitarian Award.

He holds a Doctorate in Management with a concentration in Homeland Security, an MS in Strategic Intelligence, and extensive military and technical training. Dr. Mumm is an adjunct professor at California University of Pennsylvania, where he teaches Homeland Security.

f

f

f

f

161

162

163

MAINTAIN ARMY EDGE IN SPACE Col. Peter M. Atkinson

W

ith the establishment of the U.S. Space Force in 2019, the national security space enterprise underwent its largest transformation since the Army launched the first American satellite in 1958. In the ensuing years, the Air Force transferred its space forces and capabilities, the Army transferred its satellite operations brigade and is preparing to transfer its theater missile-warning units, and the Navy transferred its military communications satellites to the Space Force. Additionally, hundreds of soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines voluntarily joined the Space Force through interservice transfers.

In the Space Force era, a question arises about which space forces and capabilities other services should retain. The answer is that the Army, along with the other services, must retain service-unique space forces and capabilities to support Army missions that only soldiers can perform.

Before exploring the future of the Army in space, there is historical precedent worth reflecting upon. Correlating the Space Force and the Air Force establishment in 1947 highlights the benefits of the Army, Marine Corps and Navy retaining serviceunique air forces and capabilities. While the Air Force consolidated the preponderance of pilots and aircraft, other services advanced requirements in support of their respective domains. For example, the Army and Marine Corps developed close air support and air-transport capabilities, and the Navy advanced its naval aviation capabilities. Other services retaining pilots and aircraft allowed the Air Force to focus on its mission to “fly, fight and win—airpower anytime, anywhere.”

164

The same logic should apply to space forces and capabilities. Having other services retain space professionals and capabilities allows the Space Force to better focus on its top priority to “preserve freedom of action in the space domain.”

What to Transition The next question is, what space forces and capabilities should transition to the Space Force and what should other services retain? For the Army, transitioning its satellite operations brigade and preparing to transfer its theater missile-warning units makes sense. These functions allow the Space Force to centrally manage all military satellite communications and missile-warning functions.

However, the transfer does increase the burden for other services to integrate another service’s capability. The integration burden highlights the importance for the Army to retain space forces. Specifically, Army space operations officers incur the integration burden to ensure that the Army receives space-based capabilities.

Next, the Army must expand its cadre of space planners, who aid in leveraging and integrating space capabilities.

Army space professionals share two unique qualities.

First, they understand the Army and large-scale ground maneuver.

Second, they understand the space domain and how space-based capabilities affect the Army, and they can enable multidomain operations.

Army space officers become space professionals as a secondary career field, which typically differentiates them from their Space Force counterparts. This means that before becoming space officers, they have training and experience in a basic branch such as infantry or signal corps. Prior experience often includes combat deployments and real-world examples of how space capabilities affect the Army.

The broad range of knowledge, skills and experience makes Army space professionals uniquely suited to leverage and integrate joint space capabilities to support the Army and multidomain operations.

As the Army matures its cadre of space professionals, it should reevaluate officer career management and space warrant officer and NCO career fields.

165

A reevaluation could result in the functional area transitioning to become a separate branch. Next, the Army must invest its resources in the following four space mission areas: positioning, navigation and timing (PNT) and alternative navigation; friendly-force tracking; space control; and tactical intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR).

Mission Area Investments The new Army operations field manual, FM 3-0: Operations, says the Army cannot assume unconstrained use of space-based capabilities and must prepare to operate in a denied, degraded and disrupted space domain. Army investments in PNT and alternative navigation, friendly-force tracking, space control and tactical ISR mitigate the risk of losing space-based capabilities.

The first mission area the Army must invest in is PNT and alternative navigation.

Because PNT is so critical to the battlefield, the Army established the Assured PNT/ Space Cross-Functional Team in 2017. As the name indicates, the team assures that the Army will have dependable PNT signals today and on the battlefields of the future.

PNT enables more future Army requirements than any other space-based mission area. These requirements include what the Army of 2030 must do, such as sense farther, concentrate lethal forces, deliver precise long-range fires, sustain the fight, protect friendly forces and communicate and share data beyond line of sight. It is also important to note that the Army will continue using Space Force’s GPS as its primary PNT signal and will invest in modernizing GPS user equipment.

Transitioning to a related mission area, the Army must invest in friendly-force tracking capabilities like Blue Force Tracking devices. Like GPS, almost every Army unit, at all echelons, uses friendly-force tracking devices for situational awareness.

In a recent investment, the Army signed a $410 million contract with Inmarsat Government, a commercial satellite company, to support tens of thousands of Army platforms. Future investments should codify the Army’s role as the DoD lead for friendly-force tracking. While the user equipment is space-enabled, the friendlyforce tracking requirement disproportionately benefits the Army and ground forces.

Taking Control The next mission the Army must invest in is space control. As adversaries further develop space capabilities for hostile purposes, space control becomes increasingly relevant on the battlefield. Space control prevents adversaries from using space

166

167

168

capabilities for hostile purposes or creating a degraded space environment that puts the Army at risk. The Army uses space control “to deny an adversary freedom of action in space,” as stated in Field Manual 3-14: Army Space Operations. In other words, space control enables multidomain operations and protects friendly forces.

Space control is fundamentally a ground-to-space support by fire that provides 21st century camouflage and concealment.

The desired effect, or reason, the Army uses space control differentiates it from other services. For the Space Force, a desired effect might be to achieve space superiority and preserve freedom of action in space overall, while the Army is enabling multidomain operations and protecting its forces in theater. Overlooking these subtle distinctions and service-specific requirements is a mistake.

Consolidating space control capabilities into a single service dilutes the intended purpose of the capability.

The final mission area the Army must invest in to maintain its competitive edge is tactical ISR. The Army should pursue tactical ISR investments, like many other mission areas, collaboratively with the Space Force, the DoD’s lead integrator of joint space requirements.

For tactical ISR, the Army seeks to improve and reduce its sensor-to-shooter timeline. The centerpiece of tactical ISR is to enable the Army to sense farther and deliver precise long-range fires through TITAN, the Army’s Tactical Intelligence Targeting Access Node. Tactical ISR is different from traditional ISR sources because it allows the Army to receive data independent of terrestrial sources. This increases the Army’s ability to receive reliable data at the forwardmost edge of the battlefield.In addition to the four mission areas, the underpinning for future Army space investments must be adequate research, development, testing and evaluation to ensure the Army continuously assesses its investments.

Common Understanding As previously mentioned, the Army transferred its satellite operations brigade to the Space Force. While the Space Force assumed responsibility for all military satellite communications, the Army will still develop and procure service-unique satellite communication receivers and ground terminals. This interdependency between services requires space forces from each service to understand each other’s requirements.

Following the transfer of its missile-warning units, the Army will need to develop a similar relationship with the Space Force to receive missile-warning data. While the

169

Army requirement to receive prompt, accurate missile-warning information has not changed, the information provider will. The Army must shift focus from processing and disseminating theater-level missile-warning data to being a recipient of it. For the remaining space mission areas—space situational awareness, environmental monitoring, nuclear detonation detection and “spacelift” (the ability to deliver payloads into space)—the Army should continue to leverage other DoD agencies and services for continued support.

As Space Force defines its own unique culture, the same must be true for all space forces. The same was true for the Air Force and pilots across all services. The Army cannot become encumbered by traditional domain parochialism—especially when a space mission area is critical to success on the battlefield. Without Army space forces and capabilities, an Army of 2030 is not a multidomain-capable force.

The Space Force establishment highlights the need for more space forces and capabilities in all services, not fewer. Army space must define its unique service culture centered around its Army space professionals, who leverage and integrate space capabilities. Simultaneously, the Army must invest in PNT and alternative navigation, friendly-force tracking, space control and tactical ISR. These mission areas enable the Army to fight and win wars.

170

Colonel Pete Atkinson's article was previously featured in ARMY Magazine, a prestigious publication known for its in-depth analysis and thought leadership on matters critical to military strategy and operations.

171

Colonel Peter M. Atkinson serves as the Space Division Chief within the G-3/5/7 Strategic Operations Directorate at the Headquarters, Department of the Army.In this capacity, he Throughout his distinguished career, Col. plays a pivotal role in shaping the Army's space strategy and capabilities, ensuring the Atkinson has completed numerous military training courses, including the Airborne integration of space operations into the Course, Ranger Course, Special Forces broader mission of the U.S. Army.

Qualification Course, Military Free-Fall Parachutist Course, and the Space Operations Officer Qualification Course.

His exemplary service is reflected in his numerous awards and decorations, such as the Bronze Star Medal, Defense Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal, Joint Commendation Medal, and various campaign medals. He also holds badges including the Special Forces Tab, Ranger Tab, Expert Infantryman Badge, Military Free-Fall Parachutist Badge, Master Space Badge, and Master Parachutist Badge.

Commissioned as an Infantry Officer, Col. Atkinson began his active-duty career with the 10th Mountain Division. Following completion of the Special Forces Qualification Course, he served with the 5th Special Forces Group (Airborne), Special Operations Command - Central, and the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School. His career further expanded into space operations after completing the U.S. Army Space Operations Qualification Course, leading to assignments with the United States Space Command and His extensive experience and leadership a fellowship at the Massachusetts Institute in both special operations and space of Technology. domains underscore his commitment to Col. Atkinson's academic credentials include advancing the capabilities and readiness a Master of Arts in Global and International of the U.S. Army.

Studies from the University of Kansas and a Bachelor of Arts in History with a Certificate in Ethnic Studies from Florida Atlantic University. He is a graduate of the Senior Service College, Joint Forces Staff College, and the Command and General Staff College. Additionally, he has completed specialized programs such as the Joint Special Operations University's Faculty Development Course and the Harvard Manage Mentor Program, and holds certification as a Higher Education Professional with a concentration in 172 teaching.

173

E

ditorial Prologue: A Dance with Complexity and Legacy

At Inner Sanctum Vector N360™, we often spotlight bold ideas, groundbreaking innovations, and the people shaping our technological and societal landscapes. Dr. Bob McCreight, a distinguished contributor to Inner Sanctum Vector N360™, having graced our pages with his thought-provoking insights on national security, intelligence analysis, in the past. Dr. McCreight returns in this issue with a chapter unlike anything we’ve published before. We bring you something uniquely profound: the final reflections of Dr. Bob McCreight.

174

Dr. McCreight’s chapter, “Dancing with the Devil,” is unlike anything we’ve published before. It’s a sweeping exploration of humanity’s intricate dance with progress—our unrelenting pursuit of control, knowledge, and perfection—and the consequences we seldom stop to consider. Written in the final chapter of his own life, this piece is as much a philosophical inquiry as it is a deeply personal reflection.

Bob invites us to confront the questions we often sidestep: What does it mean to wrestle with forces far greater than ourselves? How do we balance ambition with the responsibility to protect our humanity? And perhaps most provocatively—are we losing more than we gain in this relentless quest for dominion over the unknown?

This is not an easy read. At times, it feels like walking through a labyrinth of ideas —some haunting, some illuminating. But that’s precisely why it’s so valuable. Bob’s words challenge us to pause, to reflect, and to grapple with truths that are as unsettling as they are essential.

Publishing this chapter is not just about sharing ideas; it’s about honoring a voice that sought to make sense of the complexities of life and technology. It’s a tribute to his courage, his intellect, and his unwavering curiosity about the human condition.

As you read, we encourage you to approach this piece as more than an article.

Think of it as a conversation with someone who had seen the world, pondered its contradictions, and left behind a legacy of wisdom for us to consider.

So, we invite you to join this dialogue, to embrace the discomfort, and to reflect on the profound questions Bob raises. Together, let’s explore what it means to dance with the forces that shape our past, present, and future.

Thank you, Bob, for your words and for trusting us with your voice.

May it echo far beyond these pages.

175

176

177

:

You can’t always get what you want…. But if you try sometimes, you’ll find You get what you need….. Rolling Stones, Let It Bleed album, 1969 (Stones, 1969) THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS: WHAT YOU SEE IS WHAT YOU GET Looking back 55 years to the famous Rolling Stones song (Stones, 1969) and its

lyrics, one might consider that art does imitate life in that we often find that our

overwhelming desire to acquire and possess something which has been

consuming our taste for it is either perpetually elusive or just unattainable.

The saga of human existence has been haunted by a recurring dream to secure complete and omnipotent knowledge of the universe and utter dominion over the environment, thereby reducing the chances of error, catastrophe, or runaway calamity to near zero.

Instead, the raw pursuit of science and technology for its own sake and the unquenchable thirst for perfect insight, holistic understanding, and dominant leverage over events have brought humanity to its unwitting demise. The urgent and undeniable impetus for acquiring more, knowing all, and exerting undisputed dominion over it continues.

Economics 101 warns there is always a price to be paid.

178

History demonstrates that that price sometimes includes our humanity’s immediate or insidiously gradual erosion. We yearn to know more about the photon, the neutrino, and sub-atomic things just as much as we aggressively seek insights about the universe, the galaxies, and the cosmos’ hidden origins.

Again, like the elusive gnat or butterfly, we strive to grab hold and study it, but it slips through our grasp, so our unwavering appetite to capture the object of our desire and dissect it grows beyond measure. What we think, imagine, theorize, or see enables us to describe different forms of reality that haunt us and always intrigue us inwardly. But can we confirm that what we see is actually what is there?

Deception and illusion are as accurate as death, but sometimes, we blissfully ignore both. Our appetite for it is both naïve and all-consuming. That fact fails miserably from deterring our endless pursuit of it anyway.

The collective and individual-looking glass affords a varying range of views. One stems from our internally derived perception of what is real and what our immediate environment includes. We allow estimates, thoughts, imagination, and dreaming to coexist with real-time experiences within each person, allowing each person’s looking glass to vary to an intensely personal degree. Hence, we have different viewpoints and ideas about the reality within which we dwell. The group maximal looking glass is composed of what society and groups of people see at the same time and place. Thousands remember the ill-fated 1986 Challenger launch, which killed the astronaut crew, or many millions remember the awful images of collapsing World Trade Center towers on 9-11. In both cases, wildly different alternative evaluations and estimates emerge from those who witnessed these two events. A shared human history where the undisputed facts about what happened is shared universally does not exist. Does that mean history is wrong—or our perception of it?

Initially, as humanity reckons with the attractive arrayed against the vicious and dangerous variations of human behavior where trust, reliance, and security are concerned, pausing to sort out its meaning and implications makes sense. Driven by basic needs to eat, sleep, and reproduce, the offsetting drives that propel humanity to the brink include dominance, aggression, coercion, and power. It provokes the essential question about which drives accurately depict and explain human history.

Along with that dilemma is the perpetual hunger that humans tend to have for genuine facts, objective information, reliable data, truthful narratives, and material understood to be valid. Humanity cannot avoid an unlimited hunger for truth dwelling peacefully alongside myth and dreams. Indeed, there is no hidden price

179

for that—or is there? Enduring reality and living peacefully within it is far different from seeking an alternative—is that true?

SEEING IS BELIEVING: REALITY IS ONE THING, WHILE ASPIRATIONS ARE QUITE ANOTHER Humanity has wrestled with the forces of history and destiny for millennia, and it’s too soon to determine how the fighter performed and whether the match itself has settled anything. This is especially wrenching when one identifies the titanic struggle continues where no particular outcome is guaranteed. That is an accurate but disturbing and sobering thought since we all like to know how the story ends.

In the timeless quest to affirm the pseudo-axiomatic vision that ‘what you see is

what you get,’ we sometimes discover the other timeless insight that we recognize as ‘be careful what you wish for.’ This aphorism applies to our current fixation with modern and evolving technology and unrestricted scientific journeys into trans-humanism. If this were a grand prix or an ‘iron-man marathon,’ there would be guardrails and caution flags to hem in the risks of accident, miscalculation, or calamity. No caution flags can be found in modern science and technology’s open, unrestricted ‘wild west,’ nor are they expected or needed.

Science and technology writ large has a blank check to define and shape our collective future to a breathless degree of autonomy and utter unaccountability never before seen in human history.

The author suggests that the situation is neither good nor bad for the next 30 years of unrestricted science and technology when humanity’s survival and longevity hang in the balance. It is not that the author is against progress and achievement but instead calls forcefully here for a serious discussion about the definition, ground rules, intrinsic values, and outcomes in which ‘progress and achievement’ itself might be widely understood. Is that too much to ask? It certainly is if the custodians of science and technology have the power to decide whether that question should even be raised—let alone answered.

Science is never satisfied with what it knows—or has convinced itself it is knowable- and therefore testable in confirming ways. As such, society has invested enormous power, trust, admiration, and influence over human history by proclaiming that science has solitary possession of the requisite skills to interpret and explain what takes place around us in Earth’s environment, all forms of life, and define the operational elements of the universe itself. Here sits a profound dilemma outside the scope of this immediate essay—what steps are necessary to

180

put ordinary humans back in charge of their collective destiny and future and thereby relegate science and technology experts to the benign role of consultants and advisors whose opinions are available only when called upon? They say you cannot put the genie back in the bottle.

Experience shows that, as humans, we routinely rely on sight and hearing to verify the reality surrounding us and where we dwell. Of course, we also retain some natural qualities and skills to discern danger, estimate risk, and resort to intuition when faced with ambiguity. We also know that those bereft of sight rely on other senses to compensate and discern what the immediate environment includes. While we are keenly aware of the autonomic nervous system within each of us, we lack a complete A-Z awareness of its actual operation. The quest to know how judgment, decision-making, and risk awareness operated to keep our earliest ancestors from becoming dinner for wild, rapacious animals and other humans is still unsettled.

So, the various elaborate and subtle functions of the human mind, the central nervous system, and cognition are more elusive than apparent, even to the so-called experts. That fact alone should give us pause—but it doesn’t.

Cartesian reality reckoned we step boldly into ontology and epistemology using it confidently while assuming we could reliably explain the core origins of our existence and our human purpose. Reliable knowledge and immutable verified facts are the foundations of philosophy, politics, and science. Immediately, we confront the disturbing contradiction that even ideally acquired knowledge does not account comprehensively for the uncertainties embedded in the future.

“

However, we flirt with the flawed idea that the future is knowable, controllable, and predictable.”

We can build a massive cargo ship today and safely imagine it sails the oceans securely a few weeks from now. However, we cannot discern what might happen to it even a few days hence. It was built to withstand all conceivable challenges found in nature and nautical engineering to attain a 97% degree of reliability against most expected maritime risks, which most competent engineers readily acknowledge is the optimal level the best engineering can achieve in humanmanufactured systems. Good, honest engineers will admit no system is 100% reliable 100% of the time in all conceivable situations. They readily admit that 97% of reliability is pretty darn good.

181

This brings us to the threshold of unpleasant

truth #1—or another way

of saying it is you can’t always get what you want. However, even those with 20/20 vision cannot see 48 hours into the future and discern through ordinary human sight [even theoretically augmented with AI support] what is factual, what is faux information, and what is likely or possibly destined to happen two days from now.

Seeing the future versus shaping it all together is still more science fiction than fact.

Unexpected or unforeseen disaster, error, or calamity always exists in randomized environments, and the smartest among us cannot always determine with 100% accuracy what Monday will bring as they contemplate its arrival from a Friday afternoon perspective. Worse, in some cases, their hubris and professional confidence may also influence or determine if their eyes and intellect have deluded or deceived them. Error and calamity are patiently waiting.

Truth #2

Unpleasant is to be very careful what you wish for. Discovery and the energetic inertia attached to unfettered scientific inquiry have led to fantastic revelations and breakthroughs in materials science, IT, genomics, robotics, and many other technologies. In every case, evident and not-so-obvious outcomes accompany scientific discovery. For example, machines have been labor-saving for centuries, but their future trajectory suggests machines may one day overwhelm and subjugate the people who created them.

Likewise, the endless search for the secret keys of the genome and life sciences delivers excellent medical benefits and pathways toward healing but the endpoint of deliberate. Random combinations of DNA and genomic and microbial material contain the time bomb of a future plague or a disease that undercuts humanity.

Despite all that, we tend to engage and absorb the risks, regardless of whether the consequences are well understood.

D

espite that region of blindness, which is seldom acknowledged, often talented people steeped in learning and knowledge for its own sake still see far into the future with their wit and imagination, writing fantasy and fiction and positing theoretical visions of how quarks originate and the cosmos behave. Despite lacking a faultless yardstick to discern and reveal the surface environment of Mars or Jupiter from afar, we retain firm speculation about this without empirical evidence to support the logical theory.

NASA scientists had enough vision to imagine the trajectory, estimate the gravitational forces and propulsion dynamics sufficient to employ their innate

182

intellect, and create a viable rocket system propelling astronauts to the Moon. The several successful moon landings confirm testable hypotheses, and we acquire a level of scientific hubris that is both admirable and whimsical. Indeed, we posit the belief that long-range space probes like the Voyager and Hubble missions act as confirmatory examples of science’s ability to do almost anything. As a result, we invest high degrees of trust in science for being correct, accurate, and reliable.

There is little room for doubt.

As hundreds of passengers board a jetliner for overseas travel daily, they intuitively trust that math, science, engineering, and technology assure them a safe, pleasant, and uneventful flight. We also understand that modern jet travel is not conducted in a zero-risk environment. In taking our seats aboard a jetliner from Los Angeles to Tokyo, we never allow ourselves to imagine a systems failure, an inept pilot, brutally dangerous weather, or a covert onboard terrorist. Is that risk aligned with any of these possibilities truly zero? Nevertheless, we buy tickets and plan trips.

Allowing for the unpleasant reality, which includes an error, miscalculation, poor judgment, excessive risk-taking, mechanical failure, and sheer folly, we find science and technology safe enough and reliable enough to support everything we take for granted in life.

That seems normal, coherent, and logical enough that one could reasonably wonder why anyone would ever want to escape this complex cocoon we call reality. So secure, orderly, predictable, and safe reality is the cushion within which we carve out a life of enjoyable events and experiences. Why would anyone seek another wholly separate plane of existence, a competing reality, and thereby dwell in this alternate reality—or, if you will—an alternate universe? Why do we read, consume science fiction, dream, or indulge in escapist vacations?

Can we see, discern, or fathom what underpins this overwhelming desire to escape reality and create or inhabit a one-off version? Not readily, except we consider there are parallels in the human desire for a break, a vacation, or an indulgent escape.

Wanting to dwell in a manufactured or parallel reality is understandable, but medical science has said this is a discernible mental illness.

Despite that observation, the human condition features periodic ventures where escape from reality is pursued diligently in opium and peyote-induced trances, in

183

fanciful literature of myth and poetry, and in aspirational writings about the nature and destiny of humanity and its abiding inner need for freedom and liberty. So, apart from these instances, there are both psychological and cosmological explanations for escapist inclinations. However, humanity itself may find itself paying a deeply hidden price.

Psychologists recognize the desire to escape reality as a form of psychosis, which is most often characterized as a sense of distorted reality. A psychotic episode may include many so-called ‘positive symptoms, which include Hallucinations: seeing, hearing, and feeling sensations that are not occurring. Delusions: believing in false realities, such as having superpowers. These experts say psychotic disorders or episodes arise when a person experiences a significantly altered or distorted perception of reality. Such distortions are often caused or triggered by hallucinations (false perceptions), delusions (false beliefs), and disrupted patterns of frequently disorganized thinking. (Univ of Michigan Medicine, 2022) However, we seem to abide by the search for an alternative reality embedded in V/R and A/R and the Metaverse without a sideways glance at the dichotomy of presumptive mental illness so often attached to a lust for escaping the reality we call ordinary life.

The scientific world of math and physics holds a different view of the ‘escape from reality’ obsession. Scientists consider the quest for alternative reality legitimate and reasonable. Carefully parsing the territory scientific experts inhabit, they note that observing something exists or trying to explain it differs from understanding its underpinnings or defending it. The axiomatic view of ‘I think therefore I am’ is in jeopardy given the limitations of thought and whether simply imagining a cosmos one way dictates how it is. Lessons from the ugly historical contest between Galileo and Copernicus and their strident critics illustrate that people clinging to an unpopular idea find themselves at severe personal risk.

For example, the entire debate about black holes’ facts, origin, and operation is poorly understood, yet it doesn’t discourage scientific severe inquiry into the issue.

For example, some astrophysicists wonder why the universe hasn’t already been destroyed by evaporating black holes, thereby raising pivotal questions about the most significant and minor things imaginable. Despite that interim view, scientists are bitterly divided over whether extra dimensions—including real ones—exist.

They note that the quest for grasping dark energy and matter hinges on whether these theories can be validated and thereby risk the creation of an entirely new realm of physics. This view is sustained despite disputes inside physics about what observed reality is and whether the notion of extra dimensions holds water.

184

Some physicists worried 15 years ago the Large Hadron Collider [LHC]near Geneva might inadvertently create tiny black holes with unexpected residual results. As of 2024, nothing cataclysmic has officially appeared, yet we trust scientists at LHC to know what they do daily. This implies trust and faith in physics and their high priests, the physicists, that the fundamental ingredients of life, matter, energy, and the universe’s building blocks cannot be disturbed, knocked off course, or mistakenly redirected to some unexpected destructive outcome.

If that dilemma doesn’t underscore the scientific jungle of doubt, ridicule, and deception among learned scientists, consider the ongoing and urgent search for extra dimensions outside our own. Some experts opine that something called spacetime has four dimensions. Ongoing disputes and debates continue about gravity, time, space, and the existence of other dimensions at the same time that creative IT geniuses and computer scientists want to open the portal to another dimension even though it contains minimal risks arising from its alleged virtual nature.

Theorists trying to understand this problem have found a (possible) solution requiring severe consideration of extra dimensions. It may be determined that extra dimensions are accurate, but only time will tell. Many will sustain and continue the search for these additional dimensions, fully persuaded that they exist and are just waiting to be found. However, the fact that such theories contain a strongly speculative estimate of dimensions beyond the four already noted suggests there are possible realms of discovery and mystery the most learned scientists cannot discern. Why would people pursue faux dimensions via A/R and the Metaverse when the prospect of genuine verifiable alternatives remains theoretical? Can it be ascribed to human curiosity, the search for adventure, and a lust for probing the unknown?

Harvard University theorist Lisa Randall explores how physics may transform our understanding of the fundamental nature of the world. She thinks an extra dimension may exist close to our familiar reality, hidden except for a bizarre sapping of the strength of gravity as we see it. She also wanted to clarify the nature of science: what it means to be correct and wrong, what it means to make measurements, and the roles of uncertainty, risk, and creativity.

For example, neutrinos may indeed move faster than the speed of light. There could be more to the universe than the three dimensions we are familiar with. They are hidden from us, perhaps because they’re tiny or warped. It could exist parallel to our universe. But it’s not just a carbon copy of our universe, which many people think of when they hear that phrase. Ironically, LHC scientists theoretically ruled out this possibility by looking at collisions of cosmic rays that create this same type

185

of energy. We live in a world with many risks, and it’s high time we start taking the ones we should be worried about seriously. Physicists showed this particular one is not a risk. But what if they are wrong?? Can physicists commit scientific errors?

(Irion, 2011) Some physicists noticed that recent advances in quantum technologies have made it possible to create different realities and compare them in the lab to determine whether they can be reconciled. The original thought experiment is straightforward in principle. They begin with a single polarized photon that, when measured, can have either a horizontal or vertical polarization. Before that measurement, according to the laws of quantum mechanics, the photon exists in both polarization states simultaneously—a so-called superposition. Whether this superposition exists or not, this interference experiment shows that the photon and the measurement are in a superposition.

“

So, the two realities are at odds with each other.

“This calls into question the objective status of the facts established by the two observers,” In turn, this implies an inherent inability to discern one reality from another.

There is always the human inclination to harbor aspirations and dreams. What does the human compilation of history indicate about that? The hope, ambitions, or dreams of attaining a goal are often used to define aspirations. We acknowledge that aspirations and dreams are at least as important to us as palpable reality.

Aspirations for freedom, a better life, better health, peace, and security are part of humanity’s history and destiny. The idea of destiny implies a situation where we continue seeking something better, richer, more secure, and satisfying. In that sense, escape from reality suggests a desire for a better life for those whose lives are suboptimal.

This brings us to the doorstep of V/R and A/R along with the Metaverse, where promises of a secure round trip from the here and now to some fantasy existence and experience beckons and where risks of harm, loss, and calamity are near zero.

What risks, dangers, and hidden catastrophe exists there?

The underlying desire for an escape to an alternative universe, or a reality that is augmented or rivals what can be seen, is at the heart of human interest in allowing technology to safely take us there and return to ordinary reality when convenient.

186

The fundamental factors inside the human mind include the contrary and duplicitous forces of what is needed vs. desired, envied vs. avoided, embraced and absorbed vs. rejected and nullified.

So, as potential consumers and users of V/R and A/R along with the Metaverse, we should ask what kind of alternative reality is available to experience or generally for sale. What price –if any, understood or assumed–reflects the genuine cost of true escape, even if it is temporary? Is it always a round trip back to personal reality, a risky one-way journey, or an indulgent vacation to a forbidden place? Is it a hidden dimension or simply a different pathway and set of experiences where one life is exchanged for another, like a suit of clothes? Alternative realities have their place so long as they lack a point of no return (Buchanan, 2020) This set of preliminary questions about the frontiers of AI, Quantum, A/R, V/R, and the Metaverse must be publicly discussed and widely understood. The wellreinforced principle of ‘informed consent,’ which underlies all surgical procedures, affirms that the patient knows what will happen medically and the attendant risks involved. Trusting that expert scientists have somehow removed all the guesswork and uncertainty in the enterprise is both naïve and dangerously foolish.

This critical broad-scale public discussion must occur before the doorways into the Metaverse are flung wide open. Otherwise, we have surrendered our sovereign personal prerogative to provide consent and approval for an experience that approximates the sign adjacent to an inviting jungle pond–swim at your own risk.

Despite many unsettling similarities, life is not meant always to be a high-stakes poker game or casino game laden with a chance where trust, reliability, security, safety, and respect for life are rejected as paramount in favor of the hedonistically random and deadly law of primal survival. Do we play the cards dealt with or ask instead for a new deck, dealer, or game? There is an undisputed mystery about trusting science to shape, define, explain, and govern our collective future where we have no assurance that the equations and theories will prove valid and exhibit no risk of failure or error 100% of the time.

Experts and ordinary people would likely agree that virtual excursions via V/R and the Metaverse should not require a medical waiver. But do these periodic excursions inflict discernibly adverse effects on human cognition and mental health? Is anybody asking these questions or pursuing a reliable clinical answer? How many

187

extended hours wandering in the Metaverse playground could be dangerous? What validated limits of human endurance and toleration will allow it? What risks are absorbed automatically when the escape from reality contains no travel insurance or safe return guarantees? Does a health advisory seem warranted?

Escaping Reality and Dwelling in Another Reality—Good or Bad? Before ascertaining whether the need to escape reality is inherently desirable, we should consider whether it is good or bad. Confusing one for the other or making them somehow equivalent is inherently dangerous. Desirability and goodness are not mutually exclusive despite the human temptation to lapse into equivalent value invested in both terms.

This begs the question, in turn, of whether one can legitimately assess the pros and cons of dwelling inside the worlds of V/R. A/R or the Metaverse in a gleeful, riskfree round-trip excursion as often as one desires.? More pointedly, it begs whether the desire to do so is inherently good or bad for humanity to experience. Perhaps the answer is derived from the ‘aspirational dynamic’ that motivated the Constitutional founding fathers, Aristotle, Solzhenitsyn, Rousseau, or J.S Mill, to imagine a society of freedom of expression, thought, and assembly.

Instead, we must consider the corrupted versions of freedom that Marx, Engels, Mao, and Stalin professed and thereby realize that something so cherished and desirable is open to manipulation and redefinition by its sponsoring power or mouthpiece. Admitting that dilemma means considering the sheer political manipulation of risk as a benchmark criterion for judging whether A/R, V/R, and the Metaverse are as harmless as described. Suppose hidden, evil, and inherently destructive risks existed inside an open-ended excursion into A/R V/R and the Metaverse. Wouldn’t the trusted custodians of fact and truth—indeed, the priestly class of scientists—vouch candidly and persuasively for their inherent safety? Do we now enjoy such assurances?

This indulgence assumes the pristine, unshakeable confidence that discerning what is good versus wrong is not an inherently political or psychological delusion.

Humans generally appreciate, seek, value, and uphold whatever is pleasing, preferring it over what is wrong, dangerous, evil, or deadly, which is a starting point. It assumes no perennial debate or opaque linguistic form of deception that distinguishing between good and evil is ambiguous or impossible. This is very important in determining what criteria can be objectively applied to assess whether V/R and the Metaverse are good or bad for the human condition.

188

With the dominant emergence of relativism in the 19th century, there is ample reason to ask whether the distinctive definitional boundaries between good and evil are subject to periodic revisionist interpretation, given the alleged advantage that a 21st-century standpoint provides. There is discernible pressure to redefine and reimagine what we have considered foundationally solid, reliable, and well-settled.

Given that contentious situation, one would expect that good vs. wrong bedrock meanings are not in definitional jeopardy. Society is replete with social, political, economic, and professional pressures impinging on its members and elites. Of course, nobody is immune to such pressures, least of all the esteemed community of scientists, engineers, and technology gurus who must endure and overcome those pressures daily. This cadre of experts is not immune to its stifling effects, but it is fair to consider their scope and impact.

Societal pressures are diverse, multifaceted, opaque, persistent, and often relentless, offering everyday demands on people who may resist, avoid, and evade these pressures as frequently as circumstances allow.

Creative energy is needed to devise effective ways of skirting demands that range from pleasant and satisfying to downright dangerous and near deadly. A friendly invitation to a neighboring beach retreat for an extended weekend where fun, frivolity, and conversation abound amidst free-flowing food, libation, and attractive temptation also includes the risk of accident, injury, theft, tangible loss, and mishap in just getting to the location itself.

Then there are the unexpected arenas of conflict or disagreement when other guests intrude, offend, or interfere with your idea of what a ‘great weekend getaway’ should be. For some, getting away to decompress, to relax and chill silently and with aloof abandon, is painfully elusive and less than satisfying. But there is more.

Weekend getaways with friends and mixing with others to create a no-fault, convivial environment of lubricated social exchange do not include pressure.

However, this is far simpler than pressures arising from workload demands, deadlines, uncooperative coworkers, tyrannical bosses, and stifling worksites where the steady accumulation over sustained months stores up tension, frustration, anger, and residual resentment, which can boil over when another careless driver unthinkingly captures your coveted parking space. Or consider the pressure of crushing debt, mounting unpayable bills, falling short of the cash needed to fill your refrigerator or gas tank, and you have the raw ingredients of submerged and displaced soul-wrenching pressure.

189

“

What tends to happen if the anger and frustration cannot be dissipated or diverted is often manifest in ill-timed anger and short-tempered outbursts where the net avalanche of pressure spills into behavioral rage. We all know that negative energy seeks expression or release elsewhere—maybe a movie, a sporting event, an alcohol-saturated indulgence, or some other form of escape.

Escape becomes the preferred default position when societal pressures become overwhelming, and the handy proximity of video games, TV, social media, extended isolation, and certainly diversion into A/R, V/R, or the Metaverse is handy. It provides the desired avenue to put distance between you and expand and exhaust pressure daily.

You don’t even have to leave your home. But is this desire healthy or addictive?

Other questions arise based on the arguable premise that one may become addicted to alcohol, drugs, social media, and eventually V/R or the Metaverse. If the net risk of psychosocial addiction raises no caution flags, it belongs alongside alcohol and drugs as a perfect example of ‘swimming at your own risk.’ But then, for many, though they often deny it, those embracing addiction knew what the consequences could be and chose the immediate gratifying pleasure of it over any logical reasons to deny themselves the experience. Is it just as plain and straightforward—or vaguely destructive– when V/R and metaverse addiction kicks in? How many episodes does it take to manifest? Likely, medical science and neuroscience haven’t yet decoded that puzzle.

This is an acceptable argument for granting that those wishing to escape reality via the V/R A/R or metaverse route may do so without attaching a risk value akin to swimming with sharks or wandering into the caldera of an active volcano. If the risk of indulgence is perceived as near zero, then people will engage as they see fit.

They will forsake any clue whether the excursion is zero risk to their psyche and physical wellbeing—or dangerously vague—and try it anyway. In that sense, we accept via social tolerance that mature adults can withstand the full consequences of getting blind drunk or stoned to the point of catatonia, knowing the vague, uncertain results don’t always lead to episodes of injury or death. In other words, humans tend to believe that certain risks are worth taking regardless of the implied outcomes.

But can we gauge the ambiguous risks and the cost of its unknown insidious inner effects on our minds, cognition, and consciousness when several ventures into V/R and the Metaverse are taken? Especially if it is not readily measurable. Do neuroscientists extend an a priori blessing and an open invitation to its unrestricted and unlimited use? Does a seatbelt insure you against either death or injury in a

190

high-speed auto collision? Do people want or need medical safeguards to indulge in V/R? Can we completely rule out the onward, immediate, latent, and eventual risks of ‘good or bad’ psychological and physical reactions among those who don the V/R mask? Intense daily excursions into the Metaverse may distract people enough to avoid returning to a dull, ordinary life. Engaging in extended metaverse experiences may trigger queries about where you are. Can your mind and cognition distinguish the real from the contrived? What do medical science and neuroscience say about this? Should we assume near zero risk attaches to V/R and the Metaverse and plunge ahead? You can undoubtedly visualize certain dangerous activities, such as extreme mountain climbing or scuba diving, where the issue of signing a medical release beforehand is regular. Does it make sense to offer it before strapping on the V/R mask? Are there unknown legal liabilities and indirect degrees of implied culpability if one experiences a regrettably ‘bad trip’?

Escaping reality and seeking an alternate reality must now be viewed as somewhat rational, even though medical science still views it as expressing a form of mental illness. Worse, we will likely stumble into the Metaverse without the kind of minimal caution from doctors or neuroscientists, which approximates the warning sign one reads as you consider climbing aboard a rollercoaster generating a norm of 3G’s effect on the body. For many rollercoaster riders, that sign is an amusing afterthought.

E

mbracing and accepting reality stands in plain juxtaposition to those manifestly unhappy with it. Wanting something better and more beneficial to the human spirit is admirable so long as it is life-affirming rather than its opposite.

There are valid political and historical reasons for challenging this idea when one considers the concept of democracy and freedom of expression as the antidote to kingly tyranny or despotism. In that sense, the escape is rooted in a desire for a better world. Many would argue that is the prime driver behind advocates or V/R, A/R, and the Metaverse. They claim it presents no new or hidden risks, unlike watching a science fiction movie or a Star Trek episode on TV. However, that remains to be seen. What kind of risk analysis framework or analytical architecture should apply here?

191

Shotgun Wedding?—AI Mated with the Metaverse We know that generative AI combines machine learning, natural language processing(NLP), image processing, and enhanced computer vision. This convergent blend of technologies carries no cautionary warning labels like a pack of cigarettes, even though neuroscience has never weighed in on the full scope of its evident and subtle neurological and cognitive effects.

Generative AI is a unique form of artificial intelligence that focuses on creating new and original content, such as images, text, music, and, most importantly, virtual environments, replicating reality. Its advocates see it as enabling novel experiences and enhancing user engagement where generative AI algorithms can generate virtual worlds within the Metaverse. Using leveraged algorithms, diverse landscapes, structures, and environments can be created, forming discrete virtual worlds offering unique and immersive experiences for their users.

Moreover, generative AI allows the emergence of personalized avatars and various lifelike virtual images with distinctive characteristics, traits, and behaviors.

Advocates see the engineered merger of generative AI with the Metaverse as a transformative blending of virtual and physical reality, offering a gateway towards highly beneficial human interaction and sustained engagement. As such, the champions of mating AI with the Metaverse see only the upside and unlimited value with almost zero caution flags waving to underscore the risks, doubts, and uncertainties associated with its unknown effects. Experiences, and creating dynamic virtual worlds. (arxiv) While the public is advised to be excited and delighted at the prospect of generative AI mated with the Metaverse, there is hardly a discouraging note to be found online. Ethics, legality, transparency, ownership, regulation, liability, and social impact seem scarce, and skeptics seem rooted in timid prose and ambiguous metaphors.

Unresolved issues about the shotgun wedding between generative AI and the Metaverse remain vague, unaddressed, ignored, or overlooked. Items requiring severe debate and consideration include digital norms, operational access, system security assurances, the integrity of stored data, privacy protection, fact and truth insurance, system malfunction, financial crime, infrastructure destabilization, unexamined areas of personal safety, and insulation from manipulative hacking all taking center stage.

192

Like unveiling new technology, its advocates eagerly trumpet and gleefully extol its virtues. Also, they tend to hide or disguise its drawbacks and hidden ill effects studiously. Caveat emptor doesn’t apply because the government is a silent partner in launching this arrangement and will worry about any downstream ill effects or harmful consequences after the IPO hits Wall Street.

Neuroscience has been quiet about suspected or alleged adverse effects, which allows many to claim no legitimate reasons for caution. So, given the absence of compelling evidence of harm linked to V/R and metaverse excursions, it serves as a testament to advocating universal adoption for every adult and many kids. This appears nearly certain even though elsewhere, society has decided a license is requisite to driving a car or brandishing a firearm.

Deep learning and AI-enabled solutions to enhanced internet and computer-based connections, creating an intimate pathway for enriched human experiences saturated with maximum opportunities for derived metaverse immersive excursions, are already here. At the 2023 World Economic Forum, Hewlett Packard’s [HPE] own ‘Innovation Strategist” Jeff Fougere, enthusiastically told attendees, “….our innovative virtual company museum, showcasing a digital twin of our legendary HP garage leveraging complete control over 3D environments, and engaging team members with TED Talk-style presentations set on a simulated moon base and enhanced product demonstrations with captivating 3D animations.,” He continued extolling the project, saying. “…HPE’s research teams are investigating the possibilities offered by Generative AI technology enabling the instantaneous creation of 3D models, images, and environments using intuitive voice commands. When integrated with the Metaverse, generative AI has the power to transform our most imaginative ideas not just into text or images, but into three-dimensional content and experiences” (AI is shaping the Metaverse—but how?, 2023) There is hardly doubt that beneficial mergers of generative AI with the Metaverse can assist and support architects, engineers, physicists, lab biologists, and physicians as replication of natural systems, complex structures, metabolic networks, and human bodies enables levels of creativity in design, assessment, and treatment never before seen. Direct neural transmissions from humans to avatars and vice versa, along with enabled exchanges of thoughts, ideas, and options between human players and inanimate avatars in the Metaverse, are within the realm of design considerations and the scope of maximized metaverse experiences.

What kinds of medical advice and dosing instructions found on the side of prescription drugs best fit this scenario? Does it even seem feasible to consider a warning before engaging?

193

194

195

Adult supervision, indirect liability, loco parentis, and other legal injunctions are part of the routine daycare, public education, and custodial nanny rules we expect when kids are involved. It begs whether metaverse experiences should be restricted to adults or freely used by kids under 16 only with adults present. The net result is the technology is being developed at lightning speed while the safety. security, and utility aspects of its human users and consumers are riding on molasses. This cannot continue, and it argues powerfully for wider public involvement in steering how and when AI-enabled metaverse systems will be available at COSTCO. Societal Wellbeing and Risking the Devil Dance Maybe people dwelling under the pangs of everyday pressure take a drive into the country, lose themselves in a movie marathon or series of books, or find an outlet less likely to please their neighbors or nearby law enforcement personnel. But if people seek instead solace in social media, slapping on an Oculus headset or engaging in hours of A/R and V/R wandering hedonistically through the Metaverse, is that something society at large, and global humanity, should regard with disdain or lingering concern? After all, the extended indulgence in A/R V/R and Metaverse diversions may channel latent hostility and repressed anger into a carefully contrived and safely isolated area where nothing violent, criminal, crazy, or patently anti-social bursts out.

What is far less than clear is knowing with some degree of certainty whether people who divert automatically towards A/R V/R and metaverse excursions are doing so without willfully embracing indirectly harmful, psychologically dangerous, or emotionally devastating experiences that attenuate and enhance the risks of societal anger and anti-social frenzy.

Inadvertently, unconsciously, the extended escape into V/R and A/R and the Metaverse may create a harmlessly benign and amusingly ambiguous outcome before it triggers something entirely unexpected and damaging. Is the overall impact of V/R and Metaverse activities on society and human livelihood something that should be subjected to a full-blown environmental impact analysis? What factors would make it exempt?

This is just one way of saying like an excess of anything—whether it is food, alcohol, skiing, scuba diving, running marathons, or anything else to wanton extended indulgence –there is a risk of behavioral and mental outcomes that may be more destructive than helpful. Does medical science, neuroscience, psychology, or other presumptive disciplines focused on human health know? Suppose we suspect that 12 hours of TV a day for kids is terrible, or smoking three packs of cigarettes a day is harmful, or that consuming over 8,000 calories per meal is

196

unhealthy. In that case, we are simply calling attention to the realities of safe versus unsafe indulgence. Do we know what the amount, extent, and level of sustained A/ R V/R and metaverse escapism do to the human mind, personality, and overall sense of everyday rationality?

People who are morbidly fascinated and truly addicted to drugs, pornography, violence, driving recklessly, and being cruel to animals and such are regarded as borderline risks to society and dwell just inches from actual criminal conduct.

In many cultures, these private shadowy ideas and inclinations are considered protected inner thoughts when secretly retained without acting out the undesirable behavior. People can imagine strangling their enemies without actually doing so or imagine firing shotgun blasts at gangs terrorizing an innocent family in a shopping mall parking lot, and their contemplated acts of criminal behavior are insulated from repercussions because they are indeed just thoughts.

What changes when thoughts and hidden desires can be acted out in V/R scenarios where the experience and psycho-behavioral validation of the gunshot or strangulation are made real for the person? Is it essentially or precisely similar or even equivalent? Has a crime been committed if the V/R headset enables people to be transported to a place where criminal conduct is possible in a virtual world?

Today, we say that is impossible and imaginary, but does the Metaverse open unknown doors in dimensional reality that make the V/R criminal conduct real? In effect, can a V/R crime actually trigger or inflict actual and eventual harm to another person?

Because the V/R episode is virtual and simulated, nothing in the spatial-temporal plane of reality verifies it authentically happened. No harm is done. Can we make the same claims about those who, in the sheltered privacy of their own homes, spend countless hours indulging in escapism via V/R A/R and the Metaverse?

Is there a hidden, subtle, unknowable risk that dwelling in the virtual world of unlimited metaverse indulgence deceives and colors the brain experiencing or executing the criminal conduct in such a way as to replicate the criminal act itself in psychophysiological terms faithfully? Afterward, the person who experiences the faux reality in virtual terms risks feeling they have genuinely committed a criminal act. Is that a measurable harm itself? Is there palpable guilt after committing a virtual crime?

Separating and classifying criminal acts in the real world versus the virtual world suggests that forms of behavior resulting in prison or personal harm in real life can

197

be experienced apart from guilt or mortal consequences. Does this view indicate that excursions into V/R or the Metaverse will always be confirmable, safe, harmless, and of no consequence?

Or can we instead make well-supported assertions that one cannot safely or securely ‘over-indulge’ and extensively linger in such virtual pursuits and marathon A/R and V/R sessions, avoiding any risk thereby of psychological harm or injury?

We argue that unlimited metaverse episodes continue for hours where human behavior—criminal, vile, or evil- is as harmless as afternoon naps. My doubtful concern is that we don’t know. When people spend hours escaping reality by absorbing extended voyages in the Metaverse and V/R, should we automatically assume no hidden inner unverifiable psychosocial recalibration of ethos, judgment, or rationality ever occurs? Strap on the headset and commit murder, engage in theft, sexual assault, and arson under a guiltless excuse without residual memory or unconscious imprinting of these acts in the mind? Given the technology involved, how can we account for this?

Returning to the moot but provocative issue of good versus bad choices, decisions, and experiences, the threshold issue hinges on pressing forward to discern the exact nature of good versus bad experiences involving the V/R and Metaverse. We can readily understand the meaning of evil, nasty, vicious, and cruel events, people, and circumstances and submit that this depicts widespread acknowledgment of the negative flavor. Whether the V/R and metaverse array of technologies and experiences matches those depictions is unclear and largely ambiguous today. But to the extent that people are drawn to the V/R metaverse experience because they assume it to be fun, harmless, enjoyable, educational, and maybe even fulfilling, is that behavior to be tolerated and encouraged?

Again, the aim is not to trash or fatally denigrate V/R and the Metaverse per se but to ask tough questions about its acceptance, adoption, and extensive societal tolerance. When a new technology—like anything else—is normalized to the point where it is painted as harmless as a carousel ride, a ferry boat ride, or a bicycle tour, it demands some degree of proof that the degree of danger and risk is minimal, if not near zero.

The critical question is whether science, engineering, IT experts, or anyone else can confidently make that statement. Medical science, psychology, and neuroscience have not yet conducted ‘safety testing’ of V/R and the Metaverse as they do for drugs, gas masks, airline seatbelts, and other items. Does it make sense that it should be done? If so, how would it be accomplished? What panel of unique

198

experts would be certified or qualified to do it? Would this technology require a special license to operate?

“

Through the centuries, many technologies have made life easier; some have saved lives, and some have increased human longevity. We also know that some have acted insidiously and relentlessly to dismally shorten our wellbeing, curtail our security and safety, and bring death to our front door with ferocious intensity. We know painfully well that some new technologies are often introduced into society without pre-deployment risk assessment. Nuclear power plants, lithium batteries, and autonomous robots all contain some risks, but we tend to accept and tolerate them regardless. In exchange, we absorb the risk of catastrophic failure as minimal.”

V/R and Metaverse Pros and Cons—As If the Criteria Mattered Definitional terms and conventional linguistic boundaries are always a centerpiece of contentious arguments about whether the term under scrutiny is properly understood. “Metaverse” was originally coined by author Neal Stephenson for his 1992 novel “Snow Crash,” describing a three-dimensional social platform.

Earlier works described a computer-generated virtual reality as defined by Daniel F. Galouye in “Simulacron-3” as part of an economic (market research) project, and more recently, Ernest Cline’s “Ready Player One” depicted a world marked by energy crisis, overpopulation, and climate change. A unique definition of the term by former Head of Strategy at Amazon Studios, Matthew Ball, calls it “… persistent, synchronous & live, providing each user with an individual sense of “presence.”

So, in many ways, the defining characteristics illustrate various views and underscore the unsettling ambiguity of what it means. It’s almost like saying an atomic bomb goes boom, just like an earthquake, and nothing else really happens.

(Henz1, 2022) Divergent and ambiguous polysymbolic definitions of the Metaverse don’t help ordinary people understand what it includes, its capabilities, its societal impact, and its implications for what most consider the immediate and long-term effects on everyday human life. Worse, the risks of gradual V/R and metaverse addiction, containing hidden forms of cognitive impairment, manipulation, or covert degradation, are signal weaknesses. They point to areas of vulnerability that certain hostile nations and criminal/terror groups may exploit. Consider a criminal metaverse for a moment.

Definitional factors cannot be readily explained away as they interfere with the ability of experts to agree on what is being described. For example, before any

199

systematic assessment of the pros and cons of V/R metaverse activities can be teed up for more comprehensive public consideration, there are inherent mathematical issues and dilemmas to be considered. One mathematician has noted that: “…the relation between mathematical models and non-mathematical reality can not be given in a purely formal, mathematical way, save access to the reality outside myself only through my perception. My perception is actively constructed by my brain, meaning that all impressions from the outside are processed by it. Therefore, I cannot know how the reality outside is unprocessed, independently of my acts of perception. I do not have access to any objective reality, ‘objective’ here meaning ‘independent of the observer,’ because there is no other means to check the ‘objectivity’ of observations of an observer than referring to my observations or observations of other observers. That derives from a different personal reality for every individual. Our reality is the reality we experience but not the observer-independent reality. We cannot know what the observerindependent reality looks like. We cannot know whether there is a unique observer-independent reality for all individuals, and I further distinguish ‘social reality’ from ‘personal reality’ and ‘observer-independent reality.’ (Hennig, 2019) DEFINING WHAT IS REAL AND WHAT ISN’T BECOMES AN ARCANE PUZZLE. In turn, the ability to discern the pros and cons of V/R and the Metaverse requires placing them both in context. If we accept that these two concepts dwell comfortably inside a larger milieu known as cyberspace, we must define and clarify what that related term may mean.

A 2009 paper from security researchers mentioned that cyberspace itself includes a global and dynamic domain that combines the use of electrons and the electromagnetic spectrum to create, store, alter, exchange, and share information, as well as extract, use, and eliminate information while disrupting physical resources.

Papers written by J. D. N. Dionisio, W. G. Burns III, and R. Gilbert claim that cyberspace represents the sum or totality of shared online space across all dimensions of representation. Compared to the Metaverse, the authors say that it allows users to access its environs while still being aware of their world. The researchers noted that the concept represents a move from a set of separated and

200

independent virtual worlds to an integrated network of three-dimensional virtual worlds or environments.

Imagined and constructed faux scenarios from researchers and tech people, drawing in characteristics of related technologies and fiction depictions, provide the Metaverse’s key elements. These include avatar creation and customization, content creation, virtual economy, a more immersive interaction within shared virtual environments, and novel security measures. (Pineda, 2024) One fair question to raise at the outset is how the descriptive calibration and operational standards for making distinctions among key terms like V/R, the Metaverse, and cyberspace influence deciding what a pro versus a con means.

Listing attributes as a “PRO’ implies it contributes to or reinforces fundamental human values and norms of what society considers OK behavior—or at least behavior that does not offend, wound, shock, or frighten most adults.

That broad definition allows an expansive definition of ‘CONS’ as embracing everything that doesn’t readily fit into the convenient ‘PRO’ paradigm. Inevitably, future age-based and cultural injunctions and restrictions may be imposed so that roughly the same screening out of V/R experiences roughly matches the movie media ratings of X, R, and PG-13. It does beg the question of practical adequacy and implies that some objective omnipotent judge who devises and enforces the rules governing V/R and metaverse access is above reproach. Without a doubt, this should pose no insurmountable obstacle.

Right?

Listing the absolute first-blush PROs and CONs will require an enunciation of situations and criteria that are arguably self-evident. So here are a few…

Some prominent PROs are self-evident, but others are less so—here are the salient ones.

– V/R and the Metaverse combine virtual and augmented reality to enable more realistic digital communication and interaction beyond conventional social media, where metaverse applications are created— share and to leverage digital information or content.

– Users also become the content themselves through their avatars—it offers benefits in marketing and business, and it supplements the applications of blockchain technology.

– Another technology that Metaverse complements is spatial computing.

201

This evolving form of computing centers on using technologies or other technological products that allow humans to interact with computers more naturally and intuitively, allowing new forms of human-computer interfacing.

– Another advantage of the Metaverse is that it can support the creation of a virtual economic system and permit the exploration of alternative macroeconomic frameworks for society, enabling relevant virtual economic activities that function the same as real-world economies, thereby providing a digital platform for an immersive transaction or exchange of digital and offline products and services.

– Metaverse advocates say it will better integrate and connect a diverse world – Metaverse supporters see it as maximizing opportunities and platforms for better online learning and enhanced educational venues – Metaverse fans say it opens up many new and unexpected business opportunities and – Metaverse accessibility will allow people to explore and experience different cultures, political systems, and societal arrangements, enabling them to freely choose among the choices people make about where they wish to live and prosper.

Considering the likely CONs of the Metaverse, we find these arguments…

• Increasing cybercrime and disruptive criminal inroads in private areas • Risking lost connections with reality and the natural world • Unknown mental health, psychosocial, and personality effects • Absence of objective referees, moderators, or monitors of experiences • Residual risks of extended psychosocial addiction • Opening the door to hidden negative neurological influence Other possible CONs compel judgments whether its broad scale implementation and open access require the introduction of augmenting, auxiliary, advanced, and untested technologies where blending their long-term cumulative psychosocial impact is impossible to predict precisely.

Participation in the Metaverse is not risk-free. Maximizing its benefits and applications to market its attractiveness will require owners, operators, and presumptive government regulators to develop and deploy cutting-edge digital communication ‘guardrail’ technologies. This may trigger the inclusion of nextgeneration digital communication gadgets where their integration for user safety displays less than apparent effects with hidden surprises like accepting the risks of lithium batteries.

202

Critics have pointed to dangers inherent in mixing AI with the Metaverse to create a “giant false god” that can create unhealthy relationships and even anti-social relationships. Would an AI-enabled avatar ‘friend’ look like to a child, or would AI create a wizard, warlock, or warrior persona that people on their own would not?

(Schmidt, 2021) Finally, other prominent skeptics such as Elon Musk claim confidence is not high about artificial intelligence’s transparency and safety within his own companies.

When this is coupled with the Metaverse, concerns deepen. Worse, Lax privacy and security concerns plague metaverse advocates. Platforms have been the subject of investigations worldwide for their supposed internal practices that either downplay or disregard how their platforms and services have worked against the interests of their users or customers. (Dionisio, 2013) National Security & Threat Dynamics—Dance of Death?

One key aspect of the headlong dive into V/R and Metaverse indulgence is weighing and gauging the presumptive national security and overall threat dynamics accompanying a lusty, unbridled appetite for immersion in this fauxcontrived but realistic form of pseudo-reality.

Danger signals ought to abound here, but there seem to be ambiguous armchair views. As such, it is essential to distinguish what the designers and authors of the Metaverse say it is –or is intended to become–versus its onward technological evolution and wayward trajectory towards potential developments enabling both unexpected novel national security and criminal and terrorist threats to emerge.

Not beyond the realm of reasonable risk? A dystopian, persistent virtual environment that allows intermittent and perpetual excursions into its depths opens pathways into bedrock national and homeland security areas such as counterterrorism, secure cyberspace, safeguarding critical infrastructure, defense system preparedness, and resilience.

These are all functional symbols and systems that may be jeopardized downstream from current creative fantasies about what the Metaverse might—or might not— contain. This is not sheer speculation that fundamental operational frameworks of threat analysis itself, discerning disinformation or misinformation.

Perversion of cybersecurity systems and ongoing opaque civil liberties dilution could be at risk. While the upside of V/R and metaverse technology can support enhanced training, scenario-based readiness, and amplify gestures towards better security, there is a downside, including a slippery slope where, as RAND notes, “…

203

there are emerging challenges to monitoring and analyzing users’ activity in metaverses, it should undertake legal and ethical reviews of what information is collected and how it is managed. In these and other activities, DHS will have to be particularly mindful about how its use of metaverses, or response to emerging challenges, will affect civil liberties, especially the implications for personal privacy and freedom of speech…”(Marler, 2023) The overall lack of governing operational rules, technical standards, ethical guardrails, and engineering principles that will define and shape the Metaverse causes many to argue that such concerns are overly premature, misplaced, and offtarget. At the same time, the technology continues to morph and grow beyond the ever-scrutinizing eyes of media and academia to account for its newest developments.

The groundswell of public enthusiasm for the Metaverse promises to drown and overwhelm any latent arguments for caution and risk analysis as a “… 2022 Harris poll found that 37% of respondents agreed with the statement that “the metaverse would be more fun than real life,” and 38% agreed with the statement that “the metaverse would make their life better.” Another 2021 survey found that 38% of Gen Z (those born between 1997 and 2012) and 48% of millennials (those born between 1981 and 1996) agreed with the statement that “the metaverse is the next big thing and will become part of our lives in the next decade.”

Research firm Gartner said that by 2026, one-fourth of people would replicate their real-world activities by spending “at least one hour a day in the metaverse for work, shopping, education, social and entertainment.”

This level of excitement among the public means enormous pressure to acquire and enjoy the Metaverse, which will overtake any sincere efforts to manage, regulate, or discern its long-term strategic security implications and effects. At a minimum, we know readily that “…use of AR/VR technologies can have serious national security implications. Adversarial actors may take advantage of the reality-altering capabilities of these technologies without adequate security. Similar concerns arise from digital replication capabilities such as deepfakes, i.e., doctored images or videos featuring people performing actions that never occurred. For example, digital alterations could make a person appear in a place where they are not or distort information military personnel receive on the ground during a crisis.” (“Fabio Vanorio Ministerial Advisor, Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs …”) (Viorno, 2022) Then there is also the issue of verification and authentication, which the Metaverse will only make more complex and ambiguous. Verification in the Metaverse poses

204

an enormous challenge, as people cannot attend appointments or participate in group business meetings and decision-making venues without ironclad authentication of their real-world identity.

As a data protection expert defines: “Without proper verification, the risk of impersonation will be “impossible to control.” Adding to the lack of robust security verification, there is a door to malicious digital twins, digital fraud, fake news, and grave doubt about persons and documents presumed to be authentic. This is especially true when participants cloak their real selves behind avatars with counterfeit identities and create avenues for hacker access. To user accounts.

(O’Flaherty, 2022) This avenue of legitimate risk analysis just gets more convoluted when the various interventions and organized mayhem derived from criminal and terrorist use of the Metaverse becomes better known and criminally exploited via cartels and transnational terror groups. The ability to thwart, detect, defend, and alert legitimate governments, commercial enterprises, and ordinary citizens alike to criminal and terrorist activity within the Metaverse will be severely challenged and periodically breached—external penetration of the Metaverse.

In 2022, Interpol noted that “As the number of Metaverse users grows and the technology further develops, the list of possible crimes will only expand to potentially include crimes against children, data theft, money laundering, financial fraud, counterfeiting, ransomware, phishing, and sexual assault and harassment.”(Tung, 2022) Death Spiral of the Devil Dance—Is There More?

A looming controversy makes the arguments and pleas about the operational architecture and risk elements of the Metaverse somewhat moot. Definitional boundaries are messy here, and the proponents of metaverse adoption are free to invent terms and their meanings. There is this companion set of things called the Omniverse and the Multiverse.

It seems the Metaverse implies a level of deep interoperability across worlds and platforms in which assets and characters flow from one to another. However, the Multiverse contains multiple independent worlds that share little, if any, data.

Examples include two games with different rules, equipment, sign-in systems, and friends lists. The Omniverse is infinite, whereas the Metaverse and Multiverse are finite.

205

By contrast, the Omniverse contains infinite universes, while the Metaverse and Multiverse each contain a finite number. The Omniverse comprises all Metaverses and Multiverses, whether or not they can communicate with each other. Kevin Collins of Accenture explained that the original vision for the Metaverse was one continuous, embodied digital space where specific rules apply universally around identity, ownership, and technical specifications. However, he said that’s not how it’s panning out. The Omniverse includes all metaverses and multiverses, whether interoperable or not. “There is only one omniverse, including everything,” Collins said.

(Lawton, 2024) That distinction either clarifies or obfuscates its intended meaning.

So, in the future scenarios expected, the Metaverse remains a domain of niche applications used by consumers for entertainment and gaming but stops well short of an all-encompassing virtual reality that sucks everyone into it.(Lubetsky, 2022) Is that satisfactory for people who want to know—and are entitled to know—how the unfolding of the Metaverse will affect their lives, security, and future? For now, the answers are vague, wrapped in slick promises of endless diversion. It begs the question of what reasonable criteria should guide and govern the limitless access to a new technology whose human effects are unknown.

Other experts have said the Multiverse is a hypothetical collection of multiple observable universes, and the Omniverse includes all possible universes, including our own in the cosmological sense.

Some have also noted that the Metaverse implies an LP interoperability across worlds and platforms in which assets and characters flow from one to another. At the same time, the Multiverse contains multiple independent worlds that share little, if any, data. Examples include two games with different rules, equipment, sign-in systems, and friends lists. This makes the enduring colossal quest for affirming what is true, factual, correct, and objectively specific even more fragile and subject to jeopardizing forces that contend with what our natural senses say is real.

T

he devil’s dance with technology is complete. Even today, well before the metaverse blooms and becomes pervasive, we have in the media, university education, and polite discourse the existence of twin realities and dueling narratives that suggest •

Climate change is real or not.

206

• The Earth evolved over countless millennia or was created • The universe is unlimited. The universe has finite boundaries • Mankind evolved from the apes or was created from dust So, the narrative becomes captive to the tug of war embedded in political discourse, and the search for immutable truth becomes a perpetual contest over logic, assumptions, beliefs, and arguments.

The Metaverse and V/R open the mind to other forms of reality, which contain good and bad risks and obvious and hidden consequences for extended excursions.

Suppose human life persists and grows towards an uncertain but stable and secure future. In that case, it is fair to ask how society benefits from supporting a blended universe where reality, periodic escape from it, and extended excursions into the Metaverse coexist simultaneously.

Does the average person have a seat belt or airbag to cushion the shock that may happen when the faux reality of the Metaverse hits home? Assurances and platitudes will permeate the media and airways to usher like a cuddly, harmless puppy in the Metaverse. Here is the benign popular appeal repeated in thousands of media reports, which is meant to mitigate doubts, reduce fears, and roll out the welcome mat for everyone.

Matt Ball, the former CEO of Amazon, depicts the sentiment in its harmless, appealing prose…“It is a massively scaled and interoperable network of real-time, rendered, 3D virtual worlds that can be experienced synchronously and persistently by an unlimited number of users, each with an individual sense of presence.” (Matthew Ball, 2022) At the end of the day, if objective truth, factual information, reliably verified narratives, and honesty are the only insulation we have against the devil’s dance of propaganda, misinformation, deceit, false narratives, and deception, how can we engineer newly emerging technology to preserve that distinction of sanity and adhere to a standard of common sense? Who ensures quality control? Who checks periodically to stave off hacking intrusions? Who becomes the guardian of truth and the ultimate fact-checker? How does our society protect itself from the misuse of technology to subvert human freedom and our need for liberty by relying on a substitute that pretends to offer escape but doesn’t? How best to avoid and thwart the tyranny of complex technology when we often wish to exploit it merely for entertainment?

207

208

CONCLUSIONS Escapism, for its own sake, is not evil. However, recurrent avoidance of stressful situations may prevent a person from seeking to solve big problems or from learning to tolerate the stressors they face every day. Some in the mental health field suggest that escapism through video gaming can also be an adaptive coping strategy that helps regulate or restore mood following exposure to stressful situations.

Long-term psychosocial and behavioral dynamics are much less clear.

People dwelling inside the Metaverse may prefer having fun and engaging in pseudo-adventures instead of facing the grim, uncertain, risk-laden reality they find whenever they set foot outside their door. Their desire to escape reality even for a few moments is not suspect, given the often harsh and brutal things residing on the periphery of real life itself. A distinctively rich and seductive quality about the Metaverse beckons us to indulge in things like chocolate ice cream, roller coasters, and free food without much care about the effects, personal impact, or consequences involved.

“For those who don the requisite headset and allow themselves to transit reality into a fanciful virtual and augmented reality experience, there is sublime satisfaction in doing so as much for the variety of impressive and fascinating excursions it offers as there is for taking a break from all the dismal, painful and sometimes disappointing episodes which real-life often delivers. So, it is fair to ask whether this is a dance with the devil.”

209

210

Dr. Robert McCreight was a distinguished expert in national security, intelligence analysis, and emergency management, with a career spanning over three decades in the U.S. government and military. McCreight pursued higher education with a focus on history and public administration. He earned a Bachelor of Science in History from West Chester University in 1969, followed by a Master of Public Administration from George Washington University in 1978. He later obtained a Doctor of Philosophy in Public Administration from George Mason University in 1989.

Dr. McCreight's remarkable career included 35 years of service at the U.S. Department of State and other federal agencies, where he retired in 2004. As an intelligence analyst, he specialized as a senior Soviet military analyst in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), focusing on nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs. He served as a treaty negotiator and arms control delegate, participating in key arms control negotiations and as a delegate to the United Nations, contributing to the development and verification of international treaties.

He also worked as a counter-terrorism advisor and political-military affairs analyst, providing strategic analysis and policy recommendations on counterterrorism and political-military issues.

Additionally, he served as the Deputy Director of Global Scientific Exchanges, overseeing international scientific collaborations and promoting global science and technology cooperation.

In addition to his civilian roles, Dr. McCreight served 27 years of combined active and reserve military service in U.S. Army Special Operations, seamlessly balancing his military and civilian duties.

Following his government service, Dr. McCreight transitioned to academia and consulting. As an adjunct professor, he taught at esteemed institutions such as Georgetown University, George Washington University, George Mason University, Virginia Tech, and the National Defense University. His courses covered critical topics, including disaster and emergency management, strategic intelligence, nonproliferation policy, homeland security, terrorism analysis, and WMD threat assessment. As a consultant, he provided expertise to the Department of Defense and other agencies, focusing on cognitive warfare, crisis management, and critical infrastructure protection.

211

212

Disclaimer The content published in Inner Sanctum Vector N360™ represents the views, expertise, and perspectives of its authors and contributors. The articles and features presented are based on their knowledge and insights, intended to inform and inspire readers. Nothing in this publication is intended to serve as legal, professional, or business advice. Readers are solely responsible for their own actions and decisions.

All articles, opinions, and graphics are for informational and illustrative purposes only and should not be construed as professional guidance. The magazine and its publishers make no warranties, express or implied, regarding the completeness, accuracy, reliability, or suitability of the content. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research or consult relevant experts for specific guidance on topics discussed.

All trademarks, images, and intellectual property featured in the magazine are the property of their respective owners. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or use of this content is strictly prohibited.

Inner Sanctum Vector N360™ is committed to fostering open dialogue and diverse perspectives. We welcome feedback, ideas, and contributions that align with our mission to enlighten, educate, and engage our readers.

213

214