SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Dr. Yaneer Bar-Yam (New England Complex Systems Institute [NECSI]) as a part of its SMA General Speaker Series. Dr. Bar-Yam first stated that decisions matter. Rapid response planning and determining how to execute a plan quickly is best understood from a military perspective, according to Dr. Bar-Yam. He then focused on the comparison commonly made between the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and the common flu. He stated that this comparison paints the wrong picture; the common flu has a fatality rate of about 0.1%, and the number of individuals hospitalized is very small. COVID-19, however, has a 20% hospitalization rate, a 2-4% fatality rate at minimum, and 10% of those infected require ventilators. Dr. Bar-Yam then explained that mild cases of COVID-19 aren’t particularly mild. Moreover, it often takes several days—sometimes weeks—for a case to become severe and require hospitalization. Dr. Bar-Yam claimed that the outbreak in the US is likely to be more similar to that of Italy than that of China and South Korea. He stated that our hospital system will become overloaded, just as Italy’s has. Hospitals will quickly reach capacity as new severe cases arrive daily, military equipment will be required to supplement hospital’s equipment, and hospital staff will become overloaded. Consequently, the US may begin to see a fatality rate more comparable to Italy’s 8% if no immediate action is taken.

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Dr. Michael Horowitz (University of Pennsylvania) as a part of its SMA STRATCOM Academic Alliance Speaker Series. Dr. Horowitz began by explaining how nuclear technologies are shaping global politics. He used the global telegraph program, the Cuban missile crisis, the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots, and the Chinese proliferation of drones as examples. He then focused on automation, autonomy, and artificial intelligence (AI). Dr. Horowitz defined AI as “the use of computers to simulate human behavior that requires intelligence.” AI is also broad, multi-purpose, dual use, and has a low barrier to entry. There are various methods of AI (e.g., symbolic vs. connectionist, machine learning, neural networks) and types of AI (e.g., narrow, general intelligence, superintelligence). Furthermore, AI is an enabler rather than a weapon. AI can direct physical objects, process data, and perform overall information management, but it is not a gun, nor is it a plane. The implication of this is that AI can be used for much broader purposes than military technologies. Next, Dr. Horowitz explained that individuals pursue autonomy and AI for their speed, precision, bandwidth/hacking capabilities, and decision making assistance. AI also has its downsides, however. Autonomous systems can be “brittle” (i.e., limited in terms of their potential areas of operation and requiring an immense amount of training). One must be weary of automation bias and trusting machines/algorithms too much to avoid making mistakes as well. Dr. Horowitz added that if a nation is already confident in its second-strike capabilities, over-trusting a machine is not necessarily worth the brittleness risks.

SMA hosted a panel discussion as a part of its SMA CENTCOM Population Dynamics Speaker Series. The panelists included Dr. David Dorondo (Western Carolina University), Mr. George Popp (NSI, Inc.), Dr. Peter Suedfeld (University of British Columbia), and Mr. Thomas Rieger (NSI, Inc.). The moderator was Ms. Sarah Canna (NSI, Inc.).

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by LTG Karen Gibson (Retired) as a part of its SMA General Speaker Series. LTG(R) Gibson discussed how decision makers (and civilians) can be wise consumers of intelligence and shape the intelligence environment. She first stated that using intelligence strategically requires strategy to begin with. Once one has a strategy, they can then use intelligence to inform it. LTG(R) Gibson stated that there are three primary things that one must consider when developing a strategy: 1) where they are right now, 2) where they need to be, and 3) the environment in which they need to operate. She elaborated that a plan or strategy should be multi-domain, multi-faceted, and involve multiple lines of effort. Next, LTG(R) Gibson stated that one must communicate their strategy consistently to everyone on their team through multiple means. Without this, one’s intel team cannot provide the appropriate intel to guide one’s strategy. Moreover, one must determine what the conditions of the environment that they need to monitor are. This will help an individual ask the right questions and determine the scope and scale of their environment. LTG(R) Gibson then stated that commanders and decision makers must open their inner circles and involve some key members of the intelligence team to gain a sense of what the commander or decision maker is trying to accomplish. By hearing this individual think out loud and discuss their strategy, the intelligence team can help identify the right information to inform that strategy. This will also enable the commander or decision maker to be proactive rather than reactive, as the precise information provided will ideally lead to action.

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Dr. Jacquelyn Schneider (Hoover Institution, Stanford University) as a part of its SMA GeneralSpeaker Series. Dr. Schneider first stated that the creation and management of thresholds is critical to the success of US strategy. She then cited Connable et al.’s when defining a “threshold” as a “negotiated, declared, or tacitly understood delimiter between measures short of war and high-order conflict (such as full-scale conventional or nuclear war).” Dr. Schneider explained that thresholds are defined by two characteristics: the strength of the threshold (i.e., how large the space is between rungs on the escalation ladder) and the location of the threshold on the escalation ladder (low vs. high). Moreover, thresholds are constructed by perceptions of potential retaliation cost, domestic cost, and normative cost. Dr. Schneider then presented a series of characteristics that create strong thresholds, including treaties with punishment mechanisms, agreed upon definitions, and costly declarative statements (i.e., redlines). She also outlined a series of characteristics that move thresholds up the escalation ladder, including significant and measurable physical effects, gross violent effects, and high-saliency means. Next, Dr. Schneider focused on the cyber threshold. There is a threshold at the lower rung of the escalation ladder when it comes to cyber, but the US and its allies are uncertain of its strength yet, according to Dr. Schneider. Most actions of this nature have not occurred yet, and some more serious events (e.g., cyber operations with violent, strategic, or overt effects or the threat of such effects) may propel above the threshold of regular cyber attacks. The cyber threshold presents a problem as well. Strategy requires two thresholds: a lower threshold that restrains US and other state cyber activity from violent retaliation and a higher threshold that deters others from taking strategic cyber attacks against the US. The problem lies in the coexistence of these two thresholds. Dr. Schneider concluded by presenting a series of recommendations for the US to solve this problem: 1) by determining the cyber thresholds that it wants to create, 2) by becoming a “norm entrepreneur,” and 3) by increasing its resiliency and cross-domain punishment.

SMA hosted a panel discussion as a part of its SMA CENTCOM Population Dynamics Speaker Series. The panelists included Dr. Skye Cooley (Oklahoma State University), Ms. Nicole (Peterson) Omundson (NSI, Inc.), Dr. Nicholas Wright (Intelligent Biology), Dr. Sabrina (Pagano) Polansky (NSI, Inc.), Dr. Karl Kaltenthaler (University of Akron), Mr. Ali Jafri (NSI, Inc.), Dr. Lawrence Kuznar (NSI, Inc.) and Mr. Howard Lee (US Army TRADOC).

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Dr. James Lewis (Center for Strategic and International Studies [CSIS]) as a part of its SMA General Speaker Series. Dr. Lewis first stated that what the US signals and what China and Russia interpret those signals to mean are often entirely different. This constant misinterpretation is not new, however. Next, he explained that China and Russia also have found ways to circumvent US deterrence strategies and test the US’s limits (e.g., the Russian occupation of Crimea, Chinese activities in the South China Sea) for the past two decades.

Four panelists with deep knowledge and experience in the USCENTCOM AOR and with complex systems modeling were asked to reflect on how to think about and anticipate surprises in the USCENTCOM area of responsibility (AOR), especially Black Swan surprises that are the product of non-linear relationships between interacting variables. The panelists shared a wealth of knowledge on the region and complexity. Key takeaways included:

First, LTG(R) Nagata provided a series of historical remarks, beginning with the passage of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 in 2011, which created a no-fly zone as a result of the violent Libyan civil war occurring at the time. There was no language in this resolution regarding a plan to overthrow former Libyan Prime Minister Muammar Qaddafi; however, this event occurred regardless. After the overthrow, a transition council was created to promote lawful elections; however, armed militias began asserting their authority in multiple areas, and the interim Libyan prime minister did not have the power to crack down on them. This led to the dissolution of the General National Congress in Libya and an ongoing competition between Libyan military commander Khalifa Haftar and anti-Libyan National Army (LNA) protestors. To conclude his remarks, LTG(R) Nagata stated that the Libyan strategic environment is a “perverse cauldron for the US,” as a proxy war is occurring that involves US allies fighting US allies.

SMA hosted a speaker session presented by Dr. Adam Seligman (Boston University & Communities Engaging with Difference and Religion [CEDAR]) and Dr. David Montgomery (University of Maryland & CEDAR) as a part of its SMA General Speaker Series. Dr. Montgomery and Dr. Seligman’s presentation focused on addressing the challenges of living with difference and identifying the tools needed to rebuild civil society. The speakers began by discussing rights and belonging. Belonging, Dr. Seligman explained, is specific, particular, and exclusive. Belonging in a community constrains how one can act in a community too. Rights, on the other hand, are generalized and framed as inclusive. Rights apply to individuals and allow one to act freely in a community as well. Dr. Seligman then spoke about boundaries and how they allow for both group (and community) cohesion and exclusion. Next, the speakers focused on political divisions forming throughout the world. Dr. Montgomery and Dr. Seligman offered a “sociological analysis of these divisions that focuses on different approaches to the problem of society as envisioned by the political left and right.”