Mad Scientist Laboratory

[Editor’s Note: Army Mad Scientist is pleased to present our latest episode of The Convergence podcast, featuring General Paul E. Funk II, Commanding General, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), addressing how the Army is modernizing doctrine given the Operational Environment, what are the challenges facing our all-volunteer force, what the Army can observe and learn from the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and how it is adapting to the changing character of warfare — Enjoy!]

[If the podcast dashboard is not rendering correctly for you, please click here to listen to the podcast.]

General Paul E. Funk II assumed duties as the 17th Commanding General, United States Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), on June 21, 2019. As TRADOC commander, Gen. Funk is responsible for 32 Army schools organized under 10 Centers of Excellence that recruit, train, and educate more than 750,000 Soldiers and service members annually.  Gen. Funk was born at Fort Hood and graduated from Fort Knox High School. He was commissioned an Armor Officer through ROTC upon graduation from Montana State University.  Gen. Funk has commanded at every level, Company through Corps; his combat and operational experience includes six deployments in support of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Inherent Resolve. Gen. Funk holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in speech communications, from Montana State University, and a Master of Science degree in administration, from Central Michigan University. He is a graduate of the Armor Basic Officer Leaders and Advanced Courses, the Command and General Staff College, and completed his Senior Service College as a fellow at the Institute of Advanced Technology, University of Texas at Austin.

In today’s interview,  Gen. Funk addresses how the Army is modernizing doctrine given the Operational Environment, what are the challenges facing our all-volunteer force, what the Army can observe and learn from the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and how it is adapting to the changing character of warfare.  The following bullet points highlight some of the key insights from our interview:

• • • The all-volunteer force is at risk. Demographic trends show that the population of individuals qualified for recruitment is diminishing. Finding the “Secret Sauce” that motivates people to serve and stay in the Army will be vital to ensuring the Nation’s Senior Service remains an effective and capable force.

• • • Professionalizing the U.S. military gave the United States a quarter century of global dominance.  At its core, it prioritized the Soldier – a mission that should still be emphasized today. Though the character of war is changing, it remains, in essence, a human endeavor. Today, prioritizing the Soldier must be done holistically – nutrition, sleep, and education will all contribute to mission success.

• • • Education is the best tool to prepare our Soldiers, and should be prioritized at every echelon. Strong doctrine can help form successful training programs and modernize the Soldier to out-think our adversary. Such education should also teach ‘disciplined disobedience,’ enabling Soldier-Innovators to adapt creatively to ensure mission success.

• • • Soldiers and their families will continue to be targets of disinformation. As a result, it is essential to promote trust in the chain of command, and to ensure military families have a safe, secure, and accurate flow of information.

• • • The adage that “it requires 10,000 hours” to master a task reigns true in military training. Synthetic training environments can facilitate necessary practice on critical tasks, but should not entirely replace live training exercises.

• • • Sensor saturation, in which every service member and civilian can both track the data of others and be tracked themselves, has made it impossible to hide in today’s Operational Environment. The ability to operate in a reduced-technology environment may be required in future conflict.

• • • There are four audiences of information in every conflict:  the leadership of one’s own country, the Soldiers and families of our military, our allies and partners, and our adversaries. Successfully navigating the distribution of information to these groups will remain paramount to mission success.

Stay tuned to the Mad Scientist Laboratory for our next episode of The Convergence podcast featuring General Charles E. Flynn, Commanding General, U.S. Army Pacific (USARPAC), discussing the unique pacing threat posed by China, building interoperability with partner nations, and the future of multi-domain operations in INDOPACOM.

If you enjoyed this post, check out the following related content:

Recruiting the All-Volunteer Force of the Future and The Inexorable Role of Demographics, by proclaimed Mad Scientist Caroline Duckworth; and U.S. Demographics, 2020-2028: Serving Generations and Service Propensity

The Future of Talent and Soldiers with MAJ Delaney Brown, CPT Jay Long, and 1LT Richard Kuzma and associated podcast; New Skills Required to Compete & Win in the Future Operational Environment; and The Trouble with Talent: Why We’re Struggling to Recruit and Retain Our Workforce, by Sarah L. Sladek

Innovation at the Edge and associated podcast; Strategic Latency Unleashed!, Going on the Offensive in the Fight for the Future, and associated podcast with former Undersecretary of the Navy (and proclaimed Mad Scientist) James F. “Hondo” Geurts and Dr. Zachary S. Davis; and Tactical Innovation: The Missing Piece to Enable Army Futures Command, by LTC Jim Armstrong

Disinformation Threats to the All-Volunteer Force and associated podcast, with MAJ Joe Littell and CPT Maggie Smith; Maximizing the Army Team’s Potential!; China and Russia: Achieving Decision Dominance and Information Advantage by Ian Sullivan; The Exploitation of our Biases through Improved Technology by proclaimed Mad Scientist Raechel Melling; A House Divided: Microtargeting and the next Great American Threat by 1LT Carlin Keally; and The Erosion of National Will – Implications for the Future Strategist by Dr. Nick Marsella

From Legos to Modular Simulation Architectures: Enabling the Power of Future (War) Play, by Jennifer McArdle and Caitlin Dohrman;  A New American Way of Training, and associated podcast, with Jennifer McArdle; and The Synthetic Training Environment, presented by then Maj. Gen. Maria Gervais, Director, STE Cross Functional Team (CFT) / now LTG and Deputy Commanding General/Chief of Staff, TRADOC, from the Mad Scientist Installations of the Future Conference, and her associated slide deck

Integrated Sensors: The Critical Element in Future Complex Environment Warfare, by Dr. Richard Nabors; Nowhere to Hide: Information Exploitation and Sanitization; and War Laid Bare, by Matthew Ader

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog post do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Army Futures Command (AFC), or Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).

[Editor’s Note:  Mad Scientist Laboratory welcomes back returning guest blogger and proclaimed Mad Scientist Caroline Duckworth with today’s post addressing the challenges the Operational Environment (OE) presents the Army in sustaining its Recruit to Unit pipeline so essential to Multi-Domain Operations.   This OE is characterized by demographic changes and shifts, technology innovations, and economic challenges that make recruiting increasingly difficult.  Fewer people will be available, eligible, and physically accessible to recruit. The new generation of recruits will expect their professional lives to mirror the more connected world. Finally, while the economy of 2030 is unknown, we can safely assume that the strains of an aging U.S. population will limit discretionary funding for the military. Successfully recruiting the greatest All-Volunteer Force in the world will require new ways to recruit and improved policies.  Accessions will face key demographic, technological, and economic challenges that the Army must address if we are to successfully compete and win — Read on!]

In 2018, the U.S. Army published its concept for Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) through 2028. The TRADOC Pamphlet identifies three baseline assumptions, the first of which reads, “The U.S. Army will remain a professional, all-volunteer force, relying on all components of the Army to meet future commitments.” While it is thus a stated priority to remain an all-volunteer force, the Army will need to be proactive to address looming recruitment challenges that threaten its success.

Though the U.S. military has been a volunteer organization since 1973, experts are increasingly concerned that an all-volunteer force may not be sustainable in the Operational Environment (OE). Demographic, health, social, and economic trends are all likely to reduce the U.S. public’s propensity to serve, forcing the Army to rely on an ever smaller, more insulated, and less diverse cohort of Soldiers. To ensure mission success, the Army needs to recognize that it cannot take an all-volunteer force for granted. Instead, it should assume that recruitment and retention will only become more challenging and should acknowledge the myriad of threats that are emerging to the maintenance an all-volunteer force.

Demographic Change: A Smaller Recruiting Pool

The U.S. Census Bureau predicts that by 2034, people aged 65 and over will outnumber those under age 18. Birth rates in the United States have been declining for more than a decade, and decreased even more during the pandemic. Not only will the aging population stress Social Security and strain the government’s budget, but it will also reduce the size of the Army’s future recruiting pool.

The threat of an aging population to military recruitment has been extensively explored, often referencing Japan as a case study.  In 2021, the ratio of Japan’s population under age 14 fell to its lowest point in almost 50 years; these children made up under 12% of its population. The country’s fertility rate has been below replacement rate (2.1 births per woman) since 1974. These trends, combined with a waning interest in military participation, have contributed to Japan’s Self-Defense Forces’ (SDF) well publicized recruitment woes. SDF has missed its recruitment targets since 2014. In an effort to adjust, the force changed its recruitment age cap from 26 to 32 years of age in 2018. Unfortunately, it is predicted that the pool of eligible recruits will still shrink by 30% over the next 40 years.

The Japanese demographic challenge is certainly more daunting than that faced by the United States. The U.S. fertility rate fell below replacement rate in 2008, and the U.S. military recruited its target levels of full-time troops in the 2021 fiscal year. However, the case should still be concerning, given that initial recruiting data from FY22 is not so sanguine.  The Army missed “its goal of recruiting 10,400 new members for the active-duty force by several thousand, only recruiting 7,340 new members in October and November 2021. The Army recently announced it is offering a bonus of up to $50,000, the largest amount ever, to some new recruits who enlist for six years.” When combined with the following trends, this shortcoming is even more disconcerting.

Public Health Challenges

Already, 70% of the potential U.S. recruits aged 17-24 are disqualified from military service due to obesity, mental health issues, past drug use, or poor education. Trend analysis on these statistics do not yield promising results for Army recruitment.

Thirty-one percent of young adults 17-24 years old are unable to join the military because they are overweight, a number that has risen since the 1970s. Even before the pandemic, analysis showed childhood obesity on the rise. Since the onset of COVID-19, however, the rise in childhood obesity has accelerated; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states, “among a cohort of 432,302 persons aged 2-19 years, the rate of body mass index (BMI) increase approximately doubled during the pandemic compared to a pre-pandemic period.” While it is unknown if this elevated rate of obesity will persist, even a return to pre-pandemic obesity rates could reduce the number of recruits eligible to serve in the Army in the future.

Similarly, problems with mental health and substance abuse are on the rise. From 2007 to 2017, the number of teenagers who experienced depression increased 59%. Similarly, rates of anxiety in young adults almost doubled from 2008 to 2018. Finally, between 2016 and 2020, illicit drug use in 8^th graders rose 61% (interestingly, however, teen drug use decreased significantly during 2021, despite the continuing COVID-19 pandemic). The military currently disqualifies those who have received treatment for an anxiety or depressive disorder in the last 36 months, as well as those with a history of eating disorders (which are also on the rise). Though waivers are granted in some cases, the complicated process could be discouraging for recruits. The Army has also reiterated that waivers are generally for conditions in the recruit’s past. As the diagnosis of mental health conditions increase, the number of people disqualified from service as a result of seeking treatment will follow.

Climate change will also impact the health of the future U.S. population, increasing respiratory disease, which, if it contributes to asthma, may further disqualify enlistees. Climate change will also introduce new disease vectors, changing the population’s health landscape. On top of these trends, the longitudinal impact of our current pandemic is unknown. Each of these trends is concerning for military recruiters; taken together, they are especially so.

Declining Trust & Propensity to Serve

The military currently makes up less than 1% of the adult U.S. population. It is largely recruited from the South, and most recruits have a family member with experience in military service. Thus, the force itself is small and relatively insulated, creating a military culture that is increasingly separate from the U.S. population overall. Some analysts argue that this isolation has created a ‘familiarity gap’ which undermines the U.S. civil-military relationship by creating an environment in which the public is detached from the services, and doesn’t understand what the military does. This divide is likely contributing to the decreased propensity to serve; seeing the military as an entity separate from one’s own society and lacking an understanding of its mission certainly would not incentivize enlistment.

Decreased understanding in and increased isolation from the military may also contribute to the decline in trust the institution has seen in recent years. Disinformation, public scandals, and unpopular policies have contributed to distrust in government institutions overall, but particularly in foreign policy. In 2021, Gallup reported an all-time low in U.S. citizens’ “trust in the government to handle international problems.” While the military historically was able to maintain a favorable view separate from that of the government at-large, it appears that may no longer be the case. Young citizens specifically show the lowest trust in the U.S. military, and are less likely to define themselves as very patriotic. As a result, younger generations may find both government and military service less appealing, adding to the military’s recruitment problem and making it difficult to sustain an all-volunteer force.

Competition for Talent

Historically, the Army has offered young recruits with a pathway to the middle class via initial skills qualifications and subsequent on-the-job training, building progressive proficiency in career fields that led to lucrative post-enlistment employment. In post-industrial America, the Army faces increased competition from Trades, Tech Schools, and Higher Education offering talented young citizens similar pathways to well-paying careers and the middle class, without the associated familial disruptions from deployments and the risk of combat.

The Army will continue to compete with the private sector for a smaller number of eligible recruits. As the military adapts to a technology-heavy environment, the Army will require more recruits with technical skillsets. A premium will be placed on premier skills in fields such as AI and machine learning, robotics, big data management, and quantum information sciences. Due to the high demand for these skillsets in industry, however, the Army will have to compete with private companies to attract recruits, with the private sector potentially offering higher compensation, competitive benefits and perks, and a less restrictive work environment.

Considering these disparities, the Army may struggle to maintain the appropriate level of recruitment to sustain an all-volunteer force.

What can the Army do?

These trends all threaten the sustainability and success of an all-volunteer military force. While they may change over time and may not yet constitute a full crisis, it is still in the Army’s best interest to prepare for recruitment to be more challenging in the future. So how can the Army adapt to this aspect of the OE?

1. Pivot to automation and invest in technology development. The military has already been decreasing in size for decades. Investing more heavily in automated technologies will help the Army operate efficiently with fewer people. Machine Learning (ML) / Artificial Intelligence (AI), robotics / autonomy, sensors, and edge computing have the potential to revolutionize the Operational Environment and decrease the number of Soldiers needed at any given time. Transitioning to a hybrid force dependent on man-machine teaming brings with it additional recruiting challenges, however. While operators will not necessarily need to be a coder or software developer, they will need to generally understand how technology works and why it may malfunction in order to be successful on the battlefield.

2. Adjust health standards for enlistment. The Army can consider adapting its enrollment requirements based on health trends. The Army has already begun to adjust its evaluation of candidates’ mental health, attempting to use waivers to consider the health of potential recruits more holistically. However, the Army should also consider the utility of maintaining standards that forbid food allergies, celiac disease, and asthma. While some of these conditions can be bypassed with waivers, the difficulty in obtaining such permissions may discourage recruits. The Army could attract and retain more quality recruits by providing reasonable accommodations for these conditions and reconsidering how it evaluates the health of its recruits.

3. Promote trust between the U.S. public and the military. This strategy will be the most challenging to implement and will require dedication and consistency over time. One way to increase trust with the public, however, could be to work with other government agencies to adjust the current information classification system. Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Brennan Center for Justice’s liberty and national security program, writes, “Washington’s out-of-control classification system has long interfered with the public’s understanding of government actions and effort to impose accountability for policies gone wrong.” While this system has long been in place and cannot account for the recent fall in trust in the military, being proactive in adjusting this system can help the military promote transparency and accountability within itself, both of which positively impact trust. This increase in trust could increase future generations’ understanding of military operations and subsequently increase their propensity to serve.

4. Adopt reasonable occupational concessions for certain roles. The Army may consider implementing unique standards for certain military occupational specialties (MOS) to better compete with the private sector. Salary bonuses, as appropriate, can also be leveraged for certain positions. Additionally, the Army may consider developing strategies for employing civilians and auxiliary forces to perform select occupations and functions, while maintaining a clear delineation of what constitutes a Soldier (i.e., a combatant) versus a non-combatant. The Army’s Military Intelligence Civilian Excepted Career Program (MICECP) could serve as a use case for emulation, providing highly skilled intelligence and counterintelligence professionals in support of operational missions worldwide.

Maintaining an effective, sustainable, all-volunteer force is not a given. If we continue to value an all-volunteer force, the military needs to prioritize dedicated monitoring of trends threatening that goal, and begin making adjustments to its own operations in response.

If you enjoyed this post, read The Operational Environment (2021-2030): Great Power Competition, Crisis, and Conflict, and then download its comprehensive source document to explore the challenges presented by the OE.

… then check out the following related content:

The Inexorable Role of Demographics, also by proclaimed Mad Scientist Caroline Duckworth

U.S. Demographics, 2020-2028: Serving Generations and Service Propensity

Virtual Intervention: People First in 2035, by LTC James Leidenberg

The Future of Talent and Soldiers with MAJ Delaney Brown, CPT Jay Long, and 1LT Richard Kuzma and associated podcast

The Trouble with Talent: Why We’re Struggling to Recruit and Retain Our Workforce by Sarah L. Sladek

China Issues New Plan to Address Aging Population

How does the Army – as part of the Joint force – Build and Employ Teams to Compete, Penetrate, Disintegrate, and Exploit our Adversaries in the Future?

Modernize U.S. Auxiliary Forces for New Era of Great Power Conflict, by LTC Steve Speece

About the Author:  Caroline Duckworth is a proclaimed Mad Scientist, Army Mad Scientist Consultant, and Gaither Junior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  She graduated summa cum laude from The College of William and Mary in Virginia, with a BA in International Relations and Data Science.  Ms. Duckworth previously interned with the Mad Scientist Initiative through the Army Futures and Concepts Center, and is a frequent contributor to the Mad Scientist Laboratory.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog post do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Army Futures Command (AFC), or Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).

 

[Editor’s Note: Army Mad Scientist is pleased to present our latest episode of The Convergence podcast, featuring COL Jonathan Klug, Steve Leonard, Dr. Kathleen McInnis, and Maj. Gen. Mick Ryan discussing the lessons captured in the book To Boldly Go; leadership, strategy, and conflict; the importance of storytelling; and the value of science fiction — Enjoy!]

[If the podcast dashboard is not rendering correctly for you, please click here to listen to the podcast.]

 

To Boldy Go, edited by COL Jonathan Klug and Steven Leonard, and published by Casemate Publishers in 2021, is subtitled “Leadership, Strategy, and Conflict in the 21st Century and Beyond.” Army Mad Scientist’s The Convergence podcasters Luke Shabro and Matthew Santaspirt explore how science fiction can inform the Army about the Operational Environment and the changing character of warfare with the books co-editors and contributors:

COL Jonathan Klug is a U.S. Army Strategist serving as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Strategy, Planning, and Operations at the U.S. Army War College.  Commissioned as an Armor officer, he served in Haiti, Bosnia, South Korea, Egypt, and Iraq.  His strategy assignments included writing U.S. Army, U.S. Joint, and NATO Joint counter-insurgency doctrine; teaching at the U.S. Air Force Academy and the U.S. Naval Academy; serving as V Corps Deputy Plans and Strategy Officer; and strategic planning in the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan, International Security Assistance Force Joint Command, and Operation Resolute Support Headquarters.  He holds degrees from the U.S. Military Academy, Louisiana State University, and the U.S. Army School of Advanced Military Studies.  He is a PhD candidate in Military and Naval History at the University of New Brunswick.  COL Klug co-edited To Boldly Go and co-authored “Yours Is the Superior” with Steven Leonard (below), and contributed “You Rebel Scum!” and “To Live and Die at My Command.” 

Steven Leonard is an award-winning faculty member at the University of Kansas, where he chairs graduate programs in Organizational Leadership and Supply Chain Management.  As a former military strategist and the creative force behind the defense microblog Doctrine Man, he is a career writer and speaker with a passion for developing and mentoring the next generation of thought leaders.  He is a senior fellow at the Modern War Institute at West Point; the co-founder of the national security blog Divergent Options; co-founder and board member of the Military Writers Guild; and a member of the editorial review board of the Arthur D. Simons Center‘s Interagency Journal.  He is the author, co-author, or editor of five books, numerous professional articles, countless blog posts, and is a prolific military cartoonist.  Mr. Leonard co-edited To Boldly Go and co-authored “Yours Is the Superior” with COL Klug (above), and contributed “Beware the Beast Man” and “The Mirror Crack’d.”

Dr. Kathleen McInnis has worked in the Pentagon, the UK Parliament, and in think tanks on both sides of the Atlantic.  Having earned her PhD in War Studies at King’s College London, she currently analyzes International security and defense issues for the U.S. Congress at the Congressional Research Service.  The author of over fifty publications on international security matters, she has commented on international affairs on outlets including CNN, Sky News, BBC, Al Jazeera English, and the Voice of America.  She is also the author of two books.  Dr. McInnis contributed “Sun-Tzu, Ender, and the Old Man.“

Maj. Gen. Mick Ryan is a retired Australian Army officer.  A combat engineer, he has commanded tactical units at the troop, squadron, regiment, task force, and brigade levels.  He is a veteran of East Timor, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and served on the Pakistan-Afghanistan Coordination Cell in the U.S. Joint Staff. A distinguished graduate of Johns Hopskins University and the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) Staff College, and graduate of the USMC School of Advanced Warfare, he is an enthusiastic writer, reader, and a passionate advocate of professional education and lifelong learning. Maj. Gen. Ryan contributed both the Foreword and “From Tactics to Galactic Grand Strategy.”

In today’s interview,  COL Jonathan Klug, Steve Leonard, Dr. Kathleen McInnis, and Maj. Gen. Mick Ryan discuss the lessons captured in To Boldly Go; leadership, strategy, and conflict; the importance of storytelling; and the value of science fiction.  The following bullet points highlight key insights from our interview:

• • • Science fiction can help military strategists creatively conceptualize the Operational Environment. To Boldly Go compiles contributions from over 30 national security experts (a number of whom are proclaimed Army Mad Scientists!) exploring how science fiction can be used to illustrate real-world security challenges.

• • • Science fiction can be used to develop creative Leaders in the national security arena by forcing them to consider alternate futures and the ethics of new technology. Science fiction also exposes how no strategy exists in isolation. Strategists are constantly bound by multiple strategic goals, limited resources, and conflicting opinions.

• • • Examining Orson Scott Card‘s Ender’s Game can help the U.S. Army understand the importance of ‘strategic empathy,’ where strategists seek to understand the thoughts, emotions, and ideas of an adversary. This skillset is critical in enabling Leaders to get inside of an adversary’s OODA loop and help shape the battlefield, yet it is often not actively cultivated. Paying better attention to the motivations of others can help policymakers and commanders comprehend the motivations, priorities, and objectives of our competitors.

• • • Stories like Dune, Star Wars, and The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy let readers understand the challenges of sustainment, intelligence gathering, and realistic absurdities in an entertaining and imaginative way. Reading or watching these works exercises a unique portion of consumers’ brains, enabling them to be more active and creative thinkers.

• • • The United States will not always be able to spend its way through problems; instead, it will be forced to think creatively. Both reading and writing science fiction stories will help strategists build a creative skillset and leverage existing tools to think of new ways to examine current problems.

Stay tuned to the Mad Scientist Laboratory for our next episode of The Convergence podcast featuring General Paul E. Funk II, Commanding General, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), discussing how the Army is modernizing doctrine given the Operational Environment, what are the challenges facing our all-volunteer force, what the Army can observe and learn from the Russia-Ukraine conflict, and how it is adapting to the changing character of warfare.

If you enjoyed this post and podcast, check out the following related content addressing the importance of narrative and science fiction in helping the Army to contextualize the future:

Moonshot: A Sci-Fi Adventure with Ronald D. Moore and associated podcast

Realer than Real: Useful Fiction with P.W. Singer and August Cole and associated podcast

Worldbuilding with Malka Older and associated podcast

Alternate Futures 2050: A Collection of Fictional Wartime Vignettes, by LTC Steve Speece

Shén fēng: Military Use of Weather Modification Technology, by Rory Fedorochko

Takeaways from the Mad Scientist Science Fiction Writing Contest 2019

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog post do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Army Futures Command (AFC), or Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).

 

[Editor’s Note:  Army Mad Scientist’s enduring mission is to explore the Operational Environment (OE) and the changing character of warfare on behalf of the Army.  Crowdsourcing and Edge Cases are two tools we use to help broaden the Army’s horizons and explore future OE possibilities. Crowdsourcing ideas, thoughts, and concepts from a wide variety of interested individuals assists us in diversifying thought and challenges our assumptions, while Edge Cases help us explore what is at the extreme possible regarding new and emerging technologies — allowing us to contextualize the future.

Today’s post by guest blogger PFC Peter Brenner lies at the convergence of crowdsourcing and edge cases.  Cognitive enhancement and the targeting of the human brain — the last frontier — is no longer science fiction.  The U.S. Army is exploring Soldier Enhancement via wearables, embeddables, stimulants, brain gyms, and neuroplasticity.  PFC Brenner’s submission to our Fall / Winter Writing Contest helps us understand the state of neuroscientific advancements and alerts us to the potential dual use applications of neurophysiological advances — Read on!]

“Once technological advancements can be used for military purposes and have been used for military purposes, they very immediately and almost necessarily, often violating the commander’s will, cause changes or even transformations in the styles of warfare.” — Friedrich Engels, as cited by Contemporary Chinese Strategists in PLA Daily, May 6, 2019¹

Since the introduction of the U.S. military apparatus in the 18^th century, science and warfare have operated unilaterally to protect and advance the American way of life. As operational environments change over time and threats to the United States continue to evolve, the universal purpose of western militarism remains unchanged. Our governing ideal is inherent — Freedom, relentlessly defended through our cultural, social, and economic investment in the U.S. Armed Forces. The 20^th and 21^st centuries have advanced technological innovation through scientific discovery faster than at any point in history, notably in the physics, cyberspace, and space domains. Now, new advancements and realizations in the neuroscientific domain have introduced the profound opportunity to characterize the soul of democracy by forcing us to reevaluate how American militarism should implement neurological science and development. We must again decide, as a coalition, where the boundary lines will be drawn between the potential of a new frontier and the risks presented from adversarial necessity to dominate that frontier. Unprecedentedly, the state of the mind is not a frontier of space and time. What has been called “the last frontier”² returns threats to the United States and our people’s sovereignty back down to earth. For the continued protection, assurance, progression, and affluence of the American way of life, we must acknowledge that the neuroscientific operational environment is a domain of persons. The future of competition and conflict is fundamentally, human.

Neuroscience, or the scientific study of the nervous system,³ is not only not new, but dates back to at least 17^th century B.C. Egypt.⁴ We, as a species, have long wondered what is the metaphysical “meaning of life.” It wasn’t until the 2^nd century that the forefather of neuroscience, Galen, argued that the brain is the central organ that governs bodily function and not the heart.⁵ Fast forward 1600 years to the 19^th century and phrenology, or the pseudoscience of the mind, is introduced in Austria.⁶ While off course as with most early biological explanations, phrenology introduced us to the prospect that different regions of the brain are correlated to different human behaviors.⁷ X-rays are accidentally discovered about a hundred years later,⁸ shining a light on how we, as living things, interact with the complex forces that exist around and within us. Along with its perceived invasiveness, x-ray imaging revolutionized the efficiency of medical treatment.⁹ It was then proselytized in the 1940s that regions of the brain could be isolated using x-ray-based positron emission tomography (PET) and single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT).¹⁰ Our understanding of the brain neared its current state — a mostly mathematical system of neural circuitry working in tandem to produce electrical activity, or behavior.  In the 1990s, scientists discovered that functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), could be used to translate behavioral functions into neural imaging. Scientists have even started learning how to accomplish the opposite.¹¹ By the 21^st century, we had achieved what we once thought impossible. The method of accurately interpreting how chemical and electrical reactions within the brain correlate to the actions, choices, feelings, and even the thoughts, of people,¹² had been discovered.  As Professor of Law Stacey A. Tovino posited in 2007 in the American Journal of Law & Medicine, fMRI provided (and continues to provide) comprehension to “personal-decision making.”¹³ This is the basic history of a one dimensional understanding of our brains. A dimension that has given life to a still-new science that has exploded since the 1990s, helping us understand how neural computation results in the behaviors that we experience every day as we interact in our respective worlds. Most strikingly, neuroscience has opened a window into the multidimensional pseudo-construct that we define as the mind.

As with the implementation of x-ray technology into the public sphere of influence, the questions of security and privacy were raised as scientists realized neuroscience and technological innovation could revolutionize how we examine the interconnected behavioral processes that result in intraspecies interaction. As we peered deeper into the brain, neuroscientific principals began challenging the core conceptualizations of what defines one as an individual.¹⁴ Interactive behavioral mechanisms are communicative,¹⁵ they are sharable,¹⁶ and are subject to civil discourse.¹⁷ Individual behavior is private,¹⁸ conserved,¹⁹ and generally in the interests of the person.²⁰ This behavioral dichotomy between what categorizes behavior as psychosocial and instinctively “of the self” is the complicated riddle that makes us human. Our individual differences contrasted with our social interactions, operating from the base of cognition, are characterizations that make us inherently social beings.

The western military apparatus, that is the U.S. Armed Forces and the militaries of our closest allies, exemplifies this behavioral Catch-22 in form and function. The entire premise of mission success through team-oriented task diversification augments individual interest.²¹ In other words, militaries are team constructs for a reason. However, new discoveries in the neurosciences are presenting unparalleled insight into higher dimensional capabilities. Experiments utilizing fMRI have shown that scientists reading brain scans can predict what number a subject will select before the number is selected.²² Similarly, when shown unfamiliar faces, scientists can predict how a subject will react based off of unconscious neural fireworks a subject isn’t even aware they are emitting.²³ Insights into the cognitive innerworkings of an individual’s motivations could call into question the integrity of individualization and socialization, especially as biodata is compiled in large quantities, by populations, saved over long periods of time, and strategically put to use. While being able to consider unconscious behavior is undoubtedly operationally advantageous, this greater understanding in the hands of our adversaries could be used to manipulate and threaten the American way of life, without them ever needing to launch a kinetic attack.

The question of whether neuroscientific advancements should be implemented into warfare is an extensive conversation which presents compelling arguments for both sides, similar to the introduction of nuclear physics into weapons proliferation. The most pragmatic argument for neuro-based research and development is that it is already happening and often not by allies of the United States.²⁴ Biochemical warfare is not a new concept. The use of weapons to target the nervous system of enemies saw barbarous use in World Wars I & II²⁵ and continues to be used by the West’s most dangerous adversaries.²⁶ While more regulated, the United States also wields neurophysiological principals in operations. Cognition is fundamentally the domain of psychological warfare.²⁷ While still in its fledgling phase, the “brain race” is on to see who can best maneuver in the operational domain that comprises consciousness.

Beyond its currently limited practical use, the future of militarism could be influenced by neuroscience positively. Genetic enhancement presents enticing opportunities to improve force quality through supplementation, prospectively even genetic modification.²⁸ Like exercising a muscle or practicing with a weapon, the cognitive skillsets of Service members could be increased by enhancing the brain.²⁹  A more informed and therefore more cognitively capable Armed Forces is promoted by investing in the educations of Service members, veterans, and their families. Cognitive deficiencies and mood disorders, such as ADHD and depression, are treated with prescription medication, targeting chemical compounds in the brain.³⁰ Neuroscientific experimentation could even help us find the exact locations of the brain that produce life-altering behavioral disorders such as PTSD.³¹ The limits to force enhancement are unknown, but the best asset to winning war and achieving mission success remains mental toughness.³²

The negative influences and risks of uncharted neuroscientific experimentation are vast. Bioethicists such as Paul Root Wolpe, Editor-In-Chief of AJOB Neuroscience, the official Journal of the International Neuroethics Society (INS), submitted a clarion objection to the judicial, justifiable, militarized, or commercialized use of any technology that could invade “our single most private possession” in a 2009 Forbes Opinions piece entitled “Is My Mind Mine?”³³ The simple truth is it is not yet understood what ancillary effects could result from a deeper exploration into the kaleidoscopic dimensions of neurocognition. It cannot always be forecasted what we will unearth when pushing the boundaries of exploration into new scientific domains. Scientists don’t even understand how brain matter can house the complex electrical circuitry which transfers signals throughout the brain.³⁴ Furthermore, the neuroscientific domain is not inherently militaristic, unlike rocket science.³⁵ Neuroscientific breakthroughs have been occurring outside of military laboratories,³⁶ which means democratic militarism must traverse the diplomatically knotty minefield of dual-use science if cognition will be weaponized.³⁷ For the good of democracy, our minds may be best left locked.

It is critical that the U.S. Armed Forces unite with the scientific community to discern the threat posed to democracy by the neurophysiological capabilities of adversarial threats. The solution to upholding democratic ideals, starting with U.S. militarism, will likely hinge on our reliance on international accord. As a global community, we need to agree on the difference between neuroscientific experimentation and endangering individual cognitive sovereignty. As Wolpe posits in his article, “To keep silent even in the face of torture or death is humanity’s most powerful, final act of will. What if that ability were to be lost? What if that final freedom is taken away and information can be taken from a person despite their act of resistance? Something precious will have been lost to the human condition because our inner lives will no longer be ours alone.”³⁸

If you enjoyed this post, check out the following related content:

Dr. James Giordano‘s presentation on Neurotechnology in National Security and Defense, from the Mad Scientist Visioning Multi Domain Battle in 2030-2050 Conference at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, on 25 & 26 July 2017; and his Neuroscience and the Weapons of War podcast, hosted by our colleagues at Modern War Institute (MWI), 2 August 2017.

Top Ten Bio Convergence Trends Impacting the Future Operational Environment, Bio Convergence and Soldier 2050 Conference Final Report, and the comprehensive Final Report from the Mad Scientist Bio Convergence and Soldier 2050 Conference with SRI International on 8–9 March 2018 at their Menlo Park campus in California

Cyborg Soldier 2050: Human/Machine Fusion and the Implications for the Future of the DOD, and the comprehensive report from which it was sourced.

Linking Brains to Machines, and Use of Neurotechnology to the Cultural and Ethical Perspectives of the Current Global Stage, by Mr. Joseph DeFranco and Dr. James Giordano.

China’s Brain Trust: Will the U.S. Have the Nerve to Compete? by Mr. Joseph DeFranco, CAPT (USN – Ret.) L. R. Bremseth, and Dr. James Giordano

Sub-threshold Maneuver and the Flanking of U.S. National Security, by Dr. Russell Glenn

Battle of the Brain

Connected Warfare by COL James K. Greer (USA-Ret.)

In the Cognitive War – The Weapon is You! by Dr. Zac Rogers

About the Author:  PFC Peter Brenner is an up and coming U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst. When not conducting his intelligence duties, Brenner is pursuing his Bachelor’s of Applied Science in Administration of Justice from the University of Arizona showcasing his premier range and scope of knowledge. Originally from New York, Brenner is a strong advocate for everyone being informed and finding their own connection in the world through knowledge.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog post do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Army Futures Command (AFC), or Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).

---

List of References

^{1, 24} Kania, E. (2019). Minds at War. PRISM, Vol. 8 (No. 3), Washington, D.C.: Institute for National Strategic Security, National Defense University. 82-101.

² Tibbets, P. (2016). Sociology and Neuroscience: An Emerging Dialogue. The American Sociologist, Vol. 47 (No. 1), Switzerland: Springer. 36-46.

³ About Neuroscience, Department of Neuroscience: Georgetown University. Retrieved from https://neuro.georgetown.edu/about-neuroscience/.

⁴ Mohamed, W. (2008). The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus: Neuroscience in Ancient Egypt. IBRO History of Neuroscience. International Brain Research Organization Retrieved from https://archive.ph/20140706060915/http:/www.ibro1.info/Pub/Pub_Main_Display.asp?LC_Docs_ID=3199.

⁵ Freemon, F. (1994). Galen’s ideas on neurological function. Journal of the History of the Neurosciences, 3 (4). 263-271. Retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11618827/.

^{6-10, 13} Tovino, S. (2007). Imaging Body Structure and Mapping Brain Function: A Historical Approach. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 33, Boston: Boston University of Law, Medicine & Ethics. 193-228.

¹¹ Ward, J. (2015). Chapter 4: The imaged brain. The Student’s Guide to Cognitive Neuroscience, Third Edition, London: Taylor & Francis Ltd. 49-79.

^{12, 14} Roskies, A. (2015). Mind Reading, Lie Detection, and Privacy. Handbook of Neuroethics, J. Clausen, N. Levy eds, Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media. 679-695

^{15, 16} Robinson, G., Fernald, R. & Clayton, D. (2008). Genes and Social Behavior. Science, 322 (5903), National Institute of Health. 896-900.

¹⁷ Baez, S., Garcia, A. & Ibanez, A. (2018). How Does Social Context Influence Our Brain and Behavior? Frontiers for Young Minds. Retrieved from https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2018.00003.

^{18, 19} Wolpe, P. (2009). Is My Mind Mine? Forbes. Retrieved from
33, 38. https://www.forbes.com/2009/10/09/neuroimaging-neuroscience-mind-reading- opinions-contributors-paul-root-wolpe.html#287692d86147.

²⁰ Faulhaber, R. (2005). The Rise and Fall of “Self-Interest.” Review of Social Economy, Vol. 63 (No. 3), London: Taylor & Francis. 405-422.

²¹ Blacksmith, N., Coats, M. & Goodwin, G. (2018). The Science of Teams in the Military: Contributions From Over 60 Years of Research. American Psychologist, Vol. 73 (No. 4), American Psychological Association. 322-333.

²² Brass, M., Haynes, J., Heinze, H. & Soon, C. (2008). Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature neuroscience, Vol. 11, Berlin: Nature Publishing Group. 543-545.

²³ Castello, M., Gobbini, I., Gors, J. & Halchenko, Y. (2017). The neural representation of personally familiar and unfamiliar faces in the distributed system for face perception. Scientific Reports, Vol. 7. Basingtoke: Springer Nature. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-12559-1.

²⁵ Frischknecht, F. (2003). The history of biological warfare. EMBO reports, Vol. 4 (Special Issue), Bethesda: National Center or Biotechnology Information. S47-S52.

²⁶ Corera, G. (2021). ‘Havana syndrome’ and the mystery of the microwaves. BBC News, Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/news/world-58396698.

²⁷ About the U.S. Army Psychological Operations Regiment, U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School. Retrieved from https://www.soc.mil/SWCS/IMSO/aboutPSYOP.htm.

²⁸ DeFranco, J., DiEuliis, D. & Giordano J. (2019). Redefining Neuroweapons. PRISM, Vol. 8 (No. 3), Washington, D.C.: Institute for National Strategic Security, National Defense University. 48-63.

²⁹ Sandel, M. (2004). The Case Against Perfection. The Atlantic, (No. Apr ’04), Washington, D.C: The Atlantic Monthly Group. 50-63.

³⁰ Mohamed, A. (2014). Neuroethical issues in pharmacological cognitive enhancement. WIREs Cognitive Science, Vol. 5, Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 533-549.

³¹ Guangming, L., Jun, L., Li, Z., Lingjiang, L., Liwen, T., Rongfeng, Q. & Weihui, L. (2013). Brain structure in post-traumatic stress disorder. Neural Regeneration Research, Vol. 8 (No. 26), China: Publishing House of Neural Regeneration. 2405-2414.

³² Arthur, C., Fitzwater, J. & Hardy, L. (2017). “The Tough Get Tougher”: Mental Skills Training With Elite Military Recruits. Sport, Exercise, and Performance Psychology, Vol. 7 (No. 1), Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. 93-107.

³⁴ Newman, J. & Revonsuo, A. (1999). “Binding and Consciousness.” Consciousness and Cognition, Vol. 8, Amsterdam: Elsevier. 123-127.

^35-37 Kosal, M. & Huang, J. (2015). “Security implications and governance of cognitive neuroscience: An ethnographic survey of researchers.” Politics and the Life Sciences, Vol. 34 (No. 1), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 93-108.

[Editor’s Note: Army Mad Scientist is pleased to present our latest episode of The Convergence podcast, featuring Trish Martinelli and David Schiff, both At-Large Regional Directors with the National Security Innovation Network (NSIN), discussing innovation, the value of hackathons and crowdsourcing in harnessing the Nation’s intellect to benefit National Security, and integrating their programs in support of U.S. Army innovation — Enjoy!]

[If the podcast dashboard is not rendering correctly for you, please click here to listen to the podcast.]

National Security Innovation Network (NSIN) is a problem-solving network in the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) that adapts to the emerging needs of those who serve in the defense of our national security. NSIN is dedicated to the work of bringing together defense, academic, and entrepreneurial innovators to solve national security problems in new ways.

Trish Martinelli, At-Large Director, NSIN, is an accomplished Senior Intelligence professional with a strong background in business, applicable analysis, and a keen sense of how to implement innovative planning in support of customer satisfaction. With more than 25 years in Government, Military, Analytical, Middle East, Special Missions and Operations Expertise, she is adept and experienced in working with people to maximize the benefit from relevant experience.

David Schiff, At-Large Director, NSIN, is working to change the culture of the DoD and Federal Government to favor innovation as a strategic advantage and strengthen the relationship between civilian industry and the Government to solve the world’s biggest problems. He seeks to bridge the gap that has developed between these ecosystems by building more collaborative, higher-trust, more empathetic, and creative environments, which will lead to the innovative solutions we need to ensure a better world for future generations.

In today’s interview, Ms. Martinelli and Mr. Schiff discuss innovation, the value of hackathons and crowdsourcing in harnessing the Nation’s intellect to benefit National Security, and integrating their programs in support of U.S. Army innovation. The following bullet points highlight key insights from our interview:

• • • The DoD has created a series of innovation organizations. Each of these organizations has specific priorities tailored to the mission of the branch that oversees it. NSIN, however, serves as an innovation catalyst for the entire DoD, seeking to serve each branch and collaborate across the DoD to match Soldier-Innovators with creative thinkers and solutions.

• • • NSIN prioritizes people, ideas, and technology to effectively provide innovative solutions to a wide variety of problems within the DoD. The DoD has found itself struggling to innovate due to its bureaucracy, which limits the questioning of authority, as well as the high fail-ratio of emerging technologies.

• • • To prioritize people, NSIN seeks to connect a wide variety of innovators. It seeks flexible, adaptable, optimistic, realistic people with a Service Leader mindset to spread good ideas and best practices.

• • • NSIN provides a guide across the ‘valley of death,’ where innovative solutions often become stuck between concept and creation at scale. NSIN finds promising talent and ideas, and helps connect them with the correct funding and development processes.

• • • Anyone within the DoD can present a problem to NSIN, who will create a custom network of innovators from within the DoD, academia, and industry to generate solutions. NSIN’s Source Program provides an online platform for Leaders and peers to interact with each other’s submissions of crowdsourced ideas.

Stay tuned to the Mad Scientist Laboratory for our next episode of The Convergence podcast — To Boldly Go — featuring Steve Leonard, Mick Ryan, Jon Klug, and Kathleen McInnis, discussing the
lessons captured in the book To Boldly Go; leadership, strategy, and conflict; storytelling; and the value of science fiction.

If you enjoyed this post and podcast, check out the following related content on innovation within the Army and the Department of Defense:

Innovation at the Edge and associated podcast

Keeping the Razor’s Edge: 4th PSYOP Group’s Innovation and Evolution Council, by the 4th Psychological Operations Group (4th POG) Innovation and Evolution Council

Strategic Latency Unleashed!, Going on the Offensive in the Fight for the Future, and associated podcast with former Undersecretary of the Navy (and proclaimed Mad Scientist) James F. “Hondo” Geurts and Dr. Zachary S. Davis

Tactical Innovation: The Missing Piece to Enable Army Futures Command, by LTC Jim Armstrong

The Convergence: The Future of Ground Warfare with COL Scott Shaw and associated podcast

The Convergence: Innovating Innovation with Molly Cain and associated podcast

Dense Urban Hackathon – Virtual Innovation

“Once More unto The Breach Dear Friends”: From English Longbows to Azerbaijani Drones, Army Modernization STILL Means More than Materiel and Making the Future More Personal: The Oft-Forgotten Human Driver in Future’s Analysis, by Ian Sullivan

Mission Engineering and Prototype Warfare: Operationalizing Technology Faster to Stay Ahead of the Threat by The Strategic Cohort at the U.S. Army Tank Automotive Research, Development, and Engineering Center (TARDEC).

Four Elements for Future Innovation by Dr. Richard Nabors

The Changing Dynamics of Innovation

Innovation Isn’t Enough: How Creativity Enables Disruptive Strategic Thinking, by Heather Venable

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this blog post do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Army Futures Command (AFC), or Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).