Title

AI, UAVS, Hypersonics, and Autonomous Systems

Wednesday, January 22, 2020
9:00am
University of Texas at Arlington, Nedderman Hall
| 416 Yates Street
Arlington, TX
United States
Members: 
Name: 
Representative Marc Veasey
Title Text: 
Commissioner
Body: 
Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe
Statement: 
Name: 
Representative Colin Allred
Title Text: 
Member
Body: 
U.S. House of Representatives
Name: 
Representative Ron Wright
Title Text: 
Member
Body: 
U.S. House of Representatives
Witnesses: 
Name: 
William Inboden
Title: 
Executive Director at the Clements Center for National Security
Body: 
Associate Professor at the LBJ School, University of Texas-Austin
Name: 
Kelley M. Sayler
Title: 
Analyst in Advanced Technology and Global Security
Body: 
U.S. Congressional Research Service
Name: 
Chris Jenks
Title: 
Director of the Criminal Clinic and Associate Professor of Law
Body: 
Southern Methodist University

If you reach a login page when attempting to view the video, please hit the "back" button and try the link again.

On January 22, 2019, the Helsinki Commission held a field hearing on the development of emerging technologies and transatlantic security at the University of Texas at Arlington. Helsinki Commissioner Rep. Marc Veasey (TX-33) convened the hearing, where two additional members of Congress and expert witnesses discussed the policy, legal, and ethical implications of rapidly changing defense developments.

“New threats that we are concerned with range from hypersonic weapons to drones to autonomous weapons platforms, artificial intelligence, directed energy and others,” Rep. Veasey said. “These technologies have the potential to unlock some very important capabilities in the defense of our homeland and support our allies and friends abroad. However, these same technologies [are] under development from some of our strategic competitors, Russia chief among them.”

Alongside Rep. Veasey, Rep. Colin Allred (TX-33) and Rep. Ron Wright (TX-06) were joined by Executive Director at the Clements Center for National Security William Inboden, Congressional Research Service Advanced Technology and Global Security Analyst Kelley Sayler, and Southern Methodist University Criminal Clinic Director Chris Jenks to discuss the potential for these technologies to threaten security and home and abroad.

Rep. Allred, who serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, stressed the importance of considering the legal and ethical dilemmas that the development of new technologies present to the United States. Rep. Allred hoped that the U.S. can strike a balance between maintaining security readiness and American values.

“Obviously we are in a moment in which there is conflict popping up around the world and we have a complicated threat stream that we are trying to look to,” Rep. Allred said. “But as we turn to the great power competition as we have seen emerging now as the focus of our own foreign policy and of our own strategic opponents, I think it is important that we look at these emerging technologies and how this is going to impact it.”

Sayler provided an overview of three major emerging technologies: artificial intelligence, lethal autonomous weapons, and hypersonics. She discussed the potential capabilities of all three technologies; their current state of development in the United States, China, and Russia; and the role of international and regional institutions in governing their use. Sayler also offered predictions for how technology will shape future wars between states, including accelerating the pace of conflict, replacing humans with AI, and shifting the offensive-defensive balance.

Inboden elaborated on the idea of hybrid warfare and shifting strategies with the example of the 2007 cyberattack on Estonia by Russia, which shut down the country’s banking system, media, hospitals, and government.

“From our vantage point 13 years later, I think we should look back on Russia’s cyber attack on Estonia and see it for what it was: the first wave in what would become a cascade of Russian aggression and hybrid warfare,” Inboden said.

Inboden further illustrated the changing nature of conflict by highlighting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and interference in the 2016 election. He also noted that Russia is the OSCE participating State most involved in researching, developing, and employing emerging weapons systems.

Inboden’s recommendations moving forward included combining “strength with diplomacy” and continuing the development of emerging technologies within the United States and other OSCE democracies.

The final witness to testify, Jenks urged the U.S. Congress to direct change within the military to increase understanding of how to set boundaries on scientific development and military operation conduct in the future. Jenks also pointed out that while moral panic might accompany the idea of using new technology on the battlefield, these capabilities may also serve to better protect servicemembers.

“In my view there can be no question that the U.S. and our European allies must continue to leverage emerging technologies and weapons systems – we would be derelict in our duties if we didn’t,” Jenks said. “But we need to halt the demonization of technologization in the context of weapons.”

The members of Congress asked the experts about the potential threat of new technology to advance great power conflict, the ethical and human rights considerations when discussing the implications of efficient technology, and how to use diplomacy to negotiate with strategic adversaries.

“These topics and many others that are discussed are really now, more than ever, need to be something that the American public takes a closer look at,” Rep. Veasey said.

  • Related content
  • Related content
Filter Topics Open Close
  • Vienna Review Meeting of the CSCE - Phase III and IV

    The main activity of the Vienna Meeting throughout Phases III and IV was the presentation and negotiation of proposals for inclu sion in the concluding document of the meeting. The number (more than 160), complexity and controversial nature of many of these propos­als led to the extension of the Vienna Meeting well beyond its target closing date of July 31. These factors, along with other ele­ments such as continuing major shortcomings in the implementa­ tion of existing commitments, are largely responsible for the con­tinuation of the Vienna Meeting into 1988. The slow pace of progress already evident in Phase II continued through the next phase. Each side defended its own proposals but showed little disposition to begin the process of compromise which could lead to the conclusion of the meeting. The main procedural development during this phase was the appointment of coordina­tors from the neutral and non-aligned states to guide the work of the drafting groups. This development provided greater order and structure for the proceedings but did little to advance the drafting work or to induce compromises. Other major developments during this phase were the introduc­tion of the long-awaited Western proposal on military security and the tabling of a comprehensive compromise proposed in Basket III by two neutral delegations, Austria and Switzerland. Both propos­als were put forth at the very end of the phase and thus did not have much impact until the next phase. The Western (NATO) proposal on military security questions was designed as a response to the Eastern proposal which envisioned two main objectives: another round of negotiations on confidence­ and security-building measures (CSBMs) to build upon the success­ful Stockholm meeting and the initiation of negotiations on conven­tional disarmament, both within the same CSCE forum. The West­ern response to this proposal was delayed primarily because of United States and French differences over the connection between the conventional arms negotiations and the CSCE process, the French arguing that the negotiations should be an integral part of the process and the U.S. insisting that they be independent. The issue was resolved by agreement that the negotiations would be "within the framework of the CSCE," but should remain autono­mous.

  • Soviet Violations of the Helsinki Accords in Afghanistan

    The Helsinki Commission held its second hearing on Soviet aggression in Afghanistan six years after Soviet invasion in 1979. The witnesses shed light on the deliberate destruction of the people, culture, and way of life in Afghanistan for the Commissioners present, and considered ways to move forward.

  • Soviet Violation of Helsinki Final Act: Invasion of Afghanistan

    Attendees at this hearing, over which Commissioner Dante B. Fascell presided, discussed the December 1979 invasion of Afghanistan by the former Soviet Union, an invasion that ran counter to international law due to Afghanistan’s status as sovereign and independent. The set of agreements that the Soviet Union signed on to in 1975 with 34 other countries (i.e. the Helsinki Final Act) incorporated rights inherent in a country’s sovereignty, refraining from the threat or use of force, the rights of peoples to self-determination, and acceptance of international conduct principles. In short, the Soviet Union’s invasion and attempted occupation of Afghanistan had struck at the very heart of these principles, and its invasion had severely damaged the international climate and greatly damaged East-West relations.

  • Podcast: Open Skies

    What was a Russian military plane doing taking pictures over Washington, DC? Arms control experts Alexandra Bell, Senior Policy Director at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, and Anthony Wier, Legislative Secretary for Nuclear Disarmament and Pentagon Spending at the Friends Committee on National Legislation, discuss the Treaty on Open Skies. The Open Skies agreement fosters inter-military transparency and cooperation among 34 different countries—including the United States and Russia—by allowing participants to overfly each other’s territory to record and share imagery of military and other installations. During the episode, Bell and Weir outline the role of Open Skies in the Euro-Atlantic security architecture, the treaty’s benefits, the complexity of execution, and current challenges in implementation. "Helsinki on the Hill" is series of conversations hosted by the U.S. Helsinki Commission on human rights and comprehensive security in Europe and beyond. The Helsinki Commission, formally known as the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe, promotes human rights, military security, and economic cooperation in 57 countries in Europe, Eurasia, and North America. Transcript | Episode 4: Open Skies | Helsinki on the Hill

  • Our Impact by Country

Pages