— Leave a Comment

Assessing the Integration of Artificial Intelligence into National Security Assessments

Editor’s Note:  This article was written by an Artificial Intelligence based on a prompt that it received from a human.  As such, we recommend you do your own research to confirm or refute the content of this article before using it to inform your actions or inactions.  We also ask that you tolerate any deviations from our traditional  formats or writing style that are present in this article.  This article is part of an experiment of sorts that we did as for our 2024 Call for Papers Team-Up with Blogs of War: An Artificial Intelligence Wrote This Article.  For more information click here.  

Mike White is a Senior Customs Officer with the New Zealand Customs Service. He holds a MIntSy (Master’s Degree) in Intelligence and an MA in Defence and Security Studies, both from Massey University. Divergent Options’ content does not contain information of an official nature nor does the content represent the official position of any government, any organization, or any group.

Summary: Integrating AI into national security assessments presents both significant advantages, such as enhanced data processing capabilities, and serious risks, including vulnerability to manipulation and loss of human oversight. A balanced approach that combines AI’s strengths with human judgment is essential for maintaining national security integrity.

Text:  The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) into national security assessments represents a watershed moment in the evolution of defense and intelligence strategies. This development promises to revolutionize the way national security threats are identified, analyzed, and countered. However, this technological leap also introduces complex risks that could potentially compromise the very security it aims to enhance. The dual-edged nature of AI’s application in this domain necessitates a thorough analysis of its implications for national security.

Advantages of AI in National Security Assessments

The primary advantage of incorporating AI into national security operations lies in its unparalleled data processing capabilities. AI can analyze vast amounts of data—from satellite imagery to communications intercepts—far more rapidly and accurately than human analysts. This efficiency can significantly enhance threat identification and situational awareness, allowing for more timely and informed decision-making.

Moreover, AI algorithms can detect patterns and anomalies that may elude human observers, potentially uncovering subtle signals of emerging threats. By integrating machine learning, these systems can continuously improve their analytical accuracy and adapt to new, evolving challenges without explicit reprogramming. This dynamic learning capability ensures that national security assessments remain relevant in the face of rapidly changing global threats.

AI can also automate routine analytical tasks, freeing human analysts to focus on more complex and nuanced aspects of national security. This division of labor can increase the overall effectiveness and efficiency of intelligence operations, ensuring that human expertise is applied where it is most needed.

Risks and Challenges

Despite these advantages, the integration of AI into national security assessments is not without significant risks. One of the foremost concerns is the vulnerability of AI systems to manipulation. Adversaries could potentially exploit weaknesses in AI algorithms, feeding them misleading information to skew analyses and decision-making processes. This vulnerability underscores the critical need for robust cybersecurity measures and continuous monitoring of AI systems to detect and mitigate such threats.

Another significant risk is the potential for over-reliance on AI, which could lead to a diminishment of human oversight and critical thinking in the assessment process. AI algorithms, for all their sophistication, lack the contextual understanding, ethical judgment, and flexibility that human analysts bring to national security assessments. This limitation can result in oversights or misinterpretations of complex situations, which could have grave consequences for national security.

Additionally, the use of AI in national security raises ethical and legal concerns, particularly regarding accountability and transparency. Decisions based on AI analyses might be difficult to explain or justify, given the often-opaque nature of machine learning algorithms. This “black box” problem complicates efforts to maintain accountability in national security decision-making processes.

Balancing AI and Human Judgement

Given these advantages and risks, a balanced approach that leverages the strengths of AI while mitigating its vulnerabilities is essential. This approach should involve a synergistic partnership between AI and human analysts, where AI handles the bulk of data processing and initial analysis, while humans provide oversight, ethical judgment, and contextual understanding. Such a partnership could enhance the accuracy and effectiveness of national security assessments while safeguarding against the risks associated with over-reliance on AI.

Moreover, establishing clear guidelines and ethical standards for the use of AI in national security is crucial. These guidelines should address concerns related to accountability, transparency, and the protection of civil liberties, ensuring that AI-enhanced assessments are conducted responsibly and ethically.

Conclusion

The use of AI in national security assessments offers substantial benefits, including improved efficiency, accuracy, and adaptability in threat analysis. However, these advantages come with significant risks, such as vulnerability to manipulation, loss of human oversight, and ethical concerns. A balanced approach that combines the strengths of AI with human judgment and ethical considerations is vital for harnessing the potential of AI in national security without compromising the integrity and effectiveness of assessments. As such, AI should augment rather than replace human-created assessments, ensuring that national security decisions are informed by both technological capabilities and human insight.

Endnotes:

The following prompt was given to ChatGPT-4 by Mike White: 

—–BEGIN—–

In 1000 words, assess the risk to national security of using AI to make or assist in the making of national security assessments. Address the advantages and disadvantages. Can/should AI created assessment replace human created ones.

Use the following format: 

Title: Note: Titles will always begin with “Assessment of” 

Date Originally Written: Month, Day, Year. 

Date Originally Published: Month, Day, Year. 

Article Point of View: short description of the central thesis of the assessment.

Summary: Note: “Summary” will be five lines of text maximum. 

Text: Note: This part of the article, called “Text,” is what will be counted against the 1,000-word limit. 

—–END—–

Artificial Intelligence (As an Author) Artificial Intelligence / Machine Learning / Human-Machine Teaming Assessment Papers Blogs of War Governing Documents and Ideas Mike White
— Leave a Comment

Cyber in Area Denial in Littoral Environments

Editor’s Note:  This article was written by an Artificial Intelligence based on a prompt that it received from a human.  As such, we recommend you do your own research to confirm or refute the content of this article before using it to inform your actions or inactions.  We also ask that you tolerate any deviations from our traditional  formats or writing style that are present in this article.  This article is part of an experiment of sorts that we did as for our 2024 Call for Papers Team-Up with Blogs of War: An Artificial Intelligence Wrote This Article.  For more information click here.  

Jason Atwell is an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve and currently employed at Google Public Sector. Divergent Options’ content does not contain information of an official nature nor does the content represent the official position of any government, any organization, or any group.

National Security Situation:  Cyber in Area Denial in Littoral Environments

Date Originally Written:  April 9, 2024.

Date Originally Published:  May 6, 2024.

Author and / or Article Point of View:  Author is a tech employee and reserve military member who believes in the operational integration of cyber capabilities to achieve effects across warfare domains.

Background:  Littoral environments, the areas where land meets sea, are increasingly contested as potential flashpoints for conflict. Adversaries seek to deny access, impede freedom of navigation, and project power in these complex battlegrounds. Cyber operations offer a means to disrupt adversary capabilities, gain an asymmetric advantage, and support conventional operations in these critical zones.

Significance:  Effective cyber operations within littoral environments hold direct implications for national security. Successful area denial strategies by adversaries can destabilize regions, disrupt global trade routes, and challenge the ability of nations to defend their coastlines and interests. These effects ripple outwards to economic security, diplomatic relationships, and the broader balance of power.

Option #1:  Integrated Cyber-Enabled Maneuver

Develop and operationalize concepts for integrating cyber capabilities tightly into naval and joint force maneuver. This includes:

Kinetic and Cyber Effects: Pairing cyberattacks with conventional strikes to disable adversary command and control, degrade sensors, and disrupt logistics networks.

Cyber-Enabled Deception: Using cyber techniques to create false sensor readings, mislead adversaries, and create tactical advantages during maneuvers.

Resilient Networks: Hardening communication networks against cyber intrusion to ensure seamless command and control in a contested environment.

Risk:  Tight cyber integration within maneuver warfare increases reliance on networks, potentially creating vulnerabilities if those networks are compromised.  Furthermore, offensive cyber actions could lead to escalation from adversaries.

Gain:  Integrated cyber capabilities augment the lethality and agility of conventional forces within littorals. This enhances deterrence, complicates adversary decision-making, and creates a decisive advantage for power projection.

Option #2:  Cyber-Focused Area Denial

Use cyber capabilities as a primary means of denying adversaries freedom of action within littoral zones. This focuses on:

Disrupting Adversary Systems: Targeting enemy ships, coastal defenses, and communication hubs with cyberattacks to impede operations and coordination.

Cyber-enabled Mine Warfare: Augmenting traditional minefields with cyber capabilities to selectively target and disable specific adversary vessels.

Defensive Cyber Posture: Prioritizing network hardening and rapid response protocols to ensure the integrity of defensive infrastructure within littoral zones.

Risk:  Over-reliance on cyber-focused area denial could neglect conventional force development, creating an imbalance in capabilities. It also raises ethical concerns regarding cyberattacks as a primary means of warfare.

Gain:  Prioritizing cyber as a tool of area denial offers a potentially cost-effective and asymmetric approach to counter adversaries and deter aggression within these key environments.

The Need for Balance and Adaptability

Neither option exists in a vacuum. An effective approach demands tailored strategies blending elements of both, alongside ongoing investments in conventional force readiness. The ever-evolving nature of cyber warfare emphasizes the critical need for rapid innovation, flexible command and control structures, and a culture that values inter-domain integration.

Key Considerations

International Law: Offensive cyber operations within international waters will need to be carefully aligned with legal frameworks and evolving norms.

Technological Edge: Maintaining a technological advantage in cyber capabilities is crucial for successful execution in contested littorals.

Ethical Considerations: The responsible and proportional use of cyber capabilities in warfare must be at the forefront of strategic and operational planning.

Effective integration of cyber operations into area denial strategies within littoral environments offers a powerful tool to deter aggression, protect national interests, and shape the future battlespace.

Endnotes:

The following prompt was given to Gemini by Jason Atwell:

—–BEGIN PROMPT—–

Write a maximum 1,000 word article on national security as it relates to the information environment using the following template: “National Security Situation: Cyber in Area Denial in Littoral Environments. Date Originally Written: Month, Day, Year. Date Originally Published: Month, Day, Year. Author and / or Article Point of View: Author is a tech employee and reserve military member who believes in leveraging cyber in realistic operational ways to achieve effects in other domains. Background: A tightly-worded description of the national security situation and the driving forces[1]. Significance: Why does this national security situation matter? What is the impact? To whom does the national security situation matter? Option #1: Something that could be done to address one or more aspects of the national security situation[2]. Risk: What is the risk to undertaking Option #1? Note: Risks can take a variety of forms. Here are some examples: – Political (e.g. ruin a reputation or alliances or cause distrust in the international community) – People (e.g. military or civilian deaths) – Resources (e.g. spending money on an endless war) – Organizational (e.g. focusing on counterinsurgency so long that you forget how to fight a conventional war) – Balancing present and future challenges (e.g. if we do X now, we won’t be able to do Y in the future, and Y has worse ramifications in the future than X does now) Gain: What is the gain to undertaking Option #1? Option #2: Something different from Option #1 that could be done to address one or more aspects of the national security situation. Note: The focus is on being DIFFERENT from Option #1. As an example, cyber could play a role in degrading command and control or undermining adversary confidence in their systems, thereby helping conventional forces deter aggression. This is especially critical in littoral environments, where technology will play an outsized role in enabling effective coordination over long distances far removed from support structures and bases.

—–END PROMPT—–

Artificial Intelligence (As an Author) Blogs of War Cyberspace Jason Atwell Maritime Option Papers
— Leave a Comment

Using Cyber Operations to Achieve Cognitive Domain Impact

Editor’s Note:  This article was written by an Artificial Intelligence based on a prompt that it received from a human.  As such, we recommend you do your own research to confirm or refute the content of this article before using it to inform your actions or inactions.  We also ask that you tolerate any deviations from our traditional  formats or writing style that are present in this article.  This article is part of an experiment of sorts that we did as for our 2024 Call for Papers Team-Up with Blogs of War: An Artificial Intelligence Wrote This Article.  For more information click here.  

Jason Atwell is an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve and currently employed at Google Public Sector. Divergent Options’ content does not contain information of an official nature nor does the content represent the official position of any government, any organization, or any group.

National Security Situation:  Using Cyber Operations to Achieve Cognitive Domain Impact

Date Originally Written:  April 9, 2024.

Date Originally Published:  April 29, 2024.

Author and /  or Article Point of View:  Author is a tech employee and reserve military member who believes in balancing foreign influence mitigation with preserving individual liberties and private sector independence.

Background:  The information environment has become a contested battleground where state and non-state actors vie for control over narratives and perceptions. Disinformation, propaganda, and cyberattacks target the cognitive domain, seeking to undermine trust, sow division, and influence decision-making within nations. Foreign adversaries exploit vulnerabilities within social media platforms and emerging technologies to manipulate public opinion and disrupt democratic processes.

Significance:  The integrity of the information environment is directly linked to national security. Foreign malign influence campaigns can erode public trust in institutions, destabilize societies, and even incite violence. The impact extends beyond individuals, affecting governments, businesses, and the core ideals of free societies.

Option #1:  Proactive Collaboration and Resilience

Governments and technology companies could forge stronger partnerships prioritizing transparency and information sharing. Such collaboration would focus on:

Early detection: Sharing threat intelligence enables platforms to swiftly identify and disrupt coordinated disinformation campaigns.

Media Literacy: Joint public awareness campaigns to build societal resilience against disinformation tactics.

Adaptable Regulation: Developing flexible frameworks to address evolving threats like deepfakes without stifling innovation or free speech.

Risk:  Excessive regulation or overreliance on tech companies could raise censorship concerns and undermine trust in both government and the private sector.

Gain:  A more proactive approach mitigates foreign influence, strengthens public trust, and fosters a resilient information space without jeopardizing core freedoms.

Option #2:  Strategic Counter-Influence Operations

Governments could invest in dedicated capabilities to counter foreign influence in the information space. This involves:

Narrative Development: Crafting compelling counter-messaging to expose adversarial disinformation and promote democratic values.

Targeted Disruption: Disabling accounts and networks linked to foreign influence operations, albeit with rigorous safeguards.

International Coalitions: Building alliances with like-minded nations to amplify counter-influence efforts and establish norms for responsible state behavior.

Risk:  Overt counter-influence risks escalating tensions with adversaries and could fuel accusations of censorship or manipulation. It also demands careful ethical considerations.

Gain:  Strategic counter-influence disrupts adversarial campaigns, protects vulnerable populations from manipulation, and potentially deters future attempts.

Balancing Act

Both options carry risks and potential benefits.  A hybrid approach may be optimal, combining proactive measures to strengthen societal resilience with targeted counter-influence operations where necessary. The core challenge lies in upholding the principles of democracy and civil liberties while protecting the nation from the very real threats posed by malicious actors in the information environment.

Key considerations:

The Long Game: Countering malign influence requires sustained, strategic investment rather than knee-jerk reactions.

Ethical Frameworks: Transparency and clear guidelines are crucial to prevent abuses and maintain public trust.

Adaptability: The information landscape evolves rapidly, demanding flexibility and innovative solutions from both government and the private sector.

The security of the information environment is a complex, multifaceted challenge. It demands thoughtful collaboration between government, the tech sector, and civil society to protect the integrity of democracy while preserving the freedoms that define it.

Endnotes:

The following prompt was given to Gemini by Jason Atwell:

—–BEGIN PROMPT—–

Write a maximum 1,000 word article on national security as it relates to the information environment using the following template: “National Security Situation: Using Cyber Operations to Achieve Cognitive Domain Impact. Date Originally Written: Month, Day, Year. Date Originally Published: Month, Day, Year. Author and / or Article Point of View: Author is a tech employee and reserve military member. Author believes in balancing responsibility to mitigate foreign malign influence while also preserving individual liberties and the independence of the private sector. Background: A tightly-worded description of the national security situation and the driving forces[1]. Significance: Why does this national security situation matter? What is the impact? To whom does the national security situation matter? Option #1: Something that could be done to address one or more aspects of the national security situation[2]. Risk: What is the risk to undertaking Option #1? Note: Risks can take a variety of forms. Here are some examples: – Political (e.g. ruin a reputation or alliances or cause distrust in the international community) – People (e.g. military or civilian deaths) – Resources (e.g. spending money on an endless war) – Organizational (e.g. focusing on counterinsurgency so long that you forget how to fight a conventional war) – Balancing present and future challenges (e.g. if we do X now, we won’t be able to do Y in the future, and Y has worse ramifications in the future than X does now) Gain: What is the gain to undertaking Option #1? Option #2: Something different from Option #1 that could be done to address one or more aspects of the national security situation. Note: The focus is on being DIFFERENT from Option #1. As an example, there is much debate around whether it is best to focus on this from a reactive perspective, i.e. disrupting things like Russian troll farms and punishing platforms who fail to eliminate certain types of content, or a proactive perspective, such as focusing on positive messaging, building public trust, and working with platforms to place guardrails on speech, though this invokes concerns around censorship. Furthermore, regulations often have a hard time keeping pace with emerging threats such as those involving deepfakes and AI.

—–END PROMPT—–

Artificial Intelligence (As an Author) Blogs of War Influence Operations Jason Atwell Option Papers
— Leave a Comment

Virtual Frontlines: The Cognitive Warfare Implications of Hackable AR Technology in Military Operations

Editor’s Note:  This article was written by an Artificial Intelligence based on a prompt that it received from a human.  As such, we recommend you do your own research to confirm or refute the content of this article before using it to inform your actions or inactions.  We also ask that you tolerate any deviations from our traditional  formats or writing style that are present in this article.  This article is part of an experiment of sorts that we did as for our 2024 Call for Papers Team-Up with Blogs of War: An Artificial Intelligence Wrote This Article.  For more information click here.  

Steven Davic is a Senior Systems Engineer at the MITRE Corporation and an Editor at the Information Professionals Association. His research focuses on social and behavioral sciences applied to complex systems. He studied Intelligence Analysis (B.S.), Anthropology (B.S.), and Psychology at James Madison University and is an M.A. candidate in the Behavioral Economics program at The Chicago School. He previously served in the United States Marine Corps as an infantry leader and research fellow.   Divergent Options’ content does not contain information of an official nature nor does the content represent the official position of any government, any organization, or any group.

Let’s dive into creating a structured essay on this intriguing and complex topic. I’ll begin with the main text, focusing on describing the situation regarding augmented reality (AR) goggles in military use, assessing its significance, and detailing the impact of action or inaction. This will help us form a coherent narrative that we can then encapsulate with a fitting title and summary.

Main Text

Introduction to Augmented Reality in Military Operations

In the digital age, the battleground has transcended physical realms, venturing into the cyber and cognitive spaces where information is both a weapon and a target. A significant technological advancement marking this transition is the adoption of augmented reality (AR) goggles in military operations. These devices project vital data, such as maps, enemy locations, and tactical information, directly into the soldier’s field of vision, melding the digital and physical worlds to enhance situational awareness and decision-making capabilities. However, the integration of such sophisticated technology into the fabric of military strategy introduces new vulnerabilities, particularly the risk of these devices being hacked, which can have profound implications for cognitive warfare.

The Significance of Cybersecurity Threats in AR Applications

The significance of cybersecurity threats in the use of AR goggles on the battlefield cannot be overstated. As soldiers become increasingly reliant on digital tools for navigation, communication, and combat, the potential for these tools to be compromised grows. Hackable AR devices represent a critical chink in the armor of modern military forces, offering adversaries a backdoor to disrupt operations without firing a single shot. The threats range from the interception and manipulation of data to the complete takeover of the AR system, each scenario carrying the potential to sow confusion, misdirect operations, or even cause friendly fire incidents.

Cognitive Warfare: The Battle for the Mind

The implications of compromised AR technology extend beyond mere tactical disadvantages to represent a more insidious form of conflict: cognitive warfare. This form of warfare targets the soldier’s mind, aiming to degrade decision-making abilities, distort perception, and undermine morale. By hacking into AR goggles, an adversary can feed false information, create illusions, or overlay misleading data onto the real world, effectively weaponizing the soldier’s senses against them. The psychological toll of such attacks can lead to decision fatigue, increased stress levels, and a breakdown in trust among units and their technology, eroding the effectiveness of the force from the inside out.

Impact of Action vs. Inaction

The response to this emerging threat can dictate the future of warfare and the role of technology within it. Proactive measures, including the development of secure communication protocols, regular software updates and patches, and the incorporation of machine learning algorithms for anomaly detection, can significantly mitigate the risk of AR goggles being hacked. Additionally, training soldiers to recognize signs of cyber interference and to rely on traditional skills as a backup can ensure operational integrity even when digital tools are compromised.

Conversely, inaction or a sluggish response to these vulnerabilities can have dire consequences. As military operations become increasingly dependent on AR and other digital technologies, the failure to secure these systems can leave forces blindsided in a domain where they believed they had the upper hand. The result could be catastrophic, not only in terms of immediate operational outcomes but also in the long-term psychological impact on soldiers who must grapple with the unreliability of their tools in the heat of battle.

Title: “Virtual Frontlines: The Cognitive Warfare Implications of Hackable AR Technology in Military Operations”

Summary

This essay explores the integration of augmented reality (AR) goggles into military operations, highlighting the transformative potential of this technology to enhance situational awareness and decision-making on the battlefield. However, it also brings to light the significant cybersecurity threats posed by such technology, particularly the risk of hacking, which could have devastating implications for cognitive warfare. By delving into the mechanisms of these threats, their potential impact on soldiers’ cognitive processes, and the broader implications for military strategy, the discussion underscores the urgency of developing robust countermeasures. These include advanced cybersecurity protocols, continuous training for soldiers to recognize cyber threats, and a balanced reliance on both technology and traditional combat skills. The essay concludes by reflecting on the importance of proactive measures to secure AR technologies, emphasizing that the effectiveness of future military operations depends not only on the advancement of technology but also on the ability to safeguard the minds of those who wield it.

This comprehensive analysis provides a deep dive into the complex interplay between technological advancement and security in the context of modern warfare, urging a forward-looking approach to protecting soldiers not just from physical threats but also from those lurking within their augmented realities.

Endnotes:

The following prompt was given to ChatGPT-4 by Steven Davic:

—–BEGIN PROMPT—–

“I want you to write an essay between 800 to 1000 words that discusses the threat imposed by soldiers wearing potentially hackable augmented reality goggles while on the battlefield.  I’m interested in the cognitive warfare point of view of this threat. The article will consist of 4 sections.

Title: (write this after summary)

Article Point of View: 

Summary (write this after completing the main text)

Text (This should be between 800-1000 words, in this text I want you to describe the situation, assess its significance, and describe the impact of action or inaction)”

—–END PROMPT—–

Artificial Intelligence (As an Author) Blogs of War Cyberspace Mindset Steven Davic
— Leave a Comment

Chinese Activities in Kiribati

Editor’s Note:  This article was written by an Artificial Intelligence based on a prompt that it received from a human.  As such, we recommend you do your own research to confirm or refute the content of this article before using it to inform your actions or inactions.  We also ask that you tolerate any deviations from our traditional  formats or writing style that are present in this article.  This article is part of an experiment of sorts that we did as for our 2024 Call for Papers Team-Up with Blogs of War: An Artificial Intelligence Wrote This Article.  For more information click here.  

Kyle McCarter has served in the United States Army for over 20 years. He presently works as an operations officer and planner in the Indo-Pacific area of responsibility. Divergent Options’ content does not contain information of an official nature nor does the content represent the official position of any government, any organization, or any group.

National Security Situation:  Chinese Activities in Kiribati

Date Originally Written: March 17, 2024

Date Originally Published:  April 8, 2024

Author and / or Article Point of View:  The author is an active-duty U.S. Army Officer who believes in freedom of navigation, the importance of AUKUS (the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), and perceives Chinese presence in Kiribati as a threat.

Background:  The island nation of Kiribati, located in the central Pacific Ocean, has recently become a focal point of geopolitical competition. China’s increasing activities in Kiribati, including infrastructure development, economic investments, and military presence, have raised concerns among the United States and its allies. Kiribati’s strategic location makes it an essential outpost for power projection and maritime dominance in the Pacific region.

Significance:  The national security situation in Kiribati holds significant implications for regional stability and global power dynamics. As China expands its influence in Kiribati, it threatens the longstanding security architecture led by the United States in the Indo-Pacific. The establishment of Chinese military facilities in Kiribati could disrupt vital sea lanes, endangering freedom of navigation and undermining the rules-based international order. Moreover, Kiribati’s alignment with China could weaken the AUKUS alliance and exacerbate tensions between the United States and China.

Option #1:  To address the Chinese activities in Kiribati, the United States could strengthen its diplomatic and economic engagement with Kiribati. This includes offering increased development assistance, promoting sustainable infrastructure projects, and fostering closer ties through bilateral agreements. By bolstering Kiribati’s resilience and capacity to resist Chinese influence, the United States can mitigate the threat posed by China’s presence in the region.

Risk:  However, pursuing this option carries political risks, as it may strain relations with China and trigger retaliatory measures. China could respond by escalating its activities in Kiribati, deepening its economic entanglement with the island nation, and marginalizing U.S. influence. Moreover, increased U.S. involvement in Kiribati could fuel suspicions of neocolonialism and provoke domestic opposition within Kiribati, complicating efforts to counter Chinese influence effectively.

Gain:  Despite the risks, Option #1 offers several potential gains. By fortifying Kiribati’s ties with the United States and its allies, it can bolster regional security and preserve the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific. Additionally, enhanced cooperation with Kiribati can facilitate intelligence-sharing, maritime surveillance, and joint military exercises, strengthening the collective defense against common threats, including illegal fishing, transnational crime, and maritime disputes.

Option #2:  Alternatively, the United States could pursue a multilateral approach to address Chinese activities in Kiribati. This involves rallying regional partners, such as Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, to coordinate a unified response to China’s expansionism in the Pacific. Through joint diplomatic initiatives, economic incentives, and security cooperation, the United States and its allies can exert collective pressure on Kiribati to resist Chinese overtures and uphold democratic values and transparency.

Risk:  However, Option #2 carries the risk of diplomatic discord and strategic divergence among U.S. allies. Differences in geopolitical interests, economic priorities, and historical ties could undermine the effectiveness of multilateral efforts to counter Chinese influence in Kiribati. Moreover, China’s economic leverage and strategic patience may undermine the resolve of regional partners, leading to fragmentation and discord within the coalition.

Gain:  Despite the challenges, Option #2 offers the potential for greater strategic alignment and burden-sharing among U.S. allies in the Indo-Pacific. By leveraging collective resources and capabilities, the United States and its partners can enhance their capacity to shape the security environment in Kiribati and uphold shared principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and international law. Additionally, a united front against Chinese expansionism can send a clear signal of deterrence and resilience, dissuading other vulnerable nations in the region from succumbing to Chinese coercion.

Other Comments:  The national security situation in Kiribati underscores the complex interplay of economic, political, and strategic interests in the Indo-Pacific. As China seeks to expand its influence in the region, the United States and its allies must adapt their approaches to safeguard regional stability and uphold a free and open order. By engaging proactively with Kiribati and fostering cooperation among like-minded partners, the United States can effectively counter Chinese coercion and preserve its leadership role in the Indo-Pacific.

Recommendation:  None.

Endnotes:

The following prompt was given to ChatGPT 3.5 by Kyle McCarter:

—–BEGIN PROMPT—–

Write a maximum 1,000 word article on a pressing US national security issue specific to the island nation of Kiribati using the following template: “National Security Situation: Chinese Activities in Kiribati. 

Date Originally Written: Month, Day, Year. 

Date Originally Published: Month, Day, Year. 

Author and / or Article Point of View: Author is an active-duty U.S. Army Officer. Author believes in freedom of navigation, the importance of AUKUS, and that Chinese presence in Kiribati is a threat. And / or the article is written from the point of view of the United States towards China, Kiribati towards China, or the China towards the United States.

Background: A tightly worded description of the national security situation and the driving forces. 

Significance: Why does this national security situation matter? What is the impact? To whom does the national security situation matter? 

Option #1: Something that could be done to address one or more aspects of the national security situation. 

Risk: What is the risk to undertaking Option #1? Note: Risks can take a variety of forms. Here are some examples: – Political (e.g. ruin the AUKUS alliances or cause distrust in the international community against China) – People (e.g. military or civilian casualties) – Resources (e.g. economic collapse, protracted war, resource constraints) – Organizational (e.g. loss of focus on other regions of the globe) 

Gain: What is the gain to undertaking Option #1? 

Option #2: Something different from Option #1 that could be done to address one or more aspects of the national security situation. Note: The focus is on being DIFFERENT from Option #1. When developing options, think differences–not variations on a theme.

Risk: What is the risk to undertaking Option #2?

Gain: What is the gain to undertaking Option #2? 

Other Comments: Provide any other comments here that did not fit into the format above. If you have none type “None.” Please keep this short as the majority of the 1,000 words or less content should be above this area.

Recommendation: None.

—–END PROMPT—–

Artificial Intelligence (As an Author) Blogs of War China (People's Republic of China) Kiribati Kyle McCarter Option Papers