The Center for a New American Security (CNAS), a prominent Washington DC. 'think tank' report below lists most obvious serious and accelerating military threats but ignores threat prevention.
In its latest report Catalyzing Crisis: A Primer on Artificial Intelligence, Catastrophes, and National Security (June 11, 2024) its two authors wrote; “Given the wide range of potential applications for AI, including in biosecurity, military systems, and other high-risk domains, prudence demands proactive efforts to distinguish, prioritize, and mitigate risks. Indeed, past incidents related to finance, biological and chemical weapons, cybersecurity, and nuclear command and control all hint at possible AI-related catastrophes in the future, including AI-accelerated biological weapons of mass destruction (WMD) production, financial meltdowns from AI trading, or even accidental weapons exchanges from AI-enabled command and control systems. In addition to helping initiate crises, AI tools can also erode states’ abilities to cope with them by degrading their public information ecosystems, potentially making catastrophes more likely and their effects more severe.” Bill Drexel and Caleb Withers.
Note there was no mention of ‘prevention’ in this assessment regarding the most current US national security policy. This NGO has issued over 648 reports regarding U.S. security since its creation in 2007. https://www.cnas.org/reports And only three reports used the word ‘prevention’, with only in its 2010 report using "prevention' in the context of investing in preventing conflicts. In both the 2009 and 2013 reports the context of "prevention" was in keeping other nations from acquiring nuclear WMD. And one of those was in the context of ‘even if the use of force was needed.’
APRIL 25, 2009
report U.S.-DPRK Nuclear Negotiations: A Survey of the Policy Literature three
authors, Lindsey Ford, Michael J Zubrow and Zachary Hosford wrote, "North
Korea’s nuclear program is one of the longest-standing and most difficult
proliferation challenges the United States faces today. In many ways, the
regime and its nuclear program stand as relics of the Cold War, seemingly at
odds with the rapid development of the rest of the Asia-Pacific.
Yet as
negotiations have dragged on through the post-Cold War and post-9/11 eras, the
nature of the North Korean threat has evolved and become interwoven with the
new challenges of the 21st century. Like Presidents Bush and Clinton before
him, President Obama will likely discover that the issues he faces in North
Korea are both frustratingly static and ever-evolving.
Over the past
three administrations opinions about the most effective means to handle North
Korea have been sharply divided between hawks and doves, often (but overly
simplistically) represented by the partisan divide between the Republican and
Democratic Parties. The main points of contention between hawks and doves have
remained relatively constant over time, leading to an ongoing cycle of
repetitious policy debates. Three primary issues stand out in these debates:
1) containment
and/or regime change vs. engagement,
2) verification
of previous activities vs. prevention of future capabilities, and
3) sequencing – “nukes first” or an “all in” agreement. In addition to these debates, hawks and doves have often been divided amongst themselves over additional issues such as when and how to incorporate multilateral partners, whether to use a regional or global approach to nonproliferation policies, and how to balance an appropriate mix of “carrots” and “sticks”.
December 15, 2010
report Beyond Borders: Developing Comprehensive National Security Policies to
Address Complex Regional Challenges
Brian Burton and
Patrick M. Cronin wrote "To confront many of the national security
challenges facing the United States and its allies today, the U.S. government
must adopt new comprehensive approaches that transcend borders and government
agencies.
This report,
Beyond Borders: Developing Comprehensive National Security Policies to Address
Complex Regional Challenges authored by Patrick Cronin and Brian Burton, offers
recommendations for how the United States can further sharpen its understanding
of emerging hybrid regional challenges; improve governmental capacity for
regional decision-making and strategy-making by building on a regional COCOM
platform; and enhance its ability to build partners’ capacity, especially in
the areas of security sector assistance and crisis prevention."
In a May 13, 2013
report If All Else Fails: The Challenges of Containing a Nuclear-Armed Iran
three authors wrote "that the Obama administration is rightly committed to
preventing – not containing – a nuclear-armed Iran, but add that prevention
efforts, up to and including the use of force, could fail."
CNAS Mission
statement: The Center for a New American
Security (CNAS) is an independent, bipartisan, nonprofit organization that
develops strong, pragmatic, and principled national security and defense
policies. CNAS engages policymakers, experts, and the public with innovative,
fact-based research, ideas, and analysis to shape and elevate the national
security debate. A key part of our mission is to inform and prepare the
national security leaders of today and tomorrow.
Does their financing depend on others who don’t believe in
addressing root causes, or do they believe it’s too late for such wisdom?
**********
Background: CNAS performs
groundbreaking research and analysis to shape and elevate the national security
and foreign policy debate in Washington and beyond. Our dynamic research agenda
is designed to shape the choices of leaders in the U.S. government, the private
sector, and society to advance U.S. interests and strategy.
We have a track
record of attracting the best and brightest scholars and practitioners to lead
our research programs, and our board members, founders, leaders, scholars, and
interns have held or gone on to prominent positions in the U.S. government, at
the departments of Defense and State, the White House, and the Central
Intelligence Agency as well as in Congress and the private sector. As a result,
we benefit from a strong network of supporters in all corners of the
policymaking community.
We are committed
to creating a diverse and inclusive environment, without discrimination based
on race, color, religion, gender, gender identity or expression, sexual
orientation, national origin, genetics, disability, age, or veteran status.
CNAS is proud to be an equal opportunity employer.
CNAS is located
in Washington and was established in 2007 by co-founders Dr. Kurt M. Campbell
and Michèle A. Flournoy. Since the Center’s founding, our work has informed key
U.S. strategic choices and has been acted on by Republican and Democratic
leaders in the executive branch and on Capitol Hill.
CNAS is a 501(c)3 tax-exempt nonprofit organization. As a research and policy institution committed to the highest standards of organizational, intellectual, and personal integrity, CNAS maintains strict intellectual independence and sole editorial direction and control over its ideas, projects, publications, events, and other research activities. CNAS does not take institutional positions on policy issues and the content of CNAS publications reflects the views of their authors alone. In keeping with its mission and values, CNAS does not engage in lobbying activity and complies fully with all applicable federal, state, and local laws. CNAS will not engage in any representational activities or advocacy on behalf of any entities or interests and, to the extent that the Center accepts funding from non-U.S. sources, its activities will be limited to bona fide scholastic, academic, and research-related activities, consistent with applicable federal law. The Center publicly acknowledges on its website annually all donors who contribute.
Analysis of CNAS: How can the best and
brightest in our nation fail miserably in considering prevention of war given the evolution of weaponry? The evolution of technology and fear will likely end the 'civilized' freedom and security of about 20% of the world’s population, while knowing most of the rest of the world lacks one or both?
No comments:
Post a Comment