21 March 2019

India will never forget Pulwama attack: Ajit Doval

Vijaita Singh

National Security Advisor Ajit Doval said on March 19 that the country had neither forgotten, nor would it ever forget, the Pulwama terror attack.

This is the first time Mr. Doval is commenting on the terror attack that was followed by a precision air strike by the Indian Air Force on a training camp of terror outfit Jaish-e-Mohammad in Pakistan's Balakot.

Over 40 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel were killed on February 14 when a Jaish-e-Mohammad suicide-bomber rammed his car into a CRPF bus at Pulwama in south Kashmir.

Mr. Doval, who was the chief guest at the 80th Raising Day of the CRPF, said the country's leadership was capable of reacting to and retaliating any act of terror. “What we shall do, what should be our intention, our path, our reaction, the country’s leadership is capable to decide... whether the action is against terrorists or those who support these terrorists. We are ready to challenge this."

View: Draft e-commerce policy will wreak havoc on Indian startups

By Nehaa Chaudhari

On March 4, the US government announced that India would no longer be entitled to benefits under the Generalised System of Preferences programme, which allowed many Indian goods to be exported to the US duty-free. According to the US trade representative, this is because India had “implemented a wide array of trade barriers” that harmed US commerce. 

Last year, India had increased binding restrictions on foreign investments in ecommerce. It proposed guidelines that would make it mandatory for certain internet intermediaries to set up Indian companies & permanent registered offices in India. It also mandated that financial data be stored and processed only in India. 

The latest in a series of technology policy instruments to further a protectionist, nationalist agenda, is the draft national ecommerce policy, released last month. The proposed policy has many aims, including “empowering domestic entrepreneurs”, levelling the playing field for startups, and encouraging their participation in the digital economy. But the strategies it outlines for achieving these goals will end up harming Indian startups, raising market entry barriers, and preventing them from the innovation that will disrupt existing business models, and increase consumer choice. 

The Limits of India’s Soft Power in Afghanistan


In the shifting sands of the power play unfolding in Afghanistan, New Delhi remains a mere spectator.

The latest round of US negotiations with the Taliban in Doha has garnered considerable international attention, with the group’s co-founder, Mullah Baradar, leading the insurgent team. As the search for an end to the long war in Afghanistan has intensified, prospects of a quick-fix solution through peace negotiations by major powers like the US and Russia has left India in a quandary. New Delhi’s policy of unconditional support provided to the Afghan government is hitting a roadblock as Kabul is being increasingly sidelined not only in these externally mediated peace negotiations, but also in the internal reconfiguration that is taking place in the light of the ongoing negotiations and the upcoming presidential election.

However, with a possible delay of the elections and talk of establishing an interim government to achieve progress in the negotiating efforts, what are India’s policy options? Will New Delhi reach out to the Taliban and other stakeholders? Or will it continue with its present policy of support to the Afghan government? More importantly, will the benefits of the last decade of soft power translate into tangible gains? These are serious questions that New Delhi will be confronted with in the summer of 2019.

Afghans worry about the return of Shia fighters from Syria’s civil war

Alireza qanbari has still not told his parents the truth about what he did when he left Afghanistan for Iran. The 23-year-old is happy for his father to believe he worked as a labourer. In fact, he fought with an Afghan militia recruited by Iran to help prop up the government in Syria’s civil war. With the war now dying down, Afghan fighters are starting to come home. Just as the West agonises about the return of radicalised émigrés, many in Afghanistan worry about what the former fighters will do—and where their loyalties lie.

At its height, the Fatemiyoun, as the Afghan militia was known, had as many as 20,000 fighters, largely from the Hazara ethnic minority. Most Hazaras are Shia Muslims, as are the ruling elite in both Iran and Syria. Long downtrodden, Hazaras were especially persecuted by the Sunni Muslims of the Taliban. More recently the Afghan branch of Islamic State has launched terror attacks on Hazara targets.
Get our daily newsletter

Peace in Afghanistan: The Tumultuous Road Ahead

By Archana Atmakuri Roshni Kapur

The U.S. and Taliban have agreed to a draft agreement after 16 difficult and lengthy days of what is the latest round of negotiations. The talks began on 25 February and ended on 13 March, and although no final agreement has been reached, the two parties have come to terms on the question of a U.S. troop withdrawal and counterterrorism assurances. All this, without yet revealing the full details.

While progress towards peace has finally been taken, the road ahead for U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad and the United States remains long and tumultuous. “The conditions for peace have improved,” Khalilzad said late in the talks:

It’s clear all sides want to end the war. Despite ups and downs, we kept things on track and made real strides.

He went on to add that long-term peace in Afghanistan requires agreement on four issues: counter-terrorism assurances (essentially for the Taliban to disavow other terrorist groups), troop withdrawal, intra-Afghan dialogue, and a comprehensive ceasefire.

Who Are the Private Contractors Fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan?


An inside look at this invisible military force.

The debate on privatizing the war in Afghanistan is heating up yet again, with Democratic lawmakers pledging to end so-called “forever wars.” The public is slowly recognizing the war’s hidden costs and global scale.

In 2016, 1 in 4 U.S. armed personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan was a private contractor. This means that the war is already being outsourced, yet scholars, the media and the general public know almost nothing about it.

Because contractors operate in the shadows, without effective public oversight, they allow policymakers to have their cake and eat it too – by appearing to withdraw, while keeping proxy forces in theater. Who are the contractors who actually execute American policy? Are they equipped to succeed in this important task? What risks is the U.S. asking them to take?

Back To The Afghan Future: Security Challenges Of Reconstruction And Development – Analysis

By Gilles-Emmanuel Jacquet*

The current talks between the representatives of the Taliban and the US Government in Qatar are an important step but peace and stability are still beyond reach. Afghanistan’s reconstruction and durable development requires a satisfactory level of security and tackling issues such as unemployment, corruption, and armed violence.

Since 2001 many reconstruction and assistance efforts have been conducted in Afghanistan but their real impact is limited by the security context and corruption. Foreign material and financial assistance was affected by embezzlement and misappropriation. Many examples can be easily found in Kabul or all over the country. In Kabul’s Parwan-e-seh district, the main road was in a bad shape and looked as if it had been built during the 1970s or the 1980s. According to some local residents, the road had been built during the 2000s and the main cause of its deplorable condition was corruption : the road was 9 cm-thick, while it was supposed to be 18 cm-thick and its maintenance was almost nonexistent. In many rural areas schools were built with the financial support of foreign countries, NGOs or organizations but an important part of these funds have disappeared. As a result, these schools are often unfinished or badly constructed buildings where the furnitures, windows, heating system, decent toilets or electricity are missing.

Afghanistan: Prospects Of A Political Settlement With The Taliban – Analysis

By Dr Omar Sadr*

Around mid-March, the fifth round of negotiations between the US and the Taliban—the longest in the ongoing series—concluded in Doha, Qatar. In the US’ view, a negotiation that could be considered successful would be one which results in two important outcomes: first, re-organising US-Taliban relations, and second, re-designing the power configuration in Afghanistan through an accommodation of the Taliban in the country’s political framework. The US’ current engagement with the Taliban is anchored in the assumption that the conflict in Afghanistan has reached a military stalemate. In order to justify the abandonment of its long-held narrative of “no negotiation with the Taliban,” the US is struggling to construct a distinction between the Taliban and terrorists.

The current mode of negotiations indicates that the US is ready to accept the Taliban as a part of the political process in Afghanistan. If the current phase of negotiations succeeds, sooner or later, the Taliban should sit with the Government of Afghanistan to draw up a mechanism for the accommodation of the group. However, the answer to this question remains unclear: what are the institutional arrangements for the Taliban’s inclusion in the national politics of the country? Beyond generic rhetoric that the Taliban should be accommodated into the system, so far, there is no systematic analysis on the political mechanisms of the inclusion of the Taliban and on the pros and cons of each arrangement.

Taliban Capture About 150 Afghan Soldiers After Chase Into Turkmenistan

by Najim Rahim and Rod Nordland 

MAZAR-I-SHARIF, Afghanistan - The Taliban carried out the biggest known capture of Afghan soldiers of the war, taking 150 prisoners after they chased units into neighboring Turkmenistan and that country forced them back, Afghan officials said on Sunday.

The operation took place in the northwestern Afghan province of Badghis, and brought to 190 the number of soldiers captured by insurgents in the hotly contested district of Bala Murghab — with 16 more soldiers killed — in less than a week.

Last Monday, an entire Afghan Army company was killed or captured there. By Saturday, its defenders said the district had fallen mostly into Taliban control, though Afghan forces were still holding the district’s government center.

Where progress with China is most likely—and where it isn’t

On eight specific issues on which the United States has engaged intensively with China, the scorecard is quite mixed, writes David Dollar. This post is excerpted from a piece originally published with the Democracy Journal.

The beginning of China’s rise as a global power can be dated to the country’s accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001. Throughout the next 16 years of the Bush and Obama administrations, the United States engaged in intensive bilateral diplomacy with China with the aim of getting ever-greater Chinese support on issues ranging from security to the economy to the environment. The Bush administration launched a Strategic Economic Dialogue with China, and a separate Security Dialogue. President Obama combined these into a single Strategic and Economic Dialogue (S&ED). But the change in form was not important; the dialogues represented a continuous effort to draw China into the global system.

The Middle East’s Great Divide Is Not Sectarianism

By Hussein Agha and Robert Malley

The spectre of sectarianism haunts the Middle East. It is blamed for chaos, conflict, and extremism. It defines what is seen as the region’s principal fault line: Sunni versus Shiite. It has the power and elegance of a grand theory that seemingly explains all. Sunnis, embattled and embittered by Shiite ambitions, radicalize in large numbers, join Al Qaeda, or enlist in isis. Shiites, moved by the anxiety of a minority, overstep and seek power far in excess of their numbers.

Past and present tensions between the two main branches of Islam inarguably play a part in the region’s dynamics. But the vast majority of recent violence that has brought desolation and ruin to large parts of the Middle East has little to do with those strains. The bloodiest, most vicious, and most pertinent struggles occur squarely inside the Sunni world. Sectarianism is a politically expedient fable, conveniently used to cover up old-fashioned power struggles, maltreatment of minorities, and cruel totalitarian practices.

The Arab Gulf's Tall Task to Transform the Populace

Much like the USSR's failure to create a New Soviet Man, the Arab Gulf states' attempts to cultivate transformed, economically productive citizens are likely to founder due to a lack of local support. 

As Gulf Arab states encounter public resistance to their policies of economic reform, they are likely to fall back upon traditional means of pacifying their populations, such as massive public subsidies. 

At the same time, growing nationalism that the Gulf's royals houses cannot control could create more conflict in the region. 

Some blessings are also curses — or so the Gulf Arab states of the Persian Gulf have discovered. Though blessed with vast quantities of hydrocarbons, the countries are cursed with the looming knowledge that the world will not pay ever-higher prices for them. To meet the price of modernity and reform their economies, the Gulf states have embarked upon sweeping national identity projects to transform the tribes and sects of their countries into productive, globally competitive and loyal citizens of sustainable nation-states. But while such plans appear destined for success on paper (or PowerPoint), reality may be a different proposition altogether: A lack of local buy-in may scuttle these ambitious projects to coax citizens into becoming economically productive citizens, leaving a patchwork of half-implemented reforms — while rumbling nationalism threatens to foment conflict.

The New Zealand Shooting and the Challenges of Governing Live-Streamed Video

By Neima Jahromi

On Friday afternoon, in Christchurch, New Zealand, a man parked his car in an alleyway outside Al Noor Mosque. Six minutes later, dozens of people were dead or wounded. We know far too much about what happened in between, because the shooter streamed it all to Facebook Live. A post on a far-right Internet forum hosted by the Web site 8chan directed users to the stream; quickly, video of the shooting spread across YouTube and Instagram. A manifesto was shared on Twitter, filled with references to Donald Trump, right-wing American punditry, and white-supremacist memes.

I spoke with Sarah T. Roberts, a professor of information studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, who, over the past eight years, has become an authority on the content-moderation strategies employed by tech companies. (Her book “Behind the Screen: Content Moderation in the Shadows of Social Media” will be published by Yale University Press, in June.) In recent years, Roberts has watched with incredulity as companies such as Twitter and Facebook encouraged users to begin streaming live video. “There are not enough moderators in the world to monitor every live stream,” she said. Social-media platforms were already struggling to moderate content posted in the usual way; live-streamed video, which can attract large audiences almost instantly, is even more challenging.

The New Zealand Attack and the Global Challenge of Far-Right Extremism

The March 15 terrorist attack against two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, is symptomatic of a rising trend in right-wing extremism. Far-right attacks across the globe have increased because of immigration fears, far-right utilization of social media, and the inter-connectedness of extremist networks around the globe.

The March 2019 terrorist attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, was appalling. The perpetrator, believed to be a 28-year-old Australian named Brenton Tarrant, gunned down at least 49 people at two mosques in central Christchurch. In a manifesto released prior to the attack, the gunman raged about the low birthrates of whites, the mass immigration of foreigners, and the higher fertility rates of immigrants. The rambling 74-page manifesto concluded that “this crisis of mass immigration and sub-replacement fertility is an assault on the European people that, if not combated, will ultimately result in the complete racial and cultural replacement of the European people.”i

Sadly, Christchurch is not an isolated attack. Terrorist attacks by far-right adherents have risen significantly over the past decade. Between 2007 and 2011, the number of far-right attacks in the United States was five or fewer per year. The number of attacks then rose to 14 in 2012, and eventually jumped to 31 in 2017.ii

Trump Is Repeating the Mistakes of America’s Interwar Isolationists

Stewart M. Patrick

Tuesday marks the centenary of one of the most extraordinary foreign policy debates in American history, which has renewed resonance today. On March 19, 1919, 3,000 lucky spectators crammed into Boston Symphony Hall to hear Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, square off against A. Lawrence Lowell, the president of Harvard University. Both men were Republicans and Boston Brahmins. But they disagreed on a big political question. Should the United States, having helped win the Great War, join a League of Nations to defend the peace? The Lodge-Lowell debate was the opening salvo in a titanic, yearlong battle over President Woodrow Wilson’s internationalist vision.

It is remarkable how current the transcript reads. In the age of Donald Trump, Americans are again divided over whether multilateral cooperation is consistent with national sovereignty. Until recently, this question seemed resolved. From Franklin D. Roosevelt through Barack Obama, 13 successive U.S. presidents embraced global leadership, upheld international institutions and managed an open, liberal world order. 

Ankara Calculates the Risks of an Offensive in Northeastern Syria

Amid the U.S. drawdown of forces from Syria, Turkey is gearing up for further incursions in the country to reduce the power of the Syrian Democratic Forces. Residual U.S. and allied forces will remain, however, raising the risk of a miscalculation or confrontation as Turkish forces push into the area. Despite improved ties with Russia, Ankara will also have to contend with Moscow's opposition to Turkey's full ambitions in the country. 

With the United States on the cusp of a significant withdrawal from northern Syria and Turkey continuing to court better relations with Russia, Ankara is gearing up to cross its southern border to pursue its cherished goal of taking on the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). But even as Turkey might soon enjoy clear sailing into northeastern Syria to seek to drive the SDF away from key positions, particularly around the Euphrates, pitfalls remain. From remaining U.S. forces to possible Russian resistance, Ankara's likely offensive into the area could even drag it into a dangerous conflict with the numerous other countries involved in Syria.

y Waiting for a Reality Check in Crimea, Five Years on

By Sim Tack

Russia has solidified its control over Crimea, but the contestation of that control by Ukraine and the West continues to loom large in their respective relations with Moscow. Military action or more sanctions are unlikely to convince Russia to relinquish control over Crimea. The disconnect between pragmatically achievable objectives and symbolic resistance to Crimea's annexation has created a standoff that is now perpetuating itself. In international relations, extended crises or disputes eventually behoove affected parties to accept realities, albeit at a cost to those involved. 

It's been half a decade since events radically changed Ukraine. Beyond demonstrations in Kiev, where President Viktor Yanukovich fell from power as a result of the euromaidan movement, the pro-Europe protests led to Russia's annexation of Crimea and the ongoing separatist conflict in eastern Ukraine. Five years on, the status of Crimea continues to be a source of great contention, as Kiev rejects the Crimean Peninsula's accession to Russia, which exercises de facto — and, as far as Moscow is concerned, de jure — control over it. Even outside Ukraine, the events that occurred in Crimea in 2014 continue to cloud political and military relations between Russia and the West, and several of the sanctions against Russia center directly on the Crimea question.

Is it time we raised expectations of politicians on cyber security?

Given the public perception that politicians are a bit clueless on tech/security issues, UK-based cyber security/ethical hacking firm Redscan decided to poll all 650 UK MPs to understand their thoughts on the cyber security threats facing UK businesses

Fortunately, not all MPs today are as dismissive of the cyber security threat as they may have been in the past.

When it comes to the issue of cyber security, recent history doesn’t reflect too kindly on politicians. Last November, the Japanese minister of cyber security made headlines for admitting to never having used a computer, while in 2017, Donald Trump claims to have discussed ‘forming an impenetrable cyber security unit’ with Vladimir Putin of all people. Closer to home, Diane Abbott, Shadow Home Secretary, admitted to falling victim to a phishing campaign in which hackers could’ve gained control of her PC and accessed all its contents.

Judy Asks: Europe—Is the System Broken?


No, Europe is not broken. On the other hand, European institutions ought to deliver better in the few areas in which they can.

The EU cannot mitigate the effects of structural change that displaces some workers from stable jobs. Neither can fiscal or monetary policies narrow regional disparities in economic performance. The EU cannot fight cyber threats or run antiterror deterrence.

By contrast, the EU exercises real power in other areas. In trade, the Commission has the ability to clinch a comprehensive trade and investment deal with the United States, its most consequential partner. The deal would raise economic growth and render European economies more resilient. In competition, the Commission and the Council should close ranks with the United States, Japan, Korea, and others to push back against unfair Chinese trade and investment practices. In the end, nothing less than greater economic security for the Europeans is at stake. Finally, the EU should pile up serious money into Frontex, its external border protection. Uncontrolled migration hovers near the top of Europeans’ concerns.

Opinion | Be very afraid of the dangers of ‘deepfake’ technology


The Lok Sabha elections are upon us and we will soon be inundated on our social media apps by Photoshopped images of politicians showing them doing something silly or despicable. None of us will be spared. We have enough gullible friends and uncles who will forward them to us. Some of these images will go viral.

Of course, the brighter ones among us will not be easily deceived. The fakery of most Photoshopped images is not very difficult to detect. For instance, a fake picture of a newspaper front page, on close examination, will almost invariably reveal that the font of a changed word or phrase does not exactly match the font of the rest of the headline. Or that the head of a politician does not perfectly fit his neck. All you need is some scepticism and not blind faith in whatever comes your way that fits in with your political inclinations.

However, there is a far more sinister technology looming. This is “deepfake" technology, driven by Artificial Intelligence (AI), which produces videos that have real people saying and doing fictitious things. They are very difficult to detect.

The Dark Web Enabled the Christchurch Killer


Over the past three decades, large-scale terrorist attacks motivated by extreme-right beliefs have almost exclusively been carried out by lone actors and small autonomous cells. The reason is simple. Maintaining an extreme-right group with terrorist ambitions is impossible in Western democracies today due to state monitoring and the lack of external support and safe havens. A recent example of extremists who tried, but failed, to prepare an attack while keeping a public profile is the British group National Action, whose leaders and activists are currently serving long prison sentences. This leaves extreme-right revolutionaries with two options: operate in the public but refrain from illegal behavior, or go underground.

The key to understanding today’s terrorist threat is to be found underground—especially the online underground

The key to understanding today’s terrorist threat is to be found underground—especially the online underground

Here’s how other nations measure up in electronic warfare

By: Mark Pomerleau 

U.S. adversaries have become so adept at using electronic warfare that U.S. forces and their allies must now reduce their electromagnetic footprint or risk that enemies could use that information to geolocate, jam and then fire upon them.

“Near peer adversaries can contest the U.S. Army’s use of the electromagnetic spectrum and use it to cue kinetic weapons,” read a slide during a presentation by Col. Candice Frost, director of foreign intelligence within the Army’s intelligence directorate. Frost was speaking at the AFCEA Army Signal Conference March 12. Army leaders in the past have discussed the capabilities and threats posed by Russia’s electronic warfare prowess in public, but rarely have provided insights in the abilities of other nations.

“There are robust layered and integrated EW systems that disrupt and locate Army systems down to the tactical level,” she said. “At a minimum, the goal of the adversary is to control the use of the electromagnetic spectrum at critical locations and times to attack a specific system. They don’t always want to own it all, they just want it right here, right now when they need it.”

The high costs of the new cold war

Minxin Pei

It’s convenient to call the escalating geopolitical contest between the United States and China a ‘new cold war’. But that description should not be allowed to obscure the obvious, though not yet sufficiently understood, reality that this new competition will differ radically from the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union.

The Cold War of the 20th century pitted two rival military alliances against each other. By contrast, the Sino-American rivalry involves two economies that are closely integrated both with each other and with the rest of the world. The most decisive battles in today’s cold war will thus be fought on the economic front (trade, technology and investment), rather than in, say, the South China Sea or the Taiwan Strait.

Some American strategic thinkers have recognised this, and now argue that, if the US is to win this cold war, it must sever its commercial ties with China—and persuade its allies to do the same. But, as the ongoing bilateral trade war demonstrates, this is easier said than done. Contrary to US President Donald Trump’s claim that it would be ‘easy to win’, that war has imposed such high costs, even as the US trade deficit continues to widen, that Trump now seems to be having second thoughts about further escalation.


By Colin Lecher and Russell Brandom 

The United States government is cracking down hard on Huawei. Lawmakers and intelligence officials have claimed the telecommunications giant could be exploited by the Chinese government for espionage, presenting a potentially grave national security risk, especially as the US builds out its next-generation 5G network. To meet that threat, officials say, they’ve blocked government use of the company’s equipment, while the Justice Department has also accused Huawei’s chief financial officer of violating sanctions against Iran, and the company itself of stealing trade secrets.

Huawei’s response has been simple: it’s not a security threat. Most importantly, the company’s leaders have said the US has not produced evidence that it works inappropriately with the Chinese government or that it would in the future. Moreover, they say, there are ways to mitigate risk — ones that have worked successfully in other countries. Huawei’s chairman has even gone so far as to call the US government hypocritical, criticizing China while the National Security Agency spies around the globe. The company has also denied any criminal wrongdoing.


What's the difference between greenfield, brownfield & bluefield technology?

by Adrian Bridgwater

Data is in flux. Everywhere you look data is being moved from one system to another, from one device to another, from one cloud service to another… and even perhaps from one cloud formation (i.e. private, public or hybrid) to another.

But not all data is created equal, and many firms will now be faced with the flux of data movement passing over an unequal sum of existing parts. Popular science (and you might say common sense) argues that standing back, defining, demarcating and auditing your current pool of data is a good starting point.

Greenfield, brownfield, bluefield

Tackling Europe’s gap in digital and AI

By Jacques Bughin

Europe’s average digital gap with the world’s leaders is now being compounded by an emerging gap in artificial intelligence.

On many metrics, the European economy and its businesses have been grappling for years to capture the full potential of current and previous generations of digital tools. It is now more than time to double down on Europe’s efforts to succeed in digital transformation, especially when a new set of digital technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), are becoming more technically pervasive.
Stay current on your favorite topics

On average, Europe’s digital gap with the world’s leaders is now being compounded by an emerging gap with the world’s leaders in its development and corporate use of AI technologies. Without faster and more comprehensive engagement in AI, that gap could widen, especially for those European countries with relatively low AI-readiness.

The potential to deliver on AI and catch up against the most AI-ready countries such as the United States and emerging leaders like China are large. If Europe on average develops and diffuses AI according to its current assets and digital position relative to the world, it could add some €2.7 trillion, or 20 percent, to its combined economic output by 2030. If Europe were to catch up with the US AI frontier, a total of €3.6 trillion could be added to collective GDP in this period.

Who wins in a 5G world?

In this episode of the McKinsey Podcast, Simon London speaks with McKinsey senior partners Ferry Grijpink and Philipp Nattermann—ahead of the headline telecommunications conference Mobile World Congress (MWC).

Cutting through the 5G hype: Survey shows telcos’ nuanced views

By Ferry Grijpink, Tobias Härlin, Harrison Lung, and Alexandre Ménard

Operators see a marginally positive business case, expect rollout at scale to take until 2022, and don’t think the increase in capital-expense-to-sales ratio will be as big as skeptics claim.

For a technology that gets as much attention as 5G, we know precious little about what telco operators truly think about how it will play out for the industry and what they truly plan to do. Optimists tout the great benefits of low latency and high capacity that will eventually enable new value-added use cases, while pessimists focus on the lack of actual new use cases to emerge so far and what they see as a wobbly commercial rationale, not to mention the huge capital expense required.

To get a sense of what momentum there actually is toward building out 5G and realizing its potential, we recently conducted a proprietary survey of 46 chief technology officers (CTOs) directly engaged in 5G-development plans around the world. The results, combined with our own experience in helping companies develop 5G strategies, execute pilots, and move toward rolling out the technology, paint a much clearer picture of 5G in the coming months and years.

The renewed debate over the NSA-CYBERCOM split

By: Mark Pomerleau  

After a period on the back burner, the issue of separating the National Security Agency and U.S. Cyber Command came up again in front of Congress, where some members expressed a clear opinion: Don’t do it.

“I believe it would be premature to split these organizations in the immediate future,” House Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities Chairman Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., said in a March 13 hearing.

The Defense Department does not have a hard timeline for splitting Cyber Command from the National Security Agency, but work on the division is ongoing.

New Report On Arms Control And The Convergence Of Biology And Emerging Technologies – Analysis

By Jaya Ramachandran

A new report has warned of the risks and challenges posed by the interaction of developments in biotechnology and advances in three emerging technologies: additive manufacturing (AM or so-called 3D printing), artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics.

The report from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) cautions that the latest advances could increase the possibilities for the development, production and use of biological weapons. The existing biological arms control and non-proliferation governance framework, therefore, needs to be adapted to address the emerging security risks, says the report.

SIPRI report, ‘Bio Plus X: Arms Control and the Convergence of Biology and Emerging Technologies’, was presented at the international conference ‘2019. Capturing technology. Rethinking arms control’ at the German Federal Foreign Office in Berlin on March 15, 2019.