Indian Strategic Studies: 05/11/25

11 May 2025

Should India’s Response to Pakistani Terror Go Further?

Michael Rubin

India-Pakistan Tensions Are Back

Brinkmanship between India and Pakistan is the highest between the two countries since the 1999 Kargil War. The current crisis began on April 22, 2025 when Pakistan-trained terrorists infiltrated into Indian Kashmir and slaughtered more than two dozen Indians. They demanded the Indians recite a verse from the Quran and, when they could not, the terrorists executed them in front of their families.

India Has a Tough Choice To Make on Pakistan

The terror attack—which affected Indians in the same way that the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack impacted Israelis—came after Asim Munir, Pakistan’s Army chief gave a speech denying that Muslims and Hindus could ever live together (as they do in India) and demanded the jugular be cut. In both India and Pakistan, ordinary people and officials alike saw his comments as a green light to terror.

On May 6, 2025, India launched “Operation Sindoor,” striking almost simultaneously nine locations in Pakistan-occupied Kashmir and Pakistan’s Punjab province. India chose its targets carefully: It avoided Pakistani military installations and instead targeted terror camps. This gave the Pakistani authorities plausible deniability to save face and stand down; if Pakistan meanwhile sought to avenge terrorists, then it would show Islamabad’s culpability.

Ukraine’s war lessons for India - Opinion

David Kirichenko

India, the world’s largest democracy, has stayed on the sidelines while Ukraine fights on the front lines to defend democratic values and the international order against an imperialist Russia. Moscow seeks to subjugate and colonize Ukraine, as it has done for centuries, but Ukraine has resisted fiercely and is now bringing the fight to Russia. Despite this, India has remained cautious and continues to maintain close ties with Moscow.

Both Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Defense Minister Rajnath Singh have canceled their trips to Moscow for Russia’s May 9 Victory Day parade. Instead, India will send a lower-ranking official, with reports suggesting the decision is partly linked to ongoing tensions with Pakistan. India also launched fresh strikes against Pakistan, sparking worries about a larger conflict brewing between the nuclear states.

For other leaders who plan on attempting the parade in Moscow, there are real concerns that Ukraine could threaten the parade. As a result, Putin is desperate for a three-day ceasefire to help protect his parade.

Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico condemned Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for warning foreign delegations not to attend Russia’s May 9 Victory Day parade, calling Zelensky’s comments disrespectful.

India-Pak conflict: India’s anti-drone UAS grid and air defence system explained

In the ongoing armed conflict between India and Pakistan on the border, it has emerged that on the night of 7-8 May 2025, Pakistan tried to engage a number of military targets in Northern and Western India with drones and missiles, according to an official release. However, these attempts were swiftly dealt with and neutralised by India’s Integrated Counter UAS Grid and Air Defence systems.

In case you are wondering, India’s Integrated Counter UAS (Unmanned Aerial Systems) Grid and Air Defence Systems are a collection of sophisticated, multi-layered technological framework designed to detect, track, and neutralize any incoming hostile drones, missiles, and aerial threats into Indian airspace or terrestrial land border – as was demonstrated during the May 2025 India-Pakistan conflict.

What is India's Integrated Counter UAS Grid and Air Defence System?

According to several reports, the system is a comprehensive network that combines advanced sensors, radars, electronic warfare tools, and kinetic interceptors that are deployed across critical regions to provide real-time surveillance and rapid response against any type of aerial incursions.

Operation Sindoor Day 2: How India is taking out Pakistani air defence systems

India has neutralised Pakistan's air defence system at Lahore on in retaliation to the military and drone attacks carried out by the neighbouring nation in Northern and Western regions on Wednesday night.

It resorted to Integrated Counter UAS Grid and Air Defence systems along with the use of Israeli drones, called Harpy drones to counter Pakistani attacks in areas including Awantipura, Srinagar, Jammu, Pathankot, Amritsar, Kapurthala, Jalandhar, Ludhiana, Adampur, Bhatinda, Chandigarh, Nal, Phalodi, Uttarlai, and Bhuj.

Since the commencement of Operation Sindoor, India has deployed a variety of advanced, high-precision long-range strike weapons during, including the SCALP cruise missile, HAMMER precision-guided bombs, and loitering munitions, and now Integrated Counter UAS Grid, Air Defence systems, Harpy drones and S-400 Sudarshan Chakra.

India had, however, clarified that during Operation Sindoor, which was "non-escalatory" in nature, no "Pakistani military establishments" had been targeted. It added that "any attack on military targets in India will invite a suitable response".

Meanwhile, after the launch of Operation Sindoor, Pakistan has escalated tensions in border regions through intense firing and killing of 16 civilians including five children.

India's 'Raksha kavach': How our air defence shield differs from Israel's Iron Dome. All you need to know

On May 7 night, India’s integrated air defence and counter-unmanned aerial systems (UAS) network was activated in response to a coordinated aerial incursion by Pakistan. Multiple armed drones, loitering munitions, and missiles were detected approaching 15 strategic military installations, including Indian Air Force bases in Pathankot and Srinagar.

The response from India’s defence system was swift and effective, neutralising the threats before they could inflict damage — demonstrating the country’s growing capability to counter complex aerial threats in real time.

India’s air defence architecture comprises a blend of imported, indigenous, and co-developed technologies, forming a multi-tiered system designed to counter a wide spectrum of aerial threats.

At the forefront of this system is the Russian-manufactured S-400 Triumf. This advanced surface-to-air missile system, currently operational with three squadrons in India, is capable of engaging targets at distances of up to 400 kilometres and altitudes reaching 30 kilometres. It is engineered to intercept a wide array of aerial threats, including ballistic and cruise missiles.

Complementing the S-400 is the indigenous Akash surface-to-air missile system. The Akash is designed for short-range defence, with an engagement capability of up to 30 kilometres, and serves as a critical component of India’s lower-tier interception grid.

S-400 Sudarshan Chakra in action: Key facts on India's missile shield

Considered one of the most advanced and potent air defence systems in the world, S-400 Triumf has the capability to protect against almost all sorts of aerial attacks, including drones, missiles, rockets and even fighter jets. The system, intended to act as a shield over a particular area, is a long-range surface-to-air missile system.

Named SA-21 Growler by NATO, and developed by Russia's Almaz Central Design Bureau, S-400 can engage intruding aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, a recent article in US Air Force's Journal for Indo-Pacific Command stated. It has "surfaced as an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) asset designed to protect military, political, and economic assets from aerial attacks".

Each unit has two batteries, each of which has a command-and-control system, a surveillance radar, an engagement radar and four lunch trucks.

Russia has been developing the S-400 since 1993. Testing began in 1999- 2000 and Russia deployed it in 2007.

According to the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies think tank, its "mission set and capabilities are roughly comparable to the US Patriot system" but, unlike some Patriot interceptors, "the S-400 does not currently employ hit-to-kill ballistic missile defence technology".

Operation Sindoor: Indian Air Strikes and Pakistani Air Defenses

Fabian Hoffmann

In the early hours of May 7, India launched a series of missile and air strikes — designated Operation Sindoor — against nine sites across Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The operation was presented as retaliation for the April 22 Pahalgam attack, which killed 26 civilians, most of them Indian tourists. According to Indian officials, the strikes targeted terrorist infrastructure linked to groups such as Jaish-e-Mohammed and Lashkar-e-Taiba.

While several targets inside Pakistan were reportedly hit, greater attention has focused on the apparent success of Pakistan’s Air Force in shooting down multiple Indian aircraft — including a Dassault Rafale F3R multirole fighter aircraft, the most advanced platforms in India’s inventory, introduced only in July 2020. This post summarizes the available information, and outlines some initial implications.

Weapon systems and casualties

According to Indian sources, Indian forces employed SCALP-EG land-attack cruise missiles and AASM HAMMER guided bombs during the strike. India likely operates the export variant of the SCALP-EG, which has a reduced range of approximately 250 kilometers. The HAMMER guided bombs have a maximum range of up to 70 kilometers, assuming release at optimal altitude and speed (i.e. high altitude/high velocity).

What Washington Can Do About India-Pakistan Escalation

Rishi Iyengar and John Haltiwanger

Welcome back to Foreign Policy’s Situation Report, where we’re still processing the news that U.S. President Donald Trump has removed National Security Advisor Mike Waltz from his post and moved him over to become Trump’s nominee to serve as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Read more on that here.

Meanwhile, here’s what’s on tap for the day: Washington’s options to manage an India-Pakistan military crisis, U.N. fears about a dwindling two-state solution in the Middle East, and Russia’s foot-dragging on a Ukraine peace deal.

Misleading posts obtaining millions of views on X

Matt Murphy, Olga Robinson & Shayan Sardarizadeh

India's strikes on Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir have unleashed a wave of misinformation online, with unrelated videos purporting to be from the strikes gaining millions of views.

Dramatic clips debunked by BBC Verify have claimed to show attacks on an Indian army base and an Indian fighter jet shot down in Pakistan.

One video, which had more than 400,000 views on X at the time of writing, claiming to show an explosion caused by a Pakistani response was actually from the 2020 Beirut Port explosion in Lebanon.

An expert told BBC Verify that in moments of heightened tension or dramatic events, misinformation is more likely to spread and fuel distrust and hostility.

"It's very common to see recycled footage during any significant event, not just conflict," Eliot Higgins, the founder of the Bellingcat investigations website, said.

"Algorithmic engagement rewards people who post engaging content, not truthful content, and footage of conflict and disasters is particularly engaging, no matter the truth behind it."

What Is the Risk of a Conflict Spiral Between India and Pakistan? - Analysis

Sumit Ganguly

The militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir that killed 26 tourists last month was the first major terrorist incident in the region since February 2019, when a suicide bombing attributed to the Pakistan-based group Jaish-e-Mohammed struck an Indian police convoy in Pulwama.

Shortly after the recent attack in Pahalgam, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi pledged to pursue the militants and their backers to the “ends of the earth.” Early Wednesday morning local time, India launched a barrage of missiles into Pakistani-administered Kashmir and the neighboring province on Punjab. Pakistan has resorted to artillery fire against Indian positions along the Line of Control, the de facto international border in disputed Kashmir.

Can India and Pakistan control a new cycle of escalation?

SHORTLY AFTER midnight on May 7th, two weeks after a terrorist attack in Kashmir, Indian missiles streaked into Pakistan. India said it had hit “terrorist infrastructure” at nine sites in Pakistani-administered Kashmir and in Punjab. Pakistan said that India had struck six locations in those regions. It denied the sites were used by terrorists and said it had shot down five Indian fighter jets, a claim not confirmed by India. It was the largest aerial attack on Pakistan in more than 50 years.

After the strikes, both sides exchanged artillery and small-arms fire across the “line of control” dividing Kashmir, which is claimed wholly and ruled partly by both countries. India said that killed 13 people on its side; Pakistan said 31 of its civilians were killed in the shooting and the Indian air strikes. But this is almost certainly just the start of the nuclear-armed neighbours’ confrontation. Pakistan said India damaged a hydropower dam and called the attack “an act of war”. Pakistan’s army said it would hit back “at a time and place of its own choosing”. It also said that it shot down 12 Indian aerial drones that entered its airspace in the early hours of May 8th and that killed one civilian. India said on May 8th that it had “neutralised” an attempted overnight missile and drone attack by Pakistan on several military targets and had responded “in the same domain with same intensity” by targeting air-defence radars and systems at several locations in Pakistan.

India’s government had hinted at military retaliation ever since accusing Pakistan-based militants of being involved in an attack on tourists in Kashmir on April 22nd, which killed 26 civilians. That was the bloodiest assault there since 2019 and the deadliest on Indian civilians since one in Mumbai in 2008.

The Kashmir Crisis

Lawrence Freedman

Watching two nuclear powers fight each other is not good for the nerves and inevitably leads to fears of a cataclysm. The best reason to stay calm is that the situation is not unprecedented. Since India and Pakistan both confirmed their nuclear status with tests in 1998 there have been many bouts of fighting between the two that have stayed relatively contained in both time and space without turning into major war.

There is a pattern, which so far the current crisis appears to be following. It begins with provocations in the contested territory of Kashmir, blamed by India on Pakistan but denied by Pakistan. This is followed by a flurry of military activity which achieves little. Eventually both sides return to how they were.

This is what is most likely to happen this time, not least because neither side seems prepared for anything more. The Pakistanis in particular can ill afford a prolonged crisis as their economy is already on the edge, and this may be decisive as they assess their next steps. There is always the risk that once two countries get into tit-for-tat exchanges neither will be willing to let the other have the last word but that can be fudged. More problematic is that the political context, both in terms of the situation in Kashmir and the state of Indo-Pakistani relations, has deteriorated.

Why Pakistan's Islamist army chief Asim Munir is such a dangerous foe

Raj Chengappa

The Pakistan army chief General Asim Munir is not just in the eye of the storm clouding the subcontinent, he is the storm himself. It is no coincidence that he was the head of the notorious Pakistani spy agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence or the ISI, when it orchestrated the vicious Pulwama terror attack that saw the deaths of 40 personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force on February 14, 2019. Six years on, Munir, now de facto supremo of Pakistan, is once again in India's crosshairs as the alleged mastermind of the Pahalgam terror attack in which 25 tourists and one local were gunned down in Kashmir's alpine haven on April 22. As the Modi government readies a military riposte to the worst civilian massacre in the Valley in two decades, it must not underestimate the guile of Asim Munir.

Those who have done so in the past have learnt their lesson the hard way. Among them was Imran Khan who, as Pakistan's prime minister, cleared Munir's appointment as ISI chief in 2018, only to sack him nine months later, apparently because Munir was bold enough to brief him about the alleged corrupt dealings of his wife, Bushra Bibi. Munir never forgave Imran for the humiliation of being possibly the shortest-serving ISI chief and bided his time to hit back. The opportunity came after Imran was deposed in an army-engineered 'parliamentary coup' in April 2022, and Munir, backed by a ruling coalition opposed to Imran, became the army chief that November. Months later, Munir had Imran jailed on multiple charges of corruption that saw the former prime minister sentenced to 14 years in prison early this year.

Trump faces a moment of truth with Russia and China

Joseph Bosco

President Trump has just carried out the first of what may be a series of Cabinet changes, especially in the national security area. He removed Michael Waltz from his position as national security adviser, nominated him as ambassador to the United Nations, and placed Secretary of State Marco Rubio as interim national security advisor. Trump is reportedly deliberating as to whether he needs a permanent replacement in that position at all.

Waltz was fired ostensibly because of his role in the Signal scandal, when he somehow added Atlantic journalist Jeffrey Goldberg to a high-level official discussion of U.S. operational plans for a bombing attack in Yemen. Public disclosure of that classified information gravely endangered participating U.S. forces and could have caused a catastrophic failure of the mission. That it did not was probably because enemy intelligence services failed to monitor the Signal platform, assuming that American officials would not be so reckless and incompetent as to place classified operational plans on an unclassified platform.

Incredibly, the administration continued to use a “modified version” of Signal for other sensitive Pentagon communications even after this embarrassing and potentially fatal error.

Europe repositioning between US and China in new global orde

Stefan Wolff

The term that perhaps best describes the international impact of the first 100 days of Donald Trump’s second term is “disruption.”

His tariff policy, his abolition of USAID, his questioning of the transatlantic alliance, and his attempted rapprochement with Russia have neither destroyed the liberal international order nor established anything new in its place.

But the prospects of liberal internationalism under Trump are vanishingly small. And Trumpism, in the guise of an “America First” foreign policy, is likely to outlast Trump’s second term.

That the US is no longer the standard bearer of the liberal international order has been clear for some time. Trump and his Russian and Chinese counterparts, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, appear to see themselves as dominant players in a new multipolar world order. But it is not clear that a grand bargain between them is possible – or that it would endure.

Europe is particularly vulnerable to these changes in the international order. Having been able to rely for the past eight decades on an iron-clad American security guarantee, European countries have chronically underinvested in their defense capabilities, especially since the end of the Cold War.

Defense spending as a proportion of GDP may have increased over the past decade, but remains lackluster. And investment in an independent European defense industrial base faces many hurdles.

Britain warns that China is becoming a ‘cyber superpower’

Alexander Martin

China is “well on its way to becoming a cyber superpower” a senior British government minister warned on Wednesday, adding that it now simply wasn’t feasible to decouple from Beijing given the country’s role in global supply chains.

Pat McFadden, the most senior minister in Britain’s Cabinet Office, told the CYBERUK conference that Beijing had “the sophistication, the scale and the seriousness” to pose an exceptional national security challenge.

His comments were echoed by the head of the National Cyber Security Centre, Richard Horne, who said during the event that “the continued activity that we’re seeing from the Chinese system remains a cause for profound and profuse concern.”

Their pronouncements follow the United States expressing alarm over Chinese cyber operations. These have included a spying campaign, tracked as Salt Typhoon, that has been compromising entities in the telecommunications sector in the country. Cybersecurity agencies in Europe have warned about similar campaigns affecting their countries, although none have yet publicly attributed these campaigns to the Chinese government.

Putin and Kim Hate the West—and Mistrust Beijing

Benjamin R. Young

The Russian nationalist philosopher Alexander Dugin wrote an essay last June calling for his countrymen to adopt North Korea's ideology of juche. Often translated as self-reliance, juche is more accurately understood as “self-strengthening.” “We need the same ideology i.e., the Russian Juche, the reign of the Russian Subject,” Dugin wrote. “North Korea is a beautiful thing. Interestingly, the Korean word 'Juche' is a deeply philosophical term and means 'subject' or even the Heideggerian Dasein. It has everything else included in it: independence, freedom, civil sovereignty.”

Dugin's proximity to Russian President Vladimir Putin is debatable. Still, this deep admiration for North Korea expressed by Moscow's pre-eminent public intellectual speaks volumes about the direction of Russian politics. Some Western pundits and observers believe North Korea and Russia have entered into a short-term partnership of mutual convenience, most clearly evident in Kim Jong-un's dispatching of North Korean troops to Ukraine. But Dugin's comments suggest that Putin's Russia and Kim's North Korea have become more closely aligned, and that their partnership in the Ukraine war is the beginning of a much more durable relationship.

The old global economic order is dead

MARTIN WOLF

How should outsiders want the trade war between the US and China to end? They should want both to lose.

True, Donald Trump’s approach is far worse than intellectually incoherent: it is lethal for any co-operative global order. Some people think a collapse of such “globalism” is even desirable. In my view, it is foolish to imagine that a world run by predatory “great powers” would be superior to the one we have. Yet, while Trump’s protectionism has to lose, Chinese mercantilism must not win, since it, too, creates substantial global difficulties.

To understand the problems the world economy faces it helps to start from the topic of “global imbalances”, which was much discussed in the run-up to the global and Eurozone financial crises of 2007-2015. In the years since, these imbalances have grown smaller but the overall picture has not changed. As the IMF’s latest World Economic Outlook notes: China and European creditor nations (notably Germany) have run persistent surpluses, while the US has run offsetting deficits. As a result, the US net international investment position was minus 24 per cent of global output in 2024. Since the US runs trade and current account deficits and has a comparative advantage in services, it also runs large deficits in manufacturing.

So what, a passionate free-marketeer would ask? Indeed, even a not-quite-so-passionate free marketeer might note, with good reason, that the US has been fortunate to live beyond its means for decades. That need not be a problem: nobody, after all, will be able to force the US to pay its liabilities back. It also has ways, both elegant and not so elegant, to default. Inflation, depreciation, financial repression and mass corporate bankruptcies all come to mind.

Readiness of the U.S. Military Means Being Cyber-Ready

Kimberly Underwood

As the U.S. military faces even more sophisticated adversaries, the services need to put cyber at the forefront, especially in operations. And as the military works to implement zero-trust architecture by 2027, cyber provisions must evolve beyond traditional information technology (IT) and into operational technology (OT), noted Anne Schumann, principal cyber advisor, Department of the Navy, speaking at AFCEA International’s TechNet Cyber conference in Baltimore, May 7.

To succeed, the U.S. military must have more accountability for cyber, especially in this budget-constrained environment.

For Schumann, who has been in her role of principal cyber advisor for four years, this means establishing cybersecurity as a fourth pillar in the acquisition processes, just after cost, schedule and performance requirements in contracts.

“It is about readiness,” Schumann emphasized. “The readiness of our forces, the readiness of our critical infrastructure, of all of our warfighting platforms, our ships, our submarines, our weapons systems. They are all critical to the next fight, which is already upon us.”

The U.S. Department of Defense's (DOD’s) MOSAIC framework will be a foundation for OT cybersecurity, she continued. This will help apply cybersecurity to operations more broadly.

US-Ukraine Relations on the Rise

Colby Badhwar

Nine months after first proposing a partnership with the United States to invest in Ukraine’s rare earth minerals, President Zelenskyy finally has his deal. To call the journey to this point a trip on a bumpy road would be an understatement.

Despite the idea’s origin during the Biden administration, Ukraine’s government decided to wait until President Trump had been inaugurated to sign the April 30 deal.

The rationale was obvious; they would be dealing with him for the next four years, and what better way to get into his good graces than to agree to a big business agreement? Moreover, had it been signed by President Biden, the deal’s chances of survival without renegotiation would have been low.

It was a tough process. While Zelenskyy may have hoped for a quick conclusion, it has instead been a difficult three months, which saw US-Ukrainian relations pushed close to breaking point.

And yet, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger. With their deal in hand, there is a path forward towards a new model of cooperation between the two countries. It will be a much more transactional relationship, but President Trump was unlikely to ever continue supporting Ukraine out of goodwill alone. He needs to show the United States is getting something tangible in return, and this agreement establishes a framework for that.

The Pentagon Is Ignoring Its Own Strategy

Jennifer Kavanagh and Daniel R. DePetris

During his first official visit to Asia in March, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth delivered a strong message to Washington’s allies and partners. “What the Trump administration will do … is truly prioritize and shift [to] this region of the world in a way that is unprecedented, to match the threats of the future,” he said.

This rhetoric aligns with the Pentagon’s Interim National Defense Strategic Guidance, which is designed to serve as a placeholder until a full National Defense Strategy is published later this year. The guidance established the Indo-Pacific as its top priority beyond protecting the homeland. To that end, it committed the United States to “assume risk in other theaters,” namely the Middle East and Europe, to ensure that its military has the personnel, platforms, and equipment necessary to maintain deterrence in East Asia.

How Europe Should Deal With Trump

Stephen M. Walt

Europe is at a crossroads. The high-water mark of trans-Atlantic security cooperation is behind us, and the Trump administration regards most of Europe with a combination of contempt, disdain, or outright hostility. At a minimum, Europe’s leaders can no longer take U.S. support and protection for granted. They can hope for the best, but they must plan for the worst. And that means charting an independent course in world politics.

To be fair, this situation isn’t entirely President Donald Trump’s fault. Even if he had never been elected, a fundamental rebalancing of trans-Atlantic relations was long overdue. A glance at a globe tells you why: The United States is not a European power, and a permanent U.S. military commitment there is a historical and geopolitical anomaly. A costly commitment of this sort can only be justified by clear strategic necessity, such as the desire to prevent any single power from dominating the entire region. This strategic objective is the main reason the United States entered World War I and World War II and why it kept substantial forces in Europe during the Cold War.

Trump’s Russia Strategy Is All Carrots, No Stick - Analysis

John Haltiwanger

U.S. President Donald Trump reentered the White House in January hoping to achieve a quick peace deal between Russia and Ukraine. More than 100 days into his second term, Trump is still pushing for an agreement—and he’s beginning to concede that ending the war in Ukraine is no easy task.

“Maybe it’s not possible,” Trump said of a Ukraine-Russia peace deal during an interview with Meet the Press that aired Sunday. But in an indication of Trump’s reluctance to give up just yet, the president added, “I think we have a very good chance of doing it.”

Could striking first in cyber be new Pentagon policy?

LAUREN C. WILLIAMS

The White House’s pick to lead Pentagon cyber policy wants to lean in on offensive cyber operations and using AI as the cyberattacks become more common and lawmakers worry about conflict with China.

“While we need strong defenses, we are not going to deter the adversary with defenses only,” Katie Sutton, who was recently the chief technology advisor at U.S. Cyber Command, told senators Tuesday during her confirmation hearing to become assistant defense secretary for cyber policy. “If confirmed, I will work to strengthen our offensive cyber capabilities to ensure the President has the options he needs to respond to this growing threat.”

To do that, Sutton said the Pentagon needs to reevaluate its policies and authorities, including the 2018 National Security Presidential Memorandum 13, which was designed to streamline how cyber operations get approved, to keep up with new threats.

“I believe we're at a point where we need to re-evaluate those and make sure that we're…able to respond to the increasing speed of cyber attacks, and that we are able to address the incoming impacts of AI,” Sutton said. “The speed of technology is often outpacing the policies we have in place to utilize that technology. So for example, in the case of artificial intelligence, we need to make sure we have the right policies for data and that it's responsibly used, but also that we are authorizing its use.”

Senators question Army undersecretary nominee on transformation plan

MEGHANN MYERS

Lawmakers tried to hash out details of the Army’s transformation plan during an open hearing again on Thursday, as the defense-industry executive nominated to be the service’s undersecretary took questions at his confirmation hearing.

Anduril employee Mike Obadal, who retired as an Army colonel in 2023, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee a week after his former service released a plan to slash programs, civilian and senior military positions, and more—and did so with no advance notice to Congress, whose support is needed if the proposal is to move ahead.

There are “a number of topline issues, that now we need to get into the second level of detail, on Army transformation,” Obadal told Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich., whose state is home to the Army’s ground combat vehicle research lab.

The Army has said it wants to stop buying Humvees and Joint Light Tactical Vehicles, the latter of which is also used by the Marine Corps.

“And this is the work over the next several months that we have to do, not only internal to the Army, but with the other services, the combatant commands, and importantly, with Congress, to understand, what are the effects on the facilities?” Obadal said.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)