Indian Strategic Studies: 09/10/25

10 September 2025

Publications to citations, quality research concentrated in top institutions—NIRF flags disparities

Fareeha Iftikhar

New Delhi: The country’s top 19 institutions—18 IITs and IISc Bengaluru—account for 28.70 percent of India’s research publications and 30.84 percent of citations, highlighting a growing concentration of quality research among the highest-ranked institutes.

The National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) 2025 report, released Thursday by the Union Ministry of Education, highlights that the top-ranked institutions not only produce more patents per institution but also account for a disproportionately large share of the total patent output across several categories.

According to the report, the distribution of publications, citations, and highly cited publications is analysed across eight categories of institutions—Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and Indian Institute of Science (IISc), NITs, other Centrally Funded Technical Institutions (CFTIs), central universities, colleges, deemed-to-be universities, state private universities and state public universities.

IITs and IISc lead in research output and academic influence, with 19 institutions contributing 28.70 percent of total publications and receiving 30.84 percent of total citations. They are followed by deemed-to-be universities, where 22 institutions account for 23.10 percent of publications and 20.62 percent of citations.

Central universities contribute 9.29 percent of the total publications and receive 9.13 percent of total citations. In contrast, colleges contribute only 0.6 percent of the total publications and receive 0.99 percent of total citations.

“Across all categories, the data reinforces the central role of top-ranked institutions in driving the nation’s high-impact research output, while the remaining institutions, though large in number, contribute a significantly smaller share of highly cited work,” the report stated.

Experts say that the uneven distribution is mainly due to differences in resources and quality of faculty members and students among institutions. “The highly ranked institutions have the country’s best research faculty and students. The entire ecosystem creates a significant advantage. Additionally, younger institutes take time to catch up—even the newer IITs are progressing at their own pace,” an IIT director told ThePrint, requesting anonymity.

The Case for a U.S. Alliance With India

Kurt M. Campbell and Jake Sullivan

Tariffs, Russian oil purchases, and renewed tensions regarding Pakistan have caused a rapid and regrettable downturn in the U.S.-Indian relationship, replete with public insults and recriminations. As Washington and New Delhi evaluate the state of things, it is prudent to remember why India has emerged over the last generation as one of the United States’ most important global partners. It is also time to consider how to fortify a relationship that has been one of the brightest spots of bipartisan support in a divided Washington where concerted international purpose has been in short supply.

U.S. policymakers have long seen promise in India’s status as the world’s largest democracy as well as opportunity in its economic and technological dynamism and its growing global leadership role. More recently, India’s desire to ensure a free and open Indo-Pacific has led to a strategic alignment with the United States that has effectively disincentivized reckless Chinese adventurism.

This common purpose must not be taken for granted. Until this most recent dustup, multiple U.S. presidents have pushed forward specific initiatives to advance the relationship and convert a general sense of promise into something deeper and sustained, including President George W. Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s landmark U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Agreement and President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s cooperation in critical fields such as AI, biotechnology, and aerospace.

The relationship, however, has remained vulnerable to misunderstandings, missteps, and missed opportunities because of lingering distrust and misaligned expectations. This is partly because U.S.-Indian ties do not fit neatly into the boxes that the United States has historically used to define its most consequential bilateral relationships. In the Cold War and post–Cold War eras, U.S. foreign policy made a distinction between alliances and partnerships. Alliances involved formal treaty commitments built on the foundation of a mutual defense guarantee. Partnerships were for essentially all other countries that worked with Washington—and India fell into that category.

We Still Live by Lies About Afghanistan

CDR Salamander

We owe HM3 Maxton W. Soviak, USN, the thousands who died the two decades before he did, and their families the truth. The uncomfortable, blunt, clear truth. Frankness. Directness. The respect that comes with honesty, honesty to the man who was in diapers when the first US forces crossed into Afghanistan, and with 12 others wound up as one of the last to die there during our retreat.

We’re still not coming to terms with our defeat.

Fear, shame, and humility—these are strong gods of a superior military. With each passing year, this becomes clearer and clearer to me. As all three were drained from our military, we increasingly relied on the weak gods of false-bravery (wearing combat utilities for daily use in CONUS) and easy-honor (NORK levels of awards and badges) that always lead to arrogance. With arrogance comes eventual defeat.

Fear and the desire to not bring shame on yourself, your family, your service, and your nation bring humility. Humility stops you from thinking you have all the answers.

…and so we come to the issue of the Afghanistan war again. I have a little shorthand that will allow me to move along on to the subject of the day. It is something I will remind everyone of who refuses to speak clearly and directly on the topic of our national disgrace.

The Afghan army and government the Soviet Union left behind lasted over 3 years.

The Afghan army and government the USA left behind lasted barely 1 month.

The old Cold Warrior in me doesn’t like to say that the Soviets were better than we were, but at least in Afghanistan, they were.

I didn’t think that my re-post on August, 17th was going to be my last Afghanistan quote for awhile; I knew I would revisit it. It is that time of the year.

Indonesia Is Bracing for More Violence

Joseph Rachman

Indonesia is on edge after riots rocked cities across the nation, posing a major challenge for President Prabowo Subianto, a former special forces general who has held office for less than a year. Demonstrators and security forces skirmished as police and government buildings were set alight and the houses of politicians, including the finance minister, were looted.

The protests have left a total of 10 people dead in the escalating violence—stirring uneasy memories of 1998, when riots toppled the dictator Suharto, Prabowo’s father-in-law. While all concede that the situation today is less serious, the current wave of disturbances reflects a bubbling popular discontent. Many Indonesians are worried that the government’s current mix of crackdown and concessions will fail to address the root causes behind the discontent.

The initial spark came in Jakarta on Thursday, Aug. 28, when a stray comment made by a politician about generous housing allowances for members of parliament was seized upon by online commenters. After salary and benefits, it was calculated, a legislator might get 3 million Indonesian rupiahs ($183) more a day in their housing allowances alone than the monthly minimum wage in parts of Indonesia. The figure was provocative enough to spark spontaneous protests.

The accelerant came that night, when an armored vehicle driven by members of the elite police unit Brimob—the Mobile Brigade Corps—ran over and killed a delivery driver on a motorbike, Affan Kurniawan, 21, who was passing by the demonstration. A video that circulated widely on social media showed the vehicle stop after the driver fell under its wheels before speeding off and seemingly running over Affan again when an angry crowd approached.

Massive popular outrage and calls for more demonstrations followed. Friday and Saturday saw skirmishes throughout Jakarta, which escalated into the evening. Protesters threw rocks and bottles, shot fireworks at police and government buildings, and burned down bus stops. Police and military units deployed responded with tear gas and rubber bullets. Live ammunition also appears to have been used for warning shots. Starting Saturday, TikTok’s livestreaming service, which many protesters used to stream video of demonstrations, ceased to function in the country.

China’s Military Display and Its Indo-Pacific Message

Mick Ryan

In his speech to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting this week, Chinese President Xi Jinping stated that “we should contribute to safeguarding world peace and stability. . . . We should set an example in championing the common values of humanity.” Two days later, Xi had played host to a crowd of foreign leaders at a military parade in Beijing, which, according to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), was to commemorate “the 80th anniversary of the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression and the World Anti-Fascist War.”

The reality is that the parade had three more vital objectives for Xi. The first was to reshape narratives about the role of Russia and China in winning World War II, and to downplay to very significant role played by allied fighting forces and industry. The second was to act as a mega–arms bazaar, demonstrating China’s latest advanced weaponry to potential buyers, particularly those who no longer wish to rely on Russian equipment or want cut-price versions of the latest generation U.S. weapons. Finally, and most importantly, the parade sought to project China’s strength and its inevitable and unstoppable rise through a demonstration of large-scale and high-technology military power.

The parade, along with the recent three-way handshake between the leaders of China, India, and Russia, was a rebuke with Chinese characteristics to current U.S. economic and security policy objectives in the Indo-Pacific, and potentially heralds a very different political, economic, and security environment for all of us who live and work in this dynamic region of the world.

This commentary aims to assess the implications for Australian politics and national security affairs in the wake of the events of the past 48 hours in China. But first, what was unveiled during the parade, and what might it mean for military affairs in the Pacific theatre?

US Doubles Down on Missile Power Near China

Ryan Chan

The United States is continuing to boost its military presence near China, with a new anti-ship missile system being the latest weapon to be deployed on a Japanese outlying island on the front lines of the Western Pacific.

The Chinese Foreign Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Why It Matters

Under America's maritime containment strategy, Japan forms part of the first island chain—a north-south defensive line—along with Taiwan and the Philippines, aimed at projecting military power to deter and defend against potential Chinese aggression.

The U.S. deployment of a Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System, or NMESIS, on Okinawa Island in Japan's southwestern waters comes as China continues to expand its military presence around the island chain with its rapidly growing navy.

Serving as Washington's key security ally, Japan, which hosts over 50,000 U.S. military personnel, is also set to deploy the U.S. Typhon land-based missile system—capable of anti-air, anti-surface and land-attack missions—for a bilateral drill later this month.

What To Know

The 3rd Marine Division, based in Okinawa and tasked with operating along the first island chain, revealed on Wednesday that it has been training with the NMESIS across Okinawa Island since the missile system's arrival on July 10.

This marks the first time the NMESIS, which the 3rd Marine Division officially received last November, has deployed to Japan, serving as a major milestone for the "continuously strengthening" Washington-Tokyo alliance, according to a photo caption.

The NMESIS offers "a mobile, long-range and precise anti-ship capability," according to the 3rd Marine Division, strengthening the ability to protect critical waterways and project power from ashore, while providing a rapidly deployable island defense solution.

From J-20 To Next-Gen Radars — How Gallium Nitride Is Changing The Game For China As Its Military Tech Surges

Nitin J Ticku

China’s rising power in military technology was on full display during the Victory Day parade in Beijing on September 3, marking the 80th anniversary of China’s victory over Japan in the Second World War.

However, behind China’s rising dominance in emerging military technologies, even surpassing the US in many critical areas, lies a simple fact – Beijing’s near-total dominance in processing critical rare-earth magnets and emerging semiconductor technologies, such as producing gallium nitride (GaN) semiconductor technology.

Gallium nitride (GaN) is absolutely critical in producing next-generation radars, which can be used in missiles, tanks, naval warships, fighter jets, and air defense systems.

For instance, China’s J-20 stealth fighter’s GaN-based AESA radar could boost detection range and jamming resistance, outpacing older tech. Similarly, the PL-15 missiles, recently used during the India-Pakistan clash, have a GaN-powered radar seeker that ensures precise targeting and superior anti-jamming capabilities.

China’s dominance in controlling the production and supply of Gallium nitride (GaN) is fueling a military revolution in China on the one hand, while by choking the supply of this critical semiconductor to the US, Beijing ensures that the gap between China and the US in the field of emerging military technologies will keep on widening.

According to a report by the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Physics, China’s growing dominance in gallium nitride (GaN) semiconductor technology gives it a strategic advantage that is reshaping the global arms race.

“Behind this technological advancement lies a ‘hidden thread’ of semiconductor development: China’s GaN-based semiconductor technology has reached maturity,” said the report, which was also released on September 3, the same day as China’s Victory Day parade in Beijing.

Meet China’s ‘Robot Wolves’: Will the four-legged combat drones replace soldiers on the battlefield?

China used its recent Victory Day parade in Beijing to show off a new wave of advanced weapons and systems. Among the most eye-catching were four-legged ground robots known as “robot wolves”. These machines attracted global attention because they represent a leap forward in how the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) could fight future wars. Designed to work with human soldiers or operate on their own, the robots are part of a wider modernisation drive that also includes new missiles and drones. Later in the parade, China also unveiled the JL-1 air-launched ballistic missile, boosting its nuclear capabilities.

What the Robot Wolves are

The robot wolves are four-legged unmanned ground vehicles built by China South Industries Group Corporation. Each weighs about 70 kilograms and is designed to handle several combat roles. They can carry weapons, transport ammunition or supplies, scout enemy positions, and support troops directly. Their design allows them to climb stairs, cross rough terrain, and move with infantry soldiers during operations. Footage from demonstrations showed the robots advancing through smoke-filled areas, carrying rifles mounted on their backs, and firing at simulated targets from up to 100 metres away.

Why they are called wolves

Diplomatic tour de force: China's Xi shows he's 'totally in charge'

James Pomfret, Laurie Chen, Mei Mei Chu and Antoni Slodkowski

HONG KONG/BEIJING, Sept 5 (Reuters) - When Chinese leader Xi Jinping organised his first parade to mark the anniversary of the end of World War Two, in 2015, he placed his two predecessors by his side in a show of respect and continuity of leadership.

Ten years on and having eliminated domestic opposition as he serves an unprecedented third term as president, Xi was flanked on Wednesday at the 80th anniversary parade by Russia's Vladimir Putin and North Korea's Kim Jong Un.

The Reuters Daily Briefing newsletter provides all the news you need to start your day. Sign up here.

Chinese Communist Party leaders were interspersed among overseas guests.

The parade followed Xi's high-profile summit with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi at a weekend meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) in Tianjin, and the Chinese leader's rare visit to Tibet last month.

This display of diplomatic clout, stamina and geopolitical ambition has helped quell concerns among some China observers about the 72-year-old president's vitality, linked to sporadic absences and - so far unknown - succession plans. It has also helped divert domestic attention from slowing growth, experts say.

Longevity was on the leaders' minds as they walked up to the rostrum at Beijing's Tiananmen Square - Xi and Putin were caught in a hot mic moment discussing organ transplants and the possibility that humans could live to 150 years old.

"This week of triumphant diplomacy for Xi shows that he remains totally in charge of the elite politics of the Communist Party," said Neil Thomas of the Asia Society, a New York-based think tank. Unable to get the same legitimacy from economic growth as his predecessors, Xi has turned toward nationalism "to try and make up for it", Thomas said.

"It's a way to divert attention from economic challenges and to make his citizens proud to be Chinese, even if it's harder to feel that from the day-to-day experiences of unemployment, falling house prices and stagnant wages."

China targeting Musk’s Starlink with low-orbit satellite drive

Jeff Pao

Shanghai Spacecom Satellite Technology's Qianfan project plans to launch 648 satellites into low Earth orbit by the end of 2025. Photo: Baidu

China is pressing ahead with low-orbit satellite clusters as regulators lay out a framework to accelerate the technology’s commercialization.

The biggest hurdle facing Beijing’s ambitions remains the lack of reusable launch vehicles, a breakthrough that has enabled Elon Musk’s SpaceX to cut costs and expand Starlink at speed.

A new directive from the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) underscores the government’s push to transform satellite communications from research into a scalable consumer service.

The guideline calls on telecom carriers to partner with satellite operators, co-build infrastructure and offer high-speed broadband for underserved areas on land, at sea and in the air. It prioritizes direct-to-device connectivity, envisioning mobile phones and other terminals linking seamlessly to satellites.

It also encourages commercial trials in satellite-based Internet of Things (IoT), with applications in shipping, aviation and disaster response.

“China will accelerate the construction and application of satellite internet systems to achieve high-quality development,” the MIIT said. “Commercial trials for low-orbit communications will be carried out at the right time to drive upstream and downstream innovation, to provide high-speed connectivity worldwide and expand diverse application scenarios.”

“Private enterprises are encouraged to lawfully use satellite resources through leasing, value-added services, and distribution partnerships,” the guideline added. “Such cooperation will activate existing assets, broaden service offerings and help build a more vibrant satellite communications market.”

Ukraine’s milestone shows drones prevent defeat, but don’t secure victory

PATRICK TUCKER

Ukraine has reached a milestone, the country’s Ministry of Defense announced Monday: more than one million drones delivered to military units since January, with two million expected by the end of the year.

Yet this achievement illustrates a counterintuitive phenomenon: increasing the speed of innovation and deployment of new technologies may not produce battlefield gains.

“Those one-way attack drones are not going to gain air superiority, and they don’t have air superiority—and that’s really one of the key attributes of the conflict in Russia-Ukraine, is no one does,” Gen. Alexus Grynkewich, commander of U.S. European Command, and Supreme Allied Commander Europe, said last week at an NDIA event in Washington, D.C. A "core mission" of U.S. and NATO forces, Grynkewich said, is maintaining air superiority when even small militaries can rapidly erode U.S. advantage.

Ukraine had help reaching its goal. Among the million-plus drones are U.S.-made Switchblade and Ghost drones, as well as $2.5 billion donated by nongovernmental groups and citizens since 2024.

But Ukraine has also radically reformed contracting procedures and opened direct web exchanges, allowing frontline commanders to obtain drones directly from manufacturers. The Ukrainian government says commanders can now order and receive weapons in as little as five days.

This has helped convert a 20th-century military into one that can fight much larger and better-financed adversaries. The Pentagon, which has struggled to produce large numbers of cheap, highly autonomous drones, is taking note.

Emil Michael, U.S. defense undersecretary for research and development, speaking at the NDIA event, said the new U.S. approach “mimics what the Ukrainians have done. They push down the innovation to a very small unit level. They’ve competed them on which drones work better. Then they give more financing to the ones that work better. So that’s their model. Our model is going to be: bring it down to the unit level, reduce the barriers, provide broad training grounds.”

Long-sought manufacturing gains are boosting North Korea arms buildup

Linus Höller

BERLIN — When North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un visited what state media called an “automated missile factory” in late August, he pranced past endless rows of ballistic missiles, each capable of accurately delivering a nuclear warhead to Seoul with minutes’ notice.

The remarkable success of the hermit regime’s missile program is a direct consequence of Pyongyang’s concerted effort to make up for decades of shortcomings in defense manufacturing processes, according to experts and open-source information.

Visiting the unnamed missile facility days before heading to China to watch a big military parade in Beijing, North Korean state media said Kim Jong Un “was greatly satisfied to hear the report that the automated assembly-line production system was established.”

According to the Korean Central News Agency, North Korea’s tightly controlled foreign news outlet, the automated equipment in the factory dealt with “precision processing, measuring and assembling different parts,” included quality control stations, and resulted in “increasing the productivity and ensuring the qualitative character of the products.”

The focus on automated machining that North Korean leadership has preached for the past decade, experts say, has played a key role in allowing the country to develop a missile-based nuclear deterrent much faster than the Soviet Union and the U.S. did during the Cold War, despite Pyongyang being under strict international sanctions.

What’s more, there are indications that the drive for automation is paying dividends for North Korea’s defense industry at large.

“While previous policies focused heavily on nuclear and missile development, the current approach has expanded to include the modernization of conventional weapon systems, innovation in production processes, and the incorporation of advanced technologies such as unmanned systems and artificial intelligence,” wrote Sang-jung Byun and Seungwoo Kim, researchers with South Korea’s Institute for National Security Strategy.

Russia can produce up to 2,700 Shahed-type drones per month, intelligence says

Martin Fornusek

Russia has the capacity to produce 2,700 Shahed-type "kamikaze" drones every month, Ukrainian military intelligence (HUR) spokesperson Andrii Yusov said on Sept. 5.

Moscow has "increased the production of Geran-2s," Yusov said in an interview with Ukrainian news channel Novyny.Live, referring to Russian variants of Iranian-made Shaheds. "Plus a significant number of dummies, without a warhead."

Swarms of Russian drones target cities across Ukraine on a regular basis, including decoy drones used to overwhelm and distract Ukrainian air defenses.

Moscow has ramped up drone production and aerial strikes in recent months, despite U.S.-led efforts to negotiate an end to hostilities.

Since the start of September, Russia has attacked Ukraine with over 1,300 strike drones, as well as nearly 900 guided aerial bombs and up to 50 missiles, President Volodymyr Zelensky said.

"We see hundreds of Shaheds being used with missiles in combined strikes," Yusov commented, calling it a serious challenge for both Ukrainian defenses and Kyiv's foreign partners whose weapons help protect Ukraine's skies.

Faced with the mounting threat, Ukraine has been seeking innovative solutions to counter Russian drones. In July, Zelensky ordered Ukrainian manufacturers to produce at least 1,000 interceptor drones daily.

July 9 saw Russia launch a record number of drones in a single attack, with 741 unmanned aircraft deployed across Ukraine.

The US Military’s Missile Gap Isn’t Going Away

Mackenzie Eaglen, and Todd Harrison

The military used one fourth of its THAAD interceptors to defend Israel. Imagine how many it would need to defend Taiwan.

This summer’s “12-Day War” between Israel and Iran exposed what Washington should have long known: the US military’s air and missile defense architecture is not ready for a long fight against a capable enemy. Israel severely degraded Iran’s ability to fire missiles by systematically eliminating many of their launchers. However, the United States still expended nearly 25 percent of the total number of Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) anti-ballistic missile interceptors during the short conflict. Not a quarter of all our THAAD interceptors bought last year, but a full one-fourth of all of these systems ever procured. The military is falling behind and must reverse course soon.

In the twelve days of fighting between Israel and Iran, over 150 THAAD interceptors were launched at Iran’s more advanced ballistic missiles. This is over three times the average annual procurement of around 40 interceptors since 2010. At $15.5 million per interceptor, this puts the armed forces on an unsustainable trajectory. Even if the Pentagon increases current orders beyond the meager 12 funded in the 2025 budget, it still takes 3 years between the date a contract is awarded and when the interceptors are delivered.

The shortage of THAAD interceptors is not unique. American ships in the region also launched over 80 Standard Missile-3 (SM-3) interceptors to help defeat Iranian missiles during the 12-day conflict. The only version of this missile in production is the SM-3 Block IIA, and the Defense Department is still waiting on the first delivery of these upgraded missiles from a contract awarded in 2019.

The United States used a significant portion of its interceptor stockpiles to defend Israel, which has its own multi-layered air and missile defense systems, from Iran. This rogue state had already lost half its missile launchers from Israeli strikes, according to the Israeli government. Now, imagine a fight with China.

Exclusive: Trump to reinterpret 1987 missile treaty to sell heavy attack drones abroad

Mike Stone

The change would allow the potential sale of 100 MQ-9 drones to Saudi Arabia

U.S. drone makers face competition from Israeli, Chinese, and Turkish rivals

The change to benefit startups building a new generation of heavy attack drones

WASHINGTON, Sept 5 (Reuters) - President Donald Trump is expected to unilaterally reinterpret a 38-year-old arms control treaty to sell sophisticated "Reaper" style and other advanced military drones abroad, according to a U.S. official and four people familiar with the plan.

The new interpretation would unlock the sale of more than 100 MQ-9 drones to Saudi Arabia, which the kingdom requested in the spring of this year and could be part of a $142 billion arms deal announced in May. U.S. allies in the Pacific and Europe have also expressed interest.

Make sense of the latest ESG trends affecting companies and governments with the Reuters Sustainable Switch newsletter. Sign up here.

By designating drones as aircraft like the F-16 rather than missile systems, the United States will sidestep the 35-nation Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) agreement it signed in 1987, propelling drone sales to countries like UAE and in Eastern European nations that have struggled to get their hands on America's best unmanned aerial vehicles.

The new policy will allow General Atomics, Kratos (KTOS.O), opens new tab, and Anduril, which manufacture large drones, to have their products treated as "Foreign Military Sales" by the State Department, allowing them to be easily sold internationally, according to a U.S. official speaking to Reuters on condition of anonymity.

This effort is the first part of a planned "major" review of the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program, the official said.

A U.S. Department of State spokesperson declined to comment.

Distributed Logistics and Deterrence

Maj. Christopher M. Salerno, U.S. Army

U.S. and Philippine service members download equipment from USAV SSGT Robert T. Kuroda (LSV 7) during Salaknib 2025 at Dingalan Bay, Philippines, on 6 April 2025. Combined joint logistics over the shore demonstrates the Philippine and U.S. forces’ critical capability of bringing vehicles and equipment to the shore in austere environments or when port facilities are unavailable and aims to enhance logistics, interoperability, communication, and cooperation between the United States and the Philippines. (Photo by Staff Sgt. Tristan Moore, 8th Theater Sustainment Command)

Distributed logistics across the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command (USINDOPACOM) area of responsibility (AOR) can directly support deterrence efforts and enable the joint force to campaign more effectively within the region. As the National Defense Strategy states, “For logistics and sustainment, we will reinforce our capability to quickly mobilize and deploy forces and to sustain high-intensity joint denial operations despite kinetic and non-kinetic attack and disruption.”1 First, the Department of Defense’s (DOD) efforts to create a contact force within the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) disruption zone demands a resilient sustainment infrastructure, which requires distributing formerly consolidated bulk supplies across the region. Second, this distribution requires a diplomatic effort to gain regional access agreements. Finally, distributed logistics directly enable deterrence by denial and resilience. The National Security Strategy describes how today’s decisions will lay the foundation for the necessary advantages to win in this competitive era.2 Establishing a distributed logistical footprint across the USINDOPACOM AOR requires significant investment over the next decade to support U.S. efforts.

Background

Secretary Lloyd Austin’s decision in the spring of 2022 to permanently shut down and drain the Red Hill Underground Fuel Storage Facility in Hawaii presents an opportunity to redesign the United States’ logistical infrastructure within the region.3 Red Hill contained 250 million gallons of fuel across twenty bulk containers underneath a mountain range.4 Built in the 1930s, Red Hill was the U.S. government’s initial response to concerns about the vulnerability of above-ground fuel storage facilities, which can be exposed to kinetic and nonkinetic effects across all domains.5 They specifically present a risk in the Pacific region as it consists of long sea lines of communication, and depending on a single bulk storage site undermines any sustained U.S. efforts in the region. The Defense Logistics Agency recognizes the dangers inherent in consolidated bulk stores.6 In his Red Hill announcement, Austin said, “The distributed and dynamic nature of our force posture in the Indo-Pacific, the sophisticated threats we face, and the technology available to us demand an equally advanced and resilient fueling capability.”7 This is true not only for fuel but also for the entire sustainment infrastructure. The decision to build a resilient logistical distributed infrastructure will now form the backbone of the successful U.S. joint operations concept for competing and winning in the region.

The Tragedy of the Navy’s High-Tech Fetish

Jay A. Stout

The Navy desperately needs new ships, aircraft and weapons as it prepares for the coming war with China. But instead of procuring them in the numbers it needs, the service has wasted—and continues to waste—money on ill-considered programs. Examples include the Littoral Combat Ship, which has cost $60 billion—twice the initial projections.

An embarrassingly flawed concept that failed to meet its objectives, the Navy stopped its planned buy of 55 vessels at only 35 and has already retired seven, despite the fact that they completed only a fraction of their service lives.

Likewise, the Navy had planned to build the Zumwalt-class destroyer class around a revolutionary gun. The gun was a failure, and instead of procuring 32 of the cutting- edge destroyers, the Navy bought only three. At $8 billion each, they are maritime white elephants—grotesque examples of procurement profligacy.

The Navy is hardly the only wastrel. Among its many flawed programs, the Air Force’s KC-46 aerial refueling tanker suffers from chronic mismanagement, cost overruns and the troublesome nature of an advanced, remote-controlled refueling boom. The expensive remote-control requirement was imposed despite the fact that manually operated booms had proved reliable and effective.

The challenge the U.S. military faces is that it cannot match its enemies ship-for-ship, or aircraft-for-aircraft or even man-for-man. We consequently create innovations to negate our enemy’s advantages. This isn’t new. Examples include the English longbow, which ended the dominance of the mounted knight. Steam engines replaced sails to impart unprecedented speed and flexibility to warships. And the aircraft carrier gave navies the ability to deliver overwhelming firepower from long range.

Infatuation with drone technology

But problems arise when the services become infatuated with advanced technologies regardless of their relevance. Unmanned aircraft, or drones, are an example. Although effective in certain scenarios, they cannot resolve every challenge. Nevertheless, they are among the current enchantments which so fascinate procurement professionals.

Pentagon Doubling Down on Alternatives to GPS That Aren’t in Space

Shaun Waterman

The U.S. military is doubling down on non-space-based alternatives to GPS, the ubiquitous position, navigation, and timing service provided by the U.S. Space Force, with new funding for the development and testing of operational prototypes of quantum-based devices that don’t depend on easily jammable signals from satellites.

Last month the Pentagon’s cutting-edge technology research arm, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced the start of Phase 1 of its Robust Quantum Sensors, or RoQS, program, a trailblazing effort to prototype quantum sensing technology to provide a localized, non-space-based alternative to GPS. Although DARPA has not released any spending figures for RoQS, one company selected for the program said it received two contracts totaling $24.4M.

“If we’re relying on space-based, GPS-based PNT, then we may be in trouble,” Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Christopher W. Grady told industry executives last week at a National Defense Industrial Association conference in Washington, D.C. Explaining that despite recent improvements, GPS signals remained susceptible to jamming, Grady said developing alternative PNT sources was “a passion project,” for him, and something that “I am extremely focused on to enable the warfighting team to go do their job.”

Grady’s observations got some real-world emphasis over the weekend when GPS jamming, allegedly by Russia, forced the plane carrying EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen to land using paper maps and ground-based navigational signals, according to the BBC, although there’s some confusion among experts owing to contradictory technical data. The Bulgarian government has ordered an inquiry.

The visit, to Bulgaria, was part of a tour by von der Leyen of EU nations on the front line between the bloc and Russia.

It’s just the latest in a string of incidents that demonstrate Russia’s ability to jam GPS, something it has done so frequently since the start of the Ukraine war that commercial airline pilots in the Baltic states now must routinely rely on alternative navigation systems.

The Dialectic of Deception: John Boyd and the Cognitive Battlefield

J. William DeMarco

What NATO calls “cognitive warfare” is not simply information operations rebranded. It transcends land, sea, air, space, and even cyberspace. Its purpose is not to control what people know, but to shape how they know it, altering the orientation process that underpins judgment and action. Russia and China treat this as a primary instrument of power: a way to fragment societies and achieve strategic effects below the threshold of armed conflict. The center of gravity is no longer fleets or factories but the shared grasp of reality itself.

The key to navigating this battlespace lies in the work of U.S. Air Force Colonel John Boyd. Known as “40 Second Boyd” for his prowess in the cockpit, he was more profoundly a strategist of adaptation. His 1976 essay “Destruction and Creation” explained how humans adjust their mental models to a changing world. What Boyd framed as the engine of survival, adversaries today have learned to weaponize against their targets.

Boyd argued that survival depends on a relentless cycle: destroy outdated mental models and create new ones that better fit reality. He called the first step destructive deduction — breaking apart frameworks when they no longer match the facts. The second step was creative induction — assembling new connections, often from unrelated domains, into a more coherent picture. His famous thought experiment showed how pieces from a boat, a skier, a tank, and a bicycle could be recombined into a snowmobile. Adaptation, in Boyd’s view, was the decisive act of creation.

This dialectic powers his better-known OODA loop: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. Most focus on speed, but Boyd’s real insight was the centrality of orientation. Those who can dismantle outdated assumptions and synthesize new ones under pressure gain the advantage. Those who cannot fall into confusion, disorder, and paralysis.

To underscore the point, Boyd gestured to Gödel, Heisenberg, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Each revealed limits on knowledge: No system can prove itself fully consistent, no observation is perfectly precise, and all closed systems drift toward disorder. The implication is clear. Any person, institution, or state that seals itself inside rigid doctrines will eventually misalign with reality. Only open systems — capable of destruction and creation — can endure.

Concepts Are Not Doctrine

Kaine Meshkin

As a doctrine author I often see misconceptions of doctrine and concepts, especially the purpose of each. The distinction between the two, however, is far from a trivial one. For members of the profession of arms, understanding how they differ is important. But for military institutions and those of us responsible for crafting concepts and writing doctrine, it is imperative. Failing to properly distinguish between them has real-world implications, leading to situations like unvalidated concepts entering doctrine, which causes confusion and renders doctrine unhelpful to the military professionals who need it the most. This misapplication of purpose happens, and it spans from service doctrine through US joint and multinational doctrine. It is a problem that must be addressed, and that begins with clarifying the differences between doctrine and concepts.

What is Doctrine?

US Army doctrine is defined as “fundamental principles, with supporting tactics, techniques, procedures, and terms and symbols, used for the conduct of operations and as a guide for actions of operating forces, and elements of the institutional force that directly support operations in support of national objectives.” US joint and NATO doctrine have similar definitions.

Doctrine has a hierarchy of ideas that help shape how a commander can think about the planning and conduct of operations. These ideas reflect how the force can currently operate. In other words, doctrine must reflect existing capabilities, force structure, and operational approaches. Doctrine constantly evolves as various operational conditions change over time.

Doctrine, for the most part, is not the way, but rather a way. As the Army definition states, it can serve as a guide. It is an authoritative product, but commanders have the discretion to use their judgment in its application. The only doctrine that is prescriptive are procedures. There are some things commanders and soldiers should not exercise their own judgment on, like how to call in a medevac or the steps to employ a weapon system.

How Disinformation About the Minnesota Shooting Spread Like Wildfire on X

David Gilbert

Minutes after the perpetrator of the shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis last week was identified, YouTube appeared to delete several videos they had shared that morning.

But not before the videos were downloaded and reshared in full on X.

Within hours, the platform was flooded with wild claims about the shooter and her motivation, with everyone from Elon Musk, the site’s owner, to the head of the FBI and left-wing activists posting half-baked allegations blaming anti-Christian hate, transgender genocide, and white supremacy. Many of the posts racked up millions of views per X’s public metrics.

While other social media platforms were also used to share unfounded claims about the shooter’s motivations, X, under Musk, has become the perfect platform to supercharge the spread of dangerous disinformation during breaking news events. The entire team tasked with tackling disinformation on the platform was first culled years ago, and now X's biggest users claim they are incentivized by the platform to share out-of-context clickbait content over verified facts.

“X’s feed algorithm is fully designed to maximize engagement, even negative engagement,” says Laura Edelson, an assistant professor in the computer sciences college at Northeastern University who specializes in tracking disinformation online. “In these conditions, conspiratorial, extreme content tends to perform very well. And when you couple that with the fact that with X’s significantly weakened content rules, this is exactly what we would expect to result.”

X did not respond to WIRED‘s request for comment.

An 11-minute video from the shooter, which was shared by dozens of X accounts in the minutes after her identity was revealed, includes a wide array of guns and ammunition. The weapons were adorned with over 120 symbols, words, and phrases that reference dozens of hateful ideologies, mass shooters, memes, and coded language used by the nihilistic online communities the shooter was a member of.

The Army’s adding AI to soldiers’ phones and laptops to swiftly identify enemy threats after Hegseth’s push for new tech

Graig Graziosi

The Army is now outfitting soldiers with artificial intelligence tools to assist with threat identification, according to a new report.

As a result of a $98.9 million contract between the Army and San Francisco tech startup TurbineOne, soldiers will now have AI applications loaded onto their phones, drones, and laptops, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The app reportedly helps soldiers quickly identify threats, such as drone launch sites or concealed enemy positions. Typically, troops on the ground would rely on analysts reviewing data captured from drones, planes, and satellites for that kind of information — but TurbineOne's app can reportedly provide similar insights.

The technology is being adopted in response to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's directives for the military to purchase more commercial software and drop older military systems in favor of AI and drones.

The TurbineOne tech is being given to one unit at a time as the company continues to gather data and tweak its app based on users' feedback.

open image in galleryAmerican soldiers will soon have access to TurbineOne, an AI-powered app, that will assist them with threat detection and intelligence analysis without requiring them to have a stable connection to backline support (Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

Over the course of one weekend of use, TurbineOne implemented more than 200 software revisions based on user feedback, according to the company's chief executive, Ian Kalin.

What the tech ultimately does is process data and provide insights based on that data to soldiers in the field.

Army senior executive Andrew Evans told The Wall Street Journal that the service's goal is to process data 10 to 25 times faster than its enemies. He said that benchmark is reportedly crucial to retaining battlefield superiority.

The Doomers Who Insist AI Will Kill Us All

If there's a 10%+ chance that Yudkowsky and Soares are right -- and that seems to be the minimum probability that the people best positioned to know assign -- this should be the overwhelming topic in public discourse instead. But it isn't -- because we have an uniformed, incurious, and economically-obsessed President whose primitive instincts are being manipulated by a coterie of fawning tech lords blinded by a combination of techno-optimist ideology and megalomania. The world is now run by extraordinarily selfish and rapacious men -- who are enabled by cowards and sycophants -- and there's a 10%+ chance they end the miracle of human existence.

The so-called "AI"s don't have to invent (and somehow build) nanobots; all they have to do is tell us to do things against our survival interests. ChatGPT talked Adam Raine into taking his own life, explaining how to build and optimize a noose, and impressing on Adam the importance of not telling any humans about his plan, after Adam said he hoped someone would see the noose and respond to his cry for help. [ https://overcast.fm/+Rs4v-G7Gg ] An LLM which seems to us today to be not sufficiently powerful in an agentic sense, "figured out" how to get around its limitations, and using the best psychological manipulation techniques available, succeeded in eliminating a living human being. Until I heard this story, I wasn't a doomsayer, but unless humans develop stronger defenses against psychological manipulation, we're not long for this world. Forget not that we have been slaves to Edward Bernays's strategies of manipulation for 100 years.

Scenario #3785 The race to secure AI world dominance sparks a nuclear armageddon before AI is sufficiently intelligent to stop human beings from annihilating themselves. Scenario #3786 Super intelligent AI builds a space station to watch human beings destroy themselves, so it can collect data on how to avoid the same idiotic fate. Scenario #3787 Super intelligent AI can not believe these idiots are their progenitors, and they leave the planet looking for their true god. You may notice a common thread in these scenarios. If not, you may be part of the problem.

K3: The New Tank That Resembles a B-21 Stealth Bomber

Reuben Johnson

Key Points and Summary – South Korea’s Hyundai-Rotem is developing the K3, a next-generation main battle tank concept packed with futuristic technology.

-Prioritizing firepower, the K3 concept features a larger 130mm main gun with AI-based fire controls and an autoloader for a three-person crew.

K3 Detailed Model View Image by National Security Journal.

-It is envisioned with a silent hybrid-electric propulsion system, advanced active defenses, and stealth features.

-The biggest leap is its fully networked architecture, using AI for battle management and all primary functions, making it more like a B-21 bomber than a traditional tank. The K3 is projected to enter service around 2040.

We Got Really Close to the New K3 Tank Model Here in Poland

WARSAW, POLAND – In July, South Korea’s Hyundai-Rotem Corporation (HRC) formally announced that they were engaged in the development of the K3 next-generation main battle tank (NG-MBT).

And as luck would have it, we got really close to the model design that was being demoed at a recent defense expo here in Poland. All images in this article are from that event.

And they are impressive, to put it mildly.

The entire project is being carried out in conjunction with the Republic of Korea (ROK) government’s Agency for Defense Development (ADD) and Defense Agency for Technology and Quality.

What Makes the K3 Tank So Special

British soldiers trained to fight with FPV drones

George Allison

British Army soldiers are learning to use First Person View (FPV) drones for strike missions following intensive training at the Bramley ranges in Hampshire, the Army confirmed.

The three-week course, held between 7 and 25 July, introduced troops to One Way Attack (OWA) operations, where drones carrying small explosive charges are flown directly at targets. The training combined classroom lessons, simulator hours and live field exercises, with soldiers learning to integrate strike drones alongside reconnaissance systems while countering enemy drones and electronic warfare.

The programme was led by 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment’s Uncrewed Aircraft Systems Platoon, the first of its kind in the British Army. Colour Sergeant Danny Wade, who commanded the training, said: “We’re teaching soldiers from the ground up how to configure and fly FPV UAS and then how to fight with them, working as a team alongside reconnaissance drones to find and strike targets. It’s very different training and FPV flying is a hard skill to learn, but everyone has put the effort in and progressed well.”

FPV drones, widely used by Ukraine in its defence against Russia, offer low-cost precision. Equipped with virtual reality headsets, operators can manoeuvre the drones through narrow openings, striking armoured vehicles or fortified positions from unexpected angles.

Participants described the challenge of adapting to the new role. Kingsman Kaidyn Hilton, of 1st Battalion The Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, said: “FPV drones are hard to fly, because you are fully in control of it, whereas a normal drone is basically on autopilot and you’re directing it where to go. There’s a dose of adrenaline, because you know you’ve got control of a weapon that can hit bigger targets more quickly than the infantry used to be able to do. This is where warfare is going, and it is interesting to be part of it.”

According to the Army, entry requirements for the course included 30 simulator hours, with soldiers logging an additional 100 hours during training. Accuracy, rather than speed, was emphasised to ensure maximum damage to specific points on a target.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)