{"id":839720,"date":"2025-04-08T04:11:57","date_gmt":"2025-04-08T09:11:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/2025\/04\/08\/how-the-pentagon-is-adapting-to-chinas-technological-rise\/"},"modified":"2025-04-08T04:11:57","modified_gmt":"2025-04-08T09:11:57","slug":"how-the-pentagon-is-adapting-to-chinas-technological-rise","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/2025\/04\/08\/how-the-pentagon-is-adapting-to-chinas-technological-rise\/","title":{"rendered":"How the Pentagon is adapting to China\u2019s technological rise"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

A conversation with Kathleen Hicks, the former deputy secretary of defense.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

\"Deputy<\/span><\/p>

Alex Brandon\/AP<\/span><\/figcaption><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/header>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

It\u2019s been just over two months since Kathleen Hicks stepped down as US deputy secretary of defense. As the highest-ranking woman in Pentagon history, Hicks shaped US military posture through an era defined by renewed competition between powerful countries and a scramble to modernize defense technology.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n

She\u2019s currently taking a break before jumping into her (still unannounced) next act. \u201cIt\u2019s been refreshing,\u201d she says\u2014but disconnecting isn\u2019t easy. She continues to monitor defense developments closely and expresses concern over potential setbacks: \u201cNew administrations have new priorities, and that\u2019s completely expected, but I do worry about just stalling out on progress that we’ve built over a number of administrations.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

Over the past three decades, Hicks has watched the Pentagon transform\u2014politically, strategically, and technologically. She entered government in the 1990s at the tail end of the Cold War, when optimism and a belief in global cooperation still dominated US foreign policy. But that optimism dimmed. After 9\/11, the focus shifted to counterterrorism and nonstate actors. Then came Russia\u2019s resurgence and China\u2019s growing assertiveness. Hicks took two previous breaks from government work\u2014the first to complete a PhD at MIT and joining the think thank Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), which she later rejoined to lead its International Security Program after her second tour. \u201cBy the time I returned in 2021,\u201d she says, \u201cthere was one actor\u2014the PRC (People\u2019s Republic of China)\u2014that had the capability and the will to really contest the international system as it\u2019s set up.\u201d<\/p>\n

In this conversation with MIT Technology Review<\/em>, Hicks reflects on how the Pentagon is adapting\u2014or failing to adapt\u2014to a new era of geopolitical competition. She discusses China\u2019s technological rise, the future of AI in warfare, and her signature initiative, Replicator, a Pentagon initiative to rapidly field thousands of low-cost autonomous systems such as drones.<\/p>\n

You\u2019ve described China as a \u201ctalented fast follower.<\/strong>\u201d Do you still believe that, especially given recent developments in AI and other technologies?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Yes, I do. China is the biggest pacing challenge we face, which means it sets the pace for most capability areas for what we need to be able to defeat to deter them. For example, surface maritime capability, missile capability, stealth fighter capability. They set their minds to achieving a certain capability, they tend to get there, and they tend to get there even faster.<\/p>\n

That said, they have a substantial amount of corruption, and they haven\u2019t been engaged in a real conflict or combat operation in the way that Western militaries have trained for or been involved in, and that is a huge X factor in how effective they would be.<\/p>\n

China has made major technological strides, and the old narrative of its being a follower is breaking down\u2014not just in commercial tech, but more broadly. Do you think the US still holds a strategic advantage?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I would never want to underestimate their ability\u2014or any nation\u2019s ability\u2014to innovate organically when they put their minds to it. But I still think it\u2019s a helpful comparison to look at the US model. Because we\u2019re a system of free minds, free people, and free markets, we have the potential to generate much more innovation culturally and organically than a statist model does. That\u2019s our advantage\u2014if we can realize it.<\/p>\n

China is ahead in manufacturing, especially when it comes to drones and other unmanned systems. How big a problem is that for US defense, and can the US catch up?<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

I do think it\u2019s a massive problem. When we were conceiving Replicator, one of the big concerns was that DJI had just jumped way out ahead on the manufacturing side, and the US had been left behind. A lot of manufacturers here believe they can catch up if given the right contracts\u2014and I agree with that.<\/p>\n

But the harder challenge isn\u2019t just making the drones\u2014it\u2019s integrating them into our broader systems. That\u2019s where the U.S. often struggles. It\u2019s not a complicated manufacturing problem. It\u2019s a systems integration problem: how you take something and make it usable, scalable, and connected across a joint force. Replicator was designed to push through that\u2014to drive not just production, but integration and deployment at speed.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

We also spent time identifying broader supply-chain vulnerabilities. Microelectronics was a big one. Critical minerals. Batteries. People sometimes think batteries are just about electrification, but they\u2019re fundamental across our systems\u2014even on ships in the Navy.<\/p>\n

When it comes to drones specifically, I actually think it\u2019s a solvable problem. The issue isn\u2019t complexity. It\u2019s just about getting enough mass of contracts to scale up manufacturing. If we do that, I believe the US can absolutely compete.<\/p>\n

The Replicator drone program was one of your key initiatives. It promised a very fast timeline\u2014especially compared with the typical defense acquisition cycle. Was that achievable? How is that progressing?<\/strong><\/p>\n

When I left in January, we had still lined up for proving out this summer, and I still believe we should see some completion this year. I hope Congress will stay very engaged in trying to ensure that the capability, in fact, comes to fruition. Even just this week with Secretary [Pete] Hegseth out in the Indo-Pacific, he made some passing reference to the [US Indo-Pacific Command] commander, Admiral [Samuel] Paparo, having the flexibility to create the capability needed, and that gives me a lot of confidence of consistency.<\/p>\n

Can you talk about how Replicator fits into broader efforts to speed up defense innovation? What\u2019s actually changing inside the system?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Traditionally, defense acquisition is slow and serial\u2014one step after another, which works for massive, long-term systems like submarines. But for things like drones, that just doesn\u2019t cut it. With Replicator, we aimed to shift to a parallel model: integrating hardware, software, policy, and testing all at once. That\u2019s how you get speed\u2014by breaking down silos and running things simultaneously.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

It\u2019s not about \u201cMove fast and break things.\u201d You still have to test and evaluate responsibly. But this approach shows we can move faster without sacrificing accountability\u2014and that\u2019s a big cultural shift.<\/p>\n

\u00a0How important is AI to the future of national defense?<\/strong><\/p>\n

It\u2019s central. The future of warfare will be about speed and precision\u2014decision advantage. AI helps enable that. It\u2019s about integrating capabilities to create faster, more accurate decision-making: for achieving military objectives, for reducing civilian casualties, and for being able to deter effectively. But we\u2019ve also emphasized responsible AI. If it\u2019s not safe, it\u2019s not going to be effective. That\u2019s been a key focus across administrations.<\/p>\n

What about generative AI specifically? Does it have real strategic significance yet, or is it still in the experimental phase?<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

It does have significance, especially for decision-making and efficiency. We had an effort called Project Lima<\/a> where we looked at use cases for generative AI\u2014where it might be most useful, and what the rules for responsible use should look like. Some of the biggest use may come first in the back office\u2014human resources, auditing, logistics. But the ability to use generative AI to create a network of capability around unmanned systems or information exchange, either in Replicator or JADC2? That\u2019s where it becomes a real advantage. But those back-office areas are where I would anticipate to see big gains first.<\/p>\n

[Editor\u2019s note: JADC2 is Joint All-Domain Command and Control, a DOD initiative to connect sensors from all branches of the armed forces into a unified network powered by artificial intelligence.]<\/em><\/p>\n

In recent years, we\u2019ve seen more tech industry figures stepping into national defense conversations\u2014sometimes pushing strong political views or advocating for deregulation. How do you see Silicon Valley\u2019s growing influence on US defense strategy?<\/strong><\/p>\n

There\u2019s a long history of innovation in this country coming from outside the government\u2014people who look at big national problems and want to help solve them. That kind of engagement is good, especially when their technical expertise lines up with real national security needs.<\/p>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

But that\u2019s not just one stakeholder group. A healthy democracy includes others, too\u2014workers, environmental voices, allies. We need to reconcile all of that through a functioning democratic process. That\u2019s the only way this works.<\/p>\n

How do you view the involvement of prominent tech entrepreneurs, such as Elon Musk, in shaping national defense policies?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I believe it\u2019s not healthy for any democracy when a single individual wields more power than their technical expertise or official role justifies. We need strong institutions, not just strong personalities.<\/p>\n

The US has long attracted top STEM talent from around the world, including many researchers from China. But in recent years, immigration hurdles and heightened scrutiny have made it harder for foreign-born scientists to stay. Do you see this as a threat to US innovation?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I think you have to be confident that you have a secure research community to do secure work. But much of the work that underpins national defense that\u2019s STEM-related research doesn\u2019t need to be tightly secured in that way, and it really is dependent on a diverse ecosystem of talent. Cutting off talent pipelines is like eating our seed corn. Programs like H-1B visas are really important.<\/p>\n

And it\u2019s not just about international talent\u2014we need to make sure people from underrepresented communities here in the US see national security as a space where they can contribute. If they don\u2019t feel valued or trusted, they\u2019re less likely to come in and stay.<\/p>\n

What do you see as the biggest challenge the Department of Defense faces today?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I do think the\u00a0 trust\u2014or the lack of it\u2014is a big challenge. Whether it\u2019s trust in government broadly or specific concerns like military spending, audits, or politicization of the uniformed military, that issue manifests in everything DOD is trying to get done. It affects our ability to work with Congress, with allies, with industry, and with the American people. If people don\u2019t believe you\u2019re working in their interest, it\u2019s hard to get anything done. <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Read More<\/a>
\n Caiwei Chen<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A conversation with Kathleen Hicks, the former deputy secretary of defense. Alex Brandon\/AP It\u2019s been just over two months since Kathleen Hicks stepped down as US deputy secretary of defense. As the highest-ranking woman in Pentagon history, Hicks shaped US military posture through an era defined by renewed competition between powerful countries and a scramble<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":839721,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[31860,2306,46],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-839720","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-adapting","8":"category-pentagon","9":"category-technology"},"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/839720","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=839720"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/839720\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/839721"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=839720"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=839720"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/newsycanuse.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=839720"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}