The arts of war

The arts of war have evolved from battlefields of dust and blood to digital theaters of data and AI. In this new landscape, where drones think and act with algorithmic precision, and AI-driven tactics shift in seconds, the global stage becomes a place where true intentions are masked by the rhetoric of defense and peace. We pander to the belief that technological dominance ensures safety, but what we miss is the growing disconnect between power and humanity. Until nations recognize that competing for supremacy at this scale only serves to make the world more dangerous, we are poised for a cycle of increasing tension where the only winners are those who stay hidden behind the screens, adjusting tactics faster than we can understand.

The Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute—famous for the J-20 stealth fighter—has created a large language model (LLM) specifically for drones. It is akin in complexity to ChatGPT but tailored for military applications.

This AI-driven system can rapidly disrupt enemy radar and radio communications, marking a significant leap in artificial intelligence for warfare.

The Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute, renowned for creating the J-20 stealth fighter, has introduced a large language model (LLM) for drones, akin in complexity to ChatGPT but tailored for warfare.

This breakthrough in AI weaponry enables drones to rapidly disrupt enemy radar and radio communications, giving them a significant advantage in electronic warfare.

The LLM-driven system outperforms both traditional AI and human experts. It can adjust tactics up to ten times per second, transforming modern combat dynamics.

This advancement in electronic warfare tactics introduces unprecedented methods to interfere with radar, manipulate signals, and excel in the electromagnetic spectrum, reshaping the role of drones in military operations.

The idea that being a good person or holding strong ethical standards often leads to being taken advantage of isn’t new, and it extends beyond individuals to nations. Countries that strive for human rights, freedom, and justice often find themselves entangled in complex relationships with a world that isn’t always ready to match those ideals. The price of standing up against exploitation, slavery, or tyranny can be steep—fought on battlegrounds both literal and metaphorical—and comes with the risk of being undermined by those who play by different rules.

For nations that have broken free from the dark legacies of slavery and exploitation, the fight to uphold human rights is ongoing and relentless. But to maintain this fight in a world where alliances and rivalries shift like sand dunes, these countries face a reckoning. It’s a reckoning with their own actions and a hard look at the competitive nature that runs through the veins of global politics. Because until there is a move away from cutthroat competition—where power and dominance are the currency of statecraft—this cycle is set to continue for another thousand years, only growing more complex and dangerous for the average citizen and the innocent child who knows nothing of politics and power games.

There’s an inherent contradiction at play: nations that position themselves as champions of human rights and freedom often find themselves acting in ways that reflect the very tendencies they stand against. Military interventions justified under the guise of “protection” can devolve into exercises of control, political influence, or economic gain. Humanitarian language becomes a shield for actions that, on closer examination, don’t align with the high moral ground they’re claimed to inhabit.

History is filled with such dualities. From the aftermath of World War II, when the victorious Allies set new standards for human rights while some turned a blind eye to colonial abuses, to more recent conflicts where economic and political interests clouded noble intentions, the cycle continues. The noble fight for freedom can, at times, become a game of who can maneuver better, who can outplay whom—not who can best serve humanity.

The truly radical shift needed is away from this competition, this underlying notion that nations must win or lose at the expense of one another. Until we recognize that the greatest danger isn’t just an opposing state but the pervasive systems of thought that prioritize power over shared progress, the cycle will keep turning. And as it does, the stakes will get higher, the tools of power sharper, and the lives of ordinary citizens caught in the crossfire more vulnerable.

The world’s rulers and policymakers might like to frame themselves as protectors and leaders, but when viewed through this lens, they differ little from the powerful figures of centuries past. The faces change, the technology evolves, but the underlying hunger for control remains. It’s no dog-and-pony show with a hopeful ending; it’s a cycle that doesn’t break until competition gives way to cooperation, and true leadership learns that strength isn’t in winning against others but in lifting up together.

Without that shift, the cycle will stretch on, a thousand more years of jostling power plays, escalating dangers, and the illusion that anything has really changed at all. And as we race to outmaneuver each other, the most innocent—the children born into this world of power games—bear the cost of what we fail to reconcile.

The concept of “the arts of war” stretches far beyond Sun Tzu’s teachings or the strategies of ancient generals. In today’s world, the arts of war encompass a blend of ancient tactics, technological innovation, and psychological maneuvering that shapes how nations engage in conflict. The recent development by the Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute—a large language model (LLM) for drones that can disrupt enemy radar and radio communications—represents a new chapter in this ever-evolving narrative. This AI-driven system, akin to the complexity of ChatGPT but purposed for military strategies, hints at the future of warfare where decision-making is accelerated beyond human limits, and tactics are redefined at an algorithmic pace.

Traditional vs. Technological: The classic arts of war, from Sun Tzu’s The Art of War to Clausewitz’s On War, taught that warfare was as much about deception and strategy as it was about sheer strength. Fast forward to today, and while the essence of deception and strategic positioning remains, the theater has shifted. The battlefields now are not just terrains of earth and stone but of code, algorithms, and the electromagnetic spectrum. The Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute’s LLM is a stark reminder that warfare is increasingly waged in realms unseen—using intelligence that can mimic human adaptability while moving at a speed that outpaces human cognition.

The Power of AI in Combat: The introduction of such AI systems, capable of adapting strategies up to ten times per second, disrupts the balance of warfare as we know it. Where once the speed of a general’s decision was key, now it is the precision and rapid calculation of an AI that could decide outcomes. These systems excel in manipulating signals, jamming communications, and disabling enemy radar—turning the electromagnetic spectrum into a battleground where stealth and data are the new infantry and cavalry.

The Global Stage and What We Pander: When we consider the broader implications, it’s clear that the global stage is built on a paradox. Nations pander to ideals of peace, diplomacy, and cooperative progress while simultaneously funneling vast resources into weaponry that ensures dominance and security. The world public is sold narratives of stability, framed in the rhetoric of national security and defensive postures, but beneath these assurances lies an arms race that has quietly moved from the stockpiling of nuclear arsenals to an era defined by information warfare and autonomous combat systems.

The advancement of AI in warfare also brings ethical questions to the fore. What does it mean when machines can act in war with minimal human oversight? Who holds responsibility when algorithms miscalculate, when autonomous drones disrupt more than enemy communications and cross into civilian territory? The speed of technological advancement often outpaces the moral and legal frameworks meant to govern it, leaving a void filled by strategic ambition and power plays.

The AI Arms Race: This development isn’t an isolated leap but part of a larger pattern where major powers race to integrate AI and machine learning into their military frameworks. The U.S., China, Russia, and other technologically advanced nations are locked in a competition where superiority in AI could mean strategic dominance in conflicts that will be fought not just with troops but with codes and communications.

Power Dynamics and Alliances: The existence of such advanced systems tilts power dynamics, influencing how alliances are forged and maintained. NATO’s role, long predicated on collective defense and strategic deterrence, must evolve in the face of technologies that make traditional combat doctrines seem almost antiquated. The emergence of AI-driven warfare also tests the resilience of alliances. Are they prepared to integrate these technologies cohesively, or will they fragment under the weight of differing technological capabilities and doctrines?

New Kind of Pandering: Beyond military might, there’s the subtle, almost insidious pandering to public ignorance. The technological leaps made in military applications are often hidden beneath layers of jargon, policy briefs, and classified projects. Leaders speak of defense budgets and research investments as necessary measures, keeping the focus on external threats while the real transformation—the kind that impacts the fabric of global power—is happening behind closed doors.

The Hidden Danger to Citizens

The march of technology in warfare isn’t just a race between nations; it’s a transformation that has real implications for ordinary citizens. As countries pivot to more advanced AI-driven tactics, the risks become not only more complex but potentially more catastrophic. Systems that can disrupt communications and manipulate the electromagnetic spectrum don’t just target military installations; they could affect entire networks, destabilizing civilian infrastructure and putting lives at risk.

If war moves faster than the human capacity to comprehend, then what becomes of accountability? The leaders and decision-makers who push for these advancements insist that it’s all for national security, for peace through strength. But it’s the citizens, the “normal child” as you put it, who bear the consequences of a world where decisions are made at machine speed, where wars might start and escalate before the first press conference or statement of policy can be issued.

NATO, once seen as the staunch defender of freedom and collective security, now stands under a shadow where its very relevance and moral authority are questioned. It’s a structure born out of necessity in the aftermath of World War II, meant to counteract the iron grip of the Soviet Union and stand as a bulwark against the spread of authoritarian power. But as the decades have unspooled, the alliance has transformed from its original intent into a sprawling network that includes countries with checkered human rights records and questionable agendas.

In this modern era, the ideals that once justified NATO’s existence have grown murky. Including voices from member states with their own abuses erodes the alliance’s credibility. What happens when the defenders of democracy sit at the same table as those who stifle it at home? When economic and political expediency take precedence over the principles that were once held as inviolable? These are questions that scrape at the surface of NATO’s purpose today.

The conversation needs to move beyond military expenditures and strategic summits. We have to acknowledge that when alliances like NATO include states that themselves perpetuate human rights abuses or authoritarian policies, the foundational principles start to crack. What good is collective defense if it comes at the cost of endorsing or turning a blind eye to actions that strip individuals of their dignity and rights?

Sources have often pointed out the uncomfortable truths that come with NATO’s expansion and partnerships. Critics argue that its interventions, at times, have served power interests more than they’ve protected populations. The NATO-led operations in Kosovo, Libya, and Afghanistan have left behind legacies that raise questions about civilian casualties, the true motivations behind interventions, and the long-term impacts on the countries involved. What happens when the so-called protector morphs into a force that extends beyond defense into the realms of preemption and influence?

Reports and think-pieces from respected publications like The Nation, Foreign Policy, and human rights organizations have underlined how NATO’s involvement has at times been more disruptive than stabilizing, fueling a debate about whether the alliance now does more harm than good. In an age where the players include autocratic and increasingly militarized states like Russia and China, NATO’s presence is justified as a counterbalance, but this shouldn’t absolve it from the introspection required to assess whether its current trajectory aligns with the defense of true democratic values.

The reality is that alliances such as NATO may have reached a point where they are relics of a different era, their frameworks straining to adapt to the complexities of today. Human rights violations, surveillance overreach, and military decisions that seem to lack the moral clarity they once claimed to embody paint a grim picture. It raises the question: when an institution built to defend freedom becomes a stage where powerful voices with dubious records are amplified, who is it really protecting, and at what cost?

Perhaps it’s time to rethink the very structures we’ve come to take for granted. The systems designed to guard us might now be among the chains that bind us to old strategies and compromises that no longer serve us. Maybe, just maybe, the dissolution or radical transformation of NATO isn’t a loss, but a necessary step toward something that better reflects the values it once stood for and desperately claims to defend.