Science & Technology

1047 Items

Image of Vladimir Putin standing in front of a podium

AP Photo

Intel semicondictor

The National Interest

Analysis & Opinions - The National Interest

Intel Is Reeling: Why Should the Government Save It?

| Apr. 06, 2023

Why should Washington save Intel? The answer most frequently provided by policymakers is that the U.S. produces no advanced chips, putting it at risk of losing a conflict with China if Taiwan is unable to ship chips across the Pacific. In reality, this is a canard. Peter Wennink, CEO of Dutch lithography giant ASML, dispelled this myth in December, saying that “it is common knowledge that chip technology for purely military applications is usually 10, 15 years old.” America’s warfighting capability is not meaningfully undermined by its lack of production of advanced chips as even platforms like the F-35 fighter jet use only legacy chips.

teaser image

Analysis & Opinions

Will Dreams for Equality Be Deferred by Gaps in Technology?

    Author:
  • Francella Ochillo
| Feb. 28, 2022

High broadband access and adoption rates can significantly improve earnings and net worth. Yet, year after year, Black and Brown Americans are among the most disparately impacted by digital inequities, which only contribute to the structural economic disparities that have tormented them for centuries. This tribute to Black History Month explains why historic investments in digital infrastructure are insufficient without transformational broadband policies that support economic resilience in every household.

A boy plays with his toy soldiers inside a school that is being used as a shelter for people who fled the war, in Dnipro city, Ukraine, on Tuesday, April 12, 2022.

AP Photo/Petros Giannakouris

Analysis & Opinions - Offensive Cyber Working Group

Subversion over Offense: Why the Practice of Cyber Conflict Looks Nothing Like Its Theory and What This Means for Strategy and Scholarship

    Author:
  • Lennart Maschmeyer
| Jan. 19, 2022

Cyber attacks are both exciting and terrifying, but the ongoing obsession with ‘cyber warfare’ clouds analysis and hampers strategy development. Much commentary and analysis of cyber conflict continues to use the language of war, where actors use ‘offensive cyber operations’ to meet adversaries in ‘engagements’ striving for victory on the ‘battlefield’ in the ‘cyber domain’. This discourse persists despite a growing consensus that cyber operations are primarily relevant in conflict short of war.

an alert from the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency

AP/Jon Elswick

Journal Article - Foreign Affairs

The End of Cyber-Anarchy?

| January/February 2022

Joseph Nye argues that prudence results from the fear of creating unintended consequences in unpredictable systems and can develop into a norm of nonuse or limited use of certain weapons or a norm of limiting targets. Something like this happened with nuclear weapons when the superpowers came close to the brink of nuclear war in 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis. The Limited Test Ban Treaty followed a year later.

FORT GORDON NELSON HALL, Augusta, Georgia, June 10, 2014 – The U.S. Army’s ‘Cyber Center of Excellence’, Fort Gordon in Augusta, Georgia, hosted a multi-service ‘NetWar’ to show, and build, cyber Warrior capabilities Tuesday, June 10.

Georgia Army National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Tracy J. Smith

Journal Article - Quarterly Journal: International Security

The Subversive Trilemma: Why Cyber Operations Fall Short of Expectations

    Author:
  • Lennart Maschmeyer
| Fall 2021

Although cyber conflict has existed for thirty years, the strategic utility of cyber operations remains unclear. The subversive trilemma explains why cyber operations tend to fall short of their promise in both warfare and low-intensity competition.

Les Droits de l’Homme, 1947 - a surrealist painting showing an anthropomorphic chess piece standing on a bridge next to a flaming tuba.

Rene Magritte

Report

Whose Streets? Our Streets! (Tech Edition)

    Author:
  • Rebecca Williams
| August 2021

This report is an urgent warning of where we are headed if we maintain our current trajectory of augmenting our public space with trackers of all kinds. In this report, I outline how current “smart city” technologies can watch you. I argue that all “smart city” technology trends toward corporate and state surveillance and that if we don’t stop and blunt these trends now that totalitarianism, panopticonism, discrimination, privatization, and solutionism will challenge our democratic possibilities. This report examines these harms through cautionary trends supported by examples from this last year and provides 10 calls to action for advocates, legislatures, and technology companies to prevent these harms. If we act now, we can ensure the technology in our public spaces protect and promote democracy and that we do not continue down this path of an elite few tracking the many.