The Convergence - An Army Mad Scientist Podcast

[Editor’s Note: Army Mad Scientist continues our series of blog posts and podcasts in the run up to our Game On! Wargaming & The Operational Environment Conference, co-hosted with the Georgetown University Wargaming Society, on 6-7 November 2024 — additional information on this event and the links to the conference agenda and registration site may be found at the end of this post (below). In today’s episode of The Convergence podcast, Army Mad Scientist welcomes back Dr. Billy Barry, who is joined by LTC Blair Wilcox from the Army War College (AWC) to discuss their recent case study using their “AI Study Buddy” — TIM — to pass an AWC class, explore how hybrid intelligence can augment human cognition, and address how AI could be used to amplify learning during Army wargames — Enjoy!] Dr. Billy Barry is a Professor of Emerging Technology and Principal Strategist of the Artificial Intelligence/Intelligence Augmentation (AI/IA) Program for the Center for Strategic Leadership at the United States Army War College. Before working at the Army War College, Dr. Barry was a visiting professor of Philosophy and Just War Theory at the United States Military Academy at West Point.  A pioneer in Human-AI/IA teams, he is the first to introduce AI-powered intelligent augmentation androids, robots, digital virtual beings, and strategic advisors as teaching and learning partners in civilian university and Professional Military Education classrooms. A sought-after TEDx and international keynote speaker, Dr. Barry’s influence extends to Fortune 500 companies and global leadership symposiums and conferences. His current research interest centers on non-invasive brain-computer interfaces, driving the conversation on ethical technology interactions. His contributions to academia and industry establish him as a leading authority on the future of human relationships with emerging technology.    Blair Wilcox is a lieutenant colonel, U.S. Army Strategist (FA59), and Assistant Professor currently assigned as the Deputy Director in the Strategic Landpower and Futures Group in the Center for Strategic Leadership at the U.S. Army War College. Before his current assignment, he taught in the Department of Social Sciences at the U.S. Military Academy from 2016-2020. His first functional assignment as a Strategist was at V Corps where he was the lead author for the Corps Subordinate Campaign Plan and Operational Approach. LTC Wilcox helped stand up the Corps, deployed with the Corps during crisis, and served as the Chief of Plans during his final year in the G5. Army Mad Scientist sat down with Dr. Barry and LTC Wilcox to discuss their fascinating use case of pairing with an artificial intelligence (AI) to pass an AWC course, how hybrid intelligence can amplify a Soldier’s cognitive abilities, and how AI is a wargaming game changer. The following bullet points highlight key takeaways from our conversation: Hybrid intelligence takes the concept of human/AI teaming to a whole new level, requiring both sides of the partnership to accomplish a task.One major benefit of hybrid intelligence is the ability for the machine to continuously learn through its interactions with humans, as opposed to static AI which has a pre-determined and finite base of knowledge.  The application of hybrid intelligence will be extremely useful to the Army and Joint Force at the strategic level – corps through theater. <...

[Editor’s Note: Army Mad Scientist continues our series of blog posts and podcasts in the run up to our Game On! Wargaming & The Operational Environment Conference, co-hosted with the Georgetown University Wargaming Society, on 6-7 November 2024 — additional information on this event and the link to our registration site may be found at the end of this post (below). In today’s episode of The Convergence podcast, Army Mad Scientist welcomes back COL Arnel P. David, a frequent contributor to the Mad Scientist Laboratory and returning podcast guest, to learn how NATO is injecting new technologies into wargaming to integrate and build staff proficiency across the Alliance’s 32 member nations’ militaries — Enjoy!] [If the podcast dashboard above is not rendering correctly for you, please click here to listen to the podcast.]  COL Arnel P. David is the Director of the Strategic Initiatives Group at NATO Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE). He is a distinguished military graduate from Valley Forge Military College, completed a Master of Arts from the University of Oklahoma, a Master of Military Art and Science in the Local Dynamics of War Scholars Program at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, and is a distinguished graduate of the Joint Advanced Warfighting School (JAWS) where he was a National Defense University Scholar and completed a Master of Science in Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy. COL David is a PhD candidate with King’s College London.  He is the cofounder of Fight Club International, a global gaming network seeking to improve the efficacy of warfighting across the spectrum of conflict and competition — find information on Fight Club‘s current online Tactical Decision Game at the end of this post. Army Mad Scientist sat down with COL David to discuss his views on wargaming in the U.S. Army and NATO, how technology is shaping its evolution, and how to push it to the forefront of Professional Military Education (PME). The following bullet points highlight key takeaways from our conversation: NATO SHAPE recently stood up a wargaming department. They are creating and prototyping games at the strategic level that can incorporate many of the 32 member countries as well as counter-terrorism games.This nascent team is just beginning to build out its wargaming capability and is looking for experts to contribute to its mission.  The aforementioned wargaming department is crowdsourcing input to help better understand “what Multi-Domain Operations(MDO) looks like.” They plan to take the information they collect and use it to construct games that will help explore the crowdsourcing prompt. Additionally, the best ideas will be evaluated and briefed out to Senior U.S. Army and NATO leaders.  A mixed-method approach to wargaming is best. The wargame itself is not the end state; rather, the post-game analysis and the lessons learned from multiple iterations is what is important. For wargames that focus on the Balkans, NATO incorporated large-language models (LLMs) to create psychometric profiles on different ethnic groups in the region to help better unde...

[Editor’s Note: Army Mad Scientist continues our series of blog posts and podcasts in the run up to our Game On! Wargaming & The Operational Environment Conference, co-hosted with the Georgetown University Wargaming Society, on 6-7 November 2024 — additional information on this event and the link to our registration site may be found at the end of this post (below). In today’s episode of The Convergence podcast, Army Mad Scientist interviewed Sebastian Bae, Senior Wargame Designer at CNA, adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University teaching graduate wargame design, and designer of the phenomenally popular Littoral Commander: Indo-Pacific — the single most cited game in the host of responses we received from our Calling All Wargamers crowdsourcing exercise last spring.  In this fascinating conversation, Mr. Bae explores how wargaming can help better prepare our Soldiers and Leaders for a complex Operational Environment — Read on!]   Sebastian Bae is a Research Scientist and Senior Game Designer at CNA’s Gaming & Integration program — working in wargaming, emerging technologies, the future of warfare, and strategy and doctrine for the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. He is the game designer for Littoral Commander: Indo-Pacific, a commercially available, professional military educational wargame exploring peer conflict and future technologies. Sebastian also serves as an adjunct assistant professor at the Center for Security Studies at Georgetown University, where he teaches a graduate course on designing educational wargames. He has taught similar courses at the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Marine Corps Command & Staff College. He is also the faculty advisor to the Georgetown University Wargaming Society, the Co-Chair of the Military Operations Research Society Wargaming Community of Practice, and a former Non-Resident Fellow at the Brute Krulak Center for Innovation and Creativity. Previously, he served six years in the Marine Corps infantry, leaving as a Sergeant. He deployed to Iraq in 2009. Army Mad Scientist sat down with Sebastian Bae to discuss his views on wargaming in the military, his thoughts on the various technology evolutions, and  how the Department of Defense can better harness this unique tool. The following bullet points highlight key takeaways from our conversation: “Wargaming is sort of like golf –it is often the refuge of the “wealthy” — the senior leaders — and it does not get lots of play at different echelons typically.” Wargaming capabilities are rarely pushed down to the lowest echelons and tactical level. They tend to be concentrated at the Combatant Command-level, creating a unique challenge as the games often only serve a specific viewpoint on any given problem. Integrating different types of wargames throughout different echelons allows Soldiers to practice decision making at all levels of their careers.This is critical because a Soldier’s decision space and perspective changes as they move from echelon to echelon. Ideally, the games should evolve as the Soldier moves up through their career path to represent the changes in their decision-making requirements.  Establishing a wargaming ecosystem consisting of both microgames and larger wargames creates an opportunity to explore topics outside of the typical kinetic, combat-centric wargames, such as Medical Services and CASEVAC, water distribution, and maintenance, that may be better suited for smaller games that can be played in 20-minutes. Additionally, a war...

[Editor’s Note: Army Mad Scientist first introduced Andrew Olson to our community of action with his insightful submission to our Calling All Wargamers crowdsourcing effort entitled Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR) Considerations in Wargaming LSCO.  In today’s episode of The Convergence podcast, we sit down with Mr. Olson to learn more about CHMR — now a DoD priority with the implementation of DoDI 3000.17 on 21 December 2023 — and how incorporating it into the Army’s wargaming activities can help our Leaders understand how it “supports U.S. national security interests… furthering strategic objectives to achieve long-term strategic success, enhancing the effectiveness and legitimacy of military operations, and demonstrating moral leadership.”  CHMR helps ensure we retain the moral high ground when executing military operations, are more precise with our application of lethal force, and are more effective at the operational level — all essential components of achieving victory — Enjoy!] Andrew Olson is an Associate Research Analyst at CNA, specializing in wargaming. He has experience with a variety of educational and analytical approaches, with a particular interest in wargaming policy challenges, climate change wargames, and emerging technologies wargames. He has facilitated wargames for the National Academies, U.S. Marine Corps, U.S. Navy, Pew Charitable Trusts, U.S. State Department, and the Joint Staff, among others. Prior to joining CNA, Mr. Olson worked for the Department of State examining technology cooperation challenges. He has managed several print publications, including the Science and Technology section of the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, and served as lead researcher and lab manager for a biological research lab examining the genetic foundations of empathy. Mr. Olson holds a Master of Science in foreign service from Georgetown University and Bachelor of Arts degrees in biology and political science from Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California. Army Mad Scientist sat down with Andrew Olson to discuss CHMR, its evolution within wargames, and its impact on Army planning. The following bullet points highlight key takeaways from our conversation: Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response (CHMR) is not a constraint – it is how we win. Effective CHMR is a part of how the U.S. can achieve its strategic and operational outcomes. Wargaming provides Leaders with the opportunity of exploring unfamiliar scenarios in a fail-safe environment. Future conflicts are likely to include the possibility of civilian harm – integrating CHMR into wargaming is essential in allowing our decision-makers the space to understand the full consequences of their decisions and actions.  CHMR is not a single inject to tack on at the end of a wargame – it must be a consistent approach that is incorporated into the development of commanders’ guidance, mission planning, courses of action, and targeting plans. Diffusing CHMR throughout every step of a wargame forces every player to account for civilian harm in decision-making at all levels and steps of mission planning and execution. The importance does not fall on CHMR simply being injected into every step of a wargame, but in making informed decisions towards a strategic outcome, of which C...

“I don’t think America, or the West in general, is prepared in any sort of way to fight a static war like we’re seeing over there in Ukraine.” [Editor’s Note:  One of the twelve key conditions driving the Operational Environment (OE) in the next ten years is its increased lethality.  According to the TRADOC G-2‘s recently published The Operational Environment 2024-2034: Large-Scale Combat Operations: “LSCO will be increasingly lethal due to the intersection of sensor ubiquity, battlefield automation, precision strike, and massed fires.” We’ve seen an increase in the production, employment, and success of Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) on the battlefield in recent years. These systems were integral components of the Azeri victory in the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War – specifically the Turkish Bayraktar TB2 and Israeli Harop – and are proving vital in the on-going Russo-Ukrainian war.  Indeed, during this latter conflict, the ever evolving Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)/Counter-UAS (C-UAS) fight has led to rapid adaptations on both sides as they seek to achieve battlefield advantage.  Yet any advantage achieved is fleeting — as observed by Daniel Patt, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, “The peak efficiency of a new weapon system is only about two weeks before countermeasures emerge.” In our latest episode of Army Mad Scientist’s The Convergence podcast, we sat down with Wolfgang Hagarty to learn first-hand about the on-going war in Ukraine, its rapidly evolving UAS/C-UAS fight, and the overarching impacts of technological innovation on the changing character of warfare — Enjoy!] Wolfgang Hagarty — a United States Marine Corps veteran — joined the Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF) in 2022 as an intelligence officer.  He took part in the UAF’s Kharkiv offensive as well as the Kherson offensive.  He became a team leader and focused primarily on the UAS/C-UAS fight as well as Electronic Warfare (EW) and counter-EW.   Army Mad Scientist sat down with Mr. Hagarty to talk about his experiences fighting in Ukraine,  his opinions on the rise of UAS, and his thoughts on the evolution of Large-Scale Combat Operations (LSCO).  The following bullet points highlight key takeaways from our conversation: First-Person View (FPV) drones have become a very cost-effective way for Ukraine to achieve precision strikes. Their ubiquity on the battlefield initially arose from Ukraine’s shortage of artillery shells.  The UAF soon realized dismounted infantry teams could find and finish Russian targets with precision strikes using fewer drones than conventional artillery firing masses of ordnance.    To counter Russian reconnaissance UAS, like the larger Orlan-10and -30, the...

[Editor’s Note: The Mad Scientist Laboratory featured LTC Kristine M. Hinds‘ assessment of private sector involvement in future conflicts in “Sixth Domain” – Private Sector Involvement in Future Conflicts last June. While some Army purists have taken exception to the Atlantic Council Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security‘s use of the term “Sixth Domain” to describe the private sector’s sphere of activities supporting warfighting, no one disputes the vital role that the private sector has played in providing corroborative intelligence via space imagery, effective cyber security, and resilient Command and Control networks — heretofore the domain of public sector defense services and intelligence communities — in Ukraine’s on-going fight against Russian imperialism. In today’s episode of The Convergence Podcast, Army Mad Scientist sat down with LTC Hinds to address Fifth Generation Warfare, the Sixth Domain, and how we may need to adapt to defend ourselves and the Nation in the evolving Operational Environment. In our latest episode of The Convergence podcast, Army Mad Scientist sat down with LTC Kristine Hinds — a 90A Logistics Corps officer in the U.S. Army Reserve and Future Seminar student at the Army War College — to discuss her work on Team Sullivan’s Travels, what her research revealed, and the implications of a Sixth Domain and Fifth Generation Warfare. The following bullet points highlight key takeaways from our conversation: In focusing on the central theme of “how innovations from contemporary conflicts impact the future dynamics of warfare,” LTC Hinds explored the impacts of non-military or non-federally governed entities in crisis and conflict, specifically those of the private sector.   Per The Atlantic Council, the sixth domain refers to the private sector’s role in warfare. In its on-going fight with Russia, Ukraine continues to receive private sector support in cyber, communications, and data migration services. The “sixth domain” has emerged as a critical consideration for operational planning and warfighting, not only for the assets and capabilities it can deliver, but also for its associated risk in blurring the distinction between noncombatants and combatants.   Private sector support is not guaranteed – it can be pulled or even turned into a threat.There is risk in relying too heavily on support that can be easily turned off. The private sector’s ability to deny services or withhold information creates the possibility of them adversely impacting strategic, operational, and tactical operations, such as targeting.   Fifth generation warfare loosely describes contemporary conflicts in which tactics like social media influence operations and cyberattacks play a more...

[Editor’s Note:  Army Mad Scientist is pleased to publish its 500th post!  Since its inception on 09 November 2017, the Mad Scientist Laboratory has continuously sought to explore the Operational Environment (OE) and the changing character of warfare on behalf of the U.S. Army.  Given this enduring mission, it’s fitting that this milestone post features the highlights from our latest episode of The Convergence podcast.  Army Mad Scientist sat down with Mr. Ian Sullivan, Deputy Chief of Staff Intelligence (DCSINT) G-2, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), to discuss the TRADOC G-2’s newly published The Operational Environment 2024-2034:  Large-Scale Combat Operations.   The OE underpins how the U.S. Army is organized, trained, equipped, and operates — it is foundational in ensuring the Army’s mission success — fighting and winning our Nation’s wars.  This latest OE assessment focuses on how our adversaries are learning and adapting how they fight from recent and on-going conflicts around the globe (e.g., Nagorno-Karabakh, Ukraine, Gaza, and the Gulf of Aden).  It describes the twelve conditions that contribute to Large-Scale Combat Operations (LSCO) and five resulting implications for the U.S. Army.  This new OE assessment is central to how the U.S. Army integrates the threat within our Leadership Development Training and Education system, our doctrine, and our modernization efforts across the DOTMLPF-P spectrum of capabilities.  In preparing for LSCO against our pacing and acute threats (China and Russia, respectively), it represents the “gold standard” for which the Army must ready itself as a “precursor to victory.”  Any and everyone associated with defending this great Nation should familiarize themselves with its contents — Read on!] Mr. Ian Sullivan is the Deputy Chief of Staff Intelligence, G-2, TRADOC.  He holds a BA from Canisius University in Buffalo, New York, an MA from Georgetown University’s BMW Center for German and European Studies in Washington, D.C., and was a Fulbright Fellow at the Universität Potsdam in Potsdam, Germany.  A career civilian intelligence officer, Mr. Sullivan has served with the Office of Naval Intelligence; Headquarters, U.S. Army Europe and Seventh Army; the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) at the National Counterterrorism Center; the Central Intelligence Agency; and TRADOC. He is a member of the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service and was first promoted to the senior civilian ranks in 2013 as a member of the ODNI’s Senior National Intelligence Service.  Mr. Sullivan is a frequent and valued contributor to both the Mad Scientist Laboratory and The Convergence podcast. In our latest episode of The Convergence podcast, Army Mad Scientist sat down with Mr. Sullivan to discuss the newly released The Operational Environment 2024-2034:  Large-Scale Combat Operations...

[Editor’s Note:  Last week’s Mad Scientist Laboratory blog post featured a timely “what if?” nightmare scenario by COL John Antal (USA-Ret.), set in a not-too-distant-future — imagining an Operational Environment where today’s National Defense Strategy threat members, colluding as a coalition of autocracies, launched simultaneous surprise strikes against United States’ Joint forces around the globe. In today’s 100th episode of The Convergence Podcast, Army Mad Scientist welcomes back COL Antal to read his scenario for our listeners and discuss its associated implications for the U.S. Army — Enjoy!] COL John Antal (USA-Ret.) is a Soldier, military historian, and leadership expert. He served 30 years in the U.S. Army as a combat arms officer, senior staff officer, and commander. He is the author of two recent books on modern warfare: Next War: Reimagining How We Fight (September 2023) and 7 Seconds to Die: A Military Analysis of the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War and the Future of Warfighting (February 2022). In our latest episode of The Convergence podcast, Army Mad Scientist sat down with COL Antal to review and discuss his troubling scenario and the associated implications for the U.S. Army. The following bullet points highlight key takeaways from our conversation: The Dictator’s Dreamis a fictional story written as a wakeup call for Army Leaders to focus on a worst-case scenario. “Useful fiction” presents possible scenarios intended to develop creativity and strengthen foresight — solving problems in the short term and creating solutions for the long-run. The U.S. could end up in a war for national survival — something most people cannot imagine.  This scenario helps our Leaders to imagine and think about how to respond to such an existential threat. The increasing speed of battlefield adaptation requires the U.S. Army to innovate and develop courses of action very rapidly. We can use lessons from history, specifically recent history, to help inform our decisions on how to adapt our forces. Wargames and thought experiments are also essential, enabling our Leaders to engage in productive dialogues on creative, timely solutions.  We are living in a precarious time – possibly more dangerous than at any other time in the 21st century. American deterrence has been dramatically affected by events in the past several years, providing our adversaries with opportunities to exploit. These threats are now colluding in ways we have not previously seen – becoming allies. Training rotations at our Combat Training Centers are capstone training events for our maneuver brigade combat teams. They must accurately depict the Operational Environment(OE), specifically regarding the 

[Editor’s Note:  Last week’s Mad Scientist Laboratory post featured an assessment by U.S. Army War College student LtCol Erik Keim (USMC) that “militaries will blend with civilian transmissions instead of relying solely on the specific military electromagnetic spectrum by 2030 due to the availability of Software Defined Radios (SDRs) and the proven success of digital camouflage.” In today’s episode of The Convergence Podcast, Army Mad Scientist sits down with LtCol Keim to discuss the Future Dynamics of Warfare project he and his U.S. Army War College classmates collaborated on, his research on blending in the electromagnetic spectrum, and how the Army can adapt to the modern battlefield — Enjoy!] LtCol Erik Keim is currently a resident student at the U.S. Army War College. He holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Computer Science from the University of Wyoming and a Master’s Degree in Information Technology Management from the Naval Postgraduate School. He is the recipient of the 2015 Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper Award from the Naval Postgraduate School. LtCol Keim is a Marine Corps Communications Officer with over 20 years of service and deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and throughout the Western Pacific. In our latest episode of The Convergence podcast, Army Mad Scientist sat down with LtCol Keim to talk about his work on the Team Sullivan’s Travels project at the U.S. Army War College, what his research showed for the U.S. Army, and how blending might be a viable course of action on a cluttered battlefield. The following bullet points highlight key takeaways from our conversation: Current military tactics use reserved frequencies and high-powered transmitters for communications. These actions stand out in the electromagnetic spectrum and make it easy for the enemy to triangulate and pinpoint the origin of the emissions for targeting and destruction.   The on-going war in Ukrainehas shown that both sides are able to very quickly and easily identify and locate the source of communications transmissions and use a variety of kinetic attacks on those locations. Blending would be a viable alternative to using traditional military frequencies, with military communications “hiding within the noise” of commercial and civilian transmissions – e.g., WiFi, 4G and 5G, and Bluetooth.  Blending in with the background electromagnetic spectrum “noise” makes it much harder for an adversary to detect and discern specific military communications from normal environmental transmissions.  This may come with added risk — Russia, for instance, transitioned to using cell phone communications but used unencrypted signals that Ukraine was able to intercept and act on.  The contemporary battlefield shows that if you are operating anywhere in the world, you can be seen, and if you can be seen you can be hit.Military operations require diligence when emitting and transmitting. Following the principles of shoot, move, communicate, and move again will help ensure survivability, but a mix of old and new techniques might be needed. Military...

[Editor’s Note:  The TRADOC G-2 appreciates the value of Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) in informing us about emergent trends across the Operational Environment (OE). For almost two years, analysts within the G-2 ACE collated insights on Russia’s on-going “Special Military Operation” in Ukraine to learn about the contemporary Russian way of war, understand how they were adapting and innovating across enduring Large Scale Combat Operations, and identify potential ramifications for U.S. Army modernization across DOTMLPF-P. The associated weekly “scrum” methodology generating weekly TRADOC Running Estimates and associated Narratives is described in greater detail in this Red Diamond article. Beginning in January 2024, the G-2 ACE adapted this methodology to address its FY24 Program of Analysis key intelligence questions spanning the OE and conducted bi-weekly “scrums” to generate monthly OE Running Estimates and associated Narratives, and quarterly OE Assessments. Each of these weekly TRADOC Running Estimates and monthly OE Running Estimates were “synchronized” with corresponding classified products prior to their publication to ensure the highest fidelity and accuracy in OE reporting. Capturing these insights has proven invaluable in the G-2 describing the evolving OE — foundational to TRADOC’s mission of training Soldiers and supporting unit training; developing adaptive Leaders; guiding the Army through doctrine; and shaping the Army by building and integrating formations, capabilities, and materiel. Links to our archives of these TRADOC and OE Running Estimates may be found at the end of this blog post. In today’s episode of The Convergence Podcast, Army Mad Scientist sat down with Shawn Nilius, Director, Army OSINT Office, to discuss why OSINT is important to the Army, how it is being used in contemporary operations, and how he sees it evolving over the next 10 years — Enjoy!] Mr. Shawn M. Nilius was appointed Director, Army Open-Source Intelligence (OSINT) Office in March 2022. The Army OSINT Office (AOO) serves as the OSINT operational support lead for Army OSINT and provides technical oversight, compliance, management, and governance of open-source activities while synchronizing resourcing and requirements across the Army Intelligence and Security Enterprise (AISE). Prior to becoming a Department of the Army civilian, Mr. Nilius served as a career Army Military Intelligence Officer, whose previous assignments included Director of Intelligence (G-2), U.S. Army Africa; Director, Combined Joint Intelligence Operations Center, U.S. Forces Afghanistan, Kabul, Afghanistan; Director, Joint Intelligence Center Special Operations Command, U.S. Special Operations Command, Tampa, Florida; and Director of Intelligence (J-2), U.S. Forces – Iraq, Baghdad, Iraq. Mr. Nilius has a Masters of Science, Strategic Studies, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania; a Masters of Science, Strategic Intelligence-Middle Eastern Studies, National Intelligence University, Washington, DC; and a Bachelors of Arts, Political Science, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa. In our latest episode of The Convergence podcast, Army Mad Scientist sat down with Shawn Nilius, Director, Army OSINT Office, to le...

  [Editor’s Note:  Humanity is entering an era of hyper-innovation as the potential of Big Data, Artificial Intelligence, and Neurocognitive Sciences are harnessed to revolutionize human endeavors. As these exponential convergences of technologies spin ever faster cycles of adaptation and innovation, the quest for dominance and advantage will favor those who jettison outdated industrial age processes and implement (and resource!) whole-of-nation strategies integrating private and public sector science and technology enterprises. In today’s episode of The Convergence podcast, our “rock star” proclaimed Mad Scientists — Dr. James Giordano and Dr. James Canton — return to discuss the transformative convergence of neuroscience and artificial intelligence and its implications for the Operational Environment — Read on!] Proclaimed Mad Scientist Dr. James Giordano is Pellegrino Center Professor in the Departments of Neurology and Biochemistry; Chief of the Neuroethics Studies Program; and Chair of the Subprogram in Military Medical Ethics at Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC.  Dr. Giordano is a Bioethicist of the Defense Medical Ethics Center at the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences; Distinguished Stockdale Fellow in Science, Technology, and Ethics at the United States Naval Academy; Senior Fellow in Biosecurity, Technology, and Ethics at the U.S. Naval War College, Newport, RI; Senior Science Advisory Fellow of the Strategic Multilayer Assessment (SMA), Joint Staff / J-39, The Pentagon; Chair Emeritus of the Neuroethics Project of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Brain Initiative; and serves as Director of the Institute for Biodefense Research, a federally funded Washington, DC, think tank dedicated to addressing emerging issues at the intersection of science, technology and national defense. He previously served as Donovan Group Senior Fellow, U.S. Special Operations Command; member of the Neuroethics, Legal, and Social Issues Advisory Panel of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA); and Task Leader of the Working Group on Dual-Use of the EU-Human Brain Project. Dr. Giordano is the author of 340 peer-reviewed publications, 7 books, and 45 governmental reports on science, technology, and biosecurity, and is an elected member of the European Academy of Science and Arts, a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine (UK), and a Fulbright Professorial Fellow. A former U.S. Naval officer, he held designations as an aerospace physiologist and research psychologist, and served with the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. Proclaimed Mad Scientist Dr. James Canton is a global futurist, social scientist, author, and strategic advisor. As a former Apple Computer executive and high-tech entrepreneur, he has been insightfully forecasting the key trends and technologies that have shaped our world, including AI-nano-bio-IT-neuroquantum-cloud. The Economist recognizes him as one of the leading global futurists. He has advised three White House Administrations, the DoD, Intelligence Community, and over 100 companies over 30 years. Dr. Canton is CEO and Chairman of the Institute for Global Futures, a leading think tank he founded in 1990 that advises business and government. Dr. Canton is the author of Future Smart, The Extreme Future: The Top Trends That Will Reshape the World in the Next Twenty Years, and <...

[Editor’s Note: Crowdsourcing remains an effective tool for harvesting ideas and concepts from a wide array of individuals, helping us to diversify thought and challenge conventional assumptions. Army Mad Scientist seeks to crowdsource the intellect of the Nation (i.e., you — our community of action!) with two concurrent opportunities this Spring. In our latest episode of The Convergence podcast, we explore these crowdsourcing opportunities — Read the highlights here, listen to the podcast, then get busy crafting your inputs to both!] In today’s episode of The Convergence podcast, Army Mad Scientists Matthew Santaspirt and Raechel Melling discuss our two concurrent crowdsourcing opportunities:  Calling All Wargamers and Wicked Problems Writing Contest  — check out the highlights from this conversation below. [If the podcast dashboard is not rendering correctly for you, please click here to listen to the podcast.]   Calling All Wargamers! Regular consumers of Army Mad Scientist content — via this blog site and The Convergence podcast — understand how wargaming can enhance Professional Military Education (PME), hone cognitive warfighting skills, and broaden our understanding of the Operational Environment. Wargaming removes hierarchies and encourages players to attempt innovative solutions, while also creating a safe environment in which to fail repeatedly and learn from mistakes. Wargaming can also help us assess concepts and capabilities with a reasonable degree of verisimilitude — before committing the Nation to costly, and in some instances, irrevocable courses of action.  In challenging our assumptions and reinvigorating our thoughts about Large-Scale Combat Operations (LSCO), wargaming can be a useful tool in facilitating life-long learning and guarding against that most fatal of flaws in assessing the Operational Environment — the failure of imagination! Army Mad Scientist wants to hear from you about your wargaming experiences: What are you learning about LSCO?  What wargames do you find useful for learning about military operations?  If you could imagine the perfect wargame, what would it look like?  What Great Power peripheral flashpoints are you gaming?  What emergent technologies (or convergences) are you integrating into your wargaming?  What compelling insights from gaming would you most like to share with the U.S. Army?  Submit your responses to these questions and more at: madscitradoc@gmail.com NLT 11:59 pm Eastern on May 1, 2024. Check out the following Mad Scientist Laboratory blog posts on wargaming: Live from D.C., it’s Fight Night (Parts One and Two) and associated podcasts (Parts One and Two)

“China sits in INDOPACOM, but the playground is Africa.” [Editor’s Note:  Regular readers of the Mad Scientist Laboratory will recall that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) reported, “Relatively poor countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia will account for almost all global population growth during the next two decades…” The World Economic Forum supported this assessment, projecting that Africa’s population is likely to triple by 2100. Specifically, Nigeria is set to become the second most populous country in the world by 2100, trailing only India. The significance of this growth is not lost on China — our pacing challenge has already established a permanent military presence in Djibouti and it is seeking to establish another military base at Malabo, Equatorial Guinea.  China is investing strategically throughout sub-Saharan Africa — it is now Africa’s biggest trading partner, with Sino-African trade exceeding $200 billion per year, and Africa has surpassed Asia as the largest market for China’s international construction projects. China continues to exert its influence across the continent via its Belt and Road Initiative. In today’s episode of The Convergence podcast, Army Mad Scientist sits down with Selina Hayes, Founder and CEO of The Hayes Group International, to discuss the nexus of space investment and operations in Africa — a critical region of focus for our adversaries — and the potential implications for the U.S. Army — Enjoy!] Selina Hayes founded Hayes Group International (HGI) to provide unique access to people, places, and data.  Designed to disrupt, Ms. Hayes has access to strategic partners and networks across Africa and the Pacific.  With her intelligence background and unique on-the-ground experience, HGI has developed and delivered solutions involving multiple intelligence sensors, information gateways, information operations, cultural intelligence, data collection, geospatial, ISR, and Space-as-a-Service.  Ms. Hayes has extensive experience leading defense and international business development strategies for emerging and disruptive ISR, PED, and geospatial technologies. She successfully combined the innovation of Silicon Valley with Washington, having successfully launched three new technologies in the DoD ecosystem to expand the capabilities of our country. As HGI’s CEO, Ms. Hayes has introduced her connections in Africa and the Pacific with this unique access to exquisite data sources and nonconventional methodologies. Army Ma...

This is a special off-schedule episode of The Convergence where we talk with a mystery guest, possibly for the last time!

[Editor’s Note:  It has almost been a decade since U.S. forces and coalition partners assisted Iraqi government forces in dislodging ISIS fighters from Mosul in what some observers described as the toughest urban battle since World War II.  With the Islamic Resistance Movement’s (aka Hamas) October 7, 2023 cross-border terror attacks on Israel and subsequent Israel Defense Forces’ combat operations in Gaza, new lessons are emerging about engaging an entrenched adversary across 360 square kilometers of densely populated (over 2 million Palestinian civilians) and highly urbanized terrain. As Dr. Brent Sterling reminded our readers and listeners, other observers are also watching and learning — especially our pacing challenge China with regard to potential operations in dense urban centers on Taiwan, North Korea with its subterranean operations beneath the Demilitarized Zone, and Iran and its “Axis of Resistance” in continuing to target U.S. and Israeli interests. In today’s episode of The Convergence podcast, Army Mad Scientist sits down with LTC Kenneth Hardy, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) liaison officer to the Israel Defense Forces, and discusses the on-going Israel/Hamas Conflict and key lessons the U.S. Army is learning about contemporary asymmetric warfare in dense urban terrain — Read on!] LTC Kenneth Hardy currently serves as the U.S. Army TRADOC Liaison Officer to the Israel Defense Forces.  A Middle East Foreign Area Officer, LTC Hardy’s previous assignments have included In-Region Training (IRT) as a U.S. Security Cooperation Officer to the Moroccan Military in Rabat, Morocco; Political/ Military advisor to the Commander, USARCENT, and Security Cooperation/Liaison Officer to Kuwait and Qatar Armed Forces; Security Assistance Officer to the Egyptian Land Forces and Border Guard in Cairo, Egypt; and Middle East Analyst and CENTCOM J2 International Engagements, Tampa, Florida.  LTC Hardy has a Bachelor’s Degree in Chemistry from the University of Central Oklahoma, an Associate’s Degree in Arabic from the Defense Language Institute, and a Master’s Degree in International Relations and Policy from the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. Army Mad Scientist sat down with LTC Hardy to discuss his observations regarding the October 7th Hamas attacks on Israel and insights into how this larger conflict is informing the U.S. Army about the Operational Environment.  The following bullet points highlight key insights from our conversation: The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas showcases the battle between low-tech and high-tech — for example Hamas employed massed salvoes of inexpensive, home-made Q...

[Editor’s Note:  Grizzled readers of the Mad Scientist Laboratory will recall their well-thumbed copies of the forty-year-old FM 100-2 series, The Soviet Army.  U.S. Army Soldiers and Leaders from the Cold War-era were expected to know their Soviet adversaries’ Operations and Tactics; Troops, Organization, and Equipment; and Specialized Warfare and Rear Area Support cold — as international tensions and crises could (and frequently did!) escalate to trigger alerts at a moment’s notice, sending units racing forward from their garrisons to occupy their GDP positions… ready and prepared to counter Soviet and their Warsaw Pact allies’ forces advancing across the Inner German Border (IGB)! Flash forward to today’s Army, where knowledge of the Operational Environment (OE) and the five National Defense Strategy Threats — China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, and Violent Extremist Organizations (VEOs) — remain critical competencies within the Profession of Arms. In this episode of The Convergence podcast, Army Mad Scientist partnered with the Breaking Doctrine podcast from the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center (CAC), to co-host a fascinating discussion with General Gary M. Brito, Commanding General,  U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), Colonel Rich Creed (USA-Ret.), Director, Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate, U.S. Army CAC, and Mr. Ian Sullivan, Deputy Chief of Staff Intelligence, TRADOC G-2, exploring how understanding the OE and knowing Threat Doctrine remain core Soldier and Leader competencies, underpinning how the Army will fight and win decisively in the 21st century battlespace — Read on!] [If the podcast dashboard is not rendering correctly for you, please click here to listen to the podcast.] General Gary M. Brito assumed duties as the 18th Commanding General, United States Army TRADOC, on September 8, 2022.  He is responsible for building and sustaining a highly trained, disciplined, and fit Army by acquiring the best people, training the most lethal Soldiers, developing the most professional leaders, guiding the Army’s culture, and shaping the future force.  COL Rich Creed was commissioned an Armor officer in 1989 from the U.S. Military Academy and retired from active duty in 2021 after a variety of command and staff assignments from platoon to four-star level. Mr. Creed has been the Director of the Combined Arms Doctrine Directorate at Fort Leavenworth since December 2016, where he helped write and edit the last two versions of the Army’s capstone operations publication, FM 3-0. He was one of the authors and editors of ADP 6-22 (Mission Command: C2 of Army Forces) and ADP 3-13 (Information). Mr. Ian Sullivan is the Deputy Chief of Staff Intelligence, TRADOC G-2. He holds a BA from Canisius University in Buffalo, New York, an MA from Georgetown University’s BMW Center for German and European Studies in Washington, D.C., and was a Fulbright Fellow at the Universität Potsdam in Potsdam, Germany. A career civilian intelligence officer, Mr...

[Editor’s Note:  As longtime readers of the Army’s Mad Scientist Laboratory know, our adversaries are deploying capabilities to fight the U.S. Joint Force through multiple layers of stand-off in all domains – space, cyber, air, sea, and land. Per the Defense Intelligence Agency‘s Challenges to Security in Space 2022: Space Reliance in an Era of Competition and Expansion: “Between 2019 and 2021 the combined operational space fleets of China and Russia have grown by approximately 70 percent. This recent and continuing expansion follows a period of growth (2015–2018) where China and Russia had increased their combined satellite fleets by more than 200 percent. The drive to modernize and increase capabilities for both countries is reflected in nearly all major space categories—satellite communications (SATCOM), remote sensing, navigation-related, and science and technology demonstration. Since early 2019, competitor space operations have also increased in pace and scope worldwide, China’s and Russia’s counterspace developments continue to mature, global space services proliferate, and orbital congestion has increased.” Preserving our advantage in the space domain is critical — a contemporary U.S. Army maneuver Brigade Combat Team (BCT) has over 2,500 pieces of equipment dependent on space-based assets for Positioning, Navigation, and Timing (PNT). This number of dependent systems will only increase as emerging technology on Earth demands increased bandwidth, new orbital infrastructure, niche satellite capabilities, and advanced robotics. Dominance in the space domain is vital to Joint Force and U.S. Army operations. In our latest episode of The Convergence podcast, we sit down with Dr. Olga Bannova, Director of the Space Architecture Graduate Program, University of Houston, to discuss designing vehicles and habitats for space, how we can use austere environments here on Earth as proving grounds, and what these environments can teach the U.S. Army. — Enjoy!] [If the podcast dashboard is not rendering correctly for you, please click here to listen to the podcast.] Dr. Olga Bannova, conducts research and design studies that address a variety of topics, including: planning analyses for a broad range of space vehicles, habitats, and systems; inflatable hydroponics laboratory and logistic modules; special design influences and requirements for different gravity conditions in space; and habitat concepts for extreme environments on Earth. She is a corresponding member of International Academy of Astronautics, IAC Space and Society Symposiums coordinator, senior member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, a Chair of the AIAA Space Architecture Technical Committee, and an elected member of the ASCE’s Executive Committee on Space Engineering and Construction. She recently received 2019 Outstanding Technical Contribution Award from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Aerospace Division. Dr. Bannova earned her PhD from Chalmers University of Technology, Sweden, in 2016, and Master in Architecture and M.S. in Space Architecture from the University of Houston in 2001 and 2005. She authored Space Architecture Education for Engineers and Architects (Springer, 2016) and Space Architecture: Human Habitats Beyond Planet Earth (DOM Publ...

[Editor’s Note:  Regular readers of the Mad Scientist Laboratory are familiar with the potentially disruptive effects of cognitive and neurowarfare. As guest blogger Robert McCreight observed, “Most non-kinetic threats — or the NKT spectrum — consist of silent, largely undetectable technologies capable of inflicting damaging, debilitating, and degrading physical and neural effects on its unwitting targets…  A determined and patient covert enemy can inflict strategic damage non-kinetically before we can recognize the attack, resist it, or recover from it.” Overmatch in the Land, Air, Sea, Space, and Cyber Domains is irrelevant if our adversaries can harness and unleash capabilities that manipulate the brains of our Leaders. In our latest episode of The Convergence podcast, we sit down with Dr. Guosong Hong, Assistant Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University, to explore emergent research behind one such NKT — brain manipulation. Dr. Hong discusses neuro-engineering tools, controlling brains from a distance, and how the Army might one day need to protect our Soldiers and Leaders against mind control — Read on!] Dr. Guosong Hong is Assistant Professor of Materials Science and Engineering at Stanford University.  His research aims to bridge materials science and neuroscience, and blur the distinction between the living and non-living worlds by developing novel neuro-engineering tools to interrogate and manipulate the brain. Specifically, the Hong lab is currently developing ultrasound, infrared, and radiofrequency-based in-vivo neural interfaces with minimal invasiveness, high spatiotemporal resolution, and cell-type specificity. Dr. Guosong Hong received his PhD in chemistry from Stanford University in 2014, and then carried out postdoctoral studies at Harvard University. Dr. Hong joined Stanford Materials Science and Engineering and Neurosciences Institute as an assistant professor in 2018. He is a recipient of the NIH Pathway to Independence (K99/R00) Award, the MIT Technology Review ‘35 Innovators Under 35’ Award, the Science PINS Prize for Neuromodulation, the NSF CAREER Award, the Walter J. Gores Award for Excellence in Teaching, and the Rita Allen Foundation Scholars Award. Army Mad Scientist sat down with Dr. Hong to discuss neuro-engineering tools, controlling brains from a distance, and how the Army might one day need to protect Soldiers against mind control. The following bullet points highlight key insights from our conversation: During Dr. Hong’s pursuit of his PhD at Stanford University, he createda method using short wave infrared light to non-invasively observe rodent brains without removing the scalp and skull, which was traditionally necessary. During his post-doctoral studies, he created ultra-small devices that can be loaded into a syringe and injected directly into the subject’s brain to stimulate and observe neural activity. As a faculty member at Stanford, Dr. Hong developed nano particles to inject into the bloodstream which convert ultrasound into local light emission. This allows for optogenetic stimulation based on ultrasound alone. Rattlesnakes have the unique natural ability to sense infrared radiation. This assists them when hunting for prey – like mice. Dr. Hong was able t...

[Editor’s Note:  Regular consumers of Army Mad Scientist content — via this blog site and The Convergence podcast — understand how wargaming can enhance Professional Military Education (PME), hone cognitive warfighting skills, and broaden our understanding of the Operational Environment. Wargaming removes hierarchies and encourages players to attempt innovative solutions, while also creating a safe environment in which to fail repeatedly and learn from mistakes.  Wargaming can also help us assess concepts and capabilities with a reasonable degree of verisimilitude — before committing the Nation to costly, and in some instances, irrevocable courses of action. In our latest episode of The Convergence podcast, we return to last fall’s “Fight Night,” hosted by USA Fight Club, CAE, Inc., and Army Mad Scientist in Washington, D.C., for Part Two of our discussion with wargame designers and players, exploring what makes a great wargame and why they are important to the U.S. Army — Enjoy!] Army Mad Scientist sat down with five wargame designers and players at “Fight Night” in Washington, D.C., on 23 September 2023, to discuss what makes a great wargame and why they are important to the U.S. Army.  The following bullet points highlight key insights from our conversation: Wargames act as an effective tool to systematically explore potential futures and test different hypotheses. They provide a confined, contextualized space to practice strategic decision making while in a safe-to-fail environment. As a teaching tool, players can make decisions and explore the consequences of their actions. Wargames offer an effective way to work through the challenge of ambiguity.As certain tools may not be sufficient for some ambiguous problems – modeling and simulations or pure analysis – wargames help to fill the methodology gap. For example, they allow players to explore the human dimension of a problem – how people perceive and understand the world around them, and how that influences their ability to accomplish the objective.  Game designers must create wargames with the end-goal or objective in mind at the beginning of the design process.Throughout this process, designers are constantly trying to ensure the game developed meets the objective, while also maintaining internal and external validity needed for a scientific approach. Technologyhas drastically changed wargaming in recent years. Wargames can be conducted more rapidly and with a significantly larger scope of information enabling the gameplay – including real-time data and AI-enabled activity. Newer wargames also facilitate linking all five domains (land, air, sea, space, and cyber) together for optimum results.  Wargames help the Army better understand the evolution of the Operational Environmentwhich underpins all Army training and Leader development.

[Editor’s Note:  As we reported earlier this month, “The Operational Environment is increasingly lethal with the ubiquity of sensors and proliferation of battlefield automation facilitating effective precision and massed strike capabilities.  Forces that can be sensed are targeted, and if targeted, are destroyed or rendered inoperable. ” This increasingly transparent battlespace has been wrought by the democratization and convergence of commercial satellite imagery, inexpensive Unmanned Aerial System (UAS)-borne sensing platforms, and the Internet of Everything and Everyone. The resulting web of networked sensors could usher in the end of covert movement for combat units and their associated command and control and logistical support nodes, and with that spell the demise of strategic and operational deception and surprise. This battlespace transparency is driving a renewed quest for concealment.  In today’s episode of The Convergence podcast, we sit down with Dr. Andrea Alù to discuss the reality of invisibility, the science behind metamaterials, and the associated possibilities for the U.S. Army. [If the podcast dashboard is not rendering correctly for you, please click here to listen to the podcast.] Andrea Alù is a Distinguished Professor, founding director of the Photonics Initiative at the CUNY Advanced Science Research Center, Einstein Professor of Physics at the CUNY Graduate Center, and Professor of Electrical Engineering at The City College of New York. He is affiliated with the Wireless Networking and Communications Group and the Applied Research Laboratories, both based at the University of Texas at Austin, where he is a Senior Research Scientist and Adjunct Professor. His research interests span a broad range of technical areas, including applied electromagnetics, nano-optics and nanophotonics, microwave, THz, infrared, optical and acoustic metamaterials and metasurfaces, plasmonics, nonlinearities and nonreciprocity, cloaking and scattering, acoustics, optical nanocircuits and nanoantennas. Army Mad Scientist sat down with Dr. Alù to discuss the reality of invisibility, the science behind metamaterials, and the associated possibilities for the U.S. Army.  The following bullet points highlight key insights from our conversation: Alù’s work focuses on wave physics, specifically looking at how to structure materials at the nanoscale to change their interactions with waves – light, sound, and radio – and demonstrate phenomena that would not be possible otherwise, for example invisibility.These new structured materials are called metamaterials because their properties go beyond those of natural materials.  By structuring materials in specific ways, a “cloak” can be created and, when wrapped around an object, can suppress the scattering of light or waves which is what allows the object to be visible. This process causes a transparency effect on the object, effectively causing it to disappear.   There is a limit, however, to making an object fully transparentwhen using passive materials which require no energy. There is a tradeoff between the size of the object and the amount of suppression of scattering waves from the object –- the larger the object, the harder it is to achieve full suppression of the scattering waves.