Military technology is outpacing our diplomatic capacity

In the past month, both the United States and China sent reusable robotic planes into space on secret missions. Russia conducted tests for similar technologies last year and it has now become even more obvious that outer space is a potential conflict zone.  

This expensive and dangerous competition is yet another example of technology outpacing diplomacy. In several areas, military-use technology is developing at a breakneck speed and diplomatic efforts to contain the dangers have yet to leave the starting blocks. 

It was not long ago when adversaries, recognizing their interests in avoiding nuclear war, engaged in arms control negotiations to provide for predictability in deterrence systems, agreeing to limits and constructing elaborate verification and early warning schemes. Negotiations proceeded and agreements were made despite tensions in other areas. 

Military competition in outer space isn’t exactly new, but the launch of reusable spacecraft on secret missions should alarm those who had hoped that conquering the mysteries of space would be a peaceful human endeavor.  

The stakes are high as we have become dependent on satellites for everything from monitoring conditions on Earth to global communications networks to intelligence gathering.  

In 2023 there were 25,000 operational satellites in Earth orbit of which 11,655 were American. Conflict in space could blind our security systems and collapse the global economy.  

There are numerous examples of technological change that left unregulated could compromise national security. Much attention is being paid today to the benefits and the dangers of artificial intelligence. The European Union is ahead of the U.S. in regulating its use, but the U.S., China and Russia are racing to adapt AI for military missions. 

The period after World War II was a golden age for multilateral diplomacy related to the global commons. We benefit greatly today from agreements reached to provide international rules for air travel, telecommunications, the use of chemical weapons, public health, trade, fisheries, patents and many more matters that impact on daily life. 

It is the role of those responsible for our national defense to conjure and develop the weapons of war that will deter aggression and provide an edge on the battlefield. The U.S. Department of Defense and the military-industrial complex it funds appropriately use technology to provide that edge. But that isn’t the only way to achieve national security. 

Diplomats at the State Department are trained to identify common interests that may lead to agreements to refrain from building weapons systems that could heighten the dangers to both sides. Sadly, that mission isn’t a priority today.  

Our diplomats are both overwhelmed with current crises and underfunded. There is little time to peer over the horizon to anticipate dangers and act diplomatically to mitigate them.  

The severe polarization of our political system is also a factor. Negotiating agreements with adversaries even when an existential threat is involved seems nowadays to be a third rail of American politics. A good example is the suspended effort to renew the agreement with Iran to inhibit that country’s effort to build nuclear weapons. 

Even despite current tensions, diplomatic channels remain open between the U.S., China and Russia. Are these three major powers mature enough politically to de-link concerns over other volatile issues to prevent outer space from becoming a theater of war? To resume arms control negotiations? To negotiate ways to prevent AI from being used to substitute for human decision-making in combat? 

One would hope that we could answer these questions in the affirmative as certain forms of military-use technology could threaten the human race.  

Diplomacy is an essential part of a viable national security strategy. We should employ it with urgency as dynamic technological developments could soon impose a dystopian future. 

J. Brian Atwood is a senior fellow at Brown University’s Watson Institute and a former undersecretary of State and administrator of USAID. He teaches a class on diplomacy at Brown.