Future Peace: Technology, Aggression, and the Rush to War

by Robert H. Latiff

Future Peace urges extreme caution in the adoption of new weapons technology and is an impassioned plea for peace from an individual who spent decades preparing for war.

Today's militaries are increasingly reliant on highly networked autonomous systems, artificial intelligence, and advanced weapons that were previously the domain of science fiction writers. In a world where these complex technologies clash with escalating international tensions, what can we do to decrease the chances of war? In Future Peace, the eagerly awaited sequel to Future War, Robert H. Latiff questions our overreliance on technology and examines the pressure-cooker scenario created by the growing animosity between the United States and its adversaries, our globally deployed and thinly stretched military, the capacity for advanced technology to catalyze violence, and the American public's lack of familiarity with these topics.

Future Peace describes the many provocations to violence, how technologies are abetting those urges, and explores what can be done to mitigate not only dangerous human behaviors but also dangerous technical behaviors as well. Latiff concludes that peace is possible but will require intense, cooperative efforts on the part of technologists, military leaders, diplomats, politicians, and citizens. Future Peace amplifies some well-known ideas about how to address the issues, and provides far-, mid-, and short-term recommendations for actions that are necessary to reverse the apparent headlong rush into conflict. This compelling and timely book will captivate general readers, students, and scholars of global affairs, international security, arms control, and military ethics.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction, War, Military Fiction

200 pages, Hardcover

Published March 1, 2022

Reviews

[Zare · Rating 5 out of 5]

Once somebody told me - read about the subject from people in the field, practitioners of the field you are interested in.

So it is not surprising that for me this book falls in the same category as Smedley Butler's "War is a racket". Book written by retired professional soldier about the dangers lying ahead of us in this modern world.

Author is professional and realist. He is aware that wars will not just disappear, as long as there are people there will be conflict, but he identified a very important thing that needs to be done before nation decides to take arms - do it transparently and with public supporting it and through that come to conclusion is war necessary or it can be avoided.

As things currently are US enters war for very vague reasons (defending-our-way-of-life-on-the-shores-of-XY spiel), nobody talks about it (except same people and groups - and these get marginalized very soon because hey they are not cool kids in the block, right) and average person has no idea what is going on and to be honest average person does not care because it does not affect world person lives in.

As a consequence starting wars, especially against states that are out-matched by at least multiple factors, becomes easy. Professional army comes in, fights, and unfortunately dies. Losses amount but state manages to hide this from public view and when they get too high, hey PMCs are there to fill up the ranks and they do not count in official numbers, right, they are losses of private companies contracted in combat zone - they are paid for this, right, so no complaints. And to be honest, I dont think that politicians see regular army in any different light, they are professional paid army, volunteers - they knew what they were going into, right? In all honesty no different opinion Rome had on its army at the waning days of the Empire.

And when war becomes easy and technology advances, again in conflicts with out-matched opposition, love affair with the technology grows and everybody sees more and more technology (and less and less humanity) as a way to go, because hey problem on the horizon use technology to bring it down. And this increases the speed of war - especially entering phase, as history teaches exit is always very difficult if not impossible - to the point where only thing standing in way of all out war is politician with about seconds to use gray matter for a decision - and this should scare every sane person.

Author is correct in that education of the populace is the way to go and make sure population stands behind every decision for a war adventure by putting their neck on the line and make sure decision is approved by everyone (through draft and conscription) but in order to do this and get results there needs to be something to connect all of the people - and this is something author does not like but there is no other option. It is idea of common nation, aka nationalism. People can be of various heritages but they need to want to be identified as members of the society of the given state - nation. And this is where things might end up hairy because current standpoint, especially in the West, is that there is no more nations, we are all citizens of the world. Of course I think this was same approach Athens or Rome wanted from their client states - we are all one, but we are primaries.

I like how author puts his trust in new generations. Let us just remember how people during the end of 1960s to 1970s and early 1980s were very hopeful for the new generation, original hippies, and they though this generation will bring peace, love and harmony, make the change .... only to see them become the backbone of the same system they demonstrated against, for all means and purposes majority of these people became the entrepreneurs and businessmen in lots of economic bubbles in recent decades, bringers of economic liberty to the east (sarcasm) or teachers in schools and universities that for all means and purposes worked more on division of population then uniting it in any reasonable way (that could be done while also fighting for changes in society). I doubt newer generations will be any different. Reason is obvious - they are not facing possibility of leaving their bones on some different battlefield. So better work on things that occupy their lives, others will fight wars for them.

Also I had to laugh when it comes to statements about women and when they are in power how peace has greater chances. It seems author never came across Margaret Thatcher (not just Falklands War, she broke the back of her own people, especially miners, in aggressive move that was not seen in Europe until police attacks on and demonization of COVID demonstrators and farmers). Or just look at all of the modern prime ministers and especially defence ministers, from North Sea to warm south - they are tom-boys, aggressive as hell (von der Leyen, anyone?) and ready to discuss any alternatives to conflict as were European countries after murder of Archduke Ferdinand. Or just think about Indira Gandhi - she incited so many conflicts, major war with Pakistan, basically created Bangladesh through war, ruled as dictator for two years and was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards after Temple massacre she ordered. Or Golda Meir, PM of Israel (of Muenchen retribution assassinations fame)?

In other words, man or woman, with position of power comes comes certain norm of behavior that is for all means and purposes merciless - you think Cleopatra, Boadicea, queen Elisabeth or Catherine the Great were all rosy and friendly? No, they weren't. Inter-state interactions are deadly business, always were and always will be. Greater the power, greater the risks (every defeated person in sayEgypt would attest to that .... or at least they would if there weren't expunged from history and completely forgotten).

But as author stresses - in all the cases in the past there was always breathing space, to think and act in diplomatic manner. Today, with shortened time for action, increased bellicosity, total disregard of diplomacy (I was stunned on US diplomacy lo standing today) and position on war as something affordable, it is (to quote author) "criminal negligence" to leave everything to automation processes or politicians.

As author says most important step is not to enter conflict in the first place. Here I also agree with the author, public needs to be involved in this decision and only way to do it is either through taxes (stings, like 40% involvement but can be sold by media as it's OK, not that much effect) or conscription/draft (this is 100% involvement and would bring politicians in order becaue people would say "Come on now!").

Difficult part here is how to do this. At the moment, whether we want to admit it or not, problem is in class division of people. Higher classes bring decision that they think are OK (even if one takes the position there are no interest groups, and interests rock almost every boat in past, today and in the future), middle class (or what is left of it) is indisposed and does not care as long shells do not fly overhead and lower class - all the dispossessed, that try to fight their way to middle class (and why not higher), either citizens or immigrants that have poorer academic record - feel they need to do something and armed forces are way out, because through various programs they can enter universities and schools and if they survive they can obtain citizenship in a legal manner and follow their dreams. Basically wars are fought using this, for lack of better word, bottom population. And here author is little bit unjust to this populace because their lack of financial opportunity (usually due to lack of education and skills) author puts - through research done by academics - in the correlation with ultra nationalists and even racists tendencies (this was in my opinion very ugly relation mentioned several times in the book - does it apply to some, definitely, but to put entire group of people in this relation.... this was only low point in the book I came across). People need to be part of something and if only way out of the dirt (either to get the citizenship or go to university or both) is through army they will take this opportunity with both hands. I doubt majority of people would join military on a whim, and especially not the ground troops.

Until everyone's neck is on the line and they all share same responsibilities and risks for the government's decisions, situation will remain as it is. Will the ruling elite remain? Of course they will, every society has ruling elite. But it will be controlled by majority of population and forced to accept risks of failure in the overseas expeditions (nothing worse than losing tenure or losing political career).

Again, please note that book is US-oriented. Similar issues exist in rest of the world but when it comes to the West, since all US allies basically behave today as client states who live in fantasy worlds with minimal military and rely on US solely for everything related to defense, burden on the US is incredible. US has become trapped by its own ambition - to survive it needs to completely transform in global policeman, modern version of Empire but that will only increase possibility of major conflict. To go through thorough transformation author foresees it will mean going back to republican (as in res publicae) mode of work ...... I am not sure it is possible not just by external factors (after all US is geographically in pretty good state) but also due to internal ones (willingness of people to accept responsibility for their fate and fate of their society, that linking, unifying factor).

All in all excellent book, lots of food for thought.

Highly, highly recommended.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

Major General (retired) Robert H. Latiff has professorships at the University of Notre Dame and at George Mason University. He is the author of Future Peace, in ways a continuation of his earlier work, Future War. Dr. Latiff examines the evolution of modern weapons systems and the social implications of their existence. He writes that, while weapons technology is rapidly advancing, we are simultaneously growing more aggressive. Also, that it is dangerous to regard the sophisticated nature of modern weapons as a predictor of success in war.

Today, in addition to traditional military departments, there are the new platforms of space, cyberspace, hypersonics, and artificial intelligence. An important focus of Future Peace is the special risks brought by the advent of artificial intelligence in weapons systems. A.I. operates in ways that are not precisely understood, nor can it explain why certain decisions are made. This in itself violates military protocol. It cannot render judgements or discern nuances.

Hyper-connectivity in command and control operations results in an ever-increasing need for speed in decision making. While A.I vastly increases the speed of operations, it can also deprive commanders of time needed to assess events. It is imperative that brakes be put into the A.I. so that its algorithms do not function absent the element of human choice. Proper authority to wage war cannot be vested in a machine.

Another factor that risks war is the widespread distancing of concern for and even awareness of political decisions to engage in conflict. Of course, conflict has not ceased since the advent of all volunteer military forces, but popular connectedness to military events has fragmented.

Established nonaggression norms among the superpowers can perpetuate valuable constraints to war. Rational actors are likely to follow the lead of superpowers with regard to the use of weapons, potential or kinetic, from A.I.-generated deep fakes (false audio or video data indistinguishable from factual information) to bioweapons. Diplomacy and the simple constraint to war may be humanity’s most precious means of survival.

Future Peace is brilliant, informative, and cautionary. I am extremely grateful to Dr. Latiff for his responses to my questions.

32nd Avenue Books- Do you have any specific suggestions for ways in which AI may be governed for the benefit of humanity?

In addition to a draft requirement, are there other ways in which people may be convinced of the importance of political decisions to engage in military action?

Dr. Robert H. Latiff- In the 1970s, biologists and geneticists voluntarily restricted themselves in the research on gene editing. This was the very impactful Asilomar Conference. The scientists themselves laid out what controls and restrictions were needed.

Another example is cyber and cyber warfare. Since countries have been unable to agree, cyber specialists have created their own set of voluntary norms to which many (not all) are adhering. It is called the Tallinn Manual and takes its name from Tallinn, Estonia where the conference was held.

Something similar could be done for AI. Like cyber and genetics, it would be impossible to police and verify and would rely largely on the honor of the researchers.

UN resolutions are also useful - if not always followed - as a way of identifying key norms.

Unlikely, but the best outcome would be treaties or at least international agreements.

As for actions in addition to the draft, I firmly believe that each deployment (unless it’s a TRUE emergency) should be accompanied by a new Authorization to Use Military Force on which each legislator would have to register a vote.

Also each deployment should have a price tag up-front which would result in an increase in taxes to pay for it.

My bottom line is that military action - some of which is legitimately needed - needs to be more transparent to the public.

Steve Brehm
32nd Avenue Books Toys Gifts
June 9, 2023

[Jim Gallen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Books about future war and peace often soar into the ether of speculation and science fiction. “Future Peace” is grounded in current and developing technology, recent history of domestic and international relations and trajectory of prevailing trends. Author Army Maj. General (ret) Robert H. Latiff, has crafted a thought-provoking examination of the Sword of Damocles that modern politico-military establishments dangle over an unsuspecting world.

This slim volume consists of four chapters examining the military as “A Giant Armed Nervous System”, the “Urge to Violence”, the risk of “Stumbling into War”, and methods of “Avoiding War” followed by the author’s conclusions.

Natiff raises the specter of autonomous systems controlling the road to war without the mediation of human reason. He posits a world in which hypersonic events occur so rapidly that humans must rely on information transmitted and actions directed by pre-programed networks without time for reflection.

The author asserts a rising urge to violence, to the exclusion of diplomacy, as the American response of choice to international crises. He attributes this, in parts, to inadequate civics education nationwide and the separation of the American public from the costs of war as economic costs are shifted to later generations through borrowing and wars are fought by fractions of the American public. He cites President Eisenhower’s waning against the influence of the military-industrial complex as still appropriate. Natiff suggests that advances in military technology drive demand, particularly to a customer like the United States military that can rely on its public and politicians’ fear of falling behind.

Perhaps the most alarming section is that on Stumbling into War. Could a local commander trigger a response that could get out of hand? Could a piece of space debris destroy a spy satellite and thereby set off retaliation against another power’s device? As our adversaries close the gap in power and quality, does the United States, through overextension risk opportunistic attack that it could not repel?

At its core, this tome is Gen. Latiff’s call for citizens to pay attention to developments and to modify behavior of the leaders they elect. I am a conservative who generally views with suspicion claims that the United States should withdraw from the world stage and leave the field to aggressors. I ask, if we wait to be sure that an attack is real or a threat is serious, what will our adversaries do? Will they follow our lead and lesson the treat of stumbling into war, or will they take advantage of our hesitation? Against this background, Gen. Latiff has cause me to pause and think. Is the United States obligated, or even justified, in becoming involved in opposing evils across the globe? I have often viewed American foreign policy as benign and focused on protecting America’s vital interests and the defense of the weak against aggressors. These pages have caused me to consider how others may view our actions. Is American strength a threat only toward predators or could its claimed purposes be perceived as a veneer covering more sinister motives? “Future Peace” has not reversed my word view, but it has encouraged me to assess it more critically and sharpened my concern for the situation in which we live. For that it is a worthwhile read.

I received a free copy of this book without an obligation to post a review.

[Zeb Kantrowitz · Rating 4 out of 5]

As we move into the future, more and more of our offensive weapons are interlinked. The time we have to think before we used these weapons is shrinking to minutes.

We are not at "Strangelove" levels yet, but it's possible that a group of terrorist hackers could release nuclear tipped missiles. If they did how much time would we have to stop them and convince the world that we didn't shoot them off on purpose.

If the Russians and Chinese saw this as an attempt at a first strike, how could we prove that it wasn't intentional.

As the weapons of destruction come more and more under the control of networks of computers and AIs(artificial intelligence) take over the launch controls.

How soon will it be before a hacking groups convinces the AI that an attack has occurred and orders a retaliatory strike.

[Dale · Rating 3 out of 5]

Good book but I just read his first one and felt like this one is a repackaging and updated with more current events. The author comes at international relations from the stand point of making peace through changing how we approach solving the problems and challenges of the world. Calling for congress to assert their power and conscription so more have skin in the game.