Robert Hummel, PhD
From the Editor
Robert (Bob) Hummel, PhD
The politics of the moment often obscures the larger issues and policy options. But consideration of the larger issues can reveal policies that might be the most effective long-term benefits to society. Technology, and research leading to new technologies, have been the driver of better lives for individuals and members of collective societies, as well as the key to national security. The United States has prospered due to innovation in both technology and processes fueled by policies that enabled investments in research. That research, whether for national defense, energy policies, health care, space travel, or other endeavors, provides benefits beyond the intended applications while maintaining a vibrant ecosystem of scientific thought and research.
In this spirit, this issue of STEPS examines big, bold problems confronting the US, often in the guise of issues of today.
Frank Fanelli (with Tim Welter) looks at our economic struggles dealing with China, but is really concerned with how the US should leverage its advantages in pursuing economic statecraft. Without debating the merits of tariffs, Fanelli casts the global economic competition in terms of China versus the US and an appeal for the US to make use of its assets without amplifying weaknesses.
Bob Gourley is interested in assisting analysts in the intelligence community to perform at peak cognitive and analytic capabilities to maximize the quality of analytic products. Of course, most professions require high cognitive performance for many of their tasks. Cognitive enhancement has become a big business, with both hype and science. We all know we need to get more and better sleep. Gourley’s article chronicles many current developments and calls for more concerted research.
Bill Regli tackles the issue of the risks of AI. While dismissing the idea that AI technology will produce competitors to the human race any time in the near future, Regli does offer a rational process for assessing risks that accompany AI applications. He provides a couple of examples of serious risks that must be confronted and mitigated, due to generative AI capabilities. The process, however, applies to new technologies in general.
Before the “Golden Dome” project was formally announced, Potomac Institute affiliates were considering the historical relationship between defense and deterrence. In working with Joe Parrish and Institute staff, these advisors insisted that the Golden Dome must also defend the continental US against a conventional (non-nuclear) strike by long-range hypersonic missiles, and advocates for a non-nuclear rapid response capability. Many different architectures for the dome will be proposed, and this article proposes that the interceptor force should defend the ground sites that require high security.
Gerold Yonas was the Chief Scientist for the Strategic Defense Initiative (known at the time as the “Star Wars” project) to develop a missile defense shield for the entire US. Accordingly, we have been challenged to accomplish a golden dome before. Gerry posted a blog on the topic a couple months ago, and we reproduce that blog here, invoking the memory of the late Freeman Dyson. Clearly, strategic defense requires a complex suite of capabilities.
I am happy to acknowledge the excellent work of those supporting Potomac Institute Press, especially Sherry Loveless and Alex Taliesen.
I hope you enjoy these articles, and we look forward to continuing these discussions.
Robert (Bob) Hummel, PhD
Editor-in-Chief, STEPS
Chief Scientist, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies