Transcript

Humaira Iqbal: I'm genuinely pleased and honored to have two distinguished scholars from the
Institute of Regional Studies delve into the pertinent subject of emerging technologies and the
future of warfare in South Asia. The rapid integration of these technologies is significantly
impacting the evolving dynamics of future warfare. With this brief introduction, I invite
President Iris Ambassador Jauhar Saleem to give his welcome remarks. Thank you.
Ambassador Jauhar Saleem:
Good afternoon. The torrential rain we are experiencing has disrupted our lives in many ways in
the Twin Cities. As we have previously, we have a great interest in this subject, and it's a
pleasure and a privilege for us to have Dr. Adil Sultan and Dr. Salik among us. Dr. Sultan needs
no introduction. His association with the Air University at the highest echelons is quite well
known, and his expertise in this area also requires no introduction, as Humera has mentioned that
emerging technologies are changing the landscape of the state of science worldwide. We are at
the cusp of what could be called the fourth or fifth technological revolution. The pre-industrial
revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and then, in the 20th century, we witnessed another one at
the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century: the IT revolution, also known
as the ICT revolution, and now the AI revolution, or artificial intelligence. These have all been
game changers, and artificial intelligence would be another game changer. Some analysts are
touting it as possibly and potentially the biggest game changer ever. What we see is the impact of
this changing landscape on warfare, both in general and in particular, in our region. The recent
conflict that took place between Pakistan and India was a clear manifestation of that. This war,
fortunately short-lived, was entirely different from any of the wars that Pakistan and India had
fought. They have had traditional wars the likes of which the world had seen in the Second
World War and subsequently in Korea, Vietnam, and many other countries. However, this
conflict was, in many ways, like a sci-fi movie—the planes. We witnessed the most significant
air battle in this region, with nearly 200 jets in the sky. However, the aircraft remained in their
own countries, and the fight was taking place literally just 100 kilometers away from each other.
Similarly, the missiles being fired, the drones, and the cyber attacks were all unprecedented.
Emerging technologies have had a profound impact on the way wars are fought, hopefully not in
this region. However, given the state of tension and hostility in the area, if the core issues, such
as the Jammu and Kashmir dispute, are not resolved, then, of course, there could be future
military conflicts. And given that these technologies could make wars very different but also
much more devastating, and I'm not talking of a nuclear war, I'm talking of conventional
weaponry, the use of conventional weapons, but in a very different, entirely different way. That
is what we will discuss here today. There's an imbalance in South Asia. As we know, India has a
military budget of about $85 billion. Pakistan's military budget is around $10 billion. India's
access to modern technologies from around the world is significantly greater due to its perceived
role
in the so-called Indo-Pacific strategy. They have access to some of the most sophisticated
technologies being produced in the West. On the other hand, Pakistan does not have that good
fortune. However, we have our great friend and all-weather strategic cooperative partner, China,
which has been a mainstay of our defense production and our defense equipment needs. And
China, as this recent conflict has demonstrated quite unequivocally, is also at the forefront of
some of the world's most sophisticated technologies. If anything, this conflict proved that India,
despite its vast resources, was unable to achieve any of its military objectives. Pakistan's
adequate and befitting response, which is being termed as the quid pro quo plus, changed the
entire geostrategic scenario, and the ramifications are still being felt. However, in terms of how
emerging technologies will impact the future of security in this region. We have some great
experts with us today, and, like you all, I'm eager to benefit from their insights and perspectives.
So, without further ado, I would like to hand over the floor to Dr. Adil Sultan.
Dr. Adil Sultan:
Sir, thank you very much for the invitation and for giving me this opportunity. I know it's a bit
taxing, certainly, for US foreign policy. You had a very extensive session, and now we are
moving towards a fictional world. For researchers, a silent community typically maintains that
level of attention. So I'll try as far as possible to make it interesting. So, what I'm going to do is
share my perspective on how these emerging technologies are likely to impact the future of
warfare. Not everything might be true. We keep predicting, but things do not happen as we
envisage most of the time. There could be many more technologies in 5 years or 10 years that we
are not currently considering, and those could also play a significant role. I'm providing an
introduction to these technologies. I'm not a technical expert, so I'm examining these
technologies from a social scientist's perspective, considering how they or their concepts could
influence future warfare. So I'll focus briefly on artificial intelligence, AI, integrated drones,
quantum computing, space, and cyberspace. Then we'll come to how it matters, why it matters,
and what needs to be done. In my view, first, we should discuss artificial intelligence. It is an
enabling technology. It is not a technology by itself. You integrate these technologies into
various systems, and only then can you have the impact. It is being used on various platforms
and in all domains of warfare, including land, air, sea, and nuclear. So, whatever you take,
artificial intelligence is being used or will be used in the future. These systems can artificially
integrate and enhance the efficiency of military systems, thereby reducing reaction times for
critical decisions. However, at the same time, they can complicate the UDA loop, the traditional
military observe, orient, decide, and act loop. If both sides are using the same kind of tools or
integrating AI into their military systems. The integration of artificial intelligence into nuclear
command and control can be both beneficial and counterproductive, as it provides decision-
makers with assessments in a relatively shorter time, allowing them to make informed decisions.
In that sense, however, if you allow algorithms to make decisions on their own when nuclear
weapons have to be fired, then it becomes very destabilizing. The regulation of artificial
intelligence is problematic because numerous non-state actors and private entities are involved in
this field. Developed countries, in particular, don't want
to be regulated by new norms that could impede their future development. Second, can we move
to the next slide? In cyberspace, the use of technology can make military systems more efficient,
but also vulnerable to adversaries' disruptive acts if the adversary seeks to exploit cyberspace for
disruption. Cyberspace has made geographical distances less relevant and battlefields more
transparent. Anybody sitting in the United States can fight wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, or any part
of the world. Battlefield commanders do not necessarily have to be physically present on the
battlefield. Thus, this can help inform decision-makers or guide future battles. Attribution and
accountability remain significant challenges. Who did what? You can do anything with a laptop,
anywhere in the world. So it becomes a major challenge once you combine artificial intelligence
and cyber. So, you are moving towards hyperwar. That means less human involvement in future
wars. Cyberspace has been effectively utilized for the dissemination of disinformation and
misinformation. We have all seen the impact in our own country, as well as in other parts of the
world. uh similar to artificial intelligence cyber the regulation of cyerspace also becomes
difficult because there are private entities individuals involved or technologically developed
countries they don't want to be regulated again and that's why we do not have uh kind of norms
or treaties or arrangements at the UN level or the international level because of these uh
reservations by countries and also the influence of private entities who are the major players
these days then comes the quantum Um we talk less in Pakistan but this is something very uh
futuristic and many countries are working on it. Developed countries, especially the United
States, have not yet operationalized or integrated it into their military systems; however, it has
considerable potential and can accelerate the ongoing AI revolution. The integration of quantum
technology into military systems can have multiple impacts. For instance, it can render the GPS-
based navigation system redundant or obsolete, as you will no longer be dependent on those
satellites. With quantum technology, you can develop an autonomous navigation system. Hence,
you are free from spoofing or interruption, and you can have that kind of advantage over the
adversary. Therefore, if you can see everything, you can navigate, reach everywhere, and
simultaneously disrupt adversaries' platforms and their navigation systems. Half of the battle is
already won. In terms of communication, utilizing quantum technology can help secure your
communication systems. At the same time, you will have the power to disrupt the adversary's
communication system. During the India-Pakistan war, we saw a brief disruption of a couple of
minutes. What difference can it make? So, if that technology gives you such an advantage, you
are again in a more advantageous position. Incorporating cyber quantum technology can enhance
the security of your cyber systems. At the same time, it allows you to disrupt adversary cyber
systems. That's the benefit of quantum technology. Ultimately, it can make the oceans the radar
systems that developed countries, such as advanced countries, are working on. It can make the
oceans transparent. That means future satellites equipped with these sensors would be able to see
submarines submerged under the sea. So, suppose they can achieve that kind of capability. In that
case, the entire concept of second-strike capability hinges on this unpredictability and its ability
to remain undetected and underwater. So if these radars can do that imagine the countries that are
spending hundreds of billions of dollars in acquiring this capability or second strike capability
even Pakistan so if 20 years now if your adversaries they have these kind of sensors
would it be rational to proceed in that direction or find some other alternate solution I'm not
saying that this is into consider then we move on to trains drone sorry drains barish I know we
started late. There would be pressure to finish off early. My apologies for that. Therefore, drones
equipped with AI can revolutionize the future of aerial warfare. We have seen the India-Pakistan
war, the Ukraine-Russia war, and the Israel-Gaza conflict. We have seen how drones are being
used, ranging from the smallest to the most advanced types. There's another concept of
collaborative combat aircraft, which, in simple terms, is essentially a drone. You can acquire a
CCA, which the United States is currently working on and is in trials for approximately $10
million. So, if the F-35 costs around $100 million and you can have these multiple CCAs for a
couple of million dollars, such as $7 million, $8 million, or $10 million. They could be integrated
with an operated machine, such as a manned aerial platform or fighter aircraft. So the advantage
that you can have is that you can multiply your air force at a relatively less cost, and you can
send these uh CCAs in a highly defended environment, where your pilot at least would not be
lost or
$100 million of F-35, or in the future acquire J35 60 $70 million. So that's the cost. Okay. It
becomes more affordable to send those CCAs controlled by the airborne man aircraft to a highly
dependent environment, and to achieve your objectives using undersea drones. That's a new
phenomenon. Many countries are also working on it. In India and the United States, even private
companies like Mahindra Corporation have begun conducting research. So that's the kind of
utility. So, if you can have underwater drones, the submarines that can create that chaos or havoc
for ships, you can have them at a relatively lower cost by having these underwater drones AI-
integrated. They can also go deeper, and they're relatively cheaper. Then on the land um we have
seen in Russia Ukraine war a commercially available drone of couple of hundred dollars one or
two million tank and Russians couldn't do anything in the end they had to retreat their armored so
that's the future of warfare so these technologies are making that kind of a difference that
relatively lesser investment uh you can achieve those military objectives if you want to invest in
this uh commercially available drones have increased the utility for state as well as non-state
actors the terrorists they can probably use these drones to achieve certain political objectives and
create chaos objective imagine somebody in Kashmir does this to Indian forces. You don't know
who has done this, so the crisis triggered the Taliban in Afghanistan. We have also seen some
stories using drones. So, that's where commercially available drones are accessible, and you can
attach commercial ones, which at least pose a threat to the others. Ukraine is a relatively small
country, but it is also technologically advanced. They're producing 3 to 3.5 million drones per
year, which is understandable, given their need to withstand Russia's majorsxc power and nuclear
capabilities. Additionally, EU or NATO countries are indirectly helping them. Still, they have the
potential to launch 700 drones in a day. Therefore, a smaller country with limited resources is not
considered a nuclear weapon state. So that's the capability, and we have seen, of course, Russia,
we mostly hear the Western stories that Ukraine is probably causing significant damage. They
are causing significant damage with those limited resources. Therefore, due to the technology,
swarm drones can render defenses somewhat ineffective. We had seen the India- Pakistan
conflict in May. They were unable to shoot down the S-400. S400 costs millions of dollars. So,
drones have a couple of thousand batteries each, and the cost of each missile is
significant; the relative cost is much higher. How many anti-missile systems can you use against
these small drones? It would be ineffective at first and overkill. You cannot sustain the cost of
skew spread. If you have swarm drones, no country can protect against them, even if there's no
foolproof air defense system or commercially available miniature drones. So that's the potential
of uh these drones against established powers. Now, coming to space, it intersects all domains of
warfare, that is, land, air, sea, and nuclear. Everything these days is connected to space. You
cannot move without linking with the space. Space superiority can lead to control of battlefields.
So mander cartland theory social scientist anybody who controls urasia would control rule the
world so somebody coined this not me somebody who proponent of space power whoever will
control the low earth orbits will control the world now imagine Elon Musk controlling 50% of
these low earth orbit satellites the kind of influence he has and we had seen starink Ukraine in
support of their military now they're He's not doing it but in future if there are other non-state
actors private entities they develop these technologies swarm drones and they are renting out to
conflict zone in Africa Asia satellite the commercialization of war the private entities influence
already we have seen Elon Musk the others are also doing it then space may militarization of
space ongoing moon rush there are reportedly huge resources ES Moonpay or other special
bodies pay where major powers they want to control those resources uh private companies
Amazon Jiz Elon Mus they're also sending rockets they're not just sending it for nothing so future
resources say they are investing a lot in these space missions moon rush and whenever there is a
conflict on resources there could be possibility of presence of military bases as well. It is natural
for the United States to recognize that it has vast resources and needs to secure its infrastructure;
therefore, it might send military personnel. So what if all countries start doing it? China, the
United States, Russia, and non-state actors. So there could be a conflict over space resources. Do
we need to worry, Joe? I quickly ran down, and I said what I said: I may not be corrected by
predictions. These are just thoughts for you to consider. The integration of emerging and
disruptive technologies would make future conflicts more complex, intense, and opaque, but also
relatively affordable. Thus, providing an incentive for states to engage in limited wars with
drones. You don't have to buy the F-35, J-35. Yes, you can have fewer platforms, and likewise,
CCS can still be used for military objectives, making conflicts and wars more affordable. India's
fast-paced development in the field of emerging and disruptive technologies has increased the
capability gap between India and Pakistan. How, uh, don't get influenced by what happened in
the recent May conflict. Um, this was a conflict. Yes, outcome favorable. Both sides are claiming
victory, but it remains to be seen how the future will unfold. We should never underestimate the
adversity, especially considering the capabilities and support India has. For example, they have a
bilateral initiative focused on creative and emerging technologies. So, quantum AI and
cyberspace are collaborating between the United States and India. Therefore, if these
technologies are not used now, they may be used in the future. For example, in February of this
year, they had a compact agreement. This is a Trump Valentine. So, if you read that statement, it
mentions corporations and United States entities, as well as private entities now developing
underwater drones, AI, cyber, or quantum technologies, collaborating in every field between
India and the United States. Then, they are also likely to sign this framework for a US-India
major
defense partnership in the 21st century. Now these arrangements are besides the agreements that
they have like BKA basic exchange cooperation agreement comcast limo logistic exchange
memorandum of understanding with between India and United States United States is equipping
the technologically India if India has not built these capabilities now they are likely to build in
next 5 10 years for sure and this is going to impact Pakistan's security significantly. Uh, then the
introduction of hypersonic weapons. We have seen the use of hypersonic weapons, ASAP
weapons, BMD systems, and drones. It also complicates our security context. What needs to be
done to prepare for the future wars that are likely to be multi-domain, as we have seen recently?
There may be a need to revamp organizational structures. And when I mention organizational
structure, consider how these capabilities were utilized. Can you fight future wars with the same
structures in place? Probably it would not be easy. Okay. Review the existing roles of all three
services. This does not mean giving priority to one over the other; however, we need to rethink
the future of technology and warfare to address the complexities of future wars. There's a need to
integrate data scientists, artificial intelligence experts, software engineers, quantum engineers,
and others in the decision-making process. So, on the decision table, it doesn't have to be the
mainstream fighting scientific technologies. Therefore, you must implement this reorganization
at the institutional level. They should be on the decision-making table to determine how these
technologies need to be integrated. So, this is not a war of 1950s or 1960s ships, tanks, and the
future. We need to prioritize national resources and invest in critical emerging technologies for
both commercial and military applications through public-private partnerships. Ironically,
whether we model good or bad, we focus more on military technologies, as technology is already
5, 10, or 15 years ahead, and we are collaborating with Elon Musk. So, that's the future of
development. However, if private entities enter for their commercial interests, they will compete
with the outside world and also be able to collaborate with international institutions, including
military partnerships. If you don't follow this model, you will likely always be lagging and
struggling to catch up, which can be very difficult. Thank you, and I apologize for being rushed,
sir.
Thank you so much, sir, for being so articulate. You rightly pointed out that there would be many
more complex technologies that would be very critical for the safety of these regions. With this,
Dr. Salik, I would like to invite you to speak on the subject. So the floor is all yours. I hope we
are audible—good afternoon and Asalam alaikum. I hope you can hear me now. No, sir, you're
not audible. Am I audible now? No, sir, you're still not audible. Unmute, sir. Unmute. Over. Can
you hear me? On my side. Uh, the mic is unmuted. I'm sure we can't hear you. Can you hear me
now? Thank you, so hello. Hello. Call us on WhatsApp, and we can put you on speaker. Uh,
hope you can hear me now. Yes, you're audible. Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Naeem Salik
Good afternoon, and Asslamualikum, everybody. My job has been made easier by Dr. Adil
Sultan. He has explained all these technologies very well and how they are being applied.
Therefore, instead of explaining all these technologies, I will focus on how they are expected to
impact future warfare. we have already seen in this recent war between India and Pakistan that it
was a non- contact warfare whereas has been mentioned also uh beyond visual range missiles
were used uh surface to air standoff weapons were employed and as well as the cruise missiles
and drones and uh except for the line of control uh there There's no uh physical battle between
the land forces and uh given the nature of these technologies the tempo of operations in the
future wars is going to be very high and because these technologies are very costly. They will not
be available in abundance. Therefore, future conflicts are likely to be short-lived, characterized
by a high tempo of weapon exchanges, with standoff weapons being used predominantly. As Dr.
Adin was in his closing remarks, he mentioned that we need to rethink the configuration of our
forces depending on their utility in the future battlefield. Secondly, these technologies are
referred to as emerging and disruptive technologies. Now, emerging, of course, is very clear, but
why is it disruptive? The traditional concepts of nuclear deterrence, second-strike capability, and
strategic stability are going to be adversely affected once these technologies are used on a large
scale. Let me give you a few examples. There was a mention of undersea drones. Uh, so the
assured second strike capability, which we used to depend on, the submerged submarines, that is
going to be compromised with these transparent oceans and these underwater drones roaming
around, some of them reconnaissance drones, and some of them carrying weapons as well. The
second strike capability will come under threat. Uh, on the ground, we used to depend on mobile
launchers. Now, with all these drones having long loitering times, staying in the air for almost 24
hours at a stretch, and with so many of them, and adding to that the concept of microsatellites
that can be launched in large numbers, there will be hardly any respite. So, even if you have
mobile launchers and vehicles carrying strategic weapons in motion, they will be either observed
by drones or microsatellites. So, there will be no hiding place for these, and they could be
accurately attacked at any time, even while they are changing positions from point A to point B.
That is why we say these are going to be disruptive technologies. However, another key point to
consider is that many of these technologies have not yet fully matured. It has also happened in
the past that many technologies were publicized with great fanfare. Ultimately, they failed to
yield the desired results that were expected of them. While these technologies matured and
became usable, the cost was so prohibitive that they could not be inducted in large numbers, and
they were therefore not operationally instrumental. Therefore, we must consider all these factors.
We also have to remember that throughout the annals of military history, there has never been a
time when a weapon system made its appearance. It was not that a counter was not developed
within a very short time, and that is exactly what is going to happen to these technologies as well,
because they now appear to be insurmountable. Still, we will soon see counter technologies
emerging to neutralize the effects of some of these technologies. Some of the questions raised in
the concert paper, such as the arms race, cannot be avoided. In addition
to the conventional arms race, the arms race will now explore newer avenues. Every country is
now trying to acquire these new technologies. Uh, that race is bound to emerge. We are aware of
three models of arms racing: the action-reaction model, which has been in operation between
India and Pakistan for the last 75 to 80 years. The second is the domestic political model, also
known as the bureaucratic model, which is more applicable to countries like the United States.
This model involves a nexus between the military-industrial complex, Congress, politicians, and
other interest groups, as well as large industrial entities competing with each other. We do not
have that kind of problem here. However, the third one is the technological model, and on many
occasions, we have seen that technology has driven the arms race, and that is what is now likely
to happen. Now, in our case, we can be fascinated by these technologies, but we must remember
that without indigenous development capabilities, we cannot compete with advanced countries in
this field. We do not have the hardware, and we do not produce much software that is used in
these technologies. If you do not have your algorithms and high-speed, quantum computing-
capable computers, and you import these items from abroad, then you will always remain
vulnerable. That vulnerability can cause significant problems at critical junctures in a conflict,
particularly. These are very uh investment intensive technologies and uh the leading countries uh
in AI and quantum technology they are China, America and Russia uh because they had the
resources to invest heavily in these development of these technologies and that is the reason that
since few countries have uh access to these technologies uh they do not want any international
regulatory mechanism. So, they are developing at their own pace, both in the public and private
sectors, and it may be too late once the regulatory regime comes into effect. The technology may
have already rendered those weapons obsolete. Many of these weapons can be classified as
nonstrategic, non-nuclear strategic weapons, as they are primarily non-nuclear but possess
strategic features, such as hypersonic cruise missiles and standoff surface-to-air weapons. We
have seen those being used in this recent conflict. Uh, the problem with these kinds of weapons
is that they are highly accurate and very effective, and there is always a temptation to use them
for counterforce missions. Sometimes, they can be deliberately used to attack the other side's
nuclear assets, and at other times, they can inadvertently hit strategic assets while attempting to
target conventional ones. The danger of inadvertent escalation is very high, especially if there's a
deliberate strike by these weapons against strategic forces. Uh, the fact will be the same, and the
reaction, uh, by that state would be as if there was a nuclear counterforce strike. So that's a
hazardous situation which is emerging, and we have seen that Indians attempted towards the end
of the recent conflict to target some of the very sensitive, uh, air bases and sensitive targets in
Pakistan, which could have created severe problems. Another element that has emerged, in
addition to the new technologies, is the cost-to-benefit ratio. We have witnessed the widespread
use of these drones. First of all, the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict had a real impact. They were
the decisive factor in the war. But there was a very typical situation there because it was not in a
contested environment. The Armenians did not have an effective air defense system and lacked
an air force. So the drones played havoc with them. Then we have seen the use of drones uh in
Russia Ukraine conflict where there has been uh the conflict has been progressing on both counts
contact war as well as the non-contact war and as Dr. Rad was
also mentioning uh the scale and number of use of drones uh is has been progressively increasing
as people have found the uh capability to produce those drones in large numbers and that is one
area where even middle powers are also competing. Countries like Turkey and Iran are also
producing very cost-effective and very advanced drones. Now, the problem with the drones'
attack is that if you use your air defense missiles to shoot down a drone, the cost ratio is very
unfavorable because you use a half-million-dollar missile to shoot down a drone that is maybe
worth $10,000. That ratio, however, is very unfavorable. So you cannot use these conventional
air defense weapons against these drones. Therefore, the one area in which I believe the
development will now focus, and we must also consider seriously, is the counter-development of
counter-drone weapons. Uh, there are many kinds of ideas available. The laser weapons, the
microwave weapons, and the electronic warfare methods against drones that can utilize the
communication links and their guidance systems. Therefore, we must also focus on these aspects.
But what we saw here is that although drones were used in the India-Pakistan conflict, they did
not play a very critical role. Why? Because it was a contested environment, and uh, many of the
drones were shot down by the air force, and the air defenses shot down many. Uh, uh, so they
could not play the kind of role they have played in the Ukraine-Russia conflict or the Armenia-
Azerbaijan conflict. Uh, we have also seen the recent conflict between Iran and Israel. Due to the
geographical factor, it had to be a distant and non-contact warfare, where long-range missiles
were primarily used. Therefore, the entire complexion of future warfare is changing with the
advent of these newer technologies. As I mentioned, we must consider the role of conventional
forces, particularly land forces, and in these short-lived conflicts, the navy also needs to reassess
its role. How can it play a role in a conflict that is very short-lived, as naval forces take some
time to come into action, and by the time the conflict is over? In any case, when examining the
history of India-Pakistan conflicts, the 1965 war lasted for 17 days, and the 1971 war lasted for
13 days. The recent war, however, lasted for just four days, and this pattern is likely to continue
for future warfare: four days, six days. We must consider which forces can be deployed, as the
land forces require a week or two to mobilize fully, and similarly, naval forces take time to reach
their designated war stations. They also have to review their role. The Air Force, as we have seen
in this conflict, will be the lead service in future warfare, primarily using standoff weapons due
to the hostile air defense environment and the long-range air defense systems, such as the S-400,
available in the region. Uh, the Air Force will also have to preserve its assets by staying out of
the range of these air defense assets. Future conflicts will be led by standoff weapons, hypersonic
cruise missiles, unmanned combat air vehicles, and beyond visual range systems, with decision-
making compressed. If you rely on AI, the decision-making process will be highly compressed. It
will pose a dilemma for decision-makers to rely on AI-generated solutions and take action, as
they will always fear that the other side, since they are also using AI, might act before them. So
in future conflicts, both sides will have their fingers on the buttons, uh, to act before the other
side can take you on. Therefore, it will be a volatile environment where there won't be much time
for deliberate decision-making. Given the accuracy and speed of these modern weapon systems,
the chances of inadvertent escalation to the nuclear realm are very high. The nature of the
conflict we have observed is that it has shortened the nuclear fuse. Normally, we expected a
crisis to develop between the two countries, which would lead to a limited conventional conflict
that would ultimately expand into a wide-ranging conventional war, and then, at some stage,
escalate into a nuclear war. Once these lower levels have already been eliminated and we start
from a very high baseline, then there's very little distance between this kind of conflict and
escalation to the nuclear levels, which is a very, very dangerous situation. We have been
discussing the limitations on warfare under the nuclear overhang. However, we have seen a
progressive increase in conflict. We saw the two 2016 claims of a land-based surgical strike.
Then, in 2019, there was the air-based surgical strike where only a small number of aircraft
launched standoff weapons, and then this recent conflict in which standoff weapons beyond
visual range, air-to-air missiles, drones, artillery, long-range artillery, rocket systems, and cruise
missiles were used. This has set a baseline for future conflicts. So, the future conflict is likely to
begin with all these existing elements, and possibly some additional features may be introduced.
One thing we must keep in mind is that this time, the Indians did attempt to move their naval
carrier task force, but then they withdrew due to the perceived threat from the Pakistan Navy.
Next time, we might also see some aggression coming from the maritime direction. Therefore,
we must also be prepared for that. Particularly, our shore installations and ports are vulnerable to
this kind of stand of attack from the maritime direction as well. So I'll conclude here, as I think
we've already overshot the time, and we'll now be available for the question-and-answer session.

Thank you so much, sir, Dr. Naeemm Salik, for such informative insights on the subject. You
rightly pointed out that the new emerging technologies do have the potential to be disruptive. Uh,
with this, I invite the president to moderate the question, answer, and discussion round. Thank
you. G, uh, first from the table should be my huge stocks of art ammunition. If you look it up,
you will see that he said it very, very clearly. This means they are taking a balanced approach to
the emerging technology. They're a long way from being stable, regardless of their current
impact, because the people are improvising. As you said, we don't know how quickly they will
affect us. I think we are far from experiencing the devastating effects of emerging technologies.
They will be gradually inducted into regular military service. I mean, we're all in the military or
have a military background, you know how difficult it is to induct a new system. What types of
trials and regulations are in place? Most of these technologies do not provide the repeatability or
reliability that would permit it, as is the case with regular induction into any of the services. So,
uh, I'm saying personally, I'm just saying this is my opinion, and uh, I've got no question,
everything is evident to me. Uh, he's elucidated the technologies. I'm familiar with them. I fully
agree with Dr. Sal's point. I was reinforcing what I said. Wonderful. Thanks for the comment. I
think it was very, very useful.

We will now move to Admiral Faisal*

Admiral Faisal:
Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Dr. Adil. Thank you, Dr. Sal. Both have been great
mentors, and it's always a treat to listen to them. Two things I want to bring to the floor. One is
that you discussed the reorganization of the decision-making hierarchy or loop, and you want
technical people to be included in that decision-making loop. To advise the leaders to take the
correct measures or actions in response to these EDS. However, despite this, I believe that
unless the political and military leadership themselves have hands-on experience in EDS, a gap
will still exist between them and the technical advice needed to act appropriately. I'm not sure
how to achieve that. If you have any insights, I was also wondering what the other side thinks of
us having EDTs, specifically the Indian side. And I was going through some material and I
interestingly found out that the Indians believe that AI and information in information warfare
has more maturity with Pakistan than with India. And this implies that Indians believe that
Pakistani content or anything coming out of Pakistan is less factual, uh, and is more AI-
generated, and this hurts the credibility of a nation or state. They are also telling the
international community that they don't believe in Pakistan because they have more AI-
generated content than we do. I was wondering if incorporating AI into information warfare is a
good or bad thing. Thank you.
On the first question, I'm not sure. Dr. Salik was able to hear what Admiral Faisal was saying
about the reorganization of military involvement, including engineers, software engineers, and
quantum engineers, among others. However, his point is that the decision-making at the top
needs to be conversant with how technologies work; there's no second opinion about that. Still,
for now, what we have seen is the hierarchy in all three services, with the main fighting forces
at the forefront. However, as technologies evolve, there are many unknowns about how these
technologies can be integrated and what kind of weapon systems or platforms will emerge in
the future. I believe that unless you have those experts sitting over there, it would be very
difficult to make those decisions. Some of the discussions that we have had after this, May
episode, uh, how this war was fought. Yes, we fared reasonably well, but because these
technologies were not used extensively, some drones, as Malik was also saying. Still, we are
talking about future warfare involving a swarm of drones that will be coming, as well as attacks
or attempts from space, and other AI-integrated weapon systems. So, how do we deal with
those? The entire concept of traditional war fighting, which is in Pakistan and India, is more
biased towards land warfare. Still, the future will be something completely different. This could
be a prediction that may go wrong because we do not know how these technologies work. Your
point is valid; whoever, like a prime minister, doesn't have to be conversant with how AI works.
Still, he has to make that political decision: are we going to war or not? He's the executive, and
likewise, the military commanders. I think that unless they are familiar with these technologies.
Yes, they would understand, but they wouldn't be familiar with the technical details of these
things. There are many examples, especially in the United States, of how their decision-making
works. Therefore, a fighter pilot cannot be an expert in everything. Similarly, the adversary is
wasting cyber warfare, and understanding its potential and the timing required to launch a
cyber attack
is crucial. What things do you need to neutralize at a particular moment to cut off the lifeline of
the adversary, likewise, the space-based assets? I think this has become so complex that it
won't work. That is why I say reorganization and decision-making have to be thought through.
The second question about information warfare is: Is AI-based information warfare good or
bad? As long as it is being seen as credible, and you are using that AI in a balanced way, and the
effect is producing favorable results. Yes, it is. But beyond that, what we had seen even in the
May crisis was one side exaggerating, and there were things that we knew were not factually
correct, such as AI-generated content. You start to lose that credibility. So, again, if somebody
understands how these technologies work, because this is everything that you're playing with in
the mind of your adversaries. So, if you go overboard, everything becomes questionable;
however, if you use it selectively and create the desired impact, yes, it is effective. Perhaps,
Alexa, sir, if you'd like to add something.
Dr. Salik: I think, Adil, that your point is valid: the senior leadership needs to be aware of these
technologies. They do not have to write the software or be familiar with the intricacies of the
hardware. However, familiarity with the technology is important, and the solution you are
suggesting may be suitable for the interim period. However, in the long term, we must modify
our training modules at our military academies, where individuals are initially trained in these
technologies. This way, when they advance in rank, they will be able to understand and utilize
these technologies. Uh, there are a lot of things happening around, which we normally do not
see. For instance, the US Marine Corps printed the parts of a drone using a 3D printer,
assembled them, and successfully flew it. And now, very recently, the US Secretary of Defense
showed his unhappiness with the lack of induction of drones in the fighting units in the US
Army. What they are going to experiment with now is that wherever any field unit is moving,
there will be large trucks and trailers carrying 3D printers. While they're on the move, they'll
print those drone parts, assemble them in large numbers, and then continue to produce,
construct, assemble, and launch drones as they move or remain on the edge of the battlefield.
So these are the kind of two things which are coming up, and uh, what the best we can do is
that we can uh, at least, keep ourselves abreast with whatever is happening. We do not
currently possess those capabilities. As I mentioned, using borrowed technologies always leaves
you vulnerable. The primary requirement for the effective use of AI is a database, which we
haven't yet created. Currently, only two countries have access to large databases. One is China
and the other is the United States. We also need to consider whether we should utilize AI. The
effectiveness of AI will always be dependent on the dataset available to support it. Therefore,
we also need to consider that direction.
President: Thank you. Last question because we are running short of time, u from the audience.
Questions from the audience:
You can ask, and then we can address it along with any questions from the audience about
outer space. An image showed a missile heading towards a satellite. Um, as this information
and communication technology is highly dependent on satellite systems. How susceptible is
outer
space to accidents or sabotage right now, whether by state or non-state actors? My name is
Halal Ahmed. I am a journalist. So, I have a short question. With space technology, it was the
leading country in 60s that opted for space technology in the region. Thank you. Essentially,
India is utilizing AI-generated content in its information warfare efforts. Still, itself India exposed
recently information warfare whether it's with my Bangladesh 204 24 political transition
recently strike Pakistan India conflict information warfare uh exploit to Pakistan why Pakistan is
not engaging with smaller South Asian states are to counter this narrative why we are all only
engaging in um uh Middle East EU uh United States UN and Central Asia why not engaging with
the smaller South Asian states to counter uh India in information warfare Yeah.
(Dr. Adil)
So, thank you. Uh, question about space, though. I'm happy that he raised us to face this
challenge because, traditionally, fighting forces certain heights and physiques, as they require
physical combat. Now since this these technology they need cyber war warriors they need AI
though those people they don't fit in this criteria because traditionally cyber slippers he doesn't
want or she doesn't want to be bounded by those physical trait so that's a challenge okay how
to so they had to change their selection parameters because future may if you want these
people to fight your wars you have to change the parameter induction cup something that chief
conflict since I was not the only one. So means public and nothing confidential. In our
cyberspace, they also did something similar. So, they selected individuals who were brilliant in
cyber work, primarily from Pakistan, and they delivered computer science. That's why it's
essential to have these individuals with the required qualifications for the future. Now,
regarding space assets, they are vulnerable. That's a significant debate, just with the presence
of satellites themselves creating a hazard, the anti-satellite capabilities of satellites, which can
now blanket adversary satellites, or the kidnapping of satellites, allowing robotic arms to
displace adversary satellites from one orbit to another. So, those are the challenges that people
are discussing, because some of those countries are developing these capabilities, but we have
very limited space presence and very limited potential; it's a significant challenge. After all, the
adversary has much more capability, supported by the United States, if you want to secure your
space-based assets. This is not necessarily about starting to build anti-satellite weapons, but
rather about securing your limited space capability, which remains a challenge. Now it links to
the your surnal pucha question where are we in space we are nowhere for now because Joe
just the the way the space race is happening we haven't yet started and uh at IRS I have already
made one presentation on space ISS because that's the future we started in ' 61 India started in
' 62 and where we are where India is There are some issues. It was about our priorities changing
because at that time, we had limited resources. So this leadership said we need to build bombs
nuclear weapons in 1974 $100, you focus your resources towards that. The space became a
secondary issue. Now we are realizing the way this race is happening or implication commercial
it's going to be 1.8 8 trillion economy space economy itself I'm talking about commercial by
2035 or 2040 your prediction India is aspiring to get a share of 8 to 9% so imagine the billions of
dollars it will be able to achieve that we are open sources probably $25 million like a minimal
amount so if you don't invest in
that. You don't bring commercial entities because the military domain in India is prospering,
and on the commercial side, they are collaborating with Western entities to launch vehicles.
They're earning revenue from the ballistic missiles we have developed, which allows us to
develop satellite launch vehicles. This sensitivity, if we start working, will prompt them to
consider ICBMs. We have the capabilities. Second, we need to have a separate space civilian
space entity because nobody is going to work US entity list you separate civilian you have the
technology at least knowledge know how engineers you can they can establish 61 once we
started within one year we were able to launch two sounding rockets with the help of NASA
India start so PC scientists So we have this capability, we have this capability, we develop
nuclear weapon. It is all a matter of prioritizing direction. Unfortunately, and this is where we
are lacking, anybody who controls the mind will rule the population. So, media control, I think,
is overstated. The media narrative sells as long as May 25. India had more resources than
Western media; they were more sympathetic towards India. Despite being a smaller country
with limited resources, why did our narrative prevail? Because something happened on the
undeniable ground. Nobody would believe that, like India, they continue to say. Nobody
believed that. That is where we are probably going wrong. An important substance, your
question about why we are not engaging in information warfare is more about diplomacy,
ambassadors, presidents, and regional connectivity. If you are reasonable, yes, like now, many
South Asian countries are feeling the pinch that India, as a hegemon, can affect their very
existence. So they are now reaching out to Pakistan say Bangladesh Pakistan approachment or
smaller countries it's more about not about information warfare nothing about narrative
building it's more about you reach out to them engage with them and there issues that you can
work together because everybody is feeling that India as hegemon is not acceptable now that's
the space that you can create and work with your regional countries uh to promote your
interest not necessarily to build a front against India. Okay. Thank you.
(Dr. Salik)
Just a little bit about the Pakistani space program. As we mentioned, we started in 1961, but
then we lost three to four decades. What we did was that somebody had a bright idea to put
SUPARCO under the cabinet division. You can well imagine that nobody bothered about the
development of space there. The shortage of funds was the second factor. It was only in the
early 2000s that this SUPARCO was brought on par with other strategic organizations, such as
the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, NESCOM, and KRL. As a result, it started regaining its
lost glory, and since then, it has produced some notable results as well. Still, we have a lot of
catching up to do. Uh it's metro priorities and particularly once you have limited resources you
have to prioritize, and it depends, uh where your main priority lies, and space probably was not
the only thing we can do is now that we have to open up the space for the private entities, uh,
because of the commercial uses of the space. So, they will see profitability there and will invest;
then we can also benefit from those developments in the public sector.

President closing remarks: Thank you. Well, we had our most enlightening session, and the
discussion was focused. Dr. Adul Sultan, Brig. Salik and, of course, Admiral Faisal also
contributed to that, as did the Nayat Sabha and many of our other participants
and distinguished audience members through their comments and questions. I think a range of
ideas were brought up and discussed, which would help us because this is a topic that has not
been discussed as much in academic or intellectual circles as it merits. In the coming years, we
can expect to see greater significance, especially in the context of this region, with two nuclear
powers, a highly hostile environment, a region considered a nuclear flashpoint, and a significant
appetite for nuclear proliferation. That's not all. It's also the involvement of other powers,
probably some of the biggest powers in the world, who are very interested in this region. I think
all the elements would see the induction of these sophisticated technologies in the area of
warfare, whether it's hybrid warfare or conventional warfare, and hopefully not nuclear warfare
ever. So we would like to have more sessions on this. Insha'Allah, we'll have a series of sessions.
We'll invite our esteemed panelists here, and we'll endeavor to add more experts to the panel.
This would be the first of many more to come, Insha'Allah. With these words, I would like to
thank our dear panelists today for their very insightful contributions. I would also like to request
that you all join me in a round of applause for them. Thank you, Dr. Salik. Thank you so much.