AI AND PREEMPTIVE STRIKE LOGIC: DOES FASTER DECISION-MAKING INCREASE THE LIKELIHOOD OF MISCALCULATION

Abstract

The introduction of AI in the military command and control has fundamentally reversed the nature of warfare in contemporary contexts, particularly in preemptive attacks. I am examining in my research whether the use of AI-powered decision-making indeed increases the risk of strategic errors during times of crisis. I would be using a qualitative, contextual approach, digging in to the historical examples of such situations as the Cuban Missile Crisis and Cold War false alarms, as well as the present applications of AI in the military, such as autonomous targeting, early warning, and data fusion. I even created a fake AI-versus-AI crisis case study to follow the escalation process, how the threats are perceived in a high-speed atmosphere, and how the algorithms may respond in the situation when the decision is made in a super-fast manner. The findings demonstrate that although AI will be able to enhance situational awareness and reduce response times, its rapidity, when it is not monitored by a human, has the side effect of causing the perception of inaccurate signal interpretation, the inadvertent increase in the tense state of affairs, and the massacre of opportunities of intelligent diplomacy. Another red flagged issue of the research is that increasing the pace of things may even spoil strategic stability. What I propose is close AI validation, multibillion human control and novel technological (or theological, the original expression is quite bizarre) to manage the explosion risk. The contribution of this work to the existing body of knowledge about AI-based crisis management is that it is an area of interest to defense planners, policymakers, and scholars who struggle to strike a balance between the benefits and drawbacks of technologies and their impact on strategic stability.