This report provides a strategic assessment of the primary operational strategies that a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) commander will employ in a land confrontation with United States forces. It further outlines the corresponding counter-strategies that a US commander must be prepared to execute to seize the initiative and achieve decisive outcomes. The foundational premise of this analysis is that any future conflict with the PLA will not be a traditional war of attrition focused on the destruction of opposing mechanized forces. Instead, it will be a “systems confrontation”. The PLA’s overarching operational doctrine, “Systems Destruction Warfare” (系統破壞戰), is designed not to annihilate but to paralyze the US operational system by disrupting its critical functions and shattering its cohesion. This philosophy permeates every facet of their warfighting doctrine and capability development, transforming the modern battlefield into a contest between opposing operational systems.

The PLA’s doctrinal evolution has been rapid and deliberate. It has transitioned from its historical roots in a “people’s war” concept to a focus on fighting and winning “informatized local wars”. This shift, heavily influenced by observations of US military operations, moved the PLA’s doctrinal focus from being weapon platform-centric to being cyber- and network-centric. The PLA is now aggressively advancing toward “intelligentized warfare,” a future form of conflict supported primarily by artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. This evolution is not merely a technological upgrade; it represents a fundamental change in their theory of victory. The ultimate goal is to achieve decision dominance by disrupting and collapsing the adversary’s Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act (OODA) loop, rendering them unable to respond coherently.

Critically, any assessment of the PLA’s military strategy must begin with an understanding of its political nature. The PLA is not the army of the Chinese state; it is the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Its primary mission, above all else, is the defense of the Party and its continued rule. This political reality is the bedrock upon which its command structure, doctrine, and battlefield conduct are built. Consequently, political warfare is not an ancillary or supporting effort for the PLA; it is an inseparable and central component of its military operations, fully integrated into its concept of systems destruction.

A surface-level analysis of PLA doctrine reveals a significant degree of imitation. Concepts such as “Multi-Domain Precision Warfare” (MDPW) and “informatized warfare” appear to “mirror,” “replicate,” or “copy” US military concepts like Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) and net-centric warfare. The PLA is clearly observing and learning from the US military, adopting analogous terminology and pursuing similar technological goals, including networked C4ISR, AI integration, and multi-domain precision strike. However, this mirroring masks a fundamental and exploitable asymmetry. The underlying command philosophies of the two forces are diametrically opposed. The United States is developing JADC2 to empower and accelerate a decentralized Mission Command philosophy, which relies on disciplined initiative at the lowest echelons. The PLA, in contrast, is developing MDPW to enhance and enforce a rigidly centralized, top-down command structure where deviation from the Party’s directives is impermissible.

The PLA is not simply adopting US methods. It is attempting to harness the speed and lethality of a networked force without accepting the political risks associated with decentralized authority, a concept that is anathema to the CCP’s existential need for absolute control. AI and automation are being pursued as a technological solution to a political problem: how to shorten the OODA loop without empowering subordinate commanders. This creates a critical vulnerability. The PLA’s entire operational system is becoming increasingly dependent on a complex, technologically advanced, yet philosophically brittle, centralized architecture. While their system may look like ours on the surface, its “brain” is singular and centralized, making it susceptible to systemic shock. Disrupting their network is not merely a degradation of their command and control (C2); it is a fundamental attack on their entire command philosophy, one that can lead to systemic paralysis. This report will analyze the five key strategies the PLA will employ based on this doctrine and the corresponding US counters designed to exploit these inherent vulnerabilities.

I. Strategy 1: Information Paralysis – Seizing Dominance in the Electro-Cyber Domain

The PLA Commander’s Approach: Integrated Network Electronic Warfare (INEW)

The PLA’s opening salvo in any land confrontation will not be kinetic; it will be an all-out assault on the information domain. PLA doctrine views information as the central resource on the modern battlefield and cyberspace as a primary domain of conflict, co-equal with land, sea, and air. Their primary objective is to achieve information dominance in the earliest phases of a conflict, possibly preemptively, to create “blind spots” and decision-making paralysis within US forces before significant ground combat is joined. This strategy is designed to fragment the US operational system into isolated components, rendering it less than the sum of its parts.

This offensive will be executed by the PLA’s Cyberspace Force, a strategic arm established in April 2024 from the cyberwarfare capabilities of the former Strategic Support Force (SSF). This organization consolidates China’s space, cyber, electronic warfare (EW), and psychological warfare capabilities into a single, integrated force designed to secure the information domain. Their operational approach is “Integrated Network Electronic Warfare” (INEW), which calls for the simultaneous and coordinated application of computer network attacks (CNA) and EW against the entirety of the US C4ISR architecture.

The tactical application of INEW will be multi-faceted and relentless:

• Disrupting Sensors and Data Links: The PLA has invested heavily in ground- and air-based jammers and spoofing systems designed to interfere with wireless communications, tactical data links, radar systems, and GPS signals. The goal is to sever the connections between US sensors and shooters, breaking the kill chains that underpin our precision-strike capabilities. This includes jamming low-orbit satellites and degrading SATCOM links that are vital for beyond-line-of-sight communications.
• Degrading Command Nodes: The PLA’s Cyberspace Force will conduct offensive cyber operations targeting our command posts, logistics hubs, and critical infrastructure. These attacks will aim to disrupt, degrade, or destroy networks by manipulating or corrupting data, deploying ransomware, and executing distributed denial-of-service attacks to slow our decision-making and erode confidence in our own information systems.
• Counter-Space Operations: Recognizing US dependence on space-based assets, the PLA will employ a range of counter-space capabilities. This includes co-orbital anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, direct-ascent kinetic kill vehicles, and ground-based directed energy weapons and jammers designed to deny US forces access to space-based ISR, communication, and PNT (Positioning, Navigation, and Timing) assets.

A critical element of this strategy is the PLA’s concept of “peacetime-wartime integration”. This doctrine posits that effective cyber warfare is an unending activity that seamlessly transitions across the spectrum of conflict. Therefore, PLA cyber activities—such as intelligence gathering, mapping critical infrastructure, operational preparation of the environment (OPE), and pre-positioning malicious code on vulnerable networks—are not activities that will begin at the onset of hostilities. They are continuous operations that will simply intensify, aiming to achieve decisive effects before the first shot is fired.

The US Commander’s Response: Assured C2 through Network Resilience and Offensive Cyber

The US response to the PLA’s information paralysis strategy is not predicated on building an impenetrable, static network defense. Such a defense is impossible against a peer adversary with the resources and capabilities of the PLA. Instead, our core response is to build and operate a resilient network architecture that can “fight through” sustained attacks and continue to enable effective command and control. This philosophy of resilience is the central technological and doctrinal pillar of our Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) concept.

Our approach to achieving this resilience is multi-layered:

• Technical Resilience: We will execute a robust Primary, Alternate, Contingency, and Emergency (PACE) communications plan built upon the principle of transport diversity. This involves creating and maintaining multiple, redundant communication pathways for data to travel, leveraging a hybrid network of Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), and Geostationary Orbit (GEO) SATCOM; high-capacity terrestrial microwave and fiber; and line-of-sight optical communication systems. Automated network management systems will intelligently and seamlessly route data over the best available pathway, automatically switching when a primary link is degraded or jammed, often without the user even noticing. To harden our signals, we will employ advanced techniques such as frequency-hopping waveforms, low probability of intercept/low probability of detection (LPI/LPD) transmissions, advanced encryption standards, and complex modulation schemes to make it more difficult for the adversary to detect, target, and disrupt our communications.
• Organizational Resilience: The US Army’s Multi-Domain Task Forces (MDTFs) are the primary organizational tool for this fight. At the heart of each MDTF is the Multi-Domain Effects Battalion (MDEB), a unique formation that integrates cyber, EW, space, intelligence, and information operations capabilities. The MDEB is our maneuver element in the electro-cyber domain. Its mission is not only to defend our own networks but to conduct offensive operations to disrupt the PLA’s C4ISR system. The MDEB will actively sense the electromagnetic environment, identify and locate PLA emitters and network nodes, and then deliver converged non-kinetic effects—jamming, spoofing, and cyber-attacks—to degrade their ability to command their forces.
• Doctrinal Resilience (JADC2): JADC2 is fundamentally designed to function in a contested, degraded, and intermittent communications environment. By establishing a data-centric enterprise—where data is uncoupled from specific systems and made available to all authorized users—and employing AI-enabled processing at the edge, JADC2 can rapidly re-route information from any available sensor, fuse data from disparate sources, and provide commanders with a “good enough” common operational picture to continue making timely and effective decisions. JADC2 accepts that some nodes will be lost; its purpose is to ensure that the loss of individual nodes does not lead to the collapse of the entire system.

The PLA’s sophisticated doctrine for EW, which outlines a comprehensive campaign plan for achieving electromagnetic dominance, reveals their strategic calculus. Their “Systems Destruction” doctrine correctly identifies an adversary’s C4ISR network as the primary center of gravity in modern warfare. The electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) is the physical terrain upon which this network operates. Therefore, a PLA commander will not view the fight for control of the EMS as a supporting effort; it will be the main effort in the initial phase of any conflict. Their doctrine is explicit: “Whoever controls the EMS…will retain enormous advantages in securing victory”. This necessitates a paradigm shift in our own thinking. We must treat the EMS as maneuver space, on par with land, sea, and air. Our MDEBs cannot be held in reserve or treated as specialized support assets. They must be deployed forward and postured to compete for and establish pockets of electromagnetic superiority from the very outset of hostilities. Our ability to maneuver and win in the physical domains will be directly contingent on our ability to win, or at a minimum achieve a stalemate, in the EMS. This elevates the role of the EW and Cyber operator from that of a supporting specialist to a primary combatant in the opening hours of a modern conflict.

II. Strategy 2: Political Disintegration – The “Three Warfares” on the Battlefield

The PLA Commander’s Approach: Weaponizing Narrative and Law

A PLA commander will view the cognitive and political domains as a battlefield co-equal to the physical domains. For the PLA, political warfare is not an adjunct to military operations; it is a “central pillar” of their strategy and a “critical component of systems destruction warfare”. The objective of this warfare is to achieve victory before the decisive battle is even fought by weakening our will to fight, fracturing our alliances, shaping our strategic assessments, and undermining the morale of our soldiers. This approach is encapsulated in the doctrine of the “Three Warfares” (三戰), which will be employed directly and continuously against our deployed forces, our leadership, and our home front.

The “Three Warfares” will be integrated into every phase of a PLA operation:

• Public Opinion Warfare (輿論戰): The PLA will leverage the CCP’s vast state-controlled media apparatus and its sophisticated social media manipulation capabilities to wage a global information campaign. This will involve disseminating targeted disinformation and propaganda through every available channel to erode US domestic support for the conflict, create and exacerbate rifts between the US and its regional allies, and portray US military actions as aggressive, illegitimate, or incompetent. The goal is to isolate the US politically and create domestic pressure to de-escalate or withdraw.
• Psychological Warfare (心理戰): This warfare will be aimed directly at the minds of US soldiers and commanders. The PLA will conduct tailored psychological operations (PSYOP) designed to instill fear, doubt, and a sense of hopelessness. Tactics will likely include the use of AI-generated deepfakes to create false orders or demoralizing messages from supposed US leaders, exploiting any captured US personnel for coerced “confessions” or propaganda statements—a tactic with deep historical roots in PLA operations from the Korean War—and flooding tactical networks and social media with content designed to create a sense of futility and undermine trust in leadership.
• Legal Warfare (法律戰 or “Lawfare”): The PLA will weaponize international and domestic legal frameworks to constrain US military action. This involves meticulously crafting operations to appear compliant with international law while simultaneously lodging legal challenges and protests that accuse the US of violations. The objective is to challenge the legality of US deployments and operations, restrict our Rules of Engagement (ROE), create hesitation and delay in our decision-making cycles by bogging down commanders and policymakers in legal reviews, and ultimately achieve strategic paralysis through legal ambiguity.

These three “warfares” are not separate lines of effort; they are a converged, mutually reinforcing campaign. A psychological operation targeting US soldiers might be amplified by a public opinion campaign at home, which is then reinforced by a legal challenge at the United Nations. The cumulative effect is intended to disintegrate the political and psychological cohesion of the US operational system.

The US Commander’s Response: Seizing the Narrative and Hardening the Force

To defeat this strategy, we must recognize that we are engaged in an information and political fight from “Phase 0,” long before any shots are fired. Our response cannot be reactive; it must be a proactive campaign of narrative control and comprehensive force inoculation.

Our counter-strategy will be built on the following pillars:

• Proactive Counter-Narrative: We cannot cede the information environment to the adversary. We must develop and articulate a clear, concise, and persistent counter-political warfare strategy. This involves educating our own forces, the American public, and our international partners about the PLA’s methods and objectives. Our Public Affairs elements must be empowered to rapidly deconstruct and expose PLA disinformation. We will “pre-bunk” likely PLA narratives by anticipating their lines of attack and preemptively providing factual context. We must aggressively and transparently highlight the PLA’s coercive, deceptive, and aggressive actions to seize and maintain the initiative in the global narrative.
• Force Resilience and Cognitive Hardening: Our training must evolve to prepare soldiers for the cognitive battlefield. This includes mandatory “cognitive hardening” programs that educate every soldier on the nature of PLA PSYOP, including specific training on identifying deepfakes, resisting social media manipulation, and understanding the historical precedent of the PLA’s use of POWs for propaganda purposes. Critically, this requires reinforcing information discipline and operational security (OPSEC) at all levels, from the individual soldier to the command post, to deny the PLA the raw material for their psychological and public opinion campaigns.
• Legal Preparation and Integration: Our legal teams (JAG) must be fully integrated into the operational planning process from the very beginning. They will not be consulted merely for review; they will be part of the design of operations. Their role is to anticipate and prepare robust responses to likely PLA lawfare tactics, ensuring that our ROE are clear, legally defensible, and provide commanders with the necessary operational flexibility. We must be prepared to counter their legal arguments swiftly and authoritatively on the international stage, defending the legitimacy of our actions.
• Organizational Empowerment: US Army Civil Affairs, Psychological Operations (PSYOP), and Public Affairs units are our primary maneuver arms in this non-physical domain. They must be resourced, trained, and empowered to compete effectively against the PLA’s whole-of-government approach to information warfare. This requires deep integration with the intelligence community and interagency partners to ensure their efforts are synchronized and effective.

The PLA’s long and documented history of using intense indoctrination and psychological coercion on prisoners of war is not merely a historical footnote; it is a window into their strategic mindset. Their doctrine explicitly aims to “weaken the enemy’s will to fight” as a primary line of effort. Western military tradition often treats morale as an outcome of physical combat—if you win the battle, morale will be high. The PLA, however, stemming from its revolutionary and CCP roots, views the psychological state of the enemy as a distinct center of gravity to be actively targeted, degraded, and shattered. The goal of their PSYOP is not simply to demoralize, but to induce “lasting behavioral changes” and create a stream of propaganda that serves their strategic objectives. In the 21st century, this means that every US soldier with a smartphone is a potential target for tailored, AI-driven psychological attacks designed to undermine their trust in their leaders, their faith in their mission, and their connection to their country. This reality demands that our definition of force protection expand beyond the physical domains of armor and fortifications. We must implement and institutionalize robust “cognitive force protection” measures. This requires a paradigm shift in training and leadership, where commanders at every level are held responsible for the psychological and informational resilience of their troops with the same gravity and seriousness they apply to physical security, maintenance, and combat readiness.

III. Strategy 3: Stand-off Strike – The “Multi-Domain Precision Warfare” Kill Web

The PLA Commander’s Approach: Achieving Victory through Fires

The PLA’s core operational concept for the kinetic fight is “Multi-Domain Precision Warfare” (MDPW). This concept is the physical manifestation of their “Systems Destruction Warfare” doctrine. It leverages a vast, networked C4ISR system, increasingly enhanced by big data analytics and AI, to rapidly identify key vulnerabilities and critical nodes in the US operational system and then launch overwhelming, multi-axis precision strikes against them. Instead of seeking to close with and destroy US ground forces in direct combat, the PLA commander will attempt to achieve victory from a distance, using their massive arsenal of Long-Range Precision Fires (LRPF) to attack the nodes that provide our system with its cohesion and lethality—our command posts, logistics hubs, air and missile defense sites, and concentrations of forces.

This strategy is enabled by a formidable and growing suite of capabilities:

• Massed Rocket and Cannon Artillery: The PLA has made significant breakthroughs in MRLS (Multiple Rocket Launcher Systems) and self-propelled artillery. Systems like the PHL-03 and the newer PHL-16 are not simply area-fire weapons; they are precision-strike systems capable of launching guided rockets to ranges of 70-130 km and over 220 km, respectively. The PHL-16 is reportedly capable of launching tactical ballistic missiles, blurring the line between conventional artillery and strategic assets. These systems will be used to provide a high volume of precision fires against tactical and operational targets.
• Ballistic and Hypersonic Missiles: The PLA Rocket Force (PLARF) is a separate service branch that controls the world’s largest and most diverse arsenal of conventional land-based ballistic and cruise missiles. This includes hundreds of short-range (SRBM), medium-range (MRBM), and intermediate-range (IRBM) ballistic missiles, as well as ground-launched cruise missiles. The introduction of hypersonic glide vehicles, which are highly maneuverable and travel at speeds greater than Mach 5, is designed specifically to defeat advanced air and missile defense systems and hold critical fixed sites like ports, airfields, and command centers at risk from hundreds or thousands of kilometers away.
• Integrated Targeting Kill Chain: The lethality of these strike systems is entirely dependent on a robust, multi-domain “system-of-systems” for targeting. The PLA has invested heavily in a network of ISR satellites, over-the-horizon radars, electronic intelligence platforms, and a growing fleet of UAVs to find, fix, track, and target US forces across the theater. This network is designed to provide high-fidelity, real-time targeting information to their shooters, enabling them to strike both static and mobile targets with precision at extended ranges.

The PLA commander’s intent will be to use this kill web to establish an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) environment, attriting our forces as they deploy into the theater and then systematically dismantling our operational system by destroying its key nodes before we can bring our combined arms capabilities to bear.

The US Commander’s Response: A Multi-Layered Counter-Fire Strategy

Our response to the PLA’s stand-off strike strategy cannot be a single system or a simple tit-for-tat exchange of fires. It must be a comprehensive, multi-layered approach that attacks every link in the PLA’s kill chain—from their sensors to their shooters to their C2 nodes. This is a central tenet of our Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) doctrine, which emphasizes the convergence of effects from all domains to create and exploit windows of superiority.

Our counter-fire strategy comprises three mutually supporting lines of effort:

• Passive Defense and Deception: The most effective way to defeat a missile is to ensure it is never fired, and the second most effective is to ensure it has nothing to hit. We must deny the PLA’s ISR systems a clear and static target. This requires a radical commitment to dispersal of forces, hardening of critical assets, constant mobility of command posts and logistics nodes, and the sophisticated use of camouflage, concealment, and deception (CCD). We cannot allow our forces to concentrate in predictable locations that are easily targeted by PLA LRPF.
• Active Defense: We will protect our critical assets and maneuver forces with a layered and resilient Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) architecture. This architecture will integrate sensors and effectors from all services to provide a comprehensive defense against the full spectrum of PLA threats, from UAV swarms and cruise missiles to ballistic and hypersonic weapons. This includes kinetic interceptors like Patriot and THAAD, as well as emerging directed energy and other advanced capabilities.
• Offensive Counter-Fire: We will not assume a defensive posture and absorb the PLA’s first punch. The Army’s MDTFs are specifically designed and equipped to penetrate and disintegrate enemy A2/AD networks. The Strategic Fires Battalion within the MDTF will employ its own organic LRPF assets—including the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) with a range exceeding 500 km, the Mid-Range Capability (MRC) based on the SM-6 and Tomahawk missiles, and the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW)—to hold the PLA’s own sensors, launchers, and C2 nodes at risk. These land-based fires provide a persistent, 24/7 strike capability that is highly survivable and complicates the adversary’s targeting problem.
• JADC2-Enabled Dynamic Targeting: The key to defeating the PLA’s numerous and often mobile missile launchers is speed. JADC2’s “any sensor, best shooter” architecture is the doctrinal and technical solution to this problem. By networking all available sensors (from satellites to ground-based radar to special operations forces) with all available shooters across the joint force, and by using AI/ML algorithms to rapidly process data and generate targeting solutions, we can dramatically compress our own OODA loop. This will enable us to find, fix, and finish time-sensitive PLA targets before they can fire and relocate.

The PLA’s MDPW and the US JADC2 are conceptually parallel; both are ambitious efforts to build a “system-of-systems” that links sensors to shooters across all domains. However, their developmental priorities reveal their underlying strategies. The PLA has invested massively in the “shooters”—the long-range missiles themselves. The US, while also developing new LRPF, has placed a primary emphasis on perfecting the network that connects the system. This sets the stage for a duel not of missiles, but of kill chains. A kill chain consists of several links: find, fix, track, target, engage, and assess (F2T2EA). The PLA’s strategy is to overwhelm us at the “engage” link with a massive volume of high-speed, long-range munitions. Our counter-strategy is to dominate the “find, fix, track, and target” links through a superior, more resilient, and faster network (JADC2), and then use our own precision fires to break the PLA’s kill chain at its most vulnerable points—their sensors and their C2 nodes. Victory in the fires duel will go to the side that masters information, not just ballistics. Therefore, our primary effort must be to attack the PLA’s kill chain before they can launch. This means prioritizing our MDEBs to blind their sensors and disrupt their command networks, turning their technologically advanced missiles into inert munitions on the launcher. Our own LRPF will be most effective not when trading salvos with their launchers, but when used to destroy the “eyes” and “brain” of their entire strike system.

IV. Strategy 4: Asymmetric Overwhelm – The Use of Unmanned and Autonomous Swarms

The PLA Commander’s Approach: Manned-Unmanned Teaming and Saturation

The PLA is aggressively pursuing what it terms “intelligentized warfare,” a concept that centers on the integration of AI-enabled unmanned and autonomous systems to create asymmetric advantages and achieve decision dominance. A PLA commander will leverage these emerging capabilities to create tactical and operational dilemmas that are difficult to solve with traditional, platform-centric military forces. The PLA is already testing and fielding drone swarm technology for a wide range of missions, including ISR, ground surveillance, precision strike, and amphibious landing support.

In a land confrontation, a PLA commander will likely employ two primary tactics leveraging unmanned systems:

• Saturation Attacks with Drone Swarms: The PLA understands the economic asymmetry of modern air defense. They will use swarms of small, low-cost, expendable drones, potentially numbering in the hundreds, to saturate and overwhelm our sophisticated air defense systems. A single high-value interceptor, such as a Patriot missile, cannot be economically or logistically sustained to defeat a large number of inexpensive drones on a one-for-one basis. This tactic is designed to exhaust our limited supply of advanced interceptors, open gaps in our defensive coverage, and allow their more valuable assets, like cruise missiles or manned aircraft, to penetrate our defenses.
• Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T): The PLA is actively exercising with “human-machine collaborative combat teams,” integrating unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), often referred to as “robot wolves,” and Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs) directly with their conventional combined arms brigades. In complex terrain, such as urban environments, these unmanned systems will be used to lead the advance. They will conduct reconnaissance into high-threat areas, breach obstacles under fire, provide direct fire support for dismounted infantry, and absorb the initial casualties of an engagement, thereby preserving the lives of their own soldiers while increasing the tempo and lethality of their assault. This approach also creates immense psychological pressure on defending forces, who must contend with a relentless, unfeeling mechanical advance.

This strategy of asymmetric overwhelm is designed to invert the traditional strengths of US forces. It targets our reliance on technologically advanced, high-cost platforms by presenting a threat that is too numerous and too cheap to defeat with conventional means, while simultaneously reducing the PLA’s own historical vulnerability to high casualty rates.

The US Commander’s Response: Layered, Integrated Counter-UAS Defense

There is no single “silver bullet” solution to the threat of unmanned and autonomous swarms. An effective response requires a layered, integrated, defense-in-depth that is made organic to all units, not just siloed within specialized air defense formations. Every unit on the battlefield must have the ability to defend itself against small uncrewed aerial systems (UAS).

Our counter-swarm strategy is built on a framework of layered effectors and AI-enabled command and control:

• Layered and Diverse Effectors:

• Kinetic Systems: For high-volume, short-range defense, we will employ gun-based systems (like the C-RAM) and low-cost, guided rocket interceptors. These systems provide an immediate and proven capability to engage individual drones or small groups.
• Electronic Warfare: Our EW systems, organic to the MDEBs and other formations, will provide a non-kinetic option to defeat less sophisticated drones by jamming their command and control links or spoofing their GPS navigation.
• Directed Energy (DE): High-energy laser systems offer a critical advantage: a deep magazine with a very low cost-per-shot. These systems are ideal for engaging large numbers of drones and can be mounted on tactical vehicles to provide mobile protection for maneuvering forces.
• High-Power Microwave (HPM): HPM weapons are the most promising technology for defeating entire swarms simultaneously. Systems like the Tactical High-power Operational Responder (THOR) can emit a cone of energy that disables the electronics of multiple drones with a single pulse, providing a true area-defense capability against saturation attacks.

• AI-Enabled Command and Control: Defeating a drone swarm, which can involve hundreds of targets moving in a coordinated fashion, is a problem that exceeds human cognitive capacity. The response must occur at machine speed. We will use AI-enabled C2 systems that can autonomously fuse data from multiple sensors (radar, electro-optical/infrared, RF detection), classify and prioritize threats, and then recommend or direct the optimal effector for each engagement. This AI-driven C2 is essential to shorten the kill chain and effectively manage a layered defense against a high-volume attack.
• Offensive Action: We will not remain purely on the defensive. A key part of our counter-swarm strategy is to attack the system at its source. This involves using our own ISR and strike assets to target the drone operators, their ground control stations, their launch vehicles, and their C2 networks. Furthermore, the US is developing its own autonomous swarm capabilities, which can be employed offensively to counter PLA swarms or to conduct our own saturation attacks against their critical assets.

The PLA correctly assesses that small, expendable drones offer “key offensive and defensive asymmetric advantages”. The US military is rightly concerned about the unsustainable economics of wasting expensive precision munitions on low-cost drones. This dynamic fundamentally alters battlefield geometry and economics. Traditional warfare has often been a contest of exquisite, high-cost platforms against each other, where the side with the qualitatively and quantitatively superior platforms held the advantage. Drone swarms introduce a new paradigm: the triumph of mass over class. A swarm of hundreds of drones, each costing only a few thousand dollars, can potentially disable or destroy a multi-billion-dollar asset, such as an advanced IAMD radar or a theater-level command post. This inverts the traditional cost-imposition curve, making it economically impossible to rely on million-dollar interceptors for defense. This reality forces a strategic shift in our defensive thinking, moving from a focus on platform protection to a broader concept of area defense, and from a model of attrition to one of cost-effective engagement. We must therefore accelerate the development, procurement, and fielding of non-kinetic and low-cost kinetic C-UAS solutions across the entire force. The future of battlefield air defense against this threat will be dominated by directed energy and high-power microwave systems, and our resourcing and acquisition priorities must reflect this fundamental change in the character of war.

V. Strategy 5: Command Decapitation – Exploiting Centralization through Combined Arms Assault

The PLA Commander’s Approach: System Warfare at the Tactical Level

The PLA’s doctrine of system warfare extends down to the tactical level. Here, it translates into a focus on identifying and destroying the high-value battlefield systems that enable the enemy’s operational effectiveness, with a particular emphasis on command and communication nodes. A PLA commander will seek to physically decapitate US command and control on the battlefield, believing that this will induce systemic paralysis and create the conditions for a rapid victory.

Their Combined Arms Brigades (CA-BDEs) are the primary tool for this mission. These are not the infantry-heavy formations of the past; modern PLAA CA-BDEs are powerful, mobile, artillery-heavy formations designed for rapid and violent offensive action, with envelopment and penetration being their primary offensive tactics. PLA guidelines for offensive operations call for achieving overwhelming local superiority, suggesting a four-to-one advantage in maneuver forces and a five-to-one to seven-to-one advantage in artillery firepower at the point of attack.

The likely PLA approach to command decapitation will follow a clear sequence:

1. Find and Fix: The PLA will dedicate significant ISR assets, including unmanned aerial systems, electronic intelligence, and forward-deployed Special Operations Forces (SOF), to the task of locating and fixing the position of our operational and tactical command posts (CPs).
2. Isolate and Suppress: Once a CP is fixed, the PLA commander will leverage their overwhelming advantage in organic artillery firepower to suppress and isolate the target. Massed fires from 122mm/155mm self-propelled guns and 122mm rocket artillery will be used to disrupt the CP’s operations, sever its communication links, and prevent reinforcement or withdrawal.
3. Penetrate and Destroy: With the CP suppressed and isolated, a mechanized CA-BDE will execute a high-speed penetration or envelopment. Using its organic infantry fighting vehicles and assault guns, the brigade will bypass frontline defenses and drive directly to the CP’s location with the singular objective of physically destroying the node.

This tactic is designed to directly attack what the PLA perceives as our critical vulnerability—our reliance on a networked command structure. It is also perfectly suited to their own centralized, prescriptive command philosophy, which excels at executing well-defined, pre-planned operations against a fixed objective and requires less freedom of action and initiative from subordinate commanders.

The US Commander’s Response: Leveraging Mission Command for Asymmetric Advantage

The PLA’s greatest perceived strength—its ability to orchestrate highly centralized, controlled operations—is simultaneously its most profound weakness. Our response to their command decapitation strategy is to turn this strength against them by fully embracing our own unique and powerful command philosophy: Mission Command.

Our counter is not primarily technological, but philosophical and doctrinal, enabled by technology:

• Command Post Survivability: We will refuse to present the PLA with a fixed target. Our command posts will not be static, high-signature headquarters. We will employ active survivability measures, including constant mobility and frequent displacement, and passive measures, including dispersal of CP functions across multiple smaller nodes and rigorous signature management (EMCON, thermal, acoustic). Agile, distributed, and low-signature command nodes are significantly harder to find, fix, and target, complicating the PLA’s entire operational sequence.
• Decentralized Execution through Mission Command: Mission Command is the conduct of military operations through decentralized execution based upon mission-type orders. By providing subordinate leaders with a clear commander’s intent—the purpose, key tasks, and desired end state of the operation—we empower them to exercise disciplined initiative. They understand why they are fighting, not just what they are supposed to do. This means they are trained and trusted to adapt to the local situation and continue the fight to achieve the commander’s intent even if communications with higher headquarters are severed. The successful destruction of a single brigade or division command post, while a serious blow, will not paralyze our force. Subordinate units will continue to operate based on their understanding of the intent, preventing the systemic collapse the PLA seeks to achieve.
• Turning the Tables on the Attacker: A PLA CA-BDE executing a deep, prescriptive penetration against a single objective is a powerful but predictable force. With its focus narrowed on a single goal dictated from a higher headquarters, its flanks, rear area, and logistical tail become exposed and vulnerable. Empowered by Mission Command, our subordinate units, who are not paralyzed by the attack on a single CP, can seize the initiative. They can transition from a defensive posture to launching decisive counter-attacks against the over-extended and exposed PLA force. By exploiting the predictability inherent in the PLA’s centralized system, we can disrupt their timetable, shatter their operational plan, and turn their decapitation strike into a decisive engagement fought on our terms.

The battlefield is a crucible that tests not only technology and tactics but also command philosophies. The PLA employs a strict, top-down command structure where deviation from centrally directed orders is not permitted, and the ever-present political commissar ensures absolute loyalty to the Party’s directives. The US system of Mission Command is built on the foundations of trust, mutual understanding, and the empowerment of subordinate leaders to act—and even to act contrary to the last received order if the situation demands it, as long as their actions remain within the commander’s intent. The PLA’s command system is optimized for planned, deliberate operations in a controlled environment; it is inherently brittle and struggles to adapt to the friction, chaos, and uncertainty of modern combat. The US Mission Command philosophy, in contrast, is designed for chaos and uncertainty. It assumes that plans will fail, communications will be lost, and opportunities will emerge unexpectedly. It empowers leaders at the lowest possible level to adapt, innovate, and win. The PLA’s attempt to decapitate our command structure is a direct attempt to force their preferred style of warfare upon us—to remove our flexible, distributed “brain” and make us as rigid and fragile as they are. Our response—resilient CPs and decentralized execution—is a direct counter that leverages our most powerful asymmetric advantage. We will refuse to fight on their terms. Our single most crucial advantage over the PLA is not a particular weapon system, but our philosophy of command. We must therefore relentlessly train and cultivate Mission Command in our leaders at every echelon. In a chaotic, contested environment where networks are degraded and units are isolated, the side whose junior leaders are best able to understand intent, seize the initiative, and make bold, decisive actions will win. The PLA’s political system makes it structurally incapable of replicating this advantage. Therefore, our leader development programs are as critical to future victory as our weapons modernization programs.

Conclusion: Prevailing in the Contest of Systems

The five core strategies a People’s Liberation Army commander will employ in a land confrontation—Information Paralysis, Political Disintegration, Stand-off Strike, Asymmetric Overwhelm, and Command Decapitation—are not disparate lines of effort. They are the integrated components of a singular, overarching warfighting philosophy: Systems Destruction Warfare. The PLA will not seek a linear, attrition-based fight. It will wage a holistic, multi-domain campaign aimed at finding and exploiting the critical vulnerabilities within the US operational system to induce paralysis and collapse.

To prevail in this contest of systems, US forces must counter with a system that is not only technologically superior but also doctrinally and philosophically more resilient. Our response must be equally integrated, leveraging the technological backbone of Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) and the profound doctrinal strength of Mission Command. JADC2 provides the means to build a resilient, adaptable, and lethal network that can withstand and fight through the PLA’s initial information onslaught. Mission Command provides the human element—the trained and trusted leader who can adapt, innovate, and seize the initiative in the chaos and uncertainty that JADC2 is designed to endure.

This combination creates a powerful asymmetry. The PLA’s system, for all its technological sophistication and impressive scale, is ultimately constrained by the political imperatives of the Chinese Communist Party. Its reliance on rigid, centralized control makes it powerful when executing a pre-ordained plan but brittle and slow to adapt when confronted with unexpected friction and complexity. The US system, in contrast, is designed for chaos. It embraces decentralized execution and empowers initiative at the edge, creating a more resilient, adaptable, and ultimately more lethal force in the fluid reality of modern combat.

By understanding the PLA’s system-centric approach and its inherent vulnerabilities, we can tailor our operational concepts, training, and capabilities to attack their system at its weakest points. We will win not by fighting their preferred battle of systems—a deliberate, centralized, and predictable contest—but by forcing them to fight ours: a fast-paced, decentralized, and chaotic engagement that their rigid command structure is fundamentally ill-equipped to handle. The key to victory lies in exploiting the philosophical gap between our two armies—a gap that no amount of technology can bridge.

Table 1: PLA Strategy vs. US Counter-Strategy Matrix

PLA Strategy	Core PLA Doctrine/Capability	Primary US Counter-Doctrine	Key US Organizational Counter	Key US Technological Counter
1. Information Paralysis	“Informatized Warfare” / Integrated Network Electronic Warfare (INEW)	Assured C2 / Network Resilience	Multi-Domain Task Force (MDTF) – Multi-Domain Effects Battalion (MDEB)	JADC2 / Resilient Comms (Transport Diversity, LPI/LPD)
2. Political Disintegration	“Three Warfares” (Public Opinion, Psychological, Legal)	Narrative Control / Force Inoculation	PSYOP, Public Affairs, Civil Affairs Units / Integrated JAG planning	N/A (Doctrinal/Informational focus)
3. Stand-off Strike	“Multi-Domain Precision Warfare” (MDPW) / Long-Range Precision Fires (LRPF)	Multi-Layered Counter-Fire / Dynamic Targeting	MDTF – Strategic Fires Battalion	JADC2 / IAMD / US LRPF (PrSM, LRHW)
4. Asymmetric Overwhelm	“Intelligentized Warfare” / Unmanned/Autonomous Swarms	Layered, Integrated C-UAS Defense	All units equipped with organic C-UAS capabilities	AI-enabled C2 / Directed Energy / High-Power Microwave (HPM)
5. Command Decapitation	System Warfare / Combined Arms Brigade (CA-BDE) Assault	Decentralized Execution / Command Post Survivability	All echelons trained in Mission Command	Agile/Mobile Command Posts / Resilient Comms

Works cited

1. PLA Reform and Systems Attack – Capstone – National Defense …, https://capstone.ndu.edu/Portals/83/Wed%20-%20PLA%20Systems%20Attack%20-%20Saunders.pdf 2. Political Warfare against Intervention Forces > Air University (AU …, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/4167178/political-warfare-against-intervention-forces/ 3. Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2024 – DoD, https://media.defense.gov/2024/Dec/18/2003615520/-1/-1/0/MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA-2024.PDF 4. China developing own version of JADC2 to counter US – C4ISRNet, https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2023/01/05/china-developing-own-version-of-jadc2-to-counter-us/ 5. Political Warfare against Intervention Forces – DoD, https://media.defense.gov/2025/Apr/28/2003698966/-1/-1/1/FEATURE%20-%20CHAN%20&%20GERSHANECK%20DISCLAIMER.PDF 6. China Military Power Report Examines Changes in Beijing’s Strategy, https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3230682/china-military-power-report-examines-changes-in-beijings-strategy/ 7. Chinese information operations and information warfare – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_information_operations_and_information_warfare 8. PLA’s Perception about the Impact of AI on Military Affairs*, https://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/publication/security/pdf/2022/01/04.pdf 9. Chinese Information Operations and Information Warfare – Encyclopedia.pub, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/29211 10. The size, scope and sophistication of Chinese military modernization programs is breathtaking.” One of China’s primary strategic objectives is multi-domain precision warfare which seeks to incorporate advances in big data and AI to rapidly identify – Reflections, https://reflections.quora.com/The-size-scope-and-sophistication-of-Chinese-military-modernization-programs-is-breathtaking-One-of-China-s-primary 11. Army Cites China’s AI-Based “Intelligentized Warfare” As Growing Threat – Warrior Maven, https://warriormaven.com/news/land/army-cites-chinas-ai-based-intelligentized-warfare-as-growing-threat 12. Military Artificial Intelligence, the People’s Liberation Army, and US-China Strategic Competition, https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/Jacob_Stokes_Testimony.pdf 13. People’s Liberation Army – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army 14. The PLA and Mission Command: Is the Party Control System Too …, https://www.ausa.org/publications/pla-and-mission-command-party-control-system-too-rigid-its-adaptation-china 15. The PLA and Mission Command – AUSA, https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/publications/LWP-159-The-PLA-and-Mission-Command-Is-the-Party-Conrol-System-Too-Rigid-for-Its-Adaptation-by-China.pdf 16. China’s New “Multi-Domain Precision Warfare” Operational Concept …, https://warriormaven.com/news/china/chinas-new-multi-domain-precision-warfare-operational-concept-completely-mirrors-us-strategy 17. MISSION COMMAND IN THE 21ST CENTURY – Army University Press, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Primer-on-Urban-Operation/Documents/mission-command-in-the-21st-century.pdf 18. The People’s Liberation Army’s Command and Control Affects the Future of Out-of-Area Operations > Air University (AU) > Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs Article Display, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/3371571/the-peoples-liberation-armys-command-and-control-affects-the-future-of-out-of-a/ 19. Informatized Wars: How China Thinks About Cyber | American …, https://www.aei.org/articles/informatized-wars-how-china-thinks-about-cyber/ 20. Commander’s Toolkit: Cyber – Air University, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/Toolkit%20presentations/4%20CASI%20Commanders%20Toolkit-%20Cyber.pdf 21. Capability of the People’s Republic of China to Conduct Cyber Warfare and Computer Network Exploitation – The National Security Archive, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB424/docs/Cyber-030.pdf 22. Cyberwarfare and China – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_and_China 23. SECTION 2: CHINA’S CYBER CAPABILITIES: WARFARE, ESPIONAGE, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES Abstract, https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/Chapter_3_Section_2–Chinas_Cyber_Capabilities.pdf 24. Catching Up: China’s Developing Military Power – Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2020/01/06/chinas-developing-military-power/ 25. Countering Anti-Access / Area Denial – Joint Air Power Competence Centre, https://www.japcc.org/articles/countering-anti-access-area-denial/ 26. PLA Stratagems for Establishing Wartime Electromagnetic …, https://jamestown.org/program/pla-stratagems-for-establishing-wartime-electromagnetic-dominance-an-analysis-of-the-winning-mechanisms-of-electronic-countermeasures/ 27. Summary of the Joint All-Domain Command and Control Strategy – DoD, https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/17/2002958406/-1/-1/1/SUMMARY-OF-THE-JOINT-ALL-DOMAIN-COMMAND-AND-CONTROL-STRATEGY.pdf 28. SPECIAL REPORT: Joint All-Domain Command, Control A Journey, Not a Destination, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/7/10/joint-all-domain-command-control-a-journey-not-a-destination 29. Resilient Communications: Synchronizing the U.S. Army’s Contested …, https://www.l3harris.com/newsroom/editorial/2023/08/resilient-communications-synchronizing-us-armys-contested-logistics 30. Path of greatest resilience – USAASC – Army.mil, https://asc.army.mil/web/path-of-greatest-resilience/ 31. MULTIPLE PATHS LEAD TO NETWORK RESILIENCY | Article | The United States Army, https://www.army.mil/article/281863/multiple_paths_lead_to_network_resiliency 32. Resilient Military Communication – AFWERX Challenge, https://afwerxchallenge.com/resilient-military-communication 33. Reimagining Contested Communications – Modern War Institute -, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/reimagining-contested-communications/ 34. Multi-Domain Task Forces – AUSA, https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/publications/SL-22-2-Multi-Domain-Task-Forces-A-Glimpse-at-the-Army-of-2035.pdf 35. Multi-Domain Effects Battalion: Space Integration and Effects in Multidomain Operations – Army University Press, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/March-2024/Multi-Domain-Effects-Battalion/ 36. Joint All-Domain Command and Control – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_All-Domain_Command_and_Control 37. Joint All-Domain Command and Control – JADC2 – SAIC, https://www.saic.com/what-we-do/mission-it/jadc2 38. Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office > Initiatives > CJADC2, https://www.ai.mil/Initiatives/CJADC2/ 39. Political Warfare – Marine Corps University, https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/MCU-Journal/JAMS-vol-11-no-1/Political-Warfare/ 40. PLA Artillery Technology Absorption, Force Levels and Capabilities …, https://seniorstoday.in/history/pla-artillery-technology-absorption-force-levels-and-capabilities 41. People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Rocket_Force 42. Long-range precision fires modernization a joint effort, Army tech leader says | Article, https://www.army.mil/article/210198/long_range_precision_fires_modernization_a_joint_effort_army_tech_leader_says 43. Attaining All-domain Control: China’s Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) Capabilities in the South China Sea – Pacific Forum, https://pacforum.org/publications/issues-insights-issues-and-insights-volume-25-wp-2-attaining-all-domain-control-chinas-anti-access-area-denial-a2-ad-capabilities-in-the-south-china-sea/ 44. Defense Primer: Army Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) | Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11409 45. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1: The U.S. Army in Multi-Domain Operations 2028, https://adminpubs.tradoc.army.mil/pamphlets/TP525-3-1.pdf 46. What are the steps in dealing with an enemy that has artillery …, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/us70p3/what_are_the_steps_in_dealing_with_an_enemy_that/ 47. Suppression of enemy air defenses – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_enemy_air_defenses 48. The Army’s Multi-Domain Task Force (MDTF) – Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF11797/IF11797.16.pdf 49. The Army’s Multi-Domain Task Force (MDTF) – DTIC, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1225403.pdf 50. U.S. Army Long-Range Precision Fires: Background … – Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R46721/R46721.2.pdf 51. The Impact of Base Politics on Long-Range Precision Fires – Army University Press, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/July-August-2021/Pazdzierski-LR-Precision-Fires/ 52. Lockheed Martin’s Long Range Precision Fires Solutions Increase Response Times and Enhance Effectiveness in High Threat Environments, https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2022/ausa-lockheed-martins-long-range-precision-fires-solutions.html 53. Army programs promote strength, agility of Long Range Precision Fires | Article – U.S. Army, https://www.army.mil/article/257137/army_programs_promote_strength_agility_of_long_range_precision_fires 54. Fires for Effect: 10 Questions about Army Long-Range Precision Fires in the Joint Fight, https://www.ausa.org/publications/fires-effect-10-questions-about-army-long-range-precision-fires-joint-fight 55. C2-Enabled Long-Range Precision Fires for the Army – Booz Allen, https://www.boozallen.com/insights/defense/c2-command-and-control/c2-enabled-long-range-precision-fires-for-the-army.html 56. China Readies Drone Swarms for Future War | CNA, https://www.cna.org/our-media/indepth/2025/09/china-readies-drone-swarms-for-future-war 57. US Can’t Go for One-for-One Kills in Drone Warfare with China – Air & Space Forces Magazine, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/us-china-drone-warfare-one-for-one-kills/ 58. China’s land-based unmanned combat systems unveiled at V-Day parade, to support amphibious landing, urban warfare: expert – Global Times, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202509/1342520.shtml 59. Countering the Swarm | CNAS, https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/countering-the-swarm 60. CounterUAS | Anduril, https://www.anduril.com/capability/counter-uas/ 61. www.airandspaceforces.com, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/us-china-drone-warfare-one-for-one-kills/#:~:text=The%20Pentagon%20has%20launched%20many,power%20Operational%20Responder%2C%20or%20THOR. 62. (U) CHINA: PLAA COMBINED-ARMS BRIGADE’S OFFENSIVE …, https://g2webcontent.z2.web.core.usgovcloudapi.net/OEE/China%20Landing%20Zone/PLAA-Combined-Arms-Brigade-Offensive-Operations-.pdf 63. People’s Liberation Army Ground Force – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Ground_Force 64. Sections of a PLA medium combined arms brigade. [ALBUM] : r/TankPorn – Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1k6o2zb/sections_of_a_pla_medium_combined_arms_brigade/ 65. China Military Studies Review – Marine Corps University, https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/China-Military-Studies-Review/CMSR-2025-Adapting-to-Future-Wars/ 66. Army Publishes New Doctrine for Multi-Domain Operations – National Defense Magazine, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2022/10/11/army-publishes-new-doctrine-for-multi-domain-operations

The doctrinal foundation of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is undergoing a profound transformation, shifting from a focus on “informatized warfare” to the more advanced concept of “intelligentized warfare”. This evolution signals that any future land confrontation will not be a traditional attrition-based conflict but a dynamic contest between two opposing “system-of-systems”. The PLA’s overarching operational goal, encapsulated in the concept of “systems destruction warfare,” is not the piecemeal destruction of U.S. forces but the induction of catastrophic failure within the U.S. joint force’s operational architecture. This paradigm is predicated on the seamless integration of artificial intelligence (AI), big data analytics, and autonomous systems into every facet of military operations.

Under this new doctrine, “human-machine collaborative decision making” is expected to become the operational norm, with AI-enabled systems augmenting and accelerating the command and control process. Unmanned platforms are envisioned to take a central role in combat, with human operators receding from the front lines to supervisory and command positions. Victory in this intelligentized environment is defined not by territorial gain alone, but by achieving and maintaining decision superiority through faster information processing, superior situational awareness, and a compressed decision-making cycle. The battlespace itself is expanding beyond the traditional physical domains of land, sea, and air to encompass the virtual and cognitive realms, creating what PLA theorists term a “brain battlefield,” where the will to fight and the cognitive capacity of commanders are primary targets. A U.S. military commander must therefore anticipate a multi-domain conflict where the PLA will leverage asymmetric strategies designed to paralyze U.S. command and control, saturate defenses, sever logistical lifelines, and fracture political resolve before the main battle is ever joined.

PLA Asymmetric Strategy	PLA Commander’s Intent	Key PLA Capabilities	U.S. Counter-Strategy	Key U.S. Enablers
Systems Destruction Warfare	Achieve decision dominance by paralyzing the U.S. C5ISR network.	Cyber Attacks, Electronic Warfare (EW), Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Weapons, Long-Range Precision Fires	Resilient, Distributed Command and Control (C2)	Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2), Proliferated LEO Satellite Constellations, Mesh Networks, Tactical Cyber Teams, AI-Enabled Decision Support
Multi-Domain A2/AD Saturation	Create an impenetrable fortress to deter or defeat U.S. intervention.	Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBMs), Hypersonic Weapons, Integrated Air Defense Systems (IADS), Submarines, Mobile Missile Launchers	Disintegrate the A2/AD System from Within	Stand-In Forces, Long-Range Precision Fires (PrSM, LRHW), Stealth Platforms (F-35, B-21), Submarines, Agile Combat Employment (ACE)
Unmanned Swarm Offensive	Overwhelm and saturate U.S. defenses with asymmetric, attritable mass.	Large-Scale Drone Swarms, Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T), AI-Enabled Autonomous Systems, “Drone Motherships”	Scalable, Layered Counter-UAS and Offensive Swarming	Replicator Initiative, Directed Energy Weapons (Lasers, High-Power Microwaves), Layered Kinetic Interceptors, AI-Driven Threat Recognition
Logistics Interdiction and Strangulation	Sever the trans-Pacific lifelines and induce logistical collapse of forward-deployed forces.	Long-Range Missiles, Submarine Warfare, Naval Mines, Cyber Attacks on Logistics Networks	Contested Logistics and Distributed Sustainment	Distributed Logistics Networks, Pre-positioned Materiel, Agile Combat Employment (ACE), Intra-Theater Sealift, Allied Host-Nation Support
Political Warfare and Cognitive Dominance	Fracture U.S. domestic and international resolve to win without fighting or on favorable terms.	“Three Warfares” Doctrine: Public Opinion (Media), Psychological, and Legal Warfare (Lawfare), Disinformation Campaigns	Narrative Competition and Psychological Resilience	Proactive Strategic Communications, Rapid Intelligence Declassification, Integrated Information Operations, Alliance Synchronization, Troop and Family Readiness Programs

I. PLA Strategy 1: Systems Destruction Warfare – Paralyzing the C5ISR Network

PLA Commander’s Intent

The primary objective of a PLA commander employing Systems Destruction Warfare is to achieve decisive operational advantage by blinding, deafening, and isolating U.S. forces at the outset of a conflict. The strategy is designed to induce systemic paralysis by targeting the Command, Control, Computers, Communications, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C5ISR) network—the central nervous system of the U.S. joint force. This approach is the practical application of the PLA’s core operational concept of “Multi-Domain Precision Warfare” (MDPW), which is explicitly intended to “identify key vulnerabilities in an adversary’s operational system and then to launch precision strikes against those vulnerabilities”. The ultimate goal is not merely to degrade U.S. capabilities but to trigger a cascading failure that causes the entire operational system to “collapse”. By severing the links between sensors, decision-makers, and shooters, the PLA aims to shatter the U.S. military’s ability to coordinate a coherent response, thereby seizing the initiative and dictating the terms of the engagement.

Key Capabilities and Tactics

The execution of Systems Destruction Warfare relies on the tightly synchronized application of non-kinetic and kinetic effects across all domains. The conflict would likely commence with what can be termed an “invisible battle,” where decisive effects are achieved before the first missile impacts its target.

The initial salvo will be a non-kinetic onslaught. This will involve strategic and tactical cyber operations designed to penetrate and disrupt U.S. networks, corrupt critical data, and disable command systems. These cyber effects are not improvisational; they require extensive intelligence preparation of the battlespace and the pre-positioning of malicious code and access points, potentially years in advance of hostilities. Concurrently, the PLA Strategic Support Force (PLASSF) and other theater-level assets will unleash a barrage of electronic warfare (EW) attacks. These attacks will employ a range of ground-based, air, and potentially space-based platforms to jam satellite communications, deny access to the Global Positioning System (GPS), and disrupt the radar and communication systems upon which U.S. forces depend. The non-kinetic assault will extend into space, with counter-space operations targeting U.S. satellite constellations. These operations may range from reversible, non-kinetic effects like laser dazzling of optical sensors and jamming of uplinks and downlinks to kinetic attacks designed to permanently disable or destroy critical ISR, communication, and Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) satellites.

This multi-pronged non-kinetic attack will be seamlessly integrated with kinetic precision strikes. Using intelligence gathered over years, the PLA will employ its arsenal of long-range conventional ballistic and cruise missiles to physically destroy the key nodes of the U.S. C5ISR architecture. High-priority targets will include large, static, and difficult-to-disperse assets such as theater-level command headquarters, satellite ground stations, air operations centers, and critical undersea cable landing sites. The orchestration of this complex, multi-domain attack will be managed by the PLA’s own developing “intelligentized” command and control system. This system leverages AI and big data analytics to fuse intelligence from disparate sources, identify vulnerabilities in real-time, and coordinate cross-domain fires at a tempo designed to overwhelm U.S. defensive measures and decision-making processes. This is the essence of their doctrinal shift towards “intelligentized warfare,” where the speed and quality of decision-making, enabled by machine intelligence, becomes the decisive factor.

U.S. Counter-Strategy: Resilient, Distributed C2 via JADC2

The U.S. response to the threat of Systems Destruction Warfare is predicated on a fundamental architectural shift: moving from a highly efficient but brittle centralized C2 structure to a distributed, resilient, and agile model. This new approach is embodied by the Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) concept. JADC2 is not a single piece of hardware or software but rather a comprehensive approach to “sense, make sense, and act at all levels and phases of war, across all domains, and with partners, to deliver information advantage at the speed of relevance”. It represents the direct American doctrinal and technological counter to the PLA’s MDPW, acknowledging that the future of warfare lies in network-centric, data-driven operations.

The successful implementation of JADC2 relies on several key technological and tactical enablers. A primary line of effort is the move toward proliferated architectures, particularly in space. This involves transitioning from a reliance on a few large, expensive, and high-value satellites to deploying large constellations of smaller, cheaper, and more resilient Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites. The Space Development Agency’s National Defense Space Architecture is a prime example of this shift, aiming to create a layered network for communications and missile tracking that is far more difficult for an adversary to degrade. The strategic logic is to create a web of assets so numerous and redundant that attacking it becomes a “wasted and escalatory effort” for the adversary.

This proliferated hardware is supported by the development of resilient mesh networks. These networks are designed to be self-healing, capable of automatically rerouting data traffic when individual nodes or links are destroyed or jammed. This ensures that even in a degraded electromagnetic environment, essential command and targeting data can still reach the tactical edge. A key component of this is the development of gateways that can connect disparate legacy systems with modern networks, ensuring interoperability across the joint force. To manage the immense volume of data generated by this network, JADC2 heavily leverages AI and machine learning. These tools are not intended to replace human commanders but to serve as powerful decision-support aids, capable of rapidly sifting “through mountains of data” to identify emerging threats, correlate intelligence, and recommend optimal courses of action, thereby dramatically accelerating the commander’s decision-making cycle. Finally, this entire architecture is designed to empower commanders at the tactical edge. By pushing data processing and decision-making authority down to the lowest possible level, consistent with the philosophy of Mission Command, the joint force reduces its reliance on vulnerable, centralized headquarters and can continue to operate effectively even when communications with higher echelons are severed.

The fundamental contest in this domain is not merely a competition of technologies but a clash of decision-making cycles. The PLA’s concepts of “intelligentized warfare” and “systems destruction” are explicitly designed to attack and shatter the U.S. military’s OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act). They seek to create so much chaos and uncertainty in the information environment that U.S. commanders are paralyzed, unable to form a coherent picture of the battlefield or direct their forces effectively. JADC2 represents the U.S. effort to construct a faster, more robust, and more resilient OODA loop that can function and adapt under the extreme duress of a multi-domain assault. The initial phase of any conflict will therefore be a high-stakes race. The PLA will attempt to achieve systemic paralysis of the U.S. C5ISR network faster than the U.S. can reconfigure its distributed network and adapt its decision-making processes. The victor in this “decision race” will seize an advantage that may prove decisive for the remainder of the conflict, demonstrating the true meaning of the PLA’s concept of the “brain battlefield”.

II. PLA Strategy 2: Multi-Domain A2/AD Saturation – Creating an Impenetrable Fortress

PLA Commander’s Intent

The PLA commander’s intent behind the Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) strategy is twofold: first, to deter U.S. intervention in a regional crisis, and second, failing deterrence, to make such an intervention prohibitively costly in terms of assets and personnel. The strategy is designed to create a layered, multi-domain fortress around China’s periphery. The “anti-access” (A2) component employs long-range capabilities to prevent U.S. forces from entering the operational area, primarily targeting carrier strike groups and forward air bases. The “area denial” (AD) component uses shorter-range systems to severely restrict the freedom of action of any U.S. forces that manage to penetrate the outer layers. This strategy is a direct and deliberate challenge to the foundational tenets of U.S. power projection, which has historically relied on the ability to establish and maintain air and maritime supremacy through the deployment of aircraft carriers and the use of large, forward-deployed bases.

Key Capabilities and Tactics

The PLA’s A2/AD strategy is built upon a massive and increasingly sophisticated arsenal of conventional missile systems, designed to saturate U.S. and allied defenses through sheer volume and technological complexity. The cornerstone of the anti-access layer is a formidable family of Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBMs). This includes the DF-21D, famously dubbed the “carrier killer,” and the longer-range DF-26, which has the reach to threaten key U.S. facilities in Guam, earning it the moniker “Guam killer”. These weapons are designed to hold high-value naval assets at risk from distances exceeding 1,500 kilometers. This threat is compounded by the introduction of hypersonic weapons, such as the DF-17 hypersonic glide vehicle and the rumored YJ-21 air-launched ballistic missile. The extreme speed and unpredictable flight paths of these systems present a severe challenge to current U.S. missile defense capabilities, drastically shortening reaction times and complicating intercept solutions.

This long-range ballistic missile threat is complemented by a vast and diverse inventory of Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs). Systems like the supersonic YJ-12 and the subsonic YJ-18 can be launched from a wide array of platforms, creating a multi-axis, high-volume threat that is difficult to defend against. These platforms include mobile land-based launchers that employ “hit and run” tactics—firing a salvo before retreating to hardened underground facilities to reload—as well as modern naval surface combatants like the Type 055 destroyer, a large fleet of conventional and nuclear submarines, and long-range bombers such as the H-6K.

To control the air domain, the PLA has constructed a dense and overlapping Integrated Air Defense System (IADS). This system layers long-range Russian-made S-400 and domestically produced HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) with medium- and short-range systems, all networked with an array of early warning radars. This ground-based network is integrated with the PLA Air Force’s growing fleet of advanced fighter aircraft, including the J-20 stealth fighter, to create a formidable no-fly zone. The entire A2/AD architecture is further supported by a growing naval presence, including a large surface fleet and an expanding network of militarized artificial islands in the South China Sea, which serve as persistent sensor outposts, airfields, and missile bases, extending the reach and resilience of the A2/AD network.

U.S. Counter-Strategy: Disintegrate the A2/AD System from Within

The U.S. strategic response to the PLA’s A2/AD challenge has evolved beyond the concept of a costly frontal assault to “punch through” the defensive bubble. The current approach is more nuanced, seeking to “invert” the A2/AD concept itself. This involves proactively deploying a distributed, resilient, and lethal network of U.S. sensors and shooters inside the contested zone. The objective is not to breach the wall, but to methodically dismantle it from within by targeting the critical nodes and dependencies of the PLA’s kill chain. This strategy aims to turn the PLA’s highly networked system into a liability by severing the connections between its sensors and its shooters.

This counter-strategy is enabled by several key operational concepts and technologies. The concept of “Stand-In Forces” envisions the forward deployment of small, mobile, low-signature, and relatively low-cost Marine Corps and Army units within the first island chain. These forces, equipped with their own sensors and long-range precision fires, can survive within the enemy’s weapons engagement zone. From these forward positions, they can provide critical targeting data for long-range strikes launched from outside the theater, conduct their own anti-ship and anti-air attacks, and generally complicate the PLA’s targeting problem, forcing the adversary to expend significant resources to find and eliminate them.

These Stand-In Forces will be a key component of a broader joint fires network that includes new ground-launched systems like the Army’s Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) and the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW). By deploying these systems on allied territory, the U.S. can hold key PLA A2/AD assets—such as airfields, ports, command centers, and sensor sites—at risk from dispersed and survivable land-based positions. The deep-strike mission will also rely heavily on undersea and air dominance. U.S. nuclear-powered submarines and advanced stealth aircraft, such as the F-35 and the future B-21 bomber, are critical penetrating ISR and strike platforms capable of operating within the most heavily defended areas to hunt down and destroy mobile missile launchers, air defense systems, and naval vessels.

To ensure the survivability of U.S. airpower, the Air Force is implementing the concept of Agile Combat Employment (ACE). ACE involves dispersing air assets away from large, vulnerable main operating bases to a network of smaller, more austere airfields across the theater. By moving and operating unpredictably, ACE complicates the PLA’s targeting calculus and increases the resilience of U.S. combat airpower, allowing it to continue generating sorties even after initial attacks.

The PLA’s A2/AD capability should not be viewed as a monolithic, impenetrable barrier, but rather as a highly complex, networked “system-of-systems.” Its greatest strength—the tight integration of sensors, command nodes, and weapons platforms—is simultaneously its greatest vulnerability. A successful U.S. counter-strategy, therefore, is contingent on the ability to execute “kill-chain decomposition.” The effectiveness of a weapon like the DF-21D is entirely dependent on a robust and uninterrupted C3ISR architecture to find, fix, track, target, and engage a moving U.S. aircraft carrier. This kill chain is a sequence of dependencies: satellites, over-the-horizon radars, maritime patrol aircraft, and other sensors must detect the target; data must be relayed to a command center for processing; and targeting information must be transmitted to the missile launcher. Instead of attempting the difficult and costly task of intercepting hundreds of incoming missiles, a more effective approach is to attack the “eyes” and “nerves” of the system. By employing a combination of stealth platforms, cyber attacks, electronic warfare, and distributed precision fires to blind the PLA’s radars, jam its data links, and destroy its command nodes, the U.S. can sever the critical connections between sensors and shooters. This approach renders the PLA’s vast and expensive missile arsenal effectively blind and incapable of striking mobile, high-value targets. The contest, therefore, is not a simple matter of missile versus missile defense; it is a comprehensive, multi-domain campaign to systematically disintegrate the PLA’s kill web.

III. PLA Strategy 3: Unmanned Swarm Offensive – Overwhelming with Asymmetric Mass

PLA Commander’s Intent

A PLA commander will employ unmanned swarm offensives with the intent to saturate and overwhelm the technologically superior, but often numerically inferior, defensive systems of U.S. forces. The PLA is aggressively pursuing the development of a “true swarm” capability, leveraging large quantities of low-cost, attritable, and increasingly autonomous unmanned systems (UxS). The core strategic logic is to invert the traditional cost-imposition ratio. By forcing the U.S. to expend expensive, high-end interceptors (such as a Standard Missile-6, costing several million dollars) to destroy cheap, mass-produced drones (costing only thousands of dollars), the PLA can deplete U.S. magazines and achieve battlefield effects at a fraction of the cost. This strategy reflects a significant doctrinal shift within the PLA, moving from “a human-centric fighting force with unmanned systems in support, to a force centered on unmanned systems with humans in support”.

Key Capabilities and Tactics

The PLA’s swarm capabilities are rapidly advancing from theoretical concepts to tested operational systems. State-owned defense contractors have demonstrated systems capable of deploying swarms of up to 200 fixed-wing drones at a time from a single ground-based launch vehicle. Furthermore, the PLA is developing aerial deployment methods, including the concept of a “drone mothership” like the Jiu Tian SS-UAV, a large unmanned aircraft designed to carry and release a hundred or more smaller loitering munitions or ISR drones from within the battlespace.

These swarms will be integrated with manned platforms through Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) concepts. For example, the two-seat variant of the J-20 stealth fighter, the J-20S, is believed to be optimized for mission management and the control of “loyal wingman” drones, which would fly alongside the manned aircraft to extend sensor range, carry additional munitions, or act as decoys. The application of these swarms is envisioned to be multi-domain. The PLA is actively exercising with drone swarms in scenarios relevant to a Taiwan conflict, including amphibious landings, island-blocking operations, and complex urban warfare. These exercises involve not only unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) but also unmanned surface vessels (USVs) and unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), referred to as “robot wolves” in PLA media.

The effectiveness of these swarms will be magnified by increasing levels of AI-enabled autonomy. While the precise degree of autonomy currently achieved remains a subject of analysis, the PLA’s research and development efforts are clearly focused on this area. The PLA is exploring the use of reinforcement learning and other AI techniques to enable swarms to coordinate their actions, dynamically re-task themselves in response to battlefield events, and exhibit emergent behaviors without requiring constant, direct human control. These intelligent swarms will be employed for a variety of missions, including persistent ISR, electronic attack, acting as decoys to confuse air defense systems, and conducting coordinated kinetic strikes against land and sea targets.

U.S. Counter-Strategy: Scalable, Layered Counter-UAS Defense and Offensive Swarming

The United States cannot win a conflict against drone swarms by engaging in a one-for-one kinetic exchange; such an approach is economically unsustainable. The U.S. counter-strategy must therefore be based on a scalable, layered defense-in-depth that prioritizes low-cost-per-shot effectors, while simultaneously embracing the logic of asymmetric mass through initiatives like Replicator to turn the swarm dilemma back on the adversary.

A robust counter-swarm defense requires a layered approach around high-value assets, integrating multiple kill mechanisms to create a resilient defensive screen. The outer layer of this defense will consist of electronic warfare systems designed to jam the command-and-control links and GPS signals that less-autonomous swarms rely upon for navigation and coordination. The next layer will increasingly be composed of directed energy weapons. High-energy lasers and high-power microwave systems offer the promise of deep magazines and a near-zero cost-per-shot, making them ideal for engaging large numbers of incoming drones. For swarm elements that penetrate these initial layers, the defense will rely on a mix of kinetic interceptors, ranging from traditional air defense systems to more novel, low-cost interceptors (such as the Coyote system), all guided by AI-driven fire control systems capable of tracking and prioritizing hundreds of targets simultaneously.

However, a purely defensive posture is insufficient. The U.S. must also develop its own offensive swarm capabilities. The Department of Defense’s Replicator initiative is a direct response to this imperative. It is a signature effort to field “thousands of cheap autonomous drones across all domains”—including loitering munitions, ISR quadcopters, and unmanned surface and undersea vehicles—within an accelerated 18-to-24-month timeframe. The strategic goal of Replicator is not just to defend against PLA swarms but to impose the same targeting and cost-imposition dilemmas on them. By developing our own “attritable autonomous systems,” the U.S. can saturate PLA defenses, conduct distributed ISR, and execute precision strikes at scale, thereby neutralizing the PLA’s asymmetric advantage.

Underpinning both defensive and offensive swarm operations is the critical role of artificial intelligence. Defensively, AI algorithms are essential for analyzing sensor data from multiple sources to distinguish between potentially thousands of individual swarm elements, differentiate high-value targets (like a command-and-control drone) from simple sensors, prioritize threats, and automate engagement sequences at machine speed. Offensively, AI is the key to enabling U.S. swarms to operate with the level of coordinated autonomy needed to be effective in a complex and contested environment.

The emergence of drone swarm warfare signals a fundamental change in the character of modern conflict. It marks a shift away from a decades-long focus on exquisite, high-cost, and survivable platforms toward a new paradigm where mass, autonomy, and attritability become decisive attributes. This presents not just a tactical or technological challenge, but a profound industrial and economic one. The PLA is explicitly developing drone swarms to leverage an “asymmetric advantage” rooted in economics: a $10,000 drone can potentially disable a multi-billion-dollar warship or force the expenditure of a multi-million-dollar interceptor missile, a cost-exchange ratio that is unsustainable for the U.S. in a protracted conflict. The Replicator initiative is a direct acknowledgment of this economic reality. It represents a strategic admission that the U.S. cannot win this competition simply by building better and more expensive defenses; it must also compete and win in the game of “mass.” This requires a significant transformation of the U.S. defense industrial base, which has long been optimized for producing small numbers of highly complex and expensive systems. The future security environment will demand the ability to design, build, and deploy thousands of cheap, “good enough,” and autonomous systems at industrial scale and speed. In the long run, the nation that develops the more agile and scalable manufacturing and software development ecosystem will likely hold the decisive advantage in the era of swarm warfare.

IV. PLA Strategy 4: Logistics Interdiction and Strangulation – Severing the Lifelines

PLA Commander’s Intent

A PLA commander will seek to exploit what is arguably the U.S. military’s most significant strategic vulnerability in a potential Indo-Pacific conflict: the “tyranny of distance”. The PLA’s strategy for logistics interdiction is designed to attack and sever the long, fragile trans-Pacific supply chains and target the large, centralized logistical hubs upon which U.S. forces depend. The commander’s intent is to prevent the initial deployment and subsequent sustainment of U.S. forces in a protracted conflict, thereby causing a logistical collapse that renders forward-deployed units unable to fight effectively. By strangling the flow of fuel, munitions, spare parts, and personnel, the PLA aims to win a war of exhaustion, making it impossible for the U.S. to maintain a credible combat presence in the theater.

Key Capabilities and Tactics

The PLA will employ a multi-domain approach to interdict U.S. logistics. Kinetic strikes will form a major component of this strategy. The same long-range conventional missile arsenal developed for the A2/AD mission, particularly systems like the DF-26, will be used to target critical logistical nodes that represent concentrated points of failure. High-priority targets will include major ports such as those in Guam and Yokosuka, Japan, key airfields like Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, and large-scale fuel and munitions storage facilities. These strikes are designed to destroy infrastructure, disrupt operations, and create bottlenecks that paralyze the entire sustainment network.

Beyond fixed infrastructure, the PLA will actively target the sea and air lines of communication (SLOCs and ALOCs) that connect the U.S. mainland to the theater of operations. The PLA Navy’s large and growing fleet of conventional and nuclear-powered submarines will be tasked with hunting and sinking vulnerable military sealift and airlift vessels transiting the vast Pacific Ocean. This threat will be augmented by the potential use of naval mines to close off strategic chokepoints and harbor entrances, as well as long-range anti-ship missiles launched from aircraft and surface ships to hold transport vessels at risk from extreme distances.

The kinetic campaign will be complemented by non-kinetic attacks. The PLA will conduct sophisticated cyber attacks targeting the complex web of software and databases that manage the global U.S. logistics enterprise. By targeting Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, order management software, and transportation databases, the PLA can sow chaos, corrupt data, and introduce crippling delays, effectively disrupting the highly efficient “just-in-time” delivery model upon which the U.S. military has come to rely. In addition, the potential use of PLA special operations forces (SOF) for reconnaissance, sabotage, and subversion against logistical infrastructure and supply chains within allied and partner nations cannot be discounted.

U.S. Counter-Strategy: Contested Logistics and Distributed Sustainment

The U.S. military is responding to this threat by acknowledging a new reality: logistics is no longer a benign, rear-area function but a deeply contested warfighting domain. The counter-strategy involves a fundamental paradigm shift away from the hub-and-spoke logistical model, which was optimized for efficiency in a permissive environment, to a new model of distributed sustainment that is optimized for resilience and effectiveness under persistent, multi-domain attack.

The core tenet of this new approach is distributed logistics. This involves breaking up massive, consolidated depots of fuel, munitions, and other supplies—such as the now-decommissioning Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility—and dispersing these stocks across a wide network of smaller, hardened, and geographically separated locations throughout the Indo-Pacific theater. This dispersal greatly complicates the PLA’s targeting problem, as there is no longer a single point of failure whose destruction could cripple U.S. operations. This strategy is coupled with an increased emphasis on pre-positioning critical supplies forward within the theater. By staging larger quantities of fuel, munitions, spare parts, and medical supplies in-theater before a conflict begins, the U.S. can reduce its immediate reliance on vulnerable trans-oceanic sealift during the initial, most intense phase of hostilities.

The concept of Agile Combat Employment (ACE) is as much a logistical strategy as it is an airpower one. ACE necessitates the pre-positioning of fuel, munitions, and support equipment at a network of austere airfields. It also drives the development of multi-capable Airmen who are trained to perform multiple functions—such as refueling, re-arming, and basic maintenance—allowing aircraft to operate from dispersed locations with a minimal logistical footprint and breaking the dependence on large, vulnerable main operating bases. To connect these dispersed nodes, the U.S. is investing in its intra-theater lift capabilities. This includes increasing the number and operational readiness of Army watercraft and other joint sealift assets that can move critical supplies between islands and coastal areas within the theater, providing a more resilient and redundant transportation network that is less susceptible to single-point interdiction.

Crucially, this entire strategy of distributed sustainment is dependent on deep integration with allies and partners. The U.S. is actively working to develop the necessary legal and logistical agreements with key allies like Japan, Australia, and the Philippines to leverage their ports, airfields, and industrial capacity for sustainment operations. This creates a more robust, multi-faceted, and resilient logistics network that is far more difficult for the PLA to disrupt.

The PLA’s strategic focus on logistics interdiction forces the U.S. military to re-learn the central lesson of the Pacific Campaign in World War II: logistics, not tactics, is the ultimate pacing factor in a conflict across the vast distances of the Indo-Pacific. This reality necessitates a “whole-of-government” approach to national security. For decades, the U.S. military has operated with the luxury of secure supply lines and uncontested logistical hubs, which fostered a culture of efficiency-based, “just-in-time” logistics. The PLA’s A2/AD and long-range strike capabilities directly threaten this entire model. The U.S. response—encapsulated in the concept of Contested Logistics—is a deliberate shift toward a resilience-based, “just-in-case” model. However, this model cannot be implemented unilaterally. Dispersing supplies requires physical locations to place them, which elevates the role of diplomacy to a critical warfighting enabler. The operational success of distributed logistics is therefore entirely contingent on securing the necessary basing, access, and overflight agreements with partners throughout the Indo-Pacific. In this new strategic environment, the strength of the U.S. logistical posture is inextricably linked to the strength of its alliances. A failure in diplomacy could precipitate a catastrophic failure in logistics, rendering the U.S. military unable to sustain a high-intensity fight.

V. PLA Strategy 5: Political Warfare and Cognitive Dominance – Winning Before the Fight

PLA Commander’s Intent

The PLA commander’s application of political warfare is guided by the ultimate strategic objective of shaping the operational environment to achieve victory before a major kinetic battle is fought, or, failing that, to ensure that any such battle is contested on terms that are overwhelmingly favorable to China. This approach is the modern operationalization of Sun Tzu’s timeless maxim of “subduing the enemy without fighting”. The intent is to attack the sources of U.S. strength that lie outside the purely military domain: its domestic political will, the cohesion of its international alliances, and the morale and psychological resilience of its service members. By targeting these cognitive and political centers of gravity, the PLA aims to paralyze U.S. decision-making, deter intervention, and undermine the U.S. will to sustain a conflict.

Key Capabilities and Tactics

The PLA’s primary tool for this strategy is its “Three Warfares” doctrine, which mandates the integrated application of public opinion warfare, psychological warfare, and legal warfare. These are not separate or ad hoc efforts but a coordinated, centrally directed campaign to dominate the information and cognitive environments.

Public Opinion (Media) Warfare is aimed at seizing control of the dominant narrative. The PLA will leverage its global, state-controlled media apparatus, sophisticated social media operations involving bots and paid influencers, and co-opted voices in international media and academia to shape perceptions of a crisis. In a conflict scenario, this will involve flooding the information space with disinformation designed to portray the U.S. as the aggressor, justify China’s actions, and amplify any U.S. setbacks or casualties to erode public and political support for the war effort at home and abroad.

Psychological Warfare directly targets the morale and cognitive state of U.S. military personnel, their families, and the civilian populations of the U.S. and its allies. Tactics will include tailored propaganda disseminated through social media, showcasing the PLA’s advanced military capabilities (e.g., videos of hypersonic missile tests) to create a sense of technological overmatch and futility, and exploiting existing societal, political, and racial divisions within the U.S. to sow discord, incite unrest, and distract national leadership. The objective is to fracture American confidence in their government, their military, and each other.

Legal Warfare (Lawfare) involves the manipulation of international and domestic legal frameworks to legitimize PLA actions while constraining U.S. operational freedom. For example, in a Taiwan scenario, China might declare a “quarantine” or a customs enforcement zone rather than a military blockade, using its coast guard and maritime militia to enforce it. This is designed to create ambiguity, frame any U.S. military response as an illegal act of aggression against “civilian” law enforcement, and generate legal and political debates within the international community that slow or prevent a decisive U.S. intervention. By operating in this “gray zone” below the clear threshold of armed conflict, the PLA uses lawfare to seize the initiative and dare the U.S. to be the one to escalate to overt kinetic action.

U.S. Counter-Strategy: Narrative Competition and Psychological Resilience

The U.S. must recognize that the information domain is not a supporting effort but a central and decisive battlefield. The counter-strategy must be proactive, seeking to seize the initiative in the narrative space, inoculate friendly populations and forces against manipulation, and maintain the cohesion of its alliances and the resolve of its people.

A core component of this counter-strategy is Proactive Strategic Communications. The U.S. and its allies must develop and disseminate a clear, consistent, and fact-based narrative about the nature of the PLA threat and U.S. intentions before a crisis erupts. This effort must be sustained and synchronized across all elements of national power. A key tactic to support this is a “declassify and disclose” approach to intelligence. By rapidly and publicly releasing intelligence that exposes PLA preparations for aggression, false flag operations, disinformation campaigns, or violations of international law, the U.S. can preemptively strip PLA narratives of their credibility and seize the initiative in the information environment.

To operationalize this, the U.S. military must field integrated Information Operations Task Forces. These task forces should bring together capabilities from cyber operations, psychological operations (PSYOP), and public affairs to actively contest the information space on a 24/7 basis. Their mission would be to identify and counter PLA propaganda and disinformation in near real-time and to amplify truthful narratives through all available channels, targeting audiences both at home and abroad. This effort cannot be successful if conducted unilaterally. Close synchronization with allies and partners is essential to present a united international front, jointly attribute and condemn PLA malign activities, and reinforce a shared narrative based on the principles of international law and a free and open global order.

Finally, the U.S. must invest heavily in the psychological resilience of its forces and their families. This requires robust training programs that educate service members on how to identify and counter enemy propaganda and influence operations. It also demands the strengthening of support networks for military families, who will be a primary target of PLA psychological operations designed to create anxiety and pressure on their deployed loved ones.

The “Three Warfares” doctrine is not a separate line of effort for the PLA; it is the strategic connective tissue that binds together all of its other military strategies. It prepares the political and psychological battlespace for kinetic action and is used to exploit the effects of that action. For instance, in a Taiwan contingency, lawfare is used to frame a blockade as a “quarantine,” creating legal ambiguity. Simultaneously, media warfare floods global channels with narratives of Taiwanese provocations and U.S. interference, while psychological warfare targets U.S. and allied populations with messages emphasizing the high human and economic costs of intervention. This coordinated campaign is designed to create hesitation, doubt, and division among U.S. policymakers and international partners, thereby delaying a coherent and timely response. This delay is the critical window of opportunity the PLA needs to achieve its kinetic objectives before the U.S. can effectively project power into the theater. Therefore, countering the “Three Warfares” is not an abstract intellectual exercise; it is an operational imperative. A failure to compete and win in this cognitive domain could lead to a strategic defeat, regardless of the tactical outcomes on the physical battlefield. It is a fight to preserve the political and psychological freedom of action necessary to execute all other military counter-strategies. Failure here could mean U.S. forces arrive too late, or not at all.

Conclusion: The Imperative of Adaptation and Decision Superiority

The analysis of the PLA’s top five asymmetric strategies reveals a coherent and holistic approach to modern conflict designed to exploit perceived U.S. vulnerabilities. The PLA’s warfighting philosophy is not focused on a linear, attrition-based campaign but on a multi-domain, system-level assault targeting the entire U.S. operational architecture—from its space-based assets and C5ISR networks to its trans-oceanic supply lines and, ultimately, its national political will. This comprehensive threat demands an equally comprehensive and adaptive response from the United States and its allies.

A common thread runs through all the necessary U.S. counter-strategies. Concepts such as Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2), Distributed Logistics, Agile Combat Employment (ACE), and the Replicator initiative all represent a fundamental shift away from the centralized, optimized, and often brittle force posture of the post-Cold War era. The new imperative is to build a force that is more distributed, resilient, agile, and capable of sustained operations under persistent attack. This transformation is not merely technological; it is doctrinal, organizational, and cultural. It requires empowering commanders at the tactical edge, fostering deeper interoperability with allies, and re-engineering the defense industrial base to produce not only exquisite platforms but also attritable mass.

In the emerging era of “intelligentized warfare,” where human-machine collaboration and AI-enabled decision-making will be central, the ultimate asymmetric advantage will not reside in the superior performance of any single platform or weapon system. Instead, victory will belong to the side that can most effectively sense, understand, decide, and act within the adversary’s decision-making cycle. The contest with the PLA is, at its core, a contest for decision superiority. The imperative for the U.S. joint force is clear: it must continue to adapt with urgency, embracing a new paradigm of distributed operations and resilient networking to ensure it can out-think, out-decide, and out-pace any adversary under the immense pressures of a multi-domain, cognitively-contested conflict.

---

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.

---

Sources Used

1. PLA’s Perception about the Impact of AI on Military Affairs* – IIDA …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/publication/security/pdf/2022/01/04.pdf
2. The Path to China’s Intelligentized Warfare: Converging on the Metaverse Battlefield – The Cyber Defense Review, accessed October 3, 2025, https://cyberdefensereview.army.mil/Portals/6/Documents/2024-Fall/Baughman_CDRV9N3-Fall-2024.pdf
3. China’s New “Multi-Domain Precision Warfare” Operational Concept “Mirrors” US Strategy, accessed October 3, 2025, https://warriormaven.com/news/china/chinas-new-multi-domain-precision-warfare-operational-concept-completely-mirrors-us-strategy
4. China developing own version of JADC2 to counter US – C4ISRNet, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2023/01/05/china-developing-own-version-of-jadc2-to-counter-us/
5. China’s Military Employment of Artificial Intelligence and Its Security …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.iar-gwu.org/print-archive/blog-post-title-four-xgtap
6. The Invisible Battle: Synchronizing Non-Kinetic Effects in Modern Warfare – SLDinfo.com, accessed October 3, 2025, https://sldinfo.com/2025/09/the-invisible-battle-synchronizing-non-kinetic-effects-in-modern-warfare/
7. Anti-access/area denial – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-access/area_denial
8. China’s Anti-Access/Area-Denial Strategy – TDHJ.org, accessed October 3, 2025, https://tdhj.org/blog/post/china-a2ad-strategy/
9. New Domain Forces And Combat Capabilities In Chinese Military Thinking – tradoc g2, accessed October 3, 2025, https://oe.tradoc.army.mil/product/new-domain-forces-and-combat-capabilities-in-chinese-military-thinking/
10. PLA Counterspace Command and Control – Air University, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/Research/PLASSF/2023-12-11%20Counterspace-%20web%20version.pdf
11. China’s A2/AD strategy – Fly a jet fighter, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.flyajetfighter.com/chinas-a2-ad-strategy/
12. Summary of the Joint All-Domain Command and Control … – DoD, accessed October 3, 2025, https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/17/2002958406/-1/-1/1/SUMMARY-OF-THE-JOINT-ALL-DOMAIN-COMMAND-AND-CONTROL-STRATEGY.pdf
13. www.gao.gov, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105495#:~:text=Joint%20All%2DDomain%20Command%20and,%2C%20sea%2C%20and%20cyber%20domains.
14. In Final Speech, Hicks Touts Work to Thwart China’s A2/AD Strategy, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/hicks-pentagon-changes-china-a2-ad-strategy/
15. Joint All-Domain Command and Control – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_All-Domain_Command_and_Control
16. Agile Combat Employment – Joint Air Power Competence Centre, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.japcc.org/articles/agile-combat-employment/
17. People’s Liberation Army Navy Coastal Defense Force – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy_Coastal_Defense_Force
18. China’s New J-20A Stealth Fighter Has a Message for Any Air Force on Earth, accessed October 3, 2025, https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/chinas-new-j-20a-stealth-fighter-has-a-message-for-any-air-force-on-earth/
19. Dilemmas of Deterrence: The United States’ Smart New Strategy Has Six Daunting Trade-Offs | American Enterprise Institute, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.aei.org/research-products/journal-publication/dilemmas-of-deterrence-the-united-states-smart-new-strategy-has-six-daunting-trade-offs/
20. Distributed Logistics and Deterrence, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2025/Distributed-Logistics/
21. The Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier: An American Response to the Chinese Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) Challenge – DTIC, accessed October 3, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1023223.pdf
22. China Readies Drone Swarms for Future War | CNA, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.cna.org/our-media/indepth/2025/09/china-readies-drone-swarms-for-future-war
23. PLA CONCEPTS OF UAV SWARMS AND MANNED/UNMANNED …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/CASI/Display/Article/4147751/pla-concepts-of-uav-swarms-and-mannedunmanned-teaming/
24. Drone Swarming Tactics Using Reinforcement Learning and Policy Optimization – DTIC, accessed October 3, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1149672
25. Sustainment Challenges in the Indo-Pacific Theater | Article | The …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/277259/sustainment_challenges_in_the_indo_pacific_theater
26. 8 Strategies to Build A Disruption-Proof Supply Chain – FreightPOP, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.freightpop.com/8-strategies-to-build-a-disruption-proof-supply-chain
27. Supply Chain Challenges and How to Proactively Combat Them, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.amu.apus.edu/area-of-study/business-administration-and-management/resources/supply-chain-challenges/
28. Sustaining U.S. Army Operations in the Indo-Pacific: Potential Roles of Allies and Partners – RAND, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2400/RRA2434-3/RAND_RRA2434-3.pdf
29. Three warfares – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_warfares
30. Political Warfare against Intervention Forces > Air University (AU …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/4167178/political-warfare-against-intervention-forces/
31. Information at War: From China’s Three Warfares to NATO’s …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.prosperity.com/media-publications/information-at-war-from-chinas-three-warfares-to-natos-narratives/

The global security landscape is being fundamentally reshaped by the rapid integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into military forces, heralding a new era of “intelligentized” warfare. This report provides a comprehensive assessment and ranking of the world’s top 10 nations in military AI, based on a multi-factor methodology evaluating national strategy, foundational ecosystem, military implementation, and operational efficacy. The analysis reveals a distinct, bipolar competition at the highest tier, followed by a diverse and competitive group of strategic contenders and niche specialists.

Top-Line Findings: The United States and the People’s Republic of China stand alone in Tier I, representing two competing paradigms for developing and deploying military AI. The U.S. leverages a dominant commercial technology sector and massive private investment, while China employs a state-directed, whole-of-nation “Military-Civil Fusion” strategy. While the U.S. currently maintains a significant lead, particularly in foundational innovation and investment, China is rapidly closing the gap in application and scale.

Tier II is populated by a mix of powers. Russia, despite technological and economic constraints, has proven adept at asymmetric innovation, battle-hardening AI for electronic warfare and unmanned systems in Ukraine. Israel stands out for its unparalleled operational deployment of AI in high-intensity combat, particularly for targeting. The United Kingdom is the clear leader among European allies, followed by France, which is aggressively pursuing a sovereign AI capability. Rising powers like India and South Korea are leveraging their unique strengths—a vast talent pool and a world-class hardware industry, respectively—to build formidable programs. Germany and Japan are accelerating their historically cautious approaches in response to a deteriorating security environment, while Canada focuses on niche contributions within its alliance structures.

Key Strategic Insight: True leadership in military AI is determined not by technological prowess alone, but by a nation’s ability to create a cohesive ecosystem that integrates technology, data, investment, talent, and—most critically—military doctrine. The core of the U.S.-China competition is a contest between America’s dynamic but sometimes disjointed commercial-military model and China’s centrally commanded but potentially less innovative state-driven model. The ultimate victor will be the nation that can most effectively translate AI potential into tangible, scalable, and doctrinally integrated decision advantage on the battlefield.

Emerging Trends: The conflict in Ukraine has become the world’s foremost laboratory for AI in warfare, demonstrating that battlefield necessity is the most powerful catalyst for innovation. This has validated the strategic importance of low-cost, attritable autonomous systems, a lesson the U.S. is attempting to institutionalize through its Replicator initiative. Furthermore, the analysis underscores the critical strategic dependence on foundational hardware, particularly advanced semiconductors and cloud computing infrastructure, which represents a key advantage for the U.S. and its allies and a significant vulnerability for China. Finally, a clear divergence is emerging in doctrinal and ethical approaches, with some nations rapidly fielding systems for immediate effect while others prioritize developing more deliberate, human-in-the-loop frameworks.

Rank	Country	Overall Score (100)
1	United States	94.5
2	China	79.0
3	Israel	61.5
4	Russia	55.5
5	United Kingdom	51.0
6	France	45.5
7	South Korea	43.0
8	India	41.0
9	Germany	37.5
10	Japan	35.0

The New Topography of Warfare: The Rise of Military AI

The character of warfare is undergoing its most profound transformation since the advent of nuclear weapons. The shift from the “informatized” battlefield of the late 20th century to the “intelligentized” battlefield of the 21st is not an incremental evolution but a genuine revolution in military affairs (RMA). Artificial intelligence is not merely another tool; it is a foundational, general-purpose technology, much like electricity, that is diffusing across every military function and fundamentally altering the calculus of combat.¹ This transformation is defined by its capacity to collapse decision-making cycles, enable autonomous operations at unprecedented speed and scale, and create entirely new vectors for conflict.

The core military applications of AI are already reshaping contemporary battlefields. They span a wide spectrum, from enhancing command and control (C2) and processing vast streams of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) data to optimizing logistics, conducting cyber and information operations, and fielding increasingly autonomous weapon systems.¹ The war in Ukraine serves as a stark preview of this new reality. The widespread use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), often augmented with AI for targeting and navigation, is reported to account for 70-80% of battlefield casualties.⁴ AI-based targeting has dramatically increased the accuracy of low-cost first-person-view (FPV) drones from a baseline of 30-50% to approximately 80%, demonstrating a tangible increase in lethality.⁴

This proliferation of cheap, smart, and lethal systems is challenging the decades-long dominance of expensive, exquisite military platforms. A commercial drone enhanced with an AI targeting module costing as little as $25 can now threaten a multi-million-dollar main battle tank, creating an extreme cost-imbalance that upends traditional force-on-force calculations.⁴ This dynamic is forcing a strategic re-evaluation within the world’s most advanced militaries. The future battlefield may not be won by the nation with the most sophisticated fighter jet, but by the one that can most effectively deploy, coordinate, and sustain intelligent swarms of attritable systems. This reality is the direct impetus for major strategic initiatives like the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) Replicator program, which aims to counter adversary mass with a new form of American mass built on thousands of autonomous systems.⁵

This technological upheaval is unfolding within a clear geopolitical context: an intensifying “artificial intelligence arms race”.⁷ This competition is most acute between the United States and China, both of which recognize AI as a decisive element of future military power and are racing to integrate it into their strategies.¹ However, they are not the only actors. A host of other nations are making significant investments, developing niche capabilities, and in some cases, gaining invaluable operational experience, creating a complex and dynamic global landscape. Understanding this new topography of warfare is essential for navigating the strategic challenges of the coming decades.

Global Military AI Power Rankings, 2025

The following ranking provides a holistic assessment of national military AI capabilities. It is derived from a composite score based on the detailed methodology outlined in the Appendix of this report. The index evaluates each nation across four equally weighted pillars: National Strategy & Investment, Foundational Ecosystem, Military Implementation & Programs, and Operational Efficacy & Deployment. This structure provides a comprehensive view, moving beyond simple technological metrics to assess a nation’s complete capacity to translate AI potential into effective military power.

The scores reveal a clear two-tiered structure. Tier I is exclusively occupied by the United States and China, who are in a league of their own. Tier II comprises a competitive and diverse group of nations, each with distinct strengths and strategic approaches, from the battle-tested pragmatism of Israel and Russia to the alliance-focused innovation of the United Kingdom and the sovereign ambitions of France.

Rank	Country	Overall Score	Strategy & Investment	Foundational Ecosystem	Military Implementation	Operational Efficacy
1	United States	94.5	92	98	93	95
2	China	79.0	90	85	78	63
3	Israel	61.5	55	65	58	68
4	Russia	55.5	58	45	54	65
5	United Kingdom	51.0	60	58	45	41
6	France	45.5	57	48	42	35
7	South Korea	43.0	50	52	38	32
8	India	41.0	52	47	35	30
9	Germany	37.5	45	44	33	28
10	Japan	35.0	40	42	30	28

Tier I Analysis: The Bipolar AI World Order

The global military AI landscape is dominated by two superpowers, the United States and China. They are not merely the top two contenders; they represent fundamentally different models for harnessing a transformative technology for national power. Their competition is not just a race for better algorithms but a clash of entire systems—one driven by a vibrant, chaotic commercial ecosystem, the other by the centralized, unyielding will of the state.

United States: The Commercial-Military Vanguard

The United States holds the top position in military AI, a status derived from an unparalleled private-sector innovation engine, overwhelming financial investment, and a clear strategic pivot towards integrating commercial technology at unprecedented speed and scale. Its strength lies in its dynamic, bottom-up ecosystem. However, this model is not without friction; the U.S. faces significant challenges in overcoming bureaucratic acquisition hurdles, bridging the cultural gap between Silicon Valley and the Pentagon, and navigating complex ethical debates that can temper the pace of adoption.

National Strategy and Vision

The U.S. approach has matured from establishing foundational principles to prioritizing agile adoption. The 2018 DoD AI Strategy laid the groundwork, directing the department to accelerate AI adoption and establishing the Joint Artificial Intelligence Center (JAIC) as a focal point.⁹ This initial strategy emphasized the need to empower, not replace, servicemembers and to lead in the responsible and ethical use of AI.⁹

Building on this, the 2023 Data, Analytics, and AI Adoption Strategy, developed by the Chief Digital and AI Officer (CDAO), marks a significant evolution.¹⁰ It supersedes the earlier documents and shifts the focus from a handful of specific capabilities to strengthening the entire organizational environment for continuous AI deployment. The strategy’s central objective is to achieve and maintain “decision advantage” across the competition continuum.¹⁰ It prescribes an agile approach to development and delivery, targeting five specific outcomes:

1. Superior battlespace awareness and understanding
2. Adaptive force planning and application
3. Fast, precise, and resilient kill chains
4. Resilient sustainment support
5. Efficient enterprise business operations ¹⁰

This strategic framework is supported by a clear hierarchy of needs: quality data, governance, analytics, and responsible AI assurance, all managed under the centralizing authority of the CDAO.¹⁰

Investment and Foundational Ecosystem

The scale of U.S. investment in AI is staggering and unmatched globally. In 2024, private AI investment in the U.S. reached $109.1 billion, a figure nearly twelve times greater than that of China.¹² This torrent of private capital fuels a hyper-competitive ecosystem of startups and established tech giants, creating a vast wellspring of innovation from which the military can draw.

This private investment is mirrored by a dramatic increase in defense-specific spending. The potential value of DoD AI-related contracts surged by nearly 1,200% in a single year, from $355 million to $4.6 billion between 2022 and 2023, with the DoD driving almost the entire increase.¹⁴ The Pentagon’s fiscal year 2025 budget request includes over $12 billion for unmanned systems and AI autonomy programs, signaling a firm, top-level commitment.¹⁶

This financial dominance underpins a foundational ecosystem that leads the world in nearly every metric. The U.S. possesses the largest and highest-quality pool of AI talent, is home to the world’s leading research universities, and dominates open-source contributions.¹⁷ In 2023, U.S.-based institutions produced 61 notable machine learning models, compared to just 15 from China.¹⁹ Crucially, the U.S. and its close allies control the most critical chokepoints of the AI hardware supply chain, including high-end semiconductor design (Nvidia, Intel, AMD) and manufacturing, as well as the global cloud computing infrastructure (Amazon Web Services, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud), which provides the raw computational power necessary for training and deploying advanced AI models.²⁰

Flagship Programs and Demonstrated Efficacy

The U.S. has moved beyond theoretical research to the development and operational deployment of key military AI systems.

• Project Maven (Algorithmic Warfare Cross-Functional Team): Initially launched in 2017 to use machine learning for analyzing full-motion video from drones, Maven has evolved into the Pentagon’s flagship AI project for targeting.²² It is a sophisticated data-fusion platform that integrates information from satellites, sensors, and communications intercepts to identify and prioritize potential targets.²² Its effectiveness has been proven in the “Scarlet Dragon” series of live-fire exercises, where it enabled an AI-driven kill chain from target identification in satellite imagery to a successful strike by an M142 HIMARS rocket system.²² Maven has been deployed in active combat zones, assisting with targeting for airstrikes in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen, and has been used to provide critical intelligence to Ukrainian forces.²² In 2023, the geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) aspects of Maven were transferred to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA), signifying its maturation from a pilot project into an enterprise-level capability for the entire intelligence community.²³
• Replicator Initiative: Unveiled in August 2023, Replicator is the DoD’s doctrinal and industrial response to the lessons of the Ukraine war and the challenge of China’s military mass.⁵ The initiative’s stated goal is to field thousands of “all-domain, attritable autonomous” (ADA2) systems—small, cheap, and intelligent drones—by August 2025.⁵ Replicator has a dual purpose: to deliver a tangible warfighting capability that can overwhelm an adversary and to force a revolution in the Pentagon’s slow-moving acquisition process by leveraging the speed and innovation of the commercial sector.²⁷ Approximately 75% of the companies involved are non-traditional defense contractors, a deliberate effort to break the traditional defense-industrial mold.²⁷ However, the program has reportedly faced significant challenges, including software integration issues and systems that were not ready for scaling, highlighting the persistent “valley of death” between prototype and mass production that plagues DoD procurement.²⁸

The development of these programs reveals a distinct philosophy of AI-enabled command. U.S. strategic documents and program designs consistently emphasize that AI is a tool to “empower, not replace” the human warfighter.⁹ The Army’s doctrinal approach to integrating AI into its targeting cycle explicitly maintains that human commanders must remain the “final arbiters of lethal force”.²⁹ This “human-on-the-loop” model, where AI provides recommendations and accelerates analysis but a human makes the critical decision, is a core tenet of the American approach.

Category	United States: Military AI Profile
National Strategy	2023 Data, Analytics, & AI Adoption Strategy; focus on “decision advantage” through agile adoption.
Key Institutions	Chief Digital and AI Officer (CDAO), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Defense Innovation Unit (DIU), National Security Agency (NSA) AI Security Center.
Investment Focus	Massive private sector investment ($109.1B in 2024); significant DoD budget increases for AI and autonomy ($12B+ in FY25 request).
Flagship Programs	Project Maven (AI-enabled targeting), Replicator Initiative (attritable autonomous systems).
Foundational Strengths	World-leading AI talent, R&D, and commercial tech sector; dominance in semiconductors and cloud computing.
Demonstrated Efficacy	Project Maven battle-tested in Middle East and used to support Ukraine; advanced exercises like Scarlet Dragon prove AI kill-chain concepts.
Key Challenges	Bureaucratic acquisition processes (“valley of death”), ethical constraints slowing adoption, potential for C2 doctrine to be outpaced by adversaries.

China: The State-Directed Challenger

The People’s Republic of China is the only nation with the scale, resources, and strategic focus to challenge U.S. preeminence in military AI. Its approach is the antithesis of the American model: a top-down, state-directed effort that harnesses the entirety of its national power to achieve a singular goal. Through its “Military-Civil Fusion” strategy, a clear doctrinal commitment to “intelligentized warfare,” and access to vast data resources, China is rapidly developing and scaling AI capabilities. While it may lag the U.S. in foundational innovation and high-end hardware, its ability to direct and integrate technology for state purposes presents a formidable challenge.

National Strategy and Doctrine

China’s ambition is codified in a series of high-level strategic documents. The State Council’s 2017 “New Generation Artificial Intelligence Development Plan” serves as the national blueprint, with the explicit goal of making China the world’s “major AI innovation center” by 2030, identifying national defense as a key area for application.¹⁴

This national ambition is translated into military doctrine through the concept of “intelligentized warfare” (智能化战争). This is the official third stage of the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) modernization, following mechanization and informatization.¹ It is not simply about adding AI to existing systems; it is a holistic vision for re-engineering the PLA to operate at machine speed, infusing AI into every facet of warfare to gain decision superiority over its adversaries.³¹ The PLA aims to achieve this transformation by 2035 and become a “world-class” military by mid-century.³²

The engine driving this transformation is the national strategy of “Military-Civil Fusion” (军民融合). This policy erases the institutional barriers between China’s civilian tech sector and its military-industrial complex, compelling private companies, universities, and state-owned enterprises to contribute to the PLA’s technological advancement.⁸ This allows the PLA to directly leverage the innovations of China’s tech giants—such as Baidu, Alibaba, and Tencent (BAT)—for military purposes, creating a deeply integrated ecosystem designed to “leapfrog” U.S. capabilities.⁸

Investment and Foundational Ecosystem

While China’s publicly reported private AI investment ($9.3 billion in 2024) is an order of magnitude smaller than that of the U.S., this figure is misleading.¹² The state plays a much more direct role, with government-backed guidance funds targeting a staggering $1.86 trillion for investment in strategic technologies like AI.¹⁴

This state-directed investment has cultivated a vast domestic ecosystem. China leads the world in the absolute number of AI-related scientific publications and patents, indicating a massive and active research base.¹² It possesses the world’s second-largest pool of AI engineers and is making concerted efforts to retain this talent domestically.¹⁷ While U.S. institutions still produce more top-tier, notable AI models, Chinese models have rapidly closed the performance gap on key benchmarks to near-parity.¹² A crucial advantage for China is its ability to generate and access massive, state-controlled datasets, particularly from its extensive domestic surveillance apparatus. While this data is not directly military in nature, the experience gained in deploying and scaling AI systems across a population of over a billion people provides invaluable, if morally troubling, operational expertise that can be indirectly applied to military challenges.³⁷

Flagship Programs and Ambitions

The PLA’s pursuit of intelligentized warfare is centered on several key concepts and programs designed to contest U.S. military dominance.

• “Command Brain” (指挥大脑): This is the PLA’s conceptual centerpiece for an AI-driven command and control system. It is designed to be the nerve center for “multi-domain precision warfare,” the PLA’s concept for defeating the U.S. military by attacking the networked nodes that connect its forces.³² The Command Brain would ingest and fuse immense quantities of ISR data at machine speed, identify adversary vulnerabilities in real-time, and generate or recommend optimal courses of action, thereby compressing the OODA loop and seizing decision advantage.³² The PLA has already begun testing AI systems to assist with artillery targeting and is reportedly using the civilian AI model DeepSeek for non-combat tasks like medical planning and personnel management, signaling a willingness to integrate commercial tech directly.³²
• Autonomous Systems and Swarming: Leveraging its world-leading position in commercial drone manufacturing, the PLA is aggressively pursuing military applications for autonomous systems, particularly drone swarms.³² It is also developing “loyal wingman” concepts, such as the FH-97A autonomous aircraft designed to fly alongside crewed fighters, mirroring U.S. efforts.³²
• Cognitive and Information Warfare: PLA strategists see AI as a critical tool for cognitive warfare, using it to shape the information environment and affect an adversary’s will to fight.⁸ This aligns with China’s broader strategic emphasis on winning wars without fighting, or shaping the conditions for victory long before kinetic conflict begins.

The Chinese approach to AI in command and control appears to diverge philosophically from the American model. While U.S. doctrine emphasizes AI as a decision-support tool for a human commander, PLA writings on intelligentization focus on using AI to overcome the inherent cognitive limitations of human decision-makers in complex, high-speed, multi-domain environments.⁸ The development of an “AI military commander” for use in large-scale wargaming simulations suggests an ambition to create a more deeply integrated human-machine command system, where the AI’s role extends beyond simple recommendation to active participation in planning and execution.² This points toward a potential future where a PLA command structure, optimized for machine-speed analysis, could outpace a U.S. structure that remains doctrinally bound to human-centric decision cycles, creating a critical vulnerability in a crisis.

Category	China: Military AI Profile
National Strategy	New Generation AI Development Plan (2017); Military-Civil Fusion (MCF); doctrinal focus on “Intelligentized Warfare.”
Key Institutions	Central Military Commission (CMC), People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Strategic Support Force (SSF), state-owned defense enterprises, co-opted tech giants (BAT).
Investment Focus	Massive state-directed investment through guidance funds; focus on dual-use technologies and domestic application.
Flagship Programs	“Command Brain” (AI for C2), autonomous swarming systems, “loyal wingman” concepts (FH-97A), AI for cognitive warfare.
Foundational Strengths	World’s largest data pools, massive talent base, leads in AI publications/patents, world-leading drone manufacturing industry.
Demonstrated Efficacy	Extensive deployment of AI for domestic surveillance provides scaling experience; testing AI for artillery targeting; DeepSeek model used for non-combat military tasks.
Key Challenges	Lagging in foundational model innovation, critical dependency on foreign high-end semiconductors, potential for top-down system to stifle creativity.

Tier II Analysis: The Strategic Contenders and Niche Specialists

Beyond the bipolar competition of the United States and China, a diverse second tier of nations is actively developing and deploying military AI capabilities. These countries, while lacking the sheer scale of the superpowers, possess significant technological prowess, unique strategic drivers, and in some cases, invaluable combat experience that make them formidable players in their own right. This tier is characterized by a variety of approaches, from the asymmetric pragmatism of Russia to the battle-hardened agility of Israel and the alliance-integrated strategies of key U.S. allies.

Russia: The Asymmetric Innovator

Lacking the vast economic resources and deep commercial technology base of the U.S. and China, Russia has adopted a pragmatic and asymmetric approach to military AI. Its strategy is not to compete head-on in developing the most advanced foundational models, but to incrementally integrate “good enough” AI into its existing areas of military strength—namely electronic warfare (EW), cyber operations, and unmanned systems. The goal is to develop force-multiplying capabilities that can disrupt and debilitate a more technologically advanced adversary.³⁸

Russia’s strategic thinking is guided by its “National Strategy on the Development of Artificial Intelligence until 2030” and the Ministry of Defense’s 2022 “Concept” for AI use, though its most important developmental driver is the ongoing war in Ukraine.³⁹ The conflict has become Russia’s primary laboratory for testing and refining AI applications under combat conditions. This includes developing AI-powered drones, such as the ZALA Lancet loitering munition, that are more resilient to EW and capable of autonomous target recognition and even rudimentary swarming.³⁹ AI is also being integrated into established platforms like the Pantsir, S-300, and S-400 air defense systems to improve target tracking and engagement efficiency against complex threats like drones and cruise missiles.³⁹

Despite these battlefield adaptations, Russia faces significant headwinds. It lags considerably in foundational AI research and investment and is hampered by international sanctions that restrict its access to high-end hardware like semiconductors.⁴⁰ Its domestic technology sector is a fraction of the size of its American and Chinese counterparts.³⁹ A particularly concerning aspect of Russia’s program is its stated intent to integrate AI into its nuclear command, control, and communications (C3) systems, including the automated security for its Strategic Rocket Forces. This pursuit raises profound questions about strategic stability and the risk of accidental or automated escalation in a crisis.⁴²

Category	Russia: Military AI Profile
National Strategy	Pragmatic and utilitarian focus on asymmetric force multipliers; guided by 2030 National AI Strategy and 2022 MoD Concept.
Key Institutions	Ministry of Defense (MOD), military-industrial complex (e.g., Kalashnikov Concern for drones), academic research network.
Investment Focus	State-driven R&D focused on near-term military applications, particularly for unmanned systems and EW.
Flagship Programs	AI-enabled Lancet loitering munitions, integration of AI into air defense systems (Pantsir, S-400), AI for nuclear C3.
Foundational Strengths	Deep experience in EW and cyber operations; ability to rapidly iterate based on combat experience in Ukraine.
Demonstrated Efficacy	Widespread and effective use of AI-assisted drones and loitering munitions in Ukraine; demonstrated EW resilience.
Key Challenges	Significant lag in foundational AI research and investment; dependence on foreign components and impact of sanctions; demographic decline.

Israel: The Battle-Hardened Implementer

Israel stands apart from all other nations in its unparalleled record of deploying sophisticated AI systems in high-intensity combat. Its military AI program is not defined by aspirational strategy documents but by a relentless, operationally-driven innovation cycle born of constant and existential security threats. This has allowed the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to field effective, if highly controversial, AI capabilities at a pace that larger, more bureaucratic militaries cannot match.

The IDF’s Digital Transformation Division, established in 2019, is a key enabler of this effort, tasked with bringing cutting-edge civilian technology into the military.⁴³ The results of this focus are most evident in the IDF’s targeting process. During the recent conflict in Gaza, Israel has made extensive use of at least two major AI systems:

• “Habsora” (The Gospel): This AI-powered system analyzes vast amounts of surveillance data to automatically generate bombing target recommendations. It has reportedly increased the IDF’s target generation capacity from around 50 per year to over 100 per day, solving the long-standing problem of running out of targets in a sustained air campaign.²
• “Lavender”: This is an AI database that has reportedly been used to identify and create a list of as many as 37,000 potential junior operatives affiliated with Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad for targeting.²

The use of these systems marks the most extensive and systematic application of AI for target generation in the history of warfare.⁴³ Beyond targeting, Israel integrates AI across its defense architecture. It is a key component of the Iron Dome and David’s Sling missile defense systems, where algorithms analyze sensor data to prioritize threats and calculate optimal intercept solutions.⁴⁵ AI is also used for border surveillance, incorporating facial recognition and video analysis tools.⁴⁵ This rapid and widespread implementation is fueled by Israel’s world-class technology ecosystem (“Silicon Wadi”), which boasts the highest per-capita density of AI talent in the world, and by deep technological partnerships with U.S. tech giants through programs like Project Nimbus.¹⁷

Category	Israel: Military AI Profile
National Strategy	Operationally-driven, bottom-up innovation focused on immediate security needs rather than grand strategy documents.
Key Institutions	IDF Digital Transformation Division, Unit 8200 (signals intelligence), robust defense industry (Elbit, Rafael), vibrant startup ecosystem.
Investment Focus	Strong venture capital scene; targeted government investment in defense tech; deep partnerships with U.S. tech firms (Project Nimbus).
Flagship Programs	“Habsora” (The Gospel) and “Lavender” (AI-assisted targeting systems), AI integration in missile defense (Iron Dome).
Foundational Strengths	World’s highest per-capita AI talent density; agile and innovative tech culture (“Silicon Wadi”); deep integration between military and tech sectors.
Demonstrated Efficacy	Unmatched record of deploying AI systems (Habsora, Lavender) at scale in high-intensity combat operations.
Key Challenges	International legal and ethical scrutiny over AI targeting practices; resource constraints compared to superpowers.

United Kingdom: The Leading Ally

The United Kingdom is firmly positioned as the leader among European nations and a crucial Tier II power, combining a strong national AI ecosystem with a clear strategic defense vision and deep integration with the United States. Its approach seeks to leverage its strengths in research and talent to maintain influence and interoperability within key alliances.

The UK’s 2022 Defence Artificial Intelligence Strategy articulates a vision to become “the world’s most effective, efficient, trusted and influential Defence organisation for our size”.⁴⁷ This is complemented by service-specific plans, such as the British Army’s Approach to Artificial Intelligence, which focuses on delivering decision advantage from the “back office to the battlefield”.⁴⁸ The UK has also sought to position itself as a global leader in the normative and ethical dimensions of AI, hosting the world’s first AI Safety Summit in 2023, which enhances its diplomatic influence in the field.¹⁹

The UK’s foundational ecosystem is a key strength. It ranks third globally in AI talent depth and density, with world-renowned research hubs in London, Cambridge, and Oxford creating a steady pipeline of expertise.¹⁷ While its private investment in AI is a distant third to the U.S. and China, it significantly outpaces other European nations.¹² The country is home to major defense primes like BAE Systems, which are actively integrating AI into electronic warfare and autonomous platforms, as well as a dynamic startup scene that includes leading AI companies like ElevenLabs and Synthesia.⁵⁰ This combination of strategic clarity, a robust talent base, and strong alliance partnerships solidifies the UK’s position as a top-tier military AI power.

Category	United Kingdom: Military AI Profile
National Strategy	2022 Defence AI Strategy; focus on being “effective, efficient, trusted, and influential.” Strong emphasis on ethical leadership and alliance interoperability.
Key Institutions	Ministry of Defence (MOD), Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), major defense primes (BAE Systems), leading universities.
Investment Focus	Third-largest private AI investment globally; government funding for defense R&D.
Flagship Programs	Focus on cyber, stealth naval AI, and development of 6th-gen air power (Tempest program) with AI at its core.
Foundational Strengths	Ranks 3rd globally in AI talent; world-class research universities (Oxford, Cambridge); strong defense-industrial base.
Demonstrated Efficacy	Active in joint R&D and exercises with the U.S. and NATO; deploying AI-based cyber defense systems.
Key Challenges	Bridging the gap between research and scaled military procurement; maintaining competitiveness with superpower investment levels.

France: The Sovereign Contender

France’s military AI strategy is defined by its long-standing pursuit of “strategic autonomy.” Wary of becoming technologically dependent on either the United States or China, Paris is investing heavily in building a sovereign AI capability that allows it to maintain its freedom of action on the world stage. This ambition is backed by a robust industrial base and a clear, state-led implementation plan.

AI is officially designated a “priority for national defence,” with a strategy that emphasizes a responsible, controlled, and human-in-command approach to its development and use.⁵² The most significant step in realizing this vision was the creation in 2024 of the

Ministerial Agency for Artificial Intelligence in Defense (MAAID). Modeled on the French Atomic Energy Commission, MAAID is designed to ensure France masters AI technology sovereignly.⁵⁵ With an annual budget of €300 million and plans for its own dedicated “secret defense” supercomputer by 2025, MAAID represents a serious, centralized commitment to developing military-grade AI.⁵⁵

This state-led effort is supported by a strong ecosystem. France is home to the Thales Group, a major European defense contractor heavily involved in integrating AI into radar and C2 systems, and a vibrant commercial AI scene.⁵¹ This includes Mistral AI, one of Europe’s most prominent foundational model developers and a direct competitor to U.S. giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, highlighting France’s capacity for cutting-edge innovation.⁵⁰ By combining state direction with commercial dynamism, France is building a formidable and independent military AI capability.

Category	France: Military AI Profile
National Strategy	Driven by “strategic autonomy”; 2019 AI & Defense Strategy emphasizes sovereign capability and responsible, human-controlled use.
Key Institutions	Ministerial Agency for Artificial Intelligence in Defense (MAAID), Direction générale de l’armement (DGA), Thales Group.
Investment Focus	Dedicated budget for MAAID (€300M annually); broader national investments to make France an “AI powerhouse.”
Flagship Programs	MAAID is the central program, focusing on developing sovereign AI for C2, intelligence, logistics, and cyberspace.
Foundational Strengths	Strong defense-industrial base (Thales); leading commercial AI companies (Mistral AI); high-quality engineering talent.
Demonstrated Efficacy	Active in European joint defense projects (e.g., FCAS); developing AI tools for intelligence analysis and operational planning.
Key Challenges	Balancing sovereign ambitions with the need for allied interoperability; scaling capabilities to compete with larger powers.

India: The Aspiring Power

Driven by acute strategic competition with China and a national imperative for self-reliance (“Atmanirbhar Bharat”), India is rapidly emerging as a major military AI power. It is building a comprehensive ecosystem from the ground up, leveraging its immense human capital and a growing defense-industrial base. While it currently faces challenges in infrastructure and bureaucratic efficiency, its trajectory is steep and its ambitions are clear.

India’s strategy is outlined in an ambitious 15-year defense roadmap that heavily features AI-driven battlefield management, autonomous systems, and cyber warfare capabilities.⁵⁶ Institutionally, this is guided by the

Defence AI Council (DAIC) and the Defence AI Project Agency (DAIPA), which were established to coordinate research and guide project development.⁵⁷ A notable aspect of India’s approach is its proactive development of a domestic ethical framework, known as ETAI (Evaluating Trustworthiness in AI), which is built on principles of reliability, safety, transparency, fairness, and privacy.⁵⁷

India’s greatest asset is its vast and growing talent pool. It ranks among the top three nations globally for the number of AI professionals and the volume of AI research publications.³⁵ The government is working to build the necessary infrastructure to support this talent, including through the AIRAWAT initiative, which provides a national AI computing backbone.⁵⁷ On the implementation front, the Ministry of Defence has launched 75 indigenously developed AI products and is investing in a range of capabilities, including autonomous combat vehicles, robotic surveillance platforms, and drone swarms.⁴¹ These technological efforts are intended to be integrated within a broader military reform known as “theatreisation,” which aims to create the joint command structures necessary to conduct cohesive, AI-driven multi-domain operations.⁶⁰

Category	India: Military AI Profile
National Strategy	Ambitious 15-year defense roadmap focused on AI, autonomy, and self-reliance (“Atmanirbhar Bharat”).
Key Institutions	Defence AI Council (DAIC), Defence AI Project Agency (DAIPA), Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO).
Investment Focus	Growing defense budget with dedicated funds for AI projects; focus on nurturing a domestic defense startup ecosystem (DISC).
Flagship Programs	Development of autonomous combat vehicles, drone swarms, AI for ISR; national ethical framework (ETAI).
Foundational Strengths	Massive and growing AI talent pool; ranks 3rd in AI publications; strong and growing domestic software industry.
Demonstrated Efficacy	Deployed 75 indigenous AI products; using AI in intelligence and reconnaissance systems; procuring AI-powered UAVs.
Key Challenges	Bureaucratic procurement delays; infrastructure gaps; translating vast research output into scaled, fielded military capabilities.

South Korea: The Hardware Integrator

South Korea is leveraging its status as a global leader in hardware, robotics, and advanced manufacturing to pursue a sophisticated military AI strategy. Its approach is focused on integrating cutting-edge AI into next-generation military platforms to ensure a decisive technological overmatch against North Korea and to maintain a competitive edge in a technologically dense region.

The national goal is to become a “top-three AI nation” (AI G3), an ambition that extends directly to its defense sector.⁶¹ Military efforts are guided by the “Defense Innovation 4.0” project and the Army’s “TIGER 4.0” concept, which aim to systematically infuse AI across all warfighting functions.⁶² The Ministry of National Defense has outlined a clear, three-stage development plan, progressing from “cognitive intelligence” (AI for surveillance and reconnaissance) to “partially autonomous” capabilities, and ultimately to “judgmental intelligence” for complex manned-unmanned combat systems.⁶³

South Korea’s primary strength is its world-class industrial and technological base. It is a dominant force in the global semiconductor market with giants like Samsung and SK Hynix, providing a critical hardware foundation.²⁰ This is complemented by a robust robotics industry and a government committed to massive investments in AI computing infrastructure and R&D.⁶¹ This industrial prowess is being translated into tangible military projects, such as the development of the future

K3 main battle tank, which will feature an unmanned turret and an AI-assisted fire control system for autonomous target tracking and engagement. Another key initiative is the development of unmanned “loyal wingman” aircraft to operate in tandem with the domestically produced KF-21 next-generation fighter jet, a concept designed to extend reach and reduce risk to human pilots.⁶²

Category	South Korea: Military AI Profile
National Strategy	“Defense Innovation 4.0”; goal to become a “top-three AI nation”; phased approach from ISR to manned-unmanned teaming.
Key Institutions	Ministry of National Defense (MND), Agency for Defense Development (ADD), Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), industrial giants (Hyundai Rotem, KAI).
Investment Focus	Significant government and private sector investment in AI, semiconductors, and robotics.
Flagship Programs	AI integration into future platforms like the K3 tank (AI-assisted targeting) and unmanned wingmen for the KF-21 fighter.
Foundational Strengths	World-leading semiconductor industry (Samsung, SK Hynix); strong robotics and advanced manufacturing base.
Demonstrated Efficacy	Advanced development of AI-enabled military hardware; exporting sophisticated conventional platforms with increasing levels of automation.
Key Challenges	National AI strategy has been described as vague on security specifics; coordinating roles between various ministries.

Germany: The Cautious Industrial Giant

As Europe’s largest economy and industrial powerhouse, Germany possesses a formidable technological base for developing military AI. However, its adoption has historically been cautious, constrained by political sensitivities and a strong societal emphasis on ethical considerations. The Zeitenwende (“turning point”) announced in response to Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine has injected new urgency and funding into German defense modernization, significantly accelerating its military AI efforts.

Germany’s 2018 National AI Strategy identified security and defense as a key focus area, and the Bundeswehr (German Armed Forces) has since developed position papers outlining goals and fields of action for AI integration, particularly for its land forces.⁶⁴ The German approach places a heavy emphasis on establishing a robust ethical and legal framework, rejecting fully autonomous lethal systems and mandating meaningful human control.⁶⁷

This renewed focus is now translating into concrete programs. A key initiative is Uranos KI, a project to develop an AI-backed reconnaissance and analysis system to support the German brigade being deployed to Lithuania, directly addressing the Russian threat.⁶⁸ Another significant effort is the

GhostPlay project, run out of the Defense AI Observatory (DAIO) at Helmut Schmidt University, which is developing AI for enhanced defense decision-making.⁶⁹ Germany’s traditional defense industry is being complemented by a burgeoning defense-tech startup scene, most notably the Munich-based company

Helsing. Helsing specializes in developing AI software to upgrade existing military platforms and is a key supplier of AI-enabled reconnaissance and strike drones to Ukraine, demonstrating a newfound agility in the German defense ecosystem.⁶⁸

Category	Germany: Military AI Profile
National Strategy	2018 National AI Strategy; strong focus on ethical frameworks and human control, accelerated by post-2022 Zeitenwende.
Key Institutions	Bundeswehr, Center for Digital and Technology Research (dtec.bw), Defense AI Observatory (DAIO), emerging startups (Helsing).
Investment Focus	Increased defense spending post-Zeitenwende; growing venture capital for defense-tech startups.
Flagship Programs	Uranos KI (AI reconnaissance), GhostPlay (AI for decision-making), development of AI-enabled drone capabilities.
Foundational Strengths	Europe’s leading industrial and manufacturing base; high-quality engineering and research talent.
Demonstrated Efficacy	Helsing’s AI-enabled drones are being used by Ukraine; Uranos KI has shown promising results in initial experiments.
Key Challenges	Overcoming historical and cultural aversion to military risk-taking; streamlining slow procurement processes; navigating complex EU regulations.

Japan: The Alliance-Integrated Technologist

Japan’s approach to military AI is shaped by a unique combination of factors: its post-war pacifist constitution, a rapidly deteriorating regional security environment, and its status as a technological powerhouse. This has resulted in a rapid but cautious push to adopt AI, primarily for defensive, surveillance, and logistical purposes, all in close technological and doctrinal alignment with its key ally, the United States.

Increasing threats from China and North Korea have prompted Japan to explicitly identify AI as a critical capability in its National Security Strategy, particularly for enhancing cybersecurity and information warfare defenses.⁷² In July 2024, the Ministry of Defense released its first basic policy on the use of AI, which formalizes its human-centric approach. The policy emphasizes maintaining human control over lethal force and explicitly prohibits the development of “killer robots” or lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS).⁷³

Japan’s implementation strategy focuses on leveraging AI as a force multiplier in non-lethal domains to compensate for its demographic challenges. This includes developing remote surveillance systems, automating logistics and supply-demand forecasting, and creating AI-powered decision-support tools.⁷³ A cornerstone of its R&D effort is the

SAMURAI (Strategic Advancement of Mutual Runtime Assurance Artificial Intelligence) initiative, a formal project arrangement with the U.S. Department of War. This cooperative program focuses on developing Runtime Assurance (RTA) technology to ensure the safe and reliable performance of AI-equipped UAVs, with the goal of informing their future integration with next-generation fighter aircraft.⁷⁶ This project highlights Japan’s strategy of deepening interoperability with the U.S. while advancing its own technological expertise in AI safety and assurance.

Category	Japan: Military AI Profile
National Strategy	Cautious, defense-oriented approach guided by National Security Strategy and 2024 MoD AI Policy; explicitly bans LAWS and emphasizes human control.
Key Institutions	Ministry of Defense (MOD), Acquisition, Technology & Logistics Agency (ATLA), strong partnership with U.S. DoD.
Investment Focus	Increasing defense R&D budget; focus on dual-use technologies and international collaboration, particularly with the U.S.
Flagship Programs	SAMURAI initiative (AI safety for UAVs with U.S.), AI for cybersecurity, remote surveillance, and logistics.
Foundational Strengths	World-leading robotics, sensor, and advanced manufacturing industries; highly skilled technical workforce.
Demonstrated Efficacy	Advanced R&D in AI safety and human-machine teaming; deep integration into U.S.-led technology development and exercises.
Key Challenges	Constitutional and political constraints on offensive capabilities; aging demographics impacting recruitment; balancing alliance integration with sovereign development.

Canada: The Niche Contributor

As a committed middle power and a member of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, Canada’s military AI strategy is not aimed at competing with global powers but at developing niche capabilities that enhance its contributions to collective defense and ensure interoperability with its principal allies, especially the United States. Its approach is strongly defined by a commitment to the responsible and ethical development of AI.

The Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces (DND/CAF) AI Strategy lays out a vision to become an “AI-enabled organization” by 2030.⁷⁸ The strategy is built on five lines of effort: fielding capabilities, change management, ethics and trust, talent, and partnerships.⁴⁷ It is closely aligned with broader Government of Canada policies such as the Directive on Automated Decision Making and the Pan-Canadian AI Strategy.⁷⁸

Canada’s implementation efforts are focused on specific, high-value problem sets, particularly in the ISR domain. Key R&D projects led by Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) include:

• JAWS (Joint Algorithmic Warfighter Sensor): A suite of multi-modal sensors and AI models designed to automate the detection and tracking of objects, reducing the cognitive load on operators.⁸¹
• MIST (Multimodal Input Surveillance and Tracking): An AI system for the automated analysis of full-motion video from aerial platforms to detect and localize objects of interest.⁸¹

These systems are being actively tested and refined in large-scale multinational exercises like the U.S. Army’s Project Convergence, demonstrating Canada’s focus on ensuring its technology is integrated and effective within an allied operational context.⁸¹ While Canada has a strong academic history as a pioneer in deep learning, it has faced a recognized “adoption problem” in translating this foundational research into scaled commercial and military applications, a challenge the government is actively working to address.⁸²

Category	Canada: Military AI Profile
National Strategy	DND/CAF AI Strategy (AI-enabled by 2030); focused on niche capabilities, alliance interoperability, and ethical/responsible AI.
Key Institutions	Department of National Defence (DND), Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC), Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS) program.
Investment Focus	Targeted funding for R&D through programs like IDEaS; leveraging the Pan-Canadian AI Strategy.
Flagship Programs	JAWS (AI sensor suite), MIST (AI video analysis for ISR), participation in allied experiments like Project Convergence.
Foundational Strengths	Strong academic research base in AI; close integration with U.S. and Five Eyes partners.
Demonstrated Efficacy	Successful experimentation with JAWS and MIST in multinational exercises, proving interoperability concepts.
Key Challenges	“Adoption problem” in scaling research to fielded capability; limited budget compared to larger powers; reliance on allied platforms for integration.

Honorable Mention: Ukraine, The Wildcard Innovator

While not a top-10 global power by traditional metrics, Ukraine’s performance since the 2022 Russian invasion warrants special mention. It has transformed itself into the world’s foremost laboratory for AI in modern warfare, demonstrating an unparalleled ability to rapidly adapt and deploy commercial technology for military effect under the intense pressure of an existential conflict. Its experience is actively shaping the doctrine and procurement strategies of every major military power.

Lacking a large, pre-existing defense-industrial base for AI, Ukraine has relied on agility, decentralization, and partnerships. The “Army of Drones” initiative is a comprehensive national program that encompasses international fundraising, direct procurement of commercial drones, fostering domestic production, and training tens of thousands of operators.⁸³ Ukrainian forces, often working with civilian volunteer groups, have become masters of battlefield adaptation, integrating AI-based targeting software into low-cost commercial FPV drones.⁴ This has had a dramatic impact on lethality, with strike accuracy for these systems reportedly increasing from a baseline of 30-50% to around 80%.⁴ The Defense Intelligence of Ukraine (DIU) has also emerged as a sophisticated user of AI for analyzing vast amounts of intelligence data and for enabling long-range autonomous drone strikes deep into Russian territory.⁸³ Ukraine’s experience provides a powerful lesson: in the age of AI, the ability to innovate and adapt at speed can be a decisive advantage, capable of offsetting a significant numerical and material disadvantage.

Comparative Strategic Assessment: Doctrines, Efficacy, and Future Trajectory

A granular analysis of individual national programs reveals a broader strategic landscape defined by competing visions, divergent levels of efficacy, and a critical dependence on the foundational layers of the digital age. The future of military power will be determined not just by who develops the best AI, but by who can best synthesize it with their doctrine, industrial base, and human capital.

A Clash of Strategic Visions

The world’s leading military AI powers are not converging on a single model; instead, they are pursuing distinct and often competing strategic philosophies:

• The U.S. Commercial-Military Vanguard: Relies on a decentralized, bottom-up innovation ecosystem fueled by massive private capital. The strategic challenge is to harness this commercial dynamism for military purposes without being stifled by bureaucracy, a problem initiatives like Replicator are designed to solve. The doctrinal emphasis remains firmly on “human-on-the-loop” empowerment.⁹
• China’s State-Directed Intelligentization: A top-down, centrally planned model that mobilizes the entire nation through Military-Civil Fusion. The goal is to achieve decision superiority through the deep integration of AI into a “Command Brain,” potentially affording the machine a more central role in the command process than in the U.S. model.⁸
• Russia’s Asymmetric Disruption: A pragmatic approach focused on using “good enough” AI as a force multiplier in areas like EW and unmanned systems to counter a technologically superior foe. The war in Ukraine serves as a brutal but effective R&D cycle.³⁸
• Israel’s Operational Rapid-Fielding: An agile, threat-driven model that prioritizes getting effective capabilities into the hands of warfighters as quickly as possible, often accepting higher risks and bypassing the lengthy development cycles common in larger nations.⁴³
• The European Pursuit of Sovereignty and Ethics: Powers like France and Germany are driven by a desire for strategic autonomy and a strong commitment to developing AI within a robust ethical and legal framework, seeking a “third way” between the U.S. and Chinese models.⁵⁵

This divergence between “battle-tested” powers like Israel, Russia, and Ukraine and more “theory-heavy” powers in Western Europe is a critical dynamic. The former are driving rapid, iterative development based on immediate combat feedback, while the latter are focused on building more deliberate, ethically-vetted systems. This creates a potential temporal disadvantage, where nations facing immediate threats are forced to accept risks and bypass traditional procurement, giving them a lead in practical application. A nation with a perfectly ethical and robustly tested AI system that arrives on the battlefield two years late may find the conflict has already been decided by an adversary who scaled a “good enough” system across their forces.

The Spectrum of Demonstrated Efficacy

When moving from strategic plans to tangible results, a clear spectrum of operational efficacy emerges.

• High Deployment & Efficacy: Israel, Russia, and Ukraine stand at one end. Their AI systems are not experimental; they are core components of ongoing, high-intensity combat operations, directly influencing tactical and operational outcomes on a daily basis.⁴
• Selective Deployment & Proving: The United States occupies the middle ground. Key programs like Project Maven are fully operational and battle-tested.²² However, broader, more transformative initiatives like Replicator are still in the process of proving their ability to deliver capability at scale, facing significant integration and production challenges.²⁸
• Development & Aspiration: Many other advanced nations, including the UK, France, Germany, and Japan, are at the other end of the spectrum. They have ambitious plans, strong foundational ecosystems, and promising pilot programs (e.g., Uranos KI, MAAID, SAMURAI), but have yet to deploy AI systems at a comparable scale or intensity in combat operations.⁵⁵

The Hardware Foundation: A Strategic Chokepoint

The entire edifice of military AI rests on a physical foundation of advanced hardware: semiconductors for processing and cloud computing infrastructure for data storage and model training. Control over this foundation is a decisive strategic advantage.

The United States and its democratic allies—Taiwan (TSMC), South Korea (Samsung), and the Netherlands (ASML for lithography equipment)—dominate the design and fabrication of the world’s most advanced semiconductors.²⁰ This creates a critical vulnerability for China, which, despite massive investment, remains dependent on foreign technology for the highest-end chips required to train and run state-of-the-art AI models. U.S. export controls are a direct attempt to exploit this chokepoint and slow China’s military AI progress.

Similarly, the global cloud infrastructure market is dominated by American companies. Amazon Web Services (AWS), Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud collectively control approximately 63% of the market, with Chinese competitors like Alibaba and Tencent holding much smaller shares.²¹ This provides the U.S. military and its innovation ecosystem with access to a massive, secure, and scalable computational backbone that is difficult for any other nation to replicate.

The following matrix provides a comprehensive, at-a-glance comparison of the top 10 nations across these key strategic vectors.

Country	Strategic Vision	Key Programs	Investment & Scale	Talent & R&D Base	Hardware Foundation	Deployed Efficacy	Doctrinal Integration
United States	Commercial-military vanguard; achieve “decision advantage.”	Project Maven, Replicator Initiative	Unmatched public & private funding	World leader in talent & model development	Dominant (Semiconductors, Cloud)	High (Maven deployed)	High (Evolving)
China	State-directed “intelligentization”; Military-Civil Fusion.	“Command Brain,” Drone Swarms	Massive state-directed funds	Massive scale, closing quality gap	Major vulnerability (Semiconductors)	Medium (Scaling in non-combat)	Very High (Central tenet)
Israel	Operationally-driven rapid fielding for immediate threats.	Habsora, Lavender (AI targeting)	Strong, focused on defense tech	World-leading per capita	Strong, deep U.S. integration	Very High (Combat-proven)	High (Operationally embedded)
Russia	Asymmetric disruption of superior adversaries.	AI-enabled Lancet drones, Air Defense AI	Limited, focused on near-term effect	Constrained, practical focus	Heavily constrained by sanctions	High (Battle-hardened in Ukraine)	Medium (Adaptive)
United Kingdom	Leading ally; trusted, ethical, interoperable AI.	6th-Gen Fighter (Tempest), Naval AI	Strong, 3rd in private investment	Strong, top-tier research hubs	Moderate, reliant on allies	Low-Medium (Exercises, Cyber)	Medium (Developing)
France	Sovereign capability; “strategic autonomy.”	MAAID (central AI agency)	Strong, state-led investment	Strong, with leading AI firms	Moderate, pursuing sovereignty	Low (In development)	Medium (Developing)
South Korea	Hardware-led integration for technological overmatch.	K3 Tank, KF-21 Unmanned Wingman	Strong, industry-led	Good, focused on application	World Leader (Semiconductors)	Low (In advanced development)	Medium (Platform-centric)
India	Aspiring power; self-reliance and strategic competition.	DAIPA/DAIC projects, ETAI framework	Growing rapidly, state-supported	Massive, but with infrastructure gaps	Lagging, but growing	Low (Early deployments)	Medium (Tied to reforms)
Germany	Cautious industrial giant, accelerated by Zeitenwende.	Uranos KI, GhostPlay	Increasing significantly	Strong industrial R&D base	Strong industrial base	Low (Early deployments)	Low-Medium (Developing)
Japan	Alliance-integrated technologist; defensive focus.	SAMURAI (AI safety w/ U.S.)	Cautious but growing	Strong in robotics & sensors	Strong, reliant on allies	Low (R&D, exercises)	Low (Constrained)

Conclusion: Navigating the Dawn of Intelligentized Conflict

The evidence is unequivocal: artificial intelligence is catalyzing a fundamental revolution in military affairs, and the global competition to master this technology is accelerating. The strategic landscape is solidifying into a bipolar contest between the United States and China, two powers with the resources, scale, and national will to pursue dominance across the full spectrum of AI-enabled warfare. Yet, the field is far from a simple two-player game. The agility and combat experience of nations like Israel and Ukraine, the asymmetric tactics of Russia, and the focused ambitions of key U.S. allies create a complex, multi-polar dynamic where innovation can emerge from unexpected quarters.

Looking forward over the next five to ten years, several trends will define the trajectory of military AI. First, the degree of autonomy in weapon systems will steadily increase, moving from decision support to human-supervised autonomous operations, particularly in contested environments like electronic warfare or undersea domains. Second, human-machine teaming will become a core military competency. The effectiveness of a fighting force will be measured not just by the quality of its people or its machines, but by the seamlessness of their integration. Third, the battlefield will continue to trend towards a state of hyper-awareness and hyper-lethality. The proliferation of intelligent sensors and autonomous weapons will compress the “detect-to-engage” timeline to mere seconds, making concealment nearly impossible and survival dependent on speed, dispersion, and countermeasures.⁴

The central conclusion of this analysis is that the nation that achieves a decisive and enduring advantage in 21st-century conflict will be the one that masters the difficult synthesis of technology, data, doctrine, and talent. Technological superiority in algorithms or hardware alone will be insufficient. Victory will belong to the power that can build a national ecosystem capable of rapidly innovating, fielding AI capabilities at scale, adapting its operational concepts to exploit those capabilities, and training a new generation of warfighters to trust and effectively command their intelligent machine partners. The race for military AI supremacy is not merely a technological marathon; it is a test of a nation’s entire strategic, industrial, and intellectual capacity.

Appendix: Military AI Capability Ranking Methodology

Introduction

The objective of this methodology is to provide a transparent, defensible, and holistic framework for assessing and ranking a nation’s military artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities. It moves beyond singular metrics to create a composite index that evaluates the entire national ecosystem required to develop, deploy, and effectively utilize AI for military purposes. The index is structured around four core pillars, each assigned a weight reflecting its relative importance in determining overall military AI power.

Pillar 1: National Strategy & Investment (25% Weight)

This pillar assesses the top-down strategic direction and financial commitment a nation dedicates to military AI. A clear strategy and robust funding are prerequisites for any successful national effort.

• Metric 1.1: Strategic Clarity & Coherence (10%): Evaluates the quality, ambition, and implementation plan of national and defense-specific AI strategies. A high score is given for published, detailed strategies with clear objectives, timelines, and designated responsible institutions (e.g., U.S. 2023 AI Adoption Strategy, China’s New Generation AI Development Plan).¹⁰ A lower score is given for vague or purely aspirational statements.
• Metric 1.2: Financial Commitment (15%): Quantifies direct and indirect investment in military AI. This includes analysis of national defense budgets, specific R&D allocations for AI and autonomy, the scale of state-backed technology investment funds, and the volume of government AI-related procurement contracts.¹⁴

Pillar 2: Foundational Ecosystem (25% Weight)

This pillar measures the underlying national capacity for AI innovation, which forms the bedrock of any military application. It assesses the raw materials of AI power: talent, research, and hardware.

• Metric 2.1: Talent Pool (10%): Ranks countries based on the quantity and quality of their human capital. Data points include the absolute number of AI professionals, the concentration of top-tier AI researchers (e.g., authors at premier conferences like NeurIPS), and the quality of university pipelines producing AI graduates.¹⁷
• Metric 2.2: Research & Innovation Output (10%): Measures a nation’s contribution to the global state-of-the-art in AI. This is assessed through the volume and citation impact of AI research publications, the number of AI-related patents filed, and, critically, the number of notable, state-of-the-art AI models produced by a country’s institutions.¹²
• Metric 2.3: Hardware & Infrastructure (5%): Assesses sovereign or secure allied access to the critical enabling hardware for AI. This includes domestic capacity for advanced semiconductor design and manufacturing and the availability of large-scale, secure cloud computing infrastructure, which are essential for training and deploying large AI models.²⁰

Pillar 3: Military Implementation & Programs (25% Weight)

This pillar evaluates a nation’s ability to translate strategic ambition and foundational capacity into concrete military AI programs and applications.

• Metric 3.1: Flagship Program Maturity (15%): Assesses the scale, sophistication, and developmental progress of major, publicly acknowledged military AI programs (e.g., U.S. Project Maven, China’s “Command Brain,” France’s MAAID). High scores are awarded for programs that are well-funded, have moved beyond basic research into advanced development or prototyping, and are aimed at solving critical operational challenges.²²
• Metric 3.2: Breadth of Application (10%): Measures the diversity of AI applications being pursued across the full spectrum of military functions, including ISR, command and control, logistics, cybersecurity, electronic warfare, and autonomous platforms. A broad portfolio indicates a more mature and integrated approach to military AI adoption.³

Pillar 4: Operational Efficacy & Deployment (25% Weight)

This is the most critical pillar, assessing whether a nation’s military AI capabilities exist in practice, not just on paper. It measures the translation of programs into proven, operational reality.

• Metric 4.1: Demonstrated Deployment (15%): Awards points for clear evidence of AI systems being used in active combat operations or large-scale, realistic military exercises. This is the ultimate test of a system’s effectiveness and reliability. Nations with battle-tested systems (e.g., Israel’s Habsora, Russia’s Lancet, U.S. Maven) receive the highest scores.⁴
• Metric 4.2: Doctrinal Integration (10%): Assesses the extent to which AI is being formally integrated into military doctrine, training curricula, and concepts of operation (CONOPS). This metric indicates true institutional adoption beyond isolated technology projects and reflects a military’s commitment to fundamentally changing how it fights.²⁹

Scoring and Normalization

For each of the eight metrics, countries are scored on a qualitative scale based on the available open-source evidence. These scores are then converted to a numerical value. The metric scores are then weighted according to the percentages listed above and aggregated to produce a final composite score for each country, normalized to a 100-point scale to allow for direct comparison and ranking. This multi-layered, weighted approach ensures that the final ranking reflects a balanced and comprehensive assessment of a nation’s true military AI power.

---

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly donate to help fund our continued report, please visit our donations page.

---

Sources Used

1. The Coming Military AI Revolution – Army University Press, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/May-June-2024/MJ-24-Glonek/
2. Military applications of artificial intelligence – Wikipedia, accessed October 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_applications_of_artificial_intelligence
3. How to Orchestrate AI Deployment in Defense Infrastructures? – – Datategy, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.datategy.net/2025/07/16/how-to-orchestrate-ai-deployment-in-defense-infrastructures/
4. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE’S GROWING ROLE IN MODERN WARFARE – War Room, accessed October 4, 2025, https://warroom.armywarcollege.edu/articles/ais-growing-role/
5. DOD Replicator Initiative: Background and Issues for Congress, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12611
6. DOD Replicator Initiative: Background and Issues for Congress, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12611/IF12611.9.pdf
7. Artificial intelligence arms race – Wikipedia, accessed October 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence_arms_race
8. Militarizing AI: How to Catch the Digital Dragon? – Centre for …, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.cigionline.org/articles/militarizing-ai-how-to-catch-the-digital-dragon/
9. Summary of the 2018 Department of Defense Artificial … – DoD, accessed October 4, 2025, https://media.defense.gov/2019/feb/12/2002088963/-1/-1/1/summary-of-dod-ai-strategy.pdf
10. DOD Releases AI Adoption Strategy > U.S. Department of War …, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3578219/dod-releases-ai-adoption-strategy/
11. Codifying and Expanding Continuous AI Benchmarking – Federation of American Scientists, accessed October 4, 2025, https://fas.org/publication/codifying-expanding-continuous-ai-benchmarking/
12. The 2025 AI Index Report | Stanford HAI, accessed October 4, 2025, https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report
13. Economy | The 2025 AI Index Report | Stanford HAI, accessed October 4, 2025, https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report/economy
14. Breaking Down Global Government Spending on AI – HPCwire, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.hpcwire.com/2024/08/26/breaking-down-global-government-spending-on-ai/
15. U.S. Military Spending on AI Surges – Time Magazine, accessed October 4, 2025, https://time.com/6961317/ai-artificial-intelligence-us-military-spending/
16. AI’s Role in World Defense Budget Market – MarketsandMarkets, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/ResearchInsight/ai-impact-analysis-on-world-defense-budget-industry.asp
17. 10 Best Countries for AI Developers and Talent Pools 2025-26 – Index.dev, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.index.dev/blog/top-countries-ai-developer-talent-pools
18. The Global AI Talent Tracker 2.0 – MacroPolo, accessed October 4, 2025, https://archivemacropolo.org/interactive/digital-projects/the-global-ai-talent-tracker/
19. Global AI Power Rankings: Stanford HAI Tool Ranks 36 Countries in AI, accessed October 4, 2025, https://hai.stanford.edu/news/global-ai-power-rankings-stanford-hai-tool-ranks-36-countries-ai
20. Semiconductor industry – Wikipedia, accessed October 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiconductor_industry
21. Cloud Market Share Q2 2025: Microsoft Dips, AWS Still Kingpin – CRN, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.crn.com/news/cloud/2025/cloud-market-share-q2-2025-microsoft-dips-aws-still-kingpin
22. Project Maven – Wikipedia, accessed October 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Maven
23. GEOINT Artificial Intelligence, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.nga.mil/news/GEOINT_Artificial_Intelligence_.html
24. Maven Smart System – Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, accessed October 4, 2025, https://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/maven-smart-system/
25. United States’ Project Maven And The Rise Of AI-Assisted Warfare – Global Defense Insight, accessed October 4, 2025, https://defensetalks.com/united-states-project-maven-and-the-rise-of-ai-assisted-warfare/
26. Replicator (United States military) – Wikipedia, accessed October 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replicator_(United_States_military)
27. The Replicator Initiative – Defense Innovation Unit, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.diu.mil/replicator
28. U.S. Military Is Struggling to Deploy AI Weapons | The work is being shifted to a new organization, called DAWG, to accelerate plans to buy thousands of drones : r/LessCredibleDefence – Reddit, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/LessCredibleDefence/comments/1nrsxip/us_military_is_struggling_to_deploy_ai_weapons/
29. Targeting at Machine Speed: The Capabilities—and Limits—of Artificial Intelligence, accessed October 4, 2025, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/targeting-at-machine-speed-the-capabilities-and-limits-of-artificial-intelligence/
30. China’s ambitions in Artificial Intelligence – European Parliament, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ATAG/2021/696206/EPRS_ATA(2021)696206_EN.pdf
31. China’s Military Employment of Artificial Intelligence and Its Security Implications, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.iar-gwu.org/print-archive/blog-post-title-four-xgtap
32. Military Artificial Intelligence, the People’s Liberation Army, and U.S.-China Strategic Competition | CNAS, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.cnas.org/publications/congressional-testimony/military-artificial-intelligence-the-peoples-liberation-army-and-u-s-china-strategic-competition
33. Dialogue | Episode 47: China’s Military Bet on the Future A Dialogue with Elsa B. Kania, accessed October 4, 2025, https://dkiapcss.edu/dialogue-episode-47-chinas-military-bet-on-the-future/
34. China’s Military Reportedly Deploys DeepSeek AI for Non-Combat Duties – FDD, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.fdd.org/analysis/policy_briefs/2025/03/27/chinas-military-reportedly-deploys-deepseek-ai-for-non-combat-duties/
35. Global Total Number of Scientific Publications in Artificial Intelligence Share by Country (Units (Publications)) – ReportLinker, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.reportlinker.com/dataset/c7a7f8eaeb968fd302788b2e529a126109612efb
36. US and China Lead by a Wide Margin in Global AI Talent List – 36氪, accessed October 4, 2025, https://eu.36kr.com/en/p/3402121739913346
37. China’s Pursuit of Defense Technologies: Implications for U.S. and Multilateral Export Control and Investment Screening Regimes – CSIS, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/chinas-pursuit-defense-technologies-implications-us-and-multilateral-export-control-and
38. Advanced military technology in Russia | 06 Military applications of artificial intelligence: the Russian approach – Chatham House, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/09/advanced-military-technology-russia/06-military-applications-artificial-intelligence
39. Russia Capitalizes on Development of Artificial Intelligence in Its Military Strategy, accessed October 4, 2025, https://jamestown.org/program/russia-capitalizes-on-development-of-artificial-intelligence-in-its-military-strategy/
40. The Role of AI in Russia’s Confrontation with the West | CNAS, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/the-role-of-ai-in-russias-confrontation-with-the-west
41. Which Countries Are Experimenting With AI-Powered Weapons? – 24/7 Wall St., accessed October 4, 2025, https://247wallst.com/military/2025/04/16/which-countries-are-experimenting-with-ai-powered-weapons/
42. 532. Russia and the Convergence of AI, Battlefield Autonomy, and Tactical Nuclear Weapons – Mad Scientist Laboratory, accessed October 4, 2025, https://madsciblog.tradoc.army.mil/532-russia-and-the-convergence-of-ai-battlefield-autonomy-and-tactical-nuclear-weapons/
43. How Israel’s military rewired battlefield for first AI war | The Jerusalem Post, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.jpost.com/defense-and-tech/article-867363
44. AI-assisted targeting in the Gaza Strip – Wikipedia, accessed October 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI-assisted_targeting_in_the_Gaza_Strip
45. Israel – Hamas 2024 Symposium – Beyond the Headlines: Combat Deployment of Military AI-Based Systems by the IDF – Lieber Institute West Point, accessed October 4, 2025, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/beyond-headlines-combat-deployment-military-ai-based-systems-idf/
46. As Israel uses US-made AI models in war, concerns arise about tech’s role in who lives and who dies – AP News, accessed October 4, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-ai-technology-737bc17af7b03e98c29cec4e15d0f108
47. Defence Artificial Intelligence Strategy – GOV.UK, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/defence-artificial-intelligence-strategy
48. BRITISH ARMY’S APPROACH TO ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.army.mod.uk/media/24745/20231001-british_army_approach_to_artificial_intelligence.pdf
49. Which Countries Are Investing Most in AI? – Investopedia, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.investopedia.com/countries-investing-the-most-in-ai-11752340
50. Forbes 2025 AI 50 List – Top Artificial Intelligence Companies Ranked, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.forbes.com/lists/ai50/
51. Top 10 Artificial Intelligence in Military Companies in Global 2025 | Global Growth Insights, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.globalgrowthinsights.com/blog/top-artificial-intelligence-in-military-companies-in-global-updated-global-growth-insights-638
52. FRANCE, accessed October 4, 2025, https://docs-library.unoda.org/General_Assembly_First_Committee_-Seventy-Ninth_session_(2024)/78-241-France-EN.pdf
53. The Ministry of Armed Forces presents its new strategy for artificial intelligence (April 2019) – France OTAN, accessed October 4, 2025, https://otan.delegfrance.org/The-Ministry-of-Armed-Forces-presents-its-new-strategy-for-artificial
54. French thinking on AI integration and interaction with nuclear command and control, force structure, and decision-making – European Leadership Network, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/French-bibliography_AI_Nuclear_Final.pdf
55. French Minister of the Armed Forces at École Polytechnique to boost AI in Defense, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.polytechnique.edu/en/news/french-minister-armed-forces-ecole-polytechnique-boost-ai-defense
56. India unveils ambitious 15-year defence roadmap featuring nuclear carrier, hypersonics, and AI warfare, accessed October 4, 2025, https://defence.in/threads/india-unveils-ambitious-15-year-defence-roadmap-featuring-nuclear-carrier-hypersonics-and-ai-warfare.15458/
57. AI in the military: India’s path to ethical and strategic leadership | Hindustan Times, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.hindustantimes.com/ht-insight/future-tech/ai-in-the-military-india-s-path-to-ethical-and-strategic-leadership-101758966031936.html
58. India’s Military AI Roadmap: Trust, Enforcement, and Global South Leadership, accessed October 4, 2025, https://completeaitraining.com/news/indias-military-ai-roadmap-trust-enforcement-and-global/
59. Implementing Artificial Intelligence in the Indian Military – Delhi Policy Group, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.delhipolicygroup.org/publication/policy-briefs/implementing-artificial-intelligence-in-the-indian-military.html
60. Theatre command: How India is looking to integrate Air Force, Navy and Army operations under a new strategy, accessed October 4, 2025, https://m.economictimes.com/news/defence/indian-army-indian-air-force-theatre-command-indian-navy-operation-sindoor-india-pakistan-war-india-defence-integration-plan-modi/articleshow/124270382.cms
61. National AI Strategy Policy Directions – Press Releases – 과학기술정보통신부 >, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.msit.go.kr/eng/bbs/view.do?sCode=eng&mId=4&mPid=2&pageIndex=&bbsSeqNo=42&nttSeqNo=1040&searchOpt=ALL&searchTxt=&ref=newsletters.qs.com
62. South Korea is successfully moving forward with the implementation of AI in the defense sector | DEFENSEMAGAZINE.com, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.defensemagazine.com/article/south-korea-is-successfully-moving-forward-with-the-implementation-of-ai-in-the-defense-sector
63. Will the One Ring Hold? Defense AI in South Korea – ResearchGate, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382372312_Will_the_One_Ring_Hold_Defense_AI_in_South_Korea
64. BMWE – Artificial intelligence – bundeswirtschaftsministerium.de, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.bundeswirtschaftsministerium.de/Redaktion/EN/Artikel/Technology/artificial-intelligence.html
65. AI Strategies – Home – Plattform Lernende Systeme, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.plattform-lernende-systeme.de/ai-strategies.html
66. Artificial Intelligence in Land Forces – Bundeswehr, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.bundeswehr.de/resource/blob/156026/79046a24322feb96b2d8cce168315249/download-positionspapier-englische-version-data.pdf
67. Artificial Intelligence in the Armed Forces: On the need for regulation regarding autonomy in weapon systems | Bundesakademie für Sicherheitspolitik, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.baks.bund.de/en/working-papers/2018/artificial-intelligence-in-the-armed-forces-on-the-need-for-regulation-regarding
68. Battlefield Disruption: German Military Seeks to Adapt as AI …, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/battlefield-disruption-german-military-seeks-to-adapt-as-ai-changes-warfare-a-ebb36190-8b79-4e85-bd21-e765a9fc9857
69. DAIO – Defense AI Observatory, accessed October 4, 2025, https://defenseai.eu/english
70. Helsing | Artificial intelligence to protect our democracies, accessed October 4, 2025, https://helsing.ai/
71. German military seeks high-tech edge with AI and drones – Harici, accessed October 4, 2025, https://harici.com.tr/en/german-military-seeks-high-tech-edge-with-ai-and-drones/
72. The peace of Japan and the AI – Japan Up Close, accessed October 4, 2025, https://japanupclose.web-japan.org/policy/p20250228_1.html
73. Japan Sets Hard Line on Military AI: Humans Stay in Charge, accessed October 4, 2025, https://militaryai.ai/japan-military-ai-rules/
74. Japan promotes stringent standards for defense AI, accessed October 4, 2025, https://ipdefenseforum.com/2025/09/japan-promotes-stringent-standards-for-defense-ai/
75. Artificial Intelligence for the Defence of Japan: Cautious but Steady Progress – RSIS, accessed October 4, 2025, https://rsis.edu.sg/rsis-publication/rsis/artificial-intelligence-for-the-defence-of-japan-cautious-but-steady-progress/
76. US, Japan formalize SAMURAI project arrangement to advance AI safety in unmanned aerial vehicles > Air Reserve Personnel Center > Article Display, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.arpc.afrc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4311811/us-japan-formalize-samurai-project-arrangement-to-advance-ai-safety-in-unmanned/
77. US, Japan formalize SAMURAI project arrangement to advance AI safety in unmanned aerial vehicles > Air Force > Article Display – AF.mil, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4311811/us-japan-formalize-samurai-project-arrangement-to-advance-ai-safety-in-unmanned/
78. Strategic Alignment – Canada.ca, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/dnd-caf-artificial-intelligence-strategy/strategic-alignment.html
79. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE STRATEGY – Canada.ca, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/dnd-mdn/documents/reports/ai-ia/dndcaf-ai-strategy.pdf
80. Canadian Armed Forces Unveil Ambitious AI Strategy for 2030 – BABL AI, accessed October 4, 2025, https://babl.ai/canadian-armed-forces-unveil-ambitious-ai-strategy-for-2030/
81. DRDC participates in multinational experiment Project Convergence …, accessed October 4, 2025, https://science.gc.ca/site/science/en/blogs/defence-and-security-science/drdc-participates-multinational-experiment-project-convergence-capstone-4
82. AI minister denies that Canada needs to ‘catch up’ with global industry | Power & Politics, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slqS4UUSQYo
83. Understanding the Military AI Ecosystem of Ukraine – CSIS, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/understanding-military-ai-ecosystem-ukraine
84. List of countries with highest military expenditures – Wikipedia, accessed October 4, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_highest_military_expenditures
85. Research and Development | The 2025 AI Index Report | Stanford HAI, accessed October 4, 2025, https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2025-ai-index-report/research-and-development
86. Semiconductor Market Size, Share, Growth & Forecast [2032] – Fortune Business Insights, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/semiconductor-market-102365
87. Modernizing Military Decision-Making: Integrating AI into Army Planning, accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/Online-Exclusive/2025-OLE/Modernizing-Military-Decision-Making/
88. (U) The PLA and Intelligent Warfare: A Preliminary Analysis – CNA.org., accessed October 4, 2025, https://www.cna.org/reports/2021/10/The-PLA-and-Intelligent-Warfare-A-Preliminary-Analysis.pdf