Intelligence artificielle : vers une nouvelle révolution militaire ?
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a priority defense issue for the military powers of the 21st century. Unsurprisingly, the United States and China are currently at the forefront of this new digitalized arms race.
As AI aims to emulate cognitive processes with algorithms and automated processing of big data, it is capable to undertake a growing number of specific tasks in which it surpasses human performances. In the military field, it enables a better management and simulation of the operational environment, provide threats detection, process and simplify large quantities of collected intelligence and to deliver an elementary analysis. In this light, military AI perpetuates the Revolution in Military Affairs that began in the 1990s and now appears as the main path to achieving tactical superiority. As autonomy is progressively becoming a new strategic staple, proponents of a “military humanism” underline the limits of technology, the wide span of potential counter-measures as well as the risk of a loss of control, or a dehumanization of war leading to reconsider the warrior ethos. If these evolutions prompt for a new balance in man-machine teaming, the longer term prospect of the advent of a “strong AI”, one that would be truly autonomous, could transform even more the political-military relationship, and even alter the very nature of the war.
This content is available in French: Intelligence artificielle : vers une nouvelle révolution militaire ?
Author(s)
Jean-Christophe NOËL
Associate Research Fellow, Security Studies Center, Ifri
Related centers and programs
Discover our other research centers and programs
Security Studies Center
Heir to a tradition dating back to the founding of Ifri, the Security Studies Center provides public and private decision-makers as well as the general public with the keys to understanding power relations and contemporary modes of conflict as well as those to come. Through its positioning at the juncture of politics and operations, the credibility of its civil-military team and the wide distribution of its publications in French and English, the Center for Security Studies constitutes in the French landscape of think tanks a unique center of research and influence on the national and international defense debate.
Find out more
Discover all our analyses
How does France’s nuclear deterrent contribute to the defense of Europe?
France’s nuclear deterrent, serving first and foremost to defend France’s vital interests, also contributes to the defense of Europe. This contribution has been recognized within the North Atlantic Alliance since 1974, but remains little known. In a speech closely followed by France’s European partners and its adversaries alike, President Emmanuel Macron announced a new concept for French nuclear deterrence: “forward deterrence” (dissuasion avancée). This article aims to explain the origins of this concept, outline its main pillars, and describe the partnerships that are sought. It then discusses the relationship with the U.S. doctrine of “extended deterrence”, and finally offers some ethical considerations.
Fury from the Skies. A Strategic Analysis of Air Campaign against Iran
What is the outcome of Operations Roaring Lion (RL) and Epic Fury (EF), launched by Israel and the United States against the Islamic Republic of Iran on February 28, 2026?
Finland: The Ally Who Came in from the Cold
Among all European countries, Finland is perhaps the one whose strategic culture and military model have changed the least since the end of the Cold War. Built after the end of the Second World War to deter a potential new Soviet invasion, this model enabled Finland to serve as an example of European rearmament.
Stability under Pressure. A Pakistani View on Nuclear Deterrence after Pahalgam
The May 2025 India-Pakistan crisis after the Pahalgam attack has generated a familiar but incomplete debate: did nuclear deterrence work, or did it merely allow both sides to fight a limited war under the nuclear shadow? The better answer is that deterrence worked at the level at which it was designed to work. It prevented a general war and an uncontrolled vertical escalation, and kept nuclear weapons in the background. But it did not prevent India from attempting to carve out space for conventional action, nor did it prevent Pakistan from responding conventionally to restore deterrence credibility.