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 ?
Jean-Christophe NOËL
Associate Research Fellow, Security Studies Center, Ifri
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.
From Corsairs to Private Military Contractors. Nonmilitary Maritime Actors and the Historical Continuities of Naval Warfare
Since late 2023, several Houthi attacks on commercial shipping have involved privately contracted armed teams conducting defensive engagements and coordinating immediate response efforts, often in the relative absence of regular naval forces during the immediate hostilities at sea. These cases highlight a strategic tension that increasingly confronts modern navies. On the one hand, they are expected to conduct persistent, low-intensity maritime security tasks such as counterpiracy, maritime policing, and the protection of commercial shipping. On the other hand, they face renewed pressure to prepare for high-intensity conflict against peer and near-peer adversaries amid the return of great power competition.
Framework Nation: A European Challenge and French Ambition
First appearing in the early 2000s, the framework nation concept follows several distinct rationales, whether it refers to a country assuming the leadership of a military operation, directing a multinational capability project, or commanding a permanent force structure. In every case, the country that takes on this role fully intends to derive from it additional politico-military influence.
The Nuanced Relationship Between Public Opinion and Foreign Policy
Public sentiment is something decision-makers must contend with, especially in democratic states. However, the extent to which public opinion shapes foreign policy varies. Three Council of Councils experts in France, India, and Nigeria reflect on how public opinion does—and sometimes does not—affect foreign policy decisions.
Taking the Pulse: Enough with the Annual NATO Summits, Already?
Over the past ten years, NATO has held almost as many summits as it did during the entirety of the Cold War. Are they still useful, or is it time to stop holding annual meetings?