Key question: How deeply has Hegseth examined defense issues?
If and when Pete Hegseth appears before his Senate inquisitors, he is sure to face questions about his views on women both in combat and in a hotel bar. He will be asked about his alcohol use and about his experience running organizations quite a bit smaller than the $852 billion Department of Defense and its far-flung operations.
When the smoke from those fireworks recedes, I hope that he will be asked a few other, perhaps more pertinent, questions about the responsibilities of the secretary of defense.
Start with the war in Ukraine. Ukraine’s “first-person view drones” have become a force and are now responsible for the majority of battlefield kills, overtaking artillery.
When electronic warfare (jamming) began interfering with human control of the drones, the Ukrainians developed AI software that made drones autonomous. The kill rate of the growing number of AI-directed drones is now 80%, which is better than human-guided drones.
These drones are cheap — $50 to $100 apiece when purchased in large batches — and Ukraine will have built some 2 million of them this year despite the difficult wartime conditions. These small, cheap, disposable systems using consumer technology and pioneering software are the future.
The Pentagon has belatedly developed a small drone program called Replicator with China in mind, but Hegseth needs to explain his views on this new technology and the role it might play in enhancing our defense capabilities.
AI is being employed in other ways, too. The Washington Post reports that the Israelis have used artificial intelligence to create a program called Habsora (or Gospel) that generates potential targets by rapidly sifting through vast amounts of data from intercepted communications, satellite photos and social networks. What once took days now takes minutes.
Those who have resisted this reduced reliance on human analysts have reportedly been shouldered out of the way, but they have raised questions about the program’s apparently high tolerance for “collateral damage” (i.e. civilian casualties).
Israeli Defense Force spokesmen have defended the system as an important tool to make attacks more precise and, thus, less likely to result in the death of innocents, but the IDF no longer touts the program as it did at the outset of the war in Gaza.
What are Hegseth’s views on the use of AI and where humans might fit in the chain of identifying and then striking targets?
Finally, the U.S. is in the process of spending between$1.5 trillion and $1.7 trillion over the next two decades upgrading its nuclear deterrent. All three legs of the triad are being overhauled and most of the programs — from Columbia Class submarines to B-21 strategic bombers — are behind schedule and over budget.
However, what has worried many in the arms control community is the development of certain “ low-yield” nuclear weapons that might be easier to use. Many fear that the line between conventional and nuclear weapons could be crossed too easily and that an uncontrolled escalation could follow.
As Sen. Ted Kennedy once asked on the Senate floor years ago: “Is half a Hiroshima OK? Is a quarter of a Hiroshima OK?” Some of these low-yield systems started in the first Trump administration. Are they making us safer? Is this vast expenditure of resources crowding out other things vital to our national security?
These are very hard but vital questions.
No doubt, Hegseth will be well briefed and as a TV presenter can probably play the part reasonably well. But once you get him past the scripted bits and softball questions, we need to know if he has thought deeply about issues such as these. Our nation’s security depends on it.
• Keith Peterson, of Lake Barrington, served 29 years as a press and cultural officer for the United States Information Agency and Department of State. He was chief editorial writer of the Daily Herald 1984-86. His new book “American Dreams: The Story of the Cyprus Fulbright Commission” is available from Amazon.com.