Memo to Hegseth: It isn’t about AI technology; it’s about counter-AI doctrine



Secretary Hegseth, you are a fellow grunt, and you know winning isn’t about just about technology. It’s about establishing a doctrine and training to its standards, which will win wars. As you know, a brand-new ACOG-equipped M4 carbine is ultimately useless if your troops do not understand fire and maneuver, communications security, operations security, supporting fire, and air cover.

The French and British learned that the hard way. Though they had 1,000 more tanks than the Germans when the Nazis attacked in 1940, their technological advantage disappeared under the weight of the far better German doctrine: Blitzkrieg.

So while the Washington political establishment is currently agog at China’s gee-whiz DeepSeek AIthis and oh-my-goodness Stargate AIthat, it might be more effective to develop a counter-AI doctrine right freaking now, rather than having our collective rear ends handed to us later.

While it is true that China’s headlong embrace of artificial intelligence could give the People’s Liberation Army a huge advantage in areas such as intelligence-gathering and analysis, autonomous combat air vehicles, and advanced loitering munitions, it is imperative to stay ahead of the Chinese in other crucial ways — not only in terms of technological advancement and the fielding of improved weapons systems but in the vital establishment of a doctrine of artificial intelligence countermeasures to blunt Chinese AI systems.

Such a doctrine should begin to take shape around four avenues: polluting large language models to create negative effects; using Conway’s law as guidance for exploitable flaws; using bias among our adversaries’ leadership to degrade their AI systems; and using advanced radio-frequency weapons such as gyrotrons to disrupt AI-supporting computer hardware.

Pollute large language models

Generative AI is the extraction of statistical patterns from an extremely large data set. A large language model developed from such an enormous data set using “transformer technology” allows a user to access it through prompts, which are natural language texts that describe the function the AI must perform. The result is a generative pre-trained large language model (which is where ChatGPT comes from).

Such an AI system might be degraded in at least two ways: Either pollute the data or attack the “prompt engineering.” Prompt engineering is a term that describes the process of creating instructions that can be understood by the generative AI system. A deliberate programming error would cause the AI large language model to “hallucinate.

The possibility also exists of finding unintended programming errors, such as the weird traits discovered in OpenAI’s “AI reasoning model” called “o1,” which inexplicably “thinks” in Chinese, Persian, and other languages. No one understands why this is happening, but such kindred idiosyncrasies might be wildly exploitable in a conflict.

An example from World War II illustrates the importance of countermeasures when an enemy can deliver speedy and exclusive information to the battlespace.

Given that a website like Pornhub gets something in excess of 115 million hits per day, perhaps the Next Generation Air Dominance fighter should be renamed ‘Stormy Daniels.’

The development of radar (originally an acronym for radio azimuth detecting and ranging) was, in itself, a method of extracting patterns from an extremely large database: the vastness of the sky. An echo from a radio pulse gave the accurate range and bearing of an aircraft.

To defeat enemy radar, the British intelligence genius R.V. Jones recounted in “Most Secret War,” it was necessary to insert information into the German radar system that resulted in gross ambiguity. For this, Jones turned to Joan Curran, a physicist at the Technical Research Establishment, who developed aluminum foil strips, called “window” by the Brits and “chaff” by the Americans, of an optimum size and shape to create thousands of reflections that overloaded and blinded the German radar system.

So how can present-day U.S. military and intelligence communities introduce a kind of “AI chaff” into generative AI systems, to deny access to new information about weapons and tactics?

One way would be to assign ambiguous names to those weapons and tactics. For example, such “naturally occurring” search terms might include “Flying Prostitute,” which would immediately reveal data about the B-26 Marauder medium-range bomber of World War II.

Or a search for “Gilda” and “Atoll,” which will retrieve a photo of the Mark III nuclear bomb that was dropped on Bikini Atoll in 1946, upon which was pasted a photo of Rita Hayworth.

A search of “Tonopah” and “Goatsucker” retrieves the F-117 stealth fighter.

Since a contemporary computer search is easily fooled by such accidental ambiguities, it would be possible to grossly skew results of a large language model function by deliberately using nomenclature that occurs with great frequency and is extremely ambiguous.

Given that a website like Pornhub gets something in excess of 115 million hits per day, perhaps the Next Generation Air Dominance fighter should be renamed “Stormy Daniels.” For code names of secret projects, try “Jenna Jameson” instead of “Rapid Dragon.”

Such an effort in sleight of hand would be useful for operations and communications security by confusing adversaries seeking open intelligence data.

For example, one can easily imagine the consternation that Chinese officers and NCOs would experience when their young soldiers expended valuable time meticulously examining every single image of Stormy Daniels to ensure that she was not the newest U.S. fighter plane.

Even “air-gapped” systems like the ones being used by U.S. intelligence agencies can be affected when the system updates information from internet sources.

Note that such an effort must actively and continuously pollute the datasets, like chaff confusing radar, by generating content that would populate the model and ensure that our adversaries consume it.

A more sophisticated approach would use keywords like “eBay” or “Amazon” or “Alibaba” as a predicate and then very common words such as “tire” or “bicycle” or “shoe.” Then contracting with a commercial media agency to do lots of promotion of the “items” across traditional and social media would tend to clog the system.

Use Conway’s law

Melvin Conway is an American computer scientist who in the 1960s conceived the eponymous rule that states: “Organizations which design systems are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations.”

De Caro’s corollary says: “The more dogmatic the design team, the greater the opportunity to sabotage the whole design.”

Consider the Google Gemini fiasco. The February 2024 launch of Gemini, Google’s would-be answer to ChatGPT, was an unmitigated disaster that tanked Google’s share price and made the company a laughingstock. As the Gemini launch went forward, its image generator “hallucinated.” It created images of black Nazi stormtroopers and female Asian popes.

In retrospect, the event was the most egregious example of what happens when Conway’s law collides with organizational dogma. The young, woke, and historically ignorant programmers myopically led their company into a debacle.

But for those interested in confounding China’s AI systems, the Gemini disaster is an epiphany.

Xi’s need for speed, especially in 'informatization,' might be the bias that points to an exploitable weakness.

If the extremely well-paid, DEI-obsessed computer programmers at the Googleplex campus in Mountain View, California, can screw up so immensely, what kind of swirling vortex of programming snafu is being created by the highly regimented, ill-paid, constantly indoctrinated, young members of the People’s Liberation Army who work on AI?

A solution to beating China’s AI systems may be an epistemologist who specializes in the cultural communication of the PLA. By using de Caro’s Corollary, such an expert could lead a team of computer scientists to replicate the Chinese communication norms and find the weaknesses in their system — leaving it open to spoofing or outright collapse.

When a technology creates an existential threat, the individual developers of that technology become strategic targets. For example, in 1943, Operation Hydra, which employed the entirety of the RAF British Bomber Command — 596 bombers — had the stated mission of killing all the German rocket scientists at Peenemunde. The RAF had marginal success and was followed by three U.S. Eighth Air Force raids in July and August 1944.

In 1944, the Office of Strategic Services dispatched multilingual agent and polymath Moe Berg to assassinate German scientist Werner Heisenberg, if Heisenberg seemed to be on the right path to building an atomic bomb. Berg decided (correctly) that the German was off track. Letting him live actually kept the Nazis from success. In more recent times, it is no secret that five Iranian nuclear scientists have been assassinated (allegedly) by the Israelis in the last decade.

Advances in AI that could become existential threats could be dealt with in similar fashion. Bullets are cheap. So is C-4.

Exploit design biases to degrade AI systems

Often, the people and organizations funding research and development skew the results because of their bias. For example, Heisenberg was limited in the paths he might follow toward developing a Nazi atomic bomb because of Hitler’s perverse hatred of “Jewish physics.” This attitude was abetted by two prominent and anti-Semitic German scientists, Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, both Nobel Prize winners who reinforced the myth of “Aryan science.” The result effectively prevented a successful German nuclear program.

Returning to the Google Gemini disaster, one only needs to look at the attitude of Google leadership to see the roots of the debacle. Google CEO Sundar Pichai is a naturalized U.S. citizen whose undergraduate college education was in India before he came to the Unites States. His ties to India remain close, as he was awarded the Padma Bhushan, India’s third-highest civilian award, in 2022.

In congressional hearings in 2018, Pichai seemed to dance around giving direct answers to explicit questions, a trait he demonstrated again in 2020 and in an antitrust court case in 2023.

His internal memo after the 2024 Gemini disaster mentioned nothing about who selected the people in charge of the prompt engineering, who supervised those people, or who, if anyone, got fired in the aftermath. More importantly, Pichai made no mention of the internal communications functions that allowed the Gemini train wreck to occur in the first place.

Again, there is an epiphany here. Bias from the top affects outcomes.

As Xi Jinping continues his move toward autocratic authoritarian rule, he brings his own biases with him. This will eventually affect, or more precisely infect, Chinese military power.

In 2023, Xi detailed the need for China to meet world-class military standards by 2027, the 100th anniversary of the People’s Liberation Army. Xi also spoke of “informatization” (read: AI) to accelerate building “a strong system of strong strategic forces, raise the presence of combat forces in new domains and of new qualities, and promote combat-oriented military training.”

It seems that Xi’s need for speed, especially in “informatization,” might be the bias that points to an exploitable weakness.

Target chips with energy weapons

Artificial intelligence depends on extremely fast computer chips whose capacities are approaching their physical limits. They are more and more vulnerable to lack of cooling — and to an electromagnetic pulse.

In the case of large cloud-based data centers, cooling is essential. Water cooling is cheapest, but pumps and backup pumps are usually not hardened, nor are the inlet valves. No water, no cooling. No cooling, no cloud.

The same goes for primary and secondary electrical power. No power, no cloud. No generators, no cloud. No fuel, no cloud.

Obviously, without functioning chips, AI doesn’t work.

AI robots in the form of autonomous airborne drones, or ground mobile vehicles, are moving targets — small and hard to hit. But their chips are vulnerable to an electromagnetic pulse. We’ve learned in recent times that a lightning bolt with gigawatts of power isn’t the only way to knock out an AI robot. High-power microwave systems such as Epirus, Leonidas, and Thor can burn out AI systems at a range of about three miles.

Another interesting technology, not yet fielded, is the gyrotron, a Soviet-developed, high-power microwave source that is halfway between a klystron tube and a free electron laser. It creates a cyclotron resonance in a strong magnetic field that can produce a customized energy bolt with a specific pulse width and specific amplitude. It could therefore reach out and disable a specific kind of chip, in theory, at greater ranges than a “you fly ’em, we fry ’em” high-power microwave weapon, now in the early test stages.

Obviously, without functioning chips, AI doesn’t work.

The headlong Chinese AI development initiative could provide the PLA with an extraordinary military advantage in terms of the speed and sophistication of a future attack on the United States.

Thus, the need to develop AI countermeasures now is paramount.

So, Secretary Hegseth, one final idea for you to consider: During World War I, the great Italian progenitor of air power, General Giulio Douhet, very wisely observed: “Victory smiles upon those who anticipate the changes in the character of war, not upon those who wait to adapt themselves after the changes occur.”

In terms of the threat posed by artificial intelligence as it applies to warfare, Douhet’s words could not be truer today or easier to follow.

Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally on Blaze Media in August 2024.

How the Arctic could define America’s next century



When President Trump recently announced on Truth Social that “ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity,” critics immediately jumped to conclusions. Democrats and media outlets spun wild narratives, suggesting this would somehow give Russia and China carte blanche to annex territories of their own. The Guardian went so far as to accuse Donald Trump Jr. of inviting homeless people and drug dealers off the street in Greenland and giving them a free lunch to make it look like there are a bunch of native Trump fans. The hysteria is as predictable as it is ridiculous.

Let’s set the record straight: America is not going to invade Greenland. But if we’re serious about securing our national interests in the Arctic — and the world — then we cannot afford to ignore Greenland any longer.

If Greenland becomes independent, its need for economic and military partnerships will be greater than ever. The United States should be at the front of that line.

Greenland has been a strategic partner to the U.S. for over 80 years. During World War II, Nazi Germany’s occupation of Denmark prompted the United States to establish a presence in Greenland to prevent the island from falling into enemy hands.

That presence solidified in 1951 when the Pentagon built Pituffik Space Base, a critical military position in the Arctic. This air base, located 750 miles north of the Arctic Circle, remains vital for deterring Russian aggression and detecting potential missile threats. Even as recently as 2017, the U.S. invested millions in upgrading its radar systems there to deter Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles.

In 1946, President Harry Truman offered Denmark $100 million in gold bullion to buy Greenland, recognizing its immense strategic value. Denmark declined, but the geopolitical importance of Greenland has only grown. The Arctic is no longer considered a “frozen wasteland” on the map — it’s a battleground for influence, resources, and security.

The stakes in the Arctic

Why does Greenland matter so much? The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that the Arctic holds 30% of the world’s undiscovered natural gas and 13% of its undiscovered oil. Additionally, Greenland’s vast deposits of rare earth minerals — essential for technology, vehicles, and national defense — are virtually untapped. These are the resources that will power the 21st-century economy, and right now, China has a stranglehold on them. The U.S. imports 72% of its rare earth minerals from China. That is not just unsustainable; it’s dangerous.

China and Russia understand Greenland’s importance. Beijing has already attempted to secure mining rights and infrastructure projects on the island. Moscow, too, has been eyeing the Arctic as it ramps up its military activities in the region. If Greenland were to become independent without U.S. involvement, it’s easy to imagine these two adversaries stepping in to fill the void.

A path forward?

Critics have mocked Trump’s interest in purchasing Greenland, likening it to a real estate scheme. But this isn’t about buying beachfront property. It’s about securing America’s future.

Greenland’s push for independence from Denmark is gaining momentum. Its prime minister recently called for creating a framework for full independence, citing the “colonial era” treatment by Denmark. If Greenland becomes independent, its need for economic and military partnerships will be greater than ever. The United States should be at the front of that line, ensuring Greenland’s security while building a mutually beneficial economic relationship.

This doesn’t necessarily mean a direct purchase of Greenland, as Truman proposed. Instead, we could forge a comprehensive partnership that strengthens Greenland’s autonomy while aligning its future with American interests. Expanding trade, investing in infrastructure, and collaborating on resource development are all ways to deepen our ties with Greenland without stepping on Denmark’s toes.

A linchpin for Arctic security

Acquiring or partnering with strategic foreign lands like Greenland isn’t just a Trump idea; it’s a commonsense principle that has been adopted by presidents over the past 100 years.

In 1917, President Woodrow Wilson — hardly a conservative hero — purchased the Danish West Indies (now the U.S. Virgin Islands) to protect American interests in the Caribbean. That purchase, made for $25 million, was driven by fears that Germany might use the islands as a naval base during World War I.

The same logic applies to Greenland today. Its strategic location makes it a linchpin for Arctic security, and its resources are vital to America’s energy independence and technological future.

By prioritizing Greenland, President Trump is thinking beyond short-term political wins. He’s positioning America to lead in the Arctic while countering the growing influence of China and Russia. This is the kind of bold, visionary leadership that America needs — and it’s why the left hates it so much. The left would rather focus on short-term optics and partisan squabbles than confront the real challenges facing our nation.

The Arctic is the new frontier, and Greenland is the gateway. President Trump’s focus on Greenland isn’t some outlandish idea — it’s a strategic imperative. Whether through a purchase, a partnership, or a deeper alliance, America must act now to secure its interests in this critical region. This is about more than politics or headlines. It’s about ensuring that America remains strong, secure, and free for generations to come.

Want more from Glenn Beck? Get Glenn's FREE email newsletter with his latest insights, top stories, show prep, and more delivered to your inbox.

Trump Signs Orders Restoring Integrity And Lethality To America’s Military

Trump's orders seek to place meritocracy at the forefront of the Pentagon's decision-making.

Die, DEI: Trump Signs Executive Order Banning 'Woke' Program in Military

President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order that abolishes diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in the military.

The post Die, DEI: Trump Signs Executive Order Banning 'Woke' Program in Military appeared first on .

No One Is Being Banned From The Military. Radical Transgender Accommodations Are

For any self-identified transgender people with hopes of serving in our military, there’s good news! You still can! Just maybe don’t show up to the recruiter announcing that you have a penis and expect to be sleeping in the women’s barracks. President Trump is reportedly set to sign an executive order that will prohibit taxpayer-funded […]

Trump reinstating thousands of US service members discharged for refusing COVID shot



President Donald Trump is set to sign an executive order Monday reinstating thousands of American service members who were discharged for refusing experimental COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic. Doing so will amount to another promise kept by the Republican, who stated in August, "I will rehire every patriot that was fired with an apology and backpay. They will get their backpay and an apology from our government."

Former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin issued a memo on Aug. 24, 2021, both declaring that "mandatory vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 is necessary to protect the Force" and characterizing the novel vaccines as safe and effective.

The Biden administration's vaccine mandate for U.S. service members was ultimately rescinded in January 2023 as the result of a Republican-backed requirement added to the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act. However, during the 16 months the mandate was in effect, roughly 17,000 service members refused to take the vaccine.

While around 1,200 troops were reportedly able to secure exemptions, Pentagon records indicated that 3,717 Marines, 1,816 soldiers, and 2,064 sailors were discharged for refusing the vaccine that had left some of their compatriots with health complications such as myocarditis or, in the case of former National Guard specialist Karoline Stancik, three heart attacks and a stroke.

'They will be apologized to.'

A White House official confirmed to the New York Post that Trump's executive order will cover active-duty or reserve service members who were discharged for refusing the vaccine between 2021 and 2023. Over 8,000 service members are expected to be restored to their previous rank and provided both backpay and full benefits.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth pledged during his confirmation hearing earlier this month to reinstate and reimburse troops ousted for refusing an "experimental vaccine" as Trump had promised.

"Tens of thousands of service members were kicked out because of an experimental vaccine," said Hegseth. "They will be apologized to. They will be reinstated, reinstituted with pay and rank."

The Military Times indicated that rectifying the Biden administration's error might prove costly as backpay alone might run upwards of hundreds of millions of dollars. Nevertheless, it will make whole those who were kicked to the curb for questioning a vaccine shown in some cases to cause significant harm.

A study published January 2024 in the pharmacotherapy journal Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety indicated that "COVID-19 vaccination is strongly associated with a serious adverse safety signal of myocarditis, particularly in children and young adults resulting in hospitalization and death."

A study conducted by the Global COVID Vaccine Safety Project — a Global Vaccine Data Network initiative supported by both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the HHS — and published last year in the journal Vaccine detailed unsettling links between the AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Pfizer vaccines and medical conditions such as Guillain-Barré syndrome, brain and spinal cord inflammation, Bell's palsy, and convulsions.

Rep. Brian Mast (R-Fla.), a retired U.S. Army Ranger, celebrated Trump's decision to reinstate the troops, telling "Fox & Friends" that it is a "great day for patriots, a great day for our service members, my brothers and sisters in arms."

"Let's not forget," said Mast, "it wasn't just the military. It was other government agencies as well, where they were essentially washing [out] conservatives that were raising their hand, saying, 'I don't want to take this vaccine.'"

"They were washing them out of government, washing them out of West Point and Naval Academy, Air Force, Coast Guard, Merchant Marine academies, washing them out from being on the next promotion boards for first sergeants, sergeants, majors, or officers, and they were creating a system where the ones that were going to be giving promotion to the next classes of individuals were all going to be those that didn't say, 'No, I'm not a conservative, and you know, I'm OK with everything that you're doing right now,'" said Mast. "That's what was taking place."

While the reinstatement might be greatly welcomed by some troops, there may be others who have no interest in returning. After all, within eight months of the repeal of the vaccine mandate, only 43 of the over 8,000 service members given the boot decided to rejoin.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Senate Confirms Pete Hegseth As America’s Next Defense Secretary

Following a months-long media smear campaign, the Senate voted to confirm Pete Hegseth as America's next defense secretary Friday night.

How to Make Trump’s ‘Golden Age’ a Reality

“America’s golden age begins now,” President Trump declared Monday. Spot the difference: His first inaugural described “American carnage.” His second address pledges a renaissance.

If only proclamations made it so. Wealth, innovation, growth, and power aren’t conjured by words. They result from policies. Get the politics right, and the nation flourishes. Make the wrong move and decline follows.

Which is why Trump’s executive orders are important. On the critical subjects of energy, regulation, and technology, they suggest that he grasps the formula for success.

The post How to Make Trump’s ‘Golden Age’ a Reality appeared first on .

‘This Isn’t Journalism’: GOP Sen. Bill Hagerty Blasts Propaganda Media’s Smear Campaign Against Pete Hegseth

While speaking on the Senate floor on Thursday, Sen. Bill Hagerty, R-Tenn., offered a scathing takedown of the propaganda media’s disgusting attempts to tank Pete Hegseth’s defense secretary nomination. “Despite Pete’s qualifications, the mainstream media, desperate to derail President Trump and his nominees, has gone after Pete’s character by airing false and unsubstantiated claims,” Hagerty […]

Pentagon Deploying 1,500 More Troops To Secure Southern Border, Officials Say

The Pentagon will send up to 1,500 additional active-duty troops to the southern border, following President Donald Trump’s executive orders on border security, officials said Wednesday.

The post Pentagon Deploying 1,500 More Troops To Secure Southern Border, Officials Say appeared first on .