Day: July 10, 2024

Sen. Bob Menendez’s lawyer cites patriotism as a reason to acquit his client  Buffalo News

Sen. Bob Menendez’s lawyer cites patriotism as a reason to acquit his client  KVIA

By Connor O’Keeffe

After a disastrousdebate performancetwo weeks ago and a weak damage-controlinterviewlast Friday, it’s finally become clear to almost everyone that President Joe Biden isnot runningthe federal government.

Every four years, we’re supposed to pretend that a single individual, who we collectively choose at the ballot box, takes charge of the federal government and acts as we would to address the problems we face at home and abroad.

Biden’s inability to get through a debate and a sit-down interview without issues shatters the illusion that he is the one running things in Washington and across America’s globe-spanning sphere of influence.

So, if Biden is not actually running the government, who is?

There are, of course, the people around Biden. Some of his family members—like his wife, Jill Biden, and son, Hunter Biden—have beenespecially closeby these last weeks as the president weathers the debate fallout. There’s also Biden’s closestadvisorsand political confidants like Mike Donilon, Ron Klain, Anita Dunn, and Ted Kaufman, who have been at the president’s side since he decided to run in 2020. Finally, there’s the White House staff who does much, if not all, of the day-to-day work.

But this group makes up only a small part of the broader power structure in Washington. To understand where federal power truly lies, we have to zoom out.

The political class in America is made up of countless organizations, departments, and factions. However, four unique groups can be defined.

First are the politicians and all those who are appointed by politicians. Think of presidents, senators, and representatives, but also cabinet members, ambassadors, and federal judges. These are many of the most-visible members of the political class. They’re who people picture when they think of American politics.

Second, there are all the unelected bureaucrats who make up the permanent, administrative components of the federal government. Most of them can be found in the dozens ofexecutive agencieslocated in and around Washington, DC. Where the first group is made up of a couple thousand people, the second group accounts for close tothree million. It’s the bulk of the federal government.

The third group is what we can call the official or “court” intellectuals. These are the “experts” in academia and at think tanks, as well as the “journalists” at the most prominent media organizations, who excuse and justify the actions and ambitions of the rest of the political class.

As Murray Rothbardexplainedin the third chapter ofAnatomy of the State, political authorities have always relied on intellectuals to affirm the state’s legitimacy in the minds of the broader population. Intellectuals, who are often frustrated with how little people are willing to pay for their intellectual services, are easily lured into serving the state’s interest in exchange for official recognition,access, andtax dollars.

The fourth and final group are the plutocrats. They are the people and firms who owe their profits and wealth to the actions of the federal government and who lobby and pay to use government power to line their pockets. Think of the heads of the big banks or the weapons companies that supply Washington’s war machine.

These four groups form the coalition that makes up the political class. The “establishment” simply refers to the established, or current, political class. And, together, this coalition works to empower and enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.

Court intellectuals use their establishment-sanctioned “expertise” to argue that society’s problems must be solved with government interventions. Politicians offer to enact these interventions in exchange for votes and donations. Plutocrats work to warp the interventions to their own benefit and then lobby and pay politicians to legislate even more lucrative interventions. After they are enacted, the easily predicted bad consequences of the interventions are used by court intellectuals and politicians to justify even more interventions.

Meanwhile, the bureaucratic group gains jobs, money, and power that it works with court intellectuals to protect and expand. The ever-growing interventions build up more government power that is then offered up to interested plutocratic buyers. All the while, politicians put on their sham fights with each other over minor policy differences along with their electoral and legislative rituals to obscure the scam and to keep us all believing that we live in a representative democratic republic.

That is the cycle churning in Washington, DC. The fact that the president is cognitively impaired is essentially irrelevant.

That is unless it begins to wake the American public up to the fact that the government does not work for us like we were all taught it does in elementary school. But until then, the churn continues.

• About the author: Connor O’Keeffe (@ConnorMOKeeffe) produces media and content at the Mises Institute. He has a master’s in economics and a bachelor’s in geology.
• Source: This article was published at the Mises Institute

By Aidan Grogan

Prince Philip oncesaid, “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.” The late Duke of Edinburgh passed away in 2017, but the hysterical sentiment he expressed about overpopulation lives on.

AYouGovpollfound that overpopulation concerns are widespread among adults across the planet, with nearly half of sampled Americans believing that the world’s population is too high. This view is shared by 76 percent of Hungarians and 69 percent of Indians, according to the poll.

Overpopulation and ecological disasters have been the themes of numerous blockbuster movies, includingZPD(1972),Soylent Green(1973),Idiocracy(2006), andElysium(2013). Mainstream news outlets have repeatedly promoted the apocalyptic idea to the public, with headlines such as “Science proves kids are bad for Earth. Morality suggests we stop having them” (NBC News). The progressive magazineFast Companyreleased avideotitled “Why having kids is the worst thing you can do for the planet.”

The theory of overpopulation, and the collectivist idea that human reproduction must be limited, even by force, is nothing new. It first appeared in the ancient MesopotamianAtrahasisepic, where the gods control the human population by infertility, infanticide, and appointing a priest class to limit childbirth.

Plato and Aristotle both endorsed a form of proto-eugenics and population control. InThe Republic, Socrates and Glaucon conclude that an owner controlling the breeding of his dogs and birds to prevent their degeneration should also apply to the human species. The guardians would be tasked with deciding who is allowed to reproduce and who should be prohibited from having offspring. InPolitics, Aristotle advocated for state-mandated abortions of children with deformities or in cases where couples are having too many children and contributing to overpopulation.

The decline of Greek civilization in the second century BCE was not a consequence of an excess number of births, but precisely the opposite. Polybiusattributedthe downfall of Greece in his time to a decay of population which emptied out the cities and resulted in a failure of productiveness. It was not warfare and pestilence which reduced the birth rate, but decadence. The idle men of Greece, according to Polybius, were more interested in money and pleasure than marriage and child-rearing.

Two millennia later, English economist Thomas Malthus resurrected the old Mesopotamian myth with his 1798An Essay on the Principle of Population. Malthus claimed that population growth increases geometrically while food production increases only arithmetically, which he believed would lead to widespread famine if the rapid propagation of humanity were not obstructed.

He identified two checks, one natural and one human-induced, which could keep population growth limited:preventive checks, such as delayed marriage or sexual abstinence, that stabilize the birth rate and evade the natural calamities ofpositive checks —famines, pestilences, earthquakes, floods, etc. — which represent nature’s striking back against the pressures of unhindered population growth.

Malthus preferred the former, but if unsuccessful, supported appalling and brutal depopulation measures. Hesuggestedpolicies to “make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague.” He also recommended banning “specific remedies for ravaging diseases.”

In 1859, Charles Darwin’sOnthe Origin of Speciesargued that species evolved gradually from a common ancestor. His follow-upThe Descent of Manposited that humans descended from their ape-like past through a process of sexual selection that favored the stronger, more intelligent genes. Darwin said that his evolutionary theory “is the doctrine of Malthus applied with manifold force to the whole animal and vegetable kingdoms.”

Darwin’s cousin,Francis Galton, used Darwin’s theory of evolution to develop eugenics — a pseudo-scientific theory that the human race could be improved through controlled breeding.

Subsidized by some of the largest philanthropic organizations in the United States, including theRockefeller Foundationand theCarnegie Institution, eugenics was embraced by many leaders of the American progressive movement, who favored involuntary sterilization and immigration restriction.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of the American Birth Control League — later to be renamed Planned Parenthood —denigrated charityand referred to the poor as “human waste.” She and her companions considered severalnamesfor their movement, such as “neo-Malthusianism,” “population control,” and “race control,” before finally settling on “birth control.”

The eugenicists’ fervent collectivism and disregard for America’s founding principles affirming the inherent dignity and rights of every individual were best expressed through Madison Grant’sThe Passing of the Great Race, in which he wrote:

Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and a sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilization of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community. The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit and human life is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race.

Eugenics laws wereimplementedacross the United States beginning with Indiana in 1907. By the Second World War, around 60,000 Americans had undergone sterilization.

In Britain, eugenics was enthusiastically championed by socialists such as John Maynard Keynes, George Bernard Shaw, andHG Wells. Keyneswrotean outline for a book calledProlegomena to a New Socialism, in which he listed “eugenics, population” as “chief preoccupations of the state.”

Eugenics — at least under that official title — began to fade after the harsh realities of the Holocaust were unveiled, but the Malthusian presuppositions which undergirded their movement never vanished.

Stanford biologist Paul R. Ehrlich’s 1968 bookThe Population Bombre-invigorated the Malthusian craze for a new generation, predicting imminent worldwide famines and other catastrophes due to overpopulation. In the prologue, he wrote: “We can no longer afford merely to treat the symptom of the cancer of population growth; the cancer itself must be cut out. Population control is the only answer.”

That same year, a group of European scientists concerned about the future of the planet founded an NGO called theClub of Rome. Their first major publication,Limits to Growth(1972), attacked the pursuit of material gain and continuous economic expansion. Two of the Club of Rome’s most prominent members openly declared in their 1991 bookThe First Global Revolutionthat humanity is the real enemy:

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill…All these dangers are caused byhumanintervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.

At the time of the publication of Ehrlich’s doomsday bookand the Club of Rome’s founding, theworld’s populationstood at 3.6 billion, and nearly half of people worldwide wereliving in poverty. Over the next five decades, the global population more than doubled to 7.7 billion, yet fewer than 9 percent of people remain in poverty today, and famines havevirtually disappeared.

Ehrlich’s hypothesis was rejected by economist Julian Simon in his 1981 bookThe Ultimate Resource, in which he argued that a rising number of “skilled, spirited, and hopeful people” results in more ingenuity, less scarcity, and lower costs in the long run. In other words, the larger the human population, the greater the collective brain power our species may wield to innovate, overcome problems, and benefit everyone through increased abundance. The ultimate resource, according to Simon, is people.

Recentresearchfrom Gale L. Pooley and Marian L. Tupy has vindicated Simon’s optimistic view. For every one-percent increase in population, commodity prices tend to fall by around one percent. In the years 1980-2017, the planet’s resources became 380 percent more abundant.

These findings decimate the Malthusian outlook and render advocacy of population control not only ill-informed and inexcusable, but frankly anti-human. The ecological cataclysms predicted by Ehrlich and the Club of Rome haven’t come true. Nature hasn’t struck back against a rapidly increasing population in any manner anticipated by Malthus.

As former US Department of Energy Undersecretary for Science Steven E. Koonin pointed out in his 2021 book Unsettled, UN and US government climate data show the following: 1) humans have had no detectable impact on hurricanes over the past century, 2) Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago, and 3) the net economic impact of human-induced climate change will be minimal through at least the end of this century.

Pooley and Tupy, however, caution that population growth alone is not enough to generate what they term “superabundance,” as they titled their recentbook. The innovation required to sustain an ever-increasing world population demands economic and personal freedom. Collectivism and central planning will only restrict the human ingenuity, ideas, and enterprises that will pave the way toward a brighter, more prosperous future.

It is certainly time to lay to rest Malthusian theory and the overpopulation hysteria it has aroused. We must avoid the cynical outlook on humanity which regards us as net destroyers, a viral pathogen ravaging the earth, and instead opt for the more positive — and true — vision of human beings and human destiny. We are net creators. 

• About the author: Aidan Grogan is the donor communications manager at the American Institute for Economic Research. He earned a BS in journalism from Illinois State University and an MA in English from Liberty University. He is currently pursuing a PhD in history at Liberty. 
• Source: This article was published by AIER

India is experiencing a surge in self-reliance, especially in the defence sector. With the easing of government restrictions, many local startups are challenging well-known firearm manufacturers, such as Heckler & Koch, Sig Sauer and FN Herstal.

One notable startup, the Bengaluru-based SSS Defence—part of the Stumpp Schuele & Somappa Group—is focused on making India self-sufficient by reducing the need for imported firearms for the armed forces and law-enforcement agencies.

Founded in 2017, SSS Defence specializes in manufacturing small arms, ammunition and high-end firearm accessories, such as optics. With a strong emphasis on innovation and smart design, the company aims to create advanced defence technology that integrates thoughtful design, precise engineering and top-notch operational performance. To meet the needs of the country’s defence forces and law-enforcement agencies, SSS Defence is developing advanced weapon systems and updating existing ones to handle modern challenges.

The company builds on the legacy of Padma Shri Machani Somappa, a former Indian industrialist. In 1960, he founded Stumpp, Schuele and Somappa, in partnership with the renowned German spring manufacturers, Stump & Schuele. This venture became the first spring manufacturing unit in the Indian subcontinent.

Sabre: Advanced .338 Lapua Magnum Sniper Rifle

A foreign nation is now also a major export client client of SSS Defence for its .338 Lapua Magnum-calibre sniper rifles. The contract is completed. Sabre, the sniper rifle, and its barrel, is entirely designed and built in India.

The term, ‘338 Lapua Magnum calibre’, refers to a specific type of rifle cartridge. A .338 Lapua Magnum cartridge features a bullet that is about .338 inches in diameter and is designed for high accuracy and long-range performance.

Here is what it means:

• .338: This indicates the diameter of the bullet, which is approximately .338 inches (8.6 millimetres)
• Lapua Magnum: This signifies the cartridge’s design and origin, developed by the Finnish company, Lapua, for long-range precision shooting

Interestingly, besides the sniper rifles, the private firm has secured contracts to supply nearly USD 50 million worth of ammunition to several friendly countries. Sources also mentioned that SSS Defence had successfully completed the export of sniper rifles designed for targets of up to 1,500 metres and beyond. The company is currently in discussions with a few other countries, as well.

Reason for India’s shift to Advanced Sniper Rifles

Defence sources have indicated that, while private companies are actively seeking clients, the Indian government is supporting them with faster clearances and directing foreign requests their way. India’s annual defence production reached a record high of approximately Rs 1.27 lakh crore in 2023-’24, with the ‘Make in India’ programme achieving new milestones.

The 7.62x54mm Dragunov Semi-Automatic Sniper Rifle

Until recently, and still to some extent today, the Indian Army has used the Russian-made 7.62x54mm Dragunov designated marksman rifle (DMR) as its standard-issue, long-range rifle.

• The 7.62x54mm Dragunov designated marksman rifle (DMR) is a semi-automatic sniper rifle developed in the Soviet Union. Designed for long-range shooting, it has an effective range of up to 800 metres. It is commonly used by the military forces to provide accurate fire support at extended distances.
• The designation, ‘7.62x54mm’, refers to the cartridge used by the DMR. Specifically, ‘7.62’ indicates the diameter of the bullet in millimetres, while ‘54mm’ denotes the length of the cartridge case in millimetres. Therefore, a 7.62x54mm cartridge features a bullet that is 7.62 millimetres in diameter and a case that is 54 millimetres long.

But the 7.62x54mm bullet lacks enough firepower to effectively hit a target beyond 900-1,000 metres. As a result, the army is looking to purchase rifles that use the .338 Lapua Magnum cartridge. The Indian Army has requisitioned 4,500 sniper rifles, with bids submitted over a year and a half ago, but the trials are yet to begin. This export order mirrors the confidence of a foreign user and the .338 Lapua Magnum Sabre rifle seems to be a strong contender for winning this contract.

Federal Reserve Board Chair Jerome Powell has been saying for some time that he needs to see more evidence that inflation is under control before he lowers interest rates. We can never be certain of where the economy is going, so it’s understandable that he remains worried that inflation could reaccelerate.

However, there are risks in the opposite direction as well which Powell has explicitly recognized in the past. He has stated that the Fed has an obligation to maximize employment and said that this part of the Fed’s mandate needs to be taken as seriously as its commitment to price stability. That is why many of us were happy President Biden reappointed him as Fed chair. But he has to actnowto show this commitment.

June Jobs

The June jobs report released Friday can hardly be viewed as bad. The establishment survey showed the economy creating 206,000 jobs, while the household survey reported the unemployment rate was 4.1 percent (4.05 percent before rounding). Those topline numbers are healthy by almost any standard, but there is cause for concern on both sides.

On the establishment side, the prior two months’ numbers were revised down by a total of 111,000, which means that the June number was only 95,000 larger than the estimate of jobs from the establishment survey that we were looking at in May. This makes the average job gain for the last three months 177,000. That is a reasonable number given current estimates of potential labor force growth, but certainly not a pace that should give the Fed cause for concern about excessive inflationary pressures.

It’s also worth noting that more than a third (70,000) of the job growth in June was in the government sector, almost entirely at the state and local level. Government jobs substantially lagged behind the private sector in this recovery, so this growth is mostly a catch-up story, but it is likely an anomaly. With many state and local governments now facing shortfalls as COVID funds get depleted, they will not be hiring at anywhere near this pace going forward.

Over the last three months, we have created an average of 146,000 private sector jobs. Again, this is a fine pace, but hardly one that should prompt fears of accelerating inflation.

On the household side, we have been seeing a gradual uptick in the unemployment rate since it bottomed out at 3.4 percent last April. If this trend continues, we will be having a serious issue with unemployment. As it is, we should be able to do better than 4.1 percent. The unemployment rate averaged 3.7 percent in 2019, with no clear evidence of inflationary pressures.

As Chair Powell has noted, higher unemployment disproportionately impacts groups that face discrimination in the labor market. We see this clearly with the unemployment rate for Black workers. This bottomed out at 4.8 percent last April (an all-time low). It now stands at 6.3 percent, an increase of 1.5 percentage points.

Getting the unemployment rate down by another half percentage point will make a noticeable difference in the prospects for disadvantaged groups. It should be an important policy goal.

Other data in the household survey also provide some basis for concern. The share of long-term unemployment (more than 26 weeks) has edged up to 22.2 percent of the unemployed. It had been under 19.0 percent at the start of the year. This indicates more people are having serious problems finding jobs.

Another item showing labor force weakness is the relatively small share of unemployment due to voluntary quits. This share stood at 11.2 percent in June, which was up slightly from 10.8 percent in May. This is very low given the overall unemployment rate. It averaged 13.1 percent in the two years before the pandemic. It peaked at 16.0 percent in September 2022. This indicates that workers don’t feel the sort of confidence about their labor market prospects that we would expect given a 4.1 percent unemployment rate.

The June job report also shows that wage growth has slowed to a level that the Fed should feel comfortable with. The annualized rate for the last three months was just 3.6 percent, only a couple of tenths higher than the average for 2018-2019. The year-over-year rate was 3.9 percent.

Other labor market data show a similar trend. The JOLTS data show the job openings rate falling back from a record high at the start of 2022 to roughly the same level as pre-pandemic peaks. The quit rate has fallen to a level slightly below the peaks of 2018-2019. Unemployment insurance claims and continuing claims, after hitting record lows, are now actually slightly higher as a share of the workforce than before the pandemic.

Non governmental data tell the same story. For example, theIndeedWage Tracker in April showed that wage growth for new hires averaged just 3.1 percent more than a year ago. This is the same as the rate of increase before the pandemic. Since this measure only looks at new hires, it tends to lead movements in the labor market as a whole. This supports the view that wage growth is likely to continue to slow.

It is also important to remember that the profit share of income has increased by almost 2.0 percentage points since the start of the pandemic. Unless the Fed has the view that any rise in the profit share is permanent, it should be prepared to see wage growth somewhat in excess of what might be a sustainable noninflationary long-term rate in order to restore the wage share at least to its pre-pandemic level. It will have to rise considerably further in order for the wage share to revert to its level at the start of the century.

Inflation Is Near the Fed’s Target

Chair Powell has repeatedly said that the 2.0 percent target was an average, not a ceiling. That should mean that an inflation rate close to 2.0 percent is consistent with the target.

Taking the year-over-year numbers we are still considerably higher than 2.0 percent, but this is mostly a story driven by rent. In the case of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), the year-over-year figure is 3.3 percent, but without shelter, it is just 2.1 percent. With the PCE, year-over-year inflation is 2.6 percent, but without shelter it is less than 1.9 percent.

It is reasonable to pull out shelter since this is driven by leases that were signed 1–2 years ago. The inflation rate for rent on housing units that go on the market is very low and possibly less than zero. The inflation rate for shelter will converge on the rate for new units even if the timing of this convergence is uncertain. But the point is that the Fed can be confident that the direction of inflation in the near-term is lower, going towards the Fed’s target.

We also know that expectations of inflation by many measures are back or nearly back to their pre-pandemic levels. The Atlanta Fed’smeasureof business expectations of year-ahead inflation is 2.3 percent, a rate that we saw at several points in 2018–2019. The other regional Feds’ indexes for manufacturers’ expectations of prices paid and prices received also show a return to pre-pandemic rates.

The breakeven inflation rate for five-year inflation-indexed bonds is now just over 2.2 percent, virtually the same as the rate at several points in 2018. Also, it is important to remember that the index used for these bonds is the CPI, which typically has an inflation rate that is 0.2–0.3 percentage points higher than the PCE that the Fed targets. This means that expectations in the bond market are that inflation will be at or perhaps slightly below the rate targeted by the Fed.

The story here is that the risk of an inflationary spiral like what we saw in the 1970s is now near zero. Wage growth has moderated to a pace that is almost the same as what we saw before the pandemic and is likely to slow further. In addition, inflation has been gradually slowing for the last two years and is virtually certain to continue to slow.

The Fed’s Rate Cut Trade-Offs

Much reporting has framed the rate cut decision as one where the Fed has to be worried about being embarrassed by lowering rates too soon and seeing a reacceleration of inflation. The argument is that the Fed erred by waiting too long before raising rates in 2022, which allowed inflation to get higher than if the Fed had been more vigilant. Since the Fed had made this mistake, it doesn’t want to again err on the side of excessive inflation by cutting rates too soon, which would be a major embarrassment.

While that may be the framing of some observers, there is little logic to the argument. The Fed has its dual responsibilities of maintaining low inflation and maximizing employment. If it now errs by needlessly allowing the unemployment rate to continue to rise, it does not somehow even the score. This mistake is not made any better by the fact that it made a mistake in the opposite direction three years ago. The Fed has to try to make the right call now, based on the data it has.

On that front, it seems difficult to maintain that excessive inflation is a greater threat than a weakening labor market. The unemployment rate has risen 0.7 percentage points in the last 14 months. It is now 0.3 percentage points higher than the average we saw in the last two years before the pandemic. That corresponds to another 510,000 people being unemployed who would be employed if we had a stronger labor market. If current trends continue, this figure will rise further over the next year. This should be taken seriously.

There is also the point that high interest rates have put a serious dent in the housing market. Sales of existing homes are down by more than 30 percent from their peaks in 2021 before the Fed started raising rates. As a result, hundreds of thousands of potential first-time buyers are being kept out of the housing market. Millions of homeowners who might otherwise sell their homes are keeping them off the market and being prevented from making moves they want to make.

While rates will not decline to the point where we again see the 3.0 percent mortgages of 2021, it is reasonable to believe that lower rates from the Fed can get the mortgage rate back under 6.0 percent and eventually close to 5.0 percent. That would make a huge difference in the housing market.

High rates are also increasing financial instability. It is unlikely that we will see more failures like the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023, but banks will be hit in the months and years ahead by the write-down of loans on commercial real estate. Lower rates will make it far easier for them to get through a rash of defaults and bankruptcies in this sector. The housing market and financial stability may not rank as high as maximizing employment and low inflation on the Fed’s priority list, but they are factors it should take into account in setting interest rates.

There are events in the world that could see a reigniting of inflation. The Houthi attacks on shipping in the Red Sea have sent shipping costs soaring, which will be passed on in higher prices. A larger war in the Middle East could take oil offline and send gas prices soaring again. Many other possible disasters could be added to this list.

But these sorts of events are always a risk. The Fed can’t design monetary policy with the idea that it should try to limit inflation in the event some crisis occurs. It needs to respond to the economy that it is seeing at the time. And right now, this economy is arguing for lower rates.

• This article first appeared on Dean Baker’s Beat the Press blog.

By Can Kasapoğlu

Introduction

The NATO Parliamentary Assembly’s Science and Technology Committeeconsidersemerging and disruptive technologies (EDTs) capable of transforming future military capabilities and warfare through advanced tech applications. Today, official documents indicate that NATO’s EDT-generation efforts focus onnine areas: artificial intelligence (AI), autonomous systems, quantum technologies, biotechnology and human enhancement technologies, space, hypersonic systems, novel materials and manufacturing, energy and propulsion, and next-generation communications networks.

This brief does not cover all of Turkey’s defense-technological capabilities but aims to outline Turkey’s growing focus on EDTs and high-tech advancements. Some signature programs reflect Turkey’s political-military approach and the trends in defense-technological and industrial policies. These programs hint at Ankara’s future military modernization efforts and smart assets. This paper highlights some of Turkey’s critical defense tech programs, focusing on AI, robotics, directed energy weapons, and future soldier/exoskeleton technologies to illustrate the comprehensive and integrated structure of the Turkish EDT ecosystem.

Emerging and disruptive technologies, the future of war, and NATO

Breakthroughs in EDTs are essential for NATO’s future military strength. They will significantly impact defense economics and help shape NATO’s defense-technological and industrial priorities. These efforts involve not just state policies but also public-private partnerships and transatlantic cooperation for sustainable and comprehensive EDT initiatives.

NATO supports these projects through initiatives like theDefence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlanticand theNATO-Private Sector Dialogues, which explore collaboration between NATO and private companies on technology and defense.

According to Greg Ulmer, currentlypresidentof Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, “thedecisive edgein today and tomorrow’s missions will be determined by combining technologies to bring forward new capabilities.” This view issharedby US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, demonstrating the importance of AI in Washington’s military modernization efforts to deter adversaries in a future confrontation. There seems to be a consensus in the Western policy community thatintegrating AIand machine learning into modern battle networks, perhaps the most critical contemporary EDT applications in defense, is essential to succeed in tomorrow’s wars. In an era of increasingly digital and transparent warfare, rapid technological adaptation is key to success.

Smart technologies are proliferating fast, and continuous innovation has become a strategic requirement in today’s geopolitical landscape. AI-augmented precision kill chains, hypersonic weapons within mixed-strike packages, and satellite internet-enabled command and control nodes are already changing warfare. The use of commercial satellite imagery and geospatial intelligence has revolutionized open-source intelligence.Facial recognitionalgorithms are now used in war crime investigations. Robotic warfare,drone-on-drone engagements, and manned-unmanned teaming are all changing the characteristics of war for better or worse.

Defense economics is also changing. Start-ups are becoming increasingly essential actors in military innovation. According to McKinsey & Company, the number of seed funding rounds in defense and dual-use technology (in the United States) almost doubled between 2011 and 2023, hinting at arapid proliferationof start-ups in the high-tech defense industry. This trend is fostering new collaborations. NATO isleveraging the strengths of the start-up industrywith a $1.1 billion Innovation Fund and is reportedly working with several European tech companies on robotic solutions, AI-driven systems, and semiconductors.

Keeping up with innovation is like boarding a fast-moving train, where getting a good seat ensures a strategic advantage over competitors. By investing in holistic, across-the-spectrum EDT-generation efforts, Turkish decision-makers seem to recognize this imperative.

Great expectations: Turkey in the high-technology battlespace

Turkey has faced challenges with industrial advancements, lagging behind in the Industrial Revolution. For instance, the country’s first main battle tank is still not in service. Despite ambitions to operate its fifth-generation combat aircraft, Kaan, within a decade, Turkey has not ever produced third- or fourth-generation tactical military aircraft. This situation is striking given that Turkey excels in producing and exporting state-of-the-art drones but has struggled with other key conventional military assets.

According toHaluk Bayraktar, CEO of the prominent Turkish unmanned aerial systems manufacturer Baykar, missing out on the Industrial Revolution has slowed Turkey’s military modernization. However, it also pushed the country to leverage digital age technologies, building new strengths in intelligent assets and EDTs.

In recent decades, Turkey’s military-industrial sector has focused heavily on innovation and increasing research and development, driven by a desire for self-sufficiency and operational sovereignty. The country’sNational Artificial Intelligence Strategy 2021-2025outlines these ambitions. Forming the central pillar of the government’s AI policy, thedocument“focuses on generating value on a global scale with an agile and sustainable AI ecosystem.” The strategy also lays out the strategic pillars of the effort, including strengthening international collaboration, encouraging innovation, and increasing the number of experts working on AI.

Similarly, the 2023-2027 Sectoral Strategy Document of the Turkish Presidency of Defense Industries outlinesseveral focus areas for Turkey’s future EDT efforts. These include quantum computing, nanotechnology, and directed energy weapons. The document also highlights the importance of establishing a sustainable, resilient production and testing infrastructure for advanced aerial platforms and increasing the competitiveness of Turkey’s high-tech defense exports.

Selected military programs

Kemankeş loitering munitions baseline

Turkey’s aerial drone warfare capabilities first gained attention with medium-altitude long-endurance (MALE) and high-altitude long-endurance (HALE) platforms such as the Bayraktar TB-2 MALE drone, Akıncı HALE unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), and TUSAS’ Anka MALE drone baseline. Recently, Turkey’s has advanced further in this field, developing smart aerial assets such as the Kemankeş family.

The Kemankeş, introduced by Baykar in 2023, is a “mini-intelligent cruise missile” thatcombines featuresof loitering munitions and cruise missiles. It can carry a6-kilogram payload, and operates autonomously with an AI-supported autopilot system, one-hour endurance, and a jet engine. The Kemankeş is designed for both striking targets and conducting intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance missions. It can be integrated with other aerial drones, making it a versatile tool in modern warfare.

The Kemankeş system offers advanced datalinks and sensors, providing real-time battle updates while targeting adversaries. The upgraded version,Kemankeş-2, boasts a range of over 200 kilometers and an AI-supported autopilot system for precise, autonomous flight. Baykar announced thatKemankeş-2 passed its system verification testsin June 2024.

Kemankeş-2 can operate day and night, in various weather conditions, and in environments where GPS is jammed. Its AI-supported optical guidance system demonstrates Turkey’s rapid advancements in robotic aerial technology.

Naval and ground robotic warfare capabilities

Russia’s war on Ukraine and the ongoing turmoil in the Red Sea have highlighted the importance of kamikaze naval drones. In the Black Sea, Ukraine has used unmanned surface vehicles (USV) compensate for its lack of conventional naval capabilities. It has successfully eliminated aboutone-thirdof the Russian Black Sea Fleet with naval drones and other long-range capabilities such as the Storm Shadow/SCALP-EG air-launched cruise missiles and coastal defense missiles. Similarly, in the Red Sea, Iranian-backed Houthis have employed low-cost kamikaze USVs effective anti-access/area-denial assets, disrupting global maritime trade and limiting Western commercial activities in the region. Some assessments suggest that the United States should consider forming “hedge forces”consisting entirelyof unmanned, low-cost systems to counter initial aggression from a peer opponent, such as in a scenario involving China invading Taiwan. This strategy would minimize harm to military personnel and the loss of valuable equipment.

Turkey has one of the largest USV programs within NATO, with about half a dozen ongoing projects. For example, Marlin, produced by the Turkish defense giant Aselsan and Sefine Shipyards,was the first Turkishnaval drone to participate in NATO joint exercises, indicating potential for coalition warfare.

Turkey is also advancing its ground warfare capabilities, leveraging its expertise in robotics. Otokar’s Alpar is a recent example of an unmanned ground vehicle (UGV)that canmap the battlefield in 2D and 3D, navigate without a global navigation satellite system, identify friend or foe, and has Advanced Driver Assistance Systems, low thermal and acoustic signature, and autonomous patrol capability. It can also serve as a “mother tank” for smaller UGVs, enhancing mission capability. Alpar hasbeen showcased at major international defense exhibitions, including the Eurosatory 2024 event held in Paris in June.

In addition to developing new robotic systems, Turkey is focusing on innovative concepts likeHavelsan’s “digital troops,”which integrate manned and unmanned teams to act as force multipliers on the battlefield. These efforts across multiple domains demonstrate Turkey’s vision of becoming a leading player in a“Mad Max”-like battlespacethat combines conventional and smart assets.

Laser precision: Turkey’s drive in directed energy weapon projects

In Turkey’s expansion of EDTs, directed energy weapons and laser guns are gaining attention. The prominent Turkish arms maker Roketsan has introduced the Alka Directed Energy Weapon System, which has successfullycompletedlive fire tests. The Alka system combines soft kill and hard kill capabilities, featuring both an electromagnetic jamming system and a laser destruction system.

Another key initiative is Aselsan’s Gökberk Mobile Laser Weapon System, first unveiled at the Turkish defense exhibition IDEF in 2023. Gökberkcansearch for, detect, and track UAVs using radar and electro-optical sensors, and then intercept these threats with an effective laser weapon. Additionally, Gökberk has soft kill capabilities, using its Kangal jammer subsystem to render UAVs dysfunctional. According to Aselsan, Gökberk can protect land and naval platforms, critical national infrastructure, and border outposts.

Turkish future soldier concepts

Turkey is also advancing future soldier technologies as part of its efforts in EDTs. The concept, pioneered by the United Kingdom within NATO, aims to create a modernized force by 2030. Shifting the focus of warfighting from close to deep battles, the British programseeks to transformthe army into a resilient and versatile force that can find and attack enemy targets at a greater distance and with higher accuracy.

Ankara’s efforts in this segment are not new. A few years ago, BITES, a leading defense technology and intelligent systems manufacturer owned by Aselsan, developed the Military Tactical Operation Kit ATOK. Equipped with portable and wearable integrated technology, the solution in question wasdesigned to enhancethe situational awareness of Turkish troops in a rapidly changing battlefield and maximize personnel security. In line with the future soldier concept, BITES also produced several solutions based on virtual/augmented reality to provide realistic simulation environments.

Aselsan’s “Military Exoskeleton” is another visionary initiative designed to assist troops during demanding battlefield conditions. The exoskeleton provides over 400 watts of leg support. The support isadaptive and AI-supported, meaning that it understands and responds to the needs of the soldier wearing the smart suit. It has an 8-kilometer operation range on a single charge and transfers the soldier’s weight to the ground during long missions, reducing physical strain and improving combat performance.

The way forward: Opportunities and restraints

Keeping up with industrial trends in a competitive environment is challenging, and Turkey’s defense industry faces several obstacles that limit its full potential.

First, the Turkish defense industry is monopolized. There are structural gaps in the collaboration between the public and private sectors. Unlike other tech-driven nations like the United States, Turkey’s defense ecosystem is not very friendly to start-ups, with established companies dominating the field.

Second, Turkey has a shortage of skilled human capital, largely due to issues in higher education. According to2022 OECDdata, Turkey’s Program for International Student Assessment test scores fell below the OECD average in mathematics, science, and reading comprehension. In addition, evidence shows that in Turkey, the proportion of bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral or equivalent graduates in the field of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) isamong the lowestamong OECD and partner countries.

For sustainable and resilient defense innovation, R&D, business, and a well-educated workforce must go hand in hand. A good example is Baykar, whosechief technology leadwas educated at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, one of the United States’ leading engineering universities.

Third, high-technology goods comprise a relatively low share of Turkish exports. Despite a focus on high-tech products,over halfof the gross value generated in the Turkish defense industry comes from low- and medium-technology products. In 2022, Turkey’s high-tech exportswere approximately $7.5 billion, and in 2023, this figure exceeded $9 billion.

While Turkey’s strategic plans and defense industrial goals are ambitious, the abovementioned challenges could jeopardize its position as a leading EDT producer in the medium and long term. Addressing these issues is crucial not only for enhancing Turkey’s EDT edge but also for meeting NATO’s strategic needs.

Read on Atlantic Council.

• About the author: Can Kasapoğlu is a Senior Fellow (Nonresident) at the Hudson Institute
• Source: This article was published by the Hudson Institute

NPR News: 07-10-2024 8PM EDT

Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoices

NPR Privacy Policy

Painting by Beka Sakvarelidze, 50×40, 2024. #GeorgianArt pic.twitter.com/r2j87yOZho

— Notes from Georgia/South Caucasus (Hälbig, Ralph) (@SouthCaucasus) July 10, 2024