The War Over AI Warfare
Artificial intelligence played a critical role in America’s military mission in Venezuela in January and is doing so again in Iran. It is also transforming the battlefield in Ukraine daily. The Pentagon believes it will give the United States the needed edge to stay ahead, and yet legal disputes are slowing it down.
For the U.S., it’s a matter of national security.
Regulating Power
In January, U.S. special operations forces reportedly used Anthropic Claude AI in partnership with Palantir to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
When the Department of War failed to satisfactorily answer an inquiry by Anthropic about the military operation, the partnership began to unravel. Instead of answering questions, the Department of War went on the offensive, seeking fewer restrictions for the use of Claude AI in warfare.
In a January 9 letter, the Department of War explained that it must be able to “utilize models free from usage policy constraints that may limit lawful military applications.” It stated: “In the national security domain, AI-enabled warfare and AI-enabled capability development will redefine the character of military affairs over the next decade. … The United States military must build on its lead over our adversaries in integrating this technology, established during President Trump’s first term, to make our warfighters more lethal and efficient.”
But for Anthropic ceo Dario Amodei, the lack of insight into how its Claude AI is being used in military operations, coupled with this demand, was too much.
On February 26, he said that given “the substantial value that Anthropic’s technology provides to our armed forces,” he hoped the Pentagon would reconsider its demand for unrestricted use of its Claude AI model. However, Amodei had two concerns: the possibility of AI in mass surveillance of Americans or in fully autonomous weapons.
In this regard, the Pentagon’s proposed amended contract “made virtually no progress on preventing Claude’s use for mass surveillance of Americans or in fully autonomous weapons,” Amodei said. That’s why his company “cannot in good conscience accede” to the Pentagon’s demands.
War Secretary Pete Hegseth threatened Anthropic to provide the unrestricted military use or risk losing its government contract. Other military officials threatened to designate the company as a supply chain risk, or to invoke a Cold War-era law that would give the military authority to use Claude.
Amodei responded by saying, “These latter two threats are inherently contradictory: one labels us a security risk; the other labels Claude as essential to national security.” The Trump administration then designated Claude as a supply chain risk and ordered that the government should stop using it. Incidentally, the dispute led to a surge in Claude AI’s popularity.
Anthropic and the Department of War parted ways, and OpenAI saw an opportunity; they signed contracts on Friday, February 27.
While OpenAI claims its contracts have more safeguards than Anthropic’s, some believe it allows for the “legal” use of mass surveillance and AI-controlled weapons.
It didn’t take long before OpenAI ceo Sam Altman began to backpedal. “We shouldn’t have rushed to get this out on Friday,” Altman wrote on Monday evening, March 2. “The issues are super complex and demand clear communication. We were genuinely trying to de-escalate things and avoid a much worse outcome, but I think it just looked opportunistic and sloppy.” He added that OpenAI is renegotiating the agreement.
Of course, AI companies in China would never impose such restrictions on the Chinese regime, which raises the question of the U.S.’s ability to keep the lead in the use of AI warfare.
Still Used in Iran
U.S. President Donald Trump called Anthropic a “radical left AI company run by people who have no idea what the real world is all about.”
However, the Wall Street Journal and Axios reported that just after the president declared that the federal government would no longer use Anthropic, his military used it in the attack on Iran.
Hegseth explained: “Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition.”
Despite the disputes and concerns, AI is increasingly playing a role in warfare.
AI systems are used to analyze vast amounts of data to assess intelligence, then they help identify and prioritize targets, simulate strikes, and predict outcomes.
The Jerusalem Post commented on March 3 that AI in Iran “ceased to be a back-office analytical tool and has become operationally embedded in battlefield decision-making and war planning.”
This is just one of many ways that AI usage impacts the battlefield. If you could combine it with the use of fully autonomous AI-controlled weapon systems, AI could be used to execute its own plans.
But there are concerns. The Times reported:
In the first 24 hours of Operation Epic Fury, the U.S. military struck more than 1,000 targets in Iran with the help of artificial intelligence.
Given the rate of 42 suggested targets per hour, experts have asked whether machines are now in charge on the battlefield because the human brain cannot keep up.
They have raised the possibility that artificial intelligence may have misidentified the primary school in Minab on the first day of the war. Growing evidence suggests that the U.S. fired what appears to have been Tomahawk cruise missiles at the site, killing 110 children and dozens of others.
The article goes on to quote Noah Sylvia, a Royal United Services Institute research analyst, saying: “If the school bombing was in error, was it human error or the speed of automation of the system? Was it based on old data? Was it a machine that did it automatically? The number of strikes we are seeing lends some credence to the idea that targets are largely autonomously created.”
The school was once part of an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps complex, but it has been separate for at least nine years. If the AI system, however, used older satellite images, it would have concluded that it was a military target. Dr. Craig Jones, senior lecturer in political geography at Newcastle University, concluded: “At this point we can’t rule out that AI may have … failed to identify the school as a school and instead identified it as a military target.”
All of this is speculation at this point. But just the thought that an AI error could have caused the death of more than 100 children shows the frightening reality we now live in.
While many fear giving AI too much power, others fear that limiting it will allow others to take the lead. This is the conundrum that Trumpet managing editor Joel Hilliker explained in “Why We Must Develop AI (Even If It Kills Us).”
“AI is creating an arms race similar to the one that drove nuclear proliferation. At stake is not just technological prestige but geopolitical leverage and military advantage,” he wrote.
But will AI continue to provide the U.S. with the needed military edge?
Why AI Won’t Win America’s Wars
AI appears to promise fewer human casualties, more targeted strikes and easier victories. However, the Bible warns that trust in technology is misplaced. As we wrote in “Why American Tech Can’t Win Wars”:
America lacks the will, the determination, to win a major engagement. Science and technology try to deal with the effects.
The goal is to enable a divided and unconvinced nation to win a partial victory at low cost. But to truly make America great again, the nation must deal with the cause.
America’s lack of will is a disease of the spirit. It’s about the human psyche and not addressable by scientific experimentation.
The Bible clearly explains.
God says, “I will break the pride of your power …” (Leviticus 26:19). God and His blessings were the true source of America’s strength, prosperity and even its technological edge. But the nation has not obeyed Him, so its unity and fighting spirit have been broken. That technological edge has enabled a weak-willed America to remain a major power for decades. But it has not brought significant victories.
The warning is on the wall: Technological improvements have only increased America’s reliance on self and turned the nation further and further from God. As “Why American Tech Can’t Win Wars” explains, this will be to its downfall.