Avoiding Technology Surprise for Tomorrow's Warfighter Symposium 2010 (2010) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
2 Considering Surprise
2 Considering Surprise
Pages 9-16
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 9... ...
They are likely to be achieved by nations that are technological peers of the United States and that have comparable access to resources, or by non-state enti ties with specialized expertise in a specific technological area (e.g., cyber, nuclear, or biological)
|
From page 10... ...
For example, how many of us in this room ever thought a large commercial passenger jet aircraft could generate Technology Surprise? Probably none of us.
|
From page 11... ...
Every significant military command needs an "innovation cell" dedicated full-time to an inductive-deductive thinking process that is focused like a laser on Technology Surprise. By that, I mean Technol ogy Surprise that might be generated by either disruptive technology or disruptive thinking.
|
From page 12... ...
Further, many participants opined that concerted efforts to operationalize these research areas into deployable tools tend to be highly classified and fairly rare undertakings. The discussion thread went on to indicate that development efforts of this scope require a long time and are difficult to keep secret; the discussion captured the notion that this was true especially for complex technological undertakings, given that their human architects are derived from an increasingly globalized university-based research system, which is ever more tightly connected in its communication and other enduring relationships.
|
From page 13... ...
The long time it takes to procure (or the long waits involved in procuring) new technologies in the United States was cited repeatedly, with several embarrassing examples given.
|
From page 14... ...
During a lively discussion on how far behind in technology development certain adversaries are, one participant warned that "the 10-15 years [of lag behind the United States] is dynamic and the gap is closing." Another went even further, writing, "We are giving most of it away (e.g., we educate them; they go teach their own [people]
|
From page 15... ...
This topic was raised in the discussions on advances in technology and applications for the neurosciences and in virtual reality. One participant noted that the development of brain interfaces would be more advanced in some other countries because they did not have the restrictions surrounding research that apply in the United States, giving those countries a research advantage.
|
From page 16... ...
to avoid surprise. Asymmetry in research and development caused by different ethical and legal constraints worried another symposium participant, who noted that, while he did not advocate careless research, he nevertheless felt that current regulations and their associated cost put the United States at a huge disadvantage and were forcing research to move offshore.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.