Private corporations have always played a role in geopolitics, from the East India Company as a military power for global conquest to oil giants influencing war policy in the Middle East. Today, the most powerful companies in the world are technology companies, with the market capitalization of the ‘Magnificent 7’ exceeding all listed companies in each of the other G20 economies except China and Japan. In a world that increasingly feels more unstable and dangerous, technology corporations represent the most important “fronts” for geopolitical conflict. The following describes the most significant of these, admittedly through the lens of an American who believes that what is best for freedom and democracy in the United States is best for the world.
Digital Warfare
War has increasingly moved online on several important fronts. Nation-states have invested in offensive capabilities beyond the physical world and towards digital infrastructure and network disruption. Information warfare, such as propaganda and disinformation meant to shape public opinion, is possible at a scale and speed previously inconceivable. Intelligence gathering has become more real-time and of a greater depth and breadth through new forms of data collection such as crowdsourcing.
These are cutting-edge problems, and governments have consistently demonstrated the necessity to look to private industry for innovative solutions. From production scale-up in World War II to R&D during the Space Race and COVID-19 vaccine development, history shows the critical role of private industry. Similarly, governments will look to technology companies to harden technological infrastructure, detect and mitigate disinformation and propaganda, accelerate the collection and analysis of intelligence, and tackle countless other cutting-edge challenges.
Communications and Control
Since its activation in February 2022, shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, SpaceX’s Starlink has played a crucial role in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. The technology has been irreplaceable in providing military communication infrastructure to Ukraine, buttressing the country against Russia’s effective devastation of its traditional infrastructure. Attacks on communications have always been core to military strategy. However, militaries are more dependent on communications technology than ever, and as such, these technologies have become consistent targets for threats to global stability, including Russia, Iran, and North Korea, and often do not require a real-world explosion for success.
Several complicated and unprecedented dynamics surround the private-public military partnership such as that of SpaceX and Ukraine. Elon Musk’s control over SpaceX has made a chaotic and self-interested individual a major player in international diplomacy. US sanctions on Russia meant to keep the technology out of its hands have been bypassed through third parties. The emerging nature of the technology and increased demand has led to connectivity issues. Ethical questions arise as the technology powers tools of warfare that ultimately take human life. War is not the primary mission or societal impact of Starlink or SpaceX, as defined by their mission to make humans a multi-planetary species. However, as more tools of war depend on communication, those building technology of importance in this area will find themselves playing a role in conflict.
The Silicon Valley Military-Industrial Complex
While convoluted and political procurement processes, long sales cycles, and conflicting cultural principles have historically kept venture capital and Silicon Valley away from military technology, the success of highly effective venture-backed defense technology companies such as Anduril, Shield AI, and Epirus has opened a floodgate in terms of entrepreneur and investor interest and money. Today, defense technology has even made it onto the Y Combinator “request for startups” list, cementing the domain's prominence in the ecosystem as investors also become increasingly comfortable with the category. Fortunately, the US Department of Defense has taken notice, with programs such as the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) and National Security Innovation Network (NSIN) actively working to build partnerships for startups.
However, there is something quite discomforting about hearing software engineers and MBAs talk about “optimizing the kill chain” like it’s enterprise software. Technology’s role in these domains must thus be considered with candor. First and foremost, the US must have access to the most impactful technologies, and its enemies should not, reflecting today’s relationship between military contractors and governments. Additionally, increased capabilities, such as the ability to take lethal action quickly, remotely, and at a large scale through autonomous offensive systems, must come alongside increased restraint from military leadership. Finally, should the most powerful companies in the world, those defined by “Big Tech,” get involved with defense technology, many technologies developed by tech companies have both civilian and military applications, raising ethical considerations along the blurred line of peaceful and weaponized technology.
AI and Defining the Future
The majority of public policy debates around AI since 2023 have focused on exacerbation of inequality, job loss, and terminator-esque human extinction risk. While all of these are important, there has been less focus on geopolitics and which actors might take the lead in the future development of AI or other advanced AI algorithms.
Artificial intelligence, and specifically the companies building the most impactful technology, predominantly the major players in “Big Tech,” have become political actor in itself. Private companies building AI could have different motives and objectives from the relevant governments, and the black-box nature of how AI “thinks” limits our understanding of the second- and third-order effects of our actions utilizing AI. It remains to be seen how governments and the humans who run them will manage their relationships with AI and the humans who develop the technology.
Despite the early days, notable divides have formed around different approaches, policies, and principles, specifically between the United States and China. While the U.S. leads in AI innovation through private sector empowerment, China excels in integrating existing technologies into societal applications. This divergence suggests that both nations will lead in different aspects of AI development and deployment. US leadership today in AI is largely the result of its superior innovation ecosystem. Today, the frontier is led by private-sector companies with vast computing resources. However, future AI breakthroughs could stem from smaller models with novel architectures. Academic institutions could represent significant contributions to the necessary theoretical research and development around such innovation, while healthy capital markets and thoughtful, non-burdensome regulation are pivotal for sustained leadership.
Conclusion
As the landscape of global conflict evolves, technology corporations are increasingly at the forefront of geopolitical struggles and opportunities. Thus, investors and technology leaders in these areas must not be ignorant of the geopolitics, similar to investors in oil and gas or traditional military suppliers. Ultimately, the relationship between technology corporations and the world will be pivotal in shaping the future of conflict and cooperation.