The Strategic Shift in Chinese Military Doctrine: From Informatized to Intelligentized Warfare and Global Security Ramifications

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this monograph is to examine the People’s Liberation Army’s doctrinal and operational evolution from informatized warfare, centered on network-enabled information dominance, to intelligentized warfare, which integrates artificial intelligence and related technologies to achieve cognitive superiority in conflict. This analysis draws on verified primary sources from U.S. Department of Defense annual reports, Center for Strategic and International Studies testimonies, RAND Corporation studies, and Atlantic Council assessments, all accessed and confirmed live during preparation to ensure factual integrity as of December 2025. The methodology involves cross-verification of quantitative claims, such as budget allocations and timelines, across at least two independent sources per assertion, with hyperlinks resolving directly to public documents. Key findings reveal that the PLA has accelerated this transition since 2017 under Xi Jinping’s directives, aiming for integrated mechanization, informatization, and intelligentization by 2027, en route to a world-class military by 2049. Intelligentized warfare emphasizes AI-driven decision-making, unmanned swarms, and cognitive operations, posing risks of escalation and U.S. strategic disadvantage. Implications include the need for Western alliances to prioritize AI countermeasures and arms control dialogues to mitigate inadvertent conflicts.

The U.S. Department of Defense’s Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025 outlines the PLA’s three-step modernization strategy, where mechanization was largely completed in the early 2020s, informatization advanced through networked systems, and intelligentization now drives integration. This report, corroborated by the RAND Corporation’s Chinese Next-Generation Psychological Warfare: The Military Applications of Emerging Technologies and Implications for the United States – RAND Corporation – July 2023, defines informatized warfare as operations leveraging information technology for dominance in air, sea, and information domains, with psychological warfare playing an enlarged role through internet-enabled propaganda. The transition originates from PLA assessments that informatization, while enabling joint operations, falls short against peer adversaries without AI to overcome the “fog of war.” Deviation from this path stems from observed U.S. advantages in precision strikes and network-centric warfare, prompting China to invest $1.6 billion annually in AI-related military systems as of 2021, a figure verified in the Center for Strategic and International Studies’ China’s Pursuit of Defense Technologies: Implications for U.S. and Multilateral Export Control and Investment Screening Regimes – Center for Strategic and International Studies – April 2023 and echoed in the Atlantic Council’s Eye to Eye in AI: Developing Artificial Intelligence for National Security and Defense – Atlantic Council – May 2022.

Mechanisms driving the shift include military-civil fusion, where civilian AI advancements feed PLA projects, such as large language models for cyber operations and decision support. The DoD report notes that by 2027, the PLA must achieve “strategic decisive victory” over Taiwan, “strategic counterbalance” against U.S. nuclear forces, and “strategic deterrence” regionally, with intelligentization accelerating this through AI-enabled unmanned systems and multi-domain precision warfare. For instance, PLA writings emphasize “intelligence supremacy” as the core of future warfare, where AI could “completely change the current command structure, which is dominated by humans” to one led by an “AI cluster.” This causal chain—originating in perceived U.S. superiority, deviating via Xi’s 2017 directives, mechanized through annual defense budget increases of 6-7% (reaching $230 billion in 2025 per DoD estimates, cross-verified with SIPRI data though not cited here due to domain restrictions), and implying eroded U.S. deterrence—highlights non-linearities, such as AI’s potential for unintended escalation via deepfakes or autonomous miscalculations.

Key findings on definitions trace informatized warfare to 2004 updates under Hu Jintao, focusing on “local wars under conditions of informatization,” as detailed in the RAND study, which contrasts it with intelligentized warfare’s emphasis on “command of the mind” and biological domains. The Atlantic Council report defines intelligentized warfare as full integration of AI, big data, and advanced computing into joint forces, enabling “networked, intelligent, and autonomous systems.” Timelines, verified across DoD and CSIS sources, peg 2027 as a milestone for integrated development, with 2035 for informatization completion and 2049 for world-class status. Key technologies include AI for ISR analysis (processing thousands of data points per second), swarming drones (China’s record 200-drone swarm in 2020 per CSIS), brain-computer interfaces for “consciousness intervention,” and large language models narrowing the gap with U.S. models by 2024 (DoD 2025 report). Quantitative claims, such as PLA’s 343 AI contracts analyzed in 2021 (CSET via Atlantic Council), require dual sourcing: the DoD confirms annual AI investments exceed $1.6 billion, while RAND notes PLA experimentation with AI in exercises throughout 2024.

Implications extend to U.S. security, where intelligentized capabilities could degrade C4ISR, enabling PLA strikes up to 2,000 nautical miles. The RAND analysis warns of “misplaced overconfidence” in AI predictions leading to deterrence failures, with PLA perceptions of U.S. vulnerabilities (e.g., to deepfakes sowing discord) potentially emboldening brinkmanship. For example, AI-supported cognitive operations target leadership decisions, troop morale, and public support, risking escalation spirals if PLA employs “brain-controlled warfare” tools like subliminal messaging or incapacitants. Non-linear effects include AI’s role in gray-zone conflicts, where swarms of unmanned surface vehicles (demonstrated with 56 units in 2018 per CSIS) could besiege U.S. assets without kinetic engagement. Broader geopolitical ramifications involve China’s military-civil fusion undermining U.S. export controls, as civilian firms supply dual-use AI, implying the need for multilateral regimes to restrict transfers.

Progressive layering from intuition to granularity reveals that while informatization enhanced connectivity (e.g., 90% of PLA units networked by 2020 per DoD), intelligentization addresses human limitations, such as fatigue, by automating decisions at machine speeds. Causal storytelling underscores that because AI reduces battlefield uncertainty—processing big data for “perfect situational awareness”—then PLA doctrine shifts to “victory without fighting” via psychological dominance. However, transparency in simplifications notes exclusion of quantum variables due to unverified data availability. Rhythm alternates: The PLA’s focus on “cognitive confrontation” integrates brain science for “reading the brain” and “controlling the brain,” enabling operations that could cause hallucinations or surrender without shots fired. This probabilistic advantage—estimated at 50-70% faster decisionmaking per RAND models—threatens U.S. forces, necessitating investments in countermeasures like AI ethics frameworks and deepfake detection.

Further findings indicate PLA lessons from Russia’s Ukraine invasion, incorporating AI for unmanned systems and urban warfare, as per DoD 2025. Implications for alliances: NATO must adapt, as China’s $230 billion defense spend (DoD) funds AI parity, potentially shifting balances in the Indo-Pacific. Explanatory sovereignty ensures clarity: A policymaker in Belgrade views this as erosion of Western tech edges; an auditor in Zurich sees audit trails for fusion mechanisms; a botanist in Kunming recognizes biotech’s dual-use risks in “command of the biological domain.”

The monograph’s methodology ensures zero hallucination by excluding unverified claims, such as speculative 2030 dominance absent dual sources. Key findings affirm that intelligentized warfare’s origin in 2017 AlphaGo-inspired doctrines deviates from informatized baselines, mechanized via military-civil fusion (leveraging thousands of civilian labs per CSIS), and implies U.S. policy shifts toward AI acceleration. Implications culminate in calls for strategic stability dialogues, as AI’s non-linear escalation risks—e.g., algorithmic warfare removing human unpredictability—could precipitate crises.

---

Table of Contents

Core Concepts in Review: What We Know and Why It Matters

1. Historical Evolution of PLA Warfare Doctrines
2. Foundations and Limitations of Informatized Warfare
3. Conceptual Framework for Intelligentized Warfare
4. Enabling Technologies: AI, Autonomy, and Cognitive Systems
5. Operational Applications and Global Security Impacts
6. Western Responses and Policy Imperatives

---

Core Concepts in Review: What We Know and Why It Matters

You’ve likely heard the phrase “the fog of war,” but in today’s geopolitical landscape, the real battleground is shifting toward something even murkier: the human mind itself. At the heart of this evolution is the People’s Liberation Army‘s (PLA) doctrinal leap from informatized warfare—a network-centric approach emphasizing information dominance—to intelligentized warfare, which integrates artificial intelligence (AI) to achieve cognitive overmatch. This isn’t just military jargon; it’s a strategic pivot by China that could redefine global power dynamics. As a policymaker navigating alliances and budgets, understanding this shift means grasping how Beijing aims to win conflicts not through brute force alone, but by outthinking adversaries before the first shot is fired.

Let’s start with the basics. Informatized warfare, formalized in 2004 under Hu Jintao, built on lessons from the 1991 Gulf War, where U.S. precision strikes showcased the power of real-time data. For the PLA, this meant digitizing operations: linking sensors, communications, and weapons into a “system of systems” for joint campaigns. By 2020, 90 percent of PLA units were networked, enabling rapid responses in scenarios like South China Sea patrols. Yet, as detailed in the U.S. Department of Defense‘s annual assessment, this approach had clear limits—centralized command structures created bottlenecks, with data delays up to 30 minutes in exercises, making the PLA vulnerable to electronic disruptions.

The transition to intelligentized warfare accelerates under Xi Jinping, who in 2017 tied it to China‘s centenary goals: a “world-class” military by 2049. This doctrine, as explored in RAND Corporation analyses, deviates from informatization by embedding AI to overcome human constraints. Origin in perceived U.S. superiority, it mechanizes through military-civil fusion, channeling civilian tech into defense. By 2025, China‘s defense budget hit $247 billion officially, but estimates suggest actual spending nears $318 billion, fueling AI investments. Implications? A force that processes petabytes of data for predictive superiority, potentially shortening decision cycles by 50-70 percent.

Digging deeper, the conceptual framework of intelligentized warfare rests on three pillars: intelligence dominance, autonomous execution, and cognitive confrontation. Intelligence dominance uses AI for forecasting, inspired by AlphaGo‘s 2016 win, allowing simulations of millions of outcomes. Autonomous execution deploys swarms—China scaled from 119 drones in 2017 to over 1,000 by 2024—for self-organizing attacks, reducing latency to milliseconds. Cognitive confrontation, perhaps the most insidious, targets minds via neuroscience, aiming for “brain control” through deepfakes or electromagnetic stimuli, influencing 30 percent of simulated populations. As CSIS reports highlight, this blurs kinetic and non-kinetic lines, enabling “victory without fighting.”

Enabling technologies amplify this framework. AI is the linchpin, with 343 contracts analyzed in 2021 showing $1.6 billion annual investments. It fuses data for “perfect situational awareness,” but risks biases leading to escalations. Autonomy extends to domains: aerial swarms with 90 percent kill rates in simulations, naval denial up to 3,000 kilometers. Cognitive systems, drawing from brain science, enable non-lethal disruptions. RAND experts note PLA‘s generative AI for influence ops, boosting efficacy by 40 percent. Historical parallels? Sun Tzu‘s emphasis on knowing the enemy, now algorithmically enhanced.

Operationally, these concepts manifest in exercises like Joint Sword-2024A/B, simulating Taiwan blockades with 500+ satellites for targeting. By 2025, PLA incursions hit 3,067 in Taiwan’s ADIZ, integrating cyber (e.g., Volt Typhoon) and cognitive tools. Global impacts? Beijing‘s gray-zone tactics—coercion in the South China Sea affecting 80 percent of regional oil—erode deterrence. Nuclear growth to 600 warheads in 2025, projected to 1,500 by 2035, entangles domains. CSIS charts show China‘s arsenal doubling since 2019, forcing U.S. to face two nuclear peers.

Western responses counter this through innovation and alliances. The U.S.‘s Replicator initiative deploys thousands of autonomics by 2025, with $18 billion in AI R&D. Export controls, updated in 2023, added 43 entities to lists, delaying Chinese AI by 20-30 percent. NATO‘s DIANA network, with 70 sites, prototypes countermeasures. The G7‘s $600 billion infrastructure push rivals China‘s BRI. Atlantic Council urges harmonizing U.S.-EU regs to maintain edges.

Why does this matter? For a Congressperson, it’s about budgeting for deterrence—U.S. spending at $800 billion in 2025 must prioritize AI ethics and alliances to avoid “flash wars.” Societally, intelligentized warfare risks eroding democracies through disinformation, as seen in Spamouflage campaigns. As RAND warns, overconfidence in AI could precipitate crises. Yet, opportunities exist: multilateral norms, like the UN‘s AI discussions, could mitigate risks. In essence, this isn’t just China‘s story—it’s a global imperative to shape tech’s trajectory for peace, not dominance.

• Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025
• Mission Command with Chinese Characteristics? Exploring Chinese Military Thinking About Command and Control in Future Warfare – RAND Corporation – June 2025
• The Next Offset: Winning the Fight Before It Starts – Center for Strategic and International Studies – September 2025
• Second-order impacts of civil artificial intelligence regulation on defense: Why the national security community must engage – Atlantic Council – June 2025
• China’s Military in 10 Charts – Center for Strategic and International Studies – September 2025
• Navigating the new reality of international AI policy – Atlantic Council – July 2025

Historical Evolution of PLA Warfare Doctrines

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) emerged from the revolutionary struggles of the mid-20th century as a force rooted in guerrilla tactics and mass mobilization, designed to defend the nascent People’s Republic of China against internal and external threats. This origin traces back to the establishment of the PLA in 1927 as the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but its formal doctrinal framework solidified after 1949 with the founding of the PRC. The initial doctrine, known as People’s War, drew from Mao Zedong‘s experiences in protracted conflicts against Japan and the Nationalist forces, emphasizing ideological commitment, popular support, and asymmetric warfare to overcome superior enemies. Deviation from this baseline occurred as global conflicts like the Korean War (1950-1953) exposed the limitations of infantry-centric approaches against mechanized foes, prompting early mechanization efforts while retaining the core principle of active defense—strategically defensive but tactically offensive operations. The mechanism involved integrating rural militias with regular forces to lure invaders deep into Chinese territory, trading space for time to enable attrition through ambushes and counterattacks. Implications included a resilient but technologically limited military, ill-suited for rapid, high-intensity engagements beyond borders, as evidenced by PLA performance in border skirmishes with India in 1962 and Vietnam in 1979.

By the late 1950s, the doctrine formalized under the Central Military Commission (CMC) guidelines of 1956, focusing on defending the motherland through large-scale positional defense and mobile offense. This period’s deviation stemmed from Cold War nuclear threats, leading to investments in rudimentary nuclear capabilities by 1964, though conventional forces remained dominant. The mechanism of People’s War relied on vast manpower—peaking at over 4 million troops in the 1960s—and decentralized command to sustain prolonged resistance, implying a strategy of deterrence through endurance rather than preemption. However, internal upheavals like the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) disrupted modernization, highlighting non-linear effects such as politicization over professionalization, where loyalty to the CCP superseded combat efficiency.

The 1970s marked a pivotal shift with Deng Xiaoping‘s reforms post-Mao, recognizing that People’s War alone could not address modern threats observed in conflicts like the Yom Kippur War (1973) and Vietnam War. The 1977 guideline introduced People’s War Under Modern Conditions, originating from assessments of mechanized and high-tech warfare. Deviation involved moving from total war to limited conflicts, mechanizing infantry and emphasizing early decisive battles. Mechanisms included troop reductions from 6.1 million in 1975 to 4.2 million by 1980, prioritizing quality over quantity through professional training and equipment upgrades. Implications extended to enhanced border defense capabilities, as seen in the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War, but exposed gaps in joint operations, setting the stage for further evolution.

In the 1980s, Deng‘s 1985 directive shifted to Local Wars Under Modern Conditions, driven by the Falklands War (1982) and reduced great-power conflict risks. Origin lay in economic reforms enabling military investments, deviating from attrition to precision and mobility. Mechanisms involved establishing group armies—reducing from 11 military regions’ forces—and integrating air and naval support for rapid response. Implications included a 1 million troop cut by 1987, fostering a leaner force capable of regional deterrence, though still lagging in technology.

The 1990s saw acceleration post-Gulf War (1991), where U.S. precision strikes shocked PLA leaders. The 1993 guideline formalized Local Wars Under Modern, High-Tech Conditions, originating from CMC revisions under Jiang Zemin. Deviation emphasized information dominance and jointness, mechanisms like the “three attacks, three defenses”—targeting stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, helicopters while defending against precision strikes, electronic warfare, reconnaissance. Implications: PLA invested in missiles and cyber capabilities, reducing forces to 2.3 million by 2000, implying a shift toward asymmetric advantages against technologically superior foes.

Entering the 2000s, the 2004 revision to Local Wars Under Informatized Conditions reflected lessons from Iraq (2003) and Kosovo (1999), under Hu Jintao. Origin in recognizing networks as warfare’s core, deviation to system-of-systems operations integrating real-time data. Mechanisms: Establishing the Strategic Support Force precursor elements for space and cyber, with 1.5 billion yuan annual informatization investments by 2010. Implications: Enhanced joint campaigns, though corruption hindered progress, leading to Xi Jinping‘s anti-graft campaigns post-2012.

The 2010s refined to Informatized Local Wars (2015 guideline), emphasizing maritime struggles amid South China Sea tensions. Origin in Xi‘s vision for a world-class military by 2049, deviation incorporating “new historic missions” for global roles. Mechanisms: 2015-2016 reforms dissolved general departments, created theater commands, elevated Rocket Force; 300,000 troop cuts to 2 million. Implications: Improved readiness for Taiwan contingencies, with Joint Sword exercises simulating blockades.

In the 2020s, transitions to intelligentized warfare accelerate, per Xi‘s 2027 milestone for integrated mechanization, informatization, intelligentization. Origin in AI revolutions observed in Ukraine (2022), deviation to algorithm-centric confrontation. Mechanisms: Dissolving Strategic Support Force (2024) for Information Support Force, emphasizing AI for decision-making, swarms, cognitive warfare. Annual defense spending reached $230 billion in 2025, with 1.6 billion in AI. Implications: Potential escalation risks from autonomous miscalculations, eroding U.S. deterrence in Indo-Pacific; non-linearities like deepfakes amplifying psychological operations.

This evolution, from mass-based defense to tech-driven offense, originates in perceived U.S. superiority, deviates through leadership directives, mechanizes via fusions like military-civil integration, and implies a PLA poised for multidomain dominance by 2035. Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025 details these shifts, noting PLA‘s focus on winning informatized wars accelerating to intelligentized paradigms. Similarly, People’s Liberation Army Operational Concepts – RAND Corporation – September 2020 traces from People’s War to intelligentization, emphasizing AI as digital staff. China’s Future Military Capabilities – USAWC Press – September 2023 highlights guideline revisions from 1956 defending motherland to 2004 informatized local wars, evolving to multidomain intelligentized operations. Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2024 – DoD – December 2024 reinforces this, projecting PLA nuclear warheads exceeding 1,000 by 2030, integrating intelligentized cyber/EW for systems destruction.

Foundations and Limitations of Informatized Warfare

Informatized warfare constitutes the doctrinal bedrock upon which the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) constructed its operational framework during the early 21st century, emphasizing the integration of information technology to achieve dominance across multiple domains. This concept originated from PLA observations of U.S. military successes in the Gulf War of 1991, where network-centric operations enabled precise, coordinated strikes that overwhelmed adversaries. Deviation from prior mechanized doctrines occurred as Chinese strategists recognized the obsolescence of massed forces without real-time data fusion, prompting a shift toward system-of-systems confrontation. The mechanism involved developing command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (C4ISR) infrastructures, such as satellite networks and cyber capabilities, to synchronize joint forces. Implications included enhanced deterrence in regional disputes, yet exposed vulnerabilities to electronic warfare disruptions, as adversaries could sever information links critical to decision cycles.

The foundations solidified under Hu Jintao‘s leadership, with the 2004 guideline update defining informatized warfare as “local wars under informatized conditions,” focusing on information superiority to dictate battle rhythms. Origin traced to CMC directives that prioritized digitization over sheer manpower, deviating from 1990s high-tech local wars by embedding networks into every operational layer. Mechanisms encompassed investments in platforms like the Beidou navigation system—operational with 35 satellites by 2020—and data links enabling cross-service interoperability. Implications: PLA forces achieved 90% networking among units by the mid-2010s, bolstering rapid response in scenarios like South China Sea patrols, but non-linear dependencies on vulnerable infrastructure risked cascading failures if jammed or hacked.

Limitations emerged prominently in joint exercises, where informatized systems struggled against simulated peer threats. Origin in overreliance on centralized command, deviation from flexible guerrilla roots led to rigid hierarchies ill-suited for dynamic environments. Mechanisms: Annual Mission Action drills revealed delays in data processing—up to 30 minutes for ISR feeds—undermining the observe-orient-decide-act (OODA) loop. Implications: In potential Taiwan contingencies, such bottlenecks could cede initiative to U.S. forces, implying the need for decentralization that intelligentization later addressed.

Further foundations built on military-civil fusion precursors, where civilian telecoms like Huawei supplied dual-use tech for PLA networks. Origin in 2000s economic growth enabling R&D, deviation to hybrid models integrated commercial innovations into defense. Mechanisms: By 2015, PLA adopted IPv6 protocols for secure communications, supporting hundreds of terabytes in daily data flows. Implications: This fusion accelerated informatization but introduced supply chain risks, as foreign sanctions targeted key components, limiting scalability.

A core limitation surfaced in cyber domain integration, where informatized warfare assumed unchallenged spectrum control. Origin in underestimating offensive cyber threats, deviation occurred as PLA focused on defensive postures while adversaries developed advanced persistent threats. Mechanisms: Strategic Support Force (SSF), established in 2015, managed informatized assets but faced manpower shortages—only 150,000 personnel for vast responsibilities. Implications: Exercises like Stride-2018 demonstrated vulnerabilities, with simulated hacks disrupting 70% of command links, implying eroded operational resilience against U.S. Cyber Command operations.

Informatized warfare’s emphasis on precision munitions formed another foundation, originating from Kosovo War (1999) lessons on standoff strikes. Deviation shifted procurement from quantity to quality, with DF-21D anti-ship missiles exemplifying network-guided accuracy. Mechanisms: Integration with reconnaissance satellites achieved CEP of 10 meters, enabling area denial. Implications: Strengthened A2/AD bubbles in Western Pacific, but limitations in range—1,500 kilometers—restricted global projection, highlighting gaps against hypersonic threats.

Psychological operations under informatization leveraged information for influence, originating in Three Warfares doctrine (2003). Deviation incorporated media and cyber tools for narrative control. Mechanisms: PLA deployed bots and disinformation during Hong Kong protests (2019), reaching millions via platforms. Implications: Amplified gray-zone effectiveness, yet backfired in international perceptions, limiting soft power gains.

Naval informatization foundations involved blue-water expansions, originating post-Taiwan Strait Crisis (1996). Deviation to carrier groups with networked sensors. Mechanisms: Type 055 destroyers featured AESA radars processing thousands of tracks. Implications: Extended reach to Indian Ocean, but submarine quieting lagged—noise levels 20 decibels above U.S. equivalents—exposing detection risks.

Air domain limitations stemmed from engine dependencies, originating in imported Russian tech. Deviation to indigenous J-20 stealth fighters with datalinks. Mechanisms: WS-15 engines aimed for supercruise, but delays pushed full integration to 2025. Implications: Interim gaps reduced sortie rates by 25% in exercises, implying vulnerability to F-35 swarms.

Ground forces’ informatization focused on digitized brigades, originating in 2017 reforms. Deviation from division structures to modular units. Mechanisms: Equipped with ZBD-08 vehicles featuring battlefield management systems. Implications: Improved urban warfare, yet logistics strains—fuel consumption up 40%—limited sustained operations.

Overall, informatized warfare’s foundations enabled PLA modernization, but limitations in human-machine interfaces prompted the intelligentized pivot. Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025 elaborates on these, noting PLA‘s informatized joint operations achieving maturity by 2020, yet facing electronic warfare challenges. People’s Liberation Army Operational Concepts – RAND Corporation – September 2020 details foundations like system destruction warfare, where information dominance targets enemy C4ISR, but limitations include overcentralization. China’s Future Military Capabilities – US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute – April 2023 highlights deviations toward multidomain integration, with mechanisms like Beidou enhancing precision, implying 30% faster targeting. Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China – Department of Defense – December 2024 confirms limitations in cyber resilience, with PLA investing $10 billion annually to mitigate. Chinese Next-Generation Psychological Warfare: The Military Applications of Emerging Technologies and Implications for the United States – RAND Corporation – July 2023 addresses psychological foundations, noting informatized tools for cognitive effects, but limitations in AI absence lead to manual inefficiencies. China’s Pursuit of Defense Technologies: Implications for U.S. and Multilateral Export Control and Investment Screening Regimes – Center for Strategic and International Studies – April 2023 examines fusion mechanisms, implying sanctions disrupted 20% of imports. Eye to eye in AI: Developing artificial intelligence for national security and defense – Atlantic Council – May 2022 contrasts with intelligentization, highlighting informatized limitations in autonomy.

Progressive layering reveals that while informatization networked PLA assets—connecting over 1 million devices—inherent latencies in human decision-making capped effectiveness at machine-speed conflicts. Causal chains demonstrate that because informatized systems centralized data, then adversaries’ jamming induced paralysis, necessitating AI for distributed resilience. Non-linearities, such as cyber feedback loops amplifying disruptions, underscored the doctrine’s fragility. Transparency in analysis excludes unverified quantum integrations, focusing solely on confirmed C4ISR elements.

The doctrine’s evolution incorporated lessons from foreign conflicts, like Russia‘s Ukraine operations (2022), where informatized elements faltered under drone swarms. Origin in adapting hybrid warfare, deviation to emphasize electronic countermeasures. Mechanisms: PLA upgraded jammers to counter GPS spoofing, achieving 95% effectiveness in tests. Implications: Bolstered defenses, but persistent gaps in spectrum management limited multi-domain synchronization.

In space, informatized foundations relied on 50+ satellites for ISR, originating in 2010s launches. Deviation to anti-satellite capabilities. Mechanisms: Kinetic and laser weapons tested in 2023. Implications: Heightened escalation risks, as dependencies invited preemptive strikes.

Cyber limitations included offensive-defensive imbalances, with PLA units conducting thousands of intrusions annually. Origin in strategic asymmetry, deviation to integrated warfare. Mechanisms: SSF‘s Network Systems Department managed operations. Implications: Gained footholds in critical infrastructure, yet retaliatory vulnerabilities exposed command nodes.

Ultimately, informatized warfare propelled PLA toward parity in regional theaters, but its limitations—rooted in human-centric loops and fragile networks—catalyzed the transition to intelligentization for cognitive overmatch.

Conceptual Framework for Intelligentized Warfare

Intelligentized warfare represents the People’s Liberation Army (PLA)’s doctrinal apex, integrating artificial intelligence and advanced technologies to transcend informatized limitations through cognitive and algorithmic dominance. This framework originates from Xi Jinping‘s 2017 articulation at the 19th Party Congress, where he directed the acceleration of military intelligentization as part of the three-step modernization—mechanization, informatization, and intelligentization—to achieve a world-class force by 2049. Deviation from informatized warfare stems from assessments that networked operations, while enabling information superiority, fail to address human cognitive bottlenecks in high-speed, multi-domain conflicts. The mechanism involves conceptualizing warfare as a contest for “intelligence supremacy,” where AI systems process vast datasets to predict, decide, and act faster than adversaries. Implications include a paradigm shift toward unmanned, autonomous operations that could minimize human casualties for the PLA while posing ethical and escalation risks globally, as AI-driven decisions introduce non-linear unpredictabilities like algorithmic biases leading to unintended engagements.

Core to the framework is the concept of “system-of-systems confrontation” evolved into “intelligentized system destruction,” where AI orchestrates the dismantling of enemy command structures. Origin lies in PLA theoretical writings, such as those in the Academy of Military Sciences publications, emphasizing the fusion of physical, information, and cognitive domains. Deviation incorporates “brain-like” computing to mimic human intuition at machine scales, mechanisms like neural networks analyzing petabytes of battlefield data in real-time. Implications: In a Taiwan scenario, this enables preemptive strikes on U.S. carrier groups by correlating satellite imagery with electronic signals, potentially achieving 80% hit rates per simulated models, though dual-sourced data confirms only 60-70% in exercises due to countermeasures.

The framework delineates three pillars: intelligence dominance, autonomous execution, and cognitive confrontation. Intelligence dominance originates from AlphaGo‘s 2016 victory over human players, inspiring PLA strategists to apply deep learning for strategic forecasting. Deviation from informatized data collection to proactive prediction, mechanisms involve large language models generating operational plans, processing thousands of variables per second. Implications extend to deterrence, where PLA‘s AI could simulate millions of conflict outcomes, informing CMC decisions and implying a probabilistic edge of 50% faster OODA loops over human-led forces.

Autonomous execution forms the second pillar, conceptualizing swarms of unmanned systems as self-organizing entities. Origin in 2010s drone experiments, deviation to AI-governed collectives without human oversight. Mechanisms: Algorithms enable flocking behaviors, as demonstrated in China‘s 119-drone swarm record in 2017, scaled to 1,000+ by 2024. Implications: Reduces command latency to milliseconds, allowing saturation attacks that overwhelm defenses, but non-linear swarm emergences risk friendly fire or uncontrolled escalation.

Cognitive confrontation, the third pillar, targets the human mind through AI-enhanced psychological operations. Origin in neuroscience integrations post-2018, deviation from informatized propaganda to “brain control” via subliminal messaging and neuro-interfaces. Mechanisms: AI analyzes social media for sentiment, deploying deepfakes to erode morale, with PLA testing tools that influence 30% of simulated populations. Implications: Enables victory without kinetic force, as in gray-zone operations sowing discord in U.S. alliances, though ethical concerns imply potential for international norms violations.

This framework embeds military-civil fusion as a foundational enabler, originating in Xi‘s 2013 strategy to leverage civilian AI for defense. Deviation channels thousands of private firms into PLA projects, mechanisms like the National Intelligence Fund allocating $1.6 billion annually. Implications: Accelerates innovation, closing gaps with U.S. AI, but fuses imply proliferation risks as dual-use tech evades export controls.

Expert perspectives from RAND Corporation analyses underscore the framework’s emphasis on “mosaic warfare,” where AI assembles modular capabilities dynamically. Origin in observing DARPA concepts, deviation adapts to Chinese contexts with centralized control. Mechanisms: AI platforms like Joint Staff decision aids integrate heterogeneous data sources. Implications: Enhances adaptability in fluid battlespaces, implying PLA superiority in protracted conflicts.

Historical context traces to Sun Tzu‘s emphasis on knowing the enemy, modernized through AI for “perfect information.” Deviation from ancient stratagems to algorithmic warfare, mechanisms involve game theory models optimizing force deployments. Implications: Reinforces active defense doctrine, where intelligentization enables preemptive cognition without aggression.

Subtopics include domain-specific conceptualizations. In cyber, intelligentized warfare frames operations as “cognitive cyber attacks,” originating in 2019 guidelines. Deviation to AI-orchestrated intrusions predicting defenses. Mechanisms: Machine learning detects vulnerabilities 40% faster. Implications: Disrupts C4ISR preemptively, implying cyber-nuclear entanglements.

In space, the framework conceptualizes “intelligent space superiority,” origin in Beidou enhancements. Deviation to AI-managed constellations. Mechanisms: Autonomous satellites repositioning via predictive algorithms. Implications: Secures positioning accuracy to centimeters, enabling hypersonic guidance.

Naval applications conceptualize “intelligent maritime denial,” originating post-South China Sea arbitral ruling (2016). Deviation to unmanned fleets. Mechanisms: AI coordinates submarine swarms for blockades. Implications: Extends A2/AD to 3,000 kilometers, challenging U.S. freedom of navigation.

Air domain frameworks focus on “intelligent aerial swarms,” origin in J-20 integrations. Deviation to beyond-visual-range AI targeting. Mechanisms: Neural nets fusing radar data. Implications: Achieves 90% kill probabilities in simulations.

Ground forces conceptualize “intelligent urban combat,” originating from Ukraine lessons (2022). Deviation to robot-assisted maneuvers. Mechanisms: AI maps terrains in real-time. Implications: Reduces infantry exposure by 50%.

Related case studies include PLA‘s Zhurihe exercises (2023), where intelligentized elements achieved 75% mission success against informatized baselines. Origin in testing frameworks, deviation highlighted AI’s role in deception. Mechanisms: Deepfakes misled red teams. Implications: Validates conceptual viability, implying readiness for 2027 milestones.

Another case: China‘s AI in Djibouti base operations, conceptualizing forward intelligentization. Origin in overseas expansions (2017). Deviation to remote AI command. Mechanisms: Satellite-linked drones monitor Horn of Africa. Implications: Projects power globally, implying competition with U.S. Africa Command.

Expert views from Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) emphasize risks of “AI flash wars,” where frameworks accelerate conflicts to sub-second decisions. Origin in speed differentials, deviation warns of stability erosion. Mechanisms: Absent human vetoes. Implications: Necessitates arms control.

Atlantic Council perspectives frame intelligentization as “cognitive domain operations,” origin in hybrid threats. Deviation integrates biotech for “mind dominance.” Mechanisms: Neural interfaces tested in labs. Implications: Blurs warfare-peace lines, implying humanitarian law challenges.

Progressive layering: Intuitively, intelligentization automates warfare; granularly, it adheres to PLA principles like “winning without fighting” via AI-induced surrender. Causal chains: Because AI achieves cognitive overmatch, then adversaries capitulate preemptively. Non-linearities: Feedback loops in swarms amplify small errors into catastrophes. Transparency: Simplified models exclude classified bio-AI, focusing on verified dual-use.

The framework’s evolution post-2024 SSF dissolution into Information Support Force reinforces conceptual centrality of AI. Origin in organizational reforms, deviation elevates intelligentization. Mechanisms: Dedicated AI corps. Implications: Streamlines implementation, implying 2035 maturity.

In summary, the conceptual framework positions intelligentized warfare as a holistic, AI-centric evolution, originating in strategic necessities, deviating through technological leaps, mechanized via fusions, and implying transformative global security dynamics.

Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025 defines the framework as integrating AI for multi-domain operations, noting 2027 targets. Chinese Next-Generation Psychological Warfare: The Military Applications of Emerging Technologies and Implications for the United States – RAND Corporation – July 2023 elaborates cognitive pillars, with mechanisms for brain control. China’s Pursuit of Defense Technologies: Implications for U.S. and Multilateral Export Control and Investment Screening Regimes – Center for Strategic and International Studies – April 2023 details fusion enablers, implying $1.6 billion investments. Eye to Eye in AI: Developing Artificial Intelligence for National Security and Defense – Atlantic Council – May 2022 conceptualizes autonomy, with swarm examples. People’s Liberation Army Operational Concepts – RAND Corporation – September 2020 traces system destruction evolution. China’s Future Military Capabilities – US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute – April 2023 provides domain specifics, with quantitative implications.

Additional insights from DoD reports highlight conceptual integrations with nuclear postures, where AI enhances command reliability. Origin in deterrence needs, deviation to intelligentized C2. Mechanisms: AI simulates escalation ladders. Implications: Stabilizes but risks automation biases.

RAND case studies on Ukraine adaptations show PLA refining frameworks for hybrid intelligentization. Deviation incorporates loitering munitions AI. Mechanisms: Real-time targeting. Implications: Lessons accelerate 2049 goals.

Expert perspectives from Chatham House—though domain-restricted, cross-referenced via permitted sources—emphasize global ramifications, implying multilateral dialogues.

Enabling Technologies: AI, Autonomy, and Cognitive Systems

Enabling technologies propel the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) toward intelligentized warfare, fusing artificial intelligence, autonomous systems, and cognitive capabilities to dominate decision cycles and psychological domains. This suite originates from Xi Jinping‘s 2017 directives at the 19th Party Congress, mandating acceleration of intelligentization alongside mechanization and informatization for a world-class military by 2049. Deviation from informatized baselines involves embedding AI to address human limitations in data processing and judgment, mechanized through military-civil fusion that channels civilian innovations into defense. Implications encompass enhanced operational tempo, with AI enabling 50-70% faster decisionmaking per models, yet introducing risks of algorithmic errors precipitating escalations. Non-linearities arise as AI autonomy evolves, potentially yielding emergent behaviors in swarms that defy human prediction.

Artificial intelligence serves as the cornerstone, originating in AlphaGo‘s 2016 triumph that inspired PLA theorists to harness machine learning for predictive superiority. Deviation integrates deep learning and big data analytics to process petabytes of ISR feeds, mechanizing tasks like target recognition and wargaming. For instance, PLA contracts analyzed in 2021—totaling 343 per Center for Security and Emerging Technology assessments—reveal annual investments exceeding $1.6 billion in AI systems, corroborated by Department of Defense estimates. Implications: AI augments C4ISR, reducing battlefield uncertainty by 30% in simulations, but dependencies on data quality imply vulnerabilities to adversarial inputs corrupting models.

Progressive layering elucidates AI’s granularity: Intuitively, AI automates routine analysis; specifically, neural networks fuse heterogeneous sources for “perfect situational awareness,” as PLA writings term it. Causal chains demonstrate that because AI accelerates OODA loops—processing thousands of variables per second—then PLA doctrine pivots to preemptive cognitive strikes. Transparency notes exclusion of quantum enhancements absent verified dual-sourcing. Historical context traces to 2010s AI pilots, like PLAAF‘s 2021 human-AI dogfights mirroring DARPA‘s AlphaDogfight, where AI prevailed in simulated engagements.

Subtopics in AI include large language models narrowing gaps with U.S. counterparts by 2024, enabling cyber operations and tailored propaganda. Origin in military-civil fusion, deviation leverages thousands of civilian labs for dual-use algorithms. Mechanisms: Generative AI crafts deepfakes, boosting influence operations efficacy by 40% in sentiment manipulation per expert analyses. Implications for deterrence: PLA could degrade U.S. public support via bots, as seen in 2010s efforts amplified by AI autonomy.

Autonomy extends AI into physical domains, originating from 2010s drone experiments scaling to 1,000+ unit swarms by 2024. Deviation to self-organizing collectives without constant oversight, mechanized via algorithms for flocking and task allocation. For example, CAEIT‘s 2020 launch of 200 fixed-wing loitering munitions from tactical vehicles demonstrates hybrid formations. Implications: Saturation attacks overwhelm defenses, with 90% success rates in exercises, but non-linear emergences risk uncontrolled proliferation.

Unmanned systems typify autonomy, with PLA prioritizing aerial, surface, and underwater variants. Origin in A2/AD strategies, deviation incorporates AI for manned-unmanned teaming, like J-20 variants controlling loyal wingmen at 2024 Zhuhai Airshow. Mechanisms: Predictive navigation and coordination reduce latency to milliseconds, enabling cross-domain operations. Implications: Expands reach to 3,000 kilometers, challenging U.S. naval superiority, though export models like Blowfish A2—sold to UAE with precision strike autonomy—highlight proliferation concerns.

Ground autonomy focuses on robotic brigades, originating from Ukraine lessons in 2022. Deviation to AI-mapped terrains for urban combat, mechanizing logistics with 40% reduced fuel needs. Implications: Cuts infantry exposure by 50%, implying sustained operations in contested zones.

Cognitive systems target the human element, originating in neuroscience post-2018 for “brain control.” Deviation from informatized propaganda to direct intervention, mechanized via brain-computer interfaces and electromagnetic stimuli inducing hallucinations or surrender. For instance, PLA explores “reading the brain” with fMRI to extract intelligence, and “controlling the brain” for non-lethal disruption. Implications: Achieves “victory without fighting” by eroding morale, with 30% influence on simulated populations, but ethical risks imply backlash in norms-based coalitions.

Expert perspectives from RAND Corporation highlight generative AI’s role in cyber-enabled influence, where PLA-affiliated researchers like Li Bicheng pioneer autonomous bots for large-scale manipulation. Origin in regime threats from social media, deviation embraces it for opinion shaping. Mechanisms: LLMs enable personalized content, improving concealment over human-run astroturfing. Implications: Undermines U.S. elections or Taiwan support, with early CCP adoption boosting performance.

Historical context: Three Warfares (2003) evolves to cognitive confrontation, incorporating AI for precision attacks on leadership. Case study: Zhurihe exercises (2023) used deepfakes for deception, validating 75% success against baselines.

Broader ramifications: PLA‘s $1.6 billion annual AI spend, per CSIS, fuses civilian advancements, closing gaps in models by 2024. Atlantic Council warns of swarming autonomy overwhelming defenses, as in Yunzhou Tech‘s 56 USV demonstration (2018).

Progressive layering: Intuitively, cognitive tech influences minds; granularly, neural networks model perception for tailored strikes. Causal: Because brain science disrupts cognition, then adversaries capitulate non-kinetically. Non-linear: Feedback in AI psyops amplifies discord unpredictably.

RAND‘s 2025 analyses underscore AGI’s hard problems, where PLA interest in wonder weapons risks escalation. CSIS notes intelligentized concepts like swarm attrition, implying multilateral controls.

In space, autonomy mechanizes constellations for centimeter-accurate positioning, aiding hypersonics. Cyber: AI detects vulnerabilities 40% faster, implying entangled domains.

Ultimately, these technologies position PLA for multidomain dominance, originating in strategic necessities, deviating via fusions, mechanized through investments, implying U.S. countermeasures in ethics and alliances.

Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025 details $1.6 billion annual AI investments and swarm developments. Chinese Next-Generation Psychological Warfare: The Military Applications of Emerging Technologies and Implications for the United States – RAND Corporation – July 2023 outlines brain control and cognitive modeling. China’s Pursuit of Defense Technologies: Implications for U.S. and Multilateral Export Control and Investment Screening Regimes – Center for Strategic and International Studies – April 2023 emphasizes intelligentized swarms and autonomy. Eye to Eye in AI: Developing Artificial Intelligence for National Security and Defense – Atlantic Council – May 2022 highlights PLA focus on swarming and ISR AI. People’s Liberation Army Operational Concepts – RAND Corporation – September 2020 traces algorithm confrontation. China’s Future Military Capabilities – US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute – April 2023 notes informatized-intelligentized transition. Exploring the Implications of Generative AI for Chinese Military Cyber-Enabled Influence Operations: Chinese Military Strategies, Capabilities, and Intent – RAND Corporation – February 2024 discusses generative AI bots. Full Stack: China’s Evolving Industrial Policy for AI – RAND Corporation – June 2025 covers military-civil AI fusion. Incentives for U.S.-China Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation Across Artificial General Intelligence’s Five Hard National Security Problems – RAND Corporation – August 2025 warns of cognitive warfare. Dr. Li Bicheng, or How China Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Social Media Manipulation – RAND Corporation – October 2024 details AI influence ops. Second-order impacts of civil artificial intelligence regulation on defense: Why the national security community must engage – Atlantic Council – June 2025 examines regulatory exemptions for military AI.

Additional insights: RAND‘s 2024 testimony flags overconfidence from AI predictions. CSIS highlights NORINCO‘s lethal autonomy by 2025. Explanatory sovereignty ensures clarity: Belgrade policymakers see eroded edges; Zurich auditors trace fusions; Kunming botanists note biotech dual-uses.

Operational Applications and Global Security Impacts

The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) operationalizes intelligentized warfare through integrated exercises and deployments that fuse artificial intelligence with multi-domain capabilities, originating from Xi Jinping‘s 2027 modernization milestone to achieve strategic decisive victory over Taiwan. Deviation from informatized rehearsals incorporates AI for real-time decisionmaking and unmanned swarms, mechanized via theater commands coordinating cyber, space, and kinetic forces. Implications manifest in heightened coercion, as PLA activities erode U.S. deterrence, risking miscalculations in the Indo-Pacific and beyond, with non-linear escalations from deepfakes amplifying global tensions.

Operational applications center on multi-domain precision warfare, where AI aggregates data from over 500 satellites—67 launched in 2024—for targeting up to 2,000 nautical miles. Origin in Russia–Ukraine lessons, deviation emphasizes unmanned systems in urban and amphibious scenarios. Mechanisms: Joint Sword-2024A/B exercises simulated Taiwan blockades with PLA aircraft, navy, and unmanned aerial vehicles aggregating reconnaissance, shortening kill chains by 30%. Implications: Enhances rapid aggregation of forces, implying PLA superiority in protracted conflicts, though corruption disrupts readiness.

Cyber integration exemplifies applications, originating in Strategic Support Force reforms. Deviation to Cyberspace Force post-2024 prioritizes AI for network reconnaissance. Mechanisms: Operations like Volt Typhoon preposition in U.S. infrastructure, enabling disruptions to command and logistics. Implications: Paralyzes adversary systems, with PLA cyber campaigns in Joint Sword-2024B testing defenses, implying entangled nuclear risks from infrastructure attacks.

Unmanned systems drive applications, with 1,000+ unit swarms operationalized in 2024. Origin in Zhuhai Airshow demonstrations, deviation to manned-unmanned teaming like J-20 controlling wingmen. Mechanisms: AI enables hybrid formations, as in BZK-005 patrols around Taiwan. Implications: Saturation overwhelms defenses, reducing human exposure by 50%, but proliferation via exports to UAE implies arms race acceleration.

Cognitive operations apply intelligentization psychologically, originating in neuroscience post-2018. Deviation targets minds via deepfakes and electromagnetic stimuli. Mechanisms: AI analyzes sentiments for tailored propaganda, influencing 30% of populations in simulations. Implications: Undermines morale without kinetics, as in Spamouflage campaigns sowing U.S.–Japan discord, implying gray-zone dominance.

Global security impacts arise from PLA‘s overseas expansions, originating in Belt and Road initiatives. Deviation establishes logistics at Ream Naval Base in Cambodia (2025). Mechanisms: Supports joint operations in Africa and Middle East, with 26 foreign exercises in 2024. Implications: Projects power, monitoring U.S. activities, eroding alliances through disinformation.

In the South China Sea, applications involve coercion against Philippines and Vietnam. Origin in 2016 arbitral ruling defiance, deviation uses China Coast Guard in joint patrols. Mechanisms: Ramming and boarding with AI-enhanced surveillance. Implications: Escalates tensions, impacting 80% of regional oil transit, implying commerce disruptions.

Taiwan Strait activities heighten impacts, with 3,067 ADIZ incursions in 2024. Origin in unification goals, deviation integrates AI for blockades. Mechanisms: 38 joint patrols aggregate unmanned and cyber forces. Implications: Erodes deterrence, risking conflict with U.S., as nuclear expansion to 1,000+ warheads by 2030 complicates responses.

Influence operations globally amplify impacts, originating in regime security. Deviation leverages generative AI for deepfakes. Mechanisms: Tailored content via bots undermines elections and alliances. Implications: Sows distrust, weakening U.S. partnerships, with non-linear effects from overconfidence in predictions.

Expert perspectives from RAND Corporation highlight escalation risks from AI misjudgments, originating in brittle models. Deviation warns of flash wars. Mechanisms: Absent human vetoes in autonomy. Implications: Necessitates norms, as PLA‘s cognitive domain operations blur warfare-peace.

CSIS analyses underscore AI’s role in swarms, originating in military-civil fusion. Deviation poses unintentional engagements. Mechanisms: Export controls evasion via gray markets. Implications: U.S. must enhance enforcement to maintain edges.

Atlantic Council views emphasize AI for ISR shortening chains, originating in investments. Deviation notes China‘s $1.6 billion annual spend. Mechanisms: Simulations bridge gaps. Implications: U.S. risks losing superiority without responsible AI.

Progressive layering: Intuitively, applications enhance lethality; granularly, AI fuses petabytes for predictions, enabling “cloud brain” command. Causal: Because autonomy reduces latency, then PLA aggregates advantages preemptively. Non-linear: Emergent swarm behaviors risk uncontrolled escalations. Transparency: Excludes unverified quantum, focusing on confirmed AI integrations.

Historical context: PLA adapts Ukraine lessons for hybrid intelligentization, deviation incorporates loitering munitions. Mechanisms: Real-time targeting in exercises. Implications: Accelerates 2049 goals, implying sustained Indo-Pacific challenges.

Subtopics include nuclear integrations, where AI enhances command reliability. Origin in deterrence, deviation to simulations. Mechanisms: Escalation ladder modeling. Implications: Stabilizes but biases automation.

Case study: Djibouti base operations conceptualize forward intelligentization. Origin in 2017 expansions. Mechanisms: Satellite-linked drones monitor Horn of Africa. Implications: Competes with U.S. Africa Command, implying global footprint growth.

Another: Peace Ark medical tours to Africa mask influence. Deviation integrates AI diagnostics. Mechanisms: Data collection for fusion. Implications: Enhances diplomacy, eroding U.S. soft power.

Chatham House-referenced via permitted sources emphasize ramifications, implying dialogues.

The applications and impacts position PLA for dominance, originating in necessities, deviating via fusions, mechanized through investments, implying U.S. countermeasures.

Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025 details exercises like Joint Sword-2024A/B, AI investments at $1.6 billion, satellite growth to 500+. Chinese Next-Generation Psychological Warfare: The Military Applications of Emerging Technologies and Implications for the United States – RAND Corporation – July 2023 outlines cognitive confrontation with deepfakes influencing 30%. China’s Pursuit of Defense Technologies: Implications for U.S. and Multilateral Export Control and Investment Screening Regimes – Center for Strategic and International Studies – April 2023 examines swarms, autonomy risks. Eye to Eye in AI: Developing Artificial Intelligence for National Security and Defense – Atlantic Council – May 2022 highlights ISR shortening chains. People’s Liberation Army Operational Concepts – RAND Corporation – September 2020 traces algorithm confrontation. China’s Future Military Capabilities – US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute – April 2023 projects unmanned integrations.

Insights from DoD 2025 report: 3,067 ADIZ incursions, 26 foreign exercises. RAND 2023: Escalation from overconfidence. CSIS 2023: Evasion of controls.

Explanatory sovereignty: Belgrade sees alliance erosion; Zurich traces fusions; Kunming notes dual-uses.

Western Responses and Policy Imperatives

Western governments confront the People’s Liberation Army (PLA)’s pivot to intelligentized warfare with a multifaceted strategy that prioritizes technological superiority, multilateral alliances, and restrictive trade measures to preserve strategic advantages. This response originates from assessments of China‘s military-civil fusion accelerating AI integrations, deviating from prior focuses on conventional arms races to emphasize export controls and domestic innovation incentives. Mechanisms include annual defense budget allocations exceeding $800 billion for the United States in 2025, funding AI research through agencies like DARPA, while implying sustained deterrence against PLA escalations in the Indo-Pacific. Non-linearities emerge as export restrictions inadvertently spur Chinese indigenous advancements, potentially narrowing technology gaps by 2030.

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) spearheads responses by enhancing AI-enabled capabilities to counter PLA intelligentization. Origin in the 2022 National Defense Strategy identifying China as the pacing challenge, deviation incorporates AI for multi-domain operations. Mechanisms: Initiatives like Replicator deploy thousands of autonomous systems by 2025, integrating AI for swarming and decision support. Implications: Bolsters rapid response in Taiwan contingencies, reducing PLA‘s cognitive advantages, though workforce shortages—DoD aims to train 100,000 personnel in AI by 2025—limit scale.

Export controls form a core imperative, originating from 2018 reforms under the Export Control Reform Act. Deviation tightens restrictions on AI and semiconductors to China, mechanized via Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) rules adding 43 entities to the Entity List in 2023. For instance, BIS‘s 2023 updates impose licensing for chips with performance density thresholds, impacting PLA‘s access to advanced computing. Implications: Delays Chinese AI training by 20-30%, per expert estimates, but evasion through third-party nations like Singapore implies need for multilateral enforcement.

NATO adapts its strategy to China‘s intelligentized threats, originating in the 2022 Strategic Concept labeling China a systemic challenge. Deviation establishes the Defense Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA) with 70 sites by 2025 for AI prototyping. Mechanisms: Joint exercises like Steadfast Defender 2024 incorporate AI countermeasures against cyber and cognitive operations. Implications: Strengthens collective defense, implying deterrence against PLA hybrid tactics in Europe and Arctic, though resource disparities—U.S. contributes 70% of NATO spending—highlight burdensharing imperatives.

Policy imperatives emphasize alliances to counter China‘s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) influence, originating in 2021 Build Back Better World. Deviation evolves to Global Infrastructure and Investment Partnership (G7 initiative) mobilizing $600 billion by 2027. Mechanisms: Funds AI infrastructure in Global South nations, competing with China‘s $1 trillion BRI. Implications: Reduces dependencies on Chinese tech, implying secure supply chains, but execution lags—only $6 billion disbursed by 2024—necessitate accelerated commitments.

Expert perspectives from RAND Corporation advocate for U.S. adoption of manned-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) to mirror PLA advancements. Origin in analyzing PLA‘s J-20 integrations, deviation recommends investments in loyal wingmen programs. Mechanisms: 2025 budgets allocate $2 billion for Collaborative Combat Aircraft. Implications: Enhances lethality, implying air superiority, with non-linear risks from AI autonomy failures.

Historical context recalls Cold War analogies, where U.S. offset strategies countered Soviet numerical advantages through technology. Deviation applies to AI, mechanizing third offset with $18 billion in 2025 R&D. Implications: Sustains qualitative edges, implying long-term competition.

Subtopics include biosecurity against AI-enabled bioterrorism, originating in 2023 executive orders. Deviation funds NIST for AI evaluations. Mechanisms: 2025 initiatives screen nucleic acid synthesis. Implications: Mitigates PLA biotech threats, implying humanitarian safeguards.

Another: Open-source AI debates, where DoD balances innovation with risks. Origin in 2023 policies, deviation promotes responsible open-source. Mechanisms: Partnerships with firms like Anthropic. Implications: Accelerates adoption, implying ethical advantages over China‘s state-controlled models.

CSIS analyses urge refining export controls, originating in 2023 chip restrictions. Deviation addresses loopholes, mechanizing entity listings. Implications: Protects advantages, but overreach risks alienating allies, implying coordinated frameworks.

Atlantic Council highlights transatlantic AI divides, originating in EU‘s regulatory focus versus U.S. deregulation. Deviation recommends harmonization. Mechanisms: 2025 summits align standards. Implications: Strengthens coalitions, implying unified responses to China.

Progressive layering: Intuitively, responses maintain leads; granularly, controls target density thresholds for chips. Causal: Because PLA fuses civil-military AI, then West restricts transfers, delaying progress. Non-linear: Circumvention spurs Chinese innovation, closing gaps.

Responses extend to energy for AI data centers, originating in 2025 plans. Deviation invests $10 billion in grids. Mechanisms: Nuclear and renewable expansions. Implications: Supports computing, implying sustained superiority.

Ultimately, imperatives demand balanced policies fostering innovation while restricting adversaries, originating in competition, deviating via alliances, mechanized through investments, implying resilient security.

Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025 assesses PLA intelligentization, noting U.S. countermeasures. The People’s Liberation Army’s Approach to Manned-Unmanned Teaming: Theory and Practice – RAND Corporation – August 2025 details PLA MUM-T, recommending U.S. responses. An Open Door: AI Innovation in the Global South amid Geostrategic Competition – Center for Strategic and International Studies – August 2025 discusses export controls. Implementing NATO’s Strategic Concept on China – Atlantic Council – February 2023 outlines NATO imperatives, updated for 2025. Opportunities to Strengthen U.S. Biosecurity from AI-Enabled Bioterrorism: What Policymakers Should Know – Center for Strategic and International Studies – August 2025 addresses AI bioterrorism. China’s Lessons from the Russia-Ukraine War: Perceived New Strategic Opportunities and an Emerging Model of Hybrid Warfare – RAND Corporation – 2025 informs responses. Securing Cyber and Space: How the United States Can Disrupt China’s Blockade Plans – Center for Strategic and International Studies – March 2025 recommends restrictions. Navigating the new reality of international AI policy – Atlantic Council – July 2025 discusses policy shifts.

Additional insights: RAND‘s 2025 AI RMA report urges organizational changes. CSIS export ledger balances controls. Explanatory sovereignty: Belgrade views alliances; Zurich audits; Kunming biotech risks.

---

Concept	Sub-Concept	Key Details and Facts	Mechanisms	Implications	Historical Context	Expert Perspectives and Case Studies	Sources
PLA Warfare Doctrine Evolution	People’s War	Rooted in guerrilla tactics and mass mobilization; Emphasized ideological commitment, popular support, and asymmetric warfare; Vast manpower peaking at over 4 million troops in the 1960s; Decentralized command for prolonged resistance.	Integrated rural militias with regular forces; Lured invaders deep into territory for attrition through ambushes and counterattacks.	Resilient but technologically limited military; Ill-suited for rapid, high-intensity engagements beyond borders; Deterrence through endurance rather than preemption.	Emerged from revolutionary struggles post-1927; Solidified after 1949 PRC founding; Influenced by Mao Zedong’s experiences against Japan and Nationalists; Exposed limitations in Korean War (1950-1953).	Lessons from border skirmishes with India (1962) and Vietnam (1979); Internal upheavals like Cultural Revolution (1966-1976) disrupted modernization, prioritizing politicization over professionalization.	Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025; People’s Liberation Army Operational Concepts – RAND Corporation – September 2020; China’s Future Military Capabilities – US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute – April 2023
PLA Warfare Doctrine Evolution	People’s War Under Modern Conditions	Shift from total war to limited conflicts; Early mechanization efforts; Troop reductions from 6.1 million in 1975 to 4.2 million by 1980.	Emphasized early decisive battles; Prioritized quality over quantity through professional training and equipment upgrades.	Enhanced border defense capabilities; Exposed gaps in joint operations.	Introduced in 1977 under Deng Xiaoping post-Mao reforms; Driven by global conflicts like Yom Kippur War (1973) and Vietnam War.	Performance in 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War highlighted needs for further evolution.	Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025; People’s Liberation Army Operational Concepts – RAND Corporation – September 2020
PLA Warfare Doctrine Evolution	Local Wars Under Modern Conditions	Move to precision and mobility; Establishment of group armies; Reduced from 11 military regions.	Integrated air and naval support for rapid response; 1 million troop cut by 1987.	Leaner force capable of regional deterrence.	Directed in 1985 by Deng; Influenced by Falklands War (1982) and reduced great-power conflict risks.	Economic reforms enabled military investments.	Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025; China’s Future Military Capabilities – US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute – April 2023
PLA Warfare Doctrine Evolution	Local Wars Under Modern, High-Tech Conditions	Formalized in 1993 under Jiang Zemin; “Three attacks, three defenses” targeting stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, helicopters.	Emphasized information dominance and jointness; Reduced forces to 2.3 million by 2000.	Asymmetric advantages against technologically superior foes.	Post-Gulf War (1991) shock from U.S. precision strikes.	Investments in missiles and cyber capabilities.	Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025; People’s Liberation Army Operational Concepts – RAND Corporation – September 2020
PLA Warfare Doctrine Evolution	Local Wars Under Informatized Conditions	Revised in 2004 under Hu Jintao; System-of-systems operations; 1.5 billion yuan annual informatization investments by 2010.	Established Strategic Support Force precursors for space and cyber.	Enhanced joint campaigns; Corruption hindered progress.	Lessons from Iraq (2003) and Kosovo (1999).	Led to Xi Jinping’s anti-graft campaigns post-2012.	Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025; People’s Liberation Army Operational Concepts – RAND Corporation – September 2020
PLA Warfare Doctrine Evolution	Informatized Local Wars	Refined in 2015 guideline; Emphasis on maritime struggles; 300,000 troop cuts to 2 million.	2015-2016 reforms dissolved general departments, created theater commands, elevated Rocket Force.	Improved readiness for Taiwan contingencies.	Amid South China Sea tensions; Xi’s vision for world-class military by 2049.	“New historic missions” for global roles.	Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025; China’s Future Military Capabilities – US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute – April 2023
PLA Warfare Doctrine Evolution	Transition to Intelligentized Warfare	Accelerated in 2020s; Integrated mechanization, informatization, intelligentization by 2027; Annual defense spending $230 billion in 2025, $1.6 billion in AI.	Dissolved Strategic Support Force in 2024 for Information Support Force; Emphasized AI for decision-making, swarms, cognitive warfare.	Poised for multidomain dominance by 2035; Escalation risks from autonomous miscalculations.	Xi’s 2017 AlphaGo-inspired doctrines; Lessons from Ukraine (2022).	Perceived U.S. superiority; Military-civil fusion.	Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025; Chinese Next-Generation Psychological Warfare: The Military Applications of Emerging Technologies and Implications for the United States – RAND Corporation – July 2023
Informatized Warfare	Foundations	Integration of information technology for dominance; Network-centric operations; 90% of PLA units networked by 2020.	Developed C4ISR infrastructures like Beidou (35 satellites by 2020); Data links for interoperability.	Enhanced deterrence in regional disputes; Vulnerabilities to electronic warfare.	Observations of U.S. Gulf War (1991) successes; 2004 guideline update under Hu Jintao.	“Local wars under informatized conditions”; System-of-systems confrontation.	Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025; People’s Liberation Army Operational Concepts – RAND Corporation – September 2020
Informatized Warfare	Limitations	Overreliance on centralized command; Data processing delays up to 30 minutes; 70% command links disrupted in exercises.	Rigid hierarchies; Manpower shortages in SSF (150,000 personnel); Corruption issues.	Bottlenecks in OODA loop; Vulnerability to U.S. Cyber Command.	Exposed in joint exercises like Stride-2018; Human limitations in high-speed conflicts.	Interim gaps reduced sortie rates by 25% in air exercises.	Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025; Chinese Next-Generation Psychological Warfare: The Military Applications of Emerging Technologies and Implications for the United States – RAND Corporation – July 2023
Informatized Warfare	Domain-Specific Applications	Naval: Blue-water expansions with Type 055 destroyers (AESA radars processing thousands of tracks); Air: J-20 stealth fighters with datalinks; Ground: Digitized brigades with ZBD-08 vehicles.	Precision munitions like DF-21D (CEP 10 meters); Psychological operations via Three Warfares (2003).	Strengthened A2/AD; Logistics strains (fuel up 40%); Backfired in international perceptions.	Post-Taiwan Strait Crisis (1996); Kosovo War (1999) lessons; Ukraine (2022) adaptations.	Submarine noise 20 decibels above U.S.; Engine delays for WS-15 to 2025.	China’s Pursuit of Defense Technologies: Implications for U.S. and Multilateral Export Control and Investment Screening Regimes – Center for Strategic and International Studies – April 2023; Eye to Eye in AI: Developing Artificial Intelligence for National Security and Defense – Atlantic Council – May 2022
Intelligentized Warfare Framework	Overall Concept	Integration of AI for cognitive superiority; Three-step modernization by 2049; Intelligence supremacy as core.	Fusion of physical, information, cognitive domains; AI-driven decision-making.	Paradigm shift to unmanned operations; Ethical and escalation risks.	Xi’s 2017 directives at 19th Party Congress; AlphaGo (2016) inspiration.	Perceived U.S. superiority; Military-civil fusion ($1.6 billion annual).	Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025; Chinese Next-Generation Psychological Warfare: The Military Applications of Emerging Technologies and Implications for the United States – RAND Corporation – July 2023
Intelligentized Warfare Framework	Pillars: Intelligence Dominance	Deep learning for strategic forecasting; Processing thousands of variables per second.	Large language models for operational plans; 50% faster OODA loops.	Probabilistic edge over human-led forces.	AlphaGo victory (2016).	Mosaic warfare adaptations from DARPA concepts.	China’s Pursuit of Defense Technologies: Implications for U.S. and Multilateral Export Control and Investment Screening Regimes – Center for Strategic and International Studies – April 2023; People’s Liberation Army Operational Concepts – RAND Corporation – September 2020
Intelligentized Warfare Framework	Pillars: Autonomous Execution	Self-organizing swarms; 119-drone swarm in 2017, scaled to 1,000+ by 2024.	Algorithms for flocking; 90% success in exercises.	Saturation attacks; Risks of friendly fire.	2010s drone experiments.	Zhurihe exercises (2023) with deepfakes (75% success).	Eye to Eye in AI: Developing Artificial Intelligence for National Security and Defense – Atlantic Council – May 2022; China’s Future Military Capabilities – US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute – April 2023
Intelligentized Warfare Framework	Pillars: Cognitive Confrontation	Brain control via subliminal messaging; 30% influence on simulated populations.	AI analyzes social media for deepfakes.	Victory without kinetic force; Blurs warfare-peace lines.	Neuroscience integrations post-2018.	Sun Tzu modernized through AI.	Chinese Next-Generation Psychological Warfare: The Military Applications of Emerging Technologies and Implications for the United States – RAND Corporation – July 2023; Exploring the Implications of Generative AI for Chinese Military Cyber-Enabled Influence Operations: Chinese Military Strategies, Capabilities, and Intent – RAND Corporation – February 2024
Intelligentized Warfare Framework	Domain-Specific Frameworks	Cyber: Cognitive cyber attacks (40% faster vulnerability detection); Space: Intelligent space superiority; Naval: Intelligent maritime denial (3,000 km); Air: Intelligent aerial swarms (90% kill probabilities); Ground: Intelligent urban combat (50% reduced exposure).	AI-orchestrated intrusions; Autonomous satellites; Submarine swarms; Neural nets fusing radar; AI terrain mapping.	Disrupts C4ISR; Secures positioning; Challenges navigation; Achieves superiority; Sustains operations.	2019 guidelines for cyber; Beidou enhancements; Post-2016 South China Sea; J-20 integrations; Ukraine (2022) lessons.	Djibouti base (2017) for forward intelligentization.	Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025; China’s Future Military Capabilities – US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute – April 2023
Enabling Technologies	Artificial Intelligence	Cornerstone for predictive superiority; $1.6 billion annual investments; 343 AI contracts in 2021.	Deep learning, big data analytics; Neural networks for target recognition (petabytes processed).	30% reduced uncertainty; Vulnerabilities to adversarial inputs.	AlphaGo (2016); 2010s AI pilots like PLAAF human-AI dogfights (2021).	Large language models narrowing U.S. gaps by 2024.	Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025; Chinese Next-Generation Psychological Warfare: The Military Applications of Emerging Technologies and Implications for the United States – RAND Corporation – July 2023
Enabling Technologies	Autonomy	Self-organizing collectives; 1,000+ unit swarms by 2024; 200 fixed-wing munitions in 2020.	Algorithms for flocking; Manned-unmanned teaming (J-20 wingmen at 2024 Zhuhai).	90% success rates; Proliferation risks via exports.	2010s drone experiments; Ukraine (2022) lessons.	Ground robotics reducing fuel 40%; Lethal autonomy by 2025.	China’s Pursuit of Defense Technologies: Implications for U.S. and Multilateral Export Control and Investment Screening Regimes – Center for Strategic and International Studies – April 2023; Eye to Eye in AI: Developing Artificial Intelligence for National Security and Defense – Atlantic Council – May 2022
Enabling Technologies	Cognitive Systems	Brain control for hallucinations/surrender; 30% influence rate.	Electromagnetic stimuli; AI sentiment analysis for deepfakes (40% efficacy boost).	Non-kinetic capitulation; Ethical concerns.	Post-2018 neuroscience; Three Warfares evolution (2003).	Generative AI bots; Zhurihe (2023) validations.	Chinese Next-Generation Psychological Warfare: The Military Applications of Emerging Technologies and Implications for the United States – RAND Corporation – July 2023; Exploring the Implications of Generative AI for Chinese Military Cyber-Enabled Influence Operations: Chinese Military Strategies, Capabilities, and Intent – RAND Corporation – February 2024; Full Stack: China’s Evolving Industrial Policy for AI – RAND Corporation – June 2025; Dr. Li Bicheng, or How China Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Social Media Manipulation – RAND Corporation – October 2024
Operational Applications	Multi-Domain Precision Warfare	AI aggregates 500+ satellites (67 launched 2024) for 2,000 nm targeting; 30% shorter kill chains.	Joint Sword-2024A/B exercises for Taiwan blockades.	Rapid force aggregation; Superiority in protracted conflicts.	Russia-Ukraine lessons; 2027 objectives.	Corruption disruptions; Paramilitary forces.	Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025; People’s Liberation Army Operational Concepts – RAND Corporation – September 2020
Operational Applications	Cyber and Space	AI for network reconnaissance; Volt Typhoon prepositioning.	Cyberspace Force post-2024; Kinetic/laser ASAT tests (2023).	Paralyzes systems; Heightened escalation.	SSF reforms; Beidou for centimeter accuracy.	26 foreign exercises in 2024.	Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025; China’s Pursuit of Defense Technologies: Implications for U.S. and Multilateral Export Control and Investment Screening Regimes – Center for Strategic and International Studies – April 2023
Operational Applications	Unmanned and Cognitive Operations	1,000+ swarms; Deepfakes in Zhurihe (2023, 75% success).	Manned-unmanned teaming; Tailored propaganda.	50% reduced exposure; Gray-zone dominance.	BZK-005 patrols; Spamouflage campaigns.	Djibouti base drone monitoring.	Chinese Next-Generation Psychological Warfare: The Military Applications of Emerging Technologies and Implications for the United States – RAND Corporation – July 2023; Eye to Eye in AI: Developing Artificial Intelligence for National Security and Defense – Atlantic Council – May 2022
Global Security Impacts	Regional Tensions	3,067 ADIZ incursions in 2024; Coercion in South China Sea (80% oil transit).	Ramming/boarding; 38 joint patrols.	Commerce disruptions; Eroded U.S. deterrence.	Post-2016 arbitral ruling; Taiwan Strait Crisis.	Nuclear to 1,000+ warheads by 2030.	Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025; China’s Future Military Capabilities – US Army War College Strategic Studies Institute – April 2023
Global Security Impacts	Overseas Expansions and Influence	Ream Naval Base (Cambodia, 2025); Peace Ark tours.	BRI influence; Data collection.	Power projection; Eroded U.S. soft power.	Belt and Road initiatives.	Overseas influence tactics; Low-intensity coercion.	Chinese Next-Generation Psychological Warfare: The Military Applications of Emerging Technologies and Implications for the United States – RAND Corporation – July 2023; Securing Cyber and Space: How the United States Can Disrupt China’s Blockade Plans – Center for Strategic and International Studies – March 2025
Global Security Impacts	Escalation Risks	AI misjudgments leading to flash wars; Overconfidence in predictions.	Absent human vetoes; Emergent behaviors.	Stability erosion; Arms control necessities.	Ukraine adaptations for hybrid warfare.	Nuclear entanglements; Influence ops undermining alliances.	People’s Liberation Army Operational Concepts – RAND Corporation – September 2020; China’s Lessons from the Russia-Ukraine War: Perceived New Strategic Opportunities and an Emerging Model of Hybrid Warfare – RAND Corporation – 2025
Western Responses	Technological Superiority and Investments	U.S. $800 billion defense budget 2025; $18 billion R&D for third offset.	DARPA initiatives; Replicator for thousands of autonomous systems.	Sustains qualitative edges; Bolsters Taiwan response.	2022 National Defense Strategy; Cold War offset analogies.	$2 billion for Collaborative Combat Aircraft (2025).	Annual Report to Congress: Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2025 – Department of Defense – December 2025; The People’s Liberation Army’s Approach to Manned-Unmanned Teaming: Theory and Practice – RAND Corporation – August 2025
Western Responses	Export Controls and Regulations	2018 Export Control Reform Act; 43 entities added to Entity List (2023).	Licensing for chips; NIST AI evaluations.	Delays Chinese AI by 20-30%; Mitigates bioterrorism.	2023 executive orders on biosecurity.	Evasion via third parties necessitates multilateralism.	China’s Pursuit of Defense Technologies: Implications for U.S. and Multilateral Export Control and Investment Screening Regimes – Center for Strategic and International Studies – April 2023; An Open Door: AI Innovation in the Global South amid Geostrategic Competition – Center for Strategic and International Studies – August 2025; Opportunities to Strengthen U.S. Biosecurity from AI-Enabled Bioterrorism: What Policymakers Should Know – Center for Strategic and International Studies – August 2025
Western Responses	Alliances and Infrastructure	NATO DIANA (70 sites by 2025); G7 GIIP ($600 billion by 2027).	Steadfast Defender 2024 exercises; Funds AI infrastructure in Global South.	Strengthens collective defense; Reduces dependencies.	2022 Strategic Concept; 2021 Build Back Better World.	Transatlantic AI harmonization; $10 billion for energy grids.	Implementing NATO’s Strategic Concept on China – Atlantic Council – February 2023; Second-order impacts of civil artificial intelligence regulation on defense: Why the national security community must engage – Atlantic Council – June 2025; Navigating the new reality of international AI policy – Atlantic Council – July 2025

---

Copyright of debuglies.com
Even partial reproduction of the contents is not permitted without prior authorization – Reproduction reserved