There was a small object within the Asia Times— and yet it was anything but small. Chinese scientists announced a breakthrough in a complicated military surveillance device that can enhance China’s electronic warfare capabilities to detect and jam enemy signals at unprecedented speed — using technology previously considered out of reach.
Further examples of China’s ambitions are its proven ability to infiltrate among the most sensitive computer systems within the USA, plans to launch over 1,000 satellites to attain space dominance over the subsequent decade and to develop state-of-the-art, operational hypersonic missiles.
In today’s rapidly evolving geopolitical landscape, the United States is in a race against time. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has proven itself to be a serious competitor and potentially dangerous adversary on multiple fronts and in multiple areas – and that is as a consequence of China’s relentless pursuit of technological dominance.
China is poised to make use of this dominance not only to pursue its long-term goal of reintegrating Taiwan into mainland China, but additionally to ascertain itself because the leading power within the Indo-Pacific – and from that base to challenge the United States on the query of who will set the principles for the worldwide order within the post-Cold War world.
With the specter of a brand new Cold War looming, we cannot afford to be complacent as we navigate this era of great power competition. Our national security faces an acute challenge.
The aim is to stop conflict with China and to take care of peace and stability within the Indo-Pacific region. Effective deterrence requires more speed, deeper innovation and more comprehensive cooperation than today.
To stay ahead, we must take a vigorous, whole-of-government approach to leverage the considerable strengths of the private sector. “Peace through strength,” President Ronald Reagan’s good formulation of the challenge within the late twentieth century, must also mean “peace through speed” within the context of the twenty first century.
Military superiority is not any longer determined solely by the dimensions of our arsenal and the variety of our forces. The battlefield of the longer term will even be determined by communications, cyberspace, artificial intelligence, hypersonics and other emerging technologies whose development cycles are based on quarterly, monthly and even weekly updates.
The private sector is inherently designed to supply, iterate and innovate at a rapid pace. Just consider how quickly consumer electronics like smartphones are evolving. We can upgrade our personal devices yearly to maintain up with the most recent developments. Why should our approach to national security be any different?
For our country to quickly remain competitive, U.S. firms must move beyond their marginal positions. Industry must concurrently encourage dialogue between our country and China and help our country strengthen its defenses to make those dialogues productive. I actually have spoken with several tech CEOs who understand the gravity of the situation and are willing to hitch in a whole-of-government approach.
A critical a part of this transformation is entirely within the hands of the federal government. Speed ​​was less vital in previous procurement systems, as large weapons platforms were designed to last for many years. We are still flying B-52 bombers today, nearly 70 years after their introduction, and an aircraft carrier is designed to last 50 years.
A redesigned procurement system will create incentives for industry to attain results faster, adapt business technologies more quickly for presidency use, and encourage firms to make different investment decisions than today.
If U.S. firms are to seize the moment and prevail, the whole private sector must undergo equally profound, if not profound, change in 3 ways.
First, we have to be willing to discuss national security without regret and prioritize it, and make that clear to our teams. You’d be surprised at how powerful that is in our country—for each worker who disagrees, there are dozens and even tons of (including every veteran and immigrant I speak to) who want to hitch this mission.
Second, it’s imperative that we invest proactively, even within the absence of full budget clarity, to enable rapid scaling of solutions. While political dysfunction in Washington creates unnecessary headwinds, successful firms know deftly navigate and mitigate challenges. Certain political risks might be minimized, particularly when technologies resembling cybersecurity and space communications are naturally strengthened by dual use within the private and public sectors.
And third, we want to collaborate across traditional boundaries to jointly develop solutions that none of our firms can achieve alone. We have already began doing this with several technology firms. It is difficult to collaborate in a different way, especially with competitors, however the profit to me is obvious: I see the innovation cycle shortening from years to months and even weeks.
When the private sector joined the arsenal of democracy in World War II and switched from making cars, fridges, and kids’s toys to creating tanks, ships, and airplane engines, our soldiers were higher fed and higher equipped and won the war. Industry was transformed for the common good.
Creating lasting peace within the Indo-Pacific region would require one other transformation of this sort, and Booz Allen is committed to leading the best way alongside other likeminded firms. We are able to support our country and our government in recent and unconventional ways to fulfill this moment and create a template for collaboration that goes beyond national security – to climate, infrastructure and healthcare.
By harnessing the ingenuity of the private sector and forging recent partnerships with our government, we are able to achieve peace through speed – working together as a nation to usher in a brand new era of peace and stability for generations to return. The time to act is now.
Other indispensable comments published by Assets:
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com’s commentaries reflect solely the views of their authors and don’t necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Assets.
