海角大神

In its 鈥淒eep Futures鈥� war game this year at the US Army War College, the Army looked three decades into the future, bringing together top US military officials, counterterrorism experts, and even New York City police to look at the greatest threats that the Pentagon is likely to be facing.

By the best reckoning of Army war-gamers, here are the top three threats facing the US military in 2025 and beyond:

The megacity

By 2030, 60 percent of the world鈥檚 population is expected to live in urban areas. 鈥淢any megacities feature slums and endemic homelessness, uncontrolled expansion/urban sprawl, and lack of basic support structures,鈥� warns the Army鈥檚 鈥淔uture Study Plan,鈥� which was produced in conjunction with the war game.聽

These are notoriously difficult environments in which to maneuver for US troops. 鈥淢ilitary operations in a megacity are complex, dangerous, and intense. Urban terrain is the great equalizer when facing determined combatants,鈥� the war-gamers note.聽

This is in large part because 鈥渢he megacity magnifies the power of the defender and diminishes the attacker鈥檚 advantages in firepower and mobility.鈥澛�

As a result, the US military 鈥渨ill face the possibilities of larger entrapments,鈥� it adds. 鈥淭herefore, the actual city fight remains a close fight 鈥� street by street, subsurface to skyscraper level, and often face-to-face.鈥澛�

Megacities offer insurgents, criminal networks, and terrorist groups both safe haven and the ability to hide in plain sight.

鈥淚t鈥檚 not about pouring brigade after brigade into a megacity: They will just swallow it up,鈥� says Col. Kevin Felix, chief of the Future Warfare Division at the Army Capabilities Integration Center. 鈥淚t鈥檚 about thinking of new operational concepts.鈥�

Competition for resources

Exacerbated by the growth of megacities, the competition for resources grows, even as road maintenance and garbage pickup services break down and sewage system backups proliferate.聽

For this reason, Army planners predict an 鈥渋ncreasingly desperate situation with cholera and disease and so forth,鈥� says Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, director of the Army Capabilities Integration Center.

In the war game, it was a humanitarian disaster that brought the US Army to a fictional megacity in the first place. And it was that humanitarian disaster, too, that 鈥渟ets the conditions for violence and communal conflict,鈥� Lieutenant General McMaster says.

This in turn 鈥渁llows illegal armed groups to be able to operate within that chaotic environment and attack each other,鈥� he says.

The rise of these armed groups, with their ambitions of securing power, 鈥渨ill form a world of multiple spheres of influence that are likely to create new security and resource competitions,鈥� the Army war game鈥檚 "Strategic Trends Analysis" notes.聽鈥淗istorically, these shifts in power have been extremely violent eras.鈥�

Physical and cognitive 'augmentation'

Given the way in which the Pentagon is investing in technology now, 鈥渢he Army risks [being overmatched] by 2025鈥� in several key areas, the Army future war-gamers note.

One of these areas, they argue, is biological technology. 鈥淗umans could be outfitted with physical and cognitive augmentation,鈥� the "Strategic Trends Analysis" says. 鈥淏io and nanotech revolutions could extend life through nanobot-assisted bodies.鈥�

But how might the Pentagon, with a budget that is many times as large as many other nations combined, risk being surpassed in these areas, as the Army future planners warn?

The answer, McMaster says, is that 鈥渨e are looking at adversaries who may not use human science in an ethically constrained manner.鈥� This means, he adds, preparing to go up against enemies who are 鈥渓ess constrained by the application of human sciences.鈥澛�

In response, 鈥淭he Army must maximize its number one capital investment 鈥� the Soldier 鈥� by increasing cognitive and physical abilities to assimilate complex situations.鈥�

This comes back to the importance of the 鈥渉uman dimension,鈥� McMaster says. 鈥淗ow do we prepare to operate 鈥� and create adaptive soldiers, who must operate in ambiguity?鈥澛�