A report says missiles were launched. Before asking how far they can travel, ask how they fly. “Cruise” and “ballistic” describe different ways of reaching a target. That difference helps explain what defenders are up against.

Cruise: think of a small, uncrewed aircraft.

A cruise missile uses an engine and aerodynamic lift to stay in the air for most of its flight. Many fly low and follow a planned route. Low altitude can make them harder for ground-based radar to spot at long distances because the Earth curves between the radar and the missile.

Ballistic: think of a powered launch, then a long arc.

A ballistic missile accelerates under rocket power, then travels largely without engine thrust. Its path is shaped mainly by its initial speed, direction and gravity. Long-range ballistic missiles can travel through space before their warheads return to the atmosphere.

Why it matters

Missile defense has to match the flight path. An interceptor designed to engage a warhead in space is addressing a different problem from one hunting a cruise missile close to the ground. “The country has air defenses” does not, by itself, tell you which threats those defenses can handle.

The catch

These are useful starting points, not rules for every weapon. Hypersonic glide vehicles are rocket-launched but can maneuver while gliding through the atmosphere. And “hypersonic” describes speed, not one unique flight path: ballistic missiles can reach hypersonic speeds too.

Remember this

Cruise missiles sustain powered flight. Ballistic missiles rely largely on motion after the initial boost. When reading the next headline, start with the flight path.

Sources

Congressional Budget Office: National Cruise Missile Defense, Chapter 1

U.S. Government Accountability Office: Hypersonic Weapons

Military forces do not get to choose whether satellite navigation will be available in war. GPS signals arrive at Earth at low power, which makes them vulnerable to interference. A force that relies on them for positioning, precision fires, timing, logistics, and command networks must learn to keep operating when those signals disappear or become unreliable.

That makes GPS-denial training a genuine readiness requirement. It also creates a difficult domestic problem. A radio-frequency test conducted on a military range can affect receivers far beyond the installation's fence, including aircraft sharing the surrounding airspace. The central question is whether military and civil aviation procedures match the size and complexity of the test environment.

White Sands Missile Range brings that problem into focus. The range is a major site for testing how forces operate when GPS is degraded or denied, and the Federal Aviation Administration publishes wide, altitude-dependent warning areas around scheduled interference events. A fatal air-ambulance flight on May 14, 2026, now provides a high-consequence case for examining how that coordination works in practice.

Why the Military Must Train Without GPS

GPS provides more than a location on a screen. Positioning, navigation, and timing data support precision weapons, synchronized networks, force tracking, communications, logistics, and the timing required by many digital systems. The Defense Department's modernization strategy therefore treats protected access to PNT as a joint-force requirement, including the ability to continue operating when GPS is unavailable.

Jamming and spoofing create different operational problems. Jamming overwhelms the weak signals received from navigation satellites, leaving equipment unable to calculate a reliable position. Spoofing presents false signals that can produce a convincing but incorrect solution. Training must expose units to these conditions while testing alternative PNT sources and procedures.

The Army has used White Sands for Positioning, Navigation and Timing Assessment Experiments, bringing together joint, multinational, and industry partners in denied and degraded environments. This is not an abstract exercise. A unit that has rehearsed only with reliable GPS may discover in combat that its navigation, fires, or command network fails at the moment those capabilities matter most.

The Test Envelope Extends Beyond the Range

Radio-frequency energy does not stop at an administrative boundary. FAA advisory WSMRNM GPS 26-13 announced GPS interference testing centered at White Sands from May 12 through May 18, 2026. It warned that GPS, WAAS, GBAS, and ADS-B could be unreliable or unavailable within the affected area.

The advisory described a possible effect radius of 366 nautical miles at and above flight level 400, 326 nautical miles at flight level 250, and 240 nautical miles at both 10,000 feet and 4,000 feet above ground level. Even at 50 feet above ground level, the published radius was 210 nautical miles. These distances were part of the planned safety notice, not evidence that an emitter unexpectedly escaped the range.

The circles do not mean that every receiver inside them will fail. They define an altitude-dependent planning area in which pilots and controllers may encounter degraded service. That shifts the operational question away from the physical fence and toward warning, shared situational awareness, real-time coordination, and reliable fallback procedures.

Subscribe

What the New Mexico Flight Shows

The NTSB preliminary report identifies the aircraft as Beech C90 N249CP, operated by Generation Jets under Part 135 as an air ambulance. Two pilots and two flight nurses were flying from Roswell Air Center to Sierra Blanca Regional Airport to pick up a patient. All four died when the aircraft struck terrain near Lincoln, New Mexico, shortly after midnight on May 14.

The report states that military GPS jamming activities encompassed the area around the accident flight during the time of the flight. At 00:00:26 mountain daylight time, a pilot reported losing GPS and requested a heading. Less than a minute later, the air traffic controller asked an operations supervisor to have the military stop the jamming. At about 00:05, the supervisor contacted the military. At 00:07:34, ADS-B data returned to intervals of two to three seconds.

At about 00:08, the crew twice reported having a visual on Ruidoso and received clearance for a visual approach. Around 00:10, the supervisor told the military that jamming could resume. At 00:10:27, ADS-B data returned to intervals of about one minute. The final GPS data point was recorded at 00:15:26. The aircraft struck mountainous terrain at approximately 9,950 feet near the Capitan Summit Radio Facility.

Other facts remain operationally relevant. The flight occurred on a dark night with zero percent moon illumination, and the destination weather station was out of service. The NTSB listed visual meteorological conditions, while the Capitan Mountains between the aircraft and airport rise to 10,201 feet. The timeline establishes that military jamming, loss of GPS, and an air traffic control intervention overlapped during the flight. The NTSB has not assigned a probable cause.

The Military-Civilian Deconfliction Problem

The FAA warning and the controller's response show that safeguards were already active. An advisory had been issued, the controller knew how to request an interruption, and the military responded. The case therefore raises a more demanding question: whether those measures provided enough protection for an aircraft operating at night near mountainous terrain.

A wide interference footprint complicates the mental model used by civil operators. Pilots may be outside the range itself yet still inside the published area of possible GPS disruption. The effects can also appear across several connected systems, including navigation displays, ADS-B position reporting, and GPS-supported approach procedures.

For the military, deconfliction is part of test design rather than a separate administrative task. The practical issues include who has authority to stop an emitter, how quickly that order reaches the range, whether controllers can see the active test window, how priority flights such as medical missions are handled, and which navigation and surveillance systems remain dependable during the event.

DefenseScoop reported that Lisa Dyer, executive director of the GPS Innovation Alliance, urged federal and military officials to pursue safer coordination measures and cited the accident during a transportation conference. GPSIA is an industry association whose members have interests in GPS-enabled technologies and services, so its intervention is an industry position rather than an accident finding. It nevertheless points to a policy problem that military and aviation authorities can assess with operational data.

My Read

The military case for GPS-denial training is strong. A force built around satellite-enabled precision cannot treat the loss of those signals as an exception. Realistic exercises reveal weak procedures, vulnerable receivers, and overreliance on a single source of positioning and timing before an adversary does.

The safety issue is not a choice between military readiness and civil aviation. Both depend on disciplined operations. If planned interference can cover hundreds of miles, then the procedures that protect civil users are part of the system being tested. Range control, air traffic control, notification, interruption authority, and alternative navigation should be exercised with the same seriousness as the jammer itself.

The New Mexico accident gives officials a high-consequence case for evaluating that architecture. The final investigation may identify several contributing factors, but the operational lesson is already visible: navigation warfare training and civil-airspace coordination have to be managed as a single operational problem.

What to Watch

• The NTSB docket and final report, particularly avionics data, crew actions, terrain analysis, and the role assigned to the documented GPS loss.

• Any FAA or Defense Department changes to notification, real-time interruption procedures, controller visibility, or protections for priority flights.

• Military investment in assured PNT and data showing how often civil operators report degraded GPS during scheduled domestic test events.

Recommended Sources

• NTSB Preliminary Report WPR26FA186: the official preliminary timeline and accident facts.

• FAA WSMRNM GPS 26-13 Flight Advisory: the exact testing window and altitude-dependent interference radii.

• Department of Defense Digital Modernization Strategy: the military requirement to protect and deliver positioning, navigation, and timing.

• U.S. Army PNT Assessment Experiment: how White Sands is used to test forces and systems in denied and degraded environments.

• DefenseScoop: reporting on the policy debate following the New Mexico accident.

• GPS Innovation Alliance: the organization's stated position on harmful GPS interference.

Sources & Methodology

This analysis uses the NTSB preliminary report for accident facts and sequence, the exact FAA advisory for the White Sands test window and interference footprint, Defense Department and Army material for the military requirement, and GPSIA and DefenseScoop for the policy debate.

The NTSB report is preliminary. The article distinguishes its documented timeline from the probable-cause determination that will follow the investigation. The four photographs are documentary or clearly identified as illustrative, with source and reuse terms preserved in their captions.

Corrections or source clarifications can be sent through the DefenseHub contact page.

R. Planche · DefenseHub

Share the post

Source Files · Files collected November 2 to 8, 2026

This edition tracks where defense power is being built, funded, and rethought. Two Indo-Pacific pieces chart the submarine counts and strategic culture behind the US-China naval contest, while two CRS briefs show Congress wrestling with Iran sanctions blowback and military construction dollars. A technical look at autonomous weapons and a doctrinal review of NATO's deterrence pivot round out a set spanning hardware, funding, and alliance strategy.

1. Sea Power in the Indo-Pacific

Dongkeun Lee · 411 pages · 2026 · Indo-Pacific sea power

A 411-page thesis comparing how geopolitics and maritime strategic culture shape naval power in the US, China, Japan, Australia and South Korea from the pre-Cold War era to the 2020s. It offers a long-horizon framework for judging which Indo-Pacific navies can convert ships into actual strategic effect. Headline finding: Sea power development accelerates when a politico-military establishment adopts a maritime strategic culture, leading to deployment of naval assets for sea control or SLOC protection. (p. 343)

Library page · Original source

2. Dialogue Social Science Review (DSSR)

Dialogue Social Science Review (DSSR) · 17 pages · Jan 22, 2026 · US-China rivalry

An analysis of US-China strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific covering naval buildups, alliances, infrastructure projects and regional hedging strategies. It lays out the hard numbers behind the naval arms race shaping Indo-Pacific security planning today. Headline finding: China expanded its naval capabilities between 2017 and 2025, increasing its submarine fleet to 73 and commissioning the Fujian aircraft carrier to enhance power projection. (p. 9)

Library page · Original source

The two files above are free. The next four are where this week gets interesting.

• 3. U.S. Sanctions on Iran: Background and Political Context (CRS). Could the sanctions meant to isolate Iran actually be driving it toward its rivals' allies?

• 4. FY2027 Proposed Military Construction Appropriations: A Summary (CRS). How far below that request did the House actually fund military construction and family housing?

• 5. Artificial Intelligence and Human-out-of-the-Loop: Is It Time for Autonomous Military Systems? (Miskolc). What kind of attack could trick an autonomous weapon system into targeting the wrong thing?

• 6. NATO'S STRATEGIC ADAPTATION IN THE ERA OF SYSTEMIC RIVALRY: FROM (Nato Adapt). What exactly pushed NATO to abandon its old crisis-management paradigm for deterrence?

Unlock all 6 files

Read more

Operation Desert Storm produced one of the clearest battlefield victories of the late twentieth century. A coalition assembled with authorization from the United Nations Security Council opened its air campaign on January 17, 1991. Ground forces crossed into Iraq and Kuwait on February 24. One hundred hours later, Kuwait had been liberated and the Iraqi army was retreating.

The political result was less complete. Saddam Hussein remained in power. Iraqi forces suppressed uprisings in the Shia south and Kurdish north. Sanctions, weapons inspections, no-fly zones, and recurring military confrontations turned Iraq into a prolonged regional crisis. Desert Storm won a limited campaign. It did not create a durable security order in the Gulf.

That distinction matters because the war is often remembered as proof that overwhelming force, superior technology, and precise objectives can produce a clean strategic result. The military achievement was real. The clean ending was not.

What the Coalition Won

The United Nations condemned Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait, demanded an unconditional withdrawal, imposed sanctions, and eventually authorized member states to use all necessary means to enforce its resolutions. The coalition's central political purpose was limited: remove Iraqi forces from Kuwait and restore Kuwaiti sovereignty. The Bush administration did not publicly define regime change as a coalition war aim, and expanding the offensive toward Baghdad risked fracturing the coalition.

The campaign achieved that purpose. Coalition aircraft attacked Iraqi command networks, air defenses, military formations, supply lines, and weapons facilities. Air power also weakened Iraqi ground forces before the land offensive began. On February 24, coalition forces attacked through Kuwait and southern Iraq. The ground phase ended on February 28 after approximately 100 hours.

The speed of the result obscured important limits. Many Republican Guard formations survived the campaign despite substantial losses. Iraq retained forces capable of protecting the regime. The campaign removed the Iraqi army from Kuwait without removing the government that had ordered the invasion.

The Directive Was Broader Than Four Goals

National Security Directive 54, signed by President George H. W. Bush on January 15, 1991, authorized military action for four purposes: Iraq's complete withdrawal from Kuwait, restoration of Kuwait's government, protection of American citizens abroad, and promotion of security and stability in the Persian Gulf.

Treating those four purposes as a simple scorecard distorts the directive. It also instructed U.S. and coalition forces to defend Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council states, suppress Iraqi missile attacks, destroy Iraqi chemical, biological, and nuclear capabilities, break its command system, and eliminate the Republican Guard as an effective fighting force. Several of those missions remained incomplete when offensive operations stopped.

The directive contained another condition that complicates the familiar account of limited war. It stated that replacing Iraq's leadership would become an explicit U.S. objective if Baghdad used chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, supported terrorism against the United States or its partners, or destroyed Kuwait's oil fields. Iraqi forces ignited or damaged hundreds of Kuwaiti oil wells and related facilities. Although the condition named in NSD-54 had occurred, the administration did not translate it into a decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

The administration stopped after liberating Kuwait rather than expand the war into an open-ended campaign for regime change. That decision left a regime with surviving military power to shape the postwar order. The tension was already present inside the directive: Washington sought both a limited restoration of Kuwait and broader Gulf-security objectives.

The Logistics Behind the Victory

The campaign could not have moved so quickly without the buildup that preceded it. At Saudi Arabia's request, the United States began deploying combat forces on August 8, 1990. The XVIII Airborne Corps formed a major component of the initial defensive deployment. On November 8, President Bush ordered a second buildup that included the armor-heavy VII Corps from Germany, giving the coalition an offensive option.

Moving VII Corps was not a matter of a few weeks. Its vehicles and heavy equipment arrived through Saudi ports over roughly two and a half months. The corps was still completing its reception and movement into assembly areas after the air campaign began, with the final equipment leaving the ports in February. The achievement involved sealift, airlift, ports, host-nation support, fuel, ammunition, maintenance, medical capacity, and an enormous network of transport units.

Logistics made the offensive possible. Air supremacy, months of preparation, coalition training, operational deception, intelligence, favorable terrain, and serious weaknesses in Iraqi morale, command, and force disposition also shaped the low coalition casualty rate and the rapid collapse of Iraqi defenses.

Subscribe to DefenseHub

The War Ended Before the Political Problem Did

Coalition and Iraqi commanders met at Safwan on March 3 to establish military terms for maintaining the suspension of hostilities. They did not sign a final peace treaty or conventional armistice. The formal United Nations cease-fire framework came with Security Council Resolution 687 on April 3. Iraq accepted it on April 6, and the Security Council declared the formal cease-fire effective on April 11.

Events inside Iraq immediately exposed the gap between battlefield victory and regional stability. Uprisings spread through the Shia south and Kurdish north. Iraqi security forces suppressed them while the coalition did not intervene in the internal Iraqi conflict. The United States and its partners later intervened to protect displaced Kurds and established no-fly zones over northern and southern Iraq.

Resolution 687 imposed disarmament obligations, inspections, compensation requirements, and continued sanctions. These measures constrained Iraq but did not produce a settled political relationship. U.S. and allied aircraft continued operating over the country, crises over inspections repeatedly escalated, and military strikes returned during the 1990s. By 2003, containment had given way to invasion and regime change.

The consequences extended beyond Washington's policy. Kuwait regained its sovereignty amid extensive physical and environmental damage, including burning oil wells. Iraqi civilians faced repression, sanctions, and the deterioration of state infrastructure. Gulf monarchies accepted a deeper and longer-term U.S. and allied military presence. Iran watched its principal Arab rival survive but emerge weakened and contained.

The Strategic Lesson

The March 1990 U.S. National Security Strategy did not mention Iraq by name. It did identify the security of Gulf energy supplies, military access, host-nation support, pre-positioned equipment, and weapons proliferation as major concerns. At the same time, Central Command was revising its plans around the possibility of an Iraqi attack through Kuwait into Saudi Arabia. Washington had a regional strategy and had begun to recognize the military threat. Its political engagement with Baghdad and its public strategy still failed to capture how quickly Iraq could overturn the regional balance.

Desert Storm also reinforced confidence in U.S. power projection and military technology. Precision weapons, stealth aircraft, satellite communications, and joint operations received much of the attention. Later official reviews emphasized the contributions of conventional weapons, electronic warfare, tankers, training, Iraqi decisions, and the six-month buildup alongside the systems that dominated television coverage.

Desert Storm succeeded as a limited war and exposed the limits of limited war. The coalition liberated Kuwait while the means of constructing a postwar regional order remained unresolved. Battlefield victory ended the occupation. It did not decide who would rule Iraq, how postwar coercion would work, or what political order would replace the one Saddam had shattered.

Recommended Sources

• National Security Directive 54, Responding to Iraqi Aggression in the Gulf, January 15, 1991

• United Nations Security Council Resolution 660, August 2, 1990

• United Nations Security Council Resolution 661, August 6, 1990

• United Nations Security Council Resolution 678, November 29, 1990

• United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, April 3, 1991

• U.S. General Accounting Office, Operation Desert Storm: Evaluation of the Air Campaign

• U.S. Army Center of Military History, Desert Shield and Desert Storm research collection

• U.S. Army Center of Military History, U.S. Army Logistics, 1775–1992, Volume III

• National Security Strategy of the United States, March 1990

• War on the Rocks, The Gulf War 30 Years Later: Successes, Failures, and Blind Spots

• War on the Rocks, The Long Shadow of the Gulf War

Sources & Methodology

This analysis compares the declassified text of National Security Directive 54 with United Nations resolutions, official U.S. military histories, the 1990 National Security Strategy, a Government Accountability Office evaluation, and historical analysis. Dates, force movements, campaign duration, and cease-fire terminology were checked against official records. Assessments of regional stability and strategic consequences are identified as analysis rather than as official findings.

Corrections or source clarifications can be sent through the DefenseHub contact page.

R. Planche · DefenseHub

Share this analysis

Source Files · Files collected October 31 to November 6, 2026

This edition spans the strategic stack from nuclear deterrence to definitional debates over killer robots. Golden Dome and Ethiopia's naval buildup show how great powers and regional states are recalculating military posture, while UNICEF's WASH typology and the UN's Gaza displacement findings document the human cost of conflict in granular, categorized terms. An arXiv framework on autonomous weapons and an NPS thesis on Jordan's smuggling threat round out the issue with analytical tools for regulators and border security planners alike.

1. Golden Dome: Potential Strategic Stability Considerations for Congress

Congressional Research Service · 3 pages · Nov 4, 2026 · Missile defense strategy

A CRS Insight examining strategic stability implications of the proposed Golden Dome missile defense system. Congress must weigh how Golden Dome could affect U.S. nuclear deterrence and provoke coordinated Russian and Chinese responses. Headline finding: Russia and China view Golden Dome as an attempt to undermine their nuclear retaliation capabilities, leading to coordinated opposition. (p. 2)

Library page · Original source

2. The Unfolding Conflict in Ethiopia

Congressional Research Service · 3 pages · Nov 6, 2026 · Horn of Africa conflict

A CRS primer on Ethiopia's spreading internal conflict and rising tension with Eritrea. An opposition alliance of eight groups and Ethiopia's naval and drone buildup point toward a possible wider regional war. Headline finding: Ethiopia is rebuilding its navy with Russian support and acquiring new fighter jets and air defense systems, signaling ambitions for sea access and regional power projection. (p. 2)

Library page · Original source

The two files above are free. The next four are where this week gets interesting.

• 3. Water Under Fire, Volume 4: An urgent call to protect water, sanitation and hygiene in conflict (Unicef). What are the seven ways water itself becomes a weapon?

• 4. Displacement deepens as Israeli forces push Palestinians into shrinking space (Un Ohchr). What legal threshold turns mass displacement into an international crime?

• 5. Defining Autonomous Weapon Systems: A schematic framework for refined purpose-driven definitions (ARXIV). If there is no single agreed definition of an autonomous weapon, how do you even write a treaty banning one?

• 6. RISE OF THE NARCO-STATE: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF SYRIAN REGIME AND IRANIAN-BACKED MILITIA SMUGGLING ON JORDAN'S SECURITY AND STABILITY, AND EXPLORING STRATEGIES JORDAN CAN USE TO COUNTER THIS THREAT (Nps Thesis). What does it take to seal a border against both drugs and an Iranian-backed militia at once?

Unlock all 6 files

Read more

IRAN LEADERS SAY US VOTE VALIDATES RESISTANCE STRATEGY

Iranian Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei said on November 4 that Iran's strikes on US bases and Strait of Hormuz actions exposed American weakness and proved the success of Iran's resistance strategy, according to the Iran Update. ISW-CTP assesses that Iranian leaders do not expect the US midterm results to change Washington's approach, meaning Iran will likely maintain its maximalist demands.

AT A GLANCE

• NEW | UKRAINE | Russian drone strikes on November 3 to 4 caused widespread power outages across central and western Ukraine, per the November 4 assessment.

• NEW | IRAN | Iranian leaders said US midterm results prove their resistance strategy worked, while ISW assesses US policy toward Iran is unlikely to shift.

• NEW | TAIWAN | The PLAN may soon commission the Sichuan, the only amphibious assault ship with an electromagnetic drone catapult, per ISW-CDOT.

• NEW | KOREA | North Korea's October 29 combined missile, rocket, and drone exercise suggests Pyongyang is integrating lessons from the Ukraine war, ISW-CDOT assesses.

Subscribe

WHY IRAN'S LEADERS SEE THE US MIDTERMS AS A WIN

Senior Iranian officials, including Khamenei, SNSC Secretary Mohsen Rezaei, and Parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, publicly framed the November 3 US midterm results as a political defeat for Washington tied to the war's costs, according to the Iran Update.

ISW-CTP assesses that these statements suggest Iran will not moderate its demands, because Iranian leaders believe changes in US political leadership will not alter Washington's underlying approach toward Iran regardless of election outcomes.

Separately, the source reports Iran is using unmanned underwater vehicles, limpet mines, and rocket-propelled grenades, described as suboptimal compared to earlier anti-ship missiles and drones, to disrupt Strait of Hormuz shipping.

ISW-CTP assesses US military overmatch is currently preventing Iran from significantly reducing civilian tanker transit, while noting Iran may invest further in unmanned systems over the long term.

OTHER SIGNALS

UKRAINE | RUSSIAN STRIKES CAUSE WIDESPREAD POWER OUTAGES

ISW report of November 4 · new

Russian forces launched 310 drones overnight on November 3 to 4, striking energy infrastructure in Kyiv City and Khmelnytskyi, Kirovohrad, Odesa, Volyn, Ternopil, and Zhytomyr oblasts, according to Ukrainian officials cited in the November 4 assessment. Zelensky reported emergency outages across eight oblasts plus Kyiv City, and Ukraine's energy ministry reported over 20 strikes on energy systems in 24 hours.

A Kremlin-affiliated milblogger claimed Russian forces shifted to more systematic strikes on system-critical substations to strategically weaken Ukraine, a claim ISW did not independently verify. Ukrainian forces continued long-range strikes into Russia, including a reported drone strike that caused a fire at an Ozon warehouse in Adygeysk, confirmed by the Republic of Adygea's head.

TAIWAN | PLAN PREPARES TO COMMISSION DRONE-CATAPULT SHIP

ISW report of November 3 · new

PRC state media reported the Type 076 vessel Sichuan conducted its first catapult launch and recovery of a GJ-21 stealth drone on October 30, according to the November 3 China and Taiwan Update. ISW-CDOT assesses Sichuan could be commissioned soon, potentially faster than the carrier Fujian given its single catapult.

Separately, Taiwan's Ministry of Defense is requiring teardown inspections of all military drone procurements after prosecutors found PRC-made chips in Align Corp drones used in two government contracts. Taiwan's National Security Bureau is also investigating suspected PRC cyberattacks against a DPP mayoral candidate's campaign infrastructure.

KOREA | NORTH KOREA TESTS COMBINED MISSILE-DRONE STRIKES

ISW report of November 4 · new

North Korea conducted a large-scale missile and drone exercise on October 29 alongside a drone exhibition showcasing fixed-wing UAVs, loitering munitions, and quadcopters, according to the November 4 Korean Peninsula Update. State media showed a fixed-wing drone firing what may have been an anti-radiation missile at a mock radar, followed by smaller drones and rocket and cruise missile launches.

ISW-CDOT assesses this layered strike sequence could be designed to degrade South Korean air defenses before follow-on strikes, reflecting lessons from Russia's campaign in Ukraine. Separately, US and South Korean defense ministers agreed to pursue a timely OPCON transfer, though the annual Security Consultative Meeting was postponed to early 2027 amid capability gaps.

30-DAY CALLS: 7 of 8 resolved calls held since September 2026 (1 missed). Today's call is below.

Read more

The red button is an incomplete picture of the danger. An artificial intelligence system would not need authority to launch a nuclear weapon to influence a decision about its use. It could shape which signals receive attention, how ambiguous activity is classified, and which response appears justified. The critical question begins before authorization: can the person responsible recognize when the machine's assessment is wrong?

A February 2026 SIPRI survey examines reported or documented connections between AI and nuclear or nuclear-related systems in China, India and the United States. It also documents uneven transparency and uncertainty about where human control applies. That combination makes the information reaching a decision-maker a serious subject for scrutiny, even when the final decision remains human.

What We Know

Nuclear command, control and communications, usually shortened to NC3, is a broad term whose scope varies by country. It generally covers systems and arrangements supporting warning, assessment, communications, decision-making and force direction. AI could enter parts of that chain through sensor analysis, image processing or decision support. SIPRI's 2026 survey examines reported applications across several functions, drawing on official documents and technical, industry and media reports. A reported AI connection does not establish the same degree of integration in every country or system.

Human control is an explicit political concern. The White House account of the November 16, 2024 Biden–Xi meeting records both leaders affirming that humans should retain control over decisions to use nuclear weapons. That is a significant political statement about final decision authority. The readout does not specify technical safeguards, verification procedures or the permitted role of AI at each preceding stage of assessment.

A June 2025 SIPRI analysis by Vladislav Chernavskikh and Jules Palayer examines how military AI could affect nuclear escalation, including through systems outside nuclear forces. It identifies opaque recommendations, automation bias and pressure for faster decisions as concerns. These are explanations of possible escalation pathways. The study does not establish that an operational machine-learning system has already caused a nuclear launch decision or a particular country's false nuclear warning.

The technical concern has several forms. A model could misclassify an innocuous signal as threatening, overlook a genuine threat, or become unreliable when conditions differ from those represented in its data. Compromised inputs could also distort its assessment. An October 2025 SIPRI governance report discusses reliability, false positives and false negatives, and the difficulty of turning human-control commitments into operational standards. Recognizing a failure mode is different from measuring its probability in a specific classified system.

Civilian examples require separate treatment. The IAEA's 2026–2027 verification programme documents analytical tools already in use alongside prototypes, with human experts retaining responsibility. That provides a concrete example of supervised information processing. It does not demonstrate how a military warning network is configured. Safeguards verification, reactor accident prevention and decisions about nuclear weapons involve different institutions, purposes and consequences; evidence from one cannot simply validate claims about another.

Operational Context

Consider a hypothetical crisis: a system flags an ambiguous pattern as preparations for an attack and places that assessment prominently in an operational briefing. A human still chooses the response. The risk arises if the assessment is mistaken and the briefing gives the operator little basis for challenging it. This is an illustration of the mechanism, not an account of a documented incident or a claim about a named country's procedures.

Automation bias helps explain why keeping an operator present may be insufficient. The June 2025 SIPRI study describes the tendency to accept automated outputs without adequate scrutiny, especially when reasoning is opaque or the information difficult to assess. Experience and training matter, but so do the interface, available evidence and institutional expectations. An operator's formal permission to disagree has limited value if the system conceals uncertainty or the organization discourages challenges to its recommendations.

Speed can compound that problem. Faster processing could leave more time for judgment, but it could also encourage faster response expectations. If an organization uses the gain to shorten its decision cycle, opportunities for independent confirmation may shrink. The relationship is conditional: AI does not inevitably accelerate escalation. The concern is whether the surrounding doctrine, workflow and incentives convert processing speed into pressure to act before uncertainty has been resolved.

The boundary of the nuclear system also matters. The June study argues that military AI in conventional applications could alter the conditions in which nuclear decisions occur. An assessment used during a conventional confrontation could influence perceptions of an adversary's intentions or of threats to strategic capabilities. The relevant exposure therefore extends beyond software explicitly labelled nuclear. This is a reason to examine dependencies and escalation pathways, without assuming every military algorithm has nuclear significance.

Public evidence remains uneven. The February 2026 survey combines sources of different kinds and identifies gaps in national transparency. That supports scrutiny of reported functions, but it cannot substitute for access to classified architectures or performance records. Equally, the risks discussed in these studies should not be recast as a verified chain from a deployed model to an actual nuclear crisis. The defensible argument concerns plausible mechanisms and the adequacy of safeguards against them.

Subscribe

My Read

My assessment is that the important test of human control lies in the conditions under which judgment is exercised. A person should be able to see the basis of a warning, recognize material uncertainty and challenge the recommendation. If those conditions disappear, the human may remain legally responsible while losing practical influence over how the situation is understood. The final authorization point cannot carry the entire burden of preventing errors introduced earlier.

Independent confirmation should be a central requirement. Several systems repeating the same conclusion may share a source, model or assumption; agreement alone does not establish independence. I would look for procedures that let operators compare genuinely different evidence and trace important claims to their origin. This is an editorial standard for evaluating proposed integration, not a claim that every nuclear force currently lacks those procedures. Public descriptions should explain enough to make that distinction meaningful.

The permitted role of a model also needs to be defined by function. Sorting documents, detecting patterns and recommending a response present different consequences if they fail. A policy that reserves launch authorization to humans leaves important questions about those preceding tasks. My concern would increase where organizations expand a tool's influence without testing the new function, documenting limitations or providing a workable route for an operator to stop relying on its output.

The strongest counterargument is that human teams also miss signals, become fatigued and struggle with excessive information. AI could help identify inconsistencies, prioritize review and free time for deliberation. That possibility deserves serious evaluation. Rejecting useful assistance could preserve avoidable human errors. The judgment should turn on whether a particular arrangement improves the combined performance of people and systems, including under unfamiliar conditions, rather than on whether the software is described as intelligent.

What would change my assessment is credible evidence that operators can detect and reject consequential model errors, retain access to alternative evidence and preserve deliberation time under realistic pressure. Conversely, high average accuracy would offer limited reassurance if rare but consequential mistakes routinely escaped review. The danger before launch is therefore a failure of the whole decision process: information, software, people and procedures interacting in ways that leave a mistaken assessment unchallenged.

What to Watch

• What do national policies specify about AI in warning, assessment and recommendation functions, beyond who authorizes nuclear use?

• Do evaluations show that operators recognize uncertainty, challenge incorrect recommendations and retain time for independent confirmation?

• Do tools approved for limited analytical tasks gain influence over more consequential decisions, and does that expansion trigger fresh evaluation?

Recommended Sources

• Lora Saalman, AI in Chinese, Indian and US Nuclear Postures, Norms and Systems, SIPRI, February 2026: comparative survey of reported functions, policy and transparency.

• Vladislav Chernavskikh and Jules Palayer, Impact of Military Artificial Intelligence on Nuclear Escalation Risk, SIPRI, June 2025: analysis of escalation pathways, decision support and human interaction.

• Fei Su, Wilfred Wan, Lora Saalman and Vladislav Chernavskikh, Pragmatic Approaches to Governance at the Artificial Intelligence–Nuclear Nexus, SIPRI, October 2025: governance and the practical meaning of human control.

• White House, readout of the Biden–Xi meeting, November 16, 2024: primary record of the human-control commitment.

• IAEA, Development and Implementation Support Programme for Nuclear Verification 2026–2027: bounded civilian comparison; printed pages 80–83 and 145–146.

Sources & Methodology

This article draws on SIPRI studies and the official account of the November 2024 US–China leaders' meeting. It distinguishes reported applications, analytical risk mechanisms, a clearly labelled hypothetical scenario and DefenseHub's judgment. It does not present hypothetical AI failures as documented nuclear incidents.

DefenseHub prioritizes primary sources where available, including official releases, budget and procurement records, legislative documents, technical disclosures, institutional research, and reputable reporting.

Corrections or source clarifications can be sent through the DefenseHub contact page.

R. Planche · DefenseHub

Share the post

RUSSIA INTENSIFIES STRIKE CAMPAIGN, STRIKES KILL CIVILIANS IN

ISW reported on November 2 that Russia launched 6,473 long-range Shahed/Geran drones against Ukraine in October, with Ukrainian forces downing 75 percent. Russian forces also struck Komyshuvakha on November 2, reportedly killing at least 18 civilians in a double tap glide bomb strike, Zelensky said.

AT A GLANCE

• NEW | UKRAINE | ISW reports Russia launched 6,473 long-range drones in October and struck a Komyshuvakha humanitarian site, reportedly killing 18 civilians.

• NEW | IRAN | ISW reports Houthi forces advanced in Lahij Governorate, threatening Yemeni government reinforcement routes and Aden City.

• CARRIED FORWARD, OCT 30 | TAIWAN | ISW-CDOT reported PLAN task forces conducting large-scale West Pacific transits simulating Taiwan isolation tactics.

• CARRIED FORWARD, OCT 28 | KOREA | ISW reported North Korea deepening PRC ties while maintaining frontline military buildup along the Military Demarcation Line.

Subscribe

WHY RUSSIA'S STRIKE CAMPAIGN SIGNALS A SHIFTING THEORY OF VICTORY

ISW assesses that Russia's increasingly devastating long-range strikes reflect Putin's evolving theory of victory, which now hinges on making Ukrainian civilian life untenable rather than relying solely on grinding battlefield gains that have stalled.

ISW reports Russian forces made negative territorial gains over the last two months while suffering nearly 100,000 losses in October and September 2026 combined, pressuring Putin to lean more heavily on strikes.

ISW notes Russia increased quasi-cruise missile use and jet-powered drone strikes to maximize civilian harm, conserving ballistic and cruise missiles for high-priority targets while exploiting Ukraine's Patriot interceptor shortages.

The Komyshuvakha strike, which Zelensky said included a double tap on a sheltering civilian population, illustrates this strategy. Poland's new Border Defense Component responds to related sabotage warnings, per Ukrainian officials.

OTHER SIGNALS

IRAN | HOUTHI ADVANCES PRESSURE YEMENI GOVERNMENT ON MULTIPLE FRONTS

ISW report of November 2 · new

ISW reports Houthi forces captured positions in al Maqatirah District on November 2, including Jabal Irf, which overlooks the last government-controlled sections of the Taiz-Aden ground line of communication. The advance threatens government reinforcement and resupply routes toward Aden City.

ISW assesses the Yemeni government has already diverted Red Sea coast-based units to al Maqatirah, illustrating the dilemma the Houthi campaign is designed to impose. Separately, ISW reports senior Iranian officials met Russian and Chinese counterparts on November 2 amid reports of possible US attacks on Iran.

TAIWAN | PLA PURGES CONTINUE AS PLAN PRACTICES ISOLATION TACTICS

ISW report of October 30 · carried forward

ISW's carried-forward report states the CCP's Fifth Plenum confirmed the expulsion of 33 senior officials, including 16 military officers, reducing the near-term likelihood of major PLA operations according to ISW's assessment of Xi's distrust in military leadership.

The same report describes PLAN task forces transiting the Miyako and Osumi Straits between October 13 and 27, which ISW-CDOT assesses as practice for isolating Taiwan and preventing outside intervention during a potential conflict, coordinated with land-based aircraft support.

30-DAY CALLS: 6 of 7 resolved calls held since September 2026 (1 missed). Today's call is below.

Read more

Source Files · Files collected October 26 to November 1, 2026

This edition spans the spectrum from algorithmic power to boots on the ground: RAND's warning on AI's disruptive governance challenge opens the issue, followed by a maritime hybrid-warfare threat hiding in plain sight. From there we move to the human and institutional edges of strategic competition, private forces quietly filling gaps for USSOCOM, China hedging its bets in a live South Asian crisis, Russia's adaptive and brutal military culture, and India's concrete answer to contested mountains.

1. Settlement and Governance Behind the AI Frontier

RAND Corporation · 46 pages · AI and national security

A RAND perspective paper by former Navy Secretary Richard Danzig on the societal and governance implications of advanced AI. It frames AI's machine characteristics and the AGI race as sources of potential 'wonder weapons' and enduring strategic advantage. Headline finding: The pursuit of Artificial General Intelligence and Recursive Self-Improvement is framed as a race for strategic advantage that could yield wonder weapons and global dominance. (p. 26)

Library page · Original source

2. Emerging Maritime Threats in Global Geopolitics: GPS Spoofing as a Tool of Hybrid Warfare in Strategic Maritime Chokepoints

Research Square · 21 pages · Mar 19, 2026 · Maritime hybrid warfare

A study documenting GPS spoofing attacks by state actors against civilian maritime targets in strategic chokepoints. Spoofing sophistication and frequency have risen sharply, signaling systematic state investment in electronic warfare against global shipping. Headline finding: The sophistication and frequency of GPS spoofing attacks have dramatically increased, indicating systematic investment in advanced electronic warfare capabilities. (p. 16)

Library page · Original source

The two files above are free. The next four are where this week gets interesting.

• 3. ACCEPTABILITY OF USSOCOM EMPLOYMENT OF PRIVATE FORCE IN STRATEGIC COMPETITION (Nps Calhoun). Who gets to wear the uniform when the mission can't officially exist?

• 4. “STRATEGIC BROTHERHOOD IN CRISIS: CHINA'S DIPLOMATIC, ECONOMIC, AND MILITARY POSTURE IN THE PAKISTAN-INDIA CONFLICT (2025) (Policyrj). How much does $30 billion in debt buy you in a shooting war?

• 5. European Political and Law Discourse (2025), 12, 6 (EPPD). What happens to an army when hazing becomes a management system?

• 6. Border Security and Strategic Infrastructure: National Defence in High-Altitude Conflict Zones with Special Reference to India (Gengpi Journal). Can a tunnel do the work of a treaty?

Unlock all 6 files

Read more

Finance and Society · 2025 · Peer-reviewed article

Read the original article →

Why It Matters

This paper argues that the surge of venture capital into the defense sector represents more than just a new funding stream; it is a cultural and structural overhaul of the military-industrial complex. For defense professionals, this analysis is critical because it reveals how the fundamental logic of Silicon Valley, prioritizing rapid, high-risk growth and market disruption, or 'blitzscaling', is fundamentally misaligned with the traditional defense imperatives of stability, accountability, and ethical diligence. The author, Elke Schwarz, details how VC firms and their portfolio companies are actively 'hacking' the Pentagon’s procurement processes through lobbying, legal action, and narrative manipulation. The result is a shift towards a 'move fast and break things' ethos within the Department of Defense itself. This transformation puts pressure on the DoD to favor speed and scale over robust oversight, raising profound questions about the long-term reliability of new AI-driven systems and the ethical foundations of future military operations when financial incentives, not just strategic necessity, drive innovation.

Key Findings

• The paper reports that venture capital investment in US defense startups more than doubled from $16 billion in 2019 to $33 billion in 2022. Separately, citing MacColl (2024), it reports nearly $130 billion invested in the defense technology startup sector since 2021.

• VC firms and their startups actively work to 'hack the Pentagon' by wielding influence through lobbying, hiring former government officials, and using litigation to force open procurement processes, as seen in lawsuits by SpaceX and Palantir.

• To create demand, VC-backed firms manufacture a crisis narrative centered on the perceived stagnation of traditional defense primes and an exaggerated, imminent 'China threat,' thereby justifying the urgent, risk-tolerant adoption of their technologies.

• The paper links Replicator's original 18-24-month target for acquiring thousands of autonomous systems to VC-style speed and scale. It cites the DoD's 2022 prototyping guidebook for the 'fail fast, fail cheap' ethos and, separately, Kathleen Hicks's 2024 remarks about moving fast and breaking things.

• The author warns that this VC-driven culture shift could normalize flawed AI products and expansive surveillance, and suggests that war, or at least embracing its possibility, may be the best catalyst for VC-driven defense-sector growth.

Subscribe to DefenseHub

The VC Growth Imperative

Venture capital (VC) operates on a distinct 'high-risk, high-reward' logic that shapes its investment strategy, the author explains. VC firms raise capital from institutional investors and high-net-worth individuals to create funds with a typical lifespan of 10-12 years. Their primary goal is to generate outsized returns by investing in high-growth potential startups. According to the paper, VC investment follows a 'power law' curve, where a small fraction of investments yields the vast majority of profits. Citing one source, the analysis notes that just 6% of deals can produce 60% of the total returns. This means a fund's success depends on identifying and nurturing a few 'unicorns', companies that achieve a valuation of $1 billion or more, whose exponential growth will compensate for the numerous other startups in the portfolio that fail or achieve only mediocre results.

To achieve the necessary returns, VC-backed startups are pushed toward 'blitzscaling,' a term coined by investor Reid Hoffman to describe a strategy of prioritizing speed over efficiency in the face of uncertainty. As the paper details, blitzscaling is an ideology focused on aggressive, rapid scaling to outperform competitors and establish market dominance. The primary product in this model is not a physical good or even profit, but 'growth' itself, measured by an upward spiral of valuations in successive funding rounds. This relentless drive for hypergrowth encourages startups to 'spend to battle for market supremacy' and take significant risks. This process, the author argues, is a performance of Silicon Valley's 'move fast and break things' motto, where the main task is to capture market share, even if it means operating at a substantial loss.

The concept of the 'unicorn' is central to the viability of the VC model, and the paper argues these valuations are often built on speculation and narrative rather than proven performance. The term itself, coined in 2013 when only 39 such companies existed, suggests a belief in the rare and exceptional. At the time of Schwarz’s research, there were roughly 1,200 unicorns with a cumulative valuation of nearly $4 trillion, according to the CBInsights data she cites from 2024. The author contends that these valuations are highly dynamic and speculative, often resting on 'gut-feel' and hype rather than quantitative rigor. The cycle is designed to drive valuations upward, ultimately vindicated if the startup can be sold to the public via an IPO or acquired by a larger company. This system incentivizes the creation of a 'fantasy of growth' to keep investors engaged and funding flowing.

Engineering a Disruption

To make the traditionally slow and consolidated defense market compatible with their need for rapid growth, VC firms have actively worked to reshape it, the paper argues. A key strategy is forging a startup-friendly government environment by wielding intellectual influence and leveraging high-level networks. The author points to former Google CEO Eric Schmidt as a prime example. Since 2016, Schmidt has chaired influential bodies like the Defense Innovation Advisory Board (DIB) and the National Security Commission on AI (NSCAI), using these platforms to urge the DoD to adopt 'more agile acquisition, budget and oversight processes' and new warfighting paradigms centered on software and AI. This influence campaign is bolstered by an expansive network of over 50 former Pentagon officials now employed by VC firms, who use their standing to lobby for more funding for emerging technologies.

When influence is not enough, VC-backed firms have resorted to legal force to disrupt the market. The paper highlights lawsuits by VC-backed companies SpaceX and Palantir as setting the precedent. In 2014, SpaceX sued the U.S. Air Force for improperly awarding non-competitive launch contracts, a move that successfully opened the bidding process and led to SpaceX securing multi-million-dollar deals. Similarly, in 2016, Palantir sued the U.S. Army, arguing its procurement process for the Distributed Common Ground System unfairly excluded them. Palantir won the lawsuit, secured an $823 million contract, and, as stated in its 2020 IPO filing, views this legal victory as 'transforming the procurement of goods and services across the US federal government' and expanding its total addressable market.

These efforts have successfully driven reforms in the Pentagon's procurement process to better accommodate VC timelines. The author details the expansion of Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs), which bypass the standard Federal Acquisitions Regulation, allowing for faster, more flexible contracting with less oversight. The paper reports that OTAs are used on a multibillion-dollar scale and that Anduril and Palantir have benefited from them. Another significant change is the 2020 adoption of the Adaptive Acquisitions Framework (AAF), which created new pathways for acquiring software products that did not fit traditional models. Furthermore, the establishment of the Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) facilitates direct loans and banking guarantees for defense tech startups, further aligning the Pentagon’s financial structures with the needs of the VC ecosystem.

The Narratives of Inevitability

A key component of the VC strategy, as outlined in the paper, is the construction of powerful narratives to manufacture a 'value gap' and position their portfolio companies as a 'future social necessity.' The most prominent story is that of an urgent need for acquisition reform because the government's processes are too bureaucratic and its traditional suppliers, the 'primes' like Lockheed Martin and RTX, are technologically stagnant. This narrative of 'excess bureaucracy' holding back the U.S. Army is now commonplace in media coverage and serves as a key justification for aligning procurement timelines with VC interests. The Anduril company retrospective from 2023, cited by the author, encapsulates this by stating that the 'ingenuity of incumbent defense primes had stagnated amid misaligned incentives and crippling bureaucratic procedures.'

This story is paired with a second narrative that the wars of the future will be won exclusively with digital innovation, software, and AI. This discourse anoints defense tech founders as 'visionary' figures, with Anduril founder Palmer Luckey being called the 'Millennial slayer of US defense giants' and Palantir’s Alex Karp penning op-eds positioning himself as a modern Oppenheimer of AI weapons. The author notes these claims are often unverifiable and exaggerated, such as Luckey’s promise that Anduril will 'save Western civilization' while making tens of billions. These narratives position software-focused companies as intrinsically more valuable for future conflicts than traditional hardware, establishing tech executives as the new experts on how to win wars, despite the lack of evidence for their claims.

The entire narrative framework is supercharged by what the paper calls the 'valorizing crisis,' primarily by invoking the 'China threat.' The analysis highlights how the 2021 NSCAI report mentioned China 604 times, entrenching the idea of an imminent and formidable competitor. This creates a sense of existential urgency and a fear of missing out (FOMO) that shortens decision-making timelines for defense acquisitions. The author argues that this narrative of plausible crisis is a potent tool, as VC firms can profit from the rush to acquire new technologies 'regardless of whether the crisis occurs at all.' This conjuring of an imminent threat, bolstered by real-world conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, becomes a powerful, if unsubstantiated, justification for the rapid, risk-tolerant adoption of VC-backed technologies.

Defense in Silicon Valley's Image

The influence of venture capital is producing a palpable cultural shift within the Department of Defense, a phenomenon the paper terms 'Defence 2.0.' The Pentagon is increasingly adopting the language and logic of its new partners. The author points to the DoD's 2022 Prototyping Guidebook, which embraces a 'fail fast, fail cheap to learn fast and save money' ethos directly borrowed from the tech startup environment. This mindset is embodied in programs like the Pentagon’s 'Replicator' initiative, which aims to acquire thousands of small, autonomous, and attritable drones within 18-24 months, a timeline that mirrors VC funding cycles. Similarly, the US Army's '10X Platoon' explicitly reproduces the VC growth mandate with its goal to 'make better decisions 10 times faster than before' using AI and robotics.

Top defense leadership is echoing this new cultural script, according to the paper. At a 2024 summit hosted by VC firm Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks was repeatedly pressed on acquisition hurdles. Her response, cited at length in the study, affirmed the need to 'fundamentally reform defense acquisition' through alternative pathways for software. Hicks also declared in her keynote at the summit, 'yes, moving fast and breaking things is necessary to win wars.' The paper also records her proviso that legal and constitutional limits must be respected. Schwarz reads this rhetoric as a sign that the government's perspective is adjusting to the demands of VC-backed startups, prioritizing speed and agility, sometimes at the expense of traditional oversight.

The author concludes by warning of the profound ethical and strategic consequences of this shift. Normalizing a 'move fast and break things' approach in a domain governed by life-and-death decisions could lead to the deployment of flawed and inadequate AI products, causing harm to civilians. This VC logic also promotes a worldview that justifies constant global surveillance and directs funding away from other initiatives that might offer more utility with greater oversight. Perhaps most alarmingly, the paper suggests, is the logical endpoint of the VC model's application to defense. For a sector driven by a mandate for hypergrowth, the author suggests that war, or at least embracing its possibility, may be the best catalyst for growth.

Where the Evidence Is Uncertain

The author highlights that many of the claims made by defense startups and their VC backers about the revolutionary capabilities of their AI-powered systems are speculative and currently unverifiable. It remains an open question whether these technologies can deliver on their promises in the complex reality of warfare, or if their primary utility is bolstering speculative valuations for investors. Schwarz also acknowledges that reforms, greater agility and some autonomous capabilities may benefit defense. Her criticism concerns whether adopting startup products faster and at greater scale can reliably deliver those benefits.

What to Monitor

• Changes in DoD procurement regulations, particularly the expanding use of Other Transaction Agreements (OTAs) and the funding allocated through the Office of Strategic Capital (OSC).

• Market share and contract awards for 'unicorn' defense startups like Anduril and Shield AI versus traditional prime contractors in major DoD programs of record.

• The rate at which former senior DoD and intelligence officials join VC firms or their portfolio companies, and the policy recommendations they subsequently advocate.

Share this analysis

About This Document

"From blitzkrieg to blitzscaling: Assessing the impact of venture capital dynamics on military norms", Elke Schwarz

Finance and Society · Queen Mary University of London · 2025 · Peer-reviewed article

License: Open access

Selected Sources

• Leading defense technology companies and investors pen open letter urging acquisitions reform, Mitchell, B., 2023

• National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence Final Report, National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, 2021

• Trends in World Military Expenditure 2023, Tian, N., Lopes Da Silva, D., Liang, X., et al., 2024

• The Evolution of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Spending By The US Government, Larson, J., Denford, J.S., Dawson, G.S., and Desouza, K.C., 2024

• How Big Tech and Silicon Valley are Transforming the Military-Industrial-Complex, Gonzalez, R.J., 2024

This briefing was curated and summarized by DefenseHub from "From blitzkrieg to blitzscaling: Assessing the impact of venture capital dynamics on military norms", by Elke Schwarz, published in Finance and Society in 2025. Findings and underlying research remain attributable to the original authors and publisher.

PLAN DRILLS SIMULATE ISOLATING TAIWAN AS CCP PURGES PLA

ISW's October 30 China and Taiwan Update reports the PLAN conducted coordinated deployments through multiple first island chain chokepoints since October 13, including the Liaoning carrier group and several surface task forces. ISW assesses these movements likely practice isolating Taiwan and blocking outside intervention, while separately assessing that the CCP's Fifth Plenum purge of 16 military officers reduces the near-term likelihood of major PLA operations.

AT A GLANCE

• NEW | UKRAINE | ISW reports a largely successful Kherson humanitarian evacuation ceasefire while the Kremlin maintains maximalist demands rejecting Ukrainian ceasefire offers.

• NEW | IRAN | ISW reports Khamenei's son directed commanders to expand Iran's targeting bank and raise readiness to deter US or Israeli strikes.

• NEW | TAIWAN | ISW reports PLAN task forces conducted coordinated chokepoint transits as CCP purges reduced near-term likelihood of major PLA operations.

• CARRIED FORWARD, OCT 28 | KOREA | North Korea continues frontline artillery build-up near the MDL while South Korea proposes bilateral talks to demarcate the border.

Subscribe

WHY THE PLAN'S CHOKEPOINT DRILLS MATTER NOW

ISW's October 30 update documents PLAN task forces transiting the Miyako and Osumi Straits multiple times since October 13, coordinated with land-based reconnaissance aircraft near the same chokepoints. ISW assesses this pattern likely rehearses isolating Taiwan from outside intervention during a future conflict.

The exercises occurred during the US-Japan Keen Sword drills between October 19 and 29, which ISW says may have let the PLAN practice detecting opposing forces around contested chokepoint areas. ISW notes the drills could also offset PLAN naval aviation shortcomings by pairing surface ships with land-based aircraft.

Separately, ISW assesses the CCP's Fifth Plenum purge of 33 officials, including 16 military officers and two Central Military Commission members, reflects Xi Jinping's continued distrust of the PLA. ISW judges this reduces the likelihood of a Taiwan invasion in the near term given depleted senior leadership.

These two ISW findings run in parallel rather than together: tactical PLAN rehearsal of isolation tactics alongside a political purge that ISW assesses constrains Beijing's near-term appetite for major operations. Both elements bear on how Taiwan's November 28 elections are read in Beijing and Taipei.

OTHER SIGNALS

UKRAINE | KHERSON CEASEFIRE HOLDS AMID DISPUTED VIOLATIONS

ISW report of October 31 · new

ISW's October 31 update reports Russia and Ukraine completed a humanitarian evacuation from occupied Oleshky, Kherson Oblast, under a localized ceasefire in place since October 27. Ukrainian officials said some residents reached Ukrainian-controlled Chernihiv Oblast after transiting Belarus, while others stayed or went to occupied Crimea.

Ukrainian spokesperson Maksym Kravchuk alleged Russian forces repeatedly violated the ceasefire using reconnaissance and explosive drones, while Russian official Rodion Miroshnik countered that Ukrainian forces struck a civilian vehicle near Oleshky. ISW states it cannot independently verify either claimed violation, and separately reports the Kremlin still rejects broader ceasefire proposals.

IRAN | KHAMENEI'S SON ORDERS WIDER TARGETING BANK

ISW report of October 31 · new

ISW's October 31 Iran Update reports Mojtaba Khamenei directed Iran's top three military commanders to prepare retaliation against possible US strikes by expanding Iran's targeting bank to include all tangible and intangible US and Israeli assets. ISW assesses this likely aims to deter renewed strikes through maximum deterrence messaging.

ISW also reports Iran is raising readiness in the Persian Gulf, Strait of Hormuz, and border regions, and that Qatari mediators held over 12 hours of talks with Iranian officials on October 30 and 31. Iranian officials told Qatari and Tasnim media they see no direct talks until the United States meets Iran's conditions.

KOREA | PYONGYANG DEEPENS FRONTLINE BUILD-UP

ISW report of October 28 · carried forward

ISW's carried-forward October 28 Korean Peninsula Update reports North Korea is exploiting the September 21 landmine incident to accelerate fortification and artillery deployments along the Military Demarcation Line. South Korean media reported KPA 122mm self-propelled howitzers positioned roughly 40 kilometers from Seoul across the Han River Estuary.

The same update reports South Korea's Deputy Minister Kim Hong-cheol proposed bilateral military talks on October 23 to demarcate the MDL and prevent accidental clashes, while North Korea's Kim Yo Jong affirmed plans for permanent border fortification and resumed loudspeaker broadcasts. No ISW update since October 28 records a North Korean response to the talks proposal.

30-DAY CALLS: 6 of 7 resolved calls held since September 2026 (1 missed). Today's call is below.

Read more

Source Files · Files collected October 24 to 30, 2026

This edition tracks the gap between declared intentions and battlefield or budget realities: ISW shows Russia's war is not pre-won and Hezbollah's disarmament is not a done deal, RAND maps how allies would react if Washington pulls back, SIPRI quantifies the aid-to-arms tradeoff, OPCW flags unresolved chemical weapons gaps in Syria, and a conference paper exposes the cost mismatch underlying today's drone wars.

1. The Myth of Inevitable Russian Victory over Ukraine

Institute for the Study of War · 7 pages · Oct 23, 2026 · Ukraine war outlook

An ISW analysis challenging claims of inevitable Russian victory in Ukraine. It reframes the war as contingent on continued Western support rather than predetermined by Russian manpower. Headline finding: Russia's manpower advantage is offset by high casualty rates, recruitment struggles, and internal military deception, preventing significant territorial gains. (p. 3)

Library page · Original source

2. Anticipating Allies' Responses to U.S. Retrenchment from Europe: How France, Germany, Poland, and the United Kingdom Might Adapt to Alternative U.S. Approaches

RAND Corporation · 130 pages · NATO retrenchment

A RAND report modeling how France, Germany, Poland, and the UK might adapt to US military retrenchment from Europe. It lays out both cooperative and fracturing scenarios for the alliance under a reduced US role. Headline finding: A proposed NATO 3.0 vision involves a reduced US military role in Europe, shifting burdens to allies, and diplomatic outreach to Moscow, significantly reshaping transatlantic security dynamics. (p. 98)

Library page · Original source

The two files above are free. The next four are where this week gets interesting.

• 3. Rising Military Spending in the Context of Falling Development Assistance (SIPRI). How wide is the gap between what's being cut from aid and what's being added to defense budgets?

• 4. Report by the Director-General: Progress in the Elimination of the Syrian Chemical Weapons Programme (OPCW). What did Syria newly admit to possessing in mid-2026, years after its declared disarmament?

• 5. How Hezbollah Is Preventing Its Disarmament, Again (ISW). What leverage is Hezbollah using to resist disarmament even while politically weakened?

• 6. COUNTERING UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS IN MODERN MILITARY OPERATIONS: MULTI-LAYERED APPROACHES (Mcnd Conf). What combination of cheap and high-tech countermeasures does the paper say is the only sustainable answer?

Unlock all 6 files

Read more

Spreading vehicles out reduces the damage a single artillery barrage can inflict. A drone that can locate and steer toward an individual vehicle presents a different problem. In an October 8, 2026 analysis published by the Modern War Institute, Justin Lynch and Kian Molani test that distinction with Monte Carlo simulations. Their results suggest that spacing loses its protective value against abundant attack drones when moving vehicles remain detectable. The implications reach beyond convoy intervals to how armies protect logistics routes and sustain operations. The findings depend on specific assumptions about detection and attack success, which commanders would need to test against the conditions their forces actually face.

What We Know

Lynch and Molani examine one-way attack drones used in Ukraine's middle-strike campaign, reaching beyond the immediate front. Their argument concerns moving vehicles exposed to persistent surveillance and plentiful, comparatively cheap munitions. Against unguided artillery, spreading vehicles out reduces the number that a volley can damage. A drone carrying its own sensor and payload can instead steer toward one vehicle. The comparison is useful because these weapons give an attacker different incentives: a clustered formation makes area fire more efficient, while a precision attack can be worthwhile against a single target.

The authors tested twenty vehicles moving through a corridor twenty kilometers long and two kilometers wide. They varied vehicle spacing from ten to six hundred meters, in ten-meter increments, and attacked with six, twelve, eighteen or twenty-four munitions. Each combination ran four hundred times. The artillery model used 155-millimeter shells fired in six-shell volleys, with a 150-meter circular error probable. The drone model used an eight-in-ten probability of destroying the target per attack, a ratio the authors say they derived from their field research.

In the artillery simulations, between one-third and two-thirds of vehicles survived at ten-meter spacing. Survival rose as spacing increased, leveling off at 95 to 98 percent at three hundred meters. These are model outputs. The authors say the increase in survival with spacing matches what US practice would predict. For drones, spacing produced no improvement when vehicles were within range and likely to be found. Losses depended on the number of drones committed and the probability that each attack destroyed its target.

The decisive assumption is explicit: spreading out does not reduce a drone's ability to find moving vehicles. The authors say recent field research supports that assumption under persistent surveillance. Their second experiment examined mimicry, meaning disguising a valuable vehicle as something less valuable. Four of twenty vehicles were designated high-payoff targets. Disguise lost value as the number of drones approached the number of vehicles, allowing the attacker to strike targets without reserving scarce munitions for the most valuable ones.

A separate Atlantic Council report by Yavuz Türkgenci supplies context on the speed of modern fires. He describes sensor networks and AI-supported fire control compressing engagement timelines from twenty to forty minutes to less than five, and Ukrainian and Russian artillery units moving rapidly after firing. In his section on maneuver, he advocates smaller, more dispersed formations; in discussing artillery, he calls greater spacing between guns an operational requirement. These are contextual recommendations, not tests of Lynch and Molani's model.

Operational Context

The model describes a particular targeting problem. A moving convoy in reach of persistent surveillance is different from vehicles concealed under cover, a dismounted patrol or an aircraft that loses its video link. The simulation holds the relationship between spacing and detection fixed. Its result therefore cannot establish how much dispersion helps a unit avoid being found in terrain or weather that interferes with surveillance. That boundary matters before applying a modeled convoy result to every formation threatened by drones.

The distinction also affects protection after detection. A point weapon may destroy one vehicle whether its neighbors are near or far away, while an artillery volley can damage several clustered targets. The source's drone result follows from that attack logic and its chosen success rate. Changing the number of incoming weapons or the chance of a successful attack changes losses in the model. Neither the artillery comparison nor the drone comparison is itself a controlled record of battlefield casualties.

The authors also examine protection that can change those conditions. Hardened sites and covered roads can obstruct attack drones; interceptors can reduce the number reaching their targets. Each approach has coverage, maintenance and cost limits. Their recommendations combine passive and active defenses with more experimentation. This is a practical constraint for commanders protecting long logistics routes: a measure that works around a fixed position may be difficult to provide along every road a supply vehicle must use.

Jordan Bower, Nico Martire and James L. Andreasen provide a different perspective in their account of Ukraine's Killhouse FPV course, published on October 14. They observed crews training with degraded video, cluttered terrain, crashes and equipment faults. Those conditions were part of a deliberate training progression, informing recommendations for the US Army. Their account documents skills and sustainment demands observed in that course; it does not measure how often dispersing vehicles defeats acquisition by middle-strike drones.

The training account raises useful test questions about communications, operator skill and equipment reliability. A test of the convoy model would also need to vary whether vehicles are found at all, rather than treating detection as unaffected by spacing. That would connect the model's clear result under persistent surveillance to the uneven conditions crews describe in training. The two sources can inform that work without treating observations from an FPV course as a direct rebuttal of a convoy simulation.

Subscribe

My Read

The strongest lesson is to stop asking vehicle spacing to solve a targeting problem it cannot solve on its own. Lynch and Molani have quantified a conditional result: when drones can keep finding moving vehicles and sufficient attacks reach them, greater intervals do not reduce modeled losses. The argument for commanders is serious even though the simulation is not a controlled battlefield comparison. A logistics plan built around spacing alone would leave its central vulnerability, continued detection, largely intact.

I would make the detection assumption the first priority for testing. Exercises should compare the same movement task under different spacing, cover, surveillance and communications conditions, recording both vehicles found and vehicles destroyed. Counting successful strikes alone would miss the distinction between avoiding acquisition and surviving an attack. The result could support different guidance for an exposed convoy and a formation using cover, without requiring either to adopt a universal rule about dispersion.

The next question is what a unit can protect along its actual route. The authors discuss hardening, covered roads and interceptors, but also their practical limits. A commander needs to know which stretches of a route remain exposed and what happens when a convoy enters them. Training observations about video links and repair matter here because protection and movement plans must work with available crews and equipment. A favorable exchange in a model does not supply the personnel, coverage or maintenance a defense requires.

Türkgenci's discussion of dispersion points to a practical planning question. A commander facing both area fire and precision attack needs protection against each. More spacing between guns can be useful while a detected logistics vehicle remains vulnerable to a point attack. Doctrine needs to explain which threat an interval is meant to address and which additional defenses the mission requires. Treating all drone operations as one problem would obscure those choices.

My judgment is that the simulations justify testing convoy protection now, with particular attention to persistent detection and the number of attacks a defender can prevent. The evidence needed next is a comparison of modeled outcomes with exercises and observed operations that record exposure, acquisition and losses under stated conditions. That would show commanders where greater spacing still helps, where its value has narrowed, and what it costs to keep supplies moving through the remaining gaps.

What to Watch

• Do exercises confirm the model's assumption that greater vehicle spacing does not reduce acquisition under persistent surveillance?

• Do published comparisons record vehicles found as well as vehicles destroyed, allowing modeled results to be tested against observed operations?

• How do covered routes, hardening and interceptors change convoy losses when coverage, maintenance and available munitions are constrained?

• Do revised manuals distinguish guidance for artillery exposure, drone acquisition and defense against individual attacks, rather than prescribing one spacing rule for every threat?

Recommended Sources

• Dispersion Will Not Save You: Survivability in the Age of Middle-Strike Drones (Modern War Institute, 2026): Justin Lynch and Kian Molani's Monte Carlo comparisons, assumptions and recommendations for protecting moving vehicles.

• Dispatch from Killhouse: Ukraine's Lessons for US Army Drone Training (Modern War Institute, 2026): Jordan Bower, Nico Martire and James L. Andreasen's firsthand observations of Ukraine's Killhouse FPV course and lessons for US Army training.

• Fighting a Land War in the Digital Age (Atlantic Council): Yavuz Türkgenci's analysis of digital fires, rapid displacement and the continued role of dispersed formations.

Sources & Methodology

This article examines the linked authors' analyses, Monte Carlo simulations and firsthand training observations. It distinguishes model assumptions and outputs from reported field observations and editorial judgment. Simulated survival rates are not presented as observed battlefield casualty rates.

DefenseHub prioritizes primary sources where available, including official releases, budget and procurement records, legislative documents, technical disclosures, institutional research, and reputable reporting.

Corrections or source clarifications can be sent through the DefenseHub contact page.

R. Planche · DefenseHub

Share the post

RUSSIAN SATELLITES REPORTEDLY AID HOUTHI STRIKES ON SAUDI ARABIA

A Switzerland-based geospatial intelligence firm told the Associated Press on October 28 that Russian military satellites have repeatedly positioned over Saudi energy and military sites before and after Houthi strikes. A Saudi official and a senior Houthi official separately told the AP that Russia is providing satellite targeting intelligence, reportedly via Iranian advisers in Yemen.

AT A GLANCE

• NEW | UKRAINE | Russian and Ukrainian rights commissioners confirmed no violations in the first 30 hours of the Oleshky ceasefire as unidentified USVs struck a cargo ship off Bulgaria.

• NEW | IRAN | A geospatial firm and officials told the AP Russian satellites tracked Saudi sites around Houthi strikes, which continued against Aden airport on October 28.

• NEW | TAIWAN | The PLAN carrier Liaoning transited the Basilan Strait near Philippine waters while the PRC pushed a space arms control narrative at the UN.

• NEW | KOREA | North Korea deepened ties with China via Kim Jong Un's Dandong visit while deploying artillery near the Han River Estuary close to Seoul.

Subscribe

WHY RUSSIAN SATELLITE SUPPORT TO THE HOUTHIS MATTERS

The geospatial intelligence firm reported 40 instances of Russian satellites positioning over Saudi military and energy sites between July 1 and October 19, including before the September 10 strike on the Saudi East-West Pipeline. ISW notes this pattern also appeared around strikes launched from Iraq.

A Saudi official and a senior Houthi official separately told the AP that Russia supplies satellite-based targeting intelligence to the Houthis, reportedly channeled through Iranian military advisers operating in Yemen. ISW assesses this imagery very likely enables battle damage assessments of Houthi strikes.

ISW assesses that Russian support is enabling the Iranian-backed Houthi campaign to constrain Saudi oil exports during a global energy crisis that Iran has caused by attacking shipping in the Strait of Hormuz. ISW frames this as consistent with Russia's prior 2023-2024 targeting support to the Houthis.

Separately, the Houthis struck Aden International Airport on October 28 with at least two ballistic missiles after warning evacuation on social media. ISW assesses this is likely an effort to degrade the Yemeni government's ability to sustain military operations and deter partner weapons shipments.

OTHER SIGNALS

UKRAINE | OLESHKY CEASEFIRE HOLDS AS BLACK SEA STRIKE REPORTED

ISW report of October 28 · new

Ukraine's Human Rights Commissioner and his Russian counterpart confirmed on October 28 no ceasefire violations in the first 30 hours since the Oleshky agreement took effect October 27. Accounts differ on scope: Melania Trump said it covers unspecified other Kherson areas, BBC sources said it covers all of Kherson Oblast, and Fox News reported evacuees will travel via Anapa and Gomel, Belarus, with no confirmed onward route to Ukraine.

Separately, Bulgaria's defense minister said three unidentified, possibly Russian, unmanned surface vehicles struck the cargo ship Constship Jet about 21 nautical miles southeast of Shalba on October 28. ISW notes this follows recent Russian strikes on vessels near Romanian and Bulgarian waters in October. ISW also reports Russia is providing satellite targeting intelligence to Houthi forces.

TAIWAN | LIAONING TRANSITS BASILAN STRAIT NEAR PHILIPPINES

ISW report of October 27 · new

The PLAN carrier Liaoning and its escorts, including two Type 055 cruisers, transited the Basilan Strait and came within 50 nautical miles of the Philippine coast, the Philippine military confirmed October 26. ISW assesses this unusual transit likely aims to intimidate Manila and may simulate isolating the Philippines or Taiwan during a future conflict.

Separately, PRC officials pushed a space arms control narrative at the UN on October 21 and 23 while developing counterspace and dual-use satellite capabilities, according to ISW. ISW assesses the PRC portrays itself as a responsible space power while preparing offensive options against systems like Starlink in a Taiwan contingency.

KOREA | KIM VISITS CHINA AS NORTH DEPLOYS ARTILLERY NEAR SEOUL

ISW report of October 28 · new

Kim Jong Un made a single-day visit to Dandong, China, on October 24, meeting Wang Huning and touring a Korean War memorial, part of what ISW describes as North Korea restoring ties with Beijing. ISW assesses the newly opened New Yalu River Bridge will likely serve as a hub for North Korean sanctions evasion.

Separately, South Korean media reported the Korean People's Army deployed two 122mm self-propelled howitzers near the Han River Estuary, about 40 km from Seoul. ISW assesses North Korea is exploiting the September 21 landmine incident to accelerate frontline fortification while Seoul continues proposing bilateral military talks.

30-DAY CALLS: 6 of 6 resolved calls held since September 2026. Today's call is below.

Read more

PUTIN REPEATS MAXIMALIST DEMANDS AS OLESHKY CEASEFIRE HOLDS

Russian President Vladimir Putin reiterated Moscow's maximalist demands on Ukraine and NATO during an October 27 call with Finnish and Norwegian leaders, according to the October 27 ISW report. ISW assesses the call signals Russia's continued insistence on resolving so-called root causes before any peace talks, while a limited Oleshky ceasefire for humanitarian aid and evacuations reportedly held without violations.

AT A GLANCE

• NEW | UKRAINE | Putin restated maximalist demands to Finnish and Norwegian leaders as a limited Oleshky ceasefire reportedly held without violations.

• NEW | IRAN | Iran reportedly pressed Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey to help broker a US-Iran deal while Iraqi militias surveilled the US Embassy.

• CARRIED FORWARD, OCT 23 | TAIWAN | PRC election interference operations and an unusual four-ship Type 071 training formation remain the last reported baseline.

• CARRIED FORWARD, OCT 21 | KOREA | North Korea's SLCM tests from the Hero Kim Kun Ok submarine and new PRC bridge trade links remain the last reported baseline.

Subscribe

WHY PUTIN'S ROOT CAUSES DEMAND AND THE OLESHKY CEASEFIRE MATTER

ISW reports Putin used his first direct contact with Finnish and Norwegian leaders since taking office to restate Russia's long-standing demand that NATO expansion be treated as a root cause of the war requiring resolution before negotiations.

Putin reportedly told the two leaders that any peace deal must recognize ground realities, language ISW and a source close to the Kremlin interpret as Russia's refusal to compromise on seizing all of Donbas and possibly more Ukrainian territory.

Separately, ISW reports a limited ceasefire began in Russian-occupied Oleshky on October 27 to allow humanitarian aid and civilian evacuations, with Ukrainian and Russian officials both stating no violations have been recorded as of the report.

ISW notes it remains unclear whether Russian authorities will allow evacuated Oleshky residents a duress-free choice to return to Ukrainian-controlled territory, leaving the disposition of these civilians unresolved pending any future agreement.

OTHER SIGNALS

IRAN | TEHRAN COURTS REGIONAL MEDIATORS AS MILITIAS WATCH BAGHDAD

ISW report of October 27 · new

ISW's October 27 Iran Update reports Iran likely used a meeting with Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Turkey to pressure the trio into helping broker a US-Iran deal favorable to Tehran, while trying to portray the United States as the source of regional instability.

Separately, Iranian-backed Iraqi militias almost certainly flew two drones to surveil the US Embassy in Baghdad on October 27, which ISW assesses was likely intended to deter US strikes on Iran. The Houthis also reportedly threatened Egypt over its defensive assistance to Saudi Arabia, including implied threats against Suez Canal shipping.

TAIWAN | PRC ELECTION INTERFERENCE AND AMPHIBIOUS DRILLS PERSIST

ISW report of October 23 · carried forward

The carried-forward October 23 ISW China and Taiwan Update reports Taiwanese officials observed expanded PRC cyberattacks and AI-generated influence content ahead of November local elections, including a reported 48 percent rise in suspect social media posts.

ISW also reports the PLAN conducted an unusual combat training formation using four Type 071 landing ships, assessed as likely intended to intimidate the Philippines. Observable indicators include further Type 071 deployments or additional cyberattack volume data ahead of the November 28 vote.

30-DAY CALLS: 6 of 6 resolved calls held since September 2026. Today's call is below.

Read more

HOUTHIS FIRE AT LEAST 12 MISSILES, TWO DRONES AT SAUDI ARABIA

The Houthis have fired at least 12 missiles and two drones targeting Saudi Arabia since October 24, according to the October 25 ISW Iran Update. ISW assesses the campaign aims to impose economic and political costs on Saudi Arabia and compel concessions on port and resource control.

AT A GLANCE

• NEW | UKRAINE | Ukrainian forces reportedly advanced near Oleksandrivka, prompting Russian redeployment of naval infantry and tank division elements, per ISW.

• NEW | IRAN | ISW reports Houthis fired at least 12 missiles and two drones at Saudi Arabia since October 24, most intercepted.

• NEW | TAIWAN | ISW reports Taiwan's NSB flagged rising PRC cyberattacks and AI-driven influence operations ahead of November local elections.

• CARRIED FORWARD, OCT 21 | KOREA | ISW's October 21 update on North Korean submarine-launched cruise missile tests remains the most recent Korea baseline.

Subscribe

WHY THE HOUTHI STRIKE CAMPAIGN AGAINST SAUDI ARABIA MATTERS

ISW reports the Houthis fired at least 12 missiles and two drones at Saudi Arabia since October 24. Saudi forces intercepted 11 missiles over southern Saudi Arabia, including Asir Province, on October 25.

Separately, Saudi forces intercepted two drones and a missile over Riyadh Province on October 24, before ISW-CTP's data cutoff. The Houthis had not claimed these attacks as of the report.

ISW assesses the campaign aims to impose economic and political costs on Saudi Arabia and compel Riyadh to accept Houthi demands. These demands reportedly include lifting controls on Houthi-held ports and airports and granting control over Yemeni oil and gas resources.

ISW also reports Yemeni government-aligned forces continue engaging Houthi forces south of Taiz City to break the encirclement. ISW assesses these forces will gain little unless they also secure the Taiz-Aden ground line of communication.

OTHER SIGNALS

UKRAINE | GAINS NEAR OLEKSANDRIVKA, STRIKES ON RUSSIAN PLANTS

ISW report of October 25 · new

Ukrainian military observer Mashovets reported Ukrainian forces liberated Perebudova, Komar, and Fedorivka and advanced near Vesele, per the October 25 ISW assessment. Mashovets reported the advances forced Russia to redeploy naval infantry and tank division elements from other directions.

ISW also reports Ukrainian long-range strikes hit the Energiya Plant in Yelets, which produces Iskander missile components, and the VSMPO-AVISMA titanium plant in Berezniki. Russian officials in both regions acknowledged the strikes without confirming targets struck.

TAIWAN | NSB REPORTS SURGING PRC ELECTION INTERFERENCE

ISW report of October 23 · new

Taiwan's National Security Bureau reported PRC-origin cyberattacks against its Government Services Network rose to 185.6 million in July, averaging 2.58 million daily, per the October 23 ISW update. The NSB also uncovered 2.5 million suspect social media posts from January to August, a 48 percent rise over 2025.

ISW also reports the PLAN conducted an unusual four-ship Type 071 landing platform dock training formation, assessed as likely intended to intimidate the Philippines. ISW notes this was the first such four-ship Type 071 formation reported since August 2025.

KOREA | SUBMARINE MISSILE TEST BASELINE UNCHANGED

ISW report of October 21 · carried forward

No newer Korea report has been issued since the October 21 ISW update, which remains the current baseline. That update reported North Korea tested two submarine-launched cruise missiles from the Hero Kim Kun Ok submarine, which ISW assessed as likely nuclear-capable.

ISW assessed North Korea may extend SLCM capability to unmodified Romeo-class submarines, which could obscure which vessels carry nuclear weapons. Analysts should watch for South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff statements on countermeasures to this capability.

30-DAY CALLS: 6 of 6 resolved calls held since September 2026. Today's call is below.

Read more

Source Files · Files collected October 19 to 25, 2026

This edition tracks where current wars are heading and the tools shaping them: Ukraine's bid to keep the strategic initiative, the undersea and drone domains where governance lags technology, and the unresolved question of what the Iran strikes actually achieved. We close with a historical lens on Russia's strategic culture, which helps explain why these dynamics keep recurring. Together these six pieces move from today's headlines to the deeper patterns driving them.

1. Eyes on the Target: Seizing the Strategic Initiative Against Russia

Institute for the Study of War · 5 pages · Oct 13, 2026 · Ukraine strategic initiative

An ISW analysis of Ukraine's opportunity to seize the strategic initiative against Russia in 2026. It frames the debate over whether sustained Western support can lock in Ukraine's battlefield gains. Headline finding: Ukraine has regained operational initiative and made significant battlefield gains in 2026, slowing Russian advances and challenging Moscow's war aims. (p. 2)

Library page · Original source

2. Winning the Undersea Knife Fight: A Deterrence Framework to Shape Subsea Dilemmas into Competitive Maritime Security Strategies

RAND Corporation · 20 pages · Undersea infrastructure

A RAND report proposing a deterrence framework for protecting undersea cables and pipelines. Sabotage risk to critical undersea infrastructure is a rising, poorly governed threat to national security and economies. Headline finding: Critical undersea infrastructure, including communication cables and energy pipelines, is highly vulnerable to attack due to its underdefended nature and limited repair capabilities. (p. 2)

Library page · Original source

The two files above are free. The next four are where this week gets interesting.

• 3. Countering Drone Proliferation from Russia's War Against Ukraine: Implications for Arms Control and Security Governance (SIPRI). What three-part fix does SIPRI say Europe needs before the next drone incident becomes a crisis?

• 4. U.S. Military Operations Against Iran's Missile and Nuclear Programs (CRS). Did the strikes actually touch Iran's nuclear material sites, according to inspectors?

• 5. Drone warfare and unmanned systems: A comprehensive review of military applications (Drone Review). What cheap technical fix is now making some of the most advanced electronic warfare defenses useless?

• 6. Russia and the West: Geopolitics and Strategic Culture (Russia Strategy). What centuries-old pattern does this analysis say is repeating itself along Ukraine's borders?

Unlock all 6 files

Read more

Lula has won again, keeping Brazil under the Workers' Party and defeating the prospect of a government closer to Washington. The result is a serious setback for the Brazilian right and, in my assessment, for Donald Trump's regional ambitions. It also leaves Brazil with a bill and a set of institutional questions that victory speeches cannot settle. The campaign featured a succession of government benefits, an accusation of R$400 billion in election-year spending, and a last-minute voting extension ordered by a Supreme Court justice who previously represented the president. Each deserves examination on its own evidence.

What We Know

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defeated Flávio Bolsonaro on October 25 and secured a fourth presidential term. Agência Brasil reported 51.75% of valid votes for Lula with more than 98.2% of polling stations counted. That was a late count confirming his victory, rather than a completed national total. (Agência Brasil)

The incumbent entered the runoff with the federal government's resources and a growing list of benefits. Gazeta do Povo documented a Bolsa Família increase announced 17 days before the first round, debt-relief initiatives, subsidized credit and fuel measures. Broadcast reported that the sequence began in May, less than six months before the election, with the removal of the tax on low-value imported purchases. Later proposals included buying distressed private debts and extending assistance to additional groups. (Gazeta do Povo; Broadcast)

Flávio accused Lula during the October 23 debate of spending more than R$400 billion to seek reelection. O Povo's check challenged that figure. A separate estimate attributed to the Senate's Independent Fiscal Institution, the IFI, valued the announced measures at R$298.4 billion. Of that, R$185.7 billion involved credit programs whose loans are expected to be repaid. Those figures describe different categories and should not be presented as a single cash expenditure already made. (O Povo; O Globo)

The fiscal exposure still warrants scrutiny. Credit carries financing costs and repayment risk; tax relief reduces receipts; permanent benefits create future obligations. The Finance Ministry said the measures would be accommodated within fiscal targets. Gazeta reported that the government denied illegality and that the electoral court had rejected a challenge to the Bolsa Família increase. The political criticism concerns the scale and timing of the benefits; a legal finding of abuse requires its own evidence. (Gazeta do Povo)

The campaign was aggressive. Reuters described the final Globo debate as a confrontation over living costs and corruption, with personal attacks and attempts by both candidates to associate the other with the Banco Master affair. These were accusations exchanged by candidates. A debate does not establish the underlying charges. (Reuters)

Operational Context

Cristiano Zanin's role makes the voting extension especially sensitive. He represented Lula in the Lava Jato cases before Lula nominated him to the Supreme Federal Court in 2023. During his Senate hearing, Zanin said he could not judge cases in which he had acted as counsel and would assess possible recusals in future cases individually. His earlier professional relationship with the president was publicly known when his nomination was considered. (Senate)

On election day, Zanin ordered voting extended nationally from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., Brasília time. The decision addressed a complaint involving inadequate public transport in Salvador, Feira de Santana and Lauro de Freitas. Its text recorded that the allegations reached the court at 4:32 p.m. Exame reported requests from both campaigns; the Lula campaign's filing was central to the published order. The TSE interrupted the release of results after counting had begun. (Exame)

Zanin subsequently clarified that the extension applied to ballot boxes that had not already been closed. That distinction matters when evaluating implementation. The measure went beyond allowing people already in line at closing time to finish voting. Its geographic reach, timing and practical application deserve a documented explanation. The reports cited here do not quantify a net electoral benefit to either candidate, so attributing Lula's victory to the order would exceed their evidence. (O Globo)

Washington had its own stake. Trump imposed 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods in 2025, citing Jair Bolsonaro's prosecution among his reasons. His administration also sanctioned Justice Alexandre de Moraes. Reuters reported on October 24, citing ten current and former U.S. officials, that State Department officials had pursued measures intended to help restore the Bolsonaro camp to power. That account gives the political stakes a firmer basis than a photograph or an assumed personal endorsement. (AP; Reuters)

My Read

Lula's victory preserves a government whose use of spending and benefits deserves sustained opposition scrutiny. The concentration of announcements near the election gives that scrutiny a concrete starting point. Voters can reasonably welcome assistance while taxpayers ask why its expansion coincided with the president's greatest political need. The government owes an account of the costs, the financing and the obligations it has carried into the next term.

The R$400 billion accusation should remain attributed to Flávio. A center-right argument for fiscal restraint gains force from getting the accounts right. The IFI estimate already describes a large mobilization of resources. The next questions are how much becomes expenditure, how much credit is repaid, what subsidies remain, and which promises become permanent. Those are the decisions that will shape taxes, borrowing and the room available for future governments.

Zanin's intervention deserves equal attention. A president's former lawyer, elevated to the country's highest court by that president, exercised extraordinary authority during his reelection contest. In my judgment, that relationship imposes an especially demanding burden of explanation. Alleged transport failures justify urgent action to protect access to voting. The breadth of the remedy and the way it was implemented must withstand scrutiny as well. The public should be able to examine the filings, supporting evidence and execution of the order.

I regard the result as a political defeat for Trump. The Bolsonaro camp has lost its bid to bring Latin America's largest economy closer to his regional agenda. Washington retains trade and diplomatic influence, but the opportunity for a more sympathetic administration in Brasília has been lost. For Brazil's center-right, cooperation with the United States remains a legitimate strategic preference. Its benefits still have to be argued in Brazilian terms: investment, security, technology and national autonomy.

In my October 5 article, I assessed Flávio's chances as very high. I overestimated his ability to convert the first-round advantage into a runoff majority. That forecast was wrong. Correcting it leaves the substantive questions about the government intact. Lula now owns the next administration's fiscal choices, delivery of public security and conduct abroad. Electoral success gives him another term; it also gives his opponents four more years of decisions to examine against promises and results. (Previous analysis)

What to Watch

• Which election-period benefits become permanent, and where does the 2027 budget show their financing, subsidies and expected repayments?

• Do the courts and the TSE release a complete account of the transport complaints, voting extension and treatment of ballot boxes already closed?

• How do congressional scrutiny and any pending legal challenges develop as the government implements its announced programs?

• Does Trump adjust tariffs and diplomatic pressure after the result, and what does Brasília offer or demand in the next negotiation?

Recommended Sources

• IFI estimate reported by O Globo: the scale and composition of announced benefits.

• Broadcast's October 25 account: the sequence of measures and the government's fiscal response.

• Exame's reproduction of Zanin's order: the transport complaint and the national remedy.

• Senate's 2023 hearing record: Zanin's previous representation of Lula and his explanation of recusal rules.

• Reuters' October 24 investigation: the reported U.S. effort to return the Bolsonaro camp to power.

By R. Planche · Chief Editor & OSINT Curator

Britain left Jutland with more ships sunk and more than twice as many sailors dead. Germany still returned to port without breaking the blockade, destroying the Grand Fleet, or changing the balance of power in the North Sea. That contradiction is the key to the battle: Germany won the exchange of losses, while Britain retained control of the sea.

The fleets met on 31 May 1916, and the fighting continued into the early hours of 1 June. The outcome was not tactically decided in advance. Britain’s two-decade investment in warships, shipyards, bases, and trained personnel did, however, determine how much each navy could afford to lose and what either side could realistically achieve.

The Balance Before the Battle

Germany’s naval expansion began long before the First World War. The naval laws associated with Alfred von Tirpitz aimed to create a fleet strong enough to challenge Britain and make a conflict prohibitively dangerous for the Royal Navy. The Foreign Policy Research Institute describes this project as part of a German bid for a "post-British international order."

Britain answered by building faster and preserving a larger battle fleet. HMS Dreadnought transformed the competition in 1906, but it did not erase Britain’s advantages in finance, construction capacity, overseas bases, and access to the North Sea. By 1914, Germany possessed a formidable fleet, but not one large enough to trade ships evenly with Britain through a prolonged contest.

That prewar lead did not dictate which shells would hit, which magazines would explode, or which admiral would turn away. It shaped the strategic arithmetic. Germany needed to destroy enough of the Grand Fleet to narrow the imbalance. Britain needed to avoid losing the force that sustained the blockade and secured its maritime position.

The Battle in Four Movements

More than 250 warships converged off Denmark. The first major exchange pitted Vice Admiral David Beatty’s battlecruisers against Vice Admiral Franz von Hipper’s force. Hipper drew Beatty south toward Admiral Reinhard Scheer’s approaching High Seas Fleet. During this phase, the British battlecruisers Indefatigable and Queen Mary exploded after German hits reached their magazines.

Beatty then turned north, leading the German fleet toward Admiral John Jellicoe and the main body of the Grand Fleet. Jellicoe had to deploy twenty-four dreadnoughts from cruising columns into a single battle line with incomplete information, poor visibility, and little time. His deployment placed the British fleet across the German advance and concentrated its guns against Scheer.

Scheer ordered a coordinated battle turn to pull his ships away from the British line. When the fleets came into contact again, he used a battlecruiser charge and a destroyer torpedo attack to cover another withdrawal. Jellicoe turned away from the torpedoes, preserving the Grand Fleet but giving the Germans room to escape. These were different decisions made under different pressures, not matching acts of caution.

The action continued after sunset in a confused series of close-range encounters. British screening forces failed to stop Scheer’s fleet from crossing behind the Grand Fleet during the night. By the morning of 1 June, the High Seas Fleet was returning to German waters and Jellicoe remained at sea. Neither commander had destroyed the opposing battle fleet.

The Paradox of Jutland

Britain lost fourteen ships; Germany lost eleven. The Royal Navy records 6,094 British sailors killed and 2,551 German sailors killed, a total of 8,645. Judged by ships and lives lost, Germany achieved the better tactical result. The British public had been prepared for another Trafalgar and instead received casualty lists without an enemy fleet in ruins.

The operational balance told a different story. Royal Museums Greenwich notes that 105 undamaged British warships were ready for sea on 1 June, compared with 40 German ships. Britain could still deploy the stronger fleet, maintain the blockade, and deny Germany command of the North Sea. Germany had demonstrated that it could punish the Royal Navy, but not that it could overturn the maritime balance.

The High Seas Fleet did not simply disappear into port after Jutland. It remained a threat and made later sorties. What it did not do was force a second fleet battle capable of breaking British control. Germany’s stronger route to attacking British sea power increasingly ran through the U-boat campaign rather than a decisive surface engagement.

Subscribe

The Battle the Shipyards Shaped

The FPRI argues that Britain’s victory in the prewar naval arms race "largely predetermined" Jutland’s outcome. The strongest version of that argument is strategic, not tactical. Britain’s material advantage did not script the battle. It explains why Germany could inflict heavier losses without converting them into a durable change in control of the sea.

Industrial depth mattered in three ways. It provided Britain with more hulls in reserve, greater capacity to absorb and repair damage, and a strategic position that did not require the destruction of the German fleet. Scheer needed an exceptional result to transform the war at sea. Jellicoe needed to prevent an exceptional defeat.

Jutland therefore resists the simple labels of victory and defeat. Germany won the exchange of losses. Britain preserved the condition that mattered most: the Grand Fleet remained the dominant force in the North Sea. Tactical performance and strategic effect moved in opposite directions.

What Jutland Settled, and What It Left Open

• Germany proved that the High Seas Fleet could fight effectively and impose severe losses on the Royal Navy.

• Britain proved that sea control could survive a tactically costly battle as long as the Grand Fleet remained intact.

• Neither fleet achieved annihilation, and the debate over Jellicoe’s caution and Scheer’s decisions continued after the war.

• The naval war did not end at Jutland. Its center of gravity moved toward submarines, blockade, shipping losses, and economic endurance.

The battle was fought over roughly thirty-six hours, but its strategic meaning was built over decades. Britain did not need a clean tactical victory to keep control of the sea. Germany needed more than a favorable casualty exchange to take that control away.

Recommended Sources

• Great War at Sea: Remembering the Battle of Jutland | Foreign Policy Research Institute

• Who won the Battle of Jutland? | Royal Museums Greenwich

• The Royal and German Navy remember the Battle of Jutland | Royal Navy

• Battle of Jutland centenary background | Imperial War Museums

• Battle of Jutland 1916 | National Records of Scotland

• HMS Caroline | National Museum of the Royal Navy

Sources & Methodology

This article compares the interpretive argument published by the Foreign Policy Research Institute with official and museum accounts from the Royal Navy, Imperial War Museums, Royal Museums Greenwich, the National Museum of the Royal Navy, and National Records of Scotland.

Published totals vary slightly according to whether particular vessels, prisoners, wounded personnel, or later deaths are included. The figures used here follow the Royal Navy’s published count for ships sunk and sailors killed, while readiness figures are attributed to Royal Museums Greenwich.

Corrections or source clarifications can be sent through the DefenseHub contact page.

R. Planche · DefenseHub

Share the post

Germany wants its intelligence services to do more to stop attacks linked to Russia. At an October 5 parliamentary hearing, BND chief Martin Jäger warned that Moscow's campaign against Germany was growing more dangerous. Berlin has backed a bill to expand intelligence powers, including limited action to stop an imminent cyberattack. The government describes these powers in a draft bill. A separate espionage investigation involving former BND chief August Hanning shows why the debate also needs to address the protection of secrets inside the service.

What We Know

Jäger told the Bundestag's intelligence oversight committee that Russia posed Germany's most serious security threat. The parliament's account of the October 5 hearing records his warning that Russian intelligence activity was becoming more aggressive. Sinan Selen, head of the domestic intelligence service, the BfV, also described threats to transport, defense companies and military infrastructure. These public assessments explain why Berlin is arguing for stronger services.

The government's FAQ, published September 16, describes a bill that would allow tightly limited intervention when other agencies could not counter a threat as effectively. Its example is shutting down a foreign server from which a cyberattack is imminent. It also proposes changes to data retention, AI use and oversight. The Independent Control Council would approve especially intrusive measures in advance, while parliamentary oversight would remain. Parliament must still settle the final legal framework.

Federal prosecutors announced Hanning's arrest on October 6. He led the BND from 1998 to 2005. Manfred D., Hanning's former office manager, held that role for successive BND presidents from March 2012 to March 2026. Prosecutors allege he supplied Hanning with nearly 2,000 internal documents for private consulting work. Investigators trace the alleged arrangement to spring 2010 and the documents identified so far to June 2022. The case therefore concerns access by someone working inside the agency as well as the conduct of a former chief.

Prosecutors say Hanning used classified material to prepare an analysis for an officer of a foreign intelligence service; whether it reached that recipient remains unestablished. They also allege that he supplied political information to a contact in another service. The October 6 statement names neither country. Hanning denies the allegations, according to L'Express reporting excerpted by Ifri. Those allegations remain subject to investigation and court proceedings. The cited sources do not link the alleged recipients to Russia's campaign.

Operational Context

The public debate brings together two tasks that require different work. Preventing a hostile cyberattack requires finding its source, deciding who is responsible and choosing a lawful way to stop it. Protecting internal reports requires controlling access, checking how documents are used and investigating suspected misuse. A service can improve at one task while remaining weak at the other. Giving it a wider remit creates no automatic guarantee that its internal controls will improve. Each part needs its own evidence and its own review.

The government's server example gives the reform debate a concrete starting point. I would expect a workable approval process to establish why intervention is necessary and which agency should carry it out. Parliamentary scrutiny should examine those conditions alongside the proposed approval process. A power written broadly enough to cover many situations can also leave difficult decisions to the officials using it. The useful questions concern who makes those decisions, what records they keep and how a disputed operation can be reviewed.

The Hanning allegations raise a different set of questions about access and trust. According to prosecutors, Manfred D. held a job that gave him access to sensitive information for senior decision-makers. Reviewing a former chief's consulting work would address only part of the alleged route by which documents left the agency. An examination would also need to establish how the alleged supplier used his access and which controls applied. The published accusations describe that route, but they do not identify which specific safeguard failed.

L'Express describes the case as a weakness at the top of the BND. That assessment rests on allegations still to be tested in court. It puts attention on the handling of sensitive reports by trusted officials. The investigation should establish how documents were handled. The reform debate should examine the proposed powers and their safeguards.

Subscribe

My Read

A useful reform should give officials a clear way to respond to a specific threat. The government's example of an imminent cyberattack is specific enough to support a useful debate: when can intervention prevent harm, and which authority is best placed to act? Describing the reform simply as permission for more aggressive spying leaves those questions unanswered. The final legal text needs to define the trigger, the permitted response and the route for approval. Those details will determine what the services can actually do.

I would put equal weight on the ability to handle information safely. If investigators establish that a serving official supplied internal reports to a former chief, the review must follow that route through the agency. It should ask who could access the material, how access was checked and what prompted investigation. The fact that a recipient had left the BND years earlier would offer little reassurance about the handling of documents still inside it. The alleged supplier's position makes this a question about the service's own controls.

My concern is that expanding powers can be easier to announce than improving the daily work needed to use them well. Officials using a new power still need reliable intelligence and a secure way to handle it. An internal review should test how security rules work in daily practice. That gives parliament a practical reason to examine both the case for intervention and the safeguards around sensitive work.

For the reform, I would look for clear conditions on intervention and an approval system that officials can use in a crisis. For the Hanning case, I would look for findings about the alleged document transfers and any resulting changes to access controls. Some operational details will remain secret. Public scrutiny can still test whether the legal responsibilities are clear and whether identified failures lead to changes. Parliament should be able to check whether officials followed the approval rules, even when the operational record stays confidential.

What to Watch

• The bill's progress through parliament, its final wording and its entry-into-force provisions.

• The conditions for active intervention, including who authorizes an operation and who reviews it afterward.

• Court decisions and verified findings about the alleged document transfers involving Hanning and Manfred D.

• Any changes to BND access controls announced in response to the investigation.

Recommended Sources

• German Bundestag, October 5: public hearing of the intelligence oversight committee

• German government, September 16: explanation of the intelligence reform bill

• Federal Public Prosecutor, October 6: allegations against Hanning and Manfred D.

• L'Express, excerpted by Ifri: reporting and analysis of the Hanning investigation

Sources & Methodology

This briefing is based on open-source reporting, official releases, procurement documents, defense-industry disclosures, and specialist analysis available at publication time. Claims involving battlefield effects, classified programs, or active operations are treated cautiously unless corroborated by multiple independent sources.

DefenseHub prioritizes primary sources where available, including official releases, budget and procurement records, legislative documents, technical disclosures, institutional research, and reputable reporting.

Corrections or source clarifications can be sent through the DefenseHub contact page.

R. Planche · DefenseHub

Share the post