Letters from the Dias
Dear Delegates,
Welcome to the Future of War JCC Committee 2017! My name is Alex Jang and I will be one of your Crisis Directors for the committee. Chairing is always a fantastic experience for me and, at least I hope, for the delegates in my committee as well. Set in the future, our committee will have the unique opportunity of being able to engage in debate and crisis as two of the predominant superpowers in this fictional world. Choices made by both sides will dictate the committee’s course of events and will have ripple effects across the rest of the world. Thus, I am very excited to tackle this challenging yet highly dynamic and stimulating committee with you.
To provide some background about myself, I am a junior in Jonathan Edwards College at Yale studying Economics and Math. My hometown is Orinda, California, just outside of San Francisco. At Yale, I am involved with a number of different Yale International Relations Association programs, including Yale Model United Nations Korea (a high school Model UN conference hosted in Seoul each year) and the Model United Nations Team at Yale (Yale’s traveling competition Model UN team). As a competitor, I primarily focus on Crisis committees and enjoy the fast-paced and intricate crises in committee. Outside of international relations programs, I am a captain for the Yale Club Wrestling Team, a coach for Urban Debate League, am involved with Greek Life, and involved with Yale’s Asian American community.
This topic will force us to test what is scientifically realistic as well as what is practical. I want to encourage you to use your imagination to develop interesting crises and propel your countries into the future of warfare. While this committee asks you to think outside the box, it also asks you to think seriously about what warfare is and what effects weapons of mass destruction have on our societies and international connections.
I am looking forward to meeting all of you in October. Please do not hesitate to reach out at any point with questions or comments regarding the topic. You can reach me at alexander.jang@yale.edu.
Cheers,
Alex
Dear Delegates,
Welcome to Security Council Simulation at Yale! My name is Elisabeth Siegel (please do call me Lis”), and I will be one of your Crisis Directors for this JCC. I’m super excited to work with you all in deliberating on the future of warfare and the revolution in military affairs, and seeing how that will affect international relations on a macro level.
A little more about me: I am a half Chinese sophomore at Pauli Murray College within Yale University, aiming to major in Global Affairs and Modern Middle Eastern Studies. I come from Northern California, however, around an hour from San Francisco — I’m definitely not used to the snow yet — and international relations has always been a passion of mine. Within the Yale International Relations Association, I’ve been involved with a number of conferences, particularly on the Yale Model United Nations’ secretariat and directing a committee for Yale Modern Government Europe in Budapest, and I’m also the online managing editor for the Yale Review of International Studies. Outside of YIRA, I’m the Vice President of Yale Students of Salaam, an organization that provides in-school and in-home tutoring support for newly arrived refugees in New Haven. I also research for the Roosevelt Institute, a student-run thinktank at Yale, and I’m a member of Middle East Resolution through Education Action and Dialogue. For fun, I enjoy magazine design, reading, attending all sorts of concerts and nerding out over modern Chinese films.
The future of warfare could proceed along many exciting potential lines. The philosophical, societal, and political ramifications of the development of new technology such as weaponized AI, or the revolutionization of existing technologies like nanotechnology or human-fully-out-of-the-loop autonomous weaponry systems need to be reckoned with as much as possible before they become a reality, which they are sure to become within the next fifty years. This committee will require you to think on your feet — quickly as well as extremely creatively — in order to envision the possibilities, causes, and consequences of future warfare. The crisis-driven scenario will keep things fresh and exciting within committee and also ensure that your improvisational thinking skills will be put to the test.
I’m really excited to get to know you come October. If you have any questions, concerns, or desires to chat with me at all before then, feel free to contact me at elisabeth.siegel@yale.edu.
Sincerely,
Lis
Dear Delegates,
First and foremost, welcome to the Future of War JCC Committee at SCSY 2017. My name is Eujin Jang, and I am excited to be serving as chair of the United States of America(?) for the JCC. As part of a futuristic committee at a crisis-oriented conference, I am looking forward to seeing the great debate and cross-committee interactions that will arise from our efforts.
Now for a bit more about myself: I am a sophomore in Silliman College at Yale potentially pursuing a major in Economics and Mathematics. I went to high school in Atlanta, GA, though my family currently lives in Boston, MA. At Yale, I’ve been involved in a whole variety of other Yale International Relations Association conferences including YMUN, YMUN Korea, and Yale Model Government Europe. Outside of international relations, I am also involved in New Haven small business development with the Elmseed Enterprise Fund, Dwight Hall Socially Responsible Investment Fund, and the Yale College Council Business Team. I also enjoy a wide variety of music and have been playing basketball for more than ten years.
The current trends in weaponization, warfare, and AI development open up a whole frontier of unprecedented dialogue and critical events, so I can’t wait to see what’s in store for our committee come October. Meanwhile, free feel to reach out to me with any questions, comments, or concerns at eujin.jang@yale.edu.
Best Regards,
Eujin Jang
Collin Bentley: Collin is a junior in Jonathan Edwards College who is, for better or for worse, in love with both theater and Computer Science. He spends most of his time between the Yale Socially Assisted Robotics Lab and the Yale Dramatic Association theaters. While he has no idea what he wants to do with his life, Collin enjoys being lost in the wilderness as a leader for Yale’s First-Year Outdoor Orientation Trips, and he spent his most recent summers teaching English in Yangzhou, China and studying Chinese at 台大 in Taipei. He absolutely can not wait to meet all of the delegates and to kick off a fun and enriching conference!
Dear delegates,
Welcome to the Future of War JCC Committee at SCSY 2017. I’m honored to get to chair your debate, and look forward to hearing your insights and perspectives on these deeply complex topics.
I’m a sophomore in Pauli Murray college at Yale University, studying Environmental Studies and History. Of special interest to me is how climate change will affect conflict and human rights in the future. I work at the Yale Program for Climate Change Communication, and am a student assistant at the Yale Fortunoff Video Archives for Holocaust Testimonies.
Myself, and the rest of the chairs, can’t wait to meet you, and until then, I wish you the best of luck with your research and preparation. Please reach out if you have any questions or concerns. See you all in session!
Isa del Toro
Pauli Murray College
Topic History
Introduction
From North Korea to Iran to Israel, nuclear proliferation has been a pervasive issue in modern-day news. Nuclear weapons developed to the point in the 21st century where even small devices and radioactive but not necessarily nuclear weapons could cause mass casualties. For centuries, nuclear weapons had been the predominant weapons of mass destruction favored by super powers, but times have changed. The destructive power of nuclear weapons has been culled by technological progression, politics, and societal willpower. Now, our world has made nuclear weapons all but obsolete.
New technologies to detect, destroy, and combat nuclear and missile weaponry have been deployed by the two predominant superpowers in the world, the USA (along with NATO) and China (with a newly formed Asian alliance called the Asian Defense Pact). As a result, both NATO and China have recognized that their nuclear capabilities, both strategically and tactically, have become nearly worthless. Moreover, international pressure has led the United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution calling for the nuclear disarmament of all powers across the world, including the powers that were previously protected under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The UNSC Resolution gives the IAEA wide ranging powers to investigate nuclear power plants, silos, records of transportation of nuclear materials, and a country’s nuclear capabilities. However, an ideological conflict between the US and China in how to divide a UN mandate in the Middle East leads to a military conflict between the two nations. The result is a highly tense situation between the US and China where neither side possesses weapons of mass destruction.
As a result, the US and China have started to disassemble their nuclear arsenals whilst quietly pursuing new weapons of mass destruction. Our committees will have to work to build and innovate new weaponry but will also have to manage public opinion towards WMDs, the resources required to construct such projects, and your obvious opponent, either the US or China depending upon which cabinet you are a part of.
Welcome to the Future of War Joint Crisis Committee.
History
The committee starts in the year of 2050. The UN Resolution and technology eliminating the effectiveness of nuclear weaponry have just been passed. However, the world as it stands in 2017 is vastly different from what we find in 2050. As such, this section will explain how our committee developed from 2017 up until about 2048, two years before we begin our committee.
Nuclear Terrorism
By 2020, the Syrian War has still not ended and ISIS stands as one of the main fighting forces fighting against Bashar al-Assad and by extension Russia and the American-led coalition. Though progress through 2017 demonstrated that coalition efforts had been successful in keeping ISIS confined in Iraq and Syria, the US and Russia doubled down on their efforts late in 2018, sending 5,000 ground troops each to continue to combat ISIS. However, in December 2019, ISIS had a reversal in fortune as the US-led coalition was taken by surprise in Mosul and forced to retreat after sustained attack from ISIS forces. Following ISIS’s reclamation of Mosul, US war exhaustion hit a peak for the US intervention in Iraq. Trying to avoid any serious defeats before the 2020 Presidential election, President Trump had US forces merely defend currently controlled positions rather than try and retake Mosul. As a result, ISIS gained a second wind in the early parts of 2020.
The Beginning of the End
October 17, 2020. A small tactical nuclear weapon of about 20 kilotons was detonated in St. Petersburg, Russia. The weapon, about a third larger than the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was manufactured for tactical uses, specifically bunker busting and bombing of conventional forces. Within a day, the explosion killed 250,000 people in St. Petersburg and the surrounding area. Millions more suffered more minor injuries. Later that night, ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack. The attack was dubbed “The Beginning of the End” by mainstream media warning of the perceived impending nuclear apocalypse.
In the ensuing months, the international community worked tirelessly to investigate and determine how ISIS had acquired a nuclear weapon and tried to determine if they possessed any more. The joint investigation launched by the UN Security Council and Russia concluded that the ISIS branch residing in Chechnya had broken into a warehouse storing nuclear warheads and had managed to abscond with three warheads. This was not the first time that plans to steal nuclear weapons from Russia had been hatched by militant factions in Russia. However, this was the first recorded incident where Russia’s weak security infrastructure surrounding its nuclear facilities actually resulted in nuclear warheads being stolen from a Russian facility. In response to this news, Russia worked to collaborate with the UNSC to bring together a wider coalition to destroy ISIS. It became understood among the international community that nuclear terrorism was a far greater threat to national security than previous terror threats, forcing the international community to both track down the two remaining warheads and end the threat of ISIS.
The ensuing search for the two remaining stolen nuclear warheads demonstrated superpowers’ woeful incompetence in tracking well hidden nuclear weapons and destroying them once they are discovered. Using systems that relied heavily on nuclear radiation detection and satellite imagery, the USA, Russia, and China all failed to locate the two nuclear warheads. These methods failed miserably when the warheads were being stored underground.
Eventually, combined intelligence efforts from the G5 led to the discovery of the location of one the warheads. Hidden in a mountain range deep in Syria, Russian and US forces debated using bunker busting bombs and other methods to destroy the warhead. Ultimately, a massive force of 2000 US and Russian soldiers descended upon the hideout. The resulting firefight lasted for 20 hours with the ISIS soldiers eventually being defeated. The warhead was secured and then returned to Russian hands. Shortly after, Chinese authorities intercepted a truck en route to Shanghai carrying the second warhead. After a small skirmish, the Chinese government secured the warhead. Though previously disinterested in taking a primary role in destroying the warheads, the Chinese government now demanded that it be one of the leaders in preventing nuclear terrorism.
Worldwide Response
The Beginning of the End was the catalyst for a worldwide response to nuclear weaponry. The G5 became convinced that nuclear weaponry, despite its numerous uses for power projection, ultimately had more destructive and negative potential than benefit. Their logic was fairly clear given the terrorist attack on Russia and attempted attack on China: states would refuse to use nuclear weaponry due to mutual assured destruction, but failing nuclear infrastructure meant that the risk of nuclear weapons falling into the wrong hands was too great. As such, the G5 countries started working with the UNSC and IAEA to author a comprehensive treaty for disarmament and elimination of technology used to refine uranium to weaponizable levels. The treaty was named “The Treaty to Eliminate Nuclear Violence”, or the ENV. The ENV would eventually be signed in 2030 after nuclear weapons became tactically and strategically irrelevant. By 2050, all countries will have fully disarmed.
Simultaneously to the writing of the ENV, super powers across the world started to pour money into researching new, alternative forms of nuclear material detection. Research into detection methods other than radiation detection and basic satellite imagery would take the forefront of new research. Specifically, antineutrino detection and gravitational sensors seemed promising to researchers at the time. In 2020, antineutrino detectors were in their early test phases, but renewed government interest accelerated the rate of the research. When nuclear fission occurs, antineutrinos are thrown off from the reaction as a byproduct. The antineutrinos can then come into contact with protons, or in this case, hydrogen atoms contained in water. The resulting collision leads to the proton transforming into a neutron and a positron being released. The positron releases Cherenkov radiation which can then be detected by sensors along with another blast that subsumes the neutron. You can read up more on antineutrino detection here. Within three years, antineutrino detectors were refined by multiple governments as a nuclear material detection mechanism and were being deployed all over the world to detect whether a nation possessed nuclear weapons or weapons-grade nuclear material.
The UNSC created the Nuclear Quick Response Taskforce, comprised of special forces soldiers from the UNSC permanent member states, in 2021. Upon detection of unknown nuclear material, the NQRT is the first force that responds to the threat, finding and eliminating any rogue warheads. In late 2024, their effectiveness as a task force was proven. Iran restarted their nuclear program and despite crushing sanctions, refused to yield. China’s paranoia regarding the proliferation of nuclear weapons caused them to back down from a time-sensitive UNSC Resolution to deploy the NQRT to destroy Iran’s nuclear stockpile. The NQRT was dispatched by the UNSC and two days after the resolution was passed, the nuclear capabilities of Iran were destroyed. As such, non-missile nuclear capabilities were impossible to preserve and use. The ENV would later amend itself in 2031 to allow for the NQRT to launch a mission immediately as soon as NQRT Command confirmed the existence of a rogue nuclear weapon. Managed directly by the Secretary-General, NQRT has a very narrow goal and even narrowers terms determining when it can strike. It’s soldiers remain uniquely loyal to the cause of the NQRT in creating a post-nuclear world through the means of force. Post 2050 when all countries are supposed to be non-nuclear, the strikeforce has the authority to strike on any weaponized signature.
The final nail in the coffin for nuclear weapons was the perfection of mid to late stage ballistic missile defense systems. Missile defense systems that target the middle phase and end phase of ballistic missile trajectories were perfected within 10 years of the 2020 attack. All of the G5 powers deployed their own networks of missile defense systems including extensive Ground-Based Midcourse Defense systems, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense Systems (for NATO), Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and Patriot Advanced Capability-3 Systems. Development of all these systems meant that in testing scenarios, all of the G5 countries were able to intercept short, middle, intermediate, and intercontinental range ballistic missiles on 101/102 times. As a result, ballistic missile technology essentially became worthless.
In summary, from 2020 to 2035, the attack on St. Petersburg led to the development of a four prong strategy that would eventually lead to the eradication of nuclear weapons by 2050, the year that our committee begins. The four prongs are as follows:
1. The ENV, prescribing the disarmament of all nations;
2. The development of hyper-accurate sensors able to detect any weaponized nuclear signatures on the planet
3. The creation of NQRT as a fast response team to nuclear threats;
4. The perfection and universal deployment of ballistic missile defense technology that renders ballistic missiles useless.
By 2050, nuclear weapons have become a thing of the past.
Current Situation
For 25 years, the attack on St. Petersburg and the attempted attack on Shanghai brought the international community together against a common enemy. Save for a few rogue states, the global consensus was that securing nuclear weapons was the necessary first priority for all nations. During this time, massive progress on nuclear weapons detection and defense was made as well as treaties essentially ending the use of nuclear weapons. During this time, previously unsolvable international crisis such as the Syrian Civil War were made solvable. After ISIS was soundly defeated in 2021 by an international coalition, the UN was put in charge of managing the territory and working with regional partners to rebuild the government. The UN program governing the land was dubbed “The Iraq and Syria Mandate Zone”, the ISMZ. The UN’s mandate would end in 2049 and the UNSC would then determine how to divide the land into proper governments. Leaders across the world were elected or chosen for their ability to work together in partnership with other nations, a key issue for citizens of all nations that recognized going it alone was impossible.
The Division of the ISMZ
Enter the year 2049. The UNSC collects itself to negotiate a plan for the division of formerly ISIS controlled territories known as ISMZ. Never directly asked in a UN context, the question of division quickly became controversial between the different permanent members of the UNSC. The loudest voices in the room were that of the US and that of China. The two states strongly disagreed about the type of government that should be implemented in the new states, whether it should based on a Western liberal democracy or China’s Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Thus far, the UN had not taken any particular actions to favor either side, but after the Chinese delegation hurled an accusation at the American delegation regarding the effectiveness of its civil rights law, the American head negotiator walked out of the room, essentially halting the negotiations. The then newly inaugurated US President issued a shocking statement, “The embarrassments that our negotiators were handed at the ISMZ division talks were unacceptable. Unless other UNSC nations, including China, behave with complete respect towards our negotiations the US will have no option but to consider the military enforcement of democracy and liberalism in the ISMZ.” Mere hours later, China issued a response statement, stating that it too would use its soldiers to guarantee that the ISMZ turned towards socialist government. Tensions continued to escalate until the US finally declared that it was moving 15,000 troops into the ISMZ to ensure the safety of its citizens. The US troops started to deploy from the north of Syria and occupied the entirety of Syria by the time they came into contact with Chinese forces. In response, China transported 20,000 troops to the ISMZ and occupied the entirety of Iraq. On the border, small skirmishes between the two powers broke out, but the UNSC was able to bring both sides back to the negotiating table and reach an agreement for armistice. In January 2050, the two sides established a demilitarized neutral zone along the pre-2021 borders between Iraq and Syria with the US occupying the Syrian side and China occupying the Iraqi side.
Hardening Stances
By the signing of the armistice and the construction of the DMZ, both the US and China fulfilled their requirements of the ENV and fully disarmed their nuclear capabilities. However, both sides recognized that the tensions in Iraq and Syria are the highest that they have been between the US and China possibly ever. Without nuclear weapons to project their power and prevent conflict, the two sides would have to resort to conventional war. Estimates from the Brookings Institute estimate that a localized conventional war in the ISMA would result in a minimum of 2,000 casualties on either side. The Institute further concludes that a full scale war or an escalation of the local war could easily lead to hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides. As such, a full scale conventional war would be one of the last situations that either side would want to end up in.
The leaders of both sides have concluded that the quickest and most efficient way to preserve their national interests, both in the ISMZ and elsewhere, is to maneuver themselves into a position of military strength, giving them the ability to force the other side to make concessions. Whether it’s true or not, the leaders of both sides believe that this is a pivotal conflict for the fate of their countries with the country coming out on top achieving global dominance.
Potential Avenues for Military Innovation
With both sides looking for a military innovation to force the other side to capitulate, or at worst, to use on the other side in case of war, there are a number of options the committees can choose to pursue. All of the following options have their own risks and rewards and by no means are these options exhaustive. Feel free to investigate potentially different avenues for military innovation that are not included in this topic guide. Your committee will realistically have to work together in order to develop these different weapons and while individual directives will be useful for setting up larger crises and moving committee forward, large scale projects will not be accessible without committee approval. Below are a few suggestions to get started:
Artificial intelligence (AI)
AI is an incredibly complicated topic, and all of the potentials and implications of the development of AI could not possibly be summarized in this section. We recommend that those interested in pursuing the AI route should do some background reading before committee. Potential sources are listed at the end of this summary.
The confluence of AI and military innovation is machine learning (ML), which is a type of AI that allows computers to learn from new data without specifically being programmed, and which could spread rapidly in military systems, and even trigger an arms race.
Commercial markets are currently in the lead for integrating AI into various parts of society through “deep learning” and broader categories of ML. Export controls seem unlikely to stop AI from filtering into all areas of the economy, because government regulations generally lag behind the invention of new tech.
It’s important to understand that AI is not in and of itself a weapon, much more “like satellite access or the combustion engine — an enabler that could underlie many different functions, including military ones.”
AI provides a specific advantage to those who wish to maximize control of their own militaries, because they could be operated from highly centralized command stations. This eliminates a lot of concerns over the obedience or loyalty of soldiers and reducing the number of troops needed to use military force. These also provide incentives for autocratic civilizations to invest heavily in the weaponization of machine learning.
The prospects of AI are rich territory to be explored along the lines of ethics and morality as well as scientific possibility. Many scholars have envisioned AI Doom scenarios where the unregulated development of AI will most certainly cause the world to perish. Eliezer Yudkowsky, an artificial intelligence theorist, wrote in his paper Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk, “The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else.”
The goal of an AI is to optimize — in fact, it is a useful heuristic to think of AI as one supercomputer that will optimize towards its programmed goal — and, given the capability to manipulate matter in the real world, unless it is programmed to have certain values (for example, but not necessarily, a value placed on human life) to keep in mind when attempting to attain the goal or solve a problem, the AI may find certain immoral, bloody, or apocalyptic methods to achieve the goal for which it has been programmed. (For more on this train of thought, see article on the Paperclip Maximizer thought experiment.)
So, can we agree on our values, enough so that all AI creators can avoid accidentally or purposefully extinguishing humanity? Is “Friendly AI” possible?
How AI can play a role in the future of warfare is, as what has been discussed so far suggests, incredibly variable. There is a distinct possibility that the prospect of AI will touch off (as it already has) an arms race.
“Racing to the Precipice,” a technical report from the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford, provides a simple model of an AI Arms race, assuming a definite probability of an AI-related disaster, and finding that several factors contribute to increasing the potential danger of such a disaster, but that “reducing the enmity between AI development teams [i.e., the countries involved in the race] helps, however, as does reducing the number of teams.” AI arms races also provide an interesting example of an information hazard, as in this study, the scholars found that danger is further minimized if each team is ignorant of the AI-building capabilities of every team, including their own capabilities.
The prospect of AI promises to truly shake up the foundations of modern warfare, but individuals should use extreme caution when pursuing the AI route, for the consequences of either deploying “friendly” AI or accidentally bringing into being an “unfriendly” AI could be world-ending in magnitude.
(However, it is important to keep in mind a fallacy that is known among AI theorists sometimes as the Giant Cheesecake Fallacy.)
Nanotech
"Military applications of molecular manufacturing have even greater potential than nuclear weapons to radically change the balance of power." - Admiral David E. Jeremiah, Vice-Chairman (ret.), U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff
According to the United States Nanotechnology Initiative, “Nanotechnology is science, engineering, and technology conducted at the nanoscale, which is about 1 to 100 nanometers.” Nanotechnology is not a new concept, however weapons or defense mechanisms using nanotechnology generally was still in prototype states in 2017 and still generally is in 2050. Both sides have begun to deploy limited nanotechnology but specifically to improve the guidance systems of ballistic missile interceptors. Small nano guidance computers allowed for much improved interceptor missiles and generally have improved missile guidance.
Because of their relatively cheap cost to prototype and manufacture compared to other WMDs, nanotechnology research has the unique ability to advance more quickly than other fields. As a result, nanotechnology can quickly be democratized to smaller states and even well equipped terrorist groups. Discovering means to counteract nanobots may eventually be just as important as being able to develop the nanobots themselves. Some doomsday scenarios estimate the possibility of human extinction before 2100 due to nanobots at 5%.
Beyond missile guidance there are a number of potentially damaging offensive and defensive weapons that could be innovated by both sides. First, nanobots the size of insects have potential to be used as surveillance devices, lethal weapons, and other applications. For example, a small nanobot the size of the world’s smallest insect could contain lethal toxins and inject targets as a method of assassination. Second, the development of nanocomputers and guidance systems can allow for the miniaturization of weapons, aircraft, and other vehicles, making them stealthier and less vulnerable to other countermeasures. Third, nanotechnology is capable of enhancing other forms of technology. Its application to missile and guidance technology is just the first step towards other applications.
Space Based Weapons Platforms
Though the world was focused on nuclear missile technology and defense systems, popular culture did not forget the possibility of space based weaponry during the years from the attack on St. Petersburg to the demarcation of the DMZ. Numerous movies and novels discussing the possibility of space based weapons were published from the 2020s to the 2050s. The primary obstacle to space based weapons is the ease in which they can be destroyed and the number that a nation would have to deploy to gain any semblance of global defensive coverage. However, the perfection of missile defense weaponry on Earth means that accurate point defense systems on space stations and satellites is only a short practical leap away for many governments. As a result, both the US and China are ready to start pursuing space based weapons platforms.
Space based weapon platforms, in general, are invulnerable to conventional weapons, giving the nations that develop them significant tactical advantages over others. Existing countermeasures are missile based satellite interceptors, though further refinement of anti-missile technology would render missile strikes nearly obsolete. Theoretical uses for space based weapons platforms include mounting advanced kinetic weapons, missiles, energy weapons, and other spacecraft to gain tactical advantages against enemies.
Advanced Kinetic Weapons
Hatched during the Cold War, the idea of advanced kinetic energy weapons never fully came to fruition. The closest that world powers came to fully kinetic energy weapons, weapons that use their massive velocity and kinetic energy to cause damage rather than the explosives that they can carry, was in 2017. Amidst a heightening Syrian conflict, the US started to ramp up experiments with their kinetic weapons called the Kinetic Energy Projectile. Though never operational, the US made significant progress on these weapons and now is a short time away from being able to bring the weapons to full operational capacity.
Kinetic weapons and their derivatives could be used with conventional artillery pieces as well as larger facilities. How the US and China choose to develop these weapons is up to you to decide.
Laser and Energy Weapon Technology
Automated Weaponry
Autonomous Weapons Systems (AWS) have been a potential reality since 2015. However, activism questioning the moral ethics of such weapons has held back the development of these weapons. The US and Russia still started to employ predecessors to what could lead to AWS, including the automation of a type of light tank that required human operators back at base to control. Beyond these low levels of automation that include “human-in-the-loop” interactions, all other weapons that have been developed have never made it past the early stages of testing. However, the ethical questions soon became less important compared to the overwhelming international need to defeat the possibility of nuclear terrorism and nuclear war. Only now, when China and the US are on the brink of a full fledged confrontation, has the prospect re-entered the realm of military research.
AWS have massive destructive potential and unrestricted development could lead to the quick replacement of many manned vehicles and boots-on-the-grounds strategies. For example, a US general stated in 2014 that by 2044, 30% of the US’s ground forces could be replaced by AWS. Though this is far from the case in 2050, with more advanced research techniques, the US could see a mass deployment of AWS once they become fully operable. Moreover, some experts estimate that the development of AWS and subsequent research could lead to AWS dominating manned vehicle warfare. Advanced procedures in AWS could lead to unmanned aircraft becoming incredibly effective in air-to-air combat. The future of AWS is still uncertain, though there is strong evidence among the scientific community that it could be game changing. AWS still experiences significant opposition among the public.
Cyber Warfare
With the development of cyberspace and the Internet beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, new
potential avenues for warfare and other hostile actions have proliferated along nontraditional
lines present in cyberspace.
The most striking change that Cyber Warfare brings to the table also vastly expands the power of Non-State Actors (NSAs) in this particular realm, for a number of reasons: lowered barriers of entry (i.e. easier access to more destructive power, either on their own or through being aided by a state actor), their organizational structure, their anonymity, and the inherent degree to which there are far more cyber weaknesses than defenses in existence. Hackers can make use of mundane home electronics to mount huge attacks. Within cyberspace, researchers have found that entities usually find it easier to attack rather than defend because of the relatively lower cost of sophisticated attack tools and the weaknesses present in operating systems and networks that create many vulnerable targets for NSAs.
In the setting of this committee, there’s no question that the world has shifted even further into cyber dependency. But with a rise in cyber capabilities also comes multiple questions that need to be answered as the world reckons with cyberspace. For instance, what is a proportional response to cyber attack, and how do we measure cyber damage as compared to kinetic damage or casualties?
Some scholars that cyberwar has more common with informal concepts of conflict like the Cold War, in that cyberattacks remain somewhat unlikely to result in death, injury, or significant destruction. However, these handicaps are likely to change in the future — potential targets for a hostile cyberattack in order to maximize civilian harm could be the cybersystems of hospitals, which would inevitably result in death. Attacks in the cyber realm could also combine with some of the other potential avenues for weapons development outlined in this topic guide.
Given the potentials for automated weaponry or artificial intelligence, developing one’s offensive and defensive cyberspace capabilities grows increasingly paramount. “Information warfare” is how the military has described operations in the past that get inside the enemy’s mind or influences decisionmaking. False commands can be sent through cyber means to autonomous weaponry or AI forces causing a corruption of the orders that they receive or a repurposing of their physicality for hostile means; they could also feed unreliable intelligence back to the human controllers. Only a relatively small percentage of attacks would need to be successful in order to sincerely corrupt the effectiveness of technological programs.
“What we enter is an era of ‘battles of persuasion.’ One could never co-opt the fl ight of a bullet, steering it away from where the gunner shot it. Nor has anyone proven able to brainwash a bomber pilot in midair and shift his allegiance. But if the computers on robotic weapons systems are compromised, they could be ‘persuaded’ to do the opposite of what their owners intended. This creates a whole new type of combat, where the goal may not be merely to destroy the enemy’s tanks but to hack into his computer networks and make his tanks drive around in circles or even attack each other. And, of course, cyberwar might see computers used in the same way that other weapons have been used to cause destruction and loss of life among enemy forces.” (Cybersecurity and Cyberwar: What Everyone Needs to Know by P.W. Singer and Allan Friedman, p. 130)
On the other hand, the weapons and operations of cyberwar will be far less predictable than traditional kinetic means of warfare, leading to greater suspicion among military commanders. The blast radius of a bomb, for example, can be predicted to a great degree of accuracy; in contrast, the damage radius of a malware infection is very difficult to predict.
Cyberspace has continuously proved problematic from policy angles because of the landscape being populated by both public and private actors, state- and non-state-affiliated. The key becomes then what arms control figures call proliferation; capabilities in cyberspace are knowledge dependent, and this knowledge has the potential to be spread in an instant from one actor to another, either via complete copy or duplication, or via inspiration and innovation off of an older concept.
The realms of cyberspace and cyberwarfare are volatile ones, but they will be important for the future of your committees.
Biological Warfare
Soldier Enhancement
The notion of being able to enhance your soldiers cybernetically or through other means has been the topic of science fiction far before the 21st century. However, in 2016, a group of researchers in the US successfully implemented the the beginnings of cybernetic enhancement. By applying small amounts of current to different parts of the brain known as transcranial direct current stimulation, the researchers were able to increase brain function and improve multitasking ability among subjects. The research also suggested that the method would decrease the need for sleep among soldiers. Though science made no major breakthroughs beyond minor enhancements between 2016 and 2050, the possibility of cybernetic and brain enhancement is of the utmost interest to both governments.
Another DARPA project is the implantation of a chip into a soldier’s brain that would allow them to work seamlessly with machines on the battlefield. The project, while in the most experimental stages in 2016, was funded by the US government for a four year project. Though the goal of seamless communication between soldier and machine was ultimately unachievable in that time frame, DARPA was able to successfully build the technology to implant rudimentary chips into soldier’s brains and have them control small electronics. In 2050, blurring the lines between soldier and warmachine is a distant reality but ample resources and time would allow the two governments to develop this technology.
The last relevant DARPA project is the exoskeleton that they piloted in 2016. Though only capable of helping its occupant walk more quickly and more easily, the exoskeleton was the first of its kind. Now, exoskeleton research has only progressed to allow all types of movement to be mechanically assisted, allowing soldiers to run, jump, and move with approximately 50% more speed and power than unassisted. The possibility of flying and arming their exoskeletons with weaponry still remains a dream of science fiction but with enough research, those technologies could very well be accessible to either military.
Portfolio Powers
USA
Welcome to the Situation Room. President Bruce Bronson has assembled this committee to be his special advisory committee on how to deal with the escalating conflict with China. Bronson, at this point, is not willing to look for a diplomatic situation with China. His base and American public opinion has rallied strongly against a diplomatic solution to this confrontation. Emboldened by the idea that China would have to pursue a conventional, not nuclear, war to enforce its will, Bronson is much more willing to pursue a path of brinkmanship than detente. Rather, Bronson wants to focus his energy on maneuvering the United States into a position of relative military strength by innovating a new set of super weapons. Bronson will follow recommendations approved by the entire committee save that those recommendations don’t seek significant diplomatic accommodation with China.
Secretary of Defense Roderick McCoy
Secretary of Defense Roderick McCoy has lived a very similar lifestyle akin to that of his role model, former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis. A retired Marine General, he has seen active combat duty in Sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia. His frugal lifestyle and staunch determination have earned him the respect of his peers and politicians. President Bronson’s appointment of McCoy as Secretary of Defense was initially seen as a hawkish gesture. Yet in recent times, McCoy began to publicly object Bronson’s hostile attitude towards China. While he firmly believes in the superiority of American military, he does not wish to extravagantly spend resources on the development of new technology. Rather, he considers the maintenance of existing fragile peace in East Asia, guarded with existing weaponry, as the primary concern for USA. How will McCoy balance his own views with that of his president and other hawkish members of the committee?
Director of DARPA - Julie Walker
Director Julie Walker worked her way up through the ranks of DARPA and started working there after obtaining her PhD in Physics from CalTech. Working on a number of notable projects, the most notable of which is probably the most recent perfections on the nanotechnology that helped fully develop the US’s missile defense systems, Walker has spent thirty years in DARPA and was chosen as the unambiguous director after the most recent presidential election. Though a dedicated scientist, Walker is a staunch militarist and does not have an questions about the morality of her job. She views DARPA’s role as fundamental to US hegemony and wishes to maintain that status. DARPA’s projects have brought the US into a new age of military technology and its projects have always been at the forefront of military experimentation in the US. DARPA’s contributions to missile defense systems were part of the reason that the systems were so effectively perfected, however now that nuclear weapons and missile defense research are now considered obsolete, there is a dearth of projects for its vast team of scientists to work on.
Commander of US Cyber Command (USCYBERCOM) - Admiral Jacob Fischer, USN
The US Cyber Command was founded in 2009 as a part of the NSA. Eventually obtaining its full status as a Unified Combatant Command in 2017, CYBERCOM began to take on a significant role in US military operations shortly after the nuclear strike on St. Petersburg. Now Admiral Jacob Fischer was one of the key architects behind the CYBERCOM project that effectively locked out terrorist and other large criminal groups from using certain Dark Web sites to transfer nuclear secrets. His program, Quartz, decidedly hindered terrorist capabilities, preventing them from effectively communicating with each other and led to the shrinking and eventual defeat of many. Fischer graduated from MIT with a degree in Computer Science, obtained his PhD from the same school in the same field, and was recruited to CYBERCOM in his early 30s. Fischer worked for large cybersecurity firms such as Symantec prior to moving into CYBERCOM. Fischer’s prodigal success as both a leader and hacker quickly advanced him through the CYBERCOM ranks and he was granted the title of Commander of CYBERCOM just a year before the beginning of this committee. Fischer recognizes that the conflict with China will be drawn out and will require the US to fully harness its cyberwarfare capabilities. As such, he will be actively looking to make his mark.
Director of National Intelligence - Kay Swanson
Kay Swanson is unlike any previous Directors of National Intelligence. Whereas former directors tended to be retired military generals, Swanson is a career diplomat in the US Foreign Service. Throughout her career, Swanson served in important posts, such as US Permanent Mission to NATO in Brussels and UN European Office in Geneva. She also served as the principal US negotiator for Conference for Disarmament in Geneva and the Six Party Talks on Korean Reunification, in which she closely interacted with her Chinese counterparts. Her most recent post was the Deputy National Security Advisor to the President; as such, she is considered one of President Bronson’s closest confidantes. Swanson is acutely aware of Chinese ambitions and believes the US must actively prepare against potential incursions. At the same time, however, she does not want the US to completely abandon its diplomatic options; she also has existing unofficial channels to the high officials in Chinese diplomatic corps from her diplomatic career.
Founding Partner of New Age Defense - Ksum Nole
New Age Defense was founded in 2020 in the wake of the nuclear strike on St. Petersburg. Sensing a need for a new type of military contractor/research company that combined both large military defense contracts with private strike forces capable of fighting on America’s behalf, Ksum Nole founded New Age Defense. Nole’s previous roles as the CTO of Boeing and an analyst in DARPA exposed him to a world of military research. Nole has effectively applied those skills, leveraging his contacts to become one of the preeminent players in missile defense system deployment. Nole’s company was responsible for 40% of the US’s missile defense expansion, the most out of any other American military defense company. However, Nole has also had an obsession with wielding military power himself. Outfitting his private soldiers with the best technology his company has to offer, Nole’s team has repeatedly been called on by the CIA to deal with smaller, more clandestine operations around the world. Though small in numbers (only about 100 in total), Nole’s strikeforces are well-trained and equipped. Nole’s goals are unclear, even to himself. In front of him, he sees the world and wonders what mark he will leave on it?
Director of the CDC - Randall Ngyuen
Randall Ngyuen, MD, was appointed Director of the Center of Disease Control and Prevention and acting administrator of the Agency of Toxic Substances and Disease Registry after previously serving as the Director of the Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services (CSELS) under CDC. His past experience as a physician-scientist and laboratorian has equipped him with ample ability in bolstering America’s health system, laboratory networks, identification of urgent health threats. However, his experience expands beyond the walls of the lab, as he served on the director of the CDC’s Influenza Coordination Unit during the most recent and most widespread H1N1 pandemic, which he received extraordinary praise for addressing in a timely and efficient manner. Thus Dr. Ngyuen is expected to have possess both the acting leadership and research vision necessary to prepare the United States against any potential biological threats and issue swift and effective containment in the case of an attack. Personally Ngyuen is not completely averse to the notion of returning to the lab to develop some offensive options for the United States itself, if President Bronson ever becomes convinced that biological warfare should become a more prominent strategic military focus of the United States. However, as a lifelong servant to public health, he is not yet convinced that conducting such projects morally aligns with his lifelong dedication and agency’s primary aim of disease prevention.
President’s Chief of Staff - Jim Bean
As the highest-ranking employee of the White House, Chief of Staff Jim Bean is one of President Bronson’s closest and most regular advisors. Bean comes from a family well-known as the keystone of establishment politics in the US, and he is notable for his extensive career in domestic politics, including roles as national party chairman. His range of personal and professional contacts across all areas of American politics is extraordinarily extensive, and due to the nature of his job, Bean plays a critical role in influencing the President’s agenda. For example, he maintains the flow of information to the President, protect the interests of the president, schedules meetings for the President. Due to his heavily established political ties, President Bronson has also granted Bean more duties in negotiating with Congress, other members of the executive branch, and non-governmental political groups to advocate the president's agenda. Like many of previous his Chief of Staff predecessors, Bean is thought to have political aspirations for after his current tenure as Chief of Staff, and therefore can be considered relatively malleable when it comes to playing on both sides of the aisle or on any side of a given issue. While some criticize this characteristic as lacking consistency and reliability, others praise his natural ability for adaptation and winning over people.
Speaker of the House - Kathan McDonald
Kathan McDonald is as natural of a politician as they come, and the story of his rise to Speaker of the House has been nothing short of iconic. Born in a small rural town, McDonald did not come from the already well-established political background of some of his colleagues, but instead relied upon his immense natural charisma and inextinguishable determination to break through the ranks. After graduating from college, he returned to his local district to partake heavily in local engagement, and eventually was elected as the youngest ever House of Representatives member to serve his district. His rise to political fame then under by a series of critical legislation passing under his leadership, but more importantly, his supposed natural ability for negotiation and persuasion, especially in the private and informal setting. He decorated the headlines after a controversial, but publicly well-received, exposure of fellow party members’ illicit activities, which eventually cleared the competition for his selection as chair of several critical House committees, although how he received intel about these illicit activities is still unknown. Examining McDonald’s career reveals an exquisite series of him doing the right thing, at the right time, at the right place, almost to an uncanny perfection too good to be coincidence… so is it? Thus, McDonald is a man increasingly shrouded by hypotheses and mystery, but there is no doubt that he is exceptionally great at getting his work done, regardless of the means. He intends on doing all in his power -- and perhaps more -- to keep his role as Speaker of the House. He views his role on this committee as critical in solidifying a larger political and national legacy for himself, all while securing his political career for the near future.
Director of the CIA - Joshua Saunders
Joshua Saunders was appointed Director of the CIA under President Bronson’s nomination, and is perhaps one of the most accepting of the President’s aggressive stance towards China and the current arms race. Graduated from the United States Military Academy as a distinguished Cadet, Saunders served three decades on the US Army, including roles as Commanding General of several NATO-led security missions, before appointment to his current CIA role. Known for his blunt and task-oriented nature, Saunders is a well-known staunch militarist who believes in brinkmanship as the only viable approach in the current race against China. He is known to have spoken out against Director of National Intelligence Swanson’s relatively “softer” approach to US-China relations on multiple and highly publicized occasions. In the past, Saunders has also served as a consultant to Aegis Security Group, and has thus developed an amicable business and personal relationship with the Fire family, current Chief Executive Officer Red Fire included.
Chief Executive Officer of Aegis Security Group - Red Fire
Always perceived as a troublesome but brilliant kid, Red Fire grew up as the daughter of Lucas Fire, the founder and until recently, Chairman and CEO of the Aegis Security Group. Graduating at the top of her class from Yale with a degree in Physics, Red then acquired her PhD and MBA from Harvard before heading up a research department at Aegis. Lucas founded Aegis in 2020, but then proceeded to merge with two other large security companies in the past 30 years. The largest of the military defense contractors in the US, Aegis has played an important role in pushing American military research and providing the engineers to make the dreams of military designers into reality. Only having become CEO a year prior, Red was expected to be a failure and a half. To the contrary, Red led the company to massive growth in profits and launched a number of groundbreaking projects in nanotechnology, biotech, and cybersecurity. Red’s interest in AI has always been apparent in her work. From the age of 6, Red has been building robots and has said on multiple occasions that she believes AI is the future of not only warfare, but the key to the next major evolution in the world’s quality of life. Red now is in a position where her success has given her the support of her board and shareholders and generally can embark on her own projects. However, with this military crisis impending, Red doesn’t find it satisfying to be standing on the sidelines, and has thrown herself into the cause. Protecting her nation and home are her first and foremost priorities, but how to do that is her question.
Administrator of NASA - Jay Moon
Maj. Gen. Jay Moon was appointed as Administrator of NASA after an extensive career in both NASA and military service with the US Marines. His highly illustrated service with the Marines includes a role even as Deputy Commander of US forces in Japan, and thus Moon brings a militarily strategic outlook to the committee, especially in an East Asian security context. After his tenure with the Marines, he served several years as a NASA astronaut, some of which included international projects. Jay Moon has overseen the transition of the US space program’s from a previous focus on technology development (which earned much doubt from the public as to how useful the agency actually was) to his vision of strategic restructuring. Considering his career background, Moon has good reason to strongly believe that the new era of military and weaponization will depend largely on space based weapon platforms. He leads NASA with the aim of securing US dominance in outer space, winning what may be an even more critical “race to space” against a new threatening global superpower.
Chairwoman of the Faculty Council at the California Institute of Technology - Meng Fei Shen
As the chairwoman of the Faculty Council at CalTech, Dr. Meng Fei Shen has been closely involved with US government projects to bring the intellectual resources at CalTech to bear on the US’s military technology goals. Born in the East Bay Area, Shen began her scientific career as an undergraduate at UC Berkeley. Her success there and exemplary thesis project put her into the Top 10 Under 30 Scientists as published by Nature magazine. Her career would later lead her to a PhD in Physics and Computer Science and tenure at CalTech. Primarily an intellectual and researcher, Shen was motivated by the ostensible goal of denuclearization while she worked on US government missile defense projects. However, the government’s position has shifted and Shen has been recruited to sit on the US committee and still feels a sense of duty towards US military goals. As the chairwoman, Shen has control over a number of day-to-day operations of the CalTech faculty and is in the unique position to push for and accelerate the progress of various research projects. Her personal research has revolved around artificial intelligence and nanotechnology. Shen’s position as chairwoman affords her great respect within the scientific community and that can be a powerful tool as she pushes forward her research.
Chief Security Officer of Google - Lynda Gilbert
Lynda Gilbert is one of the most iconic figures in the current IT Industry, and having been recently appointed as the head of security for the world’s largest target of hacking, perhaps carries one of the biggest burdens upon her shoulders as well. Her job entails the task of keeping unimaginable amounts of client data and critical services safe and running on a 24/7 basis. Earning her spot on Forbes’ 30 Under 30 in Technology before even entering her first year of undergraduate studies at Stanford, Gilbert’s career is already illustrated by leading projects and roles for the likes of McAfee, Qualys, Webroot, and Sophos. Furthermore, Gilbert’s young age, advocacy for women in technology, reputation as a workaholic, and generally fiery personality have earned her a status as the iconic “Security Queen” of Google, and is often regarded as one of the company’s most valuable assets. Gilbert joined the committee, not necessarily out of any sense of political duty (after all, there are no national allegiances on the cyberspace; threats can come in all forms and from all allegiances), but as yet another especially enticing challenge that she feels inclined to tackle and solve. After all, cybersecurity has never been staged at such high stakes before. Gilbert personally believes that there is no cybersecurity problem that she is unable to solve, provided the right resources. And as talented as she is at organizing the defense of the walls, she is convinced she could do just as well in designing a ploy for breaking others’ walls down. Yet, as of now, her main motives for serving on the committee are relatively privately oriented, and despite accepting the national role, is still undecided on whether an official government measure can more effectively take advantage of cyberspace capabilities than say, Google, can.
Director of National Security - Sam Johnston
Director Johnston has never been far from the IC. A retired Director of the Directorate of Operations in the CIA, Johnston has served collecting intelligence in Africa, the Middle East, and East Asia. He served as the head of one of the DoD's intelligence agencies too. After a period in the private sector as a national security "consultant" (read: Head of Blackwater), President Bronston appointed him to as his chief advisor on National Security. While, at first seen as a reasonable logistics man rather than another political, Johnston began to closely advise the President on the dangers of AI and the Chinese development of such programs. While he also believes in the superiority of American military, he has been a strong advocate in Congress for increased spending funneled into NSA programs that could undermine AI systems. What are this secretive actors true alliances? Will his hunger for the power of kingmaker lead the world into World War?
China
General of the Central Military Commission of the People’s Republic of China - Fang Jiang
Secretary-General of the National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China - Chang Zhong
Director of the Scientific Research Steering Committee - Meifen Wang
The Scientific Research Steering Committee was established in early 2017 as part of then-President Xi Jinping’s extensive military overhaul project. Since then, the SRSC has become one of the most important committees in the Central Military Commission. The President of the People’s Republic of China has direct supervision over it, and they appoint its director. Currently, the committee is directed by Dr. Meifen Wang. Dr. Wang graduated from Peking University with a degree in Aerospace Engineering, she then furthered her studies in the field of satellite and nanotechnology. She began her career in the Chinese National Space Administration in 2025, where she became known for her breakthrough work in the field of satellite technology and ballistic missile interceptors. In the National Space Administration, she was appointed to head the Spatial Weaponry and Defense department. Known for her expertise in the field of science, as well as her experience in the field of military technology and design, she was appointed director of the SRSC in 2046. Dr. Meifen Wang is both a brilliant scientist and cunning politician.She has direct contact with top Chinese military leaders, making her one of the most influential voices of the scientific community in the Chinese government. Many of her peers from her days as a student and as a researcher lament that she chose to use her brilliant mind for the military. She has lead a push for the expansion of Chinese space technology and weaponry, seeking to give China a strong vantage point from above the Earth.
Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress - An Jian
Premier of the State Council - Jingyi Fen
Director of the China National Nuclear Corporation - Guanting Jie
Administrator of the China National Space Administration - Zaan Gao
Zaan Gao was appointed to the role of Administrator of the Chinese National Space Administration in 2047. He joined the organization as a young scientist with a doctorate’s degree in quantum physics from Peking University, where he had previously completed an Aerospace engineering degree. He formed part of many of Dr. Meifen Wang’s projects, his specialty as a scientist focused on the development of space missile technology. Dr. Wang, known for her focus on missile and satellite technology, served as a mentor-figure for Gao, influencing his strategic views as well as guiding his research practices. He was appointed to his role as Administrator in 2047, Dr. Wang, head of the SRSC by then, vouched for his skills. Dr. Gao also views space as elemental in Chinese military expansion and development, and currently focuses his research capacities to the development of kinetic missiles. He makes the final decisions regarding the research focus of the National Space Administration, and his connections to members of the SRSC, namely, Dr. Meifen Wang, give him a lot of sway in directing China’s scientific pursuits.
Minister of Science and Technology - Guanyu Chao
Guanyu Chao was appointed Minister of Science and Technology in 2039. He has had a long career within the Ministry, entering it as a public servant in 2017, after completing his PhD in economics in the University of Oxford. The Ministry coordinates China’s national science and technology projects, specifically, it is in charge of allocating research funds and determining the goals of the research institutes. Guanyu Chao, a trained economist and statistician, believes China should focus its research energies on developing agricultural sustainability, medical research, and an expansion of its space program. Guanyu Chao, who has never served in the Chinese military or been entangled in its bureaucracy, disagrees with China’s focus on military innovation, arguing that China’s future does not lie in the ISMZ, but rather within the Chinese territory itself. Nonetheless, Guanyu Chao has shown an interest in the possibility of Artificial Intelligence and cyber technology as assets in future industry.
Minister of Industry and Information Technology - Chin Jin
The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology is headed by Chin Jin. Chin Jin has a degree in Political Science and Economics from Peking University. His father, Qing Jin, also served as Minister of Industry and Information Technology, and Chin Jin grew up within the politics of the CCP. For that reason, he understands China’s political ambitions in the ISMZ. As Minister of Industry and Information Technology, Chin Jin oversees the Chinese communications and industrial systems, aspects such as the internet, telephone lines, electrical systems and software systems. Because he works so closely with these systems, Chin Jin is acutely aware of the danger cyber-warfare and terrorism could pose. For that reason, he has been advocating for the expansion of China’s cyber-technology programs.
Minister of National Defence - Jiang Xue
Jiang Xue was appointed as Minister of National Defense in 2043. He has a lengthy military career, involving service in the People’s Liberation Army since 2011. In 2019 he was promoted to the role of commander of the Nanjing military region, which includes the city of Shanghai. During his time as Commander, he handled the interception and pacification of the 2020 nuclear attempt on the city. As Minister of National Defense, Commander Xue does not have authority over the People’s Liberation Army, but he serves as the chief international representative of the Chinese armed forces and the Central Military Commission. He is known as being soft-spoken and diplomatic, especially with foreign representatives, but also a hard negotiator with an expansive understanding of military strategy and defence. In past sessions with global military leaders he has expressed a more cooperative stance on the question of the ISMZ, for, having handled the Shanghai threat, he advocates for allocating military resources to the defense of China, not for expansion or engaging in warfare.
Minister of Supervision - Hongyi Jiang
Hongyi Jiang was appointed Minister of Supervision in 2037. While most of his life is unknown, we know he went to a prestigious Ivy League University and graduated in 2019, majoring in global affairs and political science, as well as running various Congressional campaigns. The Ministry ensures China's government maintains above reproach - to its own people at least. Known to use secret, if not questionable, methods to root out corruption within the government, Hongyi's own record seems spotless - from the outside. Nonetheless, Minister Jiang has shown an interest in the possibility of Artificial Intelligence as a way to root out internal dissent within China.
Minister of State Security - Qing Shi
Chief Technology Officer of Alibaba - Zan Hua Cai
Director of China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention - Yazhu Peng
Questions to Consider
What impact do WMDs have on the political situation at the heart of the problem?
How can your character effectively utilize their resources to help your committee defeat the other side?
What repercussions, if any, will there be from developing new WMDs? What kind of fallout should the committee expect?
