[inaudible conversations] im the director of the center for military and diplomatic history. See. I see some familiar faces out there as well as new ones that are great. As most of you in this crowd i understand well the idea of seeing the future in principle holds a great appeal. So much of what we do in washington depends on allocating resources for developing capabilities and strategies based upon our expectations of the military environment in the future. The trouble of course is the prediction is difficult. Some would even say impossible. In the course of reading this terrific book, i was reminded of a saying by the chinese philosopher those who have knowledge do not predict and those who predict do not have knowledge. The author of the bestselling book forecasting emphasizes that humans are extremely gullible when listening to those that claim to know the future. Most anyone can get rich by selling to Corporate Executives and officials. When the prediction turns out to be wrong there is seldom a penalty to pay as the prediction by ben has been forgotten or explained away by the invitation of other factors. It has taken a big hit thanks to the big speaker. The book is entitled the future of the war in history and its been published a public affairs, a copy of that you can see here. I will now introduce a distinguished speaker sir Lawrence Friedman has been a professor at Kings College london since 1982 and vice principal since 2003. He was educated at the school and the university of manchester new york and oxford and before joining king he helped Research Appointments at the college of oxford and the Royal Institute of international affairs. Elected a fellow of the academy in 1995 and a ward of the awarde commander of the British Empire in 1996, he was appointed the historian of the campaign in 1997. Star wars was awarded the Saint Michael and st. George and 2003 and appointed in june of 2009 to serve as a member of the inquiry in the 2003 iraq war. Following the remarks, he will be joined by kathleen heck who is a Senior Vice President of the rutger International Security program at csis and served in a number of positions at the department of defense including the Principal Deputy undersecretary for policy. Thanks very much to csis for hosting this. Its a great opportunity as i see so many familiar faces in the audience. So, hello. I wont talk for too long, but let me just try to explain how the book is organized and what i tried to do. I thought that it would be interesting to look at the past so it would be the history of the war. [inaudible] but also, it was quite revealing as one looked at peace past books because yo you have an insight into the expectations at the time about what really mattered were motivated of the leaders in the states and how it was expected to develop but also a lot of these were not about prediction, but one of the time it was about a prescription. They were saying if you dont do what i think you should do [inaudible] so it was the dystopian view to make wise decisions. Thinking of two books, one he broke in 2004 and almost inevitably it could happen but unless we do these wise things that i suggest it is almost inevitable and these are things i suggest between the u. S. And china it is quite effective as a way of getting over the plaintiff view but also carries risks because it is a particular set of policies and actions going to move you from disaster and stability and helping the practice of things that make conflict have been, not necessarily going to be things that you anticipate and they will be the real leaders of quite different things. Its the things people talk about in 1991 after desert sto storm. The consequences of that are quite favorable only paying attention to it at the time of the great horror not talking about other things but making it easier to do so there are risks with that approach. But it is an opportunity in the way that we view it and thought about the last 50 years or so. Its the fear of surprise and there is a logic to this. It was assumed that the war was decided by battle. If you thought that i was going to be the case then you would want to be better prepared than your opponent and mobilize faster which is what they did in 1917 against france and it was a big race into the start of the world war. So it is understandable that one should think the war is going to come and you want to start it on the best possible terms. A lot of the literature really gets going after the franco prussian war. I wrote a book called the battle, which you know is not a place for battle especially now. But it was about the need for the army reform and how they might be able to cross the channel when we were distracted. So, we would lose. The literature came in an it was very much about surprise. Then the then tour validate what of those assumptions was the two great surprise attacks germany against the soviet union. And with the danger of surprise attack and in both cases that with neither case that was shattered as a result of a subsequent war. But yet if you look at the literature after the Second World War. So with that Nuclear First strike it is notable to align the dangers of a Nuclear First break. And from the electronic pearl harbor so the thing to fear is of knockout blow that is deep rooted. Isnt it is unlikely in that is one of the themes that comes through. Second one of the more difficult parts of the book to write is the thinking of a future war between great powers right up through the end of the cold war so you have tom clancy write novels to make that up to date from the latest technology. Those interesting ways in the key point is is what is looking for that is the next big enemy. Just like back to the future and with the almost namesake to have a war with japan. Is to extract that idea from the United States in the future. But that was pretty wrong with his book. In those historians should be very careful. So that was one response if people settle on china as a serious threat. But in the 90s there is no literature. With the fiction writers. Academics write about revolutions because they are keen on those but they dont write about civil wars. So in a desperate attempt with the policy community to be behind the curve and then they capture so by the time they screw up dave think of how they can do things better. So with that story of the developing attempt and to understand the intervention of the consequences so with was next in terms of the threat and were the people there really want to look at the future. Is needed to get those signatures. That is one of the threats through the book with a good fiction writers have been able to imagine things. Is one of those great advantages if you want to write about sex. [laughter] but because you have to make a receiver crow with that over reliance on the most devious technologies. Sodas to conclude is looking for work that big issue of how that technology will work. But if we do so on the ground what is the agenda . Because we dont want to shape the outcome also with nuclear weapons. To be shifting the discussion complete the. Said ed suddenly how it could all go terribly wrong. And then just with everything destroyed. But despite expectations the weapons to have been the fact. So how long . Id with those conditions with those Nuclear Deterrence watch that later. But the big issue now in the proliferation in cents but the Postwar International Order with the visual issue of destruction with the durability but now nato has been left to the extraordinarily long time. His i cannot think of a single event not the network of alliances. Issue with that prediction with the future. As they try to stress there with those pictures of the drones. With no human beings in sight. But to be bloody and violent. If youre looking at the future of war with that continuity to go to subsaharan africa. Through the United States and china but we can be reasonably sure that for most people to define that experience with those consequences affecting millions of peoples love lives. [applause] [inaudible] there are so many things. So first will start to me with the a. D. At that this is the take away. So you have to think about that. Into you think about consequences for girl so those who talk with certainty and then to make that inevitable. And then to have consequences. So you cannot avoid forecasting. Is that you identified indefinitely. Is with the assumptions and second with everything that has gone before will compete will be completely different and then to move all conversations that is pretty reminiscent. One of the themes that you talk about is don technology that what i would characterize when you look at warfare it is easier to anticipate the and politics. So that is a human condition that we can put on the tree line . Trendline . So lookit the politics of there is something more going on . Really over the last 40 years so before they got there with precision guidance that is not super new. To nowhere that is going. To be in production or to be familiar. Isnt this is precision. Were pretty sure it will be destroyed. That really should focus on to the military related but if that is what you want to do look at the russians they went to the hospitals. The medical Technology Allows them to deny that. So the Technology Makes things possible. Said he believes in political prediction but the way that political life develops. But to say how things are going is did you take that example to anticipate the collapse that would be extraordinarily difficult for almost irresponsible that did the soviet union was in trouble. No excuse to realize it was buried traces and if they didnt it would be on stagnation in a deep decline. Some of the sex that weeks very much to the royal of social science and political a science. Is the classic debate the story of verses social science but in particular you expend energy of the failings of the quantitative approach that large portions of the community are going. Can you talk well that field is a ring in how white kid get itself out of the alley and provide to the policy makers . It starts off with two problems. The first is the belief that get the idea out of your head. So receptive to somebody woodstock above political but you go for what you can measure and talking about interstate waters there are not that many of them they separated at the time with a lot of variables. So the final problem is a day to spend some time on the correlation of war but a lot of the justice isnt good bet with that prejudice for which i started that however well strictly struck me that you have more cases also it is combined with the feel of work. And that methodology is hoping you to make since leaded is no substitute. Sterling to do that more hybrid approach is much better in if you look after all of this effort with this collective effort it is just one guy but if you dont you very much but lets get the conclusions. But the bid conclusion that people will come up with that did influence policy that is generalizing so now turning this into a grand kerry. Of and then with that skepticism and then to do of a much better job. And then not to make claims. So coming back to the civil war specifically but moving back to this area and a talking about that, though whole challenge as a phenomenon seems to come against the grain and that strikes me that you say in the beginning of your book that with the future war writing with the british very much focused of lead decisive battle. That they are doing precisely to avoid that. Is a problem so with that Critical Infrastructure of this cyberattack. Id airtraffic control goes down the you have to protect that Critical Infrastructure. So at one point just accept this proposal but very lucky indeed from pearl harbor. To have that global threshold of china or russia and then to put you on your guard with that leads to is is less clear or those consequences. So with that famous russian attack on the story of. It was quite dramatic at the time. So the problem with a lot of these things. Is to have those consequences so take the ukraine with the hybrid war that seems to be at play with russia. So a lot of people get killed so the violence is very much a part of this. So what good has it done . Nobody looking at this has any doubt. Is from what has been shot down. And with those problems of welfare. With one stupid period after another. But there is a whole collection of independent civilians. To disprove this is it is still there. This is the issue is still with us. So to recognize that difficulty but dont operate that. Invented think that will catch us flatfooted. Also agreed to the history of the cold war, to me it signals to talk about that information with the ability over the long term with that type of information control. So with that current debate with russian politics . With the enormous continuity is the sense of their own vulnerability. So it was seen by a threat and to undermine the authority for those still viewed by the western hybrid. With those popular movements. Little serve conspiracy theories server the russians have a sense the other zero abilities that they dont really know their own population may be murrow than we did before and then you dont know so there is that continuity there of folder ability of what we provide of what has changed is the ability to manipulate so were just starting to come to grips and we have had a couple of years of those open information systems. And with those european elections we need some more perspective because is this something that is a continuing feature . Or are we wiser now . To let this spread . It is generally disruptive. Id weekend quite control that it made the with the interference with the president ial election so laissez it is desperate bin it is the consequences of that because of the democrats who might be more inclined bid on that would determine election is pretty high style. Server the consequences with that activity you can watch. I do want to ask with fiction so that a more accurate and others. Youll also oppose current efforts to lure the Atlantic Council in you were mentioning from new america. And of course, peter is another offer. So there is the Important Role we ought to be considering . In terms of how we imagine the neck stages of for. The fiction in to catch up with those assumptions most of that stays quite close through presentday. But then they make those that our more aware. But it is fiction. Said his offer of imagination and. But they just do that with Atlantic Project is when you read the stories they point to to put that modern hero. And classically there all incredibly smart to be brilliant in and competent to be deeply patriotic in burrows heros. Because the robots but there is this routine violence from warfare and then people get killed. Where as in practice with that every day experience of war the parents a great grandparents. With the mortar shells so that is my concern. That is a good segue done the civil wars in the evolution of the 1990s by being you can generalize that general contemporary trends of warfare. The enormous nine intervention doing nothing everywhere that is for possible interference is much harder that means something somewhere over a range of possibilities opened up without a whole full precedence you can extrapolate that beyond the civil war to the general way to have an engagement in a Democratic Society with the use of force in the you have that perspective with a way to imagine in the warfare of military action in that is appropriate . With that distinction nobody likes to say they are unnecessary because it is a trace but but wondering if you are getting involved in somebody elses quarrel. So every time we ally has a problem there is a question if you get involved but there is always a question mark if we dont what implication is that for our allies . So you can see there is stuff going on but in the past the state department that is the breadandbutter sir there is discretion floor holding back. So with that criteria, i would say with the chicago speech which vice texas if are we sure of our case . With diplomacy to be exhausted with the military there are possible things that we can do or number five is the denial of national interest. And then to pass on Public Opinion. With those problems of going to work. And then we create special issues. But that consideration there are some questions to ask. Served just to allow the heavy rhetoric. Now we will or alternative over to is the audience please give your david affiliation. My name is dmitri but i have two questions the first is about alliance is have they been created for one person in one purpose stay on with the context of nato and how do you think the creation of the United Nations keflex the preparation to be more prepared to flee without forcing you to make a prediction . And also nuclear weapons. So my answer would be temporary to meet those particular strategic situation in. And therefore dado is quite unusual. With one original purpose but one of the estrone views strong views that just passed to exist just to think of what it would look like for the moment in with the that instability in the security. Because obviously with a classic example of h. G. Wells is you can argue her the world set free. But arguably but they did show people and give them the courage to be straight. Because of that u. N. Charter with that aggression and with humanrights injustice. Served most the 1890s is the responsibility to protect. And with that charter. But on the other hint is those debates are ongoing and interesting. With the late 1990s as part of the century with the ability to protect. Because it is to a vicious. In an ambitious. But that is the important aspect. And once upon a time. Is the answer of Public Opinion perot is with that a parent tries apparent rise of the individual to forecast . And then by lunchtime we have lost 50,000. Was by the heads of state. So the value of the human is rising. The in answer is yes. At the moment but people are killed on the industrial scale. There with those people being killed. So once Society Start to fall apart when it is surprising how regular in a routine that becomes. It is interesting to the extent so is the individual child because he actually tried to think through. So the product of the non her rare with rorer. And then to have one or two but to have one suggestion but it is a the case that we have become much more sensitive. But those sorts of numbers that they are talking about are far smaller than what is considered necessary. And how they fight for the moment. With those volunteer armies. In which they are involved. In that enables us to do that. To be consulted to followup of the earlier question to do anything similar . But we have to look a bit. Budget. Biphasic i may have looked a bit more but not directly but there is some from what one might expect with the extension of the computer game. So if they operate drones with thousands of miles away. So that is not enough is more a question of those shifting winds. And those scenarios are not subtle. With the complexities of. I am very much looking forward to reading your book so use those nuances into the core level and they were ignored. But the question of the parallel in warfare so we feel very much there is a linear relationship in that rhetoric of the complexities to default in and it contributes to those strategies so lucky mower acknowledged this is also relevant. One more. I have offered independent research on north korea. Sex elevate come together. In with a working on the nuclear strategy. With that difficulty with the Second World War and the first world war. Having to do with the job exhaustion of the society sent supplies ready out, or ill, and the difficulty that you face and that conflict of the book the deterrence into your regular wars. And then to defeat the french brilliantly. And then to that population of. But the problem is the boundaries and how to contain that. With what is criminal. With those that are finding their efforts with those that are not sure why they are fighting. If that makes a big difference. And so to say but the sides except that. And one way at of this problem and with this capability for a long time. And to offer that to have a place of how the people. They will not give that up for go there is no chance. If youre a potential proliferators. But with the exhibit so with that Nuclear Capability and then to get out of the business. Day is see those other potential of vintages and vintages . Of way to export money from us as well. Is a little baking works for that much anyway but to fight the war which the u. S. Can do and then to control the consequences. As well as a much wider conflict it is much harder to control was you started it. In that bigger danger that is a pretty bullish regime not this is rarely a Nuclear Incident that some activity along the tmz to create new tensions against that backdrop it hasnt changed that much. But did is an old problem with that soviet propaganda. There is nothing left to say. And there is the dangerous situation who knows with this administration but if people get killed then you could suddenly find yourself in a dangerous situation with those circumstances and that could be dangerous. They give for your time. There are copies outside for sale. Please join me in a round of applause. [applause] [inaudible conversations]