Frontier AI and Strategic Power in the Age of Military Transformation

Rethinking civic control in an era where machines can decide war and peace

Reading the Harvard Data Science Review and CIGI’s 2024 analyses on frontier AI governance and diplomacy left me with a lingering urgency. The questions they raised about control, global equity, and democratic oversight took on new dimensions when viewed through the lens of military adoption. As frontier AI systems move from labs to battlefields, the stakes are no longer theoretical.

The year 2025 marks a critical juncture in the race to operationalize frontier artificial intelligence (AI) for national defense. Military institutions, private contractors, and technology startups are moving with unprecedented speed to integrate large language models (LLMs), autonomous systems, and algorithmic decision-making across the defense ecosystem. This convergence raises an unavoidable question: can strategic advantage and ethical governance coexist in a world where AI systems may increasingly decide matters of war and peace?

This essay explores that tension. Drawing on the frameworks presented in the Harvard Data Science Review’s "Frontier AI, Power, and the Public Interest" and CIGI’s "Geopolitics, Diplomacy and AI," it situates military AI acceleration within broader debates about civic oversight, global power asymmetries, and the shifting boundaries between public and private governance. These ideas are brought to life through real-time case studies: the Pentagon’s $200 million AI investments, the emergence of Detachment 201, and new international frameworks that attempt to contain the unchecked militarization of frontier systems.

From Public Good to Military Utility

Frontier AI technologies were once framed as tools to advance global public goods, from climate science to education. The Harvard Data Science Review urges us to view AI as a global utility, advocating democratic agenda-setting, equitable access, and citizen governance. But the geopolitical and military applications of these technologies have reoriented the conversation. In 2025, the battlefield is becoming the primary testbed for AI innovation.

The United States Department of Defense’s investments — including a $200 million contract with OpenAI and the establishment of the AI Rapid Capability Cell — reflect a pivot from civilian to combat-focused deployment. These projects are not exploratory. They are designed to integrate LLMs into mission-critical tasks: drone targeting, real-time threat analysis, autonomous navigation, and disinformation warfare.

Ethical AI principles promoted by UNESCO, the OECD, and global scientific communities often become secondary in defense environments where secrecy, speed, and technological supremacy override transparency. This bifurcation, between AI for public good and AI for military power creates structural and moral contradictions. As defense agencies escalate their adoption, the question is no longer whether AI will be used in war, but who gets to define its rules of engagement.

The HDSR authors warn that the concentration of AI power in elite institutions whether governmental or corporate poses democratic risks. Absent broad civic participation, frontier AI may evolve as a deterrent architecture, accessible only to those with the resources to build, weaponize, or defend against it. The militarization of AI thus becomes not just a technical or tactical issue, but a societal one — one that could lock the world into a new kind of arms race.

The Defense Industry’s 2025 AI Inflection Point

Defense establishments across the globe are undergoing a structural transformation. AI is no longer a peripheral experiment; it is becoming foundational to military strategy. In the United States, the AI Rapid Capability Cell and Task Force Lima now serve as central command hubs for deploying frontier systems in secure, classified environments. These initiatives span operational planning, battlefield simulation, and AI-assisted surveillance across multiple theaters.

Fig.: Various ways in which AI is predicted to be used in the Military (Source: Strategy&)

The $200 million investment in OpenAI’s secure platform is more than a line item in the Pentagon’s budget. It is a symbolic and practical shift: signaling the normalization of private-sector partnerships in defense AI development. Classified deployments increasingly include models trained on defense-specific corpora, augmented with threat prediction modules and real-time adaptive learning.

Outside the United States, militaries are acting with equal urgency. The United Kingdom and France are scaling AI-driven drone swarms. Germany is experimenting with LLMs in encrypted battlefield communications. Japan and South Korea are advancing AI-powered logistics and command systems, while Israel has piloted reinforcement learning models in live operational scenarios.

As these systems proliferate, the absence of international standards becomes more dangerous. The CIGI article warns that without diplomatic engagement and shared safety protocols, frontier AI risks catalyzing global instability. Autonomous platforms may misinterpret intent. Disinformation algorithms may escalate conflict cycles. In the absence of coordinated governance, an error at the edge — algorithmic, operational, or interpretive, could result in catastrophic consequences.

Some defense analysts advocate AI arms control treaties, akin to the Geneva Conventions or nuclear non-proliferation frameworks. These proposals remain aspirational, but they underscore an emerging reality: AI is not just reshaping tactics. It is rewriting the philosophical and legal boundaries of conflict.

Silicon Valley Enters the Barracks

Perhaps the most profound shift in 2025 is the integration of Silicon Valley ethos into the military-industrial complex. The creation of Detachment 201 , which embeds technologists directly into operational units reflects a broader strategic realignment. It is no longer a question of whether tech firms will work with the military, but how deeply they will be embedded into its architecture.

Under Detachment 201, AI engineers from private companies help build and refine systems used in live missions. Agile development and DevOps are replacing Cold War procurement cycles. Startups like Anduril, Rebellion Defense, and Onebrief are positioning themselves not just as vendors, but as defense partners. Many of them are venture-backed, mission-aligned, and deeply integrated into the intelligence ecosystem.

This raises urgent questions about accountability. Unlike public defense institutions, these firms operate under investor pressure, NDAs, and proprietary codebases. Their algorithms — many of which remain closed-source — can shape decisions with life-or-death consequences. Yet, unlike a government program subject to legislative oversight, private firms are rarely answerable to the public.

Moreover, the logic of speed and innovation that drives tech companies can clash with the need for caution, reliability, and accountability in warfare. What happens when an update pushes untested code into a battlefield system? Who is responsible when a generative model produces faulty or biased intelligence under pressure?

As the HDSR article suggests, treating AI as a public utility requires transparency, equity, and shared governance. But the current model is drifting in the opposite direction. Defense AI is becoming a closed, hybrid ecosystem — one where secrecy, not scrutiny, is the norm.

To course correct, policymakers must move beyond voluntary ethical charters. Legal mandates, external audits, open-source frameworks for high-risk AI, and public-interest litigation tools should become standard components of military AI governance. The aim is not to slow down innovation, but to ensure it remains tethered to democratic principles.

To conclude what happens between power and people…

The path ahead is neither linear nor inevitable. Frontier AI presents extraordinary opportunities for strategic coordination, humanitarian response, and conflict prevention. But without robust checks, the same systems may undermine global stability, erode democratic norms, and concentrate military power in unaccountable hands.

The essays from HDSR and CIGI offer not just intellectual frameworks, but moral imperatives. As AI redefines the boundaries of warfare and diplomacy, the call for civic stewardship, diplomatic foresight, and public accountability grows more urgent.

In 2025, the challenge is clear: we must ensure that the tools built to defend our societies do not, in turn, destabilize them.