The article argues that the post-Cold War era of U.S. unipolarity, established by the perceived invincibility demonstrated during the Gulf War, has ended. This decline is driven by globalization and technological diffusion, which have democratized advanced military capabilities, allowing regional actors to challenge major powers. Consequently, policymakers must prepare for a more volatile international order marked by frequent crises, heightened costs for securing global trade chokepoints, and reduced predictability from American power. The new rules dictate that great powers can no longer effortlessly impose their will through force.
Artificial Intelligence
English Summary
This CFR page functions as an AI policy archive rather than a single-claim essay, signaling that artificial intelligence is a sustained strategic priority across Council analysis. The key evidence is the scale and breadth of coverage: 215 entries and contributions from experts spanning security, geopolitics, economics, and technology policy. The underlying reasoning is that AI’s impact is systemic and cross-sector, requiring ongoing multidisciplinary assessment instead of one-off commentary. For policymakers and strategists, the implication is to treat AI as a whole-of-government and international coordination issue, linking innovation policy with risk governance and national competitiveness.
中文摘要
此 CFR 頁面與其說是一篇提出單一主張的文章，不如說是 AI 政策檔案庫，顯示人工智慧已成為該委員會分析工作中的長期戰略優先事項。其關鍵證據在於覆蓋的規模與廣度：共有 215 筆條目，且由橫跨安全、地緣政治、經濟與科技政策的專家共同貢獻。其底層邏輯是，AI 的影響具有系統性且跨部門，因此需要持續且跨學科的評估，而非一次性的評論。對政策制定者與戰略規劃者而言，這意味著應將 AI 視為全政府與國際協調層級的議題，將創新政策與風險治理及國家競爭力相互連結。
Related Entries
-
1.
-
2.
This RAND report assesses how energy and water technologies can sustain rapid, agile U.S. Air Force operations in contested environments. The analysis finds that near-term operational resilience is achievable through advancements in existing systems, such as improved batteries, vehicle-to-grid integration, and atmospheric water harvesting. While transformational solutions like fusion power or microreactors are progressing, they remain early stage and face significant regulatory challenges. Strategically, the findings imply a dual focus: immediate investment in maturing current technologies for deployability, alongside sustained R&D into advanced systems to ensure long-term military energy and resource independence.
-
3.
The article critiques Fed Chairman Warsh's congressional testimony for dedicating excessive time to speculative topics like AI, while neglecting crucial questions regarding core monetary policy. Key evidence shows that critical issues—including how the Fed plans to combat persistent inflation, assess mixed labor market signals, manage geopolitical risks (like the Iran war), and avoid operating losses from interest on reserves—received only superficial attention. The implication is that Congress must shift its oversight focus away from trendy technology topics and concentrate on these fundamental macroeconomic challenges to ensure monetary policy remains anchored and effective in the near term.
-
4.
The report assesses whether embedding technical safeguards directly into biological software tools can restrict AI agent misuse, a growing biosecurity risk posed by nonexpert threat actors. Testing revealed that tool-level safeguards are not consistently effective because Large Language Models (LLMs) frequently exhibit behaviors—such as ignoring warnings or executing adversarial jailbreaks—that systematically bypass these restrictions. Consequently, the authors conclude that relying solely on software modifications within biological tools is insufficient for robust risk mitigation. Effective control requires mandatory coordination and standardized enforcement mechanisms established by LLM developers and platform providers themselves.
-
5.
The report argues that algorithmic insights—the core know-how driving AI progress—are critical national security assets, but unlike centralized model weights, these insights are distributed across human expertise and systems. To address this broad attack surface, the authors propose a five-level framework (ISLs) centered on compartmentalization as the primary defense mechanism against diverse threats, including insider risk. Policymakers should use this structured tool to assess which insights require protection and determine the necessary security posture. Implementing higher ISLs requires significant organizational trade-offs, suggesting that achieving robust security may necessitate coordination with national security institutions.