Technology as Salvation
All views in this newsletter are my own and do not represent the views of The R Street Institute, the US Navy, or any other organization I am affiliated with.
Last week I introduced what I call the "deus ex machina fallacy." This is the belief that the right technology, properly deployed, will resolve strategic challenges. The FCC bans Chinese certification labs while products route through allied certification. AI safety frameworks impose costs on American companies while Chinese competitors face no equivalent constraints. Export controls strengthen China's drive for the technological sovereignty we're trying to prevent.
As promised, this week I'll explore why smart people keep making this categorical error, and how to avoid it.
Why Technical Solutions Are So Appealing
The appeal of technical solutions to strategic problems isn't mysterious. Technology is measurable, deployable, and creates the appearance of action. You can point to the cybersecurity system, the export control list, the regulatory framework, and demonstrate that something has been done. Technical solutions also avoid the messy political compromises that strategic solutions require.
Strategic problems, by contrast, demand coordination, adaptation, and acceptance of uncertainty. They require answers to questions like "what will adversaries do in response?" and "how do our actions affect the broader competitive environment?" These questions lack the satisfying precision of technical specifications.
Carl von Clausewitz understood this gap between theoretical elegance and operational reality. In On War, he introduced the concept of "friction": the accumulated small difficulties that make even the simplest plans difficult to execute. "Everything in war is very simple," Clausewitz wrote, "but the simplest thing is difficult."
Friction emerges from the gap between how we think systems should work and how they actually work under stress. It comes from human error, imperfect information, adversary adaptation, and the countless small failures that compound into strategic surprise. Technical solutions attempt to eliminate friction through better engineering. Strategic solutions accept friction as inevitable and plan accordingly.
Clausewitz's Friction in Modern Policy
The Maginot Line, which I discussed last week, exemplified this friction problem. On paper, the fortifications made perfect sense: concentrate defensive strength where geography favored the attacker. Built between 1929 and 1939 at a cost of approximately 3 billion French francs (roughly $9 billion in today's dollars), it represented the most sophisticated defensive technology of its era.
The plan assumed political will to defend Belgium, sufficient mobile forces to respond to attacks through other routes, and German willingness to accept the constraints the fortifications imposed. Every assumption proved wrong. Belgium declared neutrality in 1936, preventing extension of the fortifications along the French-Belgian border. Political complications prevented extending the Line. Mobile forces proved insufficient. Germany adapted, driving through the Ardennes in May 1940 and bypassing the entire system.
The engineering, despite its sophistication, couldn't compensate for faulty strategic assumptions.
Modern technology policy exhibits the same pattern. We build elaborate technical systems assuming adversaries will accept the constraints we've imposed rather than adapting around them.
The FCC's certification lab bans work exactly as designed technically. Approximately 75% of US-bound electronics were tested in Chinese labs before the ban. Yet products still reach US markets through allied certification pathways. The US-EU Mutual Recognition Agreement, operational since December 2000, allows products tested and certified in EU facilities to enter the US market without additional testing. Products tested in Chinese labs can obtain CE certification first, then use the MRA for US market access. We've built a fortification with open flanks.
AI safety frameworks create measurable compliance requirements. They also create competitive advantages for adversaries facing no equivalent constraints. Export controls on semiconductors represent impressive technical implementation. They produce strategic effects opposite to their intent.
In each case, friction emerges between plan and reality. The technical solution eliminates one vulnerability while adversaries exploit others. The regulatory framework works in isolation while competition happens in an interconnected system. The policy achieves measurable outputs while failing to advance strategic objectives.
Five Questions to Avoid Building Maginot Lines
How do we distinguish technical problems from strategic ones? Ask these questions before deploying technical solutions:
1. The Adaptation Question: How will adversaries adapt to this technical solution?
If the answer is "they'll route around it through allied countries" or "they'll develop independent capabilities," you're addressing a strategic problem with technical tools. The FCC lab bans fail this test. Products tested in Chinese labs reach US markets through European certification and Mutual Recognition Agreements. We've built a fortification with open flanks.
2. The Constraint Question: Does this solution assume adversaries will accept constraints we've imposed?
Technical solutions work when all parties face the same physics. Strategic problems involve adversaries who actively work to invalidate your assumptions. AI safety frameworks assume safety overhead represents a universal constraint. China treats it as a competitive opportunity. Export controls assume denial creates permanent advantage. China responds by building independent capabilities that eventually eliminate our leverage entirely.
3. The Friction Question: Where will the gap between plan and reality emerge?
Clausewitz's friction is inevitable. Technical solutions attempt to eliminate it through better engineering. Strategic solutions plan for it. CISA's critical infrastructure designations attempt to protect everything, spreading expertise so thin that nothing receives adequate attention. The technical capability exists. The strategic resource allocation fails.
4. The Second-Order Question: What happens after we implement this?
Technical solutions focus on immediate capability. Strategic thinking requires understanding how today's actions shape tomorrow's competitive environment. Export controls might delay Chinese semiconductor advancement by several years. They guarantee that Chinese capabilities, once developed, will be completely independent of American technology ecosystems. Short-term technical success creates long-term strategic failure.
5. The Coordination Question: Does this solution require allied coordination to work?
If coordination doesn't exist, you're building a Maginot Line that adversaries can circumvent through friendly territory. The FCC can remove Chinese labs from US certification, but without EU, Japanese, and Korean coordination, products simply route through allied certification. The technical solution works nationally. The strategic problem operates globally.
France's error wasn't building the Maginot Line. It was believing the Maginot Line was sufficient. The fortifications could have been part of a broader strategic approach including mobile forces, alliance coordination, and political commitment to defend Belgium. Instead, the technical solution became a substitute for strategy.
Technology Serves Strategy, Not Vice Versa
The problem isn't that technical solutions are wrong. It's that we treat them as sufficient. Sophisticated cybersecurity technology becomes strategically valuable when deployed as part of a resource allocation strategy that accepts some risks to manage others. Export controls become effective when coordinated with allies to close circumvention routes. AI safety frameworks serve strategic objectives when they create advantages rather than just imposing costs.
Clausewitz argued that war is politics by other means: the political objective determines what military tools can accomplish. The same applies to technology policy. Technical capabilities serve strategic objectives. When we reverse this relationship, we get elaborate fortifications that adversaries route around.
The question facing any technology policy isn't "does this technical solution work as designed?" It's "does this advance strategic objectives in an environment where adversaries adapt?" One question leads to Maginot Lines. The other leads to effective competition.
What This Means For...
Policymakers: Before deploying technical solutions, ask the five strategic questions. Technical sophistication cannot compensate for strategic errors. The FCC lab bans, AI safety frameworks, and export controls all work technically while failing strategically because they attempt to eliminate friction rather than planning for it.
U.S. strategic competition: Our competitors understand what we seem to have forgotten: technology serves strategy, not vice versa. While we debate technical AI safety requirements, China develops AI capabilities supporting clear strategic objectives. While we perfect export control mechanisms, China builds the technological sovereignty our restrictions inadvertently encourage. We're optimizing technical solutions while losing strategic competitions.
Tech companies: Washington's technology policy increasingly resembles the Maginot Line: elaborate, expensive, and easily circumvented. Companies that understand the strategic frameworks driving policy rather than just compliance requirements can better anticipate where regulations will fail and require revision. The pattern isn't random. It reflects consistent categorical errors where technical solutions address strategic challenges.
Aspiring strategic thinkers: Clausewitz's concept of friction applies beyond military strategy to any complex system. When someone proposes a technical solution to a strategic challenge, ask: How will adversaries adapt? What happens after deployment? Where will friction emerge between design and reality? If these questions lack good answers, you're looking at another Maginot Line.