Daniel P. Driscoll

It requires much more dependence, I think, on innovation.

So the future fight looks like a lot more human and machine and instant connection between our humans and our things and our sensors.

And it looks a lot more like layering and generative AI

and compute on the edge or on the battlefield that can process through these really complicated questions and problem sets really quickly.

Because if you think about defending against a drone swarm, I mean, the number of decisions that have to be made, you have a finite number of resources.

They're going to come at you from all sorts of directions.

They're going to be working in tandem.

And just one human brain is no longer capable of dealing with that problem.

And so we are going to have a mix of machine digital solutions and humans all having to work together in concert.

And just the energy required to make that work is incredible.

So you think about how do we actually get all the batteries that are necessary out there?

How do we get all the fuel?

Like the requirements are just completely different from what I think you and I saw.

And this is kind of back to that set of CEOs coming to the building in two weeks.

What we're really optimistic that we can do is out-innovate our peer threats by bringing to bear the American industry and the American innovation and the American ecosystem of just problem-solving, that a place like China, they have some very talented people, but they're a lot more homogenous in how they think about problem-solving, and our strength as a nation

is that we empower all sorts of people to solve our problems.

And that unlocks all of these things that just have historically led us to be dominant.

And so we are highly focused on systematizing that innovation.

So if you think about the kind of fight in the Indo-Pacific and the value the Army in particular could have,

I think a lot of people debate theoretically these kinds of issues and enjoy that much more than I do.