All language subtitles for Modern.Warfare.2.0.S01E05.Digital.Doomsday.1080p.AMZN.WEB-DL.DDP2.0.H.264-RAWR_track3_[eng]

We have spent more than
$2 billion on the greatest

scientific gamble in history,
and we have won.

But the greatest marvel is not
the size of the enterprise,

its secrecy, or its cost,
but the achievement

of scientific brains
in making it work.

And hardly less marvelous has
been the capacity of industry

to design and of labor
to operate the machines

and methods to do things
never done before.

The force from which the sun
draws its power has been loosed

against those who brought war
to the Far East.

It is a harnessing of the basic
power of the universe.

It is an atomic bomb.

What has been done is
the greatest achievement

of organized science in history.

It has the ability to cripple
whole sectors of society.

The destructive capabilities
are enormous.

It was the advent of weapons
of mass destruction

and the opening
of a Pandora's box

to which no one
had predicted.

In the 20th century,
humanity developed a weapon

capable of destroying
humanity itself.

With literally everything
at stake, this weapon of mass

destruction suddenly made
war unwinnable.

One of the key objectives
of war is to destroy an enemy's

will to fight, to undermine
their psychological desire

to defend themselves
or to attack you.

So throughout World War II,
we saw a lot of

micro advancements in weapon
systems and technologies,

but the breakthrough in nuclear
technology was the key

game changer in that conflict.

Fission is the process
when the nucleus

of an atom is split
in two smaller nuclei,

releasing a large amount
of energy in the process.

And that was significantly
more impactful

than conventional weapons
at the time.

It was discovered in Berlin
in December of 1938 and caused

some alarm given the actions
of the burgeoning Nazi state.

The Reich basically began
to expand throughout Europe,

and one of the things they were
trying to do is they were

trying to grab resources,
both human capital,

but also resources that would
potentially feed

into their nuclear
or atomic program.

By the end of the war,
the Germans were far

from delivering
a nuclear weapon.

But that didn't halt the drive
to nuclear fission, with both

the Allies and the Soviets
actively recruiting physicists

to bring their knowledge
into their ongoing programs,

including the now infamous
Manhattan Project.

The Manhattan Project was
the effort that was led

primarily by the US,
the Brits, and the Canadians.

It was a collaboration
between government, academia,

and the private sector
to develop true disruptive

technologies that gave
the Allied side a demonstrable

advantage when it came
to a nuclear capability.

American physicist
Jules Robert Oppenheimer was

nominated to direct the program
in Los Alamos, New Mexico,

where on July 16, 1945,

they would conduct
the Trinity Test,

when an atomic bomb was
detonated for the first time.

The original military objective
in developing the atomic bomb

was to drop weapons in Germany,
to show the German population,

whose ardent belief was
to never surrender,

that they could not win
against the Allies.

Yet the Germans were defeated

before the atomic bomb
became real.

However, the eastern theater

was still very much active,
and the quasi-religious

Japanese fervor
in their emperor's divine right

to govern meant that they would
never surrender.

US President Harry S. Truman

decided that an atomic
detonation was a risk

worth taking.

So the Japanese cities
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

were the unfortunate recipients

of not one,
but two atomic bombs.

With this bomb we have now added

a new and revolutionary increase
in destruction.

And the world-shaking
explosions of the atomic bomb.

On August 6th, 1945,
the atomic bomb, Little Boy,

was dropped on Hiroshima.

70% of the buildings
in Hiroshima were destroyed.

And over 40% of the population
was killed.

That's over 80,000 people.

Three days later, in Nagasaki,
a city that held four major

wartime industries,
the US dropped the bomb

"Fat Man", containing
6.2 kilograms of plutonium

and a 21-kiloton yield.

The initial explosion

and its aftermath
claimed the lives

of up to 40,000 people,

with the toll climbing to
up to 80,000

over the next
few months.

I now invite the representatives

of the Emperor of Japan.

The Japanese delegation lines
up on the opposite side

of the surrender table
from the Allied.

Two bombs.

Hundreds of thousands
of casualties,

mostly civilians.

This was the new face of war.

But many wondered,
was this the end of it...

or just the beginning?

Before that fateful
day in August 1945,

humankind's ability to inflict
mortal damage was always

relatively limited
and predictable.

But the atomic bomb
changed all that.

Nobody knew just how powerful
it could be.

One nuclear bomb
can destroy a city.

Several nuclear bombs
can destroy the world.

The moment nuclear
weapons arrived,

every other weapon
became conventional.

The effects are so devastating
on a populace

that their deployment is both
a moral and strategic question.

They are usually used only
as a last resort.

And we really have to take
into account the toll

on human lives
and the generational effects.

Official state that the US knows

of 24 Soviet rocket bases

prevent the delivery to Cuba
of any further

offensive military equipment.

What are the Russians able
to do if they want to?

With the need
for additional offsetting

United States action,
in order to preserve

the sufficiency
of our strategic forces.

While no weapon
had ever been invented

that hadn't eventually
been deployed,

the consequences of nuclear
weapons made war unthinkable.

So much of the 20th century
was spent reshaping

the rules of conflict.

The alternative to nuclear
annihilation became...

more nuclear weapons.

The Cold War wasn't actually,
properly speaking,

a war insofar as it never
turned hot,

and there were
no military confrontations

between the Soviet Union
and the United States.

There was
an enormous competition,

an ideological competition,

an economic competition,

and, of course,
a military competition.

There was an arms race.

But the two superpowers
never confronted each other

on the battlefield,
at least not directly.

The reason we never actually
got into a hot war

or a nuclear war with
the Soviets during the Cold War

was this concept
of Mutually Assured Destruction.

This primarily referred
to a system where both countries

held nuclear arsenals capable
of wiping each other out.

If either launched an attack,
the other would have the time

to counter launch missiles
of its own, so that both sides

would be killed while watching
the other die.

Hardly a traditional
military victory.

It was deterrence
on a grand scale.

"Mutually assured deterrence,

based on Mutually Assured
Destruction,"

a phrase coined
by Donald Brennan,

a strategist in 1962.

This theory of deterrence has
largely been validated through

the fact simply that no one
launched nuclear weapons

against each other throughout
those 70 years of the Cold War.

Russian ships came out
from Cuban ports

with their decks loaded
with missiles.

The Soviets are withdrawing
under pressure

from the New World.

That confrontation is now over.

The nuclear threat, while far
from gone, is receding.

Once someone starts this spiral
of violence, it's hard to stop.

President Clinton
and President Yeltsin

made a historic
joint announcement.

We have de-targeted all of our
strategic nuclear missiles

for the first time
in almost 35 years.

At the end of the Cold War,

there was an emphasis on making
sure that smaller states

that had broken away did not get
a hold of nuclear weapons.

There are around
13,000 nuclear weapons

that are still stockpiled
in the world.

The overwhelming majority
is controlled

by the United States and Russia.

Those have roughly 10,000
warheads between them.

The remainder are spread
through at least six countries.

China has somewhere around 400.

France and the UK
have almost 300,

or 260 in the UK's case.

Pakistan and India have
their own arms race

between them,
with over 150 weapons each.

And North Korea
is believed to have

at least 20 nuclear weapons.

Israel is known or expected
to have nuclear weapons,

but its government has never
confirmed this.

A military advantage of using
a WMD in warfare is that it

could quickly bring that
conflict to its culmination.

In all calculations,

that, in the end, saves
in total number of lives lost.

The destructive capabilities
of nuclear weapons are enormous.

At the same time, when one
looks at the Second World War,

half a million Germans were
killed by Allied bombings.

And even in Japan, where two
nuclear weapons were dropped

on Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

more Japanese died
in other cities,

namely in fire bombings.

In the end, similar results
can be achieved

by conventional weapons.

But the disadvantages of using
WMD are pretty scary.

If you let a WMD fall
into the wrong hands, well,

hey, you only have to look
at North Korea.

Other disadvantages of WMDs
are that they have

a large area of effect
and they're indiscriminate.

If I were to use a nuclear bomb
in a certain place,

it would kill everyone there.

Arguably, the most impactful
second order effect

of nuclear weapons has been
the long-term implication

of radiological impacts.

The ideas is that how
these weapons have reached

into the soil, into the water
ducts, and have infected

and imbued our food,
our nutrition, our water

with infections

that last beyond generations,
beyond borders,

into people that haven't been
born yet.

What really distinguishes
nuclear weapons actually is

that they have been designed
to not be used.

So far, nuclear weapons have
been used only twice

in history, and we all hope
it's not going to happen again.

The whole idea of nuclear
deterrence is based on the idea

that nuclear weapons aren't
actually being used.

The first treaty ever that
actually eliminated an entire

class of US and Soviet
nuclear missiles.

When it was clear
that nuclear weapons

were morally, politically,
and logistically

a zero-sum game,

a new super weapon
was needed.

The world had changed,
and with change came

new vulnerabilities to exploit.

Since World War II,
we have generally sought ways

to develop weapons
that were less destructive,

but still able to deliver
that knockout blow.

Since the end of the Cold War,
the nuclear threat

hasn't really captured
the imagination

of the public
anymore.

The world had moved on,
technology boomed,

the information age developed,

that proliferated
throughout societies,

and offered new opportunities.

With the emergence of computer,
and most importantly

the internet, a new area
of warfare emerged,

namely cyber warfare.

Now, it was information
and its denial that began

to attract investment,
exploiting society's dependence

on a digitized,
connected world, which could be

exploited to undermine society's
will to fight future battles,

even possibly
without human loss.

Not only are we increasingly
connected to our devices,

but those devices have
connected us

to virtually everyone.

When we talk about cyborg
theory or the belief that

humans will continue to become
increasingly dependent

on their technology,

the fact is, it's already here.

All of us are connected
to our phones and other devices

in ways we never envisioned.

Most of us could not
do without them,

even for a short period of time.

Everything has been connected
at this point,

and if this gets
knocked out

or destroyed, our society
might be pushed back

into the pre-electric era.

And this might, in the end,
kill more people

than any conventional
military attack could.

The definition
of weapons of mass destruction

is certainly changing today.

Previously, we've thought
about this as destroying,

of killing enemies.

Today, it feels more
about influencing the will,

dealing with a knockout blow
to society.

At the heart of the drive
to cyber warfare is a desire

to disrupt a society to such
an extent that it focuses

inwardly on overcoming internal
or perceived threats

rather than responding
to an adversary's moves itself.

Our dependence on,
and connection to these devices

really enable any small group
or lone actor to take an act

that impacts us and interferes
with those systems,

and they can cause
devastating effect

It's like one man has

the ability to wage large scale
warfare, and so the ethics now

are like,
"Well, how do you stop that?"

In my opinion,
you cannot stop it.

Government computers
hacked again.

Information of at least
four million

government workers, stolen.

An encrypted database storing
user passwords has been hacked.

Investigators say many personal
computers have been infected

with the virus program.

This could provide a roadmap
to other sensitive

environments and data
that they're going after.

In the cyber age,
the battleground has pivoted

away from physical destruction,
toward unleashing social

and economic chaos by choking
off or corrupting the data

we all depend on.

So, at this point,
there are basically

five domains of warfare,

three of which are rather old.

Land warfare,
which has existed

since the beginning
of humankind.

Sea warfare, which has also
been around for a long time.

Aerial warfare
really came about

during the Second World War
or just before that.

Space has become
the fourth domain

with satellites
and space-based weapons.

More recently, a fifth domain
of warfare has emerged,

the cyber realm.

You could argue that cyberspace
isn't real, yet the effects

and consequences of an attack
in cyberspace or the use

of a cyber weapon
can certainly be felt

in the real physical world.

Hackers overwhelm
a computer network

by flooding it with traffic.

Among those websites affected,
the Treasury Department

and the Secret Service.

Pentagon and New York
Stock Exchange.

There are flaws in the tools
that we all rely on.

Anyone with a cell phone
or internet account knows

that cyberattacks
are committed almost daily.

What if a wide scale attack
were launched

by a hostile government
with large resources?

What happens when cyberattacks

evolve into full scale
cyber war?

Just imagine this scenario.

Experts say it's too soon
to know just who was behind it.

One says it could
be a sign of what's to come.

You're in the office.

The first thing you'd notice
was your internet

started to slow.

The time on your computer
didn't reflect the real time.

Webpages would stop
uploading and updating.

You might then try and pick up
your mobile phone,

but it doesn't link to local
networks because the navigation

and timing sequences
that it relies on

have all been
disrupted and destroyed.

Your link to the world,
your phone, isn't working.

Getting a bit frustrated now,
you might go to the TV

to find out what's happening,
but those signals

would no longer be received,
because terrestrial broadcast

is now fully digital and relies
on timing and connectivity,

things that can be attacked
and unpicked by cyber.

Panicking a little now,
you might switch on the radio,

but radios, again, are digital,
and those are also lost

in this attack.

With no connection
to the world around you,

you try and get home.

There are different types
of cyberattacks,

criminal attacks,

cyber espionage,

sabotage,

and then also
the use of cyber

for psychological operations.

Cyber espionage is when
an actor breaks into a system

and gathers
a lot of information,

sometimes over weeks,
and months and years.

Cyber espionage involves
spear phishing

or botnets to compromise

security systems
and steal secrets

and other sensitive information.

The Chinese have specialized
in this recently,

stealing American designs
for sophisticated aircrafting

technology
and replicating them.

Cyber sabotage means
that you infiltrate the system,

there are different ways to do
that, and basically destroy

or sabotage the system
from within.

This is the first worm designed
to damage the physical world,

and critical infrastructure
in particular.

Perhaps the most famous
is the Stuxnet virus attack

on the Iranian nuclear program,

infecting their systems,
making their centrifuges spin

beyond tolerance and affecting
the constituent components,

rendering the weapons unusable.

It's a clever, witty,
devastating attack,

and all done
without the loss of life.

One aspect
is economic cyberattacks.

Basically, what that means
is an attack on an institution,

usually a bank or a business
or a payment system,

that's meant to either pilfer
money, freeze accounts,

or prevent people
from being able to transact,

and in essence, basically
shutting down an economy.

Our everyday technology
has made each one of us

a potential soldier
on a cyber battlefield.

And when the cyber war begins,
we can all become casualties.

Cars have stopped moving.
Everything is gridlocked.

People are crashing.
Drivers are arguing.

As you try to get down
to the metro station,

you realize that the metro
had stopped running.

There are no signals, no power.
People can't get in and out.

You try to withdraw some cash,
but all the ATMs are down.

There's now widespread
disbelief that everything

could slow down and stop.

And eventually, you might
make your way home,

having walked for miles through
this devastation of people

just not knowing
what really was happening.

So what you're starting to see
is basically the collision

of cyber warfare
and conventional warfare.

As more and more devices
on the battlefield

are interconnected
and communicating

with each other,

you have more endpoints or more
edge devices that can be

compromised by a malicious
actor or a hacker

or a bad actor.

You can't hack a sword
or a sling or a catapult,

but if you're looking
at a weapon system or a drone

or a vehicle that's relying
on that interactivity,

if you hack that network,
if you hack that system,

you've basically taken that
resource off the battlefield.

Three Russian companies
seeking to interfere

in the United States
political system.

A spy working in their company,
writing software to change

the outcome of the election.

Both parties are desecrating
the American democracy.

The computer hacking group
Anonymous

is the supposed creator.

Let's take a look at the alleged
recent interference

by Russia and China
on US elections.

Russian and Chinese actors were
able to get on social media

and amplify certain themes
or use bots

to change people's calculations,

and ultimately, their efforts
did not have a dramatic effect.

But the psychological impact
made that an act

of psychological war.

These also may have a secondary
effect that is inciting

rebellions within the country,
which often end up in chaos

and violence, some even having
fatal consequences.

Massive cybersecurity breach
of our government.

A massive cybersecurity breach
against federal agencies.

These malicious cyber
activities began

more than ten years ago.

Hacking group believed
to be connected to Russian

intelligence services has been
attempting to break

into entities
that are developing

a vaccine for the coronavirus.

When cyberattacks escalate
to cyber warfare,

the weapon of mass destruction

won't be a bomb being dropped.

It will be a plug
that's pulled.

But like a hydrogen bomb,
its indiscriminate effects

will ripple outward,
causing long-term,

widespread damage.

The battles are no longer
in far flung fields,

conducted by military forces,

but in the homes and businesses
of every civilian.

Your family is
suddenly without light,

without television,
without radio,

without any form
of connectivity.

Nothing in the house
that relied on electricity,

on any kind of signal, worked.

The inability for landlines
to function

as well as mobile
phone networks.

And you get home.

Your family is there saying
there's no water

coming through the taps,
that all of the water is gone,

that it's all stopped working.

You go to the loo,
it's not flushing.

The effluence is left there.
It's being backed up.

The smell becomes unbelievable.

The sounds coming from outside,
starting with the panicking,

the arguments, the disbelief.

Followed perhaps quickly
by looting and rioting.

The sense of uncertainty,
the inability to process

what is happening,
the disbelief that such a thing

could happen
in a modern society today.

Hurricane Katrina is
closing in

on the Louisiana coast now.

One of the largest relief
efforts in our nation's history,

and the federal
government has got an important

role to play.

With Hurricane Katrina,
we learned

that American citizens,
regular people, after 72 hours

of no electricity, no access
to services or water or sewage,

that they turn to savagery.

And this would be repeated
in every major developed nation,

if you either shut off
the water or stop people's

ability to have their waste
carried away at any large city

around the world.

Just three days...

people would be turning
on each other.

It's like an apocalyptic movie.

If you cut off an entire
civilization,

they can't feed themselves,

they can't get access
to the food and water.

If you cause significant
domestic unrest

within the country, the worst
case scenario is you have

people turning on each other
and killing each other.

You've now, in essence,
basically debilitated

your adversary
without firing a single shot.

You decide to leave the city.

You pack up a few quick
belongings and you go down

to the garage
to get into your car.

You press the fob.
Nothing happens.

It's like the battery
has died in it.

There's no connectivity.
The lights don't flash.

Nothing is moving.

You get out the physical key
and try and undo the doors.

And once you get in,
you insert the key.

When it starts, how dependent
is your car on connectivity?

And when it looks like things
can't get any worse,

you start to understand
that your life may be

at higher risk
than you thought.

Until now, all violence
on Syria's streets

was unverifiable.

The city center was littered
with burnt out wreckage,

guarded by tanks.

Billowing clouds of tear gas
filled the streets

across the capital.

A number have already been
killed as darkness falls

on a city in chaos.

Victimized by this colossal
failure of technology,

you might never even know
who is responsible.

Is it a tragic
technical problem?

The work of a rogue state?

Or your own government?

When everything falls apart,
who can you really trust?

A term that you're starting
to see really used in the realm

of cyber warfare
and cyberattacks

is this concept
of "false flag" operations.

The actual concept of false
flag goes back to kind

of the golden age of piracy,
where the Portuguese,

the French, the English,
and the Spanish were attacking

each other's fleets in
the Americas using false flags,

a pirate flag, or in some
cases, presenting another

country's flag on their ships
to shift blame away.

Up until recently,
we thought that cyberattacks

against governmental entities
or large corporations could

only be conducted
by nation states.

That has changed.

Now we know that groups
of hackers called hacktivists,

small individuals working
together, or even

a lone hacker, can create
devastating effect.

With all these cyberattacks
going on, you might ask,

are we constantly
in a state of cyber war?

Maybe this is the new Cold War
of our era.

I think society is
on the dawn of a new arms race

where it's about really creating
and expanding a suite of very

disruptive technologies
that are gonna reshape

the battle space.

But there is no winning
that conflict.

And the concept of mutual
destruction will hopefully

keep us at bay
and prevent us from getting

into a much bigger conflict.

On the cyber battlefield,
innovation comes

from corporations,
not governments.

The arms race is controlled

by these international
conglomerates.

And as we increasingly depend
on these companies,

they gain more power over
our lives, even governments

have found themselves beholden
to these big corporations,

unaware of their agendas.

One fundamental change
in warfare that we're currently

witnessing is that more
and more private actors,

private civilian companies
really, are involved

in military operations.

And in the cyber realm,
companies dominate the cloud

and dominate the cyber realm.

The amount of money
the Defense Department

has to spend
is somewhat finite.

If you look at Apple,
for example, the R&D budget

for Apple, in some cases,
exceeds the defense budgets

of so many other countries.

So now you have companies
or CEOs that have

the capability to conduct cyber
warfare at their disposal.

Do these individual companies
or CEOs have the same ethical

concerns or the same checks
and balances on those

that governments
and democracies have?

The problem is that companies

aren't democratically
elected governments.

Often, it isn't even clear
which nation a company

belongs to or feels like
it belongs to.

So we are witnessing a change
in the power dynamic between

states and private companies
that are becoming

ever more powerful
and ever more influential.

While those private
companies are working

in strict collaboration
with governments,

there may not be reason
for alarm.

But what if an enemy country
will offer more?

Will they turn their weapons
against the government

and overthrow it?

And will we see this sci-fi
scenario of civil societies

being effectively ruled
by corporations?

It begins
with a simple USB key.

Then, with surgical
precision, penetrates

some of the world's most
advanced computer security.

You could basically
take down a country

just by cyber-attacking it.

Cybercrime has
a devastating impact.

This is the cyber war,
not a new conflict,

but an ever-developing battle.

These are compelling questions,
and though it may be too early

to answer them, history has
shown us that we should be wary

of unfettered technological
advancement without careful

oversight, lest the next
advancement is the new

Pandora's box, once opened,
impossible to close.

The reality is that weapons
of mass destruction, WMDs,

are not quite as precise
as they seem.

The ripples and impacts
of their use go far beyond

the intended victim.

Some governments seek ways
to minimize collateral damage,

but still have a great impact.

This is one reason
why cyber warfare

may be a weapon of choice.

With cyber warfare,
they have the ability to employ

precision at scale
with devastating effect.

Governments and corporations
are starting to take the issue

of cybersecurity very,
very seriously.

You're starting to see billions
and billions of dollars

being spent.

And it's why we're investing
two and a half billion pounds

in quantum computers.

Quantum memory
is a building block

for future army
quantum networks.

When it comes to technology,
that will shape the future,

like quantum computing,
artificial intelligence.

The UK and the US are working
together to make sure

they are developed safely.

For every new cyber advance,
there are hackers out there

trying to crack it.

As cyber technology
grows more sophisticated,

so does cyber security.

And so far in this arms race,
the good guys,

supposedly, are winning.

Still, a future of cyber
warfare where systems are

under the threat of constant
untraceable attacks affecting

the civilian population may
already be on our doorstep.

A future of cyber warfare
where systems are under

the threat of constant
untracable attacks

affecting the civilian
population

may already be on our doorstep.

Consider the enormous impact
of the second order effects

of a large scale cyberattack.

It has the ability to cripple
whole sectors of society

and destroy human life,
large scale.

It's no wonder that companies
and nations are spending

billions of dollars to protect
their critical infrastructure.

So two technologies that are
going to de shape and impact

conflict and warfare are going
to be breakthroughs

in artificial intelligence
and machine learning,

as well as quantum computing.

When we say
"artificial intelligence,"

we mean "machine learning."

It revolves around a system
that's able to process,

synthesize, manage,
and make decisions

using large amounts of data.

If you take an AI system
and you train it to attack

a certain password that has
256-bit military encryption,

it could take all the
supercomputers you throw at it,

weeks, if not months,
to crack that code.

In the meantime, that attack
can be theoretically

identified, spotted, mitigated,

and addressed without it
leading to compromise.

Yet, this can
change with the breakthrough

of quantum computing.

While regular computers work
based on regular binary code,

that's the classic 0s and ones,

quantum computing
operates in qubits.

That superimposes those 0s
and ones and can process

certain information
158 million times faster

than a regular computer.

Now, if quantum computing
will work as it is predicted,

this will mean many things,
but militarily speaking,

the biggest immediate risk
that experts see

is that quantum computing could
lead to the breaking

of encryption protocols
as we know them.

Quite quickly, all encryption,
say, of communication

or nuclear codes,
could be broken

and be open
to different actors.

When we talk about
artificial intelligence,

some of the fears...

are that we can't control it,
that it will get to a point

where it wants to control
itself at that time.

There are those that argue
that AI will be able

to incorporate that,
but at this point,

I still feel that we need
a human heart,

a human mind,
human compassion,

and human empathy
to make those decisions.

Nations do not distrust each
other because they are armed.

They are armed because
they distrust each other.

Annihilation of any
life on Earth has been brought

within the range
of technical possibility.

My fellow Americans,
tonight we're launching

an effort which holds
the promise of changing

the course of human history.

Now's an opportunity
to do generations a favor

by holding them accountable.

This civilization may go under.

We need to ask ourselves
whether we're doing

all we can to avert that.

In our response
to these realities,

there is hope for peace.

The history of warfare
has always been an arms race.

And in the last two centuries,
as that race has sped up,

we have seen more unintended,

potentially devastating
consequences.

Progress means moving forward.

But to avoid repeating
the mistakes of the past,

we should take the time
to fully consider

where the road we're on
may take us...

and who's paying the fare.

The biggest transferable lesson
from Oppenheimer as the father

of nuclear weapons to today is
the idea that very few people

hold the power in their hands.

Cyber is done by specialists.

They require the detailed
knowledge of people who sit

in small cubicles
with supercomputers deciding

how to break down societies
using specialist payloads.

It's that same small group
of people that Oppenheimer used

in developing
these capabilities,

but not in waging them.

This isn't a democratized case
of decision making.

It's not soldiers
fixing bayonets

or charging machine gun posts.

This is the people sitting
in ivory towers,

in national capitals,

who are deciding
when to hit the enter key

and sow destruction.

Or do we wanna create
a network of libertarian

and decentralized states that
are inter-reliant but each have

control of their own destiny?

It is up to us to choose.

One of the deepest
concerns we should have

about the future of warfare...

is in it following society's...

trends and patterns.

The key of those at the moment
seems to be the withdrawal

of human-to-human contact.

This idea that potentially
we stop making warfare a human

endeavor changes the very
nature of war and conflict

as we understand it.

So maybe going forward,
we should make it

an intentional effort
where we pause and think

and consider the ramifications
of the choices

we are constantly making.