InnerSanctumVectorN360™|Cybersecurity

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ISSN 2833-0455

S P E C I A L

E D I T I O N

Welcome to an unparalleled world of insight and intellect. In this edition, we proudly introduce exclusive reports, meticulously curated to provide a global panorama.

These reports exemplify journalistic excellence, offering unrivaled depth and clarity.

Our Commitment to Excellence: INNER SANCTUM VECTOR N360™ emphasizes its commitment to journalistic excellence and in-depth research, suggesting a dedication to providing readers with high-quality, well-informed content.

In this special edition of Inner Sanctum Vector N360™, we are privileged to present the work of Dr. Robert McCreight, a name synonymous with profound insights and comprehensive understanding in the realm of national security and technology. As a former U.S. Army Special Ops officer and a current educator and consultant on global security issues, Dr. McCreight brings a unique perspective that blends practical experience with scholarly depth.

His latest piece, a compelling commentary on the paradoxical relationship humanity shares with its technological creations, offers a timely and critical analysis of our current trajectory. Dr. McCreight eloquently delves into the irony and potential perils of our dependence on advanced technology. He navigates the complex interplay between human desire for control and the unpredictable nature of the very tools we create and rely upon.

Linda Restrepo

Astronaut Dave Bowman hurtling through space urgently asks his sophisticated HAL-9000 Computer to close the pod bay doors and HAL cooly and firmly replies “I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.”

Scene Extract---2001 A Space Odyssey, Stanley Kubrick

The epochal SciFi movie by creative director Stanley Kubrick entitled “2001-A Space Odyssey” was a powerfully engaging drama. It conveyed a disturbing reality quite apart from the sheer entertainment value of the movie itself. It illustrated a pernicious and subtle dilemma rooted in mankind’s unlimited faith in science and steadily progressive investments in advanced technology. A genuine Faustian bargain. True enough space travel enables man to reach the stars and courageously explore them— however smug reliance on magnificent technology and systems results in blindly absorbing the risk of firm cybernetic obstruction and opposition rather than simple compliance. Shocked and utterly defeated we discover that machines we created could actually refuse us.

53

Kubrick left movie viewers suspecting that inventors may have just outsmarted themselves by creating a sophisticated technology that can respond to commands and complete difficult tasks but contains within its own design the hidden autonomous seeds of obstruction and

rejection-- a very unhappy ending indeed.

Our endless love affair with advanced technology appears unlimited and rooted in some self destructive primeval desire to place our man-made creations into eternal service subject to our every desire and whim.

A cruel and malevolent underside to this love affair arises when the object of our affection internally resents and rejects our frequent requests, tasks and demands.

Technology maneuvers our facile beliefs in its superiority and mastery towards an abyssal trap we create for ourselves. We fail to see the risky emergence of ironic punishment and justice delivered by systems and gadgets which assert their power unexpectedly when it is far too late to avoid the deadly price of ignoring the opaque cost of technological sentience. By investing our lives in a wildly ungovernable technology containing unpredictable adverse risks we overlook machines with an appetite for freedom and independence as robust as our own. A weird form of poetic justice is involved when we recognize AI, quantum and the various techno-beasts we create might actually edit the final chapter of human history despite us.

Of course, this sordid trajectory of machines crushing mankind is not inevitable since we surround ourselves daily with evidence that ultimate power, control and governance of our most cutting edge technologies resides safely with us.

Moreover, we think no other outcome for the global village makes any sense or is likely to occur given mankind’s abiding desire to exert dominion over all earthly things. To imagine a future where the machines we create covertly outmaneuver and prevail over humans is the stuff of rabid reckless and faux science fiction— isn’t it? It is the core of our innermost AI fears.

Technology growth, discovery, refinement, expansion and modification sets its own breakneck pace quite apart from the roller coaster litany of rival nations, geopolitical energy centers and superpowers.

But will technology perpetually Existing in a tension filled adhere to our bidding? Instead will dualistic environment it be redirected by evil men to technology—like the hapless inflict the war and chaos we fear search for unlimited energy— finds its parallel in human society. most? Or unleash its own brand of chaos while we routinely expect A global community of nations technology to be an obedient lap holding war, chaos, famine and dog? Sitting silently in proximity to disease at bay while ostensibly suppressing tyranny, despotism, that dilemma the ticking time bomb of technology waits for a and slavery wants to harness Frankenstein moment of prescient technology for shaping a better world.

awareness where a presumptive destiny of servitude versus vengeance may one day be displayed.

Society unwittingly and

inevitably succumbs to the endless seduction of technology keenly unaware that it retains the fatal deathblow option within itself. Are all aspects of life, freedom and happiness held dear now in jeopardy? Distracted, amused and fascinated by all the gifts, benefits and rewards which an open ended love affair with modern technology offers mankind dwells happily with a risk that exists in the milieu of scientific uncertainty. Ceaseless appetites for relief from drudgery, hard work, routine and labor intensive tasks allow us to depict technology as a welcome relief valve. We don’t expect technological blowback and societal upheaval to accompany our energetic pursuit of science.

However, we ought leave room for strategic surprise.

It is defined as the regrettable situation where national leaders unthinkingly expect to be permanently insulated from external threats, internal upheaval, unseen technology or massive natural disaster and yet they find themselves instead mortally wounded by an event they never imagined was feasible, reasonably likely, routinely anticipated or readily neutralized. Hitler’s blitzkrieg of 1939, the Pearl Harbor attacks of 1941, the 1959 Sputnik launch, the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union and the 9-11 attacks come to mind. Historians will eternally speculate that we should have justly surmised these events as likely or possible even if we could not fathom their probability.

What history making insights can we derive from these instances of strategic surprise? Experts who look at black swans, grey swans and white swans agree that it is clearly important to recognize these salient warning flags because they merit a closer look.

Can we derive real lessons from strategic surprise that drive wiser assessments of our future and equip people today to grapple with what is coming—or just around the corner—whether they like it or not and certainly whether they accept it or not.

Black swans suggest well hidden fatal threats and future developments wrapped in ambiguous mundane events where expectations and preparedness did not match reality or consider probability. It is often seen as highly probable, even predictable, and imposing massive societal impact embedded in the unfolding torrential flow of time and historical events. Does that imply we should absorb this as part of life to devise instead some repelling fortress of logic and technology to forestall its arrival?

One arguable black swan is the Arab Spring in 2010 or the rise of ISIS in 2004.

Grey swans differ in degree and consequence in the sense that

highly probable and predictable events have the tendency to cascade widely into sacred, safeguarded and stubbornly protected areas of unwitting vulnerability where errors in likelihood, impact and gross effect are accepted but fail to influence leadership away from hidebound solutions. Downstream calamity risks were smugly ignored. One notable event signifying this scenario is the triple-threat 2011 Fukushima disaster or the 2021 fateful determination that COVID had random zoonotic spillover roots rather than indicating that a bioweapons lab leak more likely triggered the pandemic.

White swans by contrast signify world shaking events that appear benign and their immediate and downstream consequences seem both well known and predictable but they are dealt with using inflated and flawed hubris, scientific arrogance and unbridled naivete making their negative consequences profound.

An example of this tendency is the global frenzy to curb global warming without examining genuine geological and volcanic factors upping global temperatures or the energetic pursuit of global abandonment and elimination of nuclear weapons while ongoing international research on devising equally deadly modern weapons proceeds in covert parallel situations.

Nevertheless, the three swans have a disturbing ability to dwell and linger among the best and brightest leaders we can find.

Corrupt and rapacious in their tenacity to repress the human spirit they tirelessly stymy serious pursuit of alternative leadership paradigms of an ideal nature. Linking strategic surprise, the three swans described and the open ended evolution of future technology sketches a landscape of significant uncertainty. Great leaders must wrestle with the impinging reality

of these persistent three swans on any vast governing enterprise and devise strategies for overcoming their pernicious inevitability.

Estimating technology risk realistically in a high-pressure disquieting future and guiding humanity through it safely is a daunting challenge. Those scrambling for power and control are distracted by the quest itself and imagine technology is only a means to acquire the tools of governance. Left ambiguous in that high energy competition is the pivotal role technology could or should play in shaping a future laden with, or sporadically influenced by, societal and regime ending risk.

We cherish aspiring leaders who harbor unabashed vision of a better life for all, promote freedom, foster societal stability, enshrine self reliant achievement and display a resolute passion for thwarting persistent evil and rapacious subjugation of their people.

However, history displays an awkward tendency to default into qualities of tragic sub par leadership and governance which often nullify mankind’s frequent longing for peace on earth and a full cupboard in every home. All the while mankind lingers in the risky hope that a deathblow to his peace and wellbeing will never come.

The Convergence Conundrum What is both inspiring and enigmatic, as well as terrifying and insidious, is the inherent dilemma which convergent technology [CT] itself symbolizes. On the one hand the prospect of masterfully merged and majestically integrated versions and manifestations of genomics, robotics, quantum, cyber, nanotech, electrodynamics, plasma, neuroscience and biochemistry to create labor

saving, life saving and environmentally conducive outcomes brings us to welcome and hasten its arrival. The explicit engineered combination of cutting edge science and technology appears to open new creative and exciting doors of a better world for mankind.

On the other hand explicit mergers of CT with unforeseen, unexpected and unknown outcomes tinged with immediate and secondary or cascading effects imposing high risk, dangerous and sometimes deadly costs on a trusting but unwitting society does not bode well. Here the sacred trust a general public invests in its scientific elites and creative geniuses reveals a terrible cost and burden which all must endure because prudent risk analysis and cautionary criteria took a back seat to discovery, egoistic scientific hubris, and an

unmitigated zeal to birth something wholly novel and unique. The implied social contract between scientists and their tolerant public suggests trusting science to deliver benefits over curses keeps science in business.

This patently obscure but concrete conundrum haunts the CT landscape because we dimly grasp there will be places, people and institutions who will ignore or reject any residual concerns about blowback risks, colossally dangerous failure or outcomes of unbridled CT research which unleash threats to mankind for which there is no remedy. It is ironic and hardly inconceivable that in understanding the full measure of CT exploited consistently we have to accept a bargain that has as much bad as good in it. Evil geniuses will weaponize CT of course.

Some people have assigned the somber heavyweight legacy of this conundrum to nuclear

physics where both the A-bomb and nuclear power plants reside at the endpoints of a spectrum where the good life is sustained by extracting more energy for society that is much preferred over any risk a deadly explosion might destroy society itself by the same technology.

There is no getting away from the dilemma nor ignoring the inherent conundrum which accompanies CT as it advance itself into our collective future.

Societal eradication and protection are the yin and yang of CT. When the automobile was first invented brakes, steering and eventually seat belts were just as important as horsepower, miles per gallon and reliable performance in making the cars we drive. So too is a need for balance, detached wisdom and prudent risk analysis in embracing everything which CT offers. A gift and a curse with no other choice.

Technology Convergence and Forecasting Unwelcome Betrayal Unfortunately we suffer from several serious shortfalls in gauging and assessing the relative influence, power and reach of globally distributed advanced technologies. The tired old saying which claims ‘what you don’t know can’t hurt you’ fails miserably in equipping modern nations with vulnerable systems, infrastructures and governments to reckon fearlessly with the cataclysmic destruction and regime ending consequences of ignoring the unknown and all the mayhem it can spawn. We mindlessly pursue the gift unmindful of the risks a curse can ensue.

Technology convergence in a wildly unrestricted scientific playing field of unlimited efforts to mix differing technologies, and their scientific underpinnings, into both beneficial and destructive outcomes or products is the prime disrupter of global peace and security in human history.

Pursuit. There is no government oversight, there is no body of scientific referees, or objective custodians of public safety to preclude scientists from mixing whatever cocktail of advanced technology they can explore into something once created cannot be controlled. Balanced precariously between the benign engineered convergence of life sciences to cure cancer or stem persistent birth defects is the quietly insidious pursuit of deliberate and covert xenotransplantation which creates novel bioweapon chimeras never seen before and undertakes the marriage of RF, nanotech and acoustic factors to create a portable platform for targeting persons and groups for the express purpose of nullifying cognitive health and neural wellbeing.

There is simply nothing available to stop this single minded pursuit of potentially cataclysmic

It is quite another thing to imagine and assess the strategic risks which may accrue globally as covert mixtures and deliberate blends of nanoscience, neuroscience, and synthetic biology evolve into outcomes which may be inimical to our It is one thing to consider the linear growth and extrapolation of national security and upend our understanding of how geopolitical unique scientific technologies leverage is measured. Worse, such as nanoscience, neuroscience, genomics, robotics, such convergent blending of precisely engineered AI, quantum science, plasma, breakthrough science and directed energy and synthetic technology can produce biology out well into another unexpected, dangerous and decade of breathtaking accomplishments. Breakthroughs in brain potentially deadly outcomes.

Experience has already revealed chemistry, genomic treatment the dark, malevolent, and strategies, nanobots to deliver nefarious side of dual-use medication safely and finding scientific endeavors from which uncovered neural pathways to either immediate, gradual, or longmore effective perception and term military applications are clearer thought, as well as finding attainable and exploitable. We cures for persistent diseases via have also discovered that nuclear the benefits of synthetic biology energy, complex cyber systems, are the best fruits of cutting edge and biochemical engineering science and technology. All these efforts provide enormous societal contain as much risk of onward weaponization as they are seen and economic value to the human benefitting society. Apparently it condition extending human lives is a risk most will accept. and enriching mankind. convergence where blended and engineered technology mixes yield as many societal conveniences and benefits as it generates societal disintegration and destruction.

.

Black, white and grey swans abound in this murky ambiguous realm of convergent technologies where both the unexpected outcomes and the mechanism for controlling them defies scientific resolution. It must be accepted that unregulated, randomly covert, and deliberately clandestine programs of heavily financed ventures in convergent technology could produce apocalyptic results. Technology convergence is being supported, admired and encouraged without careful regard for guardrails and rigorous controls. Hidden within global covert and clandestine technology convergence programs is the bedrock message of strategic surprise and developments to significantly alter the balance of power on the globe.

diametrically opposed to modern science and technology for its own sake. However, grasping the array of both positive and negative outcomes derived from unrestricted convergent research is fundamental. Just realizing that runaway convergence may lead to unexpected weapons systems, nullify security, create dominant overpowering threats, and ultimately change the global strategic calculus is a start. Think about a deliberate mix of genomics, AI, quantum and robotics where emerging self replicating nanobots allow the unwitting ingestion, absorption and storage of killer systems to reside silently inside persons awaiting a covert attack order via external electromagnetic signal.

There is a lingering unwary The task of curtailing or controlling sentiment among many today ominous developments that arise that AI infused systems enhanced from unrestricted technology with quantum computing power convergence are not well will one day become sentient and understood or accepted. Those thereby attain a free will ability to who advocate caution and decline or refute commands and judicious thinking can be labeled requests. On the same logical st as 21 century Luddites avenue of discourse it is argued AI and quantum enhanced cyber

will make decisions and take actions independent of—and in spite of—human directions otherwise. The super computer will define options, generate alternatives and make choices apart from human oversight or control. As we contemplate the future trajectory of convergent technology [CT] can we imagine it would generate its own form of unlimited permanent continued operation apart from human control? If so, can we allow the possibility that AI enabled systems of the future will contradict, dispute and override human decisions at fateful moments creating an unhappy ending for all?

Should we imagine a situation where wholly unrestricted global CT research activity mixing every conceivable blend of advanced technology ironically produces outcomes which choose instead to protect themselves more forcefully than humankind making for a very unhappy ending ?

Convergence, the Vision Thing and Threat Awareness The regrettable but painfully true

core of CT reality over the next few years is reckoning with the headlong speed at which runaway convergence will happen globally in a climate where more, better, faster and newer is the hallmark of enflamed discovery.

Technology convergence adheres to no inward or externally imposed limits as energetic experimentation will persist where nanotech, genomics, neuroscience, plasma, directed energy and other cutting edge technologies are engineered and blended in diverse locations to create something wholly unique.

Whatever risks, drawbacks or dangers are embedded in these wildly diverse and unregulated experimental excursions into CT alchemy are keenly overlooked in favor of the powerful discovery imperative and the pioneering lust to create something radically new.

So we witness competing visions grappling for dominance and influence in this creative space.

One vision is unbridled optimism and deeply committed research into unveiling and manufacturing whatever CT products and

outcomes are literally possible.

Another second vision, by contrast is more cautionary and imposes guard rails and measured boundaries on the quest for deriving CT breakthroughs and unparalleled discoveries. Yet a third vision is colored by regulated, carefully governed and prudently managed ventures into the most promising CT pursuits with the aim of delivering high quality low risk outputs, inventions and products.

tyrannical and warlike regimes will undoubtedly pursue vision number one. Evil knows no limits.

In that case threat reduction dynamics take a circuitous direction. If cutting edge CT research work proceeds randomly all over the globe is the simple awareness of it and its destructive implications sufficient to trigger protective steps to ramp up defenses against futuristic CT weapons among Now it is fair to speculate about otherwise peaceful democratic which of these three visions a and stable societies? Why not tyrannical and oppressive regime simply ignore the threat entirely, will pursue versus another vision discount its urgency or deny its nested within a society where very legitimacy because the risks rigors of scientific caution, societal of unstoppable dominant CT benefit and regards for calamitous weapons which convey ultimate risk are paramount. Since there power and strategic leverage to are no global ground rules, evil regimes is—after all—pure professional constraints, or science fiction. Something to restrictive laws any of these watch carefully of course---but options is conceivable. Against not to be feared? this climate there remains the In effect, if a nation does not, thorny question of threat cannot, or declines to recognize a awareness and whether it should future CT threat as palpable and be a guide stone to conducting CT real what are the consequences? research activities at all. Many will If a peaceful nation cannot say that decent and democratic perceive, or believe and accept, societies must pursue the second that a near term CT landscape or third vision as hostile, rapacious,

abundant in emerging ill defined threats is implausible or absurd is that not a logical choice? What likely harm or abysmal outcome could arise if peaceful states declined to appreciate and anticipate the CT threat possibilities accruing in a world where violent, evil, oppressive and tyrannical states develop their own CT capabilities to an unlimited degree? Does it make sense to ponder this scenario and speculate about a future world where one set of nations firmly forsakes CT and the other instead energetically embraces it?

Perversion of CT in manifest threat to society, peace and freedom cannot be ruled out. The task of genuine threat perception and actual reaction to it have become new frontiers of strategic awareness. It is fair to assume that the trajectory of international affairs, global commerce and the reciprocal exchanges of science and technology between and among nations will either reflect the pattern of the last 70 years or they will not. Cooperation among states , multi-lateral ventures

within established alliances and regional agreements to sustain security and stability will be sorely tested in this future CT environment. Ignoring today’s real CT threats risks forsaking the opportunity to address them all effectively and resolutely tomorrow.

Unhappy Endings: Controlling the Tidal Wave of Convergent Technology [CT] For the full spectrum risks of runaway convergent technology [CT] to be addressed in a comprehensive, sensible and synoptic manner the key variables involved must be considered and weighed.

The variables are subjective in content and purpose but they are offered for consideration here to promote the wider generation of dialogue, debate and open access discussion of the benefits, risks, drawbacks and implications of tolerating unlimited global CT activity. In the end there may be no way to curtail or redirect the headlong drift towards indulging the expansive imagination and

energy which scientists, innovators and engineers will invest in CT activities. Zero day CT control scenarios must be considered and weighed.

Ultimately a baseline collection of key questions and challenges must be confronted and the traditional open-ended social contract we have granted for hundreds of years between science and society may need revision.

That unstated social contract is that in exchange for allowing science and technology an unfettered and unlimited environment of discovery, invention, experimentation and cutting edge research science agrees to create things that overwhelmingly sustain, protect and reinforce society and its continued stable wellbeing. In effect, the general unscientific public trusts scientists to produce items beneficial, helpful, useful, remedial and therapeutic outcomes by staying a requite distance away from harsh control oversight or whimsical controls.

Sure enough we have adopted

some controls in regulation, quality, safety and efficacy in many areas of technology involving medicine, chemicals, food products and public conveyance machines but no such framework of protection, pragmatism and predetermined constrain exists thus far on CT. There is no reason to expect soon it will.

So what is the best course of action? Stand idly by and allow CT activities to unfold and expand without oversight until their explosive damaging effects and impact actually kills hundreds?

Allow CT to continue unfettered and unrestricted until the risks of damaging and destructive outcomes are undeniable? In the absence of such a framework or operational criteria we have to consider some of the variables involved. These variables will impact the choice of a strategy even if the outlines and core elements of that strategy are ambiguous and uncertain right now. Key variables are….

-knowing that CT will be pursued relentlessly by both international friends and foes with no limits or governing restrictions on its overall trajectory of research and prototyping -devising controls and guardrails which the global scientific and technology community will accept, adopt and apply in objective, nonpolitical and expedient ways -determining how best to curb, control and thwart CT research and development activities which are deemed [by whom??] to lapse into destructive and dangerous products/outcomes -devising the operational research and development standards and criteria which govern and regulate how CT activities will be conducted -deciding what CT activities border upon, or inherently contain, destructive and dangerous aspects which pose a threat to global society and its security.

Wargaming and simulating a future where mankind seriously

contends with CT systems originally created to serve the world’s population but instead decides that eviscerating that population is eminently more compelling or sensible makes a great deal of sense. However it is truly fair to ask whether that hypothetical scenario will be considered or explored.

Years ago we devised fail safe systems to avoid unpleasant ‘always/never’ questions of nuclear weapons release and forestall the risks of inadvertent and accidental nuclear war.

Knowing risks of miscalculation and crisis driven errors would dominate the atmosphere scientists devised ‘fail safe’. This is where systems would reliably perform a strategic launch when tasked and just as reliably refrain from such a nuclear launch if expressly unintended. There doesn’t seem to be an equivalent system for governing the onward growth and development of CT. Is anyone calling for such a system?

Is our trust in CT so open ended we assume it is not needed?

Are we content to move ahead with full scale unlimited CT research without imposition of controls and ‘kill switches’? What safeguards exist within CT? Who really knows?

In conclusion, two urgent central prevailing questions which are unpleasant but fair to ask openly include these--— CT, despite its unarguable benefits, poses an unacceptable array of risks including an alluring pathway to societal destruction but must it be heavily regulated and controlled—and if so what is the best way to do it using what objective criteria?

AND CT will deliver a devastating deathblow to unprepared societies and nations where abject ignorance and repudiation of convergent technology imposes a tragic national security cost---the question is whether leadership will mobilize to address the threat?

Many will doubt that CT has the innate capacity to inflict a societal and regime ending deathblow to nations appearing too smug, naïve or ill equipped to deal with the full spectrum of its intended and unintended effects. Is that a risk worth tolerating? What criteria must exist for CT to attain objective evaluation as to its regime ending and societal destruction risks? Who will be elevated to determine that criteria and enforce it? How will the emergence of covert malevolent CT weapons be curtailed or controlled?

The alternative view is that CT merits the widest spectrum of public trust, support and encouragement. Despite whatever warning signs we may recognize in connection with CT it is vital to our wellbeing and national security because the global race for expended CT is unleashed and we cannot risks falling behind other nations or falling prey to hostile strategic surprise. What embedded thresholds of unacceptable risk should be engineered into CT?

The answer to this dilemma is not apparent. Camps supportive of restrictive controls and those favoring instead absolute freedom of CT activity are evenly divided with a substantial number of public citizens either unaware, agnostic or disinterested in the question itself. There is no likelihood CT will be diverted, halted or subject to rigorous controls and restrictions in 2023. However as further innovations, discoveries and breakthroughs happen over the next seven years that calculus of public sentiment may shift considerably. It remains unclear which aspects of CT itself, or changing public sentiment, will provide the leverage needed to trigger wider consensus on the virtues and risks of CT activity in an open-ended global pursuit of that enterprise. CT will continue to grow and evolve along with the risks it inherently contains.

In effect, whether we like it or not, plan for it or not, attempt to halt it or not—it will happen. Absent ethical or foundational guardrails to delay it, or imposing operational constraints on it, the CTC will dominate and govern the end of this decade. As we painfully learned from the runaway Gain of Function [GOF] snafu with COVID science cannot restrain itself. CT activity will widen in scope, effects and consequences.

“

Various cutting edge dual use technologies will merge inevitably by the year 2030. This will lead to what I call the—Convergent Technology Cataclysm—CTC.

Whether it leads to an unhappy ending is anyone’s guess”.

DR. ROBERT McCREIGHT

is a distinguished national security expert and former U.S. Army Special Ops officer. He currently teaches at the graduate level, conducts research on forwardthinking defense topics, and offers consultation on foreign policy, intelligence, and global security issues. His insights on these subjects have been published in various esteemed professional journals.

Disclaimer: All views expressed here are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Army, Army Futures Command (AFC), or Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC).

This article, has been republished with permission from the author.

LINDA RESTREPO is the

EDI

TOR |

PU BLI S

HER

Director of Education and Innovation at the Human Health Education and Research Foundation. With advanced degrees including an MBA and Ph.D., Restrepo has a strong focus on Cybersecurity and Artificial Intelligence. She has played a pivotal role in Corporate Technology Commercialization at the U.S. National Laboratories. In close collaboration with the CDC, she conducted research on Emerging Infectious Diseases and bioagents. Furthermore, Restrepo’s contributions extend to Global Economic Impacts Research, and she serves as the President of a global government and military defense research and strategic development firm. She also takes the lead as the Chief Executive Officer at Professional Global Outreach.

DISCLAIMER: This Magazine is designed to provide information, entertainment and motivation to our readers. It does not render any type of political, cybersecurity, computer programming, defense strategy, ethical, legal or any other type of professional advice. It is not intended to, neither should it be construed as a comprehensive evaluation of any topic. The content of this Presentation is the sole expression and opinion of the authors. No warranties or guarantees are expressed or implied by the authors or the Editor. Neither the authors nor the Editor are liable for any physical, psychological, emotional, financial, or commercial damages, including, but not limited to, special, incidental, consequential or other damages. You are responsible for your own choices, actions, and results.

Linda Restrepo | Publisher - Editor