{"id":1384,"date":"2025-05-08T15:36:00","date_gmt":"2025-05-08T13:36:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/scpo-cybersecurityassociation.com\/?p=1384"},"modified":"2025-05-19T19:25:24","modified_gmt":"2025-05-19T17:25:24","slug":"the-race-between-the-united-states-and-china-for-global-supremacy-in-ai-driven-warfare-a-zero-sum-game","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/scpo-cybersecurityassociation.com\/index.php\/2025\/05\/08\/the-race-between-the-united-states-and-china-for-global-supremacy-in-ai-driven-warfare-a-zero-sum-game\/","title":{"rendered":"The Race between the United States and China for Global Supremacy in AI-driven Warfare: A Zero-Sum Game\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Julia Petkov<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

8\/5\/2025<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"\/<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Source : iStock. (n.d.).<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the surge of artificial intelligence (AI) continues to flood every sector of modern society, its crucial role in shaping global power dynamics becomes increasingly salient to states. The integration of AI into defense systems is especially vital to this effort. Already, powers across the world have invested billions of dollars and put the development of AI weapons at the forefront of their defense agendas. The presence of AI on the battlefield has been increasing with reports<\/a> of Ukraine deploying AI-powered drones able to identify and strike adversarial Russian targets, and Israel employing the \u201cLavender\u201d AI system in Gaza against Hamas. The intense competition between the United States of America and the People’s Republic of China<\/a> (PRC) to integrate advanced AI systems into their military capabilities and gain dominance in the AI warfare field has been equated<\/a> to the nuclear arms race of the Cold War, with escalating global tensions and the potential to fundamentally reshape the international security landscape. The AI weaponization strategies of the US and China highlight a zero-sum game nature of the race for global supremacy in AI-driven warfare, demonstrated by their government initiatives, market exclusion, strong political rhetoric, asymmetric development strategies, and restraints against binding international commitments on AI weapon regulation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

US Strategy: Government Initiatives & Private Firm Influence<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In recent years, the US government has taken a forefront stance to integrate AI into its military strategy to maintain a global edge over China. This is reflected in initiatives such as the establishment of the Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office<\/a> (CDAO) in 2022 to oversee the Department of Defense’s strategy for the integration of AI technologies, the 2023 Replicator Initiative<\/a> to deliver thousands of autonomous (ADA2) systems to warfighters by 2025, and the first-ever National Defense Industrial Strategy<\/a> released in January 2024 prioritizing long-term modernization of defense capabilities to strengthen national security. The US Army has already begun testing autonomous combat systems, such as the \u201cRobot Dog<\/a>\u201d ground vehicle and the \u201cBullfrog<\/a>\u201d machine gun that uses AI to detect and shoot down enemy drones. The US AI-military context has been largely driven by private tech company innovation and venture capitalist investment. In February 2024, Google officially reversed<\/a> its previous commitment to not develop AI systems for weapons, indicating a growing recognition among private tech companies of AI\u2019s critical role in military systems amidst competition with China. Moreover, during Donald Trump\u2019s presidential campaign, tech companies such as OpenAI supported<\/a> the Trump campaign and promoted the need to prevent China from gaining any advantage in the AI arms race . They advocated for more investment in the AI sector and less regulatory restriction, highlighting the zero-sum nature of the competition for AI dominance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

US Strategy: Exclusion of China in Key Markets <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another prime component of the US strategy to gain an edge over China in AI warfare has been to exclude China from key tech markets to slow down its progress. Since 2022, the US has imposed aggressive export<\/a> restrictions to limit China\u2019s access to critical AI technologies such as semiconductors, restricted outbound and inbound investment<\/a> into the AI-military sector, and sanctioned companies with links to China\u2019s People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Enforcing cybersecurity measures to protect AI algorithms and combat against Chinese espionage have also been critical aspects of the strategy. Chinese communication technologies and software systems, such as TikTok and Huawei, have become increasingly restricted<\/a> to mitigate the threat of PRC cyber agents gaining access to sensitive data. The US\u2019s \u201cchokepoint<\/a>\u201d tactics aim to significantly slow down China\u2019s progress in the AI weapons race to allow the US to maintain its lead in the technological competition. While these measures have been effective, China is learning to transition away from its traditional dependence on cyberespionage tactics and become more self-sufficient to close the gap with the US. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

China\u2019s Strategy: Political Rhetoric and Asymmetric AI Development <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

China has made the development of innovative AI military technologies a crucial part of its national strategy in order to overtake the US in the AI weapons race. The rhetoric of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasizes a zero-sum competition mindset. In fact, it was Xi Jinping who stated<\/a> that, \u201cunder a situation of increasingly fierce international military competition, only the innovators win.\u201d Despite aggressive export restrictions and China\u2019s later introduction into the AI revolution led by US tech powers, Beijing has been able to establish an increasingly significant role in the race and develop its own cutting-edge AI systems. An example is DeepSeek<\/a>, an AI model that achieves highly efficient results at a small fraction of the price and computing resources of Western models. Putting AI at the center of its military ambitions, Xi Jinping set the goal<\/a> for the PLA to \u201ccomplete its modernization by 2035 and transform into a world-class military\u201d through three significant stages of military-technological development: from mechanization<\/em> to informatization <\/em>to then intelligentization<\/em>. The final and most pivotal stage, intelligentization<\/em>, would involve integrating AI systems into PLA military capabilities. A key strategic aspect of this military-technological development is its asymmetric approach to surpass US military power through targeting the interdependencies between US forces (such as ships, tanks, or satellites). Therefore, instead of destroying a US tank directly on the battlefield, the PLA would achieve a victory over US military forces by using AI systems to analyze<\/a> \u201cinternet, satellite, or electromagnetic communications links\u201d and then identify and exploit any weaknesses. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

China\u2019s Strategy: <\/strong>Rapid AI Military Integration & Arms Exports <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The PLA set the goal<\/a> to \u201caccelerate the integrated development of mechanization<\/em>, informatization<\/em>, and intelligentization<\/em>\u201d by 2027 and make important progress on the \u201cthree stages simultaneously rather than sequentially.\u201d China, due to its state-run defense sector, can develop advanced AI military systems at a speed that the US cannot afford due to more bureaucratic holdups and reliance on private firms. China, taking advantage of this US developmental weakness, therefore aims to rapidly develop and release AI-powered weapons. China is already a large exporter<\/a> of autonomous drones to states such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Egypt, and the UAE. The Islamic State has also utilized<\/a> Chinese-manufactured drones. The result has expanded dependence on Chinese military systems and boosted China\u2019s global technological-military position. China supplies drones at a cheaper<\/a> cost than the US and with little concern over the human rights records of the states it exports to. China\u2019s speedy development and export of AI systems could therefore put powerful autonomous AI weapon systems in the hands of US adversaries, states with poor human rights records, and terrorist organizations. China\u2019s strategies to surpass the US in the race for global supremacy in AI-driven warfare could produce consequences that would destabilize international security and potentially ignite uncontrolled conflicts. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Resistance to International Regulatory Commitments on AI Weapons <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Numerous international human rights organizations and NGOs have raised critical ethical and safety concerns over the accelerated development of AI autonomous weapon systems and their deployment on battlefields across the world. Both the US and China have made public statements and established initiatives addressing these international concerns. The US Department of Defense established a policy<\/a> in 2023 that emphasized the importance of maintaining human control and judgement in autonomous weapon systems over decisions on the use of force. China, meanwhile, made statements promoting ethical usage of AI and argued<\/a> at the 2019 UN General Assembly Thematic Discussion on Conventional Arms Control that the country \u201cbelieves it is necessary to reach an international legally-binding instrument on fully-autonomous lethal weapons in order to prevent automated killing by machines.\u201d Despite initiatives and public declarations on the importance of preserving human control in the development of AI autonomous weapons, neither the US nor China have committed to any form of an international legally binding framework on the regulation of AI. Both countries have no desire to commit themselves to measures that could hinder their progress and risk falling behind their adversary in the crucial race for leadership over the future of warfare. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The US and China\u2019s AI weaponization strategies reinforce the zero-sum nature of the race for AI warfare supremacy. The US aims to maintain AI dominance and hinder China from gaining any form of advantage through private tech company innovation and excluding the PRC from vital technology markets. China, meanwhile, aims to exploit US military power vulnerabilities with its rapid AI military-integration speed and asymmetric approach in order to fulfill Xi Jinping\u2019s vision of defeating the US in the international technological-military competition. Chinese and US reluctance to commit to binding international regulatory agreements further demonstrates the shared mindset of both powers to dominate in the race. As AI systems become more advanced and establish greater dominance on international battlefields, concerns over safety and maintaining human control will only grow more critical. The abuse of such weapons in the hands of malicious actors especially poses significant global security risks. The failure to overcome zero-sum game mindsets and commit to greater international cooperation could otherwise result in a future of warfare marked by unrestrained destructive global conflicts and battlefields devoid of human control.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Julia Petkov<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":1413,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1384","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-articles"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/scpo-cybersecurityassociation.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1384","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/scpo-cybersecurityassociation.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/scpo-cybersecurityassociation.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scpo-cybersecurityassociation.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scpo-cybersecurityassociation.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1384"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/scpo-cybersecurityassociation.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1384\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1563,"href":"https:\/\/scpo-cybersecurityassociation.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1384\/revisions\/1563"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scpo-cybersecurityassociation.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1413"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/scpo-cybersecurityassociation.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1384"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scpo-cybersecurityassociation.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1384"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/scpo-cybersecurityassociation.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1384"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}