This is an expanded post regarding a youtube video where Mr Musk spoke to cadets and staff at the US Military Academy. It began as a reply to a friend of mind on LinkedIn but grew too long and so it is here in a more considered way. If you have not seen the video, much of this will not make a great deal of sense. In a nutshell, Mr Musk does what so many ill-informed but powerful people do: he opines on things he knows little or nothing about. The big question is WHY would the USMA want to listen to this guy talk about war and warfare?

What prompted this post was a question from my old RMC classmate accusing me of offering an ad hominem argument against Mr Musk because I said that if I wanted an opinion on how to screw your employees, I would listen to him but he doesn’t know squat about war. Read On….

1. It is not an ad hominem response: I am not attacking Mr Musk; I am disagreeing with his comments and with the supposition that he knows what he is talking about. He doesn’t. His words do not allow me to see that he understands what he is opining on. If I wanted to know how to fund a startup or take over a company, he would be worth listening to. War and warfare? Not so much. Correction — not at all.

2. He describes at length why the human mind is limited by its bandwidth. He is not a doctor, nor a neuroscientist, nor a cognitive clinician. He’s entitled to his opinions, as are we all, and he may have a point but I am none of those things either, so I will pass.

3. He speaks with apparent knowledge of what happens at the battlefront. What he is describing is assumptions not facts. Some of what he says may be true, but historical examples deny much of it. No humans at the front any more? Really? Machines fighting other machines? This argument is almost a century old and has yet to be proven correct. As I said in a previous lecture on main battle tanks, machine guns did not, as predicted, make infantry irrelevant; aircraft did not, as opined, make armies irrelevant; drones have not taken over warfare.

4. Falling asleep while listening to audiobooks on military history — as Mr Musk proudly states — is the smallest of tiny incremental steps toward understanding war and warfare, or anything else for that matter. I have been to literally dozens of airports but would not pretend to tell an airport manager what the future of airports is. To quote a line from one of my favourite movies (Masada) the Roman general says to the Jewish Zealot “Give us our due, man. We KNOW killing.” In other words, learn the subject, then offer an opinion.

5. Musk makes a common error made by what we history profs refer to frequently as one made by history “buffs”, that new technology will make current warfare obsolete. It never has, and we have been doing it for four thousand years. See machine guns and aircraft above.

6. Musk goes on at length on AI. I won’t comment on AI. The jury is still out on the subject, and I have opinions, but they are just opinions…

7. I am disappointed in the US brigadier for many reasons but he needs to read more history. “The quality of the box matters little. Success depends upon the man who sits in it.” Manfred von Richthofen. In other words, technology is important, but its employment is the key, war-winning, factor.

8. Last point. Musk talks about fighter pilots in the future no longer being required. He could not be further from being correct. (see von Richthofen). He cites drones swarming aircraft and pilots presumably being unable to cope. First, it is difficult to see drones swarming supersonic fighter aircraft, but even if we allow the scenario, the same technology controlling the drones (AI according to Musk) would be controlling the counter drone weaponry. The US Army has already deployed a laser system capable of destroyng dozens of drones simultaneously to protect ground troops (The exact number is classified). There are dozens in development, which a simple Google search will show.

Conclusion: Mr Musk should stay in his lane. We are all entitled to our opinions but beware the individual who claims to know something when he clearly does not.