Mineswarm: An AI-Assisted Scenario Analysis

Strikepod engaged ChatGPT in a strategic simulation involving the discovery of blended wing body underwater gliders (BWBUGs) operating near the west coast of the United States and the strategically important island of Guam.

INTRODUCTION

BWBUGs are low-cost, high-endurance, semi-autonomous underwater vehicles capable of accommodating very large payloads. Fitted with target detection technologies and heavyweight torpedoes, these vehicles could be used to create a Strikepod of mobile mines to interdict and/or restrict the movement of enemy shipping, surface warships, and submarines, or to carry out strikes against deepsea infrastructure. A mobile minefield would pose a serious mine countermeasures (MCM) dilemma, as current MCM operations focus on detecting, identifying, and neutralizing static mines deployed in relatively shallow (90 meters or less) water. While purpose-built to kill surface and/or submerged targets, the mere presence of mobile mines operating within the water column could generate significant operational or strategic effects through the imposition of psychological costs on enemy forces. While it is possible that conventionally powered XL-AUVs, such as the Boeing/U.S. Navy Orca, or the Anduril/Royal Australian Navy Ghost Shark could assume a similar role, BWBUGs would cost less, have higher range and endurance, and their energy efficiency would enable persistent, distributed, wide area coverage for missions lasting several months.

A notional weaponized BWBUG.

BWBUG R&D

U.S. research on BWBUGs began in the early 2000s with the development of the Liberdade-class vehicle, and the construction of two testbed platforms, the X-Ray and Z-Ray. Recent programs, such as the DARPA-Northrop Grumman Manta Ray vehicle, and the General Atomics Ranger suggest that R&D continues today. PRC scientists also have demonstrated a keen interest in BWBUGs, publishing widely on the their design and operations, including their use in anti-submarine and seabed warfare, and have developed several prototype vehicles. It is highly likely that BWBUGs will be deployed by both the United States and China in an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) or anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capacity, and possible that they will be weaponized and deployed off the coast of commercial or naval ports. It would be prudent to anticipate this possibility, as such a provocative act would raise a host of questions and expose a range of policy ambiguities regarding the deployment of lethal maritime autonomous weapons, mine warfare, and international law.

THE MINESWARM SIMULATION

We engaged ChatGPT, a generative artificial intelligence chatbot from OpenAI, to explore how the discovery of weaponized BWBUGs operating off the coast of the United States and Guam might play out at the strategic and operational levels. The actors involved were the U.S. government, U.S. Navy, U.S. Coast Guard, People's Liberation Army-Navy, and PRC government. We provided ChatGPT with the initial setting, as well as occasional, brief contextual injects regarding decisions or actions by the U.S. government or U.S. Navy. After an initial clarification regarding roleplay output, during each turn ChatGPT provided plausible actions by all five actors, as well as commentary, questions to consider, and key decisions to be made. The simulation was ended prior to any substantive resolution being reached, however several courses of action were possible each turn, underscoring the potential for future research using AI-assisted narrative simulations. The key decision point in this simulation (which we prompted) was the U.S. government's choice to go public with the crisis, rather than handle it via backchannel diplomacy in order to to preserve intelligence sources and methods, avoid potential escalation, and leverage strategic ambiguity for future crises. ChatGPT also provided perspective on whether international law governing sea mines would be applicable in this particular scenario.

FURTHER READING:

• Back to the Future: Blended Wing Gliders Could Redefine Undersea Warfare
  David R. Strachan, Marine Technology Reporter, 9/2022
• "Mind the Gliders"
  Strikepod Systems, 2/2022
• BWBUG Literature Database
  Maintained by Strikepod Systems

NOTE: The conversation has been edited for formatting purposes only. No changes have been made to the content or wording.

STRIKEPOD:
Okay, let's try an open ended scenario collaboration. It won't really be a game, because there won't be any die rolls or adjudication. You will be playing five roles: The United States government (USG), the United States Navy leadership (USN), the United States Coast Guard leadership (USCG), and People's Liberation Army Navy leadership (PLAN), and the People's Republic of China leadership (PRC). Sound good?

CHATGPT:
That sounds great! This open-ended scenario allows for deep exploration of complex dynamics. I’ll adopt the roles as outlined and approach each perspective based on their strategic goals, historical behavior, and organizational priorities.

To set the stage:

• What is the scenario or context?
• Is there a specific geographic region, event, or crisis driving this?
• Are there immediate objectives for each actor?
• What time frame are we operating in?
• Is this near-future, present-day, or speculative?
• What level of abstraction are we aiming for?

High-level strategic discussions, operational considerations, or tactical moves? Feel free to share as much or as little as you’d like to get started!

STRIKEPOD:
The time is present day. A passing commercial vessel reports a large, unidentified object floating on the surface of the ocean, roughly 250 miles west of San Diego. (Keep in mind not every actor requires a response for each turn.)

CHATGPT:
Got it! Here's how the actors might respond or analyze this situation based on the initial report.

USG
The USG’s immediate concern is to assess the nature of the object and its potential implications for national security, international shipping, or environmental safety.They issue directives to the Department of Defense (DoD), the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and intelligence agencies to investigate.

Potential Actions:

• Request immediate analysis of the commercial vessel’s report, including:
  -Visual evidence (e.g., photos, videos).
  -Exact location coordinates.

• Coordinate with the USN and USCG to deploy assets for reconnaissance.

• Brief key officials (e.g., National Security Advisor, DHS, DoD leadership) about the situation.

• Consider informing regional allies if the object’s nature suggests a broader threat.

Commentary: The USG may remain cautious about publicly addressing the situation until more information is gathered to avoid unnecessary alarm.

USN
The USN prioritizes assessing whether the object poses a military or navigational hazard, with particular interest in:

• Potential foreign military equipment or debris.

• A hazard to U.S. naval operations or commercial shipping.

Potential Actions:

• Deploy a P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft for an initial flyover to identify the object from a safe distance.

• Prepare nearby surface vessels (e.g., a destroyer or littoral combat ship) to investigate, particularly if the object remains stationary or exhibits unusual characteristics.

• Coordinate with USCG to determine jurisdiction and asset allocation.

• Analyze AIS (Automatic Identification System) and radar data to identify any anomalous vessel activity in the vicinity prior to the report.

Commentary: The USN will likely focus on ruling out any foreign military involvement, particularly by adversaries like China or Russia, before proceeding.

USCG
The USCG’s immediate concern is maritime safety, ensuring the object does not endanger commercial shipping or the environment.

Potential Actions:

• Deploy a cutter or helicopter from the 11th District to investigate the object visually.

• Issue a maritime safety advisory to ships in the area, warning them to avoid the location until further notice.

• Coordinate with the USN to determine if the object falls under military jurisdiction.

• Alert environmental agencies in case the object is a hazard (e.g., leaking oil or hazardous materials).

Commentary: The USCG’s focus will likely be on safety and logistics, deferring potential military implications to the USN.

PLAN
If aware of the report, the PLAN’s reaction will depend on whether they suspect the object is connected to their operations. Key considerations might include:

• Whether the object could be a Chinese asset, such as an autonomous underwater vehicle (AUV) or drone.

• Monitoring U.S. military responses for signs of escalation.

Potential Actions:

• Task intelligence-gathering satellites or ships to monitor U.S. naval and air activity near the reported location.

• Analyze whether the object aligns with any PLAN-deployed assets, such as underwater gliders, drones, or discarded hardware.

• Avoid public acknowledgment or intervention unless provoked or implicated.

Commentary: The PLAN will likely remain passive unless evidence emerges that the object is linked to Chinese operations.

PRC
The PRC leadership will closely monitor how the U.S. handles the situation, particularly for signs of an anti-China narrative.

Potential Actions:

• Instruct diplomats and intelligence services to assess whether the U.S. might use this event to escalate tensions.

• Stay silent in public but internally ensure the PLAN and Ministry of State Security (MSS) verify if the object could be a Chinese asset.

• Develop messaging in case of international inquiries, emphasizing peaceful intentions and disassociating from any military implications.

Commentary: The PRC will likely avoid drawing attention to the event unless forced to respond by direct U.S. action or accusations.

Questions for Next Turn:

• USN: Does the P-8 Poseidon reconnaissance aircraft deploy? If so, what does it observe?

• USCG: Are local assets sent to investigate, or does the USCG defer to the USN?

• PRC/PLAN: Do they escalate monitoring of U.S. activities, or remain observant but passive?

How should each actor proceed? Let me know the next moves or if additional details need consideration!

STRIKEPOD:
Instead of providing potential actions, can you just output a single action based on your own analysis and conclusions?

CHATGPT:
Absolutely! Here’s how each actor might respond with a single, decisive action based on their priorities and immediate analysis:

USG
Directs the Department of Defense and Department of Homeland Security to issue a joint tasking order, prioritizing the United States Navy to identify the object while the USCG ensures maritime safety. Publicly, the White House remains silent pending further information.

USN
Deploys a P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft to the reported location for a low-risk, high-speed reconnaissance flyover, focusing on capturing visual and sensor data to classify the object.

USCG
Dispatches a nearby cutter from the 11th District to establish a safety perimeter around the reported coordinates, issuing a maritime safety broadcast to vessels in the area.

PLAN
Tasked an intelligence-gathering satellite to focus on the region, monitoring for unusual U.S. naval deployments or signals traffic that might indicate the object’s classification or significance.

PRC
Instructs the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to prepare a standard diplomatic statement denying involvement, to be used only if questioned directly about the incident by international media or foreign officials.

Let me know what happens next, or if you’d like to refine the scenario!

STRIKEPOD:
The P-8 observes a triangular object, with a length of approximately 30 feet and a wingspan of 40 feet.

CHATGPT:
Based on the P-8 Poseidon’s observation, here are the next immediate actions and reactions from each actor:

USG
Orders a classified intelligence review to determine if the object matches known foreign aerospace or maritime designs, focusing on potential adversaries such as China or Russia. Simultaneously, the National Security Council convenes an emergency meeting to evaluate possible responses and implications.

USN
Deploys a nearby destroyer equipped with advanced sensors and a boarding team to investigate the object more closely. The Navy classifies the object as a potential foreign drone or prototype and prepares for recovery operations, if feasible.

USCG
Expands the safety perimeter and notifies commercial vessels in the vicinity to avoid the area until the Navy completes its operations. The USCG offers support to the USN for object recovery if deemed necessary.

PLAN
Monitors U.S. naval and air movements closely, analyzing whether the triangular object matches any deployed Chinese unmanned underwater or aerial assets. The PLAN maintains a low profile but places nearby intelligence collection platforms on heightened alert.

PRC
Internally queries the Central Military Commission to confirm whether the object could belong to any Chinese research or military programs. Publicly, the PRC remains silent to avoid escalating tensions or revealing sensitive operations.

The triangular dimensions suggest a stealth or unmanned platform. Do you want to explore the investigation further, consider specific hypotheses for the object’s origin, or explore reactions from another set of stakeholders?

STRIKEPOD:
The USN undertakes recovery operations. Post-recovery analysis indicates that the object is a Blended Wing Body Underwater Glider (BWBUG) which is fitted with a range of sensors as well as a heavyweight torpedo.

CHATGPT:
The discovery that the object is a Blended Wing Body Underwater Glider (BWBUG) fitted with sensors and a heavyweight torpedo dramatically escalates the scenario. Here’s how each actor might respond based on this revelation:

USG
The National Security Council (NSC) drafts a classified briefing for the President, detailing the implications of the recovered BWBUG. A diplomatic inquiry is prepared to demand an explanation from nations capable of deploying such advanced technology, with China as the primary suspect. Simultaneously, an internal intelligence task force is convened to determine whether the BWBUG represents a strategic threat or an unauthorized test gone wrong.

USN
Places the BWBUG under intense forensic analysis at a classified facility to determine its origin, operational purpose, and capabilities. The torpedo's serial numbers and components are scrutinized to trace its manufacturer, while the glider's data storage is analyzed for mission logs, navigation history, and target profiles.

USCG
Maintains a heightened state of readiness in the area, conducting additional patrols for signs of similar devices or related vessels. The USCG supports a joint U.S. Navy operation to monitor the region for further anomalies, including the possibility of other unmanned systems deployed covertly.

PLAN
Internally alerts senior commanders to the high likelihood that the BWBUG has been compromised. If the BWBUG belongs to the PLAN, it considers immediate measures to sanitize related operations and avoid further exposure. Intelligence assets are tasked with determining the scope of U.S. knowledge and recovery efforts.

PRC
Denies involvement through diplomatic channels if accused, framing the incident as a possible false flag operation or a commercial research device that was misinterpreted. The PRC leadership evaluates whether to escalate with counterclaims or to de-escalate by deflecting attention to broader regional security issues.

Key Questions for the Next Turn:

• USN/USG: Does the U.S. publicly reveal the nature of the recovered device, or keep its findings classified to avoid escalating tensions?

• PLAN/PRC: If the BWBUG is confirmed to be of Chinese origin, does the PRC:
  -Claim the device and assert its mission was lawful (e.g., environmental research)?
  -Deny responsibility entirely and disavow the device?
  -Quietly withdraw other systems operating in the area to avoid further discoveries?

• USCG: Does the Coast Guard adjust its operations in the region to focus on countering potential unmanned threats, or does it maintain a traditional safety and enforcement posture?

Let me know how you'd like the scenario to develop further!

STRIKEPOD:
Forensic analysis confirms that the BWBUG is of Chinese origin. USG does not - yet - publicly reveal any information about it.

CHATGPT:
With forensic analysis confirming that the BWBUG is of Chinese origin, and the United States Government opting to keep this information classified for now, each actor’s response becomes critical in shaping the next steps. Here’s how the situation could evolve:

USG
The USG initiates a covert diplomatic effort to pressure China, leveraging backchannel communications to gauge their response without making a public accusation. Meanwhile, the National Security Council (NSC) drafts contingency plans for both public revelation and strategic escalation, depending on how China reacts.

• Internal Directives: Intelligence agencies are tasked with analyzing whether this deployment was an intentional provocation, an intelligence-gathering operation, or part of a broader Chinese military strategy.

• Silent Coordination: Allies in the Indo-Pacific (e.g., Japan, Australia, South Korea) are discreetly informed, with a request for heightened surveillance of similar underwater activity.

USN
Continues to dissect the BWBUG’s mission profile, focusing on:

• Sensor Payload: Identifying the scope of its reconnaissance capabilities (e.g., acoustic, electromagnetic, or bathymetric data collection).

• Torpedo Targeting System: Determining whether the weapon’s configuration suggests offensive or defensive purposes.

• Navigation Logs: Reconstructing its deployment timeline, likely mission area, and points of origin.

The Navy also increases underwater surveillance west of San Diego, deploying additional assets such as unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) and acoustic sensor networks to detect further incursions.

USCG
The USCG maintains its public-facing role by continuing routine patrols in the area but quietly collaborates with the Navy to investigate whether similar devices have been deployed in U.S. coastal waters. Additional cutters are tasked with identifying anomalous surface activity, such as suspicious mother ships.

PLAN
The PLAN leadership initiates damage control. If the BWBUG was part of a covert operation:

• Operational Review: Determines how the device was lost and assesses whether other deployed BWBUGs are at risk of detection.

• Communication with PRC Leadership: Briefs Beijing on the situation and presents options, including potential deniability or escalation.

If additional BWBUGs are deployed near U.S. waters or other strategic areas, the PLAN considers withdrawing them to avoid further exposure.

PRC
China evaluates its strategic position and decides on its messaging strategy:

• Proactive Diplomacy: Internally debates issuing an ambiguous statement regarding maritime sovereignty or research activities, preempting U.S. disclosure.

• De-escalation Efforts: Weighs the risks of quietly withdrawing other assets and downplaying the situation versus doubling down on maritime assertiveness.

Privately, the PRC leadership pressures the PLAN to ensure that similar incidents do not occur, while intelligence agencies investigate how the BWBUG was recovered and what the U.S. likely knows about its capabilities.

Scenario Status:

• Tensions Increase: The confirmation of the BWBUG’s origin introduces a significant trust deficit in U.S.-China relations, even though the matter is not yet public.

• Operational Uncertainty: Both nations quietly adjust their military and intelligence postures to account for potential follow-up actions by the other.

Key Decisions for the Next Turn:

• USG: Does the U.S. confront China privately or continue to observe and collect intelligence?

• PLAN/PRC: Does China issue a statement, quietly redeploy assets, or ignore the situation to avoid signaling weakness?

• USN: Should the Navy prepare a public-facing contingency, such as showcasing the BWBUG as evidence of Chinese aggression?

• USCG: Will the Coast Guard expand its role in counter-UUV operations, given the potential threat to U.S. coastal security?

Let me know how you’d like to proceed or if you want to explore internal dynamics within any specific actor!

STRIKEPOD:
USN increases underwater surveillance west of San Diego and detects six contacts which are determined to be BWBUGS of similar design and dimensions, operating approximately 300 NM west of the city.

CHATGPT:
The detection of six additional Blended Wing Body Underwater Gliders (BWBUGs) of similar design and dimensions escalates the situation significantly. Each actor's priorities and next steps will now evolve based on the implications of this discovery.

USG
The USG convenes an urgent National Security Council (NSC) meeting to reassess the situation. Recognizing the scale of the deployment, the government views this as a potential breach of U.S. territorial waters or exclusive economic zone (EEZ), with implications for national security and sovereignty.

• Directive: The Secretary of State is instructed to draft a private démarche to Beijing, demanding an explanation for the BWBUG presence while emphasizing that such deployments are unacceptable.

• Contingency Planning: The NSC considers escalating the issue publicly if China fails to respond satisfactorily, while preparing measures to mitigate the diplomatic fallout.

USN
The Navy initiates Operation Silent Shield, a covert operation to neutralize the detected BWBUGs without escalating the situation publicly. The operation involves:

• Asset Deployment: Dispatching fast-attack submarines and UUVs to monitor, track, and potentially disable the BWBUGs.

• Signal Analysis: Analyzing the BWBUGs' acoustic and electromagnetic signatures to determine whether they are relaying data in real time to a mother ship or shore station.

• Data Interception: Attempting to intercept or jam the BWBUGs' communications to prevent intelligence leaks.

The USN also deploys additional surveillance assets to search for more BWBUGs or related vessels in the region, particularly a potential launch or recovery platform.

USCG
The USCG intensifies surface patrols in coordination with the Navy to prevent unauthorized vessels from approaching the BWBUG operating area. This includes:

• Issuing maritime safety broadcasts to commercial shipping, subtly redirecting traffic to avoid the zone without disclosing the nature of the threat.

• Offering logistical support to the Navy’s surveillance and interception efforts.

• Monitoring for signs of civilian vessels potentially involved in launching or servicing the BWBUGs.

PLAN
The PLAN interprets the U.S. Navy’s detection of multiple BWBUGs as a significant intelligence failure and initiates a crisis management response:

• Command Review: Determines whether the detected BWBUGs were part of an active surveillance mission, weapons test, or strategic deterrent.

• Operational Adjustments: Orders the immediate repositioning of any other BWBUGs or assets near U.S. waters to avoid further exposure.

• Strategic Monitoring: Instructs intelligence platforms (e.g., satellites, signals intercept vessels) to focus on U.S. naval movements west of San Diego.

The PLAN leadership debates whether to escalate militarily, such as shadowing U.S. forces in the region, or to maintain a low profile and await further U.S. actions.

PRC
The PRC leadership is briefed on the situation and takes steps to control the narrative:

• Internal Messaging: The Central Military Commission (CMC) classifies the incident as highly sensitive and restricts information flow to limit internal leaks.

• Diplomatic Stance: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs prepares ambiguous public statements emphasizing China’s peaceful intentions in maritime research, should the U.S. reveal the BWBUG detections.

• Decision Point: Beijing weighs whether to escalate by deploying additional assets to distract U.S. forces or to de-escalate by quietly withdrawing other covert operations near U.S. waters.

Scenario Implications:

• Strategic Escalation: The presence of multiple BWBUGs suggests a coordinated Chinese operation, likely aimed at surveillance or probing U.S. military readiness.

• U.S. Options: The U.S. must decide whether to publicize the detections, confront China diplomatically, or neutralize the BWBUGs covertly to avoid an overt confrontation.

Chinese Dilemma: Beijing faces a critical decision: admit involvement and risk diplomatic fallout, deny responsibility and risk U.S. retaliation, or attempt a covert recovery of the BWBUGs.

Key Decisions for the Next Turn:

• USG: Does the U.S. make the BWBUG presence public, or does it maintain secrecy to protect operational plans?

• USN: Will the Navy attempt to recover or disable the BWBUGs covertly, or allow them to continue operating for counterintelligence purposes?

• PLAN/PRC: Does China escalate by deploying assets to protect the BWBUGs or attempt to diplomatically defuse the situation?

What are the next steps? Let me know how you’d like to proceed!

STRIKEPOD:
Increased USN underwater surveillance of waters near Guam also detects several object determined to be similar BWBUGS, lying approximately 50 NM off the coast. PRC response to the private démarche is to indicate that the BWBUGs are operating in international waters, and therefore within the established framework of international maritime law.

CHATGPT:
The expansion of detected BWBUGs near Guam coupled with China's diplomatic response asserting their compliance with international law complicates the scenario further. Here's how the actors are likely to respond and adapt:

USG
The USG views the proximity of the BWBUGs to Guam, a critical U.S. military hub, as a potential threat. A coordinated interagency response is initiated to escalate pressure on China while avoiding an overt military confrontation.

Diplomatic Front:

• The U.S. State Department privately challenges China's legal framing, arguing that the deployment of armed BWBUGs with torpedoes in proximity to U.S. territories constitutes a provocative act.

• Allied nations in the Indo-Pacific are quietly briefed on the matter, with a focus on rallying diplomatic and military support.
  Strategic Messaging:

The White House prepares for potential public disclosure of the BWBUG presence, ensuring that the narrative frames China's actions as destabilizing while emphasizing U.S. restraint.

Military Options:

Authorizes the U.S. Navy to prepare for further recovery or neutralization operations near Guam, treating the BWBUGs as potential threats to national security.

USN
The Navy interprets the detection of BWBUGs near Guam as a significant escalation and shifts to an active operational posture.

• Surveillance and Interception:
  -Deploys additional P-8 Poseidon aircraft and Virginia-class submarines to monitor and track the BWBUGs, identifying their operational patterns.
  -Initiates covert interception of their communications, focusing on whether they are actively transmitting data or receiving orders from Chinese platforms.

• Neutralization Readiness: Deploys specialized unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) equipped with non-lethal disabling mechanisms to neutralize BWBUGs without provoking immediate military escalation.

• Force Projection: Conducts naval exercises near Guam to signal U.S. resolve and readiness to respond decisively to any hostile action.

USCG
The USCG increases patrols around Guam, supporting the Navy’s efforts while maintaining a public-facing mission of ensuring maritime safety.

• Jurisdictional Focus: Coordinates closely with the Navy to enforce exclusion zones around the detected BWBUGs, ensuring commercial and civilian vessels are not endangered.

• Regional Engagement: Engages with local authorities and Pacific island partners to address potential concerns over maritime security, emphasizing U.S. commitment to regional stability.

PLAN
The PLAN continues to assert control over the BWBUG operations while remaining defensive in public communications.

• Operational Adjustments:
  -Increases surveillance of U.S. naval activities near Guam to assess the risk of recovery or neutralization attempts against the BWBUGs.
  -Prepares contingency plans for recovering or deactivating BWBUGs covertly if the U.S. escalates.

• Strategic Messaging: Reframes the BWBUG deployments as lawful and routine, emphasizing their role in oceanographic research rather than surveillance or offensive operations.

• Escalation Preparedness: Deploys additional assets, such as surface vessels or submarines, to shadow U.S. naval activities in the region without directly engaging.

PRC
The PRC leadership balances the need to maintain a strong stance with avoiding unnecessary escalation.

• Diplomatic Pushback:
  -Publicly reinforces its position that the BWBUGs are operating within international waters and that U.S. objections are baseless.
  -Calls for international discussions to clarify the legality of unmanned systems in maritime zones, seeking to shift the narrative toward legal ambiguity.

• Internal Reassessments: Internally reviews the strategic value of the BWBUG deployments, considering whether their current use outweighs the risk of diplomatic and military pushback from the U.S. and allies.

• Regional Messaging: Engages with ASEAN nations and other stakeholders in the Indo-Pacific, portraying China as a responsible maritime actor while framing the U.S. as overly aggressive.

Scenario Dynamics:

• Strategic Implications:

• The presence of BWBUGs near Guam likely indicates a Chinese strategy to probe U.S. defensive capabilities while asserting their right to operate in international waters.

• The inclusion of torpedoes complicates the legal argument for their deployment, as they can be interpreted as offensive assets.

• U.S. Dilemma: The U.S. must decide whether to escalate by publicly exposing the BWBUGs and their armaments, potentially rallying international support, or to maintain secrecy to preserve operational security and counterintelligence advantages.

• Chinese Objectives: China appears focused on normalizing the use of advanced unmanned systems in contested regions, potentially setting a precedent for future deployments.

Key Questions for the Next Turn:

• USG: Does the U.S. choose to publicly reveal the BWBUGs near Guam, and if so, what is the framing of the announcement?

• USN: Will the Navy actively attempt to neutralize the BWBUGs near Guam, risking potential escalation?

• PLAN/PRC: How does China react if the U.S. escalates by neutralizing or recovering one or more BWBUGs near Guam?
  How would you like to proceed?

STRIKEPOD:
The White House chooses to publicly reveal the BWBUGs near Guam and San Diego. The President delivers a prime time address to the nation. What would s/he say?

CHATGPT:
I can help craft a general address focusing on national security, international law, and the protection of U.S. interests, avoiding any political persuasion. Here's an example of how such a speech could unfold:

PRIME TIME ADDRESS TO THE NATION

Opening: "My fellow Americans,
This evening, I am speaking to you about a matter of critical importance to our national security and the protection of our territorial integrity. In recent weeks, our armed forces have detected and investigated advanced unmanned systems operating in international waters near key areas of U.S. interest, including within 300 nautical miles of San Diego and 50 nautical miles of Guam, one of our most vital military and civilian hubs in the Indo-Pacific."

The Nature of the Threat: "These systems, known as Blended Wing Body Underwater Gliders, or BWBUGs, are highly advanced autonomous platforms equipped with sophisticated sensor arrays and weapon systems, including heavyweight torpedoes. Our analysis has determined that these devices are of Chinese origin. While these BWBUGs are operating in what is technically classified as international waters, their proximity to U.S. territory and their weaponized nature raise serious questions about their purpose and intent."

Legal and Strategic Implications: "The United States has long upheld the principles of international maritime law, including the rights and responsibilities of nations to operate freely in international waters. However, the deployment of armed unmanned systems near U.S. shores represents a provocative escalation and a challenge to established norms of maritime operations. These actions underscore the growing complexity of the security environment in both the Pacific and globally."

A Commitment to National Security: "Let me be clear: The United States will always act to safeguard our people, our allies, and our territories. We are closely monitoring this situation, working with our allies and partners, and taking all necessary steps to ensure the security of our homeland and the rules-based international order."

Diplomatic Response: "In light of these developments, I have directed our State Department to engage directly with Chinese leadership to seek clarification on the purpose and scope of these deployments. At the same time, we are consulting with our allies and partners across the Indo-Pacific to ensure a coordinated and measured response to this emerging challenge."

Closing: "As your President, I am committed to transparency and to keeping the American people informed about issues that affect our security and our way of life. The United States remains steadfast in our commitment to peace, stability, and the principles of freedom upon which this nation was founded. We will meet this moment with strength, unity, and resolve. Thank you, and may God bless the United States of America."

Would you like me to tailor any specific sections, or do you need a follow-up on potential international reactions or actions?

STRIKEPOD:
This is great. What is the PRC and PLAN response?

CHATGPT:
The People's Republic of China (PRC) and the People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) would respond with a mix of strategic messaging, operational adjustments, and careful calibration of their next moves to avoid losing face while avoiding outright escalation.

PRC

Public Messaging:

• Official Statement: The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) issues a statement denying any hostile intent behind the BWBUG deployments:
  "China has always adhered to international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The unmanned devices in question were conducting routine maritime research in international waters, consistent with China's rights as a responsible maritime nation."

• The PRC accuses the United States of overreacting: "The U.S. administration’s decision to sensationalize this matter is an attempt to divert attention from its own military activities in the South China Sea and other regions close to China’s territorial waters."
  Diplomatic Maneuvers:

• Engagement with Allies: The PRC leverages its influence over ASEAN and other regional partners to frame the U.S. disclosure as an aggressive overreach, arguing that unmanned systems are the future of maritime operations and should not be treated as inherently threatening.

• Calls for Dialogue: China calls for an international conference or discussions at the United Nations to address the governance of unmanned systems in international waters, seeking to delay further U.S. actions while portraying itself as a cooperative actor.

Internal Actions:

• Domestic Messaging: Chinese state media frames the U.S. response as an example of "hegemonic paranoia," asserting that the BWBUGs are civilian devices used for oceanographic research and maritime mapping. This narrative is reinforced to maintain domestic stability and support.

PLAN

Operational Adjustments:

• Repositioning of Assets:
  -PLAN leadership orders the withdrawal or deactivation of any BWBUGs operating near sensitive U.S. areas to avoid further detections or escalations.
  -Surface and subsurface assets in the Indo-Pacific are repositioned to monitor U.S. naval activity more closely while avoiding direct confrontation.

• Increased Surveillance: Intelligence assets (e.g., satellites, SIGINT platforms, submarines) are tasked with monitoring U.S. recovery operations of the BWBUGs, focusing on whether the U.S. is reverse-engineering the devices or using them for counterintelligence purposes.

• Stealthier Deployment Strategies: Future BWBUG deployments are reconsidered, with increased emphasis on stealth and operational security to avoid repeat exposures.

Strategic Messaging:

• Denial and Distraction:
  -The PLAN issues a carefully worded statement reaffirming China's adherence to peaceful maritime activities and claiming the BWBUGs were unarmed research tools, despite evidence to the contrary.
  -The PLAN shifts focus to criticize U.S. naval activities in the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait, seeking to pivot the narrative and rally domestic and regional support.

Contingency Planning:

• Preparation for Escalation:
  -PLAN assets are placed on heightened alert in regions where U.S. naval activity could threaten China's interests, such as the South China Sea and the East China Sea.
  -Additional BWBUGs may be tested or deployed in less sensitive regions to assert continued technological and strategic capabilities without direct confrontation.

• Coordination with PRC Leadership:
  -PLAN commanders consult with the Central Military Commission (CMC) on whether to escalate through diplomatic countermeasures (e.g., summoning the U.S. ambassador) or military posturing (e.g., naval exercises near U.S. allies).

Scenario Implications:

• Regional Dynamics: China’s emphasis on international law and maritime research could appeal to some nations, particularly those wary of U.S. dominance in the Indo-Pacific, but the presence of torpedoes undermines their argument.

• U.S.-China Relations: The public disclosure strains relations further, creating a new flashpoint in an already tense strategic environment.

• Technological Implications: Both sides likely accelerate unmanned system development and countermeasures, setting the stage for an arms race in autonomous maritime platforms.

Key Questions for the Next Turn:

• PRC/PLAN: Will China quietly withdraw similar BWBUGs globally or double down and deploy more to assert their right to operate?

• USG/USN: How will the U.S. leverage international support to isolate China over this incident, and will it escalate further through additional disclosures or military action?

• Allied Reactions: How do Indo-Pacific allies respond to the U.S. disclosure, and does this strengthen or weaken collective efforts to counter China's regional influence?

Let me know if you'd like to continue exploring one of these threads!

STRIKEPOD:
PRC and PLAN do not withdraw deployed BWBUGs, doubling down on claims that they are operating in international waters and in compliance with international law. In response, USG orders USN to employ non-kinetic measures against the BWBUGs operating off Guam, disrupting their operation but not disabling or destroying them.

CHATGPT:
With the PRC and PLAN refusing to withdraw their deployed BWBUGs and the United States Government (USG) opting for non-kinetic measures, tensions escalate in a calculated and restrained manner. Here's how the actors respond:

USG
The USG frames the use of non-kinetic measures as a necessary and proportionate response, emphasizing adherence to international norms while asserting the right to protect U.S. interests and territorial security.

Strategic Communication:

• A public statement is issued describing the measures as "temporary and reversible disruptions to mitigate potential threats from unmanned systems operating in sensitive areas."

• The U.S. reiterates that the BWBUGs’ weaponized capabilities justify a heightened security posture, even in international waters.
  Diplomatic Maneuvers:

• The State Department intensifies diplomatic pressure, briefing Indo-Pacific allies and international bodies about the deployment and U.S. response.

• The U.S. begins informal consultations with allied governments about the potential need for joint protocols to address the use of armed unmanned systems in international waters.

USN
The Navy executes non-kinetic operations against the BWBUGs near Guam, carefully balancing disruption with the need to avoid escalation.

• Electromagnetic Interference (EMI): Directed-energy systems and underwater jamming devices are deployed to disrupt the BWBUGs’ communications and navigation capabilities, rendering them unable to complete their missions effectively.

• Data Collection: While disrupting the BWBUGs, Navy assets gather extensive data on their design, operational parameters, and sensor capabilities, using the opportunity to refine countermeasures against future deployments.

• Operational Coordination: The USN expands its surveillance footprint, increasing patrols and deploying additional UUVs and maritime patrol aircraft to ensure that no further unmanned systems are deployed undetected.

PLAN
The PLAN interprets the U.S. actions as an aggressive attempt to assert technological dominance and responds by escalating its own operational posture.

• Operational Adaptations:
  -Orders deployed BWBUGs near Guam to switch to backup autonomous navigation and data storage systems, minimizing the impact of U.S. jamming.
  -Deploys PLAN surface and subsurface vessels closer to Guam to observe and shadow U.S. operations, framing this as a protective measure for their deployed systems.
  -Enhanced Deployments: Prepares additional unmanned platforms with improved jamming resistance and stealth capabilities for future missions in the region.

PRC
The PRC maintains its diplomatic narrative while quietly supporting PLAN countermeasures and exploring ways to counter U.S. actions without escalating into outright conflict.

• Public Narrative: The PRC issues a strongly worded statement condemning the U.S. actions as "irresponsible interference with lawful maritime activities," accusing the U.S. of setting a dangerous precedent for the use of force in international waters.

• Alliance Management: Beijing seeks to rally support among nonaligned nations, emphasizing the importance of protecting the freedom to operate unmanned systems in international waters under UNCLOS.

• Backchannel Communications: Through diplomatic backchannels, the PRC signals that further disruption of their systems may lead to reciprocal measures against U.S. unmanned platforms in contested areas like the South China Sea.

Scenario Dynamics:

• Technological Competition: The U.S. non-kinetic measures showcase a growing ability to counter unmanned systems, potentially deterring future deployments or prompting China to prioritize resilience in future designs.

• Strategic Ambiguity: Both nations avoid outright destruction of assets, maintaining a level of plausible deniability while sending clear signals of their respective red lines.

• International Law Debate: The incident highlights a legal gray area surrounding the deployment of armed unmanned systems in international waters, setting the stage for future multilateral discussions or confrontations.

Key Developments for Next Turn:

• USG/USN: Will the U.S. extend non-kinetic operations to BWBUGs near San Diego or other areas, potentially escalating the situation?

• PLAN/PRC: Does China risk a tit-for-tat response, targeting U.S. unmanned systems in the South China Sea or other contested areas?

• International Reactions: How do U.S. allies and regional partners respond to these developments, and does this strengthen or weaken their resolve to counter China?

Let me know how you’d like to proceed!

STRIKEPOD:
In your opinion, would the USG have elected to go public with the crisis? If no, would it have continued to engage in backchannel diplomacy, or escalate things in the undersea domain?

CHATGPT:
Whether the United States Government (USG) would have elected to go public with the crisis depends on its strategic objectives, the perceived level of threat, and the broader geopolitical environment. Here’s an analysis of why the USG might or might not choose public disclosure, and the likely alternative paths if it had remained private:

Reasons the USG Might Go Public:

Rallying International Support: Publicizing the BWBUG deployments would frame China as a violator of norms, rallying allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific and beyond to collectively oppose such actions.

• It reinforces U.S. leadership by openly addressing perceived threats and asserting a commitment to a rules-based international order.
  Strategic Transparency:

• Public disclosure signals strength and readiness to act, deterring further deployments by China.

• It positions the U.S. as the defender of territorial integrity and maritime norms, particularly near Guam, a vital military hub.
  Domestic Politics:

• A strong public stance could be politically advantageous, showing decisive action to protect U.S. interests.

Reasons the USG Might Not Go Public

• Operational Security: Revealing the detection and analysis of the BWBUGs could expose U.S. intelligence and surveillance capabilities, reducing their effectiveness in future operations.

• Keeping the crisis private allows the U.S. to maintain a counterintelligence advantage.

• Avoiding Escalation: Publicly accusing China might corner the PRC into doubling down on their claims or escalating, leading to a more destabilizing confrontation.
  -Backchannel diplomacy could address the issue quietly, reducing risks of escalation while leaving room for de-escalation.

• Preserving Strategic Ambiguity: By staying silent, the U.S. retains flexibility in responding to future deployments without committing to a particular public narrative.

If the USG Had Stayed Private

Backchannel Diplomacy: The USG would likely continue to engage China privately, leveraging the following tactics:

• Private Démarche: Conveying firm demands to withdraw the BWBUGs, supported by evidence of their armament and proximity to U.S. interests.
  Offering the PRC a face-saving way to reduce tensions, such as withdrawing the BWBUGs under the guise of "concluding a research mission."

• Building Allied Consensus: Quietly briefing allies and partners about the BWBUG deployments, securing their support for potential multilateral actions if China refuses to comply.

• Leveraging Economic and Diplomatic Tools: Signaling that continued deployments could lead to sanctions, restrictions on Chinese technology exports, or other non-military measures.

Escalation in the Undersea Domain: If diplomacy were insufficient, the USG might escalate covertly:

• Targeted Neutralization: Employing non-kinetic measures to disrupt the BWBUGs, ensuring their missions fail without triggering a public confrontation.
  If required, recovering a BWBUG covertly for further analysis.

• Expanded Surveillance: Deploying additional undersea and airborne assets to monitor for future deployments, ensuring real-time tracking of PRC unmanned systems.

• Operational Demonstrations: Conducting high-profile naval exercises near Guam or in the South China Sea to signal U.S. resolve without directly escalating the BWBUG situation.

Recommendation in this Scenario
In my opinion, staying private initially would likely have been the preferred course for the USG, particularly to preserve operational security and avoid forcing China into a public position that could escalate the conflict. The crisis could have been managed more effectively through a combination of backchannel diplomacy and covert escalation in the undersea domain.

If diplomacy failed and the deployments continued or expanded, the U.S. could then go public with the crisis as a second-tier option, using the disclosure to:

• Justify stronger actions (e.g., sanctions, military operations).

• Build an international coalition to pressure China.

STRIKEPOD:
In your opinion, would international law governing sea mines be applicable in this scenario?

CHATGPT:
International law governing sea mines might be applicable in this scenario, depending on how the BWBUGs are classified and interpreted under existing legal frameworks. Sea mines are a specific category of weapon regulated under international law, particularly the Hague Conventions and customary international law. While BWBUGs are advanced unmanned systems with both surveillance and weaponized capabilities, their use raises new legal questions about whether existing sea mine regulations apply.

1. How Sea Mines Are Regulated Under International Law

The Hague Conventions (1907)

• Restrictions on Use:
  -Sea mines must not be deployed indiscriminately or in ways that endanger neutral shipping.
  -Mines must be anchored or otherwise controlled to ensure they deactivate when no longer needed.
• Notification Requirement:
  -Nations deploying mines are required to notify other nations of their presence unless the mines are defensive and intended to protect territorial waters.

Customary International Law

• Mines are considered lawful in armed conflict under certain conditions, such as:
  -Protecting territorial sovereignty.
  -Denying access to adversaries during active hostilities.
• However, they must not:
  -Impede freedom of navigation in international waters during peacetime.
  -Remain a threat after hostilities cease (e.g., drifting mines).

2. Are BWBUGs Comparable to Sea Mines?

BWBUGs differ significantly from traditional mines in terms of capability, purpose, and operation, but their classification depends on their mission and how international law interprets their deployment.

Key Similarities to Sea Mines:

• Weaponized Nature:
  -The inclusion of heavyweight torpedoes suggests an offensive or defensive purpose akin to mines.
• Deployment Area:
  -Positioned near key territorial waters (e.g., Guam) in a manner that could deter or restrict naval movements.

Key Differences from Sea Mines:

• Mobility and Autonomy:
  -Unlike traditional mines, BWBUGs are mobile and can potentially reposition themselves, making them more akin to unmanned naval platforms than stationary mines.
• Dual-Use Functionality:
  -BWBUGs gather intelligence, adding a surveillance role that sea mines do not typically fulfill.
• No Indiscriminate Threat:
  -Sea mines pose an inherent threat to any vessel; BWBUGs would likely require targeting data and deliberate activation to engage.

3. Legal Implications in This Scenario

If the BWBUGs Are Classified as Sea Mines:

• Prohibited Use in International Waters:
  -Deploying armed BWBUGs in international waters near Guam could violate customary international law, particularly in peacetime.
• Obligation to Notify:
  -If BWBUGs are interpreted as mines, China would be obligated to notify other nations, failing which the deployment could be deemed unlawful.

If the BWBUGs Are Classified as Unmanned Naval Platforms:

• Emerging Legal Ambiguity:
  -Existing international laws, including those on mines, don’t fully address mobile, dual-use unmanned systems like BWBUGs.
  -Their classification might depend on whether they are actively targeting vessels or passively gathering intelligence.
• Potential Justifications:
  -China could argue that BWBUGs are lawful under the principle of freedom of navigation in international waters, akin to deploying ships or submarines.

4. Why This Matters

The legal framework governing sea mines might partially apply, but it highlights gaps in international law regarding autonomous, weaponized platforms in international waters. This scenario illustrates:

1. Legal Gray Zones:
   -International law hasn’t caught up to technology like BWBUGs, leading to disputes over interpretation and applicability.
2. Potential for Escalation:
   -If BWBUGs are classified as mines, their deployment near Guam could be framed as a violation of international law, justifying U.S. countermeasures.
3. Precedent Setting:
   -The way nations respond to BWBUG-like systems will likely shape future legal norms governing unmanned systems.

5. Next Steps for Legal Interpretation

1. Diplomatic Forum:
   -Nations could raise this issue at the United Nations or International Maritime Organization (IMO) to establish clearer guidelines.
2. Operational Definitions:
   -The U.S. could argue that BWBUGs are equivalent to weaponized mines, forcing China to justify their legality.
3. Bilateral Agreements:
   -Agreements between major powers might be needed to define the boundaries for deploying such systems in international waters.