Defense 4.

0: Internet of Things in Military

14
Serhat Burmaoglu, Ozcan Saritas, and Haydar Yalcin

14.1 Introduction

Scientific and Technological (S&T) developments have been influencing military

concepts and practice, particularly following the inception of the scientific revolution
in the late sixteenth century. This interaction has not always been one way. Defense
has traditionally been one of the key drivers of S&T advancements due to large
amount of funding it received particularly by national governments. A number of
technologies have been developed for defense, found their civilian applications, and
vice versa. Wherever the boost for change comes from, the nature of warfare has
changed radically both due to S&T advancements and changing socioeconomic and
geopolitical contexts. Despite of the barriers due to strict organizational culture,
armies have adapted themselves into changing characteristics of warfare through
new concepts and instruments. Examples can be found from the earlier Revolutions
in Military Affairs (Burmaoglu and Saritas 2017). A recent example is NATO’s
changing concepts to tackle with the recent hybrid wars, which is characterized by
the involvement of non-state actors in warfare.
Among S&T developments, recent advancements in Information and Communi-
cation Technologies (ICTs) bring enormous opportunities as well as challenges for
defense. One of the recent phenomena emerged with the rapid development of ICTs

S. Burmaoglu
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey
O. Saritas (*)
National Research University, Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia
e-mail: osaritas@hse.ru
H. Yalcin
Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey
Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey

# Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 303

D. Meissner et al. (eds.), Emerging Technologies for Economic Development,
Science, Technology and Innovation Studies,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04370-4_14
304 S. Burmaoglu et al.

is the Internet of Things (IoTs), which affects every aspect of life with a growing
number of devices communicating with each other. The number of connected
devices is expected to reach 50 billion connected devices by 2020, and the potential
market value is expected to be between $2.7 and $6.2 trillion per year by 2025
(Mantyika et al. 2013). While the possibilities introduced by the IoT have been
providing immense benefits, the increasing number of connections makes the system
ever more complex and vulnerable because of the difficulty of securing huge
networks. If one of the main platforms for warfare is going to be the cyberspace
and if the combatants of the future are going to be irregulars, then digitalization of
warfare and cyberterrorism can be considered as the logical paradigm of future
conflict (Rathmell 1997), which should be countered by authorities appropriately.
The aim of this chapter is to discuss how the IoTs will affect the military affairs
and to propose future scenarios for exploring alternative trajectories (Miles et al.
2016) while contributing to the existing literature on the opportunities and threats
brought by new and emerging technologies as well as changing nature of warfare.
Thus, the outline of the chapter is as follows. In the second section, digitalization and
IoT concepts are reviewed from multiple dimensions by considering their social,
technological, economic, environmental, political, and value/cultural (STEEPV)
aspects. Then in the third section, the relationships between defense and IoTs are
investigated with emerging opportunities and threats. In the fourth section, two
scenarios are presented. These predictable and possible scenarios portray alternative
roles the digitalization and IoTs can play in the future warfare. Finally, findings are
discussed, and future implications for research and policy are discussed in the fifth
section.

14.2 Digitalization and Internet of Things

The Internet of Things (IoTs) can be considered as an important enabler of the

information society by providing advanced services through interconnected physical
and virtual things, based on interoperable information and communication
technologies.1 The term was first coined by Ashton (2009):

the Internet has been almost completely dependent on people for its supply of information.
But in the future, things will be able to input data themselves. It will be as though a net is laid
over the physical world, linking up and processing the abundance of data generated by
“smart” things and ubiquitous sensors. This is expected to reveal patterns and make
everything from energy to logistics transparent and potentially open to real-time
optimization.

It is a new term, but not a new process. The precursor operations of IoT were
known as “pervasive computing,” “ubiquitous computing” (ubicomp), and “ambient
intelligence.” Ashton (2009), in his presentation at Procter & Gamble, recommended

1
http://handle.itu.int/11.1002/1000/11559-en?locatt¼format:pdf&auth
14 Defense 4.0: Internet of Things in Military 305

the use of RFID technology in the company’s supply chain application. This kind of
operations could not make progress until the early 1990s because of the high
investment costs of database storage technologies. Once the data storage
expenditures became cheaper, a new data storage model, namely, “cloud,” showed
up. The cloud system used from the 2000s enables IoT, because it provides an
infrastructure, which can replace a central server. It is still possible to access a file or
piece of information, which would normally be hosted by the central server, since
these bytes of information are “distributed” or “replicated” throughout the network.
This kind of applications enables new services like “distributed computing,” where
every device on the network is used as a potential node for storing information. The
IoTs is meant to move these technologies once step further to describe a network
between many and different types of devices.2
Buildings, cars, consumer products, and people then become information spaces
connecting with each other through “Radio Frequency Identification Tags” or
sensors and transmitting all kinds of data through this tags. By connecting the things,
the world has become an interface or a living organism that makes “real-time data
workflow of the connected things.” This organism gives a chance to make a smart
ecology in our everyday life. In order to profit the advantages of the real-time
information flows, we must learn how to make sense and use it. We must have an
ability to read data as “data” or “information,” not a noisy or unusable thing (Daim
et al. 2016). In other words, with the gadgets, sensors, and machines that track our
every move in the real world, it is possible to develop apps and infrastructures that
may learn and predict our actions and emotions. Cloud-based apps are the key to
using leveraged data. IoTs does not function without cloud-based applications to
interpret and transmit the data coming from all the stakeholders. The cloud enables
“turning information into action” via linked data. Cloud-based technologies and IoT
focus more on the functionality and the data, not the devices. In other words, IoT is
more about the data than the hardware that serves it. The hardware is just there to
serve the data to the user’s needs for all aspects of everyday life and thus enables
cheaper IT choices that connect everything with each other. Connected devices
could have their own connected channels. Dedicated channels could also serve as
a backbone for things (devices, etc.) to communicate in case of emergencies. That
way, one network can still stay up if the other one becomes overloaded or offline, for
instance, millions of people streaming a popular video will not bypass an emergency
call or alert.
Through the improvement of the information architecture, IoT technologies not
only improve everyday life of humans but also transform some of the key industries.
Examples are given in Table 14.1 with key changes and potential benefits provided
for the users.
A number of standards and protocols are needed to regulate the IoT systems and
ensure the secure operation of the IoT services. These are discussed in the next
session.

2
http://www.theinternetofthings.eu/what-is-the-internet-of-things
306 S. Burmaoglu et al.

Table 14.1 The internet of things: a transformational force

Industry Key change Potential benefits
Automotive Real-time driving behavior, traffic, Improved customer experience,
and and vehicle diagnostics reduced pollution, increased safety,
transportation and additional revenue streams
Healthcare Remote monitoring of staff and Improved employee productivity,
patients ability to locate and identify resource usage, and outcomes that
status of equipment result in efficiency gains and cost
savings
Manufacturing Quick response to fluctuations in Enhanced agility and flexibility and
demand; maximized operational reduced energy consumption and
efficiency, safety, and reliability, carbon footprint
using smart sensors and digital
control systems
Retail Stock-out prevention through Ability to predict consumer behavior
connected and intelligent supply and trends, using data from video
chains surveillance cameras, social media,
Internet, and mobile device usage
Supply chain Real-time tracking of parts and raw Reduced working capital
materials, which helps organizations requirements, improved efficiencies,
preempt problems, address demand and avoidance of disruptions in
fluctuations, and efficiently manage manufacturing
all stages of manufacturing
Infrastructure Smart lighting, water, power, fire, Environmental benefits and significant
cooling, alarms, and structural health cost savings with better utilization of
systems resources and preventive maintenance
of critical systems
Oil and gas Smart components Reduced operating costs and fuel
consumption
Insurance Innovative services such as pay-as- Significant cost savings for both
you-go insurance insurers and consumers
Utilities Smart grids and meters More responsive and reliable services;
significant cost savings for both
utilities and consumers resulting from
demand-based and dynamic pricing
features
Source: Ericsson, M2M Magazine 2013, Zebra Consulting/Forrester Research, IBM, McKinsey &
Co., Data Informed, ZDNet

14.2.1 Standards, Protocols, and Applications for the IoTs

Besides the standards and protocols set by the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IEFT), there are several other protocols which are also under discussion. For
instance, Message Queue Telemetry Transport (MQTT) is a lightweight publish/
subscribe messaging transport connectivity protocol. Developed by IBM, the proto-
col is integrated with the IBM WebSphere application server. Another IoT solution,
ZigBee (or XBee), is a set of application profiles for creating low-rate wireless mesh
networks which has been built upon the 802.15.4-2003 standard. DASH7 Alliance
operated at the 433 MHz frequency range. Among other uses, the system enables
14 Defense 4.0: Internet of Things in Military 307

tag-to-tag communications with a range up to 1 km. It is suitable, for instance, for

setting up friendly fire warning applications for soldiers. BACnet is used as a
communication protocol for Building, Automation and Control networks. BACnet
is essentially used in HVAC systems (heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning),
lighting control, and access control. It is also suitable for both in-house and outdoor
smart headquarter applications (Bandyopadhyay et al. 2013).
With the developments on ICTs, Bluetooth has become a key technology in
computing and product markets. It is a key for wearable products and plays an
important role enabling IoT through smartphones, smartwatches, and other wearable
technologies. There are also new developments about Bluetooth technology such as
Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) or Bluetooth Smart, which are designed not for file
transfer but more for small and real-time dataflows. It has a major advantage
certainly in a more personal device context over many competing technologies
given its widespread integration in smartphones and many other mobile devices. It
has a huge potential about smart applications and devices. ZigBee is another option
for IoT applications. Profiles that produce via ZigBee use the IEEE802.15.4 proto-
col. This is an industry standard for wireless networking technology operating at
2.4 GHz. The technology targets applications with relatively infrequent data
exchanges and at low data rates over a restricted area. This can be military head-
quarters and within a 100 m range or inside a building. ZigBee or RF4CE has some
significant advantages. It consumes low power and provides better security, robust-
ness, and scalability. With its high node counts, it takes the advantage of wireless
control and sensor networks, in particular with M2M and IoT applications (Ding
et al. 2009). Z-Wave is a low-power RF communication technology like BACnet . It
is preferable for microenvironmental automation for products such as light
controllers and sensors. It supports full mesh networks without the need for a
coordinator node and is very scalable, enabling control of up to 232 devices. In
other words, it makes an infrastructure for calm technology focusing on data which
focus on a broad mix of information.
Sigfox is an alternative wide-range technology. Its range falls between Wi-Fi and
cellular. The system uses the ISM bands to transmit data to and from connected
objects over a very narrow spectrum. These are free of charge and do not require
licensing. Sigfox uses an Ultra Narrow Band (UNB) technology. The system is
designed to handle low data transfer speeds from 10 to 1000 bits per second. It can be
used for real-time data gathering in areas which need small data transaction, such as
military headquarters. Similarly, LoRaWAN targets wide area network (WAN)
applications. It is designed for low-power WANs to support low-cost mobile secure
bi-directional communication, which is needed by the IoT systems, M2M, as well as
smart city and industrial applications.
Already deployed in tens of thousands of connected objects, the network offers a
robust, power-efficient, and scalable system that is able to communicate with
millions of battery-operated devices across areas of several square kilometers,
making it suitable for various M2M applications such as smart meters, patient
monitors, security devices, street/traffic lighting, and environmental sensors cur-
rently being rolled out in major cities especially across Europe. With these options
308 S. Burmaoglu et al.

there is a necessity for an information system architecture, which makes sense the
data for making decisions. Hadoop is one of the powerful options for this kind of
applications. Hadoop is “a framework that allows for the distributed processing of
large data sets across clusters of computers using simple programming models. It is
designed to scale up from single servers to thousands of machines, each offering
local computation and storage. Rather than relying on hardware to deliver high-
availability, the library itself is designed to detect and handle failures at the applica-
tion layer, so delivering a highly-available service on top of a cluster of computers,
each of which may be prone to failures.”3 It has a big potential in big data age such as
Ambari, which is “a web-based tool for provisioning, managing, and monitoring
Apache Hadoop clusters which includes support for Hadoop HDFS, Hadoop
MapReduce, Hive, HCatalog, HBase, ZooKeeper, Oozie, Pig and Sqoop. Ambari
also provides a dashboard for viewing cluster health such as heat maps and ability to
view MapReduce, Pig and Hive applications visually along with features to diagnose
their performance characteristics in a user-friendly manner.”4
With IoTs, a number of new technologies have been deployed as solutions. These
technologies can be seen in many areas, from the creation of data structures that
enable the continuous use of linked data to the next generation of database types.
Technologies made it possible to develop decision support mechanisms that enable
real-time data mining through machine learning. Some of these technologies with
examples for their customized use are as follows:

• Avro (a system for data serialization)

• Cassandra (a scalable multi-master database without single points of failure)
• Chukwa (a data collection system to manage large-scale distributed systems)
• Base (a scalable, distributed database, which supports structured data storage for
large tables)
• Hive (a data warehouse infrastructure to provide data summarization and ad hoc
querying)
• Mahout (a scalable data mining and machine learning library)
• Pig (a high-level dataflow language and execution framework for parallel
computation)
• Spark (a general and fast computing engine for Hadoop data)
• Tez (a generalized dataflow programming framework. It has been adopted by
Hive, Pig, and other frameworks in the Hadoop ecosystem as well as by other
commercial software, such as ETL tools)
• ZooKeeper (a high-performance coordination service for distributed
applications)5

3
http://hadoop.apache.org/
4
http://hadoop.apache.org/
5
http://hadoop.apache.org/
14 Defense 4.0: Internet of Things in Military 309

Hadoop is a an effective tool for managing large amounts of unstructured data.

However, it has also some shortcomings in terms of running applications on analyt-
ics, in particularly the ones which integrate unstructured and structured data.6
Conversely, SQL has a long and successful history of enabling heterogeneous data
sources to be accessed with almost identical calls.
Besides all socioeconomic and industrial benefits, IoT technologies pose a num-
ber of effects including individual level (changes skills) and organizational (changes
motivation and resources) and technological capabilities (access, concurrent user
licenses, data traffic). Another impact would be coming with changing business
styles and lifestyles. In other words, with the IoTs (and of course ubiquitous
computing), it is possible to manage the effects of events or phenomena around us
more easily. Objects have the potential to directly affect many areas in the ecosystem
of the Internet and connected devices, including the information system architecture
and indirectly the programming language used in software technology. Technologies
that allow working on top of structured data have triggered the development of new
applications that allow instant use and analysis of unstructured data with the IoTs.
The transition from using SQL to Hadoop is one of the most striking examples that
can be shown in this context. The modification of the information system architec-
ture, the software languages, and the database structures has also brought with it the
necessity of the connected world of synchronous data flow and use, which has a great
potential for the meaninglessness of the data which is not structured according to
predetermined procedures. This structure affects a lot of fields from education to
health, as well as defense at the forefront of the most affected areas. This technology
makes it easy to get to know about the context, and it makes it possible to internalize
the processes and make the service planning so much more convenient and
personalized. Unlike the “one size fits all” era, which leads to Henry Ford’s “Any
customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black,” in
today’s world personality and customized services have come to the forefront, and
convergence has come to foreground in every field. In parallel to this widespread and
customized use, the present resources used are reaching to the critical point. One of
the most striking examples of potential dangers is the limits of the Internet protocol.
It is evident that the number of IP deployed using the IPv4 infrastructure is likely to
increase in the near future and that the IPv4 table will soon be consumed. The most
basic necessity of starting to use the IPv6 table for this situation is growing
(IPv6 ¼ 3.4  1038 aka 340 trillion IPs).
Like every aspects of life, the IoTs has impacts for the defense industry too. There
are multidimensional impacts; some of these create new threats, whereas others
provide new opportunities for defense and military. These are discussed in the next
section.

6
https://internetofthingsagenda.techtarget.com/feature/Focus-on-wide-data-not-just-big-data-in-
analytics-systems
310 S. Burmaoglu et al.

14.3 Digitalization of War Theaters

Wars have always been in human life from the ancient times to the present.
Motivations, shapes, and sizes of wars have changed drastically over time
(Burmaoglu and Saritas 2017). An earlier definition from von Clausewitz (von
Clausewitz 1968) highlights some key components of a war such as “opponent,”
“violence,” and “will,” which refer to the “nature of war,” which is “an act of
violence to compel our opponent to fulfill our will” (p.2). Although the concept of
“violence” has remained the same, the “means” and “ends” of warfare have changed
dramatically in time. For instance, in a more recent definition, Kaldor (2010:272)
outlines the key characteristics of present wars: “War is an act of violence involving
two or more organized groups framed in political terms.” This definition indicates
the increasing number of actors involved in warfare.
From a transformative perspective, it is claimed that when the history of warfare
is analyzed, three generations can be distinguished (Lind et al. 1989; Hammes 2005).
First generation can be described as the “tactics of line and column,” and it reflects its
age with the calculation of number of barrels. Quantity was equal to power at that
time, and keeping the line meant maximizing the firepower. Second generation’s
distinction came with the usage of technology, mobilization, and power of indirect
fires (Artillery). The change of power from manpower to mass power differentiated
these first two generations. The third generation of warfare is characterized by
Blitzkrieg. In contrast to second generation’s technology-driven aspect, Lind et al.
(1989) state that the main motivation of the third generation was “ideas,” where
Germany’s superiority in tactics was considered as a superiority. Lind et al. (1989)
expressed this superiority from offensive and defensive viewpoints. From an offen-
sive viewpoint, this was as an “attack relied on infiltration to bypass and collapse the
enemy’s combat forces rather than seeking to close with and destroy them” (p.23).
On the other hand, the defensive viewpoint considered this superiority as “the
defense was in depth and often invited penetration, which set the enemy up for a
counterattack.” It is noteworthy that the distinctions between generations were made
based on the dominance of military concepts and technologies (Burmaoglu and
Saritas 2017).
The aforementioned generations are mainly concerned with the historical evolu-
tion of wars, but how about future? The changes and transformations observed today
are broader to include overall changes in society, technology, economy, environ-
ment, politics, and values (STEEPV). Although being criticized, the “fourth-genera-
tion warfare” suggested by Lind et al. (1989) and Hammes (2005) takes into account
these broader changes and considers warfare as a twilight zone—between war and
peace, between civilian and military, and between tactics and strategy.
Another interpretation of the transformations regarding today’s wars comes from
Umberto Eco. Narrated by Lucas (Lucas 2010), after two world wars and the Cold
War, by contrast, Eco believed war could no longer be defined with Clausewitzian
fashion, in terms of the straightforward linear vectors of force operating between
clearly defined rival centers of power. In contrast, Eco quoted that “power is no
longer monolithic and monocephalous: it is diffused, packeted, made of the
14 Defense 4.0: Internet of Things in Military 311

continuous agglomeration and breaking down of consensus.” War, based on Eco’s

interpretation, may be characterized more than “two opposing states.” There are a
number of proxy forces on the war theater as well as the controlling governments of
states versus their own internal, opposition parties and religious factions, the media,
and financial sector. This interpretation explains the war with an analogy as parallel
processing not serial computing. Finally, Eco states that war is no longer a simple
serial sequence of events but all sorts of events going on at once.
Another interpretation regarding the future of war comes from Hoffman (2006),
who considers warfare as a world of asymmetric and ethno-political phenomena,
where machetes and Microsoft merge with apocalyptic extremes wearing Reeboks
and Ray Bans dream of acquiring mass destruction. Moreover, these adversaries are
considered to be beyond low-tech. Opponents will be capable of undertaking
“advanced irregular warfare,” with access to encrypted command systems and
other modern lethal systems, such as man-portable air defense missiles. In these
structures, they will not need formal networks and will make use of cellular
structures with greater autonomy. In brief, what he proposed may be considered as
“complex irregular warfare,” which consists of organizations with distributed net-
work structures.
Irregular warfare is also termed as “asymmetric warfare” (Grange 2000), where
the opponent is not a nation and they have limited capabilities. Thus an asymmetry
emerged between the sides involved in the warfare. Arreguín-Toft (2001) considers
asymmetric warfare, as where the weak wins wars. Because of the involvement of
large number of forces with headquarters, bases, and troops and their distributed
organization, operations in asymmetric warfare demand increased communication
and coordination as well as greater demand for flexibility, mobility, and networking
of distributed forces.
Besides changing concepts, the evolution of technologies has also affected the
nature of warfare (Aydogdu et al. 2017). Evolution of military technology was
examined by van Creveld (2010) with four stages. The first period from 2000 BC
to 1500 AC emphasizes that most military technology utilized its energy from
muscles of men and animals. Second stage is covering from 1500 to 1830, and
this stage is called as “the age of the machines.” During this period, the military
operations were characterized by mobilization, coordination, and communication,
which raised the need for synchronization and energy dramatically (van Creveld
2010). Third stage is called as “the age of systems” and emphasizes the integration of
technology into complex networks. Moreover, using tanks, railways, and highways
and improving means of logistics made this stage more complex with increasing
integration. Hence, it became more important than before to supply energy to
military units and share the intelligence between units online at that time for
sustaining the on-going operations (Saritas and Burmaoglu 2016).
As of today, rapid technological progress and innovation have increased the
information intensity for running military units and making decisions as well as
carrying out missions and undertaking operations. Collection, processing, and syn-
thesis of this vast amount of information require higher level of “digitalization,”
“computerization,” and a “network structure.” Moreover, there is a greater demand
312 S. Burmaoglu et al.

Satellite ISR

Satellite ISR
Satellite
Communication

Info-C2 Layer C2 and

Info Systems Satellite GPS
Networking
IT
Effector Layer

Fig. 14.1 Network centric warfare demonstration (http://mil-embedded.com/articles/the-internet-

things-the-intelligence-community/ Access Date: 01.06.2016)g. Source: Author

for the seamless flow and diffusion of information and data between military forces
and other actors in war theater.
Combining the conceptual and technological transformations observed in war-
fare, it can be asserted that future wars may be characterized by involving non-state
actors, distributed and cellular type forms, asymmetric nature, and high-tech with the
help of information systems and power of social media. Recent years have seen the
emergence of the network-centric warfare concept. This concept was created with
the increasing need for command and coordination. Such a system constitutes an
information grid that connects the elements of all combat soldiers, weapons, military
equipment, and so on by utilizing computers, sensors, and wired/wireless networks.
In this concept the war power is increased by intelligence superiority through
information sharing and integration as connecting intelligence collection systems,
command and control system, and strike system (Yang et al. 2015).
Figure 14.1 demonstrated the layers of the network structure.
As can be seen in the figure, a central network body is constructed to get the data
from various sources and after analyzing the data transmit it to the theater based on
their levels. This layered structure of network becomes more complicated with
adding more and more data points. Traditional approaches to military doctrine
have been transformed by the network-centric warfare with expanding communica-
tion gateways connecting battlefield assets and headquarters and increasing data
sharing between legacy assets and new deployments.
14 Defense 4.0: Internet of Things in Military 313

An important application of network-centric warfare should be considered as

Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance, and
Reconnaissance (C4ISR) systems. The electronic understanding of war theater may
be exemplified by the Command, Control, Communication, Intelligence, and Elec-
tronic Warfare (C3IEW) concept, which was first introduced by the Defense Science
Board in the USA in the early 1990s and aimed to ensure interoperable and cost-
effective military systems for the Department of Defense. C4ISR is the improved
version of this concept with its first version issued in 1996, and the second version is
in 1998 (http://cecomhistorian.armylive.dodlive.mil/2013/03/11/history-of-c4isr/).
In network-centric concept, IoTs may find potential application areas some of
which have been applied. For example, IoT can be applied to surveillance and
reconnaissance systems, soldier combat uniform, medical services, logistics
services, precise guided munitions, combat platforms, and so on.
Credencys Solutions Inc. proposed that IoTs may help military with six ways.
These are (1) providing battlefield situational awareness, (2) proactive equipment
maintenance, (3) monitoring warfighter’s health, (4) remote training, (5) real-time
fleet management, and (6) efficient inventory management.7 From these six ways, it
can be asserted that intelligence, maintenance, logistics, fleet management, training,
and medical services are the potential sub-working areas for exploiting IoTs in
defense.
Meanwhile, it is clear that application of IoTs with today’s technology level may
cause important security threats such as illegal remote control, information leakage,
false information insert, and signal disturbance. As an issue of vulnerability,
cyberthreats have also become more common and sophisticated. Four areas concern
the security of the IoT environment for military including (1) making sure informa-
tion is reliable and systems are resilient, (2) keeping pace with technology, (3) focus-
ing on the insider threat, and (4) embracing (big and community) data analytics to
minimize cyberthreats (Daly 2016).
Besides vulnerability of information systems, according to retired Marine Corps
General James Cartwright (2015), culture is the most important obstacle for not
applying IoT in military. Based on his speech at CSIS institution, not only the culture
is an obstacle, but also “man-machine partnering” should be focused for
implementing IoT. Last statement should be considered as another discussion
point, because IoT is mostly designed for machine-to-machine communication;
however for war theater, man-machine interaction is another level to be achieved.
Man-unmanned teaming (MUM-T) project may be a special example for
man-machine interaction. Based on Colonel Eschenbach (2016)’s article in Army
Aviation Magazine, the history of this concept can be traced back to the World War
II with the designation of BQ-8 robots in B-17 Flying Fortresses for remote piloting.
Moreover, the concept gained importance in the last decade with controlling
AH-64D Apache and its payload utilizing an add-on system designated MUM-T2.

7
https://www.credencys.com/blog/internet-of-things-the-agent-of-change-for-the-defense-system/.
Access Date: 16.04.2016.
314 S. Burmaoglu et al.

According to Colonel Eschenbach, these unmanned systems can be used for situa-
tional awareness and enrooting air transportation forces. He envisioned that future
organizational force structure of Army Aviation has been shaped by MUM-T
advantages. Iriarte (2016) has been supporting Eschenbach’s ideas and narrated
the Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) usage interoperable with AH-64 Apache.
Based on her article, the future of this concept will be with increasing autonomy,
reducing workload, and manpower.
From the healthcare point of view, it can be seen that IoTs have the potential to
change the dynamic of healthcare itself. By networking different devices together on
the battlefield and in garrison, information sharing may be more convenient based on
the findings of Military Health System Communications Office (2015). Moreover,
automated alerts for medical staff are produced by theater mobile computing
applications which can increase the quality of medical decisions. These applications
should help improve the readiness of warfighters and perhaps increase their chances
of survivability. IoTs has potential for transformative change in human health. Using
connected devices and wearables, to continuously monitor patients as they live their
lives particularly those with chronic conditions like diabetes, it can improve patient
adherence to prescribed therapies (as procedures that already planned), avoid
hospitalizations (and post-hospitalization complications), and improve the quality
of life for hundreds of millions of patients. McKinsey report predicted this could
have an economic impact of $170 billion to $1.6 trillion per year in 2025.
Finally, it can be said that IoTs has many potential areas in defense sector, but the
obstacles are very hard to overcome in a short time. Hence, it can be interpreted that
the adoption and dissemination of IoT applications need various stages. In the next
section, alternative scenarios are presented to provide alternative narratives on the
context and adoption of IoTs in military.

14.4 Possible Future Scenarios for IoT in Military

As discussed in the previous section, IoT has many advantages and disadvantages
for military forces. However, it should be admitted that for some of the sub-military
fields such as reconnaissance and logistics, IoT applications will have a great
contribution. These contributions may also be called as force multipliers. In this
section, the future of war contexts and potential usage of IoTs in these contexts are
represented by using alternative scenario trajectories.
There is a consensus on the existing literature that future wars will be
characterized by their distributed, synchronous, and complex nature. The key
uncertainties are about the visibility of war theaters as well as their boundaries in
terms of where they begin and where they end. New technological developments,
which may be called as intelligent systems, work autonomously with varying
controlled and supervision degrees and collect information by sensing, communi-
cating, and collaborating each other in a war theater. They are enabled by machine
learning, perception, and reasoning. They can process information, undertake defen-
sive actions, and unleash a variety of effects on the adversary. These intelligent
14 Defense 4.0: Internet of Things in Military 315

systems would be used for carrying equipment, shielding troops, and sensing fields
at first. Hence they can be produced with different physical entities ranging from
insect-sized to mid-size and can move over the ground or air. However, especially
for the physical engagement at war, it should be a requirement to authorize humans
for asking responsibility. The physical entities and virtual counterparts would be the
other side of this environment. These virtual self-operating intelligent systems may
be called as “cyber robots.” They can protect C4ISR systems and energy grids and
warn and prevent about incoming cyber threats. Moreover, these systems should be
thought systemically, and all other physical or virtual entities should be considered
as parts of this big collaborative network. The battlefield of the future will be
populated by fewer humans. But these warriors will be physically and cognitively
augmented. They can interact with the autonomous intelligent systems by using
improved man-machine interaction algorithms.
However, from the human side, not only the interaction but also the visibility of
war theaters is an important issue. Disinformation and deception will be essential to
survive and operate on the battlefield of the future. The war theater of the future is
expected to feature a crowded and synchronous battlefield. However, physical
entities will play minor role and will be replaced by cyber entities, which will be
even more difficult to detect and track. Therefore, quantity and quality of informa-
tion and availability of communications, as well as rapid decision-making, will be
crucial. Conventional concepts and approaches would not work because of their
hierarchical structure of decision-making environment, which makes the process
slower and inefficient. In this new environment, decision-making will be distributed
as well as the structure of network. Hence, for future wars, military leadership and
the competencies of leaders would become more important than the present. They
can self-organize and collaborate within these dense networks with the aid of
human-machine teams. Within this context, it is considered that that the key scenario
variations would be defined by the different levels and types of human-machine
interaction. The main question here is to what extent human supervision should be
maintained? Two scenarios are proposed to consider the trajectories of “human-
supervised” and “autonomous” systems. The first scenario is more predictable
considering the current trends, where the second one, as a probable scenario, also
becomes more and more feasible as the speed of technological development
increases and leads to the real Defense 4.0.

14.4.1 Predictable Scenario: Human-Supervised War Environment

One of the key features of the changing nature of warfare is that the future wars will
take place in contexts, where it will be difficult to distinguish friends and enemy.
Instead of battlefields, future wars are expected to take place much closer to human
settlements and cities and, therefore, will become increasingly scattered in multiple
locations. In these cases, operations will increasingly involve UAVs and thus will be
more efficient with the engagement of smaller but more efficient security personnel.
Within this context, seamless connection, continuous data flow, and synchronization
316 S. Burmaoglu et al.

will be crucial. Armies in human-supervised war environment will set up centers to

manage military operations. As there is no need to set up such centers physically on
site, where the operations take place, they can be established in more secure sites in a
more flexible project-based structure instead of distributed and self-sufficient nodes.
What is important here is to provide continuous energy supply both for headquarters
and operational centers.
Besides energy supply, it is considered that cloud systems will play an important
role to enable and facilitate this process. Current cloud technologies are based on a
single centralized logic. It is currently a technological challenge to set up a more
scattered cloud system for distributed and different types of operations. During the
transition time, a hierarchical cloud system can be designed in-line with the
constraints of the operation sites. Thus, a war theater cloud system can be created
by considering the structure operation command.
At the individual level, the hierarchy in the military leaders will evolve from a
rigid hierarchy to a more functional hierarchy. This will enable a joint decision-
making among the military leaders and shared responsibility. However, it can be said
that the leaders, which are not involved and interact with the war environment, will
be less sympathetic and more relentless in decision-making. In the literature, this
situation is called the “trolley dilemma” (Foot 1967).
The trolley dilemma is an experiment applied in ethics. The general form of the
problem is the following:

There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are
five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are
standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley
will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the
side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the
main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one
person. Which is the most ethical choice? And other scenario is a trolley is hurtling down a
track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop the
train by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man
next to you—your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the
track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed? (Eagleman 2015:126–128)

For the first ethical scenario, most of the people are willing to pull the lever.
However, in the second one, no one wants to push a man over the bridge. Even if the
result is the same, personal interaction changes the behavior.
In order to overcome this problem, training programs should be designed and
implemented for the military leaders and users of weapon systems to make them
capable of developing empathy with the opponents and civilians. Virtual reality or
augmented reality systems are considered to be immensely useful for this purpose.
Consequently, it should be born in mind that challenges related to human-
supervised war environments will exist at all levels, from systems to individuals.
Therefore, both infrastructures, including energy, the ICT, and cloud systems, and
future military personnel and leaders should be developed considering the context
and requirements of this new context of warfare.
14 Defense 4.0: Internet of Things in Military 317

Overall, this scenario is considered as an initial phase toward the probable

scenario, “autonomous war environment,” which will be described in the next
section.

14.4.2 Probable Scenario: Autonomous War Environment

Autonomous war environment can be also called as a new machine era, where the
Defense 4.0 concept will reach its true meaning. In this context, operations, logistics,
and intelligence units will talk to each other and plan actions through artificial
intelligence devices and algorithms. Protocols for authority and responsibility must
be clearly defined in this system, particularly when intelligence is received and
operations activated. Not inferential-based but evidence-based operations should
be authorized. Among the biggest challenges for this scenario are continuous energy
supply, human-machine interaction limitations, and development of cloud comput-
ing and supervised artificial intelligence algorithms.
From the social and human point of view, this can also be considered as a
catastrophic scenario. Although there are a number of benefits, questions regarding
the reliability of systems and the possibility of losing their control create doubts
about the development of this capability.
At first, autonomous systems are expected to be used for the purposes of intelli-
gence and logistics. While cost reductions and efficiency increases will be observed
in logistics, systems like drone swarms will help to collect intelligence from a wider
range of geographical areas. The use of biomimetic colonies in operations within
built up areas will reduce the loss and damage of personnel and vehicles.
From the organizational point of view, information will be collected and
processed of undertaken in data centers. Therefore, it can be said that this scenario
also suggests a degree of centralization in decision-making. This will be particularly
observed in logistics and intelligence units. At the individual level, the processes of
human-machine interaction need to be well considered and planned during
operations.
An important aspect in autonomous war is the role of military leadership. New
generation military leaders should be equipped with virtual management and abstract
thinking skills. The assessment of information from autonomous devices and devel-
oping an operation plan through human-operated systems require new capabilities
beyond conventional defense leadership perspectives.
Overall, access to information and cloud systems, accessibility and synchroniza-
tion, and assessment and decision-making will be among the key characteristics of
this scenario. Without doubt, energy supply will play a crucial role for the seamless
operation of the autonomous systems.
318 S. Burmaoglu et al.

14.5 Conclusions and Discussion

Digitalization and its exploitation may have many facets. One of them is the use of
sensors and sensor technologies. Sensors are increasingly becoming an important
part of our daily life and are used for acquiring online data from technological or
biologic subjects that take part in the war theater. In peace times they are used for
training troops, optimizing weapons, vehicles or maintenance systems, and so
on. The other crucial technology is social media. It is mostly used for human
intelligence. One of the successful examples of using social media is UCINET, a
social network analysis software, which was developed by Harvard scholars to find
Saddam Hussein. Finally, it can be briefly summarized that these technologies are
collecting data or gathering it, and after analysis in appropriate software, the results
are used even in intelligence, operations, logistics, or whatever else. However, using
IoT in military is one-step forward. There are some similarities, but in the case of
IoT, sensors can talk to each other and can act according to their manufacturing
objective. In both scenarios, it can be asserted that the main challenge that military
authorities face is energy. After solving energy sustainability, human-supervised war
environment may be activated easily, because on-going operations will be strength-
ened by benefiting technological capabilities. However, autonomous war environ-
ment is one-step forward from human-supervised war environment.
Both scenarios will have same bottlenecks as ethics and social acceptance. Even
these developments may reveal benefit for community; they may eventually destroy
privacy and freedom of choice. For instance, continuous surveillance of the society
online and offline reminds George Orwell’s world-famous novel 1984 which may
raise concerns about “privacy.” A fine balance will still be required when collecting
information for intelligence while caring for the private lives of citizens, especially
in autonomous war environment.

Acknowledgments The contributions by Professor Ozcan Saritas in this study were prepared
within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher
School of Economics and supported within the framework of the subsidy by the Russian Academic
Excellence Project ‘5-100’. The contributions by Asst. Professor Haydar Yalcin in this study was
supported by Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey Postdoctoral Research
Programme (TUBITAK BIDEP 2219) [1059B191700840].

References
Arreguín-Toft I (2001) How the weak win wars: a theory of asymmetric conflict. Int Secur 26
(1):93–128
Ashton K (2009) That ‘internet of things’ thing. RFiD J 22(7):97–114
Aydogdu A, Burmaoglu S, Saritas O, Cakir S (2017) A nanotechnology roadmapping study for the
Turkish defense industry. Foresight 19(4):354–375. https://doi.org/10.1108/FS-06-2017-0020
Bandyopadhyay S, Balamuralidhar P, Pal A (2013) Interoperation among IoT standards. J ICT
Stand 1(2):253–270
14 Defense 4.0: Internet of Things in Military 319

Burmaoglu S, Saritas O (2017) Changing characteristics of warfare and the future of Military R&D.
Technol Forecast Soc Change 116:151–161
Cartwright J (2015.) www.defensesystems.com/articles/2015/11/12/internet-of-thing-dod-
cartwright-csis.aspx. Accessed 18 Mar 2016
Daim TU, Chiavetta D, Porter AL, Saritas O (eds) (2016) Anticipating future innovation pathways
through large data analysis. Springer, Berlin
Daly M (2016.) http://www.darkreading.com/mobile/internet-of-things-4-security-tips-from-the-
military/a/d-id/1297546. Accessed 18 Mar 2016
Ding C, Wu X, Lv Z (2009) Design and implementation of the Zigbee-based body sensor network
system. In: WiCom’09, 5th International Conference on Wireless Communications, Networking
and Mobile Computing. IEEE, pp 1–4
Eagleman D (2015) The brain: the story of you. Pantheon Books, New York
Foot P (1967) The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. Oxf Rev 5:1. http://pitt.
edu/~mthompso/readings/foot.pdf. Accessed 09 Jun 2017
Grange DL (2000) Asymmetric warfare: old method, new concern. Natl Strategy Forum Rev.
Winter
Hammes TX (2005) War evolves into the fourth generation. Contemp Secur Policy 26(2):189–221
Health System Communication Office (2015.) http://science.dodlive.mil/2015/07/19/defense-
officials-use-internet-of-things-to-monitor-health/. Accessed 18 Mar 2016
Hoffman FG (2006) Complex irregular warfare: the next revolution in military affairs. Orbis
50:395–411
Iriarte M (2016) MUM-T operations on the US Army’s UAS roadmap. Military Embedded
Systems. http://mil-embedded.com/articles/mum-t-armys-uas-roadmap/. Accessed 08 Jun 2016
Kaldor M (2010) Inconclusive wars: is Clausewitz still relevant in these global times? Glob Policy 1
(3):271–281
Lind W, Nightengale K, Schmitt J, Sutton J, Wilson GI (1989) The changing face of war: into the
fourth generation. Marine Corps Gazette, October 22–26
Lucas GR Jr (2010) Postmodern war. J Milit Ethics 9(4):289–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15027570.2010.536399
Mantyika J, Chui M, Dobbs R, Bisson P, Marrs A (2013) Disruptive technologies: advances that
will transform life, business, and the global economy. McKinsey Global Institute Report, May
Miles I, Saritas O, Sokolov A (2016) Foresight for science, technology and innovation. Springer,
Berlin
Rathmell A (1997) Cyber-terrorism: the shape of future conflict? RUSI J 142(5):40–45
Saritas O, Burmaoglu S (2016) Future of sustainable military operations under emerging energy and
security considerations. Technol Forecast Soc Change 102:331–343
Van Creveld M (2010) Technology and war: from 2000 BC to the present. Simon and Schuster
von Clausewitz GC (1968) On war, translated by Colonel JJ Graham. Routledge & Kegan Paul,
London
von Eschenbach T (2016) Unmanned aircraft systems-manned-unmanned teaming. http://
armyaviationmagazine.com/index.php/archive/not-so-current/589-unmanned-aircraft-systems-
manned-unmanned-teaming. Accessed 08 Jun 2016
Yang JS, Lee HJ, Park MW, Eom JH (2015) Security threats on National Defense ICT based on
IoT. Adv Sci Technol Lett 97:94–98
320 S. Burmaoglu et al.

Serhat Burmaoglu is Associate Professor on Quantitative

Decision Making at Izmir Katip Celebi University and
Visiting Scholar in Science, Technology and Innovation
Policy Studies, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute
of Technology. His research interest is investigating the
relationship between economic growth, productivity, com-
petitiveness, innovation and knowledge economy in macro-
economic level by using multivariate statistical analysis and
data mining applications for extracting usable patterns to
direct technology policy. Dr. Burmaoglu performs
bibliometric and patent analyses on emerging technology to
prepare scenario-based foresight studies. He published many
book chapters and articles in different national and interna-
tional journals.

Ozcan Saritas is Professor of Innovation and Strategy at

the HSE and editor-in-chief of “Foresight”—the journal of
future studies, strategic thinking and policy. He worked as
Senior Research Fellow at the Manchester Institute of
Innovation Research, The University of Manchester. His
research focuses on innovation and policy research with
particular emphasis on socio-economic and technological
Foresight. With a PhD from the “Foresight and Prospective
Studies Program,” he introduced the “Systemic Foresight
Methodology”, and has produced a number of publications
on the topic. Dr. Saritas has extensive work experience with
the international organizations, including the United Nations,
OECD, and the European Commission. He has been
involved in large scale national, multinational and corporate
research and consultancy projects on sectors including
energy, climate change, agriculture, food, water, transporta-
tion, and ICT among others; published a number of articles in
respected journals; and have delivered keynote speeches in
more than 50 countries across the world. Besides his research
and publication activities, he designs and delivers academic
and executive education courses on Foresight and Strategic
Planning. He has recently co-authored a book, entitled
“Foresight for Science, Technology and Innovation”
published by Springer, which has become one of the key
readings in the field.

Haydar Yalcin is Assistant Professor on Information Man-

agement and Technology. His research interest is measuring
scientific productivity using big data methods and data
mining applications for extracting usable patterns to direct
information and technology policy. Dr. Yalcin performs
scientometric analysis, bibliometric and social network anal-
ysis on emerging technologies to prepare scenario-based
foresight studies. He published many articles and book
chapters in different national and international journals.