“This is another scenario where it shows that EMS superiority is fundamental to winning the next operation. It starts and ends there.” – Ken Miller
In a recent episode of From the Crows’ Nest, host Ken Miller sat down with Bryan Clark from the Hudson Institute to discuss the findings of his latest report, Winning the Fight for Sense and Sense Making. This study, commissioned by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, delves into the critical challenges of developing non-kinetic capabilities and the urgent need for the US military to rethink how it operates in the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) domain.
The Challenge of Sense and Sense Making
Clark’s research underscores a glaring issue in modern warfare—adversaries like China and Russia have advanced their EMS capabilities at a pace that threatens US dominance. As Clark explains, “Most of our EW investments are focused on defense… We don’t really talk that much about how we would go on offense in the electromagnetic spectrum and in cyberspace.”
The report highlights the need for the US military to shift from a reactive posture to a proactive strategy that integrates non-kinetic operations, such as cyber and electronic warfare (EW), into broader force structure planning. “How do you get more companies to bear? How do you get a more diverse field of potential performers that give you more options as well as more throughput in terms of non-kinetic capabilities?” Clark asks.
A Campaign for EMS Superiority
At the heart of Clark’s recommendations is a push for a comprehensive counter-sensing and counter-sense making campaign. This approach focuses on disrupting adversaries’ ability to effectively target and coordinate their forces, making them second-guess their intelligence and reconnaissance capabilities.
One of the key takeaways from the report is the need for a deep and adaptable magazine of effects – capabilities that can be deployed in peacetime to create uncertainty for adversaries, forcing them to constantly reassess their operational assumptions. Clark describes this as “a back-and-forth between us and the Chinese via this set of non-kinetic capabilities where we generate some effects, we watch their reaction, and we learn from that.”
The Role of EW and HPM in Future Conflicts
The study emphasizes two critical non-kinetic technologies: electronic warfare (EW) and high-powered microwave (HPM) systems. These tools will be vital for executing large-scale deception operations, jamming adversary sensors and interfering with reconnaissance platforms.
“We want to increase their risk, increase their cost, and increase the time it takes them to operate, while decreasing it for ourselves,” Miller summarizes.
A particularly intriguing aspect of the report is how non-kinetic effects can be employed subtly to deter aggression without escalating to open conflict. “You’re showing them something they’re not going to want to necessarily be public… a lot of this is going to happen much more subtly and behind the scenes,” Miller notes.
The Missing Rungs on the Escalation Ladder
A major concern outlined in the report is the absence of clear intermediate steps in the escalation ladder between peacetime deterrence and full-scale conflict. Current US strategies often rely on kinetic options, but Clark argues that a more sophisticated use of EMS capabilities could provide policymakers with more flexible responses to emerging threats.
“Jamming and cyber tools can be very targeted to send a message directly to your opponent without being broadcast to the broader world and forcing them into an escalatory response,” Clark explains.
Bringing Private Industry into the Fight
A significant portion of the discussion centered around the need for DOD to tap into the innovation potential of private industry. Clark proposes the creation of a consortium where vetted private firms can develop and test non-kinetic capabilities in secure environments. “There are a lot of companies that are very smart on electromagnetic effects and cyber effects, but they’re not really incentivized to come into DoD because right now we pay for all this stuff on a time and materials basis,” he says.
By shifting to a model that rewards private companies for effective solutions, DOD could greatly expand its arsenal of cyber and EW tools. This would also address one of the most pressing challenges: workforce shortages. “If you have recruits with the right skills – coding, cyber warfare expertise, familiarity with uncrewed systems – they’re going to be in high demand elsewhere and we need to be competitive,” Miller points out.
Conclusion: A Long Road Ahead
The conversation between Miller and Clark highlights that while the US still has the technological edge, maintaining EMS superiority requires a fundamental shift in strategy. The Pentagon must move away from legacy procurement models and defensive postures toward an agile, offense-oriented approach to cyber and EW warfare.
The coming months will be crucial as Congress and the DOD begin to shape policy changes that will determine the trajectory of these efforts. As Clark notes, “If you’re waiting until wartime to figure this out, you’ve already lost.”
Start listening:
