WASHINGTON — This week, the White House released a new science and technology strategy (PDF) that lays out a four‑level priority framework for military technology, spanning AI to quantum.
Titled the National Security Science & Technology Strategy, the 24‑page document adopts a balanced acquisition stance. It backs the Pentagon’s push for fast, low‑cost innovations—such as expendable drones—while insisting that costly, exquisite mega‑programs remain vital, even against relatively inexpensive threats.
“We will pursue optimal mixes of lower‑cost (and sometimes lower‑tech or attritable) platforms that can be fielded in greater numbers to complement a smaller fleet of sophisticated systems,” the strategy notes. This mirrors the classic “hi‑lo mix” concept from the 1970s, when the Air Force paired pricey F‑15s with numerous F‑16s.
Technology has evolved dramatically over the past half‑century, and the strategy reflects that shift. It places artificial intelligence front and center—a focus Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has publicly endorsed, aside from his reservations about Anthropic. Yet the document moves beyond mere AI hype, outlining four priority tiers: immediate, first‑order needs; second‑tier “critical” technologies; third‑tier “key enabling” technologies; and finally, “potentially transformative emerging” technologies to monitor over the long haul.
At the summit of the framework lie the three priority areas identified for U.S. battlefield dominance and power projection:
- undersea dominance, encompassing both submarine operations and anti‑submarine warfare;
- space, meaning the capability not only to detect but also to counter threats, spanning low Earth orbit to the Moon; and
- AI and autonomy, described as a rapidly evolving field that the strategy delineates less precisely than the other two, yet in past Pentagon usage has covered everything from strategic planning software to swarming drone swarms.
These three domains are already core components of the current arsenal, unlike the later‑mentioned potentially transformative emerging technologies. They are widely regarded as existing U.S. strengths, though each faces challenges from rivals, particularly China. A notable nuance: the strategy demands clear technological superiority in outer space and undersea, while seeking only a competitive advantage in AI and autonomy. (The NSSTS links these priorities to last year’s National Security Strategy—a broader, less tech‑focused document. Although the 2025 NSS (PDF) references the three areas, it does so alongside other topics such as nuclear energy and lacks the explicit prioritization found in this dedicated science‑and‑technology strategy.)
Underpinning these three priorities are three additional areas deemed still critical: airpower, which the strategy regards as resting on stealth, electronic warfare, and anti‑air defenses; long‑range strike, defined as the capacity to breach an enemy’s layered defenses with speed and precision; and C5ISR—short for Command, Control, Communications, Computers, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance—essentially the force’s eyes, ears, brain, and nervous system. Significant overlap and synergy exist among them, given that long‑range strikes are typically flown by aircraft and guided by C5ISR.
At the foundation of the pyramid lies an extensive roster of key enabling technologies that underpin the higher‑priority areas. These include advanced manufacturing (such as 3D printing), hypersonics, nuclear energy, and semiconductors. While the main text highlights about a dozen of these enablers, an appendix updates the formal Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) list of Critical and Emerging Technologies (CETs) and spans three pages.
In a separate section on building technological resilience, the strategy examines potential game‑changers—technologies that, if breakthroughs occur, could upset the strategic balance and surprise the United States. It states, “The United States will cultivate long‑term technology resilience by taking the lead in potentially transformative emerging technologies, whose national‑security implications and timelines remain uncertain.”
Specifically highlighted in this category are biotechnology—especially for enhancing human performance and countering hostile biological weapons—and quantum technology, encompassing quantum computers, sensors, and communications. The third example is Artificial General Intelligence, a future AI form that could potentially surpass human cognition.