Wars are often initiated by leaders who believe victory is achievable. Historically, that confidence rested on industrial capacity, geography, and force structure. Today, it is increasingly shaped by data, algorithms, and access to advanced computational tools - perceived technological advantage can influence strategic judgement well before a conflict begins.
As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more embedded across Defence systems, including Electronic Warfare (EW), intelligence, surveillance, and targeting, decision makers may come to see computational superiority as a decisive advantage. In an increasingly contested Indo-Pacific, this perception alone could lower the threshold for confrontation. Technology, however, does not operate in a moral or legal vacuum. While Australia and its partners embed AI within clear ethical, legal, and governance frameworks, those norms are not universal. This asymmetry raises important questions about deterrence, escalation control, and accountability.
Australian Defence policy is anchored in adherence to international humanitarian law (IHL) and the rules based international order. These frameworks emphasise meaningful human control over lethal decisions and place responsibility squarely on human commanders and political leaders. Ethical principles already articulated in Australian Defence thinking, such as responsibility, reliability, and transparency are essential as AI becomes more operationally relevant. The challenge arises when potential adversaries do not share these constraints, instead prioritising speed, efficiency, and operational advantage over legal compliance.
Electronic warfare illustrates this dynamic clearly. Recent conflicts have demonstrated how central EW has become, and how rapidly it is being enhanced by AI and machine learning. The most significant change is not simply faster systems, but more precise ones. AI enabled EW platforms can classify signals in real time, identify patterns of behaviour, and distinguish between networks and devices with extraordinary accuracy.
For the Australian Defence Force, this changes the character of competition. Advantage increasingly lies not in generating the most power, but in applying disruption selectively, at the right moment, against the right system, for the right duration. AI intensifies this competition, and perceived computational superiority may begin to shape strategic calculations in ways comparable to air power or nuclear deterrence in earlier eras.
Yet automation does not remove human responsibility; it redistributes it. Strategic commanders who authorise operations, engineers who design systems, and ministers who approve capability deployment all retain accountability. Many AI systems remain opaque, producing outcomes that are difficult to explain or audit. When unintended consequences are attributed to system behaviour or technical malfunction, responsibility risks becoming diluted, potentially increasing the risk of miscalculation or unintended escalation.
Speed is another concern. While AI can compress decision timelines, delegating validation entirely to machines risks removing essential human judgement and contextual awareness. For a country like Australia, where legitimacy, alliance credibility, and escalation control are central to strategy, preserving meaningful human oversight is not a limitation. It is a strategic necessity.
The convergence of AI and electronic warfare represents a profound shift in how conflict may unfold in Australia’s region. Leaders who believe they possess superior AI capabilities may perceive conflict as more controllable or decisive. But technological advantage does not negate moral responsibility. Wars may increasingly be shaped by algorithms, yet they are still authorised by people and judged by their consequences. The enduring challenge for Australian Defence policy is to ensure that emerging technologies strengthen deterrence and stability without surrendering ethical judgement or legal accountability to machines.
This Thought Leadership was adapted from a technical essay that Sven submitted as part of the EW ANZ 2026 conference hosted by the Association of Old Crows in March 2026.