IMPROVE INTELLIGENCE AND WARNINGS CAPABILITY ON EXTREME AND GLOBAL CATASTROPHIC RISKS
Policy action 1: Set extreme and global catastrophic risks as an intelligence priority
Simple option: Add global catastrophic risk into national intelligence strategies and priorities (Source: original to this report – see further explanation)
Advanced option: Set legislation requiring intelligence communities to analyse and report on global catastrophic risk (Source: original to this report – see further explanation)
Further explanation – intelligence effort on global catastrophic risk
Whether through legislation or strategic guidance, global catastrophic risk should be acknowledged in policy documents as explicitly within the remit of the intelligence work. Intelligence agencies will not focus on these risks unless there is clear guidance from leadership.
For example, the US’s efforts at studying unidentified flying objects started in 2009 when then Democratic leader Harry Reid pushed to secure appropriation funding specifically for such a program. The Advanced Aerospace Threat Identification Program, which has led to recently published footage, started out as an intelligence community effort under the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s intelligence analysis arm. National security strategies and national intelligence strategies provide other opportunities to shape the mandate. In the US, global catastrophic risk could be added to the National Intelligence Priorities Framework (NIPF).
Policy action 2: Devote specific resourcing towards analysing and warning about existential threats and global catastrophes
Simple option: Develop a standing capability, such as an extreme global threats team, sitting within the central analytical agency to conduct all-source intelligence analysis on current and emerging risks (Source: original to this report – see further explanation)
Advanced option: Establish an intelligence mission around extreme global threats, with a mission manager that allocates the resources devoted to this mission, coordinates agencies around the topic and presents a central point of responsibility for policymakers (Source: original to this report – see further explanation)
Further explanation – intelligence capability
Intelligence communities are well-equipped to focus on better understanding global catastrophic risk and informing their decision-makers. Intelligence agencies are generally highly capable and well-resourced parts of government with experience in assessing complex and decentralised threats, especially from malicious groups.
However, intelligence communities are typically security-focused and deliver intelligence advice based on customer requirements, with political and military leaders as key customers. Naturally, the focus of intelligence communities tends towards national security, defence and foreign policy issues. Intelligence collection and analysis is targeted towards the most immediate or direct threats.
A dedicated intelligence capability towards extreme global risk, particularly global catastrophic risk, is needed, whether as a small team or as a larger whole-of-community mission. It would ensure that the long-term, uncertain, high unlikely or emerging risks are being investigated.
Policy action 3: Regularly publish intelligence products on issues relating to global catastrophic risk
Simple option: Produce regular assessments on national security aspects and implications of global catastrophic risks, such as extreme climate change, advanced artificial intelligence, engineered pandemics, near-earth objects, solar storms, speculative emerging technologies and geoengineering (Source: original to this report)
Advanced option: Develop a global risk register with a long-term (say, 20-plus years) outlook along with annual report to national leaders (Source: original to this report, based somewhat on the US National Intelligence Council’s Global Trends Report released every four years)
Policy action 4: Establish global catastrophic risk monitoring and warning system
Simple option: Establish warning and triggers within central intelligence analysis capability across a range of global catastrophic risks and conduct continuous surveillance and monitoring (Source: original to this report)
Advanced option: Establish a National Warning Office (Source: proposal suggested by Richard Clarke and RP Eddy – see further explanation)
Further explanation – national warnings office
Prompted by a series of several intelligence failures, such as the the Arab-Israeli War in 1973 and India’s nuclear test in 1974, Congress recommended the establishment of a National Intelligence Officer for Warning and a National Warning Staff. The Officer, as the intelligence community’s principal advisor on warnings, had a direct line to the White House. This position was disbanded in 2009. In their book ‘Warnings’, Richard Clarke and RP Eddy recommend that a Warnings Office be installed in the White House which focuses on possible catastrophes that are not being addressed in other parts of government. Strategic warning is an important capability for any intelligence community and might require specialist expertise, dedicated resourcing and non-traditional reporting lines.