Scenario 14Prominent

AI Arms Race

Geopolitical Fragmentation

Also known as AI Cold War · Great Power AI Competition · Splinternet + AI

Competition between major powers to achieve AI dominance drives a military, economic, and technological arms race that fragments global governance and increases conflict risk.

Type
Dystopian
Time horizon
Near-term
Human position
Passive
Framing
Pessimistic

Not a prediction. A scenario appearing in this atlas means it has been seriously imagined - not that SuperFutures thinks it will happen, nor that we endorse it. Cultural visibility is a measure of how readily a future is pictured, not of how likely it is. How to read a scenario →

The race for AI supremacy between great powers will be the defining geopolitical dynamic, with risks of conflict, fragmentation, and subordination of safety to strategic advantage.

Central thesis

Overview

National security dominates AI development, leading to reduced cooperation, militarization of AI, and a global order fragmented into competing technological blocs.

Classification

Geographic concentration
United States, China, EU, Russia, India
Tags
  • security
  • governance
Scenario type (full)
Dystopian / Governance / Transition scenario
Human position
Dependent to subordinated; citizens mobilized for or subjected to strategic AI competition
Time horizon
Near to mid term (0–15 years); underway and intensifying
Discourse status
Mainstream; actively underway

Impacts

Mechanism
Geopolitical arms race: each major power accelerates AI for strategic advantage, reducing incentives for cooperation and safety.
Domain impacts
Labor & Income AI development prioritized for military; civilian effects secondary. Education STEM as national security priority; AI talent as strategic resource. Governance & Democracy International governance blocked by competition; bilateral or bloc-based agreements. War & Security Central: autonomous weapons, cyber warfare, AI-powered intelligence, accidental escalation risk. Inequality & Class Between nations: AI leaders prosper. Within: security spending diverts from public goods. Culture & Art Nationalism and techno-patriotism intensify; cross-cultural exchange restricted. Meaning & Purpose Citizens mobilized around national AI narratives. Family & Reproduction Indirect effects through military spending and potential conflict. Health & Longevity Military health advances; civilian innovation may slow from dual-use restrictions. Rights & Agency Curtailed in the name of national security. Environment Subordinated to competition; AI energy not constrained. Existential Survival Moderate to high: arms race dynamics increase conflict probability.

Discourse

Notes on critique

Framing AI as a race is self-fulfilling and dangerous; international cooperation is possible and necessary. US-China binary oversimplifies.

Pop culture

Cultural note

Moderate cultural footprint. The Cold War arms race narrative is deeply embedded in Western culture through decades of nuclear anxiety films and literature. AI arms race discourse maps directly onto this cultural template, which makes it intuitively compelling but may also import misleading Cold War assumptions (bipolar competition, mutually assured destruction) that may not apply to AI.

Notes on pop-culture references

Film: WarGames (1983), Dr. Strangelove (1964, nuclear arms race analogy), Eagle Eye (2008). TV: various military techno-thrillers. Literature: Tom Clancy-style techno-thrillers; P.W. Singer & August Cole, Ghost Fleet (2015); various military science fiction.

Acceptance

Key assumptions
Assumes great power competition is inevitable; assumes AI provides decisive strategic advantage; assumes cooperation cannot overcome distrust.
Primary audiences
Military strategists, defense policymakers, geopolitical analysts, intelligence communities

Personas

Persona 1
The Defense Strategist – Views AI through strategic competition and deterrence.
Persona 2
The Dual-Use Researcher – Builds AI for civilian and military use; navigates ethical ambiguity.
Hard-believer profile
Name & Age: Col. (Ret.) James Harrington, 58. Occupation: Senior fellow at a defense policy think tank; former military intelligence officer with three decades of service; advises Congressional committees on AI and national security. Location: Arlington, Virginia. Daily Life: Reads intelligence briefings and think tank publications at dawn. Testifies before Congressional committees. Writes classified and unclassified assessments of Chinese AI capabilities. Attends defense industry conferences. Briefs Pentagon officials on AI strategy. Watches AI capabilities announcements as military intelligence targets. Media Diet: RAND publications, CNAS reports, Foreign Affairs, War on the Rocks, classified briefings. Reads Kissinger and Allison as foundational. Watches WarGames with his grandchildren to explain what he does. Finds Silicon Valley AI discourse naively apolitical. Core Conviction: AI is the most consequential military technology since nuclear weapons. Whoever achieves AI superiority will dominate the 21st century. China understands this. Russia understands this. If the US does not win the AI race, the consequences for the free world will be catastrophic and irreversible. Safety is important, but strategic defeat is worse. Social Circle: Military officers, defense analysts, intelligence professionals, Congressional staffers. Respects AI researchers but finds them dangerously naive about geopolitics. Biggest Fear: That the US falls behind China in military AI capabilities due to regulatory overreach, ethical hand-wringing, and a failure of political will, leading to a shift in the global balance of power that cannot be reversed. Biggest Hope: That the US and its allies maintain decisive AI superiority, using it to deter conflict and preserve the liberal international order for another generation.

References

Notes on canonical texts

Kissinger, Schmidt & Huttenlocher, ‘The Age of AI’ (2021) Graham Allison, ‘Destined for War’ (2017) NSCAI reports

Notes on further references

Henry Kissinger, Eric Schmidt & Daniel Huttenlocher (2021), The Age of AI, Little, Brown. Graham Allison (2017), Destined for War, Houghton Mifflin. National Security Commission on AI (2021), Final Report. RAND Corporation.

A scene from this future

The Briefing

Washington, D.C., 2033

Colonel Davis reads the morning intelligence brief on a screen that will erase itself in thirty minutes. China has deployed a new autonomous maritime surveillance system in the South China Sea. The system can identify, track, and—Davis reads the word carefully—“engage” vessels without human authorization. The brief says the engagement capability is probably defensive. Probably. In the afternoon meeting, a civilian analyst presents a model showing that the U.S. is fourteen months behind China in autonomous targeting systems. Another analyst disputes the methodology. A third says the methodology doesn’t matter because the perception of a gap is strategically identical to an actual gap. Davis drives home through traffic that a Chinese-made navigation app is routing more efficiently than the American-made alternative, which strikes him as a metaphor he should not share at work. His wife asks how his day was. He says fine. His son is playing a war game on a tablet. The enemies in the game are robots. Davis watches for a moment and says nothing.

Last updated 22 August 2026