Drawing on more than a decade of archival research in the US and UK, including in many never-before-used records, the book follows computerized systems' technological and legal history for aiming the big guns of battleships in the first half of the 20th century. The pioneering system was invented by two British civilians named Arthur Pollen and Harold Isherwood in the decade before 1914. At its heart was indisputably the most sophisticated analog computer of the day, decades ahead of its time, and one that contemporaries regarded as a form of artificial intelligence ("a machine that uses intelligence"). Rather than pay for their invention, however, the British Navy and then the US Navy pirated it. Then, when the inventors sued for patent infringement, the British and American governments invoked legal privileges to withhold evidence from plaintiffs on the grounds of national security secrecy.

In the United States, their lawsuits became entangled with high-level Anglo-American diplomacy during World War II and with the Manhattan Project. The arguments developed by the government in their case, which built on precedents stretching back to 19th-century Britain, helped to lay the groundwork for the nuclear-secrecy regime.

Analog Superpowers thus speaks to several major issues: the relationship between intellectual property and national security in the two most powerful liberal societies of the modern era, the impact of patent laws on defense innovation, the history of nuclear secrecy, and the transition from the Pax Britannica to the Pax Americana. With tensions between the US and China over computing technology and AI all over the news today, the book also offers a historical perspective on matters of intense contemporary relevance.

About the Speaker
Katherine C. Epstein is an associate professor of history at Rutgers University-Camden. She is the author of two books: Torpedo: Inventing the Military-Industrial Complex in the United States and Great Britain (Harvard University Press, 2014); and Analog Superpowers: How Twentieth-Century Technology Theft Built the National Security State (Chicago, 2024). Her research, supported by an ACLS Burkhardt fellowship and membership at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, examines the intersection of government secrecy, defense contracting, and intellectual property in the United States and Great Britain in the first half of the 20th century. Her work has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, American Purpose, and Liberties, among other publications.

Host
Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies

Cosponsor
Brooks Tech Policy Institute

Do acts of military insubordination affect states’ ability to prevent foreign aggression? Muhib Rahman, Cornell University, argues that military mutiny makes a state more vulnerable to international coercion. Mutinies help foreign adversaries differentiate weak targets from strong ones by “affecting” and “revealing” states’ war-fighting costs and resolve. They disrupt the military command structure and thus increase the costs of organizing well-coordinated defense against foreign threats.

Mutinies also act as an informative signal and reveal two sets of critical information. First, they make it public that the disruptions weakened command and control. Second, they expose deeper, systematic issues within the state apparatus that set the stage for the mutiny. As a strategic actor, the military is more likely to attempt a mutiny when it expects the government to be weaker and more amenable to making concessions. This strategic timing is informative for foreign adversaries, as it signals that the government’s resolve is low and allows them to distinguish weak targets from strong ones. The more severe the mutiny, the larger the effects. They have a greater effect on command structures and can draw significantly more international attention.

The author's quantitative analyses show that military mutinies (a) increase the likelihood that the state is targeted in a militarized interstate dispute, (b) decrease the likelihood of its resistance once the MID is initiated, and (c) more severe mutinies have stronger effects on state vulnerability to external coercion. The paper advances our understanding of how civil-military relations affect states’ external threat environment. It also underscores the dynamic role of private information in international conflict processes.

About the Speaker
Dr. Muhib Rahman is a Postdoctoral Associate at Cornell University, affiliated with the Department of Government and the Gender and Security Sector Lab. His research intersects international security, civil-military relations, and democratic governance. He examines how interstate crisis bargaining and defense cooperation affect government-military conflicts in domestic politics, focusing on elite defection and anti-government armed uprisings. He is also interested in understanding how civil-military relations influence states’ external threat environment and interstate conflict processes, especially in the Global South.

The Hayek Fund has supported Dr. Rahman’s work at the Institute for Humane Studies, the Marcus Foundation, the American Institute of Bangladesh Studies, and the Clements Center for National Security. His research has been published in journals such as Foreign Policy Analysis and International Interactions, and he is revising manuscripts for the Journal of Conflict Resolution and Security Studies. He holds an M.A. in Political Science from McGill University and a Ph.D. in Government from the University of Texas at Austin.

Host
Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies

From Local Voices to Global Impact: The Power of Civic Engagement in Peacebuilding

This lecture will examine the role of youth, women, and community-based movements in advancing peace and reconciliation, focusing on deliberative processes, alternative conflict resolution tools, and civic-led initiatives that have shaped global approaches to peacebuilding. Evidence demonstrates that peace agreements are 64 percent less likely to fail when civil society representatives participate. Participatory democracy in the form of civic forums, national dialogues, and community-based structures are at the center of several peace processes, including Northern Ireland, Colombia, and Guatemala.

The active participation of civic society in peacebuilding can lead to stronger decision-making as well as have a positive impact on the social fabric, fostering greater cooperation. What lessons can we learn? And how can greater inclusion levels from women, youth, and community-based movements advance the pillars of a positive peace?

About the Speaker
Emma DeSouza is a journalist, award-winning campaigner, peacebuilder, and civic innovation specialist. She is the Founder and Co-Facilitator of Northern Ireland’s Civic Initiative, Director of the Northern Ireland Emerging Leaders program with the National Committee on American Foreign Policy, and a consultant on peace processes and civic innovation. In 2020, DeSouza successfully delivered substantial changes to UK immigration law after a five-year court case to bring legislation in line with UK commitments to the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.

She established the first All-island Women’s Forum to work collectively in addressing women, peace, and security issues, acting as Chair and Facilitator of the Forum from 2021-23 before founding the Civic Initiative in 2023, a new participatory democracy structure that brings together a wide range of civic society organizations to create a space for deliberative dialogues on advancing and supporting peace, reconciliation, and wellbeing. Emma is a freelance journalist writing for the Guardian, Irish Times, Business Post, Byline Times, Irish News, Euronews, and several other publications, to mark the 25th anniversary of Northern Ireland's peace process, she hosted a limited podcast series on the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement titled 'Lost in Implementation'.

Host:
Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies, part of the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies

Does the intersection of targets’ sex, gender, and race shape public perceptions of legitimate drone warfare? Scholars argue that targets’ lived identities can bias public opinion for drone warfare, though they often conceptualize identity along a single axis—such as sex or race. Dr. Paul Lushenko, Dr. Shira Eini Pindyck, and Dr. Keith Carter tested this claim by fielding an original survey experiment among a representative sample of Americans, varying targets’ sex, gender, and race. They found that female targets performing masculine gender roles enhance public perceptions of legitimacy, suggesting that Americans interpret such targets as socially deviant. Regardless of targets’ sex, respondents perceive strikes against White—versus Black—targets as more legitimate, corroborating research on the perceived racialization of drones. Finally, they observed that Americans’ perceived gender shapes their attitudes toward drones. Americans who self-identify as feminine are more likely to view drone strikes as illegitimate. This new evidence offers important insights for US drone policy and strategy.

Speaker
Dr. Paul Lushenko is a Professorial Lecturer at The George Washington University and Senior Fellow at Cornell University's Tech Policy Institute and Institute of Politics and Global Affairs. His work lies at the intersection of emerging technologies, politics, and national security, and he also researches the implications of great power competition for regional and global order-building. Paul is the author and editor of three books, including Drones and Global Order: Implications of Remote Warfare for International Society (2022), The Legitimacy of Drone Warfare: Evaluating Public Perceptions (2024), and Afghanistan and International Relations (forthcoming). He has also written extensively on emerging technologies and war, publishing in academic journals, policy journals, and media outlets such as Security Studies, Foreign Affairs, and The Washington Post

Host:
Reppy Institute for Peace and Conflict Studies

Cohost:
Cornell Brooks School Tech Policy Institute

Cosponsor:
Gender and Security Sector Lab
Department of Government

The Fulbright U.S. Student Program supports U.S. citizens to study, conduct research in any field, or teach English in more than 150 countries. Students who wish to begin the program immediately after graduation are encouraged to start the process in their junior year. Recent graduates are welcome to apply through Cornell.

The Fulbright program at Cornell is administered by the Einaudi Center for International studies. Applicants are supported through all stages of the application and are encouraged to start early by contacting fulbright@einaudi.cornell.edu.

Register here. Can't attend? Contact fulbright@einaudi.cornell.edu.

The Amit Bhatia ’01 Global PhD Research Awards fund international fieldwork to help Cornell students complete their dissertations. Through a generous gift from Amit Bhatia, this funding opportunity annually supports at least six PhD students who have passed the A exam. Recipients hold the title of Amit Bhatia ’01 Global PhD Research Scholars. All disciplines and research topics are welcome. The award provides $10,000 to be used by the end of the sixth PhD year for international travel, living expenses, and research expenses. Applications are due March 7, 2025.

The Einaudi Dissertation Proposal Development Program supports 12 students over the course of a year to participate in seminars, workshops, and mentoring sessions and receive up to $5,000 for summer research. Applicants’ research projects must focus on global issues, but the proposed research setting may be international or domestic. In addition to six weeks of summer research, the program includes community-building and mentoring events. Applications are due by March 2, 2025.

Register here. Can't attend? Contact programs@einaudi.cornell.edu.

The recent U.S. election is likely to have significant impacts on immigration policy and practices. Based on experience with the previous Trump administration and standing efforts among Republicans in Congress, these changes may impact Cornell students, staff, and faculty. Join Cornell’s Migrations Program in a conversation about the current state of immigration policy.

This is a virtual-only meeting open to Cornell faculty, staff, and students. Registration is required.

Panelists

Shannon Gleeson, School of Industrial and Labor Relations and Brooks School of Public PolicyLaura Taylor, Director of International ServicesStephen Yale-Loehr, Cornell Law SchoolModerator

Wendy Wolford, Vice Provost for International Affairs and Robert A. and Ruth E. Polson Professor of Global Development in the College of Agriculture and Life SciencesHost and Sponsors

The Migrations Program, part of the Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies, builds upon the work of Migrations: A Global Grand Challenge to inform real-world policies and outcomes for populations that migrate.