Civilization LeapResearch for the AGI era
CL-ACA-019 · International relations and strategic security

When AI enters interactions among states and alliances, how do speed, pre-authorization, perception, signals and adversaries’ responses change strategic stability?

Disciplinary inquiry | Intelligence races, deterrence, crisis stability and shared survival

All disciplines Cross-disciplinary scrutiny

Full manuscripts and versions

Author-authorized full-text publication. Downloads below are separately verified files; website summaries are not manuscript translations. Publication restrictions printed in older source manuscripts are superseded by the author’s release decision of 16 October 2026; the academic text itself is unchanged.

Chinese manuscript: V1.2.1. Previous register: V1.2.1. Version labels identify the source manuscript.

English files below are separately versioned manuscripts, not presumed translations of the newer Chinese edition.

Current submission or peer-review status is not established by these publication files. Historical preparation and routing records do not establish an active review.

DISCIPLINE-INTERNAL CHAIN

First pursue the question within this discipline

AI capability characteristics → adoption by state organizations, pre-authorization and alliance sharing → altered threat perception and decision speed → adversary responses and mutual expectations → deterrence, miscalculation, escalation or de-escalation → shared-security and shared-survival outcomes

THIS PAPER CAN ESTABLISH

What this work can establish

  • Established theories of security dilemmas, deterrence, crisis stability, alliances and organizational accidents, plus conditional AI mechanisms
  • Opposite outcomes must remain possible
THIS PAPER CANNOT ESTABLISH

What this work cannot establish on its own

  • Does not complete judgments of model safety, legal validity, political legitimacy, ecological capacity or civilization’s ultimate direction
BOUNDARY BREAK

Where the discipline reaches its limit

A technically reliable model ≠ a stable international system; a state’s local security choice ≠ shared security. AI may also reduce miscalculation rather than only intensify escalation.

NEXT DISCIPLINES

Who must take up the next responsibility for evidence

AI and computer science; political science; law; systems science; international law; ecology and infrastructure

CIVILIZATIONAL ASCENT

What the wider view reveals

Shared survival is a baseline strategic competition must not breach. It neither cancels national security interests nor implies a unified world authority.

M1—M8 · S/L/I/R

How this changes the Civilization Leap causal map

S = professional support; L = limits; I = interfaces; R = refutation or revision triggers. This is not a “list of proofs.”

M1 · I IM2 · S AGI changes threat perception, organization and conditions of interactionM3 · S/R Racing, pre-authorization and shorter verification windows may increase or reduce riskM4 · L Shared survival does not directly prescribe every state’s strategyM5 · S/L Guardrails, communication, verification, de-escalation and authorization structuresM6 · S/R Real research comparing human-only, different AI-assisted and automated arrangementsM7 · I Strategic stability is only one condition for civilizational lifeM8 · S/L Shared survival is a baseline, not civilization’s entire purpose
COMPETING EXPLANATIONS · REVISION

What alternative explanations remain? What findings would change this judgment?

An academic page does not endorse Civilization Leap. Professional evidence can support it, limit it, refute it or require upstream theory to be rewritten.

Alternative explanations

AI may improve situational awareness, communication, crisis detection and correction of miscalculations, enhancing strategic stability rather than only accelerating competition and escalation.

What to revise first if evidence does not support the account

Substantially narrow escalation claims if long-term evidence shows AI reducing miscalculation and stabilizing crisis control. Revise in the opposite direction if pre-authorization, speed and adversary responses intensify escalation.

What is still needed before practical application

National-security applications require validation of real strategic interactions, adversary responses, authorization chains, mechanisms of miscalculation and crisis communications.

REVISION GATE

What would change this work

The theory must update with conditions whenever stronger real-world evidence supports acceleration, restraint, non-use, guardrails or another direction.

Return to the real world

Bring this discipline’s conclusions back into organizations, institutions, resources and consequences across domains.

CL-ACA-022

Civilizational direction

Discuss direction, methods and goals openly after establishing the facts.

CL-ACA-023
Historical publication and routing record (superseded publication policy)

Historical baseline only; it does not describe current submission status or restrict this authorized release.

Publication and version information · not evidence of academic correctness

Private submission-control draft | not submitted

Historically evidenced state: PRIVATE AUTHOR-CONTROLLED DRAFT S0.1 — NOT SUBMITTED

Portal action: NO SUBMISSION EVIDENCED

Website publication mode: ABSTRACT_PLUS_CAUSAL_ROLE; EN submission draft PRIVATE

Publication and submission boundaries: Do not publish the S0.1 submission-control draft. The website publishes only academic summaries and causal positions.

Evidence date: 2026-08-28/29 Confidence in publication-state evidence: HIGH

Current version: V1.2.1

Exact state: DIRECT CANONICAL｜V1.2.1

View the nineteen-work Canonical Register

Translation scope

This is a translation of the existing public web page. A description of a work is not its full manuscript. Source publication and version labels describe the Chinese work; they do not claim an English full-text edition is available. Unavailable English texts and downloads are marked explicitly.