 In 2010 NATO adopted the most recent version of its strategic concept. The document expressed a long-standing worry that terrorist attacks, which often rely on rudimentary weaponry, would be made that much more lethal if terrorists were to acquire nuclear, chemical, biological or radiological weaponry. Alongside this problem of proliferation, technological advance was also given the capabilities being developed by NATO's peer competitors. Laser weapons, electronic warfare and technologies that impede access to space, the strategic concept suggested, appear poised to have major global effects that will impact on NATO planning and operations. Such concerns have only grown in recent years. A 2017 report of the US Naval Institute suggested that NATO now faced the possibility of so-called hyperwar, a consequence of the growth of autonomous weapons systems such as drones and the military application of artificial intelligence, AI. These concerns alongside with planning for nuclear, net-centric, cyber and hybrid warfare were on top of NATO's ongoing preoccupations. To meet such challenges NATO has relied on the technological edge of its allies, most notably the US. However, as a 2018 report of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly pointed out, this is an advantage that might not last. Alongside cyber and AI, other emerging capabilities including hypersonic missiles and quantum technologies were now being developed by Russia and China. And China, the NATO Secretary General in a speech in September 2019 noted, had plans to be the world's leading power in AI by 2030. And there are new technologies coming downstream that have the potential to change the nature of warfare itself. The alliance together needs to share our understanding of these changes and work out together how we are going to respond. So NATO needs to understand the opportunities that new technology presents but also the risks that they present. What is NATO's response? NATO's leading allies place a premium on innovation in their defence sectors, working through state agencies and increasingly in partnership with the private sector. One example is the Defence Innovation Initiative launched in the UK in 2016. This is meant to supplement the UK's already advanced cyber capabilities through a focus on disruptive technologies such as hyper-reality training equipment, decoys, unmanned boats and biometric voice recognition. In a similar vein the French government in September 2018 launched a new Defence Innovation Agency, an initiative the German government announced it then intended to follow. It is the US however which has long held the position of NATO's most technologically sophisticated military power. For some 60 years the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency or DARPA has cultivated an innovation ecosystem embracing academic, corporate and government partners. DARPA has been responsible for path-breaking military initiatives such as laser and precision weapons systems and stealth technology. It has also contributed to the development of the internet and the global positioning system or GPS. Progress cannot however be taken for granted. The US National and Defence Strategy of 2018 noted that technological innovation alone was not enough. A reform of Pentagon bureaucracy was necessary in order to prioritize speed of delivery and so foster a continuous adaptation of the US military. As for NATO itself, it has encouraged allies to prioritize innovation through defence spending. The 2014 Defence Investment Pledge directs the allies to spend 20% of their defence budgets on major equipment and on research and development. NATO also provides a platform on which smaller allies can develop niche capabilities as Estonia has in cyber defence. Further through the efforts of agencies such as the Science and Technology Organization, NATO disseminates knowledge among allies and undertakes concrete projects, prototyping and testing technologies. It's incredibly important that NATO takes steps to maintain its technological edge, particularly in the face of huge increases in defence investment being made by countries such as China. So NATO has a very effective organization called the Science and Technology Organization headed by a British scientist and that brings together several thousand experts from all across the Alliance to look at issues such as artificial intelligence, drones, autonomous weapons systems, quantum technology and ensure that NATO as an alliance remains ahead of the curve on these important challenges. The suitably named Allied Command Transformation is meanwhile responsible for modernizing NATO's military structures, capabilities and doctrine through the application of innovation and technologies. Exercises are also important. Trident Juncture 2018, one of NATO's biggest exercises of the post-Code War period, saw some 20 experiments rolled out aimed at testing the application of AI on the battlefield. Finally, one should not forget NATO's own collective capabilities, many of which rely on advanced technologies, the Alliance's grown surveillance system, joint intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance, precision-guided munitions and ballistic missile defence to name but a few examples. NATO is not the only forum in which transnational defence technology cooperation occurs. The joint European Disruption Initiative, Jedi for instance brings together 15 EU member states with the express ambition of matching the breakthrough technologies of the US and China. But NATO is unique in its ability to harness such technologies to a strategy between nations, to figure out how technology and innovation is relevant to the current and future battlefield.