In a bold preview of future war planning, U.S. Army leaders say Europe would face a blistering tempo of assault that could involve up to 1,500 targets in a single day.

The assessment reflects lessons drawn from the ongoing Russia and Ukraine conflict and signals a shift toward speed and automation in how battles are fought.

The insights came during Dynamic Front 26, a multinational exercise that tests how U.S. and NATO forces coordinate long range fires in a high intensity conflict.

“We need to be able to intercept, defeat 600 to 1,200 ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and long-range one-way attack drones every 24-hour period,” said Brig. Gen. Steven Carpenter, the commanding general of Multidomain Command Europe. Those numbers, he said, reflect the scale of attacks seen in Ukraine.

Here's What They're Not Telling You About Your Retirement

At the same time, we need to be able to develop, maintain custody, and pass a minimum of 1,500 targets during that same 24-hour period, he added. That number, according to Carpenter, is intended to assert dominance instead of simply meeting the capabilities of enemy forces.

In practical terms, this means the Army must continuously track a target from detection to strike, making sure it is not lost or misidentified as information moves between headquarters and firing units.

Because any large war in Europe would involve multiple nations operating different systems, Dynamic Front also focused on ensuring that sensors from one country could feed data to shooters from another without delay.

“We want to build a capability within the United States, within NATO, that if a peer adversary decides to aggress into NATO territory, or the territory of another ally or the United States, that the repercussions will be so extreme, create an experience for them that is so unrelenting, that no nation ever considers doing that again,” he said.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

For soldiers working inside command posts, that scale would mean sorting through streams of incoming data under tight timelines. Army leaders said the volume cannot be managed by humans alone and requires more reliance on automation.

“If we’re looking at a target set in the European theater where we think we’re going to need to process upwards of 1,500 targets a day, that’s beyond the human scope. The answer to the equation there is AI and automation,” he said.

Kateryna Bondar, a fellow with the Wadhwani AI Center at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who studies the war in Ukraine, said the shift toward automation is less about replacing soldiers than reducing the mental strain of modern targeting. “AI would help reduce their cognitive load,” she said, adding, “you don’t need to manually track 600 objects on one screen.”

She also said that artificial intelligence can speed up what militaries call the “kill chain,” which is the process from identifying a target to striking it, while still leaving the final decision-making to a human. “For now, nobody is talking about delegating decision-making to AI,” she said, calling the automation “assistance to people,” as opposed to a process that ends in “delegating decisions to software.”

As the doctrine shifts toward faster, smarter defense, the argument gains traction across party lines in Washington. Supporters say the emphasis on automation does not undermine human judgment but frees soldiers to focus on critical decisions at decisive moments. They frame it as a pragmatic response to an era of overwhelming data and increasingly complex battle networks.

This perspective aligns with calls for a stronger, tech-minded American military posture that many associated with President Trump have championed. The logic is simple: if adversaries must contend with a layered, automated, and interoperable alliance, the deterrent effect grows sharper and the speed of response becomes lethal.

It is a philosophy that places American leadership at the center of a new era of conflict where decision speed matters almost as much as the decision itself.

The practical takeaway for decision makers is clear. To deter and, if necessary, defeat aggression, the United States and its allies must develop capabilities that operate well beyond human processing limits.

The aim is not to replace men and women in uniform, but to empower them with tools that lessen mental fatigue while maintaining human oversight where it matters most.

Ultimately, the argument rests on a straightforward premise: speed, precision, and resilience in a complex theater require a modern force structure. The push for AI and automation is presented as a force multiplier that keeps up with a battlefield that is now swarming with sensors, data, and rapidly moving targets.

In the end, the soldiers and strategists behind Dynamic Front 26 say the goal is not merely to build a capable army, but to build an unbeatable one. They insist that the plan will deliver a deterrent that is so overwhelming, any aggressor will think twice before crossing into NATO territory.

And they argue that the latest tools, guided by human judgment, will keep America’s promise of security for its allies and its own people.

Warning: Account balances and purchasing power no longer tell the same story. Know in 2 minutes if your retirement is working for you.