Science Fiction and the Sociotechnical Imaginaries of Future War

Science fiction shapes how military policymakers and the public envision future conflict through “sociotechnical imaginaries.” According to research published in Critical Studies on Security, these collectively held visions of technological futures—influenced by franchises like The Terminator and Iron Man—directly impact defense planning, the legitimacy of weapon systems, and the institutionalization of new military doctrines.

Why does science fiction influence military strategy?

Military establishments use science fiction to cultivate a “divergent thinking” mindset. According to Ryan and Finney (2021), reading the genre helps national security professionals anticipate how advanced technologies can be integrated with new organizational structures.

This isn’t theoretical. The U.S. Marines have studied science fiction to plan for future battlefield needs, according to a 2017 report by Pomerleau. Similarly, French President Emmanuel Macron has read sci-fi thrillers to prepare for future wars, as reported by Paccalin in 2023.

How do “sociotechnical imaginaries” shape the future of war?

Sociotechnical imaginaries are collectively held and institutionally stabilized visions of desirable futures, according to Sheila Jasanoff (2015a). These imaginaries provide the “background understandings” that determine whether a technology is viewed as legitimate or abhorrent.

In the context of modern warfare, these imaginaries often clash. L. Ruppert (2026) notes that some NATO members reference the Iron Man franchise to legitimize human enhancement. By doing so, they distance their goals from the “killer robot” imaginaries popularized by The Terminator.

This creates a divide in how technology is funded and deployed. When a vision becomes “institutionally stabilized,” it stops being a story and starts guiding the allocation of state resources.

What happens when pop culture clashes with policy?

Many policymakers rely on “synthetic experiences”—imagined worlds that shape their interpretation of real-world politics, according to Daniel and Musgrave (2017). However, these narratives can create dangerous misconceptions.

Tom F. A. Watts (2026b) argues that the Terminator franchise has led to a popular misperception regarding AI risk. Many believe the catastrophe of “Judgment Day” was caused solely by a malign superintelligence (Skynet). In reality, Watts points out that the responsibility lies with the human policymakers who designed, activated, and then abandoned the system.

How do US and Chinese visions of war differ?

Sociotechnical imaginaries aren’t universal; they vary by geopolitical region. Q. Zhang (2026) examined the Three-Body Problem and The Wandering Earth franchises to compare American and Chinese visions of future conflict.

While the specific narratives differ, Zhang found surprising similarities in how both superpowers imagine the intersection of technology and war. These shared imaginaries suggest that despite geopolitical competition, the “technological scripts” for future war are becoming globally synchronized.

Can Big Tech weaponize science fiction?

References to science fiction are not politically neutral. According to Ali Riza Taşkale, public figures often use the genre to justify power grabs or secure funding.

Elon Musk provided a clear example in January 2026 when he described the goal of SpaceX as making the Star Trek “Starfleet Academy” a reality. According to Tutton (2021), this type of “techno-optimism” builds public support for private space ventures and ensures continued government orders for companies like SpaceX.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a sociotechnical imaginary?
According to Sheila Jasanoff, it is a collectively held, publicly performed vision of a future made possible through science and technology that gains institutional support to shape policy.

Do militaries actually hire sci-fi writers?
Yes. According to reports from Paccalin (2023) and Pomerleau (2017), military establishments hire writers to help anticipate technological and geopolitical trends.

Why does the “Terminator” narrative matter for AI policy?
Tom F. A. Watts (2026b) argues it shifts focus away from human accountability and toward the “malign intelligence” of the machine, potentially obscuring the role of the policymakers who deploy the tech.