Warfare Continua

In his last post, “5GW: The Vertical and The Horizontal,” Arherring connected a consideration of vertical and horizontal activity with Dan tdaxp’s generational continuum as well as with the notions of kinetic and non-kinetic activity.  This represents an important framework, although I had more questions after reading Arherring’s post than I had before.  I commented,

Your post caught me a little off-guard, in statements like

It stands to reason that a 5GW attack with a lower “G” generally requires a smaller more simple organization, even shrinking down to the size of an individual with a goal.

Dan has postulated a generational trend toward a higher “G”, 5GW is at the future end of it, but here you have postulated 5GW effectors working at the past end of it, or primarily kinetically. This goes against all my previous thinking — any time kinetic force is used, forensics can trace the origin and thus ‘out’ the fighter — and so, although I think that much in the post is intriguing, something seems fundamentally ‘off’ for me.

After the above statement, you have considered the likelihood that these warriors are more likely to be detected, etc. I think that very likelihood is what will make any such activity quite dangerous for a nominal ‘5GW force’ — in fact, it would be one sign that the force is not next-generational. This is quite separate from the possibility that a 5GW force would utilize proxies whenever it wanted to ‘operate’ kinetically; if those forces are discovered to exist, as they would be, that would be part of the 5GW plan.

Interestingly, then, this kinetic-operation-through-proxy is ‘horizontal kinetic activity’ from the perspective of the 5GW organization — i.e., in describing what they are doing — although not from the perspective of those proxies or their targets.

I’m not sure that last statement is helpful; it could be too much blurring of these concepts, although I think that such a blurring might only be a way of naming one type of interaction between different continua (continuums).

There are really four dynamics at play, right?

1. The G continuum.  This is Dan tdaxp’s formulation: “It seems to be that ‘G’ measures the kinetic intensity of conflict, which every new G being approximately 20 times less intense than the one below it.”
   
2. The Horizontal - Vertical continuum: HV.  One might rightly ask whether this is a continuum or an absolute dichotomy; the difference will likely lie in where we draw the ‘cut-off’ between the state or organization and the individual.  Some trends in contemporary theory would postulate many different dynamics which affect this distinction: globalization; superempowerment of individuals; the decreasing significance of the state; even democratic and capitalistic forces.  (E.g., the Islamist attacks on American civilians — which are quite vertical — are said by Islamists to be symmetrical because America is a democracy:  the vertical actions of the state are also vertical actions of the citizens, using the State and its employees as a proxy.  In that formulation, even the horizontal activity of America’s citizens, which happens to greatly affect the composition of the State, have an ultimate vertical effect.)
   
3. The Non-Kinetic - Kinetic action continuum: K.  I am more likely to say that every action is kinetic.  Even speech and writing operate kinetically, by producing sounds and letters (or pixels).  However, this variable represents a value on a continuum; we can also postulate a distinction between actions that have a corresponding and immediate concrete reaction and those that do not.  E.g., if you drop bombs on a bridge, that bridge will immediately react by blowing up, but if you publish an essay, the written letters you are creating may not produce an immediate reaction.
   


4. The Closed Source - Open Source continuum: S.  Again, the distinction between these may appear indistinct or in fact they may appear to be a dichotomy rather than a continuum.  Using the example of the last election cycle in America, we might say that the State is a result of an open-source effort — so many individuals feed into the process — but also that the elections are a closed-sourced effort — only legal citizens of voting age, with legitimate forms of i.d. and a legitimate status could vote.  A group of terrorists might operate similarly, particularly if they are using coded methods of communication which only certain organizations, not only their own particular organization, can understand; e.g., not only a shared language but also specific web sites, code words, etc.  On the low end of the continuum, only a handful of people may have a common understanding and use it to operate in the world; but still, it’s conceivable that they would pool their information is a very limited ‘open source’ manner.
   

These dynamics interrelate, but I think we have only barely scratched the surface in trying to determine how they interrelate.

For instance, Dan’s G Continuum would seem to match up directly with the reverse of the K Continuum, but although in general this is accurate, I think we should view them as separate although relating continua.  E.g., on the whole a low-G war effort may seem to be high on the K Continuum — i.e., be much more kinetic — but we would be better served by considering individual activities on the K Continuum and then match up the percentages of those activities, in comparison to the percentage of non-kinetic activities, in any war effort and thus establish what Dan has called kinetic intensity. So a 5GW will have a low K intensity (K_i), but this does not mean that an individual operation cannot be high in the K Continuum; it’s just that the 5GW war effort on the whole will have far more non-kinetic activity.

The HV Continuum should be viewed separately as well, since it is quite possible to imagine highly kinetic horizontal activity and low-kinetic vertical activity.  For instance, the State can pass a new tax law which will not have an immediate concrete reaction (low K)  but still be quite vertical (high HV). Similarly, with respect to a larger system, individual crimes can be high K but low HV, i.e. highly kinetic but also horizontal.

I suppose we should also consider the relationship between the Closed Source - Open Source Continuum, S, and the HV Continuum, since in general a more open-source environment, high S,  will seem to also produce a low HV environment, or one that operates quite horizontally.  This becomes particularly interesting when we consider the fact that a 5GW organization will be low S, or closed source,  operating within a world in which so much else operates in high S.  I have previously expressed this notion with the metaphor:  5GWarriors will ‘travel the open-source highway’ while guided by their closed-source vision, all the while nudging the aggregate of the ‘open-source highway’ toward that same vision.  Vis-a-Vis 5GW, I reconcile the 5GW organization’s place on the S Continuum with the global HV Continuum by postulating something similar to the American political system, except on a global scale:  although much may happen horizontally, these actions have an aggregate effect on the total system, which is closed source (no human society exists outside the global system), and this total system in turn exerts vertical force on those living within it.

As for the G Continuum, I think each of these factors can be considered in relation to the various generations of warfare.  For instance, in a system greatly directed, on the whole, by vertical forces (say, an absolute monarchy), high-intensity kinetic warfare is more likely to result, particularly also because the individual insular systems also had severe limitations on observational capabilities and communication (were more closed-source) and this limited the effectiveness on non-kinetic activity.  I.e., we may take it for granted that high K activities, because they produce immediate concrete effects that are observable on the local scale, also reinforce the closed-source approach because the source of both action and reaction are more easily ascertained; and the Supreme Leader, being one individual or a small coterie of planners living within an insular or shielded society, could not easily formulate plans when too much information is introduced into their planning (information which they usually did not have, btw.)

I’m sure more can be added to these considerations.  Considering the interplay between these continua will, I hope, help us better understand the coming of 5GW.