Users of
Internet Explorer 6.x
or before should be aware
that this site works best in
Firefox (best choice) or
Internet Explorer 7.x.
Some helpful links:
 |
| IE 7 at Microsoft |
Disclaimers
Site
Hammes 5GW Redux: Via Phil
Phil of Pacific Empire recently attended a talk given by Colonel Thomas X. Hammes.
Phil’s participation in the Q and A phase:
My question was: in the generations-of-war framework, each generation should be able to defeat the preceding generation. How would a 5GW force defeat a 4GW force? The response wasn’t entirely satisfactory, I thought. If 4GW requires globalization, 5GW could basically make it impossible by ending globalization. Other than that, Hammes seemed to think that the goals were so mismatched that the two generations wouldn’t come into direct conflict (if I understood his response correctly).
Hamme’s iteration, via Phil, on 5gw:
“The second part consisted of explaining his own view of 5GW, heavily influenced by his experiences commanding the response to the 2001 anthrax attacks. Some of the major points I got from this:
-The size of the group necessary to be a threat has decreased. Groups of 5-6 people, or even a super-empowered individual could do major damage, and are very difficult to track down (e.g. those responsible for the anthrax attacks).
-Virtually all potentially violent groups oppose globalization in some way. Anti-globalization activists are a potential threat.
-Militant environmentalists are another potential threat. As climate change increases and little action is taken, they will just get more frustrated, radical and violent.
-But on the other hand, motivation doesn’t matter that much, and even “squirrelly types,” social outcasts in a basement somewhere, could stir up mayhem for personal reasons.
-It is getting easier and cheaper to manufacture viruses - could be as little as $20,000 in a few years.
-Emerging threats include high-yield explosives, viruses, even nanotech. Targets could be unsecured fibre-optic cables to shut down Internet traffic, major ports to shut down world trade, or various other targets which are almost impossible to secure.
-It would be almost impossible to guard against a smallpox pandemic, which would be devastating to a disease-naive world population.
-The state is in decline - private military corporations, private militia in the US (i.e., security guards in gated communities), etc.
-The government can’t do much about 5GW on its own. Whereas 4GW required a “whole-of-government” response, 5GW requires a “whole-of-society” response. Analogous to how spam, viruses and other Internet threats require a response from all Internet users.”
Posted by subadei on Aug 31, 2007 09:28 PM
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Hammes 5GW Redux: Via Phil.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://dreaming5gw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/185.
3 Comments
Well, that is fairly disappointing and I think Phil had a key piece of information to explain why.
I think Hammes may be falling prey to the old adage that when you are a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Or even better, I saw a problem and it looked like a nail to me so I got a hammer. Now I’m looking for more nails to hit.
The idea that 5GW and 4GW are somehow so different that they wouldn’t come into conflict invalidates the entire XGW framework. Very disappointing.
This is interesting.
Question: Does each generation of warfare, if fought well, automatically have superiority over ALL prior generations of warfare? If so, how would ending globalization be used to defeat a 3GW force, a 2GW force, a 1GW force?
In a previous critique of Hammes’ point of view, I suggested that bio-war might indeed fall within the realm of 5GW — but only if it could be precisely targeted. For instance, a virus which targeted only a very specific sub-set of a population, would not mutate quickly, and would leave the attacker and his support system largely untouched. Or, a virus which attacked, say, bumblebees or some other crucial part of an enemy’s agriculture. As far as I am aware, the first example is still well beyond anyone’s capabilities; the second example may not be.
Earlier today, it occurred to me: The Global Warming Crisis™ would act as perfect cover for ecological or weather warfare, a la Unrestricted Warfare.
—Reminds me of a recent addition to the Timeline of an old Phatic Communion post.
Also reminds me of the idea that a defense against 5GW would require another 5GW effort. I.e., whereas the attacker would seek to influence the majority within a population, the defender would need to fight that influence by co-opting his own majority within the population.
Also reminds me of some of John Robb’s ideas for creating resiliency in the face of hordes of GG sprouting from the pavement.
I don’t think 4GW requires globalization (though perhaps it is easier with it, since presumably there are more network connection for 4GW to manipulate in a globalized/connected world). So, I do see why 5GW must be anti-globalization.