Following up on comments left in a previous D5GW post, Nonpartisan of Progressive Historians has asked his readers,
Isn't it possible that warfare doesn't move in a teleological direction at all, but that rather we're facing "armies" that are using techniques so primitive that we can no longer comprehend or guard against them? (link)
I've already added my comments!
(Also looks like I've become one of those readers!)
How does one comment over at PH?
It looks like you have to register. I am tired of registering for sites.
His commenter Ahistoricality has the xGW completely wrong.
"A classic example of this anti-teleological warfare would be the British defeat in 1879 at Isandlwana, in which a bunch of Zulus armed with 1GW technology (spears) trounced a British army sporting the latest in 2GW fashion (firearms). "
I would say that a much larger zulu 1GW force defeated a smaller British 1GW force (even though it had firearms).
There was nothing 2GW-ish about the Brits.
It is the technology/timeline problem with Lind's GoW.
Agreed, Pslog. Further gmoke presents an interesting version of 4GW:
"From my point of view, 4GW is small, non-state groups with massive killing power due to technological amplification..."
I'm not sure what he is ascribing the tech amplification too but if it's the 4GW actors then I suspect we've yet to see 4GW action.
I apologize for my ill-informed post on 5GW -- that was really just me grappling with the concept out loud. I'm putting up some more thoughts now -- thanks to Curtis and others for setting me straight.
Yes, unfortunately you do have to register to comment at ProgressiveHistorians (as I had to register to comment here). It's not my choice -- it comes with the software that enables users to post their own diaries (essays).
Bah! No apology necessary regarding what you describe as an ill informed 5GW post as far as I'm concerned. Please do delve into this site and explore. I think you'll find it quite interesting as it generally tosses aside convention and invites one to think "outside of the box," to say the least.
Hi NP...I will most likely register...just not when I am cranky!
5GW theory is new for all of us. There is plenty of room to flesh this out. I find it exciting.
NP...can you get Ahistoricality looking over here too?
Heh -- sure, I can invite him over...
I'm here, I've read a few posts back. If I'm completely wrong, how come most of the definitions here and at PH are pretty close to mine?
The definitions I'm seeing here are -- if you'll pardon the term -- ahistorical. Warfare has been more than battlefield tactics since ... well, forever.
I don't see how 5GW is that different from the propoganda and strategic aspects of the Cold War, with a little extra systempunkt thrown in. Sabotage, counterintelligence, propoganda -- this is old news. What seems to be new is that you've redefined "national security" so that there is no peace and nothing for which the state is not ultimately responsible.
How do transnational corporations fit into this? They can't be subordinated to the state the same way that old-fashioned companies could; actually, they'd be great at 5GW, and have probably practiced forms of it against smaller states (think United Fruit).
When you get it all figured out, come on over to Progressive Historians and post something interesting. I read everything over there.
ahistoricality,
After I finally figured out how to comment on your site, I posted one -- that promptly disappeared.
ahistoricality:
They don't seem to be to me.
Think focus and importance to the central goal.
In 5GW these things are not adjuncts to real actions, but central (among other things) to the effort. Though much of the cold war, was 5GW on a level (I am going to pay for saying that without a handy splainy link).
Corporations can be infiltrated and co-opted/manipulated to serve the purposes of the 5GWer. Also, a 5GW could change the rules-of-game and institutions - the context that a corporation operates in - to further the goals of achieve some desired results.