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
The views expressed by contributors to Dreaming 5GW are entirely their own and may not reflect the views of other contributors or the general editor.
Site
Reviewing my last post, “X vs X: Boom and the Generations in Conflict”, (which Dan tdaxp linked with kind words; thanks!), I wonder if the diagram ought to be updated.
I had used this diagram to show the generational conflict and general progression of generations, relating them to each other and to Boom:
Now I wonder if I should have tweaked the diagram one step further to better show the dispersal of kinetics/centers of gravity with the generational progression; like this:
This re-visioning has the added benefit of showing, to the left of Boom, the general progression leftward of each generation, so that the left/right relationship between the generations also appears vertically. Where 3GW is “left of Boom” when in conflict with 2GW, it is also further left on the Left in relationship to 2GW.
This revised diagram also gives a visual representation to “dispersal.”
In Dan’s post, he offered a summarization of part of my previous post:
I wonder if we might use this revision of the diagram to add new dimensions to our understanding of the xGW model. Specifically, I wonder if we might use the horizontal distance between competing generational strategies, as displayed in the diagram — the increased dispersal of kinetics — to come to a better understanding of the necessary time frames required for each new generational approach to win over the previous generational approach.
I.e., with the dispersal of kinetics and the multiplication of points of attack, perhaps “the tug of gravity” indeed weakens, necessitating longer time frames for victory. No single kinetic attack can create victory, but many, many are required for the cumulative effect. Then, we might see how a 4GW approach requires much longer to reach victory over 3GW forces than a 3GW force requires for defeating a 2GW force, for example. 5GW strategies, then, might indeed require a “Long War” when used to combat 4GW forces.
* edited to correct typos!
I had used this diagram to show the generational conflict and general progression of generations, relating them to each other and to Boom:
Now I wonder if I should have tweaked the diagram one step further to better show the dispersal of kinetics/centers of gravity with the generational progression; like this:This re-visioning has the added benefit of showing, to the left of Boom, the general progression leftward of each generation, so that the left/right relationship between the generations also appears vertically. Where 3GW is “left of Boom” when in conflict with 2GW, it is also further left on the Left in relationship to 2GW.This revised diagram also gives a visual representation to “dispersal.”
In Dan’s post, he offered a summarization of part of my previous post:
The tug of gravity weakens exponentially with the addition of each new dimension through which it may propagate.*
I wonder if we might use this revision of the diagram to add new dimensions to our understanding of the xGW model. Specifically, I wonder if we might use the horizontal distance between competing generational strategies, as displayed in the diagram — the increased dispersal of kinetics — to come to a better understanding of the necessary time frames required for each new generational approach to win over the previous generational approach.
I.e., with the dispersal of kinetics and the multiplication of points of attack, perhaps “the tug of gravity” indeed weakens, necessitating longer time frames for victory. No single kinetic attack can create victory, but many, many are required for the cumulative effect. Then, we might see how a 4GW approach requires much longer to reach victory over 3GW forces than a 3GW force requires for defeating a 2GW force, for example. 5GW strategies, then, might indeed require a “Long War” when used to combat 4GW forces.
* edited to correct typos!
Posted by Curtis Gale Weeks on Oct 25, 2007 11:04 AM
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: X vs X: Follow-up and Query.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://dreaming5gw.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/219.
3 Comments
Curtis,
Interesting extrapolation. However, this implies that just the opposite of Dan’s comment (re: the exponential dampening due to increased degrees of freedom). Consider the swing of “2GW” from “Positional-Proactive” (countering 1GW) to its countering in turn by 3GW: suddenly 2GW swings farther into the “Kinetic/Reactive” vector.
Ibid. for 3GW, 4GW, etc. The last tweak to the graphic implies that the magnitude of the “swings” increases exponentially as one progresses up the xGW scale. I can’t see this fitting with observed phenomena.
However, if you apply a temporal metric (vice a contextual one) to the horizontal axes, there may be a better fit. Then we need only reconcile the 180-degree shift between “(x-1)GW v. xGW” and “xGW v (x+1)GW”.
I had considered this after posting the new diagram and post. To the left makes more sense, as each generation moves left of the one preceding it; but each is moving to the right as well when it is countered! But I don’t view it the way you view it: as a dichotomy, (I’m guessing?) where a force does one type of thing fighting the preceding generation and then ssssswwwwwiiiiiinnnnnggggs over to a different type of fighting when the next generation appears. Actually, there’s no “Kinetic/Reactive” part to the diagram, heh. It’s “kinetically-driven” — driven by kinetics, “reactive”, in relationship to what the newer generation does; which is to say, the newer generation has more control over the centers of gravity for the conflict. The distance from Boom to the right of this diagram (and to the left?) would be the “dampening” aspect: The progression rightward for the generational progression represents a kind of increasing resiliency as each new generation masters more domains/CoG’s in fighting the previous generation; this in turn requires its would-be opponent, the next generation, to position further out (to the left) in order to shape the kinetics to include more domains/CoGs to be able to have a positive effect. Distance to the right is resiliency to kinetics (distance from the broad term “Boom”.)
So for your example, 2GW, by mastering positioning and dispersal of kinetics a bit better than 1GW, is more resilient than 1GW. When 3GW comes along, it must add more CoG’s, be more maneuverable in space and time (to circumvent 2GW’s resiliency, that is.) When 4GW comes around, it must move further to the left because 3GW strategies make 3GW forces more resilient than 2GW or 1GW forces; etc.
I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this, unless you mean his earlier thought that G represents a lessening of kinetic intensity — which I mentioned in the post and ruled out. However, I suppose that would depend on how you define intensity, since a dispersal of kinetic activity, unlike a focusing of it through only a handful of CoGs, might result in each kinetic focal point being less intense. But the overall kinetics may be greater. Think of it in the ultimate 5GW terms, where every farmer, shopper, engineer, etc., that has been co-opted by the 5GW force, acts day-to-day within their fields of expertise/livelihood: Cumulatively, that’s a lot of kinetics occurring every day, day in and day out (especially when you’re talking in the millions of persons within a population who have been co-opted to “fight” for the 5GW goal) but each person’s individual kinetic activity may be quite small compared to, say, artillery rounds dropping every minute on the minute for an extended period in a relatively small geographic area.
Shane,
Ah, you were referring to this, I think.
Still, my last example in my last comment relates to this. The weakening of each tug of gravity is related to the generally progressive resiliency to kinetics (rightward progression) combined with the need to disperse the kinetics through more domains (leftward progression.)
Using arrows to lead to the left/right may be confusing, since the direction arrows point generally relate to increases: An “increase in reactivity, and the kinetics which are driving that increase being increased as well?”
On second thoughts, maybe I should have labeled the rightward side “resiliency to kinetics” or some such, but I wanted also to point out the relation between x+1GW and xGW, or that one has more control over the CoGs, shapes the kinetics, which in turn forces the prior generation to be reactive and kinetically driven. I’m not sure that we can say that 4GW is “more” kinetically driven by 5GW than 3GW was when faced with 4GW
Perhaps Dan will have more to say on this soon, in case I’m reading you incorrectly!