Blogospheric 5GW, with short comments

Curtis, on Dreaming 5GW:

Which is to say, rather than an automation of rule sets, or of One Common World View, some stable dynamic which allows for multiple world views and perhaps different applicable rule sets might be required. If one likes mice, one does not want a mice-catching cat, and being supplied with the choice of a white mice-catching cat or a black mice-catching cat — and being forced to have at least one of these — will produce conflict, whether 3GW, 4GW, or 5GW.

No need for one common world vew, only one common world. No need for only one civilization, just no civilizational apartheid.

Shloky:

Using Dan’s OODA Loop analysis – When we run out of links to analyze as representative of generations of terrorism the OODA loop becomes irrelevant. Restated: The human decision cycle becomes irrelevant.

Rather, the human decision cycle thrives under limited information.

Mark, on ZenPundit:

The vulnerability of individual actors vis-a-vis groups or the state puts a premium on secrecy for 5GW actors, as previously noted by Dan. The state in turn, is vulnerable to a proliferation of such superempowered individuals and will have to defend itself with a combination of surveillance and active cultivation of primary loyalties ( reducing the motivation for such individuals to act out in antisocial ways).

Rather than focusing on building state loyalties, the State may do well to focus on distributing itself. Federalism provides a model. An actor’s ability to control a system goes down as the complexity of the system goes up. The American System of Government is as brilliant at defending itself from 5GWs as from 4GWs.

John, over at Robb’s Weblog:

It’s clear we are in a phase transition from classic 4GW guerrilla warfare to something worse. In my view, that something worse is ultimately going to be the super-empowered individual that can use the technologies of self-replication to collapse/kill on a grand scale. That is, in a nutshell, is what 5GW is all about. It is the end game in human conflict (at least as far as we can imagine).

This shows the basic difference between John Robb and I. We both sees the end of war, as we have meant “war.” To Robb, this is a bad thing. He retreads some initial misconceptions about the evolution of warfare, as well.

Tom, over at P.M. Barnett :: Weblog:

Constant observation of the foe. Unrelenting surveillance. Every gaffe exposed and then run ad nauseum on the web. His ability to orient himself as desired in the race is disrupted.

Conrad Burns, the incumbent, is trailed everywhere on the campaign by a young operative for the Dems who videotapes him non-stop every chance he gets, waiting for the screw-up.

Once found, it’s run on YouTube.

For the 5GW, Secrecy is needed for success. The Open Society is death for Closed Cabals.