Beyond that consideration is this: that the qualitative difference between politics and war may account for part of the qualitative shift in 5GW from 4GW. Blurring the lines between them, when using them, confuses both the 'kinetic thinker' and the 'non-kinetic thinker'. Attempts by fourth-generation warfare combatants to do this are much more limited than what we may expect from the fifth generation.

And I think that higher may be a better word than new, because all have always been with us. As I mentioned to Sean earlier [1], this sounds like the setup for a 5GW operation, for example [2]

“Stay alert. This is hazardous work I'm assigning you. You're going to be like sheep running through a wolf pack, so don't call attention to yourselves. Be as cunning as a snake, inoffensive as a dove.”

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/10/23/student-nature-part-iii-nature-and-her-consequences.html#c1219054
[2] http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew%2010:16;&version=65;

Much of what is considered war is actual non-kinetic (intel gathering, logistics, alliance building).

I think in 5GW between global actors, classical war and non-war activities will blur as actors want to avoid the kinetic-power or 2gw/3gw/4gw actors, and realize that in many cases, their aims can be achieved more economically.

I see this as 5GW effector as applied grand strategist X Socio-political entrepreneur, longer war timelines (but perhaps many shorter/smaller/quicker tactical operations). The actor who recognize a broader definition of war (less boundries) will have advantages over those who do not.

I have been meaning to post on this an dnot just dribble it out on other people's sites in the comments! I have gotten a little distracted and my posting has been light.

I agree with both of you that war, and politics, takes place in the context of everything else. However, I don't agree that the difference between them matters only in the abstract. Simulations show that heroism may evolve different from communitarianism [1] [2], which argues that humans should be expected to behave in different ways in war and in peace.

As every generation of war is less kinetic than the one that preceeds it, I agree that 5GW is more peaceful (and less “warlike”) than 4GW, that 4GW is more peaceful (and less “warlike”) than 3GW, etc… Nonetheless, a political party that engages in even a very few selected organization is a militia — a terrorist group — and is engaged in war, not just politics.

[1] http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/politicalsciencehendricks/3
[2] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/10/08/first-notes-on-the-hendricks-forum.html

Yeah, “higher” (more abstract) works for me. The term “generation” has to much of a time/history connection.

Thanks for the quote props.

I've thought this before, but… If every next “G” is “higher,” and not “newer,” perhaps we are dealing with a logarythmic scale?

http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/10/28/prepping-the-ground-for-mopping-up-an-exposed-5gw-force.html#c1221022

A generation emerges after to avoid the power/strengths and to defeat the status quo of whatever the currently generally used GW is.

I was thinking log-base-20, but the neat thing about operationalizing “G” in this way means the issue becomes testable. If it really is log-base-20, we should expect Vietnam to be around 4.0, the blitzkrieg about 3.0, etc.

Hmmm… a science of war….

Perhaps one might say a generation is “evoked,” instead of “emerges,” if we take it that each generation is equally natural, but exist or not depending on the environment.

Fifth Rung Conflict just doesn't have the same zing and besides nobody would know what you were talking about.

By the way Dan, why didn't you cross-post this to D5GW?