Comments on: Making a Science of the Generations of War http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/11/02/making-a-science-of-the-generations-of-war.html All of us against the machine Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:41:24 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: 5GW: The Vertical and The Horizontal « Red Herrings http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/11/02/making-a-science-of-the-generations-of-war.html/comment-page-1#comment-223650 5GW: The Vertical and The Horizontal « Red Herrings Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:48:33 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/11/02/making-a-science-of-the-generations-of-war.html#comment-223650 [...] I think, has made a very important contribution to the generational warfare model with his post “Making a Science of the Generations of War.” “This can be accomplished by defining “generation,” or even better its symbol “G,” as a [...] [...] I think, has made a very important contribution to the generational warfare model with his post “Making a Science of the Generations of War.” “This can be accomplished by defining “generation,” or even better its symbol “G,” as a [...]

]]> By: Isaac http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/11/02/making-a-science-of-the-generations-of-war.html/comment-page-1#comment-15210 Isaac Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/11/02/making-a-science-of-the-generations-of-war.html#comment-15210 <p>I generally agree. As a measure of kinetic intensity, I think you're pretty much right on. While a 3G (maneuver) war combined with some 2G-style use of modern firepower (indiscriminate bombardment) would seem to me to provide the highest potential for kinetic intensity - and a ridiculous bodycount, I think the curve could hold. I just don't see those actors that would engage in 0,1 and (straight) 2 G warfare as being able to have a wide enough scope, globally, to hit the same numbers. I suppose it could happen, though. <br /> While we're on the topic of definitions...<br /> 'Moral' is used in these discussions, as I understood it, to mean non-physical, mental or psychological. That is how Lind, et alia, described it in FMFM1-A. However, RevG and yourself (above) are using it with its ethical connotation, it seems, exclusively. The latter moral sphere would be (is) a subset of the former. It is dangerous to confuse, or, worse, conflate these two uses. There certainly is an increase in the Lind definition of moral aspects generation to generation. That seems linear...better use of resources, time etc -moving up the loop. This is not necessarily so with the ethical aspect. Is it not possible to imagine a small war somewhere where an advanced, let's say solidly 4G, yet nefarious, force A defeats a 2 or 3 G, yet noble, force B? Step it to 5G, even. If force A subjugates population AB into, say, a Sharia-ruled state and their only saving grace is that they did so with a comparitively reduced loss of life, how then is that "moral improvement" at all? As to the warfighting part of the conflict, I'll grant. But, bigger picture? Perhaps a fine distinction, but the term 'moral' is problematic. I don't like the term 'mental' as a straight alternative - merely a macro-level description of micro-level physical phenomena (the brain). I ramble. But, I think you can see my point.<br /> <br /> Change of topic - <br /> Have you all read the piece on fascism by Zadeh that RevG linked too? Read it, then check out <a href="http://www.theyrule.net." target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.theyrule.net.</a> It's a brilliant site with some pretty cool features. I've played around with it for hours guiltily wishing I'd been born with a silver spoon in my mouth...<br /> <br /> BTW, I'll be setting up a page of my own soon. I'm leaving comments that are far too long...</p> I generally agree. As a measure of kinetic intensity, I think you're pretty much right on. While a 3G (maneuver) war combined with some 2G-style use of modern firepower (indiscriminate bombardment) would seem to me to provide the highest potential for kinetic intensity – and a ridiculous bodycount, I think the curve could hold. I just don't see those actors that would engage in 0,1 and (straight) 2 G warfare as being able to have a wide enough scope, globally, to hit the same numbers. I suppose it could happen, though.
While we're on the topic of definitions…
'Moral' is used in these discussions, as I understood it, to mean non-physical, mental or psychological. That is how Lind, et alia, described it in FMFM1-A. However, RevG and yourself (above) are using it with its ethical connotation, it seems, exclusively. The latter moral sphere would be (is) a subset of the former. It is dangerous to confuse, or, worse, conflate these two uses. There certainly is an increase in the Lind definition of moral aspects generation to generation. That seems linear…better use of resources, time etc -moving up the loop. This is not necessarily so with the ethical aspect. Is it not possible to imagine a small war somewhere where an advanced, let's say solidly 4G, yet nefarious, force A defeats a 2 or 3 G, yet noble, force B? Step it to 5G, even. If force A subjugates population AB into, say, a Sharia-ruled state and their only saving grace is that they did so with a comparitively reduced loss of life, how then is that “moral improvement” at all? As to the warfighting part of the conflict, I'll grant. But, bigger picture? Perhaps a fine distinction, but the term 'moral' is problematic. I don't like the term 'mental' as a straight alternative – merely a macro-level description of micro-level physical phenomena (the brain). I ramble. But, I think you can see my point.

Change of topic –
Have you all read the piece on fascism by Zadeh that RevG linked too? Read it, then check out http://www.theyrule.net. It's a brilliant site with some pretty cool features. I've played around with it for hours guiltily wishing I'd been born with a silver spoon in my mouth…

BTW, I'll be setting up a page of my own soon. I'm leaving comments that are far too long…

]]> By: Dan tdaxp http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/11/02/making-a-science-of-the-generations-of-war.html/comment-page-1#comment-15211 Dan tdaxp Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/11/02/making-a-science-of-the-generations-of-war.html#comment-15211 <p>Isaac,<br /> <br /> I agree on the dangers of confusing two different uses of "moral." It indicates that a world where conflicts are resolved nonviolently is presumably more morally pleasing, all else equal, than one where genocide is the normal means of dispute resolution. I was going for a pun, but you are right it can be confusing.<br /> <br /> I think recent history shows that a Pre-Modern (OG) was has the most intense kinetic intensity. Just think of what the Hutus were able to accomplish with a sharp instrument, a tool, and their arm. Chimps couldn't have done it better. Nor could Neanderthals. Compared to them the Nazis were downright inefficient. The Holocaust was a higher "G" -- it was much less intense.</p> Isaac,

I agree on the dangers of confusing two different uses of “moral.” It indicates that a world where conflicts are resolved nonviolently is presumably more morally pleasing, all else equal, than one where genocide is the normal means of dispute resolution. I was going for a pun, but you are right it can be confusing.

I think recent history shows that a Pre-Modern (OG) was has the most intense kinetic intensity. Just think of what the Hutus were able to accomplish with a sharp instrument, a tool, and their arm. Chimps couldn't have done it better. Nor could Neanderthals. Compared to them the Nazis were downright inefficient. The Holocaust was a higher “G” — it was much less intense.

]]>