Comments on: The Terminology of XGW http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/05/27/the-terminology-of-xgw.html All of us against the machine Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:51:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: tdaxp » Blog Archive » Influential Operations http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/05/27/the-terminology-of-xgw.html/comment-page-1#comment-164705 tdaxp » Blog Archive » Influential Operations Sun, 16 Nov 2008 16:40:15 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/?p=5595#comment-164705 [...] If you haven’t been reading The Committee of Public Safety, you are missing out. There are too many interesting threads to mention (you can easily browse the archives to read thoughts on Howard Bloom, John Boyd, the financial crisis, and other topics), but for now I’ll simply link to the CSP’s take on the xGW Model of War. [...] [...] If you haven’t been reading The Committee of Public Safety, you are missing out. There are too many interesting threads to mention (you can easily browse the archives to read thoughts on Howard Bloom, John Boyd, the financial crisis, and other topics), but for now I’ll simply link to the CSP’s take on the xGW Model of War. [...]

]]> By: tdaxp » Blog Archive » Defenses against 4GW: What xGW Theory Says http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/05/27/the-terminology-of-xgw.html/comment-page-1#comment-83159 tdaxp » Blog Archive » Defenses against 4GW: What xGW Theory Says Sun, 08 Jun 2008 00:18:56 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/?p=5595#comment-83159 [...] is a more useful theory than GMW, and explains the generations (better called “gradients“) of war in terms of the dispersal of kinetic violence through society. Each gradient [...] [...] is a more useful theory than GMW, and explains the generations (better called “gradients“) of war in terms of the dispersal of kinetic violence through society. Each gradient [...]

]]> By: Dan tdaxp http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/05/27/the-terminology-of-xgw.html/comment-page-1#comment-81537 Dan tdaxp Thu, 05 Jun 2008 01:50:29 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/?p=5595#comment-81537 I like gradient better too. Long form: War in the First Gradient Meso form: First Gradient War Short form: 1GW ? I like gradient better too.

Long form: War in the First Gradient
Meso form: First Gradient War
Short form: 1GW

?

]]> By: Jay@Soob http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/05/27/the-terminology-of-xgw.html/comment-page-1#comment-81531 Jay@Soob Thu, 05 Jun 2008 01:31:27 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/?p=5595#comment-81531 Hmm. Grade. It suggests chronology in the same semblance of it's use in education (I'm in 10th grade, next year 11th for instance.) Gradient might work better as its directional and not chronological. It also speaks to the above mentioned Arherring's Boom. Gradient 1 Warfare? Hmm. Grade. It suggests chronology in the same semblance of it’s use in education (I’m in 10th grade, next year 11th for instance.) Gradient might work better as its directional and not chronological. It also speaks to the above mentioned Arherring’s Boom. Gradient 1 Warfare?

]]> By: Dan tdaxp http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/05/27/the-terminology-of-xgw.html/comment-page-1#comment-79533 Dan tdaxp Sun, 01 Jun 2008 00:24:47 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/?p=5595#comment-79533 "1st Grade War" does have an annoying ring to it, doesn't it? How about: 1GW: War of the Ist Grade 2GW: War of the IInd Grade & so on ???? I really don't care what it's called as such, but "grade" has the benefit of capturing the meaning, and the drawback of schoolhouse connotations. “1st Grade War” does have an annoying ring to it, doesn’t it?

How about:

1GW: War of the Ist Grade
2GW: War of the IInd Grade
& so on

????

I really don’t care what it’s called as such, but “grade” has the benefit of capturing the meaning, and the drawback of schoolhouse connotations.

]]> By: Arherring http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/05/27/the-terminology-of-xgw.html/comment-page-1#comment-79336 Arherring Sat, 31 May 2008 16:45:24 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/?p=5595#comment-79336 Curtis, Heh, yes it kind of does. Totally unintentional though. Purely an artifact of the formatting. Curtis,

Heh, yes it kind of does. Totally unintentional though. Purely an artifact of the formatting.

]]> By: Curtis Gale Weeks http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/05/27/the-terminology-of-xgw.html/comment-page-1#comment-78894 Curtis Gale Weeks Fri, 30 May 2008 21:43:23 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/?p=5595#comment-78894 Arherring, That reminds me of your look at "Boom" [1]. 1, 3, 5 on one side, 2 and 4 on the other. [1] http://www.dreaming5gw.com/2007/10/xgw_left_of_boom_right_of_boom.php Arherring,

That reminds me of your look at “Boom” [1]. 1, 3, 5 on one side, 2 and 4 on the other.

[1] http://www.dreaming5gw.com/2007/10/xgw_left_of_boom_right_of_boom.php

]]> By: Arherring http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/05/27/the-terminology-of-xgw.html/comment-page-1#comment-78801 Arherring Fri, 30 May 2008 19:23:50 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/?p=5595#comment-78801 "So 3rd Wave War?" Indeed, in 'War and Anti-War' the Toffler's conception of warfare in the third wave is (on the kinetic end of War) 4GWish and (on the non-kinetic end on Anti-War) very 5GWish. I suppose if a framework for social and technological change in history had to be combined with a framework for warfare you could do a whole lot worse than crossing the Toffler's Waves with XGW. 1st Wave (Agricultural Society) - 0GW / 1GW 2nd Wave (Industrial Society) - 2GW / 3GW 3rd Wave (Informational Society) - 4GW / 5GW I'm not saying that we should immediately make this connection an integral part of XGW theory (XGW stands alone without the social/technological aspects thankyouverymuch), but it certainly has less ambiguity in application than GMW. “So 3rd Wave War?”

Indeed, in ‘War and Anti-War’ the Toffler’s conception of warfare in the third wave is (on the kinetic end of War) 4GWish and (on the non-kinetic end on Anti-War) very 5GWish.

I suppose if a framework for social and technological change in history had to be combined with a framework for warfare you could do a whole lot worse than crossing the Toffler’s Waves with XGW.

1st Wave (Agricultural Society) – 0GW / 1GW
2nd Wave (Industrial Society) – 2GW / 3GW
3rd Wave (Informational Society) – 4GW / 5GW

I’m not saying that we should immediately make this connection an integral part of XGW theory (XGW stands alone without the social/technological aspects thankyouverymuch), but it certainly has less ambiguity in application than GMW.

]]> By: ry http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/05/27/the-terminology-of-xgw.html/comment-page-1#comment-78727 ry Fri, 30 May 2008 17:02:40 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/?p=5595#comment-78727 Oh, and I hope you don't mind me taking your 'offloading' discussion from the comments and using it in argumentation. I already did. Now I have to deal with being ungreatful but stealing your ideas too(I cited and linked, actually). Oh, and I hope you don’t mind me taking your ‘offloading’ discussion from the comments and using it in argumentation. I already did. Now I have to deal with being ungreatful but stealing your ideas too(I cited and linked, actually).

]]> By: ry http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2008/05/27/the-terminology-of-xgw.html/comment-page-1#comment-78722 ry Fri, 30 May 2008 16:50:37 +0000 http://www.tdaxp.com/?p=5595#comment-78722 Um, 'save me from...' was kind of mean. I could've made the point in a much neater and more formal way. BUT CGW's bit over at D5GW gets at what I wanted to say, unsnarkily: Academic models are nice, but if it doesn't help the warfighter who cares? Um, ’save me from…’ was kind of mean. I could’ve made the point in a much neater and more formal way.

BUT CGW’s bit over at D5GW gets at what I wanted to say, unsnarkily: Academic models are nice, but if it doesn’t help the warfighter who cares?

]]>