J.F.,

Generally agreed, with the clarification that kinetic intensity is not necessarily mysterious.

One of my hopes for this edited volume on 5GW is that at least some of these debates can begin to move forward. One reason I like J.F.’s thoughts so much is that I was thinking something similar myself back in 2006 [1]

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/11/02/making-a-science-of-the-generations-of-war.html

hat dispersal of kinetic Force is mirrored by non-kinetic Force having less utility at lower gradients and more utility at higher gradients.

Right on. I am starting in my own mind to frame it as proportion of Kinetic war to Information war.

0GW = high K, low I
[...]
5GW = low K, high I

“That is, 0GW has a lot of force spread out over a population, so whether or not this particular villager is left alive or killed does not really matter.”

It most certainly matters to the villager! That is why use of Force at 0GW is a very personal and individual matter. I get what you mean though.

The way I am currently conceptualizing the gradients of XGW, that dispersal of kinetic Force is mirrored by non-kinetic Force having less utility at lower gradients and more utility at higher gradients.

In 0GW kinetic Force should have a great deal of utility, but the principle behind 0 gradient doctrines is that of basic survival ability to thrive. If a political Force makes that possible a doctrine should be devised to exploit the utility of that Force. On the other end of the spectrum, 5GW probably has no great utility for kinetic Force but great utility for political Force.

With this, however, the marginal utility of each netwon of force increases with each higher gradient. That is, 0GW has a lot of force spread out over a population, so whether or not this particular villager is left alive or killed does not really matter.

5GW may have extremely well targeted force, however, so the difference between a death toll of 4 and 5 may be the difference between success and failure.

This is why I keep going back to gradients as measuring the dispersal of kinetics. 5GW is tightly focused — a laser of violence. 0GW is broadly aimed — a floodlight of death.

This is something that I am currently thinking about, so while I’m putting this comment together I’m trying to put broader concepts into words. Forgive me for being unclear or oddly worded. Also, I might later decide I’m wrong (or you or somebody else might find flaw in my reasoning) so bear with me.

The way I am currently envisioning XGW, within the paradigm of conflict and confrontation, ‘kinetics’ (certainly) and ‘politics’ (possibly) would be expressions of Force. Depending upon the goal of the practitioner, certain kinds of Force would have different levels of utility in different situations. In 0GW kinetic Force should have a great deal of utility, but the principle behind 0 gradient doctrines is that of basic survival ability to thrive. If a political Force makes that possible a doctrine should be devised to exploit the utility of that Force. On the other end of the spectrum, 5GW probably has no great utility for kinetic Force but great utility for political Force.

I don’t know if this is what you mean by an ‘event horizon?’

If Force, however it is expressed, has utility, the principle guiding the doctrine that informs its use should define its gradient.

Thanks for the recs! I have an overdue book at the University library I need to return first, but after that I will check out those documentaries!

Aherring,

Is it fair that both 0GW and 5GW are “event horizons” for xGW, with warfare more kinetically disperse than 5GW becoming politics, and warfare more kinetically intense that 0GW being impossible?

Brent Grace

The transformation that went on in NY in the 1990s is an interesting study in exactly where the event horizon between between 5GW and politics lies. On one hand, there were plenty of examples of the peaceful dislocation/relocation of populations brought on by gentrification. On the other hand, the policy makers in charge of NY made a conscience decision to hire thousands of additional police officers and adopt aggressive tactics to drive crime down. Assuming that Eisner’s account of his meeting with Giuliani is accurate, that would seem to suggest the possibility that the gentrification of New York occurred as part of an overall grand strategy, meaning the Giuliani administration lined up interested investors and then systematically applied tough law enforcement tactics to a given geographic area.

A brilliant example of what is perhaps a real, documented, self-consciously executed state-within 5GW!

Definitely worth of a book chapter, I would think!