Saturday, May 28, 2016

Fundamental Changes in Warfare

There's some interesting developments out there that 4GW strategists should take note of.


Anonymous said...

The Scandal In Washington That No One Is Talking About

The deadly-but-forgotten government gun-running scandal known as “Fast and Furious” has lain dormant for years, thanks to White House stonewalling and media compliance. But newly uncovered emails have reopened the case, exposing the anatomy of a coverup by an administration that promised to be the most transparent in history.

Anonymous said...

One problem the old USSR had to deal with is that only 40% of their conscripts had any fluency in Russian. I'm wondering if the pared down Russian Federation has a similar problem and if so to what degree.

Chiu ChunLing said...

The mindset of the article strikes me as deeply misguided, not least in the implicit assertion that some combination of increased professionalism in certain national military forces and technological advances becoming more common in civilian hands constitute "Fundamental Changes in Warfare".

China and Russia, after a long period in which actual use of conventional forces to accomplish their national aims was in relative eclipse, are modernizing and upgrading their actual capabilities sufficiently to address potential conflict scenarios. The only surprising thing here is that some nations still aren't investing in real military capabilities commensurate with their national resources.

As for previously cutting edge technology becoming widely available, when in living memory has this not been an ongoing process?

On the subject of countering cyberwarfare capabilities, I find the article singularly obtuse. Creating information systems capable of withstanding external attack, whether from mere criminals or adversary nations, is a task which should be left to the free-market, centralizing or attempting to "coordinate" such efforts is exactly the wrong response. Even worse is the implicit suggestion that this technology should be controlled, defenses against information attack must be allowed to proliferate both in order to ensure the security of economically vital private enterprises as well as to allow the technology to evolve to become really effective against attackers. The idea of creating a military authority over such systems is basically like suggesting that because steel is a vital national resource for military use, all production and technical innovation of steel must be placed under strict military control. I can think of no better way to ensure economic stagnation or outright destruction of a militarily vital major industry...though our current economic policies don't seem terribly far removed.