Posted by: purpleslog | May 8, 2008

Is the 0GW part of the XGW Wrong? [Update]

Should 0GW be dropped from XGW?

- Is 0GW just 1GW…but seen through a lens of primitive technologies and societies?

- Are some parts of 0GW really just 4GW…but once again through a lens of primitive technologies and societies?

- Are some parts of of 0GW really 2GW, without the industrial base but with the mobilization of the society (even if that is just a tribe).

So, is 0GW really needed as part of XGW?

XGW Grid (slight update)

I am working on an XGW Primer.

Comments are appreciated.

Update - Adding this graphic for reference:

OODA with xGW Mappings

Posted in xGW | Tags: ,

« Question: Is the correct name for this category “Influence Warfare?”
[YouTube] When the robot uprising comes, our canine friends will be ready to help us… »

Responses

Excellent questions!

“Is 0GW just 1GW…but seen through a lens of primitive technologies and societies?”

No.

1GW concentrates labor, while 0GW does not. You can go back to Roman accounts for this — the Germans berzerked while the Romans relied on field movements.

“Are some parts of 0GW really just 4GW…but once again through a lens of primitive technologies and societies?”

No. A 4GW is an attempt to separate a people from a state or state policy. A 0GW is an attempt to remove the people.

“Are some parts of of 0GW really 2GW, without the industrial base but with the mobilization of the society (even if that is just a tribe).”

If by “some parts” you mean “killing,” then all GWs share some common features.

However, 2GW concentrates capital on a battlefield (typically through projectiles). 0GW does not even concentrate labor (See previously).

By: Dan tdaxp on May 8, 2008
at 5:37 am

Perhaps off topic, but it may clear up your questions. It relates to the causal explanations of the xGW framework and whether any of your conditions are false causal generalisations.

Perhaps to answer your question you need to sit down and gather all the necessary and sufficient conditions for a generation of war to exist. Once you’ve done that, then you can run the sets of conditions through Mill’s methods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill’s_Methods). It won’t give hard evidence of causation (nor falsifiability of conditions left over) but it’d give an idea of significant relationships between generations and their conditions and it’d let you know what conditions are/aren’t necessary or sufficient for xGW.

In abstract terms, some feature F is a ’sufficient’ condition for feature G iff anything ‘has’ feature F also ‘has’ feature G. Feature F is a ‘necessary’ condition for feature G iff anything that ‘lacks’ feature F also ‘lacks’ feature G.

In clearer terms …

Firstly, some feature — let’s use Dan’s feature, an “attempt to separate a people from a state or state policy” — is a sufficient condition for fourth generation war if and only if anything that has an “attempt to separate a people from a state or state policy” also is a fourth generation war.

Secondly, an “attempt to separate a people from a state or state policy” is a necessary condition for fourth generation war if and only if anything that lacks an “attempt to separate a people from a state or state policy” also lacks fourth generation war.

From those two definitions do you think:

1. An “attempt to separate a people from a state or state policy” is a necessary condition for 4gw?

2. An “attempt to separate a people from a state or state policy” is a sufficient condition for 4gw?

The answers may be clear to you, or, because it is war, they may be complex and not clear. I have my opinions on which is which, but I’ll leave it to you to ponder. Once you gather a whole bunch of these conditions, identify them, then you can test them.

On another note. Dan, I’m thinking of ordering your book eventually as I enjoyed your series on early Christian warfare. I have a question, in your book do you give a deep explanation of 4GW in the inductive sense?

By: Munzenberg on May 8, 2008
at 9:24 am

Dan:

Thanks for the feedback. I was having a moment of late night analysis paralysis and second thoughts. Thanks much for your clarifications.

Munzenberg:

Thanks for the ideas. I will look into doing that. I have been writing a draft XGW Primer. I will incorporate that thinking into it (maybe I’ll post it earlier though).

By: purpleslog on May 8, 2008
at 4:08 pm

If you go by the OODA model Dan uses, there should be no such thing as 0GW.

1GW
Action
2GW
Decision
3GW
Orientation
4GW
Observation
5GW

By: Michael on May 10, 2008
at 1:50 pm

I’ll post that graphic at the bottom of the post. Per TDAXP, 1GW was between Decision and Action.

0GW could just be action.

I know that is weaseling it.

0GW makes sense to me when using K.

By: purpleslog on May 10, 2008
at 6:22 pm

Leave a response






Your response:

Categories