cue the lightning bolts

the only question that matters: is it true?

Iran has signed the NPT. As a signatory to the NPT, Iran may rightfully, legally, use nuclear technology for peaceful energy purposes. Iran has submitted to and passed repeated IAEA inspections. The US intelligence community (NIE) does not consider Iran a nuclear threat. Israel refuses to sign the NPT. Israel has an estimated several hundred undeclared nuclear weapons. Russia and China have warned that an attack on Iran will have global consequences. That's the situation in a nutshell. Where to next, people? Where to?

Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth? - Galatians 4:16


air force research paper from 1996 explains how strategy works

links removed - ed.


Strategic attack in the 2025 program is both unchanged from what it has been throughout human history and yet radically different. How can this duality be true? The truth is found in the ends and means of strategic attack.

Across time, the objective of strategic attack has been to conduct operations that would have a war-winning effect on an adversary. We need look no further than proposed Air Force doctrine, which asserts that the goal of strategic attack is to conduct operations "to a point where the enemy no longer retains the ability or will to wage war or carry out aggressive activity."2 In other words, we are doing things that will affect the entire war, not just a particular target, battle, or campaign. Therefore, it is the end result of strategic attack that has not changed.

The part of strategic attack that has changed involves the means. The methods by which attacks are planned and conducted to produce strategic effects will be very different in 30 years. The leaping advance of technology, different ways of organizing these technologies, and evolving military doctrine guarantee that the means will change. Clearly, strategic attack is not about weapons-any weapon can be strategic if it affects the adversary's ability or will to wage war. Furthermore, the same weapon can be tactical, operational, or strategic, depending on its use and how it affects the enemy.

The key to strategic effect is the opponent's values. Every adversary is unique; therefore, every strategic attack will be different. This idea has been handed down through generations of warriors as the concept of a center of gravity (COG).3 The term COG created a good image in an age of Lapacian determinism, where machinery was the model; however, in 2025 the view is more organic, so the COG concept loses some of its usefulness. A more descriptive term is LOV: that which is held dear and which, if influenced or threatened would affect the enemy's ability or will to wage war or carry out aggressive activity.4

Armed with the term LOV, we turn to the wave metaphor of Alvin and Hiedi Toffler for a framework in which to conduct strategic thinking. The Tofflers' paradigm asserts that human societies are evolving upward in waves, rather than in a constant climb. The societal waves are split into three segments, based upon what drives the entity's economy: agriculture, industry, or information. Further, the values of each wave society differ from those which another wave holds dear.5 The world in 2025 will contain societies rooted in each wave.

The Toffler model is useful to the warrior because it can be applied to a diverse range of potential adversaries. By using the wave model to ascertain the dominate societal focus of an adversary, one can gain insight into critical LOVs. With LOVs accurately determined, the samurai of 2025 can prosecute an effective strategic attack.

The Toffler wave model provides a point of departure for planning attacks.6 It suggests that: (1) first wave adversaries are best dealt with by targeting individual leaders or territory; (2) second wave opponents will be threatened by destruction of armies or industry, and (3) third wave enemies focus on idea-centered technologies or economies.7

read more here:

No comments:

legal mumbo jumbo

Disclaimer: The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.