AI Bibliography
AI Bibliography |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
Albino, D. K., Friedman, K., Bar-Yam, Y., & Glenney IV, W. G. (2016). Military strategy in a complex world. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.05670. |
| Resource type: Journal Article BibTeX citation key: Albino2016 View all bibliographic details  |
Categories: Artificial Intelligence, Cognitive Science, Complexity Science, Computer Science, Data Sciences, Decision Theory, General, Geopolitical, Military Science Subcategories: Big data, China, Command and control, Cross-domain deterrence, Decision making, Human decisionmaking, JADC2, Military research, Mosaic warfare, Networked forces, Situational cognition, Strategy, Systems theory, United States Creators: Albino, Bar-Yam, Friedman, Glenney IV Publisher: Collection: arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.05670 |
| Attachments |
| Abstract |
|
A strategy is a plan, method, or series of actions for obtaining a specified goal. A military strategy typically employs the threat or use of military force in opposition to an adversary, and is called upon where large scale force is viewed as the way to achieve such goals. Strategic thinking is traditionally focused on which part or combination of land, air, and naval forces is most effective. This may be too narrow an approach to accomplishing the ultimate end, which is generally political influence or control--or preventing influence or control by others--and almost never consists of physical destruction itself. In order to broaden the discussion of military strategy, we consider here three distinct effects of inflicting stress on an opponent: a) A fragile system is damaged--possibly catastrophically, b) A robust system is largely unaffected, retaining much or all of its prior strength, c) Some systems actually gain strength, a property which has recently been termed antifragility. Traditional perspectives of military strategy implicitly assume fragility, limiting their validity and resulting in surprise, and assume a specific end state rather than an overall condition of the system as a goal. Robustness and antifragility are relevant both to offense and defense. While robustness and antifragility are desirable in friendly systems, an enemy possessing these characteristics undermines the premise that an attack will achieve a desired increase in control. Historical and contemporary examples demonstrate the failure of traditional strategies against antifragile enemies--even devastating damage inflicted upon nations or other organizations did not weaken and defeat them, but rather strengthened them, resulting in their victory. Underlying such successful responses are socio-economic or political strengths. Our discussion is a basis for scientific analysis of improved strategic thinking.
|