The Future Issue New World Disorder The Next Gen Internet So long, Saudi Arabia

Get Ready for the Democratization of Destruction

The way the world's militaries wage war is going to change -- drastically.

BY ANDREW KREPINEVICH | SEPT/OCT 2011

As Niels Bohr famously observed, "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." But we need not be caught entirely unaware by future events. The rapid pace of technological progression, as well as its ongoing diffusion, offer clues as to some of the likely next big things in warfare. Indeed, important military shifts have already been set in motion that will be difficult if not impossible to reverse. Sadly, these developments, combined with others in the economic, geopolitical, and demographic realms, seem likely to make the world a less stable and more dangerous place.

Consider, to start, the U.S. military's loss of its near monopoly in precision-guided munitions warfare, which it has enjoyed since the Gulf War two decades ago. Today China is fielding precision-guided ballistic and cruise missiles, as well as other "smart" munitions, in ever greater numbers. They can be used to threaten the few major U.S. bases remaining in the Western Pacific and, increasingly, to target American warships. Like Beijing, Iran is buying into the precision-guided weapons revolution, but at the low end, producing a poor man's version of China's capabilities, to include anti-ship cruise missiles and smart anti-ship mines. As these trends play out we could find that by the beginning of the next decade, major parts of the Western Pacific, as well as the Persian Gulf, become no-go zones for the U.S. military: areas where the risks of operating are prohibitively high.

Even nonstate groups are getting into the game. During its war with Israel in 2006, Hezbollah fired more than 4,000 relatively inaccurate RAMM projectiles -- rockets, artillery, mortars, and missiles -- into Israel, leading to the evacuation of at least 300,000 Israelis from their homes and causing significant disruption to that country's economy. Out of these thousands of munitions, only a few drones and anti-ship cruise missiles were guided. But as the proliferation of guided munitions -- G-RAMM weapons -- continues, irregular warfare will be transformed to the point that the roadside bomb threats that the United States has spent tens of billions of dollars defending against in Iraq and Afghanistan may seem trivial by comparison.

The spread of nuclear weapons to the developing world is equally alarming. If Iran becomes a nuclear power, the pressure on the leading Arab states as well as Turkey to follow suit is likely to prove irresistible. With ballistic-missile flight times between states in the region measured in single-digit minutes, the stability of the global economy's energy core would be exceedingly fragile.

But the greatest danger of a catastrophic attack on the U.S. homeland will likely come not from nuclear-armed missiles, but from cyberattacks conducted at the speed of light. The United States, which has an advanced civilian cyberinfrastructure but prohibits its military from defending it, will prove a highly attractive target, particularly given that the processes for attributing attacks to their perpetrators are neither swift nor foolproof. Foreign powers may already have prepositioned "logic bombs" -- computer code inserted surreptitiously to trigger a future malicious effect -- in the U.S. power grid, potentially enabling them to trigger a prolonged and massive future blackout.

As in the cyber realm, the very advances in biotechnology that appear to offer such promise for improving the human condition have the potential to inflict incalculable suffering. For example, "designer" pathogens targeting specific human subgroups or designed to overcome conventional antibiotics and antiviral countermeasures now appear increasingly plausible, giving scientists a power once thought to be the province of science fiction. As in the cyber realm, such advances will rapidly increase the potential destructive power of small groups, a phenomenon that might be characterized as the "democratization of destruction."

Illustration by Oliver Munday for FP

 SUBJECTS:
 

Andrew Krepinevich is president of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and author of 7 Deadly Scenarios: A Military Futurist Explores War in the 21st Century.

DOBERMANMACLEOD

5:26 PM ET

August 15, 2011

A highly destabilizing new energy technology

The US military is one of the largest consumers of oil in the world. Large oil finds on US soil have been classified because of this bare fact. On the other had, there is a new very cheap (clean) and very abundant energy technology about to hit the market this October: LENR using Ni-H. Using this method devised by Rossi, a gram of nickel yields about 1.7 billion calories. Nickel is about 3% of the mass of the Earth. Don't believe me? Watch this video by Dr. Brian Josephson, winner of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics: http://pesn.com/2011/06/23/9501856_Nobel_laureate_touts_E-Cat_cold_fusion/
Still don't believe me (this is getting ridiculous)? Read this article describing how members of the Swedish Skeptics Society were forced to admit it was legitimate: http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3144827.ece
Still don't believe it? For goodness sakes, I've just cited the SWEDISH SKEPTICS SOCIETY (who could be more skeptical than them??). OK, I'll play along Mr Skeptic: I have two US government reports, the first DIA-08-0911-003 is titled Technology Forecast: Worldwide Research on Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Increasing and Gaining Acceptance. How could that be more clear? It cites teams all over the world getting above unity results from LENR. The second US commissioned government report details (i.e. you can repeat their experiments - it is that specific) getting a whole lot over unity using Ni-H reactions that turn out to be LENR (they thought it was the hydrogen orbit shrinking - hydrino production - but were WRONG). Sorry, secret pal - it even names the "secret catalyst." OK, OK, I'll give you the formula: Ni+H+KCO3(heated above 70C at 22 bars)=Cu+lots of heat. Yeah, it was turning nickel into copper (although again they didn't realize it at the time).
Anywho, imagine tanks that don't need refueling (the energy technology means nickel is more than 10,000 times more energy dense than oil or coal). Must I go on?
What I am trying to communicate to you is that maybe some foreign countries can zap us over the internet, but the Nickel Age is dawning. I wonder if the US military will make the shift, and realize that nickel is now a strategic commodity? Whoever controls nickel controls outer space (as I said before a gram of nickel yields 1.7 billion calories, it only takes 7 million calories to boost a pound of mass into outer space - and we are going to be boosting a lot of mass into outer space to win that race that is about to commence).

 

DOBERMANMACLEOD

5:40 PM ET

August 15, 2011

A link to a clearing house of article on LENR Ni-H

http://peswiki.com/index.php/News:Rossi_Cold_Fusion

By the way, for those whose first impulse is to classified this new energy technology, it has been spread all over the world. A major US corporation is going to back Rossi, who will be introducing his 1 megawatt reactor in late October. Also, Defkalion ( a Greek company) has multiple units being certified by the Greek government as we speak. I wouldn't even tell you guys this if I thought it was possible to suppress now (I KNOW YOU B@ST@RDS).

Yeah, energy for less than 1 cent per kilowatt hour (1/10th the cost of dirty coal), and fuel that is more abundant than all the oil coal natural gas and even hydrates in the world. No residual radiation. Really a silver bullet energy technology.

Imagine the geo-political implications. By the way, the human mind is funny - it starts with a false hypothesis (like what I'm telling you is untrue) and then makes up all this magical thinking for why that false belief is true. Don't fall into the trap. There is more than enough data to make this over 99.99% likely. I've test marketed it, and most people just can't believe it regardless of the evidence, so I am blessed with virtually complete operating freedom to write posts like this.

Beware of false gifts and broken promises.
There is much pain, but still hope.
The solution is to believe the truth.
The conduit is closing....

 

JOHNHUNT

12:09 AM ET

August 17, 2011

True, but...

There are a lot of very good points in this article. But there is a partial failure to consider that such weapons are not that effective if they will never be used. A couple of things.

First, there would be real consequences to using these weapons. Say the US keeps its aircraft carriers in the general China-Taiwan area. If they are attacked, how would that affect China's GDP given that its greatest trading partner is the US? So, might they think twice before trying such a stunt? And, what military retaliation might the US exact? Will aggressive military action result in the development of a large anti-Chinese miliary alliance lasting for decades? I think that the Chinese are smart enough to consider these things.

Secondly, why is it that only US weapons systems are the most proven? Why is it that the US military is the most experienced? Because we use them to handle the problems of the world when others are unwilling to. Will Russia or China use their aircraft carriers, top-of-the-line planes, top-of-the-line tanks, and missiles in actual warfare? e.g. When was the last time that Russia fired a cruise missile in anger? So, their military power is largely theoretical. That's a real problem for their military planners.

 

KARENYKARL

9:08 AM ET

August 17, 2011

Speaking of skepticism

When we talk about unprotected power grids or wellheads, this article begins to sound like a piece shilliing for more military technology and spending. The fact that the United States is already spending far more on defense needs than it should is the dog that didn't bark. And, if this article is right, then incredibly huge amounts of current defense spending are ipso facto wasteful and non-productive.

But assuming that the author is right about a more level playing field for all concerned, then this is equally bad for our defense spending. The reason why I say that is during at least one previous time of deadly equality, the nature of warfare changed into something that was almost a game. There were a whole set of mutually agreed upon rules that limited damage between combatants to the maximum effect.

If this is the case, then our current military structure is obsolete and badly in need of reduction and restructuring.

 

BAMALLM

3:48 PM ET

August 17, 2011

Predator Drones

I resent the phrase radical Islamic groups because those Predator drones are used to kill innocent people, particularly the elderly and the children of Palestinians during raids and demolitions. The technology undermines centuries of human rights work.

 

EGISTUBAGUS

10:03 AM ET

September 7, 2011

promise for improving the human condition

As in the cyber realm, the very advances in biotechnology that appear to offer such promise for improving the human condition have the potential to inflict incalculable suffering. For example, "designer" pathogens targeting specific human subgroups or designed to overcome conventional antibiotics and antiviral countermeasures now appear increasingly plausible, giving scientists a power once thought to be the province of science fiction. As in the cyber realm, such advances will rapidly increase the potential destructive power of small groups, a phenomenon that might be characterized as the "democratization of destruction.", is there any example of this statment
glidersfornursery, littlecastlegliders, beststeamiron, electricteapot,

 

CHANGS

8:40 AM ET

September 10, 2011

Food For Thought

Consider the type of world we could be living in if governments and people would spend as much time and money on improving the lot of the people of the world instead of searching for greater and greater means of destruction.

It would be nice to make our cities safe and desirable places to live, ensure that everybody received enough food to feed themselves and health care to live a decent life. It would be nice if this money, time and effort was being spent on creating jobs so everybody could be productive and be proud of what they do with their lives.

If would be nice if we worked to make the world a better place to live instead of working to destroy those we dislike or who believe differently than we believe. If we spend as much on fighting the diseases of the world as we spend fighting each other.

Forexample, as long as we have Religion to tear us apart this will never happen. As long as greed and the thirst for power exists in mankind this will never happen. As long as these conditions exist we will continue to waste money on developing better means of destroying a city rather than better means to make a city a desirable place for it's citizens to live.

 

MADCLIVE

2:23 PM ET

September 14, 2011

Interesting posts. Some

Interesting posts. Some really good points made above, Many I agree with. Best regards, Mad DJ Clive