Strategic Implications of Virtual Warfare:

1. Strategic Implications of Virtual Warfare: by Captain Terry C. Pierce USN Explaining Virtual Warfare as a Strategic Disruptive Innovation Principles of Warfare Culminating Seminar 13 April 2005

2. Principles for the Employment of all Elements of National Power Question: How will senior military leaders integrate the elements of power (diplomatic, informational, military, and economic) to achieve a disruptive innovation in the Global War on Terror ?

3. A New Typology for Defining Technology & Doctrine Reinforced Components Architectural Innovation Incremental Innovation Blitzkrieg Carrier Warfare Amphibious Warfare Continuous Aim Gunfire Weapon and system upgrades Linkages Unchanged Linkages Changed Radical Innovation Modular Innovation Effect on Linkages Analog to digital Ship’s steering system Submarines Aircraft Carriers VM-22 Osprey Overturned Components Effect of Components

4. Trajectory Performance Sustaining Innovation Sustaining improves performance of established warfighting methods along an established trajectory that the warfighters currently value.

5. Trajectory Performance Sustaining Innovation } Performance Excess Progress due to sustaining technologies. Warfighting Performance Demands of Warfighting (Performance requirements of warfighting.) { Performance Gap Time

6. Trajectory Performance Disruptive Innovation Disruptive innovation improves performance along a trajectory path that traditionally has not been valued.

7. Trajectory Performance Disruptive Innovation Progress Due to Sustaining Technologies Warfighting Performance Demands of Warfighting (Performance requirements of warfighting) Trajectory of Disruptive Innovation Disruptive Innovation Time

8. Disruptive InnovationNovel Linkages of Existing Components Linear Armored Warfare Tanks Aircraft Mobile Troop Carrier Aircraft Linkage Linkage Blitzkrieg Mobile Troop Carrier Tanks Linkage

9. Trajectory Overshoot BLITZKRIEG Sustaining vs. Disruptive Innovation Linear vs. Non-Linear Armored Warfare CAPABILITIES Sustaining Innovation Demands of Warfighting New Performance Linear Armored Warfare Non-Linear Armored Warfare Germany British Disruptive Innovation 1920 1916 1940 TIME

10. Points to Ponder • Disruptive and sustaining constructs correlate to what Williamson Murray calls the “revolutionary” and “evolutionary” phenomena of innovation. • 90 percent of innovations are sustaining in nature and most senior military leaders are adept at championing these innovations. • 10 percent of innovations are disruptive in nature and most senior military leaders are not adept at championing these innovations.

11. Irregular • Non-state and state actors employing “unconventional” methods to counter stronger state opponents—terrorism, insurgency, etc. (erode our power) (e.g., terrorism, insurgency, civil war, and emerging concepts like “unrestricted warfare”) • Likelihood: very high; strategy of the weak Higher • Catastrophic • Terrorist or rogue state employment of WMD or methods producing WMD-like effects against American interests. (paralyze our power) (e.g., attack on homeland, global markets, or key ally that would generate a state of shock and preclude normal behavior) • Likelihood: moderate and increasing VULNERABILITY Lower Higher • Traditional • States employing military forces in well- known forms of military competition and conflict. (challenge our power) (e.g., conventional air, sea, and land forces, and nuclear forces of established nuclear powers) • Likelihood: currently decreasing due to historic capability-overmatch and expanding qualitative lead • Disruptive • Competitors employing technology or methods that might counter or cancel our current military advantages. (capsize our power) (e.g., technological – bio, cyber, or space war, ultra miniaturization, directed-energy, other – diplomatic blackmail, cultural or economic war) • Likelihood: low, but time works against U.S. Lower LIKELIHOOD Capabilities-based planning should apportion risk across challenges Strategic Environment

12. Beneath the Changing Surface, a Core of Ideas and Relations War is a product of thought.

13. Outcome Meaning Time Place Technology Force COORDINATES RESTRICTS STRIKES SHAPES The Paradox of Familiar Character and Continual Surprise The Core is Described by Linkages Between Elements and Core Relations

14. Domains of War Location: Virtual • Level 3 • Virtual Domain Lead Technology Precipitation Technology • Level 2 Embedded Domain Separation Technology SOF/ SWARM Warfare Embedded (separate) Combined Effects Warfare Net-Centric Warfare • Level 1 • Traditional Domain Separated (force combat) Combat Attrition/ Maneuver Warfare Proposition: Enemies under pressure retreat to more asymmetric levels

15. Trajectory Performance of Virtual Warfare: A Disruptive Innovation Sustaining Technologies American Way of War Warfighting Performance Demands of Warfighting (Performance Requirements of Warfighting) Disruptive Innovation: Virtual Warfare Disruptive Innovation Time

16. Implications of Sufficient Structure View of GWOT • Need for Disruptive Innovation to Combat the Virtual Domain • Virtual Domain new dimension of Place • Precipitation Force requirement • Simultaneity Force requirement • Coalition Warfare Must Include the Virtual Domain

17. Questions?