Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23

Thread: Can One Man Declare War and Win?

  1. #1
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default Can One Man Declare War and Win?

    Starting at the beginning at least close.


    Page 8 from BNW: Over time in as little as twenty years, and as the leverage by technology increases, this threshold will finally reach its culmination- with the ability of one man to declare war on the world and win. it is in italics in the book, I put it in bold to show the author's emphasis. Does the council think this is a possibility?

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Not yet, but in the future

    I'm relying on memory, but I thought the author said in the future one man could declare war and win? I think this would require us to define war first, and I don't think we want to go down that rathole now. However, I do think it is possible for one man (especially in the future) to have extensive coercive power over a State if he can convincably present a viable threat, whether it is a biological attack, a computer virsus (that can undermine our economy), or something else along those lines. Somewhere in the book he refers to the superempowered individual, which I think is already true to some degree (one man now can create a disproportionate amount of disruption compared to one man could do in the 1970s) due to the proliferation of knowledge and technology and the centralization of our global economy. That capability will increase with time. Imagine one man releasing a catastrophic bio-agent effectively in a major city, and then contacting a government with his demands, or else he'll release it in another city? Can one man destroy the U.S. or U.K for example, perhaps but that is stretch. Can one man make the U.S. or U.K. dance to his demands?

  3. #3
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default Mobilizing Global Guerillas

    I wonder if he meant that through the the ability to "connect" his message with others looking for a cause, 1 man could mobilize a great deal of trouble? This gets into Bill's comment about defining war though. While this 1 man's mobilization could be limited to a denial of service movement, it could also say - all of you who beleive my cause to be just, meet me at the gun swap meet, and we'll go from there. Theoretically (with out the mechanisms for catching such folks), a fellow could mobilize a global audience - into global guerillas. This gets to Friedman's point about the big being able to act small and the small being able to act big through the power of the Internet.

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    489

    Default

    No, one man cannot win a war. An individual can launch a large biological attack, which is really the only way to inflict really, really huge casualties, but a single person isn't going to destroy the will of a nation. An individual can attack critical nodes of a power transferring system, an economic system or a computer system, but with built in redundancies, this too can be neutralized.

    Like Rob said, one charasmatic leader can act as a rallying cause for many other people to join that cause, but even then, it can be neutralized pretty easily (let them carve a new state out of some land in the Amazon or somewhere else remote- almost like an exile but with greater effects - don't let the door hit you on the way out and good luck with your future, and we aren't coming to hel) I don't see an Ernst Blofeld or a John Galt scenario arising any time soon.
    Last edited by Ski; 06-11-2007 at 08:47 PM.

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,099

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slapout9
    ...as the leverage by technology increases, this threshold will finally reach its culmination- with the ability of one man to declare war on the world and win. it is in italics in the book, I put it in bold to show the author's emphasis. Does the council think this is a possibility?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore
    ...Can one man destroy the U.S. or U.K for example, perhaps but that is stretch. Can one man make the U.S. or U.K. dance to his demands?
    Only if he controls the Q-Bomb.



    Actually, there's been a slight change of plans. I know it will come as a surprise, a pleasant one I hope, but we sort of won.

    Not to be facetious - I know this is a serious question. But l do think the nightmare dooms-day tech that Bill refers to as a possibility is a potential world-shattering threat that can be considered from a number of angles. Even given that I don't think this will emerge in the forseeable future, if I accept the premise I still doubt that we are looking at a "one-man" scenario. Like the troop from the Grand Duchy of Fenwick, or an autonomous terror cell, even given unknown future technological leaps I believe that it would take at least a small group of conspirators to pull off something of that import. If I stretch the premise to accept that the "one-man" is a charismatic leader with a sycophantic group of deviously talented lackeys, then perhaps it fits.....
    Last edited by Jedburgh; 06-11-2007 at 09:11 PM.

  6. #6
    Council Member AdamG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Hiding from the Dreaded Burrito Gang
    Posts
    3,096

    Default

    Well, we can segue into the "there can be only one" context.


  7. #7
    Council Member nichols's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Stafford Virginia
    Posts
    290

    Default

    I don't think that will be possible.

    Let's go back to President Bush's Mission Accomplished statement. By our accepted definition at the time, not his, the mission was accomplished. The intangables of human nature plays into this more then anything else.

    Has there ever really been true peace in history? We can't acheive true peace on a global scale, I don't think it would be possible for one person to declare war on the world and win.

  8. #8
    Council Member TROUFION's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    212

    Default What is a "win"

    Once the 'one man' wins, what does he get?

    He cannot occupy the world?

    Though I think 'one man' could destroy the world. Napoleon, Hitler, Mao, people who can influence others, if they had the internet and global reach communications, if Mein Kampf had been e-published as he was writing it? One man can influence the world. I didn't think Robb meant it literally.

    Mainly becuase when I think of the 'one man' concept I think of Dr. Evil and that kinda blows the deal. 'I will destroy the world unless you give me...1 milion dollars'

  9. #9
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    65

    Default

    When I read BNW I thought of brave new world not Brave New War, would have been an interesting prediction to make in 1932! I think that compared to Russian Czars, Hitler, Mao, and Stalin no one today exercises such a large amount of total power. People today hate their leaders, worshipping is so North Korea.
    The rise of industrialization made these socities possible but we now live in post industrial socities. If someone started a nuclear war they could 'win', but what would they really win. Hearts and minds are a hard goal these days. The world is more divided today than it has ever been. Short of some evil super genius I dont see it happening.

    if they had the internet and global reach communications
    This has made the message harder to get across. When you compare how communications changed because of the printing press and the radio, and how much easier it was for the state to control these. If Hitler was alive today he wouldn’t get anywhere, the conditions that existed before the 2nd world war will never exist today, people are to afraid to believe.
    Last edited by FascistLibertarian; 06-11-2007 at 11:28 PM.

  10. #10
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Hi All, Bill I double checked that is a direct quote from page 8.

    My thoughts well when I first read that I thought about sending the book back and asking for a refund, changed my mind and decided to keep reading and thinking.

    SKI, John Galt was the first person I thought of but he is fiction and then I thought of Arthur Jones the inventor of Nautilus fitness machines. If you have ever read anything about his personal life you will find he is very eccentric and a genius. His nickname was Captain Nemo and here is why. This guy actually built his own personal functioning Nuclear Submarine. He eventually sank it doing some crazy experiment but it got me thinking maybe in the future somebody will pull this off or try to anyway.

  11. #11
    Council Member Van's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Posts
    414

    Default

    I find myself siding with the "Dr. Evil" crowd in this discussion. If you accept war as the "imposition of will", I'm a little shaky on what will an individual could impose on the world. More likely than Lex Luther blackmailing the world would be a nihilistic/anarchistic type like Ted Kazin... Kazuns... Kaz... The Unabomber. The Unabomber was a flake math professor; consider the implications of a flake microbiology professor who decides that humans exceeding the planet's carrying capacity is the source of all evil. Real nightmare scenario stuff, as one person can keep a secret, but conspiracies sell themselves out eventually (by avarice or stupidity).

  12. #12
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default Are we limiting the discussion?

    I'll play the opposite side to dig a little deeper - since the role individual "global guerillas" is a central component of Robb's book.

    I had to ask myself if it was just my preconceptions about "war", or maybe my mental agitation with the idea that an individual or even a small group could enter into the realm of states, or the large organizations we are now familiar with. Some valid points were made about occupation, etc. However, here I think Slapout has an advantage with his LE perspective in that perhaps he understands better the motivations of individuals better then me.

    So while Robb may have used the word "war" to help Joe Public digest it, maybe what he means is that the individual or small group perceives his/their action as war - sort of a Michael Douglas (what was the name of that movie) character but perhaps with online charisma - lots of connections, a thorough IT knowledge, and a motive). It is still a challenge to the state, and to stabilization - particularly if the act generates random "copy cat" acts, or spawns a group movement. Perhaps that is the motivation, the idea that one guy says "I'll show them". These individuals can become linked in with other groups through the Internet on a global scale - look at the JFK guy who was headed to Iran. Global communications has put people who lack means in touch with people who have them - it might be a state, or it might be an wealthy individual or organization inside of a state.

    Who does Joe citizen identify AQ with? Why are the Democrats able to say that to defeat terrorism we must go to Afghanistan and hunt Bin Laden? You'd think they have the cave number and sat phone #. It doesn't matter that the Democratic presiential candidates either don't understand or don't want to address the decentralized nature of the threat, they are making political capital out of it as a theme because Iraq is a political issue. Its a matter of perception and those perceptions have influence.

    I think Robb reached out and grabbed the first term and he had that made the most sense and would be widely understood. I think he is tryng to start a discussion on how the world is changing and what thse conditions have enebled. I'm not much on the description of "war" as a "contest of the minds" either, but I'm willing to entertain it and see where he takes it - it may not fit in my world, but I'll massage it some for the discussion. I suspect there is going to be allot more discussion and constructive argument in regards to Robb's views. I'm a natural skeptic who asks "what is a person selling", but I think he has some useful insights.

  13. #13
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    489

    Default

    I think the description of war as a contest of minds is actually quite correct. War, once it has started, becomes a contest of will, guile, cunning, perserverance and endurance.

    As you say Rob - the internet now allows for cheap to free commo, with a reasonable amount of security - and this also makes for easy franchises to start up. As long as people have similar interests in mind, you can start up a group for anything. It becomes more difficult to raise funds and start up actions, because those are tangible acts.

    States have never been the sole owners of violence or war. A common misperception from what I've seen. Hell, read any history before 1648 and you'll see groups of people fighting for just about any cause. I think you are right - the small groups see themselves as conducting war - and for them it is just that. It's like the war talking about "low intensity conflict" - it ain't low intensity when you are recieving fire or have rockets explode around you.

    I think Robb is trying to drive home the point that the definitions of war are too narrow and need to be expanded. Since the state is losing its legitimacy in many places, and its relatively easy to start an armed group throughout the world, I think he's accentuating the original 4GW article by Lind and Co...

  14. #14
    Council Member CPT Holzbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    74

    Default The flick.

    The movie is Falling Down.

    That is all.
    "The Infantry’s primary role is close combat, which may occur in any type of mission, in any theater, or environment. Characterized by extreme violence and physiological shock, close combat is callous and unforgiving. Its dimensions are measured in minutes and meters, and its consequences are final." - Paragraph 1-1, FM 3-21.8: Infantry Rifle PLT and SQD.

    - M.A. Holzbach

  15. #15
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ski View Post
    I think Robb is trying to drive home the point that the definitions of war are too narrow and need to be expanded.
    Ski, very important point, like there is more than one way to skin a cat and we are geting skinned a lot of times here lately.
    Last edited by slapout9; 06-12-2007 at 12:42 PM. Reason: fix stuff

  16. #16
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Defining one man

    I'm enjoying the posts, and my original post was based on my perception of the superempowered individual, meaning one man, working/fighting to achieve his personal goals. However, after reading the various posts, like defining war, defining one man defies a simple definition in this context.

    1. One man: solo player working to achieve personal goals (revenge, ideology, psychopath, etc.)

    2. One man: leads a belligerent social/political movement like Hitler, Lenin, Mao, OBL, Ida Admin, etc.

    2a. Directly leads a political movement Hitler, Lenin, OBL (during the initial phases of his jihad)

    2b. Provides an overarching strategy, such as OBL has, that facilitates individuals acting individually in support of the umbrella strategy, so in a sense one man is waging his personal war, but he knows he is only making one cut, but trusts his fellow believers around the world will create a thousand more cuts.

    3. Other examples of one man waging a war of ideas that led to conflict, are Jesus, Martin Luther, etc. These wars are still being fought.

    Rough thoughts, but I agree with a previous comment that if Hitler was able to put his Mein Kof (sp?) on line, like OBL is able to put his declaration of jihad on-line, he would have been more effective, as would have Lenin and Mao (they were very effective anyway, but the ability to reach out globally and wage a real time information war is an incredible power). Imagine Hitler with nuclear weapons, biological weapons, long range missles, etc. We are living in an age of superempowered individuals, and that power will only increase in the future. One more example, relatively recently, of superempowered individuals that I think is relevant, is the two Los Angeles bank robbers, who were equipped with the most up to date body armor and automatic weapons. They effectively fought off several LA police officers for several minutes. This wasn't a declaration of war, but rather a demonstration of proliferation of technology into the hands of individuals. You can't win the war with automatic weapons and body armor, but it illustrates the point what can happen when any technological capability falls into the wrong hands.

  17. #17
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    489

    Default

    I think you are making the point (and I apoligize for trying to put words into your mouth) that there is a real possibilty for violence to become greater in intensity from smaller groups or even individuals, while at the same time, the use of the Internet as a information sharing platform allows for recruitment and retention of groups of people that have similar views on life, society, culture, etc...




    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    I'm enjoying the posts, and my original post was based on my perception of the superempowered individual, meaning one man, working/fighting to achieve his personal goals. However, after reading the various posts, like defining war, defining one man defies a simple definition in this context.

    1. One man: solo player working to achieve personal goals (revenge, ideology, psychopath, etc.)

    2. One man: leads a belligerent social/political movement like Hitler, Lenin, Mao, OBL, Ida Admin, etc.

    2a. Directly leads a political movement Hitler, Lenin, OBL (during the initial phases of his jihad)

    2b. Provides an overarching strategy, such as OBL has, that facilitates individuals acting individually in support of the umbrella strategy, so in a sense one man is waging his personal war, but he knows he is only making one cut, but trusts his fellow believers around the world will create a thousand more cuts.

    3. Other examples of one man waging a war of ideas that led to conflict, are Jesus, Martin Luther, etc. These wars are still being fought.

    Rough thoughts, but I agree with a previous comment that if Hitler was able to put his Mein Kof (sp?) on line, like OBL is able to put his declaration of jihad on-line, he would have been more effective, as would have Lenin and Mao (they were very effective anyway, but the ability to reach out globally and wage a real time information war is an incredible power). Imagine Hitler with nuclear weapons, biological weapons, long range missles, etc. We are living in an age of superempowered individuals, and that power will only increase in the future. One more example, relatively recently, of superempowered individuals that I think is relevant, is the two Los Angeles bank robbers, who were equipped with the most up to date body armor and automatic weapons. They effectively fought off several LA police officers for several minutes. This wasn't a declaration of war, but rather a demonstration of proliferation of technology into the hands of individuals. You can't win the war with automatic weapons and body armor, but it illustrates the point what can happen when any technological capability falls into the wrong hands.

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3

    Default

    One man as a leader/guru of a larger group kinda misses the point, which is technological enhancement of individual actions, or even abilities (think cyborg). But all such scenarios miss the numbers factor: what one man has access to, others also are accessing. There is more going on than any Horatio's philosophy or contacts know about. So the responses to individual actions will come out of all sorts of left fields he/she didn't foresee.

    That is, complex systems have lots of response modes and feedback cycles.

    Not that they can't tip into disaster or massive reorganization, but it ain't as easy as it looks from any POV within the system. Negative feedback will have its say.

  19. #19
    Moderator Steve Blair's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    3,195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
    Rough thoughts, but I agree with a previous comment that if Hitler was able to put his Mein Kof (sp?) on line, like OBL is able to put his declaration of jihad on-line, he would have been more effective, as would have Lenin and Mao (they were very effective anyway, but the ability to reach out globally and wage a real time information war is an incredible power).
    Hitler's greatest power was through the spoken word. Mein Kampf is actually pretty poor writing, but his speaking ability was almost without equal.

    This, to me, points out one of the more interesting changes that the Internet has brought on us: fast and free streaming video. Sure, the text is great, but when you add the vision and the sound to the words they gain power and momentum. It's almost like giving every little whackjob his own personal Geobbles and an "Adolf over Germany" tour (that's a paraphrase of one of his campaign slogans) and saying "go to it." This makes it easier for our nutjob to reach other nutjobs with similar outlooks (or outlooks that can be swayed...it's important to remember that, for example, Geobbles started out as a Strasser follower and almost left the Nazi party before being personally persuaded to stay by Hitler).

    That's what grabs me about this. The text component of the Internet is great for mass training and coordination among a group, but you can't touch its ability with video for "spreading the word." That's one thing that allows such decentralized groups to form and break apart almost without warning.
    "On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
    T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War

  20. #20
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Fair enough

    Yes, simply put it is easier for one person, or a small group to create much more disruption than in the past. I was wondering if the knife would cut both ways, but the technological edge that makes us a superior conventional force, really doesn't give us much capability against asymmetrical threats (lone wolfs, or small groups). Instead it is the enemy's ability to use that technology in unexpected ways (black swans) and places, such as the 9/11 attack, or the nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway system that gives them the edge.

    FascistLibertarian you argue that no one believes anymore, so Hitler wouldn't be able to mobilize a movement today. Perhaps facscist ideology is dead, but there are believers out there, which is witnessed by the growing Islamist movement world wide, much of the growth generated by effective use of the internet. Ecoterrorist groups seem to be growing also, and the latest guidance from the Aryan Brotherhood to their puppets was to conduct decentralized operations (several individual actions and do not take credit for it). I think there are several potential believers in various causes. What has changed is that you can now have virtual communities of believers where individuals are located worldwide(wasn't there some off the wall on-line Christian fringe cult a couple of years where several of its believers commited suicide?).

    Brian, I understand your argument, but I am not sure I support it. I think terrorist organizations we are fighting today are complex systems, and not susceptable to decaptitation attacks, but our systems are linear industrial systems, and very susceptable to disruption. The recent power outage in WA state this winter (it lasted weeks in some locations) shows how vulnerable our infrastructure can be.
    Last edited by Bill Moore; 06-12-2007 at 08:48 PM. Reason: grammar

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •