1. Strategic Implications of Virtual Warfare: by Captain Terry C. Pierce USN Explaining Virtual Warfare as a Strategic Disruptive Innovation Explaining Virtual Warfare as a Strategic Disruptive Innovation Principles of Warfare Culminating Seminar 13 April 2005 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. Effect on Linkages Linkages Unchanged Linkages Changed A New Typology for Defining Technology & Doctrine Reinforced Components Overturned Components Effect of Components Incremental Innovation Incremental Innovation Weapon and system upgrades Weapon and system upgrades Architectural Innovation Architectural Innovation Blitzkrieg Carrier Warfare Amphibious Warfare Continuous Aim Gunfire Blitzkrieg Carrier Warfare Amphibious Warfare Continuous Aim Gunfire Modular Innovation Modular Innovation Analog to digital Ship’s steering system Analog to digital Ship’s steering system Radical Innovation Radical Innovation Submarines Aircraft Carriers VM-22 Osprey Submarines Aircraft Carriers VM-22 Osprey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. Strategic Environment 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 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. 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 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 LIKELIHOOD VULNERABILITY Lower Higher Lower Capabilities-based planning should apportion risk across challenges

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

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

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

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

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?