Rma en

Revolution In Military Affairs - 1990 up
to the present
Transformation of world society and state through worldwide military
revolution
NetCentricTruther
Keywords: Revolution In Military Affairs, Net-Centric Warfare, Net-Centric Oper-
ations, Weapons Of Mass Effect, Effects-Based Operations, Sense-and-Respond, Co-
operative Engagement Capability, Sensor Grid, Information Grid, Engagement Grid,
Global Information Grid, Ubiquitous Computing, Smart Grid, Information Warfare,
C4ISR, C2, Andrew Marshall, Office Of Net Assessment, John Boyd, Donald Rums-
feld, Arthur K. Cebrowski, Thomas M. Barnett, Alvin Toffler, Michel Foucault, Gilles
Deleuze, Conflict Short Of War, Military Operations Other Than War, Noncombat-
ant Evacuation Operations, Panopticon, Social Networking, Office Of Force Transfor-
mation, Blue Force Tracking, Data Mining, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Smart Meter, Full
Spectrum Dominance, Cybersecurity, Energy Efficiency, PositiveID, Radio Frequency
Identification (RF ID), Asymmetrical Warfare, Asymmetric Threat, Counterinsur-
gency, Precision Engagement, Force Multiplier, Cognitive Capacity, Carbon Credits,
Psychological Operations, Dataveillance
Abstract
Notice: Personal opinion has been withheld as much as possible.
All of the claims within this document have been documented and sourced. As
little as possible is left to the author’s own interpretation of the facts.
Contents
1 Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
I Transition to the 21st century 3

2 From the industrial age to the information age . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1 Alvin Toffler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.2 Andrew Marshall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.3 Samuel Huntington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.4 Other noteworthy writers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1
2
II Revolution In Military Affairs / Conflict Short Of War 9

3 Network-Centric Warfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.1 Information/Sensor/Engagement Grid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 Sense & Respond (S&R) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.2.0.1 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.3 Effects-Based Operations / Shock And Awe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.3.1 Shock And Awe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.3.2 Observe, Orient, Decide and Act - OODA Loop . . . . . . . . . 18
3.3.3 Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) . . . . . . . . . . . 19
III Implementation of the RMA 19

3.4 9/10/2001 - War on Pentagon Bureaucracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4 Privatization of the intelligence agencies/military contractors . . . . . 24
4.1 In-Q-Tel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.2 Blackwater USA/Blackwater Worldwide/Xe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.3 Keyhole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5 Rollout of the ’Global Information Grid’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.1 The role of IPv6 within the GiG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2 The adversary and the archetype . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.2.1 Asymmetric threat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2.1.1 Data mining/clusters/social networks . . . . . . . . . 31
5.2.1.1.1 Social Networking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5.2.1.1.2 Datamining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
5.2.1.1.3 Threat inference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
IV The result of the ongoing Revolution in Military Affairs 35

6 Private sector in the information age enabled by the RMA . . . . . . . 40
6.1 Governing of intellectual ’ideas’ - and rights pertaining to these ’ideas’ 40
6.2 Utilisation of the ’Sensor/Information Grid’ by the private Sector . . . 41
V Next step for the RMA - Transhumanism/Singularity 41

7 Utopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7.1 Example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
8 Dystopia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
9 Start of transhumanism (Application within the RMA) . . . . . . . . . 45
VI Evil in the RMA 45

10 Dehumanization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
10.1 Dehumanization of war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
10.2 Dehumanization of the person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
10.3 Dehumanization of surveillance and intelligence gathering . . . . . . . 52
VII Explanation of concepts 53

11 Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
1 Synopsis 3
VIII References 55
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
1 Synopsis
• The Global Information Grid and the Internet of Things are computer
network-related and are completely dependent on IPv6 as the underlying
protocol.
• The ’Internet of Things’ will engulf the entire Planet - a so-called ’Object
Naming Service’ will take on the role of DNS-server so that all these
’things’ can be identified by uniquely addressable, human-comprehensible
names.
• Network-centric warfare is codified by a three-layered network, consisting
of a ’sensor grid’, an ’information grid’, and an ’engagement grid’. Users
access this network by way of C4ISR-systems (C4ISR stands for Com-
mand, Control, Communications, Computers, Intelligence, Surveillance
and Reconnaissance - it is a military buzzword that can be accurately
summarized as referring to a shared ’network’ where practically every-
body within the Defense Department all communicate to each other with,
allowing them to jointly execute and co-ordinate missions. The biggest
difference between earlier iterations of the same systems - C2, C3I - is the
central role that ’computers’ now play within that systematic process)
• Almost all of the technology that is being purpose-made for the ’Revo-
lution In Military Affairs’ is being spearheaded by ongoing technological
developments within the ICT private sector - ’sense and respond’ at the
same time allows for a new supply chain for both business affairs as well
as those of war. A precedent can be found in the utilization of Opera-
tions Research and Game Theory in general - Operations Research was
a shared doctrine between the Allied Forces during World War II before
being widely adopted as a business doctrine worldwide.
• The ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ is inextricably linked to the ongoing
transition to the ’information age’. The ’information age’ is driven first
and foremost by computers - ’content’ and ’information’ is now king, and
this, it is argued, will change the entire fabric and social stratification of
society.
1 Synopsis 4
Fig. 1: "Screenshot courtesy of the presentation - "Data Fusion in Tomorrow’s

Network-Centric Warfare"[26] - a comparison is made between a ’digi-
tal immigrant’ and a ’digital native’. Everyone born before 1985 is for
all intents and purposes classified as an ’old world fossil’ according to
Fred Stein of MITRE Corporation. This is because he has not grown
up within a net-centric environment, meaning - he was not raised in a
world where one’s first source of information is Google instead of visit-
ing your local library - he has not been raised on ’videogames’ - he does
not communicate in chat language and therefore can not communicate
rapidly by SMS or phone, etcetera."
5
Part I. Transition to the 21st century

2 From the industrial age to the information age
Since the early ’70s, various futurists have lauded the coming of a great societal
shift arriving at the beginning of the 21st century. The current society would
be completely transformed - from an ’industrial age’ to an ’information age’.
At the same time, Russian military strategists speculated on the additional
possibilities provided by the information age to the Defense department. This
became known as a ’Revolution In Military Affairs)’.
Below is a summary of some of the most prolific authors that came up with
the current framework of the ’Revolution in Military Affairs’.
2.1 Alvin Toffler

Alvin Toffler is one of the most prominent futurists - RMA-evangelists have long
regarded him as a lone voice in the wilderness, and as a cheerleader for their
cause.
His books initially began as a rallying call to arms for a ’third wave’ - this
is a term coined by Alvin Toffler that refers to a ’third-wave society’, To give a
short summary:
1. First Wave - The agrarian age that replaced the previous ’hunter-gatherer’
society.
2. Second Wave - The industrial age that replaced the ’agrarian age’. Power
was now centralized in the hands of the companies with finance capital to
back them up instead of plantation owners. This coincided with a major
relocation to the major cities.
3. Third Wave - The ongoing ’third wave’ that intends to replace the ’indus-
trial age’. This ’third wave’ is characterized by rapid, continuous change -
continual habituation to the new norms and an information-centric ’econ-
omy’ that won’t really sell real tangible ’products’ as much as it sells
’information-based services’ and intangible products. For instance, con-
sider the example of a mobile communications provider such as Vodafone
- the ’product’ that is being sold is not so much the mobile phone unit,
but the ability to communicate with each other worldwide for a certain
agreed-upon price. This ’ability’ (or rather ’service’) is not in the hands of
the individual user, but in the hands of the provider - and can be revoked
or its terms of conditions changed at any given time.
The first books penned by Toffler were rather optimistic in tone and rather
incredulous in terms of the claims and predictions being made. This rapidly
made way in the ’90 for more militaristic follow-up books that laid the emphasis
on the ’revolution in military affairs’ that would actually bring the ’information
age’ into being.
2 From the industrial age to the information age 6
His most noteworthy book is his bestseller from 1970, entitled ’Future Shock’[29].
The titular ’shock’ from the book Future Shock refers to the ’shock effect’ that
people experience when rapid changes are being wrought in their society. In
the book, Toffler proposes that the rapid pace at which these changes will be
rammed through will bring Joe and Jane Average into a disillusioned state of
affairs - suffering from a ’Future Shock’. On a related note, ’Information over-
load’ has today become a very real problem that was first introduced in this
book - the information age opens the floodgates to ’information’ in such a way
that it can impair and empower the individual in equal measure, to the extent
that those who cannot handle will far outweigh the ones that do. The book is
actually more relevant today than it was back in the ’70s - precisely because
such terms as ’information overload’ are now easily recognizable and identifiable
in today’s society - think of the Internet and the daily flood of e-mails, forums,
news sites, differences in opinions, rumors, controversies, scandals, and so forth.
2.2 Andrew Marshall

The 81-year old Andrew Marshall has earned the nickname ’Yoda’ within Pen-
tagon defense circles - a reference to the wise Jedi Master by the same name in
the Star Wars series. He is credited with laying the foundations for the Amer-
ican take on the ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ (which was originally an idea
and concept originating from Soviet Russian military strategists).
The Pentagon was very receptive to Marshall’s long-term ideas and planning,
to the extent that he finally reached the position of Director of the Office of Net
Assessment, a prime time Pentagon think tank.
Marshall came up with his ideas for a ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ af-
ter sampling a number of scholarly papers written by high-ranking members of
the military establishment in the Soviet Union. Prior to Marshall, practically
nobody in the American defense department was talking about force modern-
ization projected 20+ years into the future - Marshall regarded this as a sign of
vulnerability that the Soviets would eventually exploit to their own ends. Oper-
ating under this dialectic (’we have to do this because the Soviets are doing it as
well’), Marshall initiated an ever-increasing number of neophytes into the RMA
believer-camp. A power struggle ensued between the RMA evangelicals and the
moderate military hawks who were still licking their wounds from the mistakes
learned during Vietnam and were hesitant to any talk of ’revolution’ and ’force
transformation’. They in part would serve as the ideological ’enemy’/’threat’ to
the RMA agenda.
It would take until 2001 for the RMA crowd to finally gain the upper hand
in this ’clashing of ideologies’ . Some well-known individuals, such as Don-
ald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz, are considered to be some of
Marshall’s most well-known protégés’.
Fig. 2: "Alvin Toffler’s book Future Shock[29] concerns itself with a societal
shift from the industrial age to the information age. This is the ’future
shock’ alluded to in the title - this change will be so disruptive, and the
pace of technological development will be so rapid, that large segments
of the population will experience stress, mass disorientation, an increase
in domestic violence and be engulfed in general crisis situations. While
in this ’future shock’, people will be suffering from an affliction known as
’information overload’ - too much information can cause a detrimental
effect in people by overloading one’s cognitive senses, This is being taken
advantage of from a psychological warfare perspective. 99 percent of
modern-day wars is psychological and is waged with the distribution
and control/denial of information."
2.3 Samuel Huntington

Samuel Huntington is especially notable for his cosmological explanation behind
terrorism in the 21st century. ’The Clash of Civilizations’ portends that in
times of great change, civilizations with incompatible beliefs and rule sets will
fight amongst each other. This hypothesis began as an editorial within the
pages of Foreign Affairs12 entitled ’The Clash Of Civilizations?’[18] (with specific
emphasis on the question mark) before becoming a best-selling book.).
War in the 21st century would be characterized by a number of conflicts
occurring between civilizations with incompatible ’rule sets’ and ’social norms’.
A few of the civilizations that Huntington highlighted as being potential trou-
blemakers included:
• Judeo-Christian/Anglo-Saxon civilization
• Islamic civilization
• Hindu civilization
• Chinese civilization
• Japanese civilization
2.4 Other noteworthy writers

“The conception of a control mechanism, giving the position
of any element within an open environment at any given instant
(whether animal in a reserve or human in a corporation, as with
an electronic collar), is not necessarily one of science fiction. Felix
Guattari has imagined a city where one would be able to leave one’s
apartment, one’s street, one’s neighborhood, thanks to one’s (divid-
ual) electronic card that raises a given barrier; but the card could
just as easily be rejected on a given day or between certain hours;
what counts is not the barrier but the computer that tracks each per-
son’s position - licit or illicit - and effects a universal modulation.”
- Gilles Deleuze, Postscript On The Societies Of Control[11]
Gilles Deleuze (a disciple of Michel Foucault) was obviously acquainted with

Foucault’s critical perspective on Bentham’s panopticon, but preferred a dif-
ferent name for the up and coming ’Panopticon’ society: “society of control”.
According to Deleuze, the “society of discipline” (his preferred term for the cur-
rent system) was at the present date on its last legs and would rapidly whither
1 Foreign Affairs is the official bimonthly magazine by the Council On Foreign Relations,
the institute that dictates foreign politics the government of the United States - it has sister
institutes in Great-Britain and the European Union.
2 The European version is called the ’European Union Council On Foreign Relations’; its
British equivalent ’Royal Institute of International Affairs’. It has a branch within every
Commonwealth country; they were also being referred to as the ’round-table groups’ by Carrol
Quigley in his book, Tragedy And Hope.
9
away and make room for a “society of control”. The primary modus operandi,
as the name alludes, is “control”. How this differs from the pre-2001 western
society is that previously, mere engendering of ’discipline’ and application of
best-practice doctrines was enough to ensure ’good’ behavior - ’good’ in the
sense that the individuals’ personal needs were subordinate to that of the ’com-
mon good’, like having to fulfill your role as a ’homo economicus’ to keep the
current economic system afloat, paying your taxes to pay off the national debt,
contributing to society (very ambiguous in nature but commonly employed as
a slogan), and so on. In direct contrast to all of this, the ’society of control’
does not ’encourage’ discipline - it enforces compliance, and makes sure that
your compliance is guaranteed. The stakeholders within this system (’chief in-
formation officers’, corporate bureaucrats, social workers, defense establishment
figures) no longer consider the concept of ’personal responsibility’ as being a
crucial factor to maintaining a healthy and stable society, but rather, prefer a
more conformist approach - ’good behavior’, self-discipline is now ’quantified’,
and rational approaches exist (such as surveillance; questionnaires, data mining
of forum posts/tweets/e-mails) to measure and determine individual and mass
public behavior/opinion.Deleuze covered all of this in his postscript “The Soci-
eties of Control”, as well as alluding to the fact that in order for this to succeed,
the unions had to be on board with this new ’society of control’, lest they be
classified as a potential threat to the new system.
Part II. Revolution In Military Affairs /

Conflict Short Of War
What, exactly, is a ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ ? These kind of ’revolutions’
take place at key junctures in world history, and change the ’fabric’ and the
’character’ of warfare forever. War is the primary means of instigating social
change in societies3 . Examples of a ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ in past
times include Blitzkrieg, ’Carrier Warfare’ (1921-1939), the Atom Bomb and
the Manhattan Project (1941-1945), and the age of ICBMs (1955-1965).
3 Network-Centric Warfare
"Network-Centric Warfare. This RMA candidate was proposed
by Vice Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski and his colleagues in Joint
Staff/J-6 (Cebrowski and Garstka, 1998). The network-centric war-
3 This as attested by Carroll Quigley in his book, ’Tragedy and Hope’. (Carroll Quigley was
a professor at Georgetown University that holds the distinction of being one of Bill Clinton’s
mentors). In his book, he said of war on p831: “Any war performs two rather contradictory
services for the social context in which it occurs. On the one hand, it changes the minds of
men, especially the defeated, about the factual power relationship between the combatants.
And, on the other hand, it alters the factual situation itself, so that changes which in peacetime
might have occurred over decades are brought about in a few years”
3 Network-Centric Warfare 10
fare concept employs an operational architecture involving three

grids to enable the operational objectives of JV2010 [Joint Vision
2010]: an "Information Grid", a "Sensor Grid" and an "Engage-
ment Grid". The Information Grid provides the computing and
communications backbone for the other two grids. The Sensor Grid
is an assemblage of space, air, ground, sea, and cyberspace sensors
and sensor tasking, processing, and fusing applications, providing
battlespace awareness. The Engagement Grid, an asemblage of plat-
forms and weapons, exploits this battlespace awareness to enable the
JV2010 force employment objectives of precision engagement, domi-
nant maneuver, and full-dimensional protection. Each of these three
grids is connected and functions in a network fashion.” - Past Rev-
olutions, Future Transformations - What can the history of revolu-
tions in military affairs tell us about transforming the US military?,
Richard O. Hundley, RAND Corporation[17]
Network-centricity is a concept that was coined by Sun Microsystems4 . It was

later given a new lease on life by Admiral Arthur K. Cebrowski[7]. Cebrowski
was promoted to the Director of Office of Transformation under the leadership of
then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. With this promotion, Cebrowski
was given free reign to spearhead the post-9/11 ’force transformation’, and
reshape the armed forces along with it.
3.1 Information/Sensor/Engagement Grid

Network-Centric Warfare is a concept that can only be achieved by integrating
three separate network layers. These three networks will subsequently be in-
terconnected to each other over a wider network, such as the so-called ’Global
Information Grid’ - more on that later on.
Let’s delve into these three networks first. Keep in mind that these three
overlapping and interconnecting layers are not only rolled out in war zones but
in civilian areas as well.
1. Sensor grid
The sensor grid is a network consisting primarily of ’ground sensors’, RF
ID transponders, and even cameras. The sensor, as the name would lead
one to suspect, takes notice of certain events and actions (’sensing’). This
sensor can be an optical one (such as a CCTV camera), an auditory sensor
(for instance, a sensor that can perceive sounds above a certain decibel
output and upon detection can emit a disrupting sound that will compel
4 Cebrowski talks about network-centric warfare to a reporter at a press conference, debat-
ing its origins [which she erroneously believes to be the US Navy]: “However, the idea really
comes from Sun Microsystems, when the president of Sun [Microsystems] talked about that
it’s not the computer, but it’s the computer in the networked condition or the networked
environment, it’s about network-centric computing - in other words, it is just a word which
goes on the phenomenon of the Information Age.”
Fig. 3: Network-Centric Warfare is characterized by three overlapping networks.

The blue-colored network is called the ’information network/grid’, the
red-colored network is called the ’sensor network/grid’, and the green-
colored network is referred to as the ’engagement grid/network’. (For
further clarification: the cameras on the streets and in malls form are
part of a bigger ’sensor network’, the WiFi access points in snackbars and
your local Starbucks form part of a bigger ’information network/grid’,
and the ’engagement grid/network’ is in part enabled by these two afore-
mentioned networks - and the principal actors in this ’engagement grid’
are the Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) and other robotic vehicles that
are now starting to be deployed in western cities by law enforcement.
an assembly of noisy teenagers to flee a certain area), or a motion sen-

sor. Within ’Network-Centric Warfare’ doctrine, the ’sensor’ is regarded
as an ’information supplier and creator - based upon what the ’sensor’
can perceive, ’information’ is being produced and uploaded to the ’infor-
mation grid’ that could be of use in its unfiltered state to any one of the
interconnected users on the wider ’grid’.
2. Information grid
We previously established that the ’sensor grid’ is mostly concerned with
everything that can be sensed, perceived and/or detected (aurally/visually).
Once an event has been triggered (by way of the sensor having picked up
something - such as a certain person entering a building, or an enemy
entering a demilitarized zone), the sensor will broadcast a notification of
that event to the information network so that other devices and users are
able to learn of this new event occurring in real-time. All information that
is being dispersed from sensors, and the entire flow of information between
users in the network-centric environment all propagates throughout this
information grid. In this sense, the ’sensor grid’ could not sustain itself
without the ’information grid’. But the dependency is mutual on both
sides - an ’information grid’ would be useless without ’sensors’ spread-
ing their ’information’/’broadcasts’/’sensed events’ over the information
network.
3. Engagement grid
Lastly there is the ’engagement grid’. The ’engagement grid’ is on occasion
likened to the executable layer within ’Network-Centric Warfare’ - because
it is within this grid that the actual ’transaction’ occurs, whether that
’transaction’ entails death for the enemy that was just perceived by one of
the sensors, or an ’information assault’ on the hapless individual that was
just ’sensed’ by a commercial company’s sensor grid at a shopping mall.
op basis van het ’sensor netwerk’ die een evenement heeft gedetecteerd
en het ’informatie netwerk’ waarover alle onderlinge communicatie tussen
soldaten, machines en vliegtuigen plaatsvindt, is er ook een derde soort
’netwerk’ dat men in staat stelt om iets te ’doen’ aan dit evenement wat
zojuist is opgetreden.
3.2 Sense & Respond (S&R)

“RF ID could disrupt the way we think about things by doing much
of the thinking for us. The technology is helping create a "sense-and-
response supply chain," says Paul” - GovernmentExecutive.com, ’An
Internet of Things[15]’
Network-Centric Warfare / Network-Centric Operations allows for a new supply

chain that will revolutionize the way business and war is conducted. Without
an information network that uses ’sensors’ as the basic building block to feed
’audiovisual’ temporal input into the wider information flow, this new supply
chain would be impossible to achieve.
What Sense & Respond (S&R) basically entails is this - based upon an
’incident’ that has been perceived by a ’sensor’, an ’event’ is broadcasted onto
the wider interconnected network. In case some unit on the wider network
perceives this ’event’ to be of strategic importance, a suitable reaction can be
planned and coordinated instantaneously - this is what is understood as the
so-called ’respond’ end of the supply chain cycle.
To put this within the context of pre-existing communicative concepts, think
of B.F. Skinner’s ’stimulus-response’ theory, and add to that a relationship
between a machine/process and an organic subject, such as an individual or
groups of people5 .
Once arrived onto the scene of the ’sensed’ event, the UAV, by way of its
built-in camera, will determine that the subject that caused the ’event’ to be
generated (the ’event’ in this case being the detection of ’movement’ within
a certain area) is an enemy belonging to one of the local militias. Next, the
UAV ’sends’/’broadcasts’ on the information network/grid video footage or a
still image of the threat so that the other entities on the network have pictorial
evidence of this threat, and know where to hit it (this is what is also known
as ’situational awareness’ - the ability for everyone - whether it be soldiers,
machines, unmanned drones and whatnot - to have one shared holistic overview
of the battlespace).
Based on the ’threat level’ posed by the enemy, a decision can then be
formulated as to whether to engage the enemy/neutralise it (a nice-sounding
euphemism essentially for killing it), or take no action at all. For the purposes
of this hypothetical example, the decision has been made to take out the enemy.
Further, in this example, it is not up to a human to make this decision to kill the
enemy - this is agreed upon without human intervention by the system itself.
This brings us to the so-called ’system of systems’, or the so-called ’emergent be-
havior’ that will be exhibited by these interconnected UAVs/warfighters/systems
- everything will participate, strategize and communicate with each other using
a technique called the ’Cooperative Engagement Capability’ whereby each and
every single device, while still operating as one in a so-called ’swarm network’,
will have its own mechanism/algorithms to be able to come to a definitive con-
clusion on whether to engage the enemy based upon the threat assessment or
leave it up to the other units.
The ’engagement grid’ now comes into play. The engagement grid is a net-
work that makes use of the ’sensor’ and ’information’ grids to perfectly pinpoint
the ’target’ to be ’engaged’. Given the ’units’ available on the ’engagement grid’
(as in - the warfighters - armed UAVs that are currently patrolling the area),
the ’target’ can then be taken out with precision military strikes.
3.2.0.1 Example The following is a military example illustrating how the

three layers of the ’grid’ combine to enable ’sense and respond’ ’Network-Centric
5 Sense and respond can also be applied in the areas of logistics, distribution of goods.
Fig. 4: ’Information sensors’ enable new ways of warfare - the new supply chain
’sense and respond’ is both applicable to business problems as well as
those of war.
Warfare’. The hypothetical example takes place in a warzone where the United
States is embroiled in a guerilla war against local insurgents. A broad array of
sensors have been installed in this warzone. Now, suppose that the sensors are
’motion capture’-based, and that one of the sensors in this array detects move-
ment in the warzone that does not belong to that of the ’blue team’ (which
would be the good guys, the guys on your side), but to the ’red team’ (the
enemy). The sensor ’passes’ the notification of this ’event’ (event: a Red Team
’node’ moved inside the warzone) to the wider ’information network/grid’ (in
network-parlance, we would use the term ’broadcasting’ instead of ’passing on’
when referring to transmitting something to every node on a network). Fol-
lowing the broadcasting of the notification, one of the UAVs (Unmanned Aerial
Vehicle) that is currently patrolling the area picks up on this broadcast and
decides to scour the area. The UAV’s inclination to investigate ’events’ of this
nature depends on what all the other UAVs within the vicinity are currently
doing - in this case, they are all currently preoccupied with something else,
hence it’s the UAV’s prerogative to investigate this ’event’. If it senses that
the ’event’ consists of a key enemy hostile, it will destroy the enemy using its
onboard weapons.
The scenario for this example was an Intelligence-Surveillance-Reconnaisance
mission making use of a Sense & Respond supply chain (the sensors that form
the sensor grid; the information grid that the sensors and the UAVs/warfighters
both use; and finally, the engagement grid [].
3.3 Effects-Based Operations / Shock And Awe

Effects-based operations is a new way of conducting warfare in which a solution
is sought to defeat the enemy with such precision that he has already lost the
fight long before the fight even truly begins. The aim is to destroy the strategic
assets and resources of the enemy as quickly as possible so as to disorientate
him and break his decision loop (the OODA Loop) and morale. For instance, if
the adversary perceives that his logistic supplies are no longer available, or that
strategic reserves have been cut off, this will lead to such a dramatic decline
in morale that defeat is inevitable - for he sees an enemy on the march from
which it becomes much and more difficult to defend against, never mind fight
against. This ’decline of morale’ could be part of the ’effect’ that an ’effects
based operation’ sought to instill in one’s enemy - once such a certain effect has
been cast on the adversary, the opposing side starts destroying more chains in the
operational structure - just as long as it takes to disorient the operational cycle
of decisionmaking (de OODA loop) to the extent that the enemy is grounded
to a halt and has no choice but to surrender.
This is but one example of ’Effects-based operations’ - it could also be re-
ferred to as ’counter-terrorism’, since every act of ’terrorism’ has as its specific
goal the disruption of the current social order to further a new social order of
the terrorist’s own liking. Further, a terrorist act serves a dual purpose as a
’media event’ intended to terrorize those not directly affected by the act itself,
this as admitted by the Strategic Studies Institute:
Terrorist attacks ought to be understood as consciously crafted me-

dia events, and while that has always been the case, today it is more
true than ever before in two ways. First, the terrorist attack is it-
self often designed and intended for the cameras. Terrorist attacks
are designed for an audience. Their true target is not that which
is blown up—that item, or those people—for that is merely a stage
prop. What is really being targeted are those watching at home. The
goal, after all, is to have a psychological effect (to terrorize), and it
isn’t possible to have such an effect on the dead.” - p5/135, YouTube
War: Fighting In A World Of Cameras In Every Cell Phone And
Photoshop On Every Computer, Cori E. Dauber, November 2009,
Strategic Studies Institute[10]
3.3.1 Shock And Awe

“A President who launches a military operation without a congres-
sional authorization will attempt to make the use of force short and
decisive. It is desirable to terminate an engagement within the 60 to
90 day limit imposed by the War Powers Resolution.” - The RMA
And War Powers, The RMA and the Imperial Presidency, Lukasz
Kamienski, Strategic Insights[19]
Shock And Awe is the most prominent example of an ’Effects-Based Operations’

campaign. Just like ’terrorism’, an ’effects-based operation’ seeks to affect peo-
ple in ways other than the physical realm - and this includes the wider audience
that is merely acting as spectators to the ’effects based operation’. The effects-
based operation is a campaign of terror/precision warfare first and a ’media
event’ second - as in the case of the ’Shock and Awe’ campaign, which was
widely advertised on American television stations such as CNN (on the left side
of the political spectrum) and Fox News (on the righthand side of the political
spectrum). Both portrayed the war as a triumph of spectacle - the language
used to describe the war and the accompanying narrative to support the war
sought to sate Americans’ lust for revenge after the 9/11 terrorist attacks (Bush,
Colin Powell, Dick Cheney en Rumsfeld had engaged in a perception molding
campaign trying to float false and misleading information that Saddam Hussein
was involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and that he posed a strategic threat
to the United States and Britain because he had ’Weapons of Mass Destruction’
in his possession - a subset of ’Weapons of Mass Effect’, and another important
area of attention in the ’Revolution in Military Affairs’)
Within a short amount of time Iraq’s ’OODA Loop’ was broken - this quick
and decisive victory was a vindication of the pursued Revolution in Military
Affairs trajectory. There was a lot of confusion in the media surrounding the
’Mission Accomplished’ speech given by George W. Bush - unfortunately, people
have a couple of misconceptions surrounding the real intent behind the war.
It wasn’t that the War in Iraq was planned up until the fall of the Saddam-
regime - on the contrary, this was but one step in the pursued RMA Course
Of Action6 . The next phase in the RMA agenda would involve a counter-
insurrection/counter-insurgency scenario where the military needed to respond
with military force against an increasingly disillusioned populace ready to go on
the offensive.
The following document from 1994 lays out a hypothetical scenario concern-
ing the potential implementation of the RMA and its causative effects. There
are many similiarities between the real sequence of events that unfolded in Iraq
and the fictional scenario provided in this document, with the only key differ-
ence being that the ’counter-insurgency’ operation in the fictional scenario took
place in Cuba instead of Iraq.
“Potential or possible supporters of the insurgency around the
world were identified using the Comprehensive Interagency Inte-
grated Database. These were categorized as "potential" or "active,"
with sophisticated computerized personality simulations used to de-
velop, tailor, and focus psychological campaigns for each.
Individuals and organizations with active predilections to sup-
port the insurgency were targets of an elaborate global ruse using
computer communications networks and appeals by a computer-
generated insurgent leader."
"Psychological operations included traditional propaganda as well
as more aggressive steps such as drug-assisted subliminal condition-
ing.” - The Revolution in Military Affairs And Conflict Short Of
War, Steven Metz, James Kievit, 7-25-1994, US Army War College[20]
This document suggests that creating ’computer-generated’ terrorist insurgent
leaders to claim responsibility for ’staged raids’ and ’attacks’ would be an in-
tegral factor in ’Information Operations’. The intent would be to mislead, to
confuse, to lead would-be insurgents and terrorist sympathizers along a specific
path that has been anticipated beforehand by the ones running the ’Information
Operation’. This would constitute a ’deception operation’, with the specific aim
to infer behavior, midnsets and loyalty to a particular tribe or militia.
Further, the document notes that ’deception’, although frequently used by
the military, is somehow thought of as ’un-American’, and thereby difficult to
sell as being a good thing.
Various ’crisis management’/’threat inference’ have been used during the
2006/2007 Iraq insurgency to determine ’hostile intent’ among the insurgents
and try to ’infer’ possible ’Course of Actions’ to plan against. For more infor-
mation, see the References section ([4]).
6 People labouring under the misconception that Bush’s ’Mission Accomplished’ speech
was testament to the general perceived incompetence and ineptitude surrounding him as a
Commander-In-Chief should read the document “The RMA And War Powers” by Lukasz
Kamienski, contributor to the Strategic Insight, a periodical by the Center for Contemporary
Conflict (CCC). Written in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 Iraqi invasion, it conceded
that: “the RMA is making longer wars that might trigger the War Powers Act less likely,
establishing de facto authority for Presidents to make war.”[19]
Fig. 5: ’John Boyd’s OODA Loop (Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action

Loop).
3.3.2 Observe, Orient, Decide and Act - OODA Loop

In a wargame, the battlefield is divided up into two colour-coded regimes. One
of them is known as the ’blue team’ area - this area includes all the ’good guys’
- the people on your side. The ’red team’ is the enemy which has to be fought.
Several methodologies have been developed over the years to conquer the enemy
as quickly as possible using ’wargaming’.
John Boyd, US Air Force military strategist, came up with the famed ’OODA
Loop’. This is a ’decision cycle’ that has served as the basis for all subsequent
’decision cycles’ that have followed in its wake. OODA stands for ’Observation’,
’Orientation’, ’Decision’, and ’Action’.
• Observation:Gathering of data by way of sensors/ISR sensors.
• Orientation:The analysis of the data in order to come to a definite con-
clusion about the data or come to a certain perspective
• Decision:The creation of a ’Course Of Action’ based upon the perspective
that was formed during the Orientation phase.
• Action:The physical execution of the decisions that were formulated and
made in the previous steps - bringing them into being.
The OODA Loop is an infinitely repeating cycle that lies at the heart of any war
(whether waged in the air, on ground, or sea) - the objective is to disrupt your
enemy’s decision cycle (his OODA Loop) in order to gain a strategic leverage.
One of the ways of doing that is by engaging in ’information warfare’ to achieve
’information superiority’ over one’s enemy. ’Information warfare’ from a war
perspective entails - ’incapaciting the enemy by way of deception or deliber-
ate sabotage of your enemy’s mission critical intelligence gathering/information
providing systems’.
The OODA Loop is being used in combination with ’Network-Centric War-

fare’ and the ’Sense And Respond’ supply chain to make war as efficient as
remotely possible and as a means to achieving near-complete, perfect informa-
tion on the battlefield - what they call ’predictive battlespace awareness’. Liken
it to the micromanagement of the delicate balance between conflict and peace.
Just like ’Operations Research’ as a governing principle spread its way from the
military to the business and private sector, so too will ’sense and respond’ leave
its lasting impact on society at large.
3.3.3 Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)

"Cooperative Engagement Capability. This concept has been
proposed, developed, and demonstrated by the US Navy. The essence
of this concept as applied to a Navy battlegroup is that combat
systems for geographically seperated platforms share unfiltered sen-
sor measurement data associated with tracks with rapid timing and
precision to eanble the battlegroup units to operate as one [in their
engagement of enemy targets]. Rather than a stand-alone RMA
candidate, this concept should probably be thought of as an impor-
tant harbinger of network-centric warfare” -Past Revolutions, Future
Transformations - What can the history of revolutions in military af-
fairs tell us about transforming the US military?, Richard O. Hund-
ley, RAND Corporation, p107/132[17]
Cooperative Engagement Capability refers to the capability by the military to

utilize Network-Centric Warfare in such a way that the battlefield is totally in
control of the military. As soon as an ’enemy’ enters the battlefield, a sen-
sor within the battlefield will alert the entire network of the enemy’s presence
(in networking terminology, he is ’broadcasting’ this event over the network).
Next, a ’fighter plane’ or a ’ground soldier’ will be able to determine via the
’engagement grid’ how best to engage and destroy this enemy. What we just
described here is the sense and respond supply chain put into practice. Without
the ’sensors’, this entire way of waging war would be a near impossibility.
Cooperative Engagement Capability relies heavily on satellite imagery pro-
vided by Geographic Information Systems - think of Google Earth and other
uses of GIS where satellite imagery is overlaid on top of a topographic map. If
systems such as GIS and GPS did not provide CEC-enabled warfighters with
the geospatial means to determine where exactly they are in the battlefield and
where their supporting cavalries are, it would be impossible to engage an enemy
effectively. By giving the warfighter a completely monitored battlefield where
every sentient thing on the battlefield is divided up into two categories (blue
denoting the good guys - red denoting the enemies), autonomous and unmanned
vehicles have the required ’situational awareness’ to wage war as effectively as
infantry human soldiers would be able to do[9].
Fig. 6: "Cooperative Engagement Capability’: by means of the three-layered

network (sensor, info and engagement network) all military units in-
terconnected with each other over this network have the shared aware-
ness to determine where the enemy is located at any time, and based
upon this shared knowledge, can coordinate and engage in groups or
packs as one single autonomous fighting force in order to eliminate the
threat.UAVs, satellites, fighterplanes, and so on - all of these constitute
the aforementioned ’military units’ that are able to take advantage of
this capability. All of this is realized by way of the Global Information
Grid. Cooperative Engagement Capability is a new way of coordinating
attacks using both human and mechanical/robot military units - this is
enabled by ’sense-and-respond’ supply chain logistics, and in turn makes
use of the three-layered matrix grid that constitutes ’Network-Centric
Warfare’. This warfighting structure is currently being applied to both
civilian/residential areas as well as war zones - hence the plethora of
cameras and sensors popping up in the major Western countries."
21
Part III. Implementation of the RMA

“9/11 crystallized the sense of a rule-set gap. So we have been filling
rule-set gaps with great abandon ever since. The Patriot Act is a
rule-set reset.” - Thomas P.M. Barnett, The Pentagon’s New Map
The ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ required a ’raison d’etre’. Various think-

tanks, foremost among them the Project For A New Century thinktank, pontifi-
cated in a defense policy outline that the ’process of transformation’ would likely
be slow, absent the event of a Pearl Harbor-type attack[12]. One of the first pos-
sible candidates fitting this basic requirement for a ’precipitating/crystallizing
Big Bang’ was perceived to be the Y2K bug on January 1, 2000 - the day
the so-called ’Millennium bug’ would be causing computers worldwide to crash,
leading to a worldwide asymmetric shock to the financial system. But this never
happened. This ’strategic shock’ was to be found a year later on September 11,
2001. This event had two definining characteristics:
• It was a ’strategic shock’ to the system.
• Two ’events’ were generated in consecutive fashion. Before the towers
collapsed, one was dealing with a typical ’firefighting’ and ’evacuation’
operation. All of this changed as soon as the towers started to crumble,
however. In an instant, the ’theatre of operations’ was shifted from the
roofs of the World Trade Center to Ground Zero - where previously a
simple firefighting and evacuation operation would have sufficed, now there
was a lot of posionous dust to contend with as well as having to remove
all the wreckage, safeguarding nearby citizens and saving any possible
survivors that were in the building prior to collapse. This further gave
government bureaucrats the excuse to call for ’agile’ methodologies and a
rapid joint response force that could react to ’threats’/’events’ that tend
to shift from one specific scenario (planes flying into the World Trade
Center) to the next (the collapse of the two towers)7 .
These two characteristics of September 11 2001 ’crystallised’ - to quote Thomas
P.M. Barnett - the necessity for a ’process of transformation’. Before September
11 2001, there was no sense of urgency or need to retransform the entire Defense
Department. After September 11 2001, there was no turning back - RMA was
the only road to travel.
This ’process of transformation’ would include the following:
• The bureaucracy had to become more ’adaptable’, to the point where it
would enable cooperation and interoperation inbetween various agencies
without cutting through too much bureaucratic red tape. This in turn
would enable ’jointness’ - ’joint combat’. For instance, the ’Navy’ and the
’Marines’ had to be able to work together as 1 joint team instead of the
7 See the video ’Bioterrorism Threats (02-25-2002)’ available on the C-SPAN Video Archive
(see References, ’Bioterrorism Threats’[23])

22
two having their own demarcated areas of interests and their own (incom-
patible) communication protocols. This required the standardization of
all protocols and bringing all the various disparate forms of communica-
tion available to the Marines and the Navy together and interoperable by
way of an all-encompassing communications network framework.
• Information had to be ’shared’ between agencies and access to the infor-
mation should be governed using ’role-based access control’. To make a
long story short, the ’culture’ of the organisations involved had to be open
to change instead of resistant and hostile to change - they had to ’evolve’.
Previously, the prevailing tendency within the various disparate agencies
was to ’hoard’ information - certain agencies were opposed to each other
and didn’t like to share information inbetween each other. All this internal
infighting had to make way for a new business culture based on ’sharing’ of
information - this would require shared ’communities of interest’, agreed-
upon semantics, and agreed-upon rulesets amongst the various agencies
participating with each other as a joint force.
• The commercial sector had to invest more heavily in defense-related projects,
and at the same time, the Defense Department shoud incentivize private
companies doing so. There was the perception that the commercial sector
had outperformed military-grade computer projects and hardware on a
much tighter budget - and this ’waste’ in terms of military spending and
duplication of technology (the wheel had to be reinvented by the military
while a commercial product would do just as well, and be a lot cheaper)
was an issue that people like Rumsfeld felt could be avoided by fostering
stronger ties with the private sector.
3.4 9/10/2001 - War on Pentagon Bureaucracy

“The enemy is closer to home. It is the Pentagon bureaucracy...
We must transform the way the Department works, and what it
works on.. Some might ask, how in the world could the Secretary
of Defense attack the Pentagon in front of its people? To them, I
reply: “I have no desire to attack the Pentagon - I want to liberate
it. We need to save it from itself. ” - Donald Rumsfeld, September
10, 2001[25]
The shrinking Pentagon budgets during the ’90s (after the fall of the Berlin Wall
and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union) allowed the private commercial
industry sector to spearhead technological development and innovation, rather
than the defense sector in the Cold War days. The Defense and the intelligence
agencies regarded this as a troubling development. They were of the opinion
that the defense department should be able to benefit from the success of the
private sector
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld addressed the Pentagon on September
10, 2001 (a day before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001) to declare a
23
significant change in the way the Defense Department would be run from now
on. One of the newspaper headlines read: “Rumsfeld declares war on Pentagon
bureaucracy”. In this talk, Rumsfeld heavily criticized the conservative stance
of Pentagon bureaucrats and was of the opinion that taxpayer money was being
spilt on projects that for all intents and purposes could have been provided by
the private sector - and save lots of money and time. Force transformation,
agility, interoperability were all among the keynote subjects - but above all,
the need for an ’RMA’ was no longer regarded as optional, but rather as a
necessity. At the same time, Rumsfeld also acknowledged that not everyone
within the Pentagon would appreciate these far-reaching changes, to which he
had the following to say: “Well, fine, if there is to be a struggle, so be it.” 8 .
A day later, on September 11 2001, a couple of military ’wargames’ had been
originally ’planned’, including ’Global Guardian’ and ’Vigilant Guardian’. Cu-
riously enough, some of the ’wargames’ very much resembled the actual Septem-
ber 11 attacks - for instance, the wargame co-ordinated and conducted by the
’National Reconnaissance Office’ had as its premise a plane that would fly into
one of the towers of the NRO due to a mechanical glitch.9 A spokesperson of the
NRO had the following to say about the ’wargame’: “It was just an incredible
coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility,
as soon as the real world events began, we canceled the exercise”. Another
wargame that had the trappings of a terrorist attack that occurred shortly af-
ter September 11, 2001 was known as “Operation Tripod” - however, this one
was scheduled to be held a day after September 11, 2001 (which was cancelled
after 9/11). In this wargame, a bio-terror threat hit New York (think along the
lines of Anthrax or an H1N1/H5N1 virus as being the ’threat’) - during which
the entire population of the city had to be ’ring-vaccinated’. Rudolph Giuliani,
then-Mayor of New York, as well as representatives of FEMA and the FBI were
to have been involved in this stillborn wargame.
Bush wasted no time in declaring the ’War on Terror’ following the 9/11 ter-
rorist attacks, with Bush’s first decision being the uniliteral invasion of Afghanistan.
The ’War On Terror’ is an euphemism for the ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ -
it is a ’buzzword’ meant for public consumption that is specifically tailored to
fit in with the naming scheme behind various other social doctrines in America
that masqueraded as wars, such as ’The War On Poverty’ (LBJ), ’The War On
Cancer’ (Nixon), and ’The War On Drugs’ (Reagan)10 .
8 Also mentioned in this keynote address by Rumsfeld was that trillions of dollars were
missing/stolen from the Pentagon, and that the Pentagon could not account for the money
lost and where it ended up going[25].
9 The NRO is the branch of the Department of Defense that concerns itself with the utili-
sation and management of surveillance satellites.

10 Richard C. Lewinton once commented that Americans, allergic to the term ’socialism’
and therefore instantly dismissive of any kind of socialist programs, were instead sold on these
’social change’ programs by the government adopting a misleading slogan to mask the social
program, such as ’The War on Cancer’, or ’The War on Drugs’. Others have commented in
the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks that the ’War on Terror’ would play itself out more or
less like the ’War on Drugs’ - also hinting further at the socialist change doctrine behind the
purported and veiled ’war’ on ’terror’.
4 Privatization of the intelligence agencies/military contractors 24
4 Privatization of the intelligence agencies/military

contractors
Onder de slogan ’New Federalism’ werden regerings-, militaire- en inlichtin-
gendiensten geprivatizeerd. Ook de terminologie veranderde langzamerhand -
inplaats van de term ’government’ werd er steeds meer ’governance’ toegepast
ter vervanging - het semantieke verschil hier is dat ’governance’ verwijst naar
datgene wat een ’regering’ doet - ’governing the people’. Instituten die dus
medezeggenschap krijgen in ’international governance’ - zoals grote zakelijke
kartels, thinktanks en Non-Governmental Organizations - hebben dus indirect
de functies van de regering op zich genomen. Op deze manier hebben de pub-
lieke vertegenwoordigers steeds minder grip en macht en wordt de macht ge-
centralizeerd binnen selectieve kartels van bedrijven. Deze bedrijven lobbyen
vervolgens bij supranationale regeringen (zoals de European Union) voor meer
regeringscontracten en ’earmarks’.
Een aantal voorbeelden van intelligentiediensten die commerciele dochter-
sondernemingen hebben opgezet is wel op zijn plaats.
4.1 In-Q-Tel
In-Q-Tel is a so-called ’venture capital firm’ set up by the CIA[27]. The concept
behind In-Q-Tel came from former CIA-agent Ruth A. David[27], now employed
by ANSER Institute/Analytic Services (which in turn is a sister company of
RAND Corporation).
In-Q-Tel served as the proverbial capital injection arm of the CIA that would
fund ’high-risk’ companies - for instance, companies that were treading in un-
explored territory and therefore would need to take huge financial risks. Well-
known companies in the public eye that have received capital injection from
In-Q-Tel include: Google, KeyHole, and Facebook11 .
11 There’s a worrying trend to be noticed here - an ’intelligene agency’ that not only interferes
(and collaborates) with the private sector, but through a joint venture capital proxy tries to
’redirect’, ’stimulate’ and encourage ’emerging trends’ that will help facilitate the retrieval
of information meeting the demands/needs of the ’intelligence agencies’. After the initiative
’Total Information Awareness’ purportedly fell through because of public controversy, all of
a sudden the private sector filled its void with companies such as ’Facebook’, ’MySpace’,
’Hyves’ and ’YouTube’ taking over the baton - all of these services combined more or less fit
the inintial sought-after goals of the ’Total Information Awareness’ program, and resemble a
sort of LifeLog - a self-maintained ’diary’ held by the individual - the only difference being
that the user regards ’Facebook’ as a ’benevolent’ corporation and regards the exchange of his
personal information as being ’fun’ and merely a ’socializing/personal’ escapade. The original
intent of the Total Information Awareness has thus morphed and made the intrusion into
one’s life and the data-and-intelligence gathering abilities of these services such as Facebook
seem less invasive and threatening, because of the ’consumer/supplicant’ participating in a
’consumer/supplier’ transaction - the consumer in this case is the ’Facebook user’ making use
of the ’free service’ while ’Facebook’ is the ’supplier’ - the Internet communications service
provider that segregates and puts people into tight-knit communities/clusters/hives.
Fig. 7: In-Q-Tel was an important experiment by the CIA - create a private

company that would serve as a financier (venture capital farm) to all
sorts of unrelated daughter companies, each of them having a specific
specied area of expertise. Dr Ruth A. David came up with the concep-
tual blueprint behind In-Q-Tel during her tenure at the CIA[31]. Sub-
sequently, she became the Director of the ANSER Institute for Home-
land Security (created long before Homeland Security was created after
the 9/11 terrorist attacks - ANSER was set up as a daughter corpora-
tion of RAND Corporation and had a special service arrangement with
the US Air Force. As head of ANSER, she would create the concep-
tual framework for a postulated ’Homeland Security’ that would operate
abroad and domestically in the United States. The following quote from
Wikipedia sums up In-Q-Tel’s involvement with private industry: "Ac-
cording to the Washington Post, virtually any U.S. entrepreneur, inven-
tor or research scientist working on ways to analyze data has probably
received a phone call from In-Q-Tel or at least been Googled by its staff.
The Constitutional repercussions of this disclosure alarm some critics."
The reason why it alarms said undisclosed critics is namely because the
CIA does not have the Constitutional authority to operate domestically.
4.2 Blackwater USA/Blackwater Worldwide/Xe

Blackwater (old name for Xe) is a Private Military Corporation (PMC). A PMC
refers to a privatized mercenary corporation that lends its services to state and
non-state actors for monetary gain. In addition to serving as a military force
drawing on operatives with years of experience working for the CIA and the
Army, Blackwater also has its own intelligence service, called Total Intelligence
Solutions.
The founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, was cast into the public spotlight
after it transpired that Blackwater employees had been responsible for slaugh-
tering an entire city in Iraq, Fallujah, in what was a vengeful act of revenge
for a previous attack in which Blackwater employees were killed. His afiliation
with certain right-wing leaning Christian movements further damaged his public
persona, and that of Blackwater along with him.
After having resigned as Blackwater CEO in 2009, it was revealed in the press
that Erik Prince had been recruited by the CIA as an agent, with the explicit
aim to set up and create a quitessential commercial private army (’PMC’ in
politically-correct parlance). Aside from Prince having intimiate ties to the
CIA himself, his company was also complciit in the coordination and training
of various CIA assassination squads.
The lucrative military contracts with the Department of Defense have not
been ended after George W. Bush’s tenure - on the contrary, the Obama ad-
ministration has given preferential treatment to Blackwater (now called Xe)
within the PMC sector - gaining even more contracts in addition to the ones
that already existed during the Bush administration.
The company has decided to adopt a new name, Xe Corporation, to avoid
all the negative public connotations attached to the Blackwater name. It first
tried to restore its flagging moral representation in the media by tweaking its
logo to appear more ’friendly’ and ’benevolent’. For instance, the original logo
depicted a targeting reticule over a bear claw - in the sanitized version, the
targeting reticule had disappeared from the logo.
4.3 Keyhole
Keyhole, a company founded in 2001, specialised in visual satellite imagery
applications. Funding was provided by Sony, Nvidia, and, most notably, the
CIA’s ’venture capital’ firm, In-Q-Tel.
Keyhole was subsequently purchased in 2004 by Google. While the company
and its products were relatively obscure prior to and following its acquisition
by Google, millions of people to date currently make use of its software/services
without them knowing it - Google’s software, Google Earth, was in actuality a
spruced-up, branded version of Keyhole’s ’Earth Viewer’ - Google itself having
made little to no modifications to the code. The satellites used by Google Earth
consists of the KH reconnaisance and Loral Skynet satellites. The company
name itself (’KeyHole’) was an allusion to these ’KH reconnaissance satellites’
- these satellites formed part of the original ’eye-in-the-sky’ system for the use
5 Rollout of the ’Global Information Grid’ 27
Fig. 8: Google Earth is a rebranded version of Keyhole’s ’Earth Viewer 3D’, a

product acquired by Google after the acquisition of Keyhole by Google.
The satellite system utilized by Google Earth makes use of the KH-
reconnaissance satellite systems owned by the CIA. On that same tan-
gent, Keyhole was a privatized frontcompany by the CIA specializing in
satellite imagery.’
of observing and surveilling the Planet.

Keyhole enjoyed a major exposure boost during the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
when the major news networks such as CNN, ABC and CBS incorporated and
made use of 3D flyby imagery from its EarthViewer program for use in their
major war coverage programming.
5 Rollout of the ’Global Information Grid’

We earlier discussed the three-layered network that enables Network-Centric
Warfare in paragraph 3.1. To summarize for the sake of clarity - each of the
three layers has its own function and purpose - the ’Engagement grid/network’
is meant for enacting a ’change’ on the environment (whether that change be
physical in the form of killing an enemy, creating a purpose-made advertise-
ment for a specific person, and so on) , an ’Information grid/network’ (a pri-
vate network where all the units on the network will correspond with each
other and be able to read new ’inputs’/’broadcasts’ from sensors/warfighting
units/bureaucrats/troops), and a ’Sensor grid/network’ (an interconnected net-
work of ’sensors’ that respond to specific events of a certain type - motion,
Fig. 9: Global Information Grid, Operational View-1 - image courtesy of the

Department of Defense’
auditoral, scent, visual - and broadcast a notification of such and such event
occurring on the wider ’information grid/network’).
The ’glue’ that binds all of these three disparate networks together, is what
is referred to as an ’enterprise architecture’. But ’enterprise architecture’ is
but a conceptual outline for a framework - it cannot exist by itself. Thus, the
Department of Defense have developed an actual framework modelled on the
Zachman Framework called ’Department Of Defense Architecture Framework’
(DoDAF)12 - its implementation being the ’Global Information Grid’ . This
’global network’ facilitates the army and other stakeholders within the system
to coordinate and execute ’Network-Centric Operations’ in joint operations, at
any location in the world, at any time. This ’Global Information Grid’ will cover
the entirety of North-America as well as the European Union.
5.1 The role of IPv6 within the GiG

“Internet of Things would also greatly benefit from a rapid deploy-
ment of IPv6, as proposed by the Commission and endorsed by the
Council, as this would make it possible to directly address any num-
ber of objects needed through the Internet. “ - p8, Commission Of
The European Communities, Internet Of Things - An Action Plan
12 This framework was previously referred to as ’C4ISR Architecture Framework up until
2003.
For Europe[1]
To connect all of the ’endpoints’ within the network, (think of all the sen-
sors/cameras/UAVs), every device has to have its own uniquely addressable
network address. This is the real reason behind the worldwide migration from
IPv4 to the IPv6-protocol - the leap from 32bit adressing (IPv4) to 128bit ad-
dressing (IPv6) will lead to an enormous increase in the amount of available
end-to-end, point-to-point connected devices/nodes on the Internet.
To this end, IPv6 makes it possible to elevate the current-day Internet to a
so-called ’Internet of things’ - the addressing capacity is big enough to give every
grain of sand on the world’s beaches an IP-address - thereby making each and
every grain of sand uniquely addressable. 13 . RFID-transponders on products,
identification cards and travel products will also be integrated into this new
’Internet of Things’.
5.2 The adversary and the archetype

“The Office of Naval Intelligence will tell you right now - the Chinese
are looking ten feet tall. Why? Because Osama Bin Laden does not
have submarines. Those who don’t see a reality they can live with
have moved towards desire over the 1990s, and they invented a spe-
cial coded language to describe their journey [RMA/4thGenWar/Transformation].
Problem is, they needed a big sexy opponent to fight against. If they
can’t find one, they make one up.” - Thomas P.M. Barnett, The
Pentagon’s New Map, Presentation[3]
The Revolution in Military Affairs (or 4th generation warfare, whatever term
you may prefer) and the accompanying transformation of the military began
with Operation Desert Storm (also known as the first Gulf War). Desert Storm
would be the first of a series of 4th generation warfare trial runs that would
prove to be a perfect battle laboratory because of the relatively barren land-
scape - practically no undulations in terrain. Like the aforementioned quote by
Thomas P.M. Barnett would highlight - one of Arthur K. Cebrowski’s proteges
- the agenda was there before the ’big, sexy opponent’ was determined. This
proved to be a recurring problem in the post-Cold War. Where previously the
Soviets proved to be useful to the department defense in the sense that every
expenditure requested and granted by Congress was in the name of thwarting
Soviet expansionism, now that argument would fall flat on its face, since the
big, existential ideological enemy was gone. All of a sudden, there was talk of
doing away with the entire Pentagon altogether by seasoned military vets, and
there was a sudden decline of willingness to put up the cash for ever-more ex-
pensive Pentagon weapon projects when an entire stockpile of nuclear weapons
was now essentially rotting away, with the likelihood of it ever proving to be of
13 Denk aan het Burger-Service Nummer onder het eID initiatief van de Nederlandse regering
- ter vervanging van het Sofi-nummer, maar dan uniek addresseerbaar middels het Internet.
Het Burger-Service Nummer is enkel voor diensten met de ’overheid’.
use increasingly narrowing. Without an enemy, there is no war. Without a war,

budget cuts due to a lowered threat assessment.
5.2.1 Asymmetric threat

The ’enemy’ of the RMA (Revolution in Military Affairs) would take on the
form of an elastic/ambiguous archetype - the ’asymmetric enemy’. The ’asym-
metric’ nature of this enemy needs expanding upon. It refers to the size of the
’enemy’, which is asymmetrical in nature. The characteristics common to the
’asymmetric enemy are the following:
• He/she can be state-affiliated or not - the people involved in the ’cell’/’network’
do not necessarily have to be within the same city, state or nation
• People who share his/her mindset and interests form a ’community’ of
interest - and have the potential to form ’clans/gangs’ (or, less pejoratively,
’communities’)
• His/her convictions and ideas do not depend on the mainstream media
(television, radio - which is largely centrally controlled) in order to gain
traction and be propagated to the mass, but instead exploit new methods
of communication and mediums (such as the Internet, Twitter, instant
messaging, e-mail)
This archetype is very broad in scope since it could be applied to a figure like
’Osama Bin Laden’ or an entity such as ’Al-Qaeda’ just as easily as it could be
applied to an innocuous ’social network’ comprised of a gathering of acquain-
tances. Everyone has certain characterizing interests or thought processes that
might not be the prevailing attitudes or interests of the day, but are likely to be
shared by a few other unrelated individuals. To offer an example while staying
within the realm of computers, take the case of people who like to toy with
old computer hardware from the 1980s, such as a Commodore 64 or an Com-
modore Amiga. This kind of activity would fall outside the norm - you will
be hard pressed to find a modern day computer parts supplier or convenience
store that will be willing to sell new and/or old/used software for such systems,
never mind participate in the buying or selling of old/new/refurbished parts
or machines. Yet the Internet enables certain clan’s/’communities’/’groups’
comprised of individuals to set up their own supply- and distribution chains
independent of the massmarket system - for instance, they could participate in
stocking up second-hand Commodore 64s, repair broken parts and sell them
as new on an online webshop. Or to approach this from the perspective of a
software programmer - programmers could dedicate themselves towards writing
new software for the old machines and organize ’meetup’ parties on line or in
real life (IRL) where they will announce or showcase such new software - the
means to organization is there by use of e-mail, Internet, instant messaging chat,
Skype, and so on. Together, this would constitute a ’community of intereset’.
What binds these people together, are ’network connections’ relating to shared
ideas, shared convictions and shared interests. The ’network connections’ in
turn are further strengthened by the means to communication that allows these
people to organize independent of any broader, mass-market system. People
can form ’connections’ between each other where previously there would not be
the inclination to form an connection or group in the first place.
A gathering of like minded people comprises an information loop, and this
information flow is obviously not ’controlled’ or ’authorized’ by a wider mass-
market system. This raises all kinds of problems from a jurisdictive perspective.
Are people in danger of violating the ’intellectual copyright proprietor’ holders’
rights to selling wares under the Commodore brand when users are selling refur-
bished Commodore 64 units on the Internet, or setting up dedicated webshops
for them? Is it within the holder of the ’intellectual property right’ to demand
that this webshop cease any and all activities in selling or profiting from prod-
ucts perusing the Commodore brand - even though the unit that is being sold
has been taken out of production for at least the better part of three decades
now and the Commodore brand is a part of the original machine title? A couple
of tools have been provided to intellectual copyright proprietors over the years
to help relinquish their loss of control over uncontrolled information flows - in
the form of laws such as the ’Digital Millennium Copyright Act’ (DMCA, North
America) and the EUCD (European Union Copyright Directive). Even further
still, further binding ’intellectual IP/copyright’ laws are putting the pressure on
ISPs, website providers and the like to engage in self-policing on what users can
and cannot post or upload due to fear of litigation on behalf of the third party
(the ISP, the website hosting provider, and so on).
5.2.1.1 Data mining/clusters/social networks What binds the enemy to-

gether, are ideas. In an information age, the primary currency is ’information’.
The shift in mindset that brings around (companies will approach business from
a different perspective if the key distinguishing factor is ’content’) also changes
the priorities and the operating procedures of the military and other defense-
related institutions. In previous bygone ages, a certain ideology or a certain
nation-state was singled out as the enemy - every neighboring state or country
that was not under Roman law was deemed by the Roman Republic/Empire
to be ’barbaric’ in nature - and this value judgment served as a justification
towards declaring war on that country, pre-emptively invading it and consoli-
dating it under the Roman Republic/Empire. This was a ’standardization’ of
culture - once conquered, the remaining people of the conquered nation who
were not sold into slavery could attain Roman citizenship and enjoy the spoils
of Roman life - the only ’correct way of life’. The same tendency tended to
prevail as the justifying rally for war in medieval times between Christians and
Muslims - one way of life being better than the other.
Both religion and nation states have taken on a less central role in world af-
fairs due to globalism and the rise of atheism. In this new landscape, ’ideas’ now
constitute the ’enemy’, which is ever-changing. Certain ’ideas’/’convictions’ are
incompatible with others - intellectual ideas copyrighted by certain corporations,
for instance - ideas which can affect the bottom line of the corporation because
it gives them a strategic leverage against other corporations. For instance, to

be against a societal and militaristic revolution such as the RMA would be re-
garded as a ’potentially dangerous’ idea from the perspective of those who want
to ram through this policy14 .
To put a long story short - ideas (existing and new ones) have the potential to
cause specific harm to pre-existing agendas, and thus could lead to a disruption
of the current ’social order’ (a repeating occurrence in nearly every Revolution
- the American Revolution of 1776 was looked upon from the perspective of
the British Empire and its scribes as a ’terrorist’ and ’subversive’ movement
threatening Britain’s alleged rightful dominance over the colonies and the rel-
ative social order they proclaimed to have helped bring about). Therefore, it’s
imperative for the holders of power to dissect information and infer currently
prevailing mindsets, activities and beliefs among vast groups of people. Enter
Social Networking.
5.2.1.1.1 Social Networking
"There are only two places where socialism works – one is a beehive
and the other is an anthill." - Sir Ian Stewart-Richardson
This often-quoted line by Sir Ian Stewart-Richardson approaches socialism from
a purely organizational perspective. The beehive and the anthill both have a
rigid hierarchy, with the lower classes (which is composed of infinitely more units
14 A good example is to be found in the recent Sony-Linux fiasco. The PlayStation3 games
console has been advertised as of 2006 with the promise of being ’more’ than a games console
- touting its ability to install a secondary operating system on the built-in harddrive. This
made it possible to install an operating system such as Linux or BSD without voiding your
warranty by having to crack the system’s security system. Sony was prepared to allow people
this relative freedom because they were reasonably confident no harm could be done while
being sand boxed in a ’virtual environment’ governed by the PS3’s Hypervisor - Linux running
as a ’guest’ Operating System meant it could not directly address the physical hardware -
therefore, there was no conceivable risk of a hacker using the Linux OS to hack the underlying
security subsystem of the PS3. However, Sony eventually got cold feet when a certain hacker
known by the handle ’Geohot’ had succeeded in partially ’cracking’ the hypervisor. Citing so-
called ’security risk’s as an excuse to ram through this change in policy, as of April 2010 Sony
has decided to retroactively remove the Linux/OtherOS functionality from every PlayStation3
connected to the Internet through a firmware update (Firmware version 3.21). This helped
anger and enrage many individuals as well as private universities and defense-run departments
such as the US Air Force - what further aggravates the situation is that by not upgrading the
firmware to revision 3.21 (the ’Linux-busting’ firmware), Sony deems you a threat/security
risk and therefore no longer eligible to access their ’PlayStation Network service or any other
service provided by Sony to their PlayStation3 game console for that matter. Even legal users
are duped in this way because of so-called security risk’s - the argument Sony is putting forth
is that they have only provided you with a end-user license agreement to use the PlayStation3
game console you bought, but that they are perfectly within their rights (as per the EULA
you are required to sign before using the PS3) to withdraw or remove any service or feature
their system provides if it runs the risk of threatening intellectual copyright or posing the
risk of being a security threat. Fiasco’s such as this can only help fuel the controversial
debate surrounding ’intellectual copyright’ - the Sony-PS3 Linux case study illustrates that
the delicate balance of power between that of the consumer and the producer/corporation has
broken down - with the one on the losing end appearing to be the consumer.
than the higher classes) all having a certain uniformity of thought/purpose.

Segueing into the human society for a minute - ’Social networking’ enables peo-
ple to ’network’/’relate’ with other people who are all for all intents and purposes
on the same wavelength - they share the same ideas, the same interests, hob-
bies or ideas. Together, these people would form a ’cluster’ - or rather, ’social
network’. They communicate with each other using sites such as Facebook,
Myspace, Hyves and so on. This information that they share and disseminate
within their inner circle, as well as the conversations they engage in, are not
anonymous in nature, and the information and the conversations are not being
relayed from person to person, but instead are stored on ’private servers’ owned
by an ’information trafficker’/’middle man’ (Facebook, Hyves, Myspace). These
’information traffickers’ have stipulated certain privacy agreements and Terms
of Use agreements to which the ’user’ must conform to - in it, the provider
makes certain promises as to what he will and will not do with the informa-
tion that is being passed over its network, but reserves the right to change its
terms of agreements at any time. Rights can be granted just as easily as they
can be revoked. What becomes clear is that there is a certain hierarchy and
a centralized degree of authority to be detected here - the ’information-service
provider’/’information traffickers’ (the Facebook, Hyves, Myspace administra-
tors) are at the top of this hierarchical social structure, while the ’worker-bees’
that form one or many ’social networks’ (and share all of their data with the
centralized authority) are at the bottom of the hierarchical foodchain - both in
terms of the power they wield over their own information which they post on
the site as well as the degree of control they have over who gets to access this
information and whether or not it is being sold or passed on to prying eyes such
as the authorities.
5.2.1.1.2 Datamining Datamining is being applied to social networks and

mobile networks to segregate and divide people into clusters/segments. The aim
is to build up individual ’probability profile’ consisting of information on the
following:
• interactions with other people
• the nature of these interactions (common conversation topics, interests,

etc)
• the frequency with which these interactions occur (how many times per
day do people chat over IM/SMS, with whom, with whom did said person
chat the most this week)
These disciplines are all lumped together under the broad banner of ’Social
Computing’. This is a computer-related sociological engineering branch that
makes use of the various disciplines of information gathering/trafficking (data
mining, data bases, knowledge bases) to create useable statistical data sources
(’proximity networks, ’friendship networks’, ’sexual networks’, ’social networks’,
and so on). This data can then be cross-referenced with GIS and GPS-systems
Fig. 10: An example of data mining in ’social networks’ inferred by one’s mobile
phone usage - there are two kinds of ’social networks’ on display here
based on the same data source - a ’friendship’ network and a ’proximity’
network. This gives the analyst a reasonably accurate snapshot of the
geographical spreading of one’s inner social circle. All of this combines
to form a total snapshot of one’s daily social interactions. To view the
complete presentation, see ’Inference In Complex Social Systems[13]’
(consult the ’References’ section).’
35
(Geographic Information Systems and Global Positioning System in subsequent

order) to give the analyst even more insight into the nature of the event. For
instance, by combining all these disparate data sources he is able to infer where
such and such person was located at the time the specific event occurred (for
instance - calling someone on the phone, driving in your GPS-equipped car to
one of your friends) who he has been in contact with on a weekly or daily basis.
5.2.1.1.3 Threat inference This analysis can be used for marketing pur-
poses (think Google’s AdSense) - but it can also be used for defense purposes.
’Threat inference’ is concerned with the modelling of insurrections and terrorist
threats, and in the process creating a so-called ’Course of Action’. The objective
is as follows - what ’threat’ lurks beneath the intentions and deeds of a single
individual or a group of persons, and which steps have to be taken to neutralise
this threat? A couple of systems by George Mason University (in close cooper-
ation with the US Air Force) are being used to determine the best ’Course of
Action’ for any given situation. Starting with Pythia (an improved offshoot of
CAESAR II/Eb), sociological factors now play an important part and heavily
influence the next most desired Course of Action path to be travelled in the
branching tree of possible decisions.
A couple of examples of ’threat-inference’ / ’temporal crisis management’
systems :
• Commander’s Predictive Environment (CPE)
• CAESAR III (George Mason University)
• Pythia (previously known as CAESAR II/Eb, George Mason University)
• TEMPER (George Mason University)
• JSIMS (Joint Simulation Systems)
Part IV. The result of the ongoing

Revolution in Military Affairs
This revolution has no clear demarcation point. The title: ’Revolution in Mil-
itary Affairs’, is similarly misleading. Other alternative titles - such as ’New
World Order’ - have been trivialized and ridiculed by the media and don’t re-
ally give a good idea of where all of this is leading to.
What the ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ hopes to accomplish is the cre-
ation of an ’external dimension’ - a ’meta-tag’ dimension. Do not mistake this
as some metaphysical plane of existence, for the entire radiowave spectrum and
the Internet by themselves would constitute a similar ’external dimensions’ -
things which are there within the physical realm but are not directly perceiv-
able by the naked eye. Hence, this ’external dimension’ in question consists of a
36
Fig. 11: An illustration from the PowerPoint presentation ’Dynamic Network

Analysis: Automap/ORA/Dynet’[14], courtesy of the Carnegie Mellon
University. These juxtaposed networks are all classified as communities
of interest in the social computing field ’Dynamic/Social Network Anal-
ysis’. As can be seen in the accompanying screenshot, the invasion of
privacy into the private lifes of the ’population set’ is quite far-reaching,
chronicling the amount of sexual partners one has to the amount of dif-
ferent ’conversation subjects’ in the e-mails he receives and sends. To
view the presentation, see the ’References’ section, ’Dynamic Network
Analysis: Automap/ORA/Dynet’[14])
37
Fig. 12: This slide from the PowerPoint-presentation ’Commander’s Predictive

Environment[21]’ gives a good insight into the way the emerging sci-
ences of ’threat inference’ and ’crisis management systems’ are being
utilized by domestic law enforcement. Everyday ’behavior’ patterns are
studied thoroughly and fluctuations in ’normal’ behaviour are observed
and analyzed - on a daily basis. The amount of different fluctuations
in ’normal behavior patterns’ are studied on a per-day basis, and based
upon this data, the ’threat’ such and such specific changing behavior
patterns represents will be inferred (for instance, violent or physical
altercations on the streets could lead to disruption of the social or-
der; the same with public protests). This leads us inevitably to the
ever-increasing role the military will play in domestic law enforcement
vis-a-vis ’Military Operations Other Than War’) See the References
section for the link to the original PowerPoint presentation.
38
coupling of computer networks that lend semantical meaning/relationships be-

tween ’objects’ in the ’real world’. These meta-tagged ’objects’ are then given
a corresponding presence in the ’virtual world’ - i.e. the ’Internet of things’.
In this ’Internet of Things’, these ’things’ will have a couple of properties and
a ’status’ attached to them. This ’Internet of things’, serving as just another
service-oriented architecture to the Global Information Grid in the grand scheme
of things, will allow various agencies such as the Joint Armed Forces, Homeland
Security, private intelligence agencies and the like a near panoptical overlay of
modern-day society (think of all the cameras on the streets, think of all the
different motion-based ’sensors’ currently installed in the major cities, think of
all the telephones with a built-in ’camera’ that are currently in use by millions
if not billions of people, think of the KH-reconnaissance satellites courtesy of
KeyHole that was subsequently bought out by Google in 2004, and what we
now know as Google Earth - and lastly, give a passing thought on the Global
Positioning System that will be used for taxing-by-the-mile schemes15 ).
Bentham’s ’panopticon’ has been applied to the entirety of society. But its
ramifications on world society does not stop with merely the means to surveil-
lance - a ’digital copy’ of the real world has been created that integrates all the
’measurable’ and ’controllable’ aspects/resources of the world that is subject
to the boundaries of the ’grid’. Personnel locators, CO2 sensors, smart energy
meters - all of these devices/sensors feed into this digital overlay of the real
world, adding to a more or less complete panoptical overview of entire swathes
of people. This further helps facilitate a sense-and-respond supply chain to serve
as the backbone for a new era in marketing, advertising, social engineering, and
surveillance. Examples of ’sense and respond’ would include - you are using
up an exorbitant amount of energy this week, therefore the ’response’ to this
’sensing’ by the energy company will be that your costs will go up accordingly
to reflect this change. Another ’sense and respond’ scenario could consist of
you going into the mall, a billboard display doing an iris identification check,
and upon finding out you’re inside its customer database, the GAP billboard
will show a tailor-made advertisement on its screen that will alert you to new
tanktops that might be of interest to you[30].
This kind of ’customer data management’ overview of people’s private lives
will more or less grant ’perfect information’ to those with power in this new
Sense & Respond surveillance society - if one deems it necessary to inquire
who said person is that just bought something, then one can go through his
psyche profile by making use of the information gathering/data mining that is
being performed on forums/instant messaging/chat rooms, as to more or less
accurately venture a guess as to what the person’s current ’frame of mind’ is,
what specific issues are most important to him at this specific time, etc.
de ’status’ van bepaalde RFID-tagged produkten kan worden vastgelegd en
gecontroleerd. Door de camera’s in de treinen en bussen (alsmede de RFID-
reisprodukten zoals de OV-chipkaart) kan netwerk problematiek uit de Opera-
15 The Netherlands will be the first country to introduce mandatory, nation-wide taxing-
by-the-mile by 2012, with government-mandated GPS tracker boxes installed inside every
car.
39
Fig. 13: From the article "Sense and Respond - the Next Generation Business
Model[30]" by Seungjin Whang: "Minority Report, Steven Spielberg’s
sci-fi movie release in 2002 has the following scene: John Anderton
(Tom Cruise), after having eyeballs replaced to escape police detection,
walks into an apparal store (the Gap). The camera in the store scans
his eyes, and the flat TV panel instantaneously starts an advertisement
showing a holographic image of a woman, "Hello, Mr. Yakamoto! Wel-
come back to the Gap. How did those assorted tank tops work out for
you? Come on in and see how good you look in one of our new Win-
ter sweaters." Well, this scene (prepared with the help of MIT Media
Lab) demonstrates the next generation of business model - sense and
respond."
6 Private sector in the information age enabled by the RMA 40
tions Research discipline worden toegepast, namelijk: hoeveel mensen rijden er

op een gegeven moment in de bus/trein, op welke tijdstippen is de bezetting het
hoogst, enzovoorts.
The external invisible layer of ’dataveillance’ will fulfill its true purpose even-
tually once the transhumanist movement starts seeping into the popular culture.
The multitudes of sensors, access points and wireless data pushing through the
airwaves will engulf an augmented person’s senses - to the extent that that his
sensory input and output can be manipulated with or embellished from a remote
distance.
6 Private sector in the information age enabled by the RMA

The commercial/private sector is but one ’stakeholder’ that is envisioning en-
tirely new business opportunities in this information-based society that will
depend squarely on the wide-ranging sensor/information grid. To further help
empower these booming technology companies, new law instruments have been
devised that redefine the concept of ’intellectual property’ and to what extent
the laws concerning ’intellectual property’ can be enforced ( Digital Millennium
Copyright Act in the US; European Union Copyright Directive in Europe).
6.1 Governing of intellectual ’ideas’ - and rights pertaining

to these ’ideas’
Intellectual ’ideas’, the prime currency of the information age, can now be
patented, and rights pertaining to these ’ideas’ can be defined and enforced
using a methodology called DRM. DRM technology is mostly proprietary and
non-standardized in nature at the moment, with every corporation having its
own specific implementation of DRM16 , but one can already see a consolidated
move towards specific standards - in the movie industry with MPEG-7, MPEG-
21, HDCP, and DTCP-IP, for example (see the accompanying footnote).
DRM gives the information provider more authoritative control over what
the user is allowed to do with the content/information granted to him as part of
the initial exchange (buying ’information’/’content’ for an agreed-upon sum of
money). A couple of additional rules and rule sets that can be dictated by DRM
would include (for instance), the right to copy the ’single track’ he purchased
on iTunes to a non-proprietary MP3 player not belonging to Apple. Another
16 The movie industry, on the other hand, is making a conscious effort to throw its consol-
idated weight behind efforts such as MPEG-7 and MPEG-21, the two of which will combine
to offer the content provider a broad range of DRM features that will enable him to stipulate
restrictions on who gets to view the content, who gets to copy it, and so on. To clear up any
confusion, MPEG-7 and MPEG-21 are not new videocodecs with strict DRM features, but
are merely metadata containers that can be embedded/encapsulated in pre-existing video and
audio streams of any kind. MPEG-21 will also be a boon in terms of data-mining - all content
inside the audio or video-data can be ’tagged’ - speakers can be identified in an audio clip by
name, a music/audio genre can be defined for specific portions of the same audio file, and so
on. Furthermore, MPEG-21 offers a query-based language that will allow the data-miner to
quickly retrieve relevant information based on a specific search query.
limitation enforced by DRM could be the right to listen to said single x amount
of times before the user has to pay a small charge again. End-User License
Agreements and intellectual property rights are bringing about a shift in power
between the supplicant and supplier of information.
6.2 Utilisation of the ’Sensor/Information Grid’ by the

private Sector
As for why industry execs are warming up to the non-military opportunities
provided by technologies such as the Sensor/Information Grid, consider a talk
given by Jesse Schell, professor at Carnegie Mellon University, at the DICE
Summit 2010 (a convention geared for videogame industry executives). In this
monologue, Schell makes it known that, from a videogame designer perspective,
the ’panopticon’ provided by the Global Information Grid offers game designers
the chance to create games out of the most trivial everyday manual tasks. In
this prediction of what the future will entail, he foresees a world where nearly
everything would be turned into a game because of disposable technology such
as embedded sensors and screens in nearly every object, from the packaging of
your food all the way to household appliances. The principal reward system
in this new society would be based on ’credits’ using the sensor grid and the
sense and respond supply chain. For instance, if a person were to look at an
advertising billboard, the ’consumer’ would earn a couple of ’credits’; if he reads
a book from start to finish instead of merely flicking through it (it is presumed
that every page inside the hardbound book will have a built-in sensor that will
somehow trigger the ’information network’ whenever the page has been flicked
or looked at), he will earn additional ’credits’ than if he were to merely flick
through it. The concept of these ’credits’ are already familiar to owners of
games consoles such as the Xbox 360 and PlayStation3 - people are rewarded
based upon their ’achievements’ and the way they use their ’tools’/’toys’. In
this world, the baton of ’social engineers’ would be passed down to videogame
developers/designers - who have an innate knack for figuring out what makes
a certain mechanical activity ’fun’ - thus opening the door for an even more
abusive variant of Skinnerian behavioral techniques that could literally ’train’
and ’re-educate’ people into how to behave. And this seems to be the central
crux of Schell’s argument - that even though we might today regard this as being
very Brave New World-esque, at the same time, this could help make people
strive towards becoming ’better’ and ’more responsible’ people - if one were to
take a certain Doublethink disposition and merely put on a brave face.
The engine driving the architectural backbone for this behaviorist paradise is
the ’Sense & Respond’ supply chain, which was covered previously in paragraph
[].
Fig. 14: Jesse Schell, Carnegie Mellon University professor, recognizes in the
worldwide ’sensor network’ the means to a new frontier in ’social engi-
neering’ and ’social control’, but ruled over by game developers instead
of conventional social engineers. In this behaviorist landscape, every
mechanical action performed manually by the user is turned into a
’game’. Here is a quote from Jesse Schell in an interview with CNN:
"New video gaming systems are coming out [Xbox 360] that track every
joint of your body [Project Natal]. It’s basically going to become a nor-
mal thing for us to allow Microsoft to put a three-dimensional camera
on top of your television set looking at you, which sounds like a Big
Brother scenario if ever I heard one, but, still, it’s what we’re going to
allow. I think people will find a great deal of their lives co-opted by
games, sort of like how we saw advertising co-opt huge amounts of our
lives in the 20th century. "
43
Part V. Next step for the RMA -

Transhumanism/Singularity
Transhumanism is a growing movement of intellectuals/academics/ideologues
who want to upgrade their biological body with cyborg/computer parts. This
sub sector of futurists is now co-operating with the bio-ethics sector to push
through drastic changes in the law that will allow for the possibility to realize
a transhumanist future world. What these individuals have in common is a
yearning to become ’post’human - to become more than human, a fusion between
man and machine, perhaps even totally cybernetic.
Transhumanists are not only calling for the right to self-modification/self-
mutilation - they also want to extend the concept of ’citizenship’ to the rest
of the animal kingdom. A key determining factor in the right to ’citizen-
ship’/’personhood’ is the concept of ’cognitive capacity’ (’cognitive capacity’
is an euphemism for brain capacity). Machines with superior ’Artificial In-
telligence’ capabilities would be entitled to citizenship rights under proposed
legislation pushed by transhumanists.
7 Utopia
“The English Puritans, the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, were in each
case simply power seekers using the hopes of the masses in order
to win a privileged position for themselves. Power can sometimes
be won or maintained without violence, but never without fraud,
because it is necessary to make use of the masses, and the masses
would not co-operate if they knew that they were simply serving
the purposes of a minority. In each great revolutionary struggle
the masses are led on by vague dreams of human brotherhood, and
then, when the new ruling class is well established in power, they are
thrust back into servitude. This is practically the whole of political
history, as Burnham sees it.” - Second Thoughts on James Burnham,
George Orwell[22]
Like the proselytes of every revolutionary movement, transhumanists also share

this yearning for the creation of a ’perfect society’. In that sense it very much
resembles mutilated Marxism - technology, rather than enslaving people, will
liberate the masses. Utopians of the futurist school believe that food production
and the distribution of goods can be ’shared’ and turned into a ’communal
commodity’ because of the fact that machines will perform all the necessary
work. A ’global brain’ will guard over the city/town and do all the necessary
decision-making at the behest of the ’citizens’. The central premise in all of
this is that there’s enough food and enough goods to go around for everyone
- nanofactories will be utilized in order to be able to create anything at the
molecular level on demand.
8 Dystopia 44
Another utopian inclination is to regard technology as a great ’equalizer’ for

people with disabilities (such as the blind, the crippled, etc.) - by giving them
the means to bionic eyesight or the ability to walk again through prosthetics.
7.1 Example
An example of the kind of utopian scenarios imagined by transhumanists is por-
trayed in the 2008 documentary ’Zeitgeist Addendum’. About halfway through
the documentary, the public is sold on a tentative project called ’Venus Project’,
a project headed by futurist Jacque Fresco.
The ’manifesto’ of this future society has clear Marxist overtones - ’money’
is a corrupting ’force’, a swindle that leads to rigid social stratification, and
hence the only solution to combat this evil is by making ’redundant’ the very
concept of ’money’ - and in effect relegating to the scrap heap the basic re-
ward system that goes with it. This is what Jacque Fresco understands by a
’resource-based economy’ - which would replace the aging ’economic monetary
system’. The resources would be administered and rationed out by computers
making ’educated’ guesses about the Earth’s ’carrying capacity’ (a buzzword
from environmentalist doctrine) - Jacque Fresco believes that by taking the de-
cisions out of the hands of bureaucrats and instead letting computers do the
running of the state, this essentially removes the ’state’.
8 Dystopia
What flies in the face of these utopian fantasies of a better world are some of
the statements made by transhumanist pioneers. For instance, Kevin Warwick,
made the following comment in an interview:
“Clearly, the world is going to be dominated either by intelligent

machines, or cyborgs, or a combination - that’s where the future is
going.
So, the future for an ordinary everyday human - I guess there will be
some sort of subspecies, just like we have cows now - so we will have
humans in the future. There will be other creatures of the species
- cyborgs, intelligent machines - that are the dominant lifeforms on
Earth.
And as a cyborg - if a human came to see me and he starts making
silly noises - a bit like a cow does now - if a cow comes to me and
says: "moo, moo, moo", I’m not going to say: "Yeah, that’s a great
idea, I’m going to do what you tell me", so it’ll be with a human.
They’ll come in and start making these silly noises that we call
speech and human language and so on - and these trivial noises -
I’m not going to do those silly things - why should I? This creature
is absolutely stupid in comparison to me” - Kevin Warwick
9 Start of transhumanism (Application within the RMA) 45
In the above snippet, Kevin Warwick imagines a future world scenario where
’cyborgs’ (or rather, ’transhumanists’ - to be more human than human) will not
consider ’normal human beings’ to be their equals, but rather their inferiors.
This would give rise to a new socially stratified class system where the willingness
to modify your biological body would get you up the food chain. Instead of
creating a more ’equal’ society as the utopian version of this future scenario
would have us believe, in Kevin Warwick’s version of this same future world
scenario, technological snobism would on the contradictory lead to even more
inequality between those with a brainchip, and those without (which would
therefore not be able to integrate into a society where logistics and supply and
demand are all governed by the ’sense and respond’ supply chain). As computers
become an ever-more encompassing part of one’s everyday lives, it becomes
likely that those who will hold conscientious objections to having to upgrade
their body with machine parts will become stigmatized and pigeonholed as a
’luddite’ or even a new ’Amish’. Richard A. Clarke, prolific counter-terrorism
author, has even floated the concept of the future being rife with ’BioLuddites’ -
anti-transhumanist ’terrorists’ that try to disrupt and prevent the transhumanist
society from being brought into existence. It is interesting how opposition to
this ’social change doctrine’ leads to one being termed a ’terrorist’.
9 Start of transhumanism (Application within the RMA)

The first incremental steps towards a transhumanist society is to be found in
the implantable ’brainchip’. The US Air Force has already revealed in its Vision
2020 document how it intends to make this mandatory for the average soldier:
“The implanted microscopic brain chip performs two functions. First,
it links the individual to the IIC [Information Integration Center],
creating a seamless interface between the user and the informa-
tion resources (in-time collection data and archival databases). In
essence, the chip relays the processed information from the IIC to
the user. Second, the chip creates a computer-generated mental
visualization based upon the user’s request. The visualization en-
compasses the individual and allows the user to place himself into
the selected battlespace.” - US Air Force - Vision 2020 - Chapter 4
- System Description[2]
Part VI. Evil in the RMA

Door Kant wordt het volgende gesteld:
Each person has a fundamental right to be respected and treated as
a free and equal rational person capable of making his or her own
decisions
46
Fig. 15: Article from Edge Magazine, November 2002 - ’Controversy surrounds
the conclusions he derives from these experiments. [Kevin] Warwick
sees himself as a pioneer of a new race of human-machines which will
eventually take over the running of the world, thanks to their enhanced
brains and bodies.’
47
Fig. 16: Jose Delgado of Yale University was a pioneer in the development of
brainchips, the development of which can be traced back to the ’60s.
Delgado was able to bring cats, dogs and bulls from a state of near
passivity into a fit of rage using a special contraption he called a ’sti-
moceiver’. After the success he had achieved with animals, he then pro-
ceeded to apply the same technology and doctrines onto people (most of
the people used as guinea pigs for these experiments were drawn from
the prisons and mental wards since they more or less lacked the Con-
stitutional rights and privileges that would protect them from being
abused or misled into participating on experiments that might prove
extremely detrimental and risky to their own wel-being. The electronic
stimulation and control of the mind has been perfected to such a degree
now that Intel has proudly announced that it envisions that by 2020
a great many of their customers will have opted for an implantable
brainchip. (see ’References’, ’Intel Wants Brain Implants In Its Cus-
tomers’ Heads By 2020’; also see the article from Playboy Magazine,
January 1990, "Mind Control", by Larry Collins’).
Dit is wat er juist niet gedaan is. In een rotvaart is een serie van revolutionaire
handelingen doorgevoerd die allemaal onderdeel vormen van 1 agenda (namelijk
de ’Revolution in Military Affairs’) terwijl het publiek ondertussen door middel
van coercie, the exploitation of fear (fear of terrorism, fear of influenza-like
viruses, fear of economic crisis) and apathy (’I have nothing to hide’) vooral
werden aangemoedigd om niet al te veel vragen te stellen, dat het allemaal wel
meeviel en vooral gewoon meegaan met de ’flow’.
Een voorbeeld hiervan is de breinchip. In een US Air Force document afkom-
stig uit 1996 wordt toegegeven dat het leger dit zou willen doorvoeren voor
2025, maar dat er op het moment van schrijven gewetensbezwaren zijn. De
auteur van dat document hoopt stiekem dat deze ’gewetensbezwaren’ zodanig
zijn afgenomen circa 2025 dat infantriesoldaten geen probleem zullen zien in het
implanteren van een breinchip - en daarna wordt er een witte leugen vertelt om
ietwat natuurlijke angst (een ’zelfoverlevings instinct’) weg te nemen bij de lezer:
“Maak je geen zorgen, deze breinchip ’controleert’ de technologie, niet de mens”.
Dit is flagrante onzin - Jose Delgado was vanaf 1965 bezig met experimenten
waarbij hij zogenaamde ’stimoceivers’ (elektroden) in het brein implanteerde
van apen, muizen, katten, honden en stieren. Door stimulering van de hypotha-
10 Dehumanization 48
lamus was het mogelijk voor hem om met een remote control applicatie het
’onderwerp’ aggressief, passief of wanhopig te maken. Tevens was het mogelijk
om middels deze stimulering het beest met een soort ’joystick’-achtige contrap-
tie te bedienen. Nadat zijn experiment met een stier in de ring een succes bleek
te zijn, ging hij deze technologie verder ontwikkelen voor toepassing op mensen.
Maar dit document uit 1996 laat de lezer doen geloven dat dit niet de bedoel-
ing is in dit geval - erg moeilijk om te geloven, aangezien het leger altijd al
een regimentatief systeem is geweest waarin een duidelijke hierarchie in zit - en
dat er gedaan moet worden wat de Commandant of Generaal zegt, zonder dat
gewetensbezwaren daarbij in de weg kunnen zitten.
Dit is tevens het ’kwaad’ dat ik zie in de manier waarop deze ’transitie’
naar het informatietijdperk wordt doorgevoerd - achterhouding van informatie,
natuurlijke angst van het volk voor bepaalde invasieve handelingen wegnemen
door ze als kinderen te behandelen, en een bepaald soort hedonisme stimuleren
(veel drinken, veel sexuele promiscuiteit, veel oppervlakkig feesten) zodat men
afgeleidt is van de maatschappelijke veranderingen die, eenmaal doorgevoerd,
voor altijd zullen gelden en voor een lange tijd niet onderhevig zijn aan reformer-
ing17 .
10 Dehumanization
10.1 Dehumanization of war
The total ’rationalisation’ of war has been attempted before, but succeeded only
in perpetuating more ’irrationality’ instead of less. A good example of this is
the policy by Robert McNamara during the Vietnam war to introduce ’body
17 Some food for thought: utilitarianism is based on the principle of hedonism - the greatest
happiness principle operates under the assumption that the only two intrinsic values worth
quantifying in this world are ’pain’ and ’pleasure’. Bentham was squarely against the concept
of ’intrinsic rights’ (it was also out of similar convictions that he wrote a scathing ’essay’ on the
American Declaration of Independence, which formed part of the British government’s official
rebuttal to the pbulication of said document in July 1776). Even the concept of absolute
moral value judgements were nonsense according to Bentham - instead, he had thought up
a couple of variables (or ’vectors’, if you may) that would calculate the ’pain’ or ’pleasure’
effect of any given action. This is what is known as the ’hedonistic calculus’. Coincidentally,
it is interesting to point out that in the current era we’re living in, there has been a gradual
implementation of the panopticon on the whole of society, while at the same time we have
seen an increase in hedonistic behavior (think of the various sexual fetishes of today, the half-
naked starlets such as Lady Gaga, Beyonce and Rihanna posing and singing suggestively in
various schlock music clips aired by MTV and TMF, the coma-drinking prevalent in Europe,
the constant 365 days per year partying that has become the norm on college campuses, vast
promiscuity and a rapid increase in one-night stands and a substantial rise in divorces, the
’normalisation’ of extramarital affairs, infidelity, and so on. What is a constant in all of this?
Pain and pleasure - pain is felt when someone has been cheated on by his spouse/partner, while
the inverse of pain, namely pleasure, is experienced after having committed the umpteenth
sexual act with a mistress or lover that has eluded his or her’s partner. Mainstream media is
capitalizing on these changing morality rulesets - Ashley Madison is an online dating service
for people currently in a relationship who want to have sex with someone else, while Maxim
has advertised on the cover of its April 2010 issue an article with the headline ’Sex - Cheat
And Don’t Get Caught - Women Will Tell You How’.
Fig. 17: Ever-increasing hedonism in a panoptical society - Maxim - March 2010

- ’Sex - Cheat And Don’t Get Caught - Women Tell You How’. An
extract from the article: "Don’t want to fish off the company pier?
Open a branch office, like Danielle, a 29-year old photographer, who
cheats only on business trips. "I love my boyfriend, but monogamy is
for the birds," she says. "I enjoy fucking new guys, then going home to
the man who loves me. I’d never want him to run into them, so I only
do it in other cities"
counts’ - by which the ’performance’ of a battalion of soldiers was measured by

them reaching their quota for the given week or day. Underachieving battalions
could expect to be disciplined or punished for failing to meet their targets -
hence why every battalion tried to achieve their targets, irrespective of the
means by which they had to achieve it. This led to soldiers willfully executing
countless innocent civilians to reach the quota - a quintessential example of
’institutionalized’ evil brought about by bad and failed policies, either by sheer
malpractice or irresponsible ethical behavior on the part of the policy makers.
A similar ’dehumanization’ process is currently ongoing in the current RMA
wars - Afghanistan and Iraq. For instance, a video leaked by Wikileaks showed
a Western journalist in Iraq being mowed down by the Army, as well as the first
responders that came to the man’s aid. There are a couple of factors at play
here - in the first place, the UAV/gundrone attender is far removed from the
actual battlefield, his only outlook into the real world being this ’monitor’ he
peers through and an input device in the form of a joystick - not unlike playing
a videogame. He then identifies a perceived enemy, and asks for permission to
shoot. Once being authorized to shoot to kill, he proceeds to take him out as
quickly as possible. When the ground troops eventually tell him that during this
reckless act he even managed to kill and maim several children, the soldier in
question reacts nonchalanty: “Dan hadden die kinderen daar maar niet moeten
zijn”. There is a real sense of detachment and lack of personal responsibility
on display here. Deze ’soldaat’ kan zulke nonchalante en niet-inlevende dingen
zeggen vanwege een aantal redenen - ten eerste kan hij de gevolgen van zijn acties
niet in levende lijve zien - hij ziet het vanuit een ’monitor’/’TV scherm’. Ten
tweede is hij op Pavloviaanse manier geconditioneerd thuis om met een joystick
via een computerspel zoals ’Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2’ zogenaamde
’search-and-destroy’ operaties uit te voeren. The man-machine interface consists
of a HUD, a gun and a visor, and every target that pops up on the screen has to
be neutralized. Current-day firstperson shooters are commonly developed in co-
operation with defense contracators and have the added psychological side effect
of ’hardening’ the would-be soldier prior to becoming enlisted in the Army.. Er
zijn zoveel gesimuleerde moorden gepleegd in een virtuele omgeving - zoveel
gesimuleerde moorden vertoont op TV en in films - dat de ’actie’ ’vermoorden’
is genormaliseerd - het vormt onderdeel van de ’cultuur’ waarin de soldaat is
opgegroeid.
Het verminderen van dit kwaad:Een oplossing zou kunnen zijn - een
soort Three Laws Of Asimov’ ingebouwd in een UAV of robot dat hen ervan
weerbiedt om onrechtvaardige handelingen uit te voeren. Te denken valt aan
de ’Three Directives’ van Robocop (1987, Paul Verhoeven). Maar zelfs zo’n
oplossing is niet immuun voor corruptie - zo werd Robocop namelijk ook een
vierde, verborgen directief gegeven: onder geen enkele omstandigheid mocht
hij een van de bestuurshebbenden van het bedrijf dat hem gemaakt had, OCP
(OmniConsumer Products), aanvallen of arresteren. Mocht het nu net het geval
zijn dat de adjunct-directeur van het bedrijf, Dick Jones, zelf schuldig was aan
moord en Robocop hiervan het belastend bewijsmateriaal had, maar niet kon
optreden tegen zijn superieur.
10.2 Dehumanization of the person

As a result of the shift to the information age, long-standing attitudes with
regards to privacy have been shaken or irreparably severed. An often-quoted
slogan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks was that one had to be corralled into
’giving up their liberties for security’, which was followed a few years later by a
more or less indifferent attitude with regards to the right to privacy. The rise of
social networking and the newly granted ability by the individual user with an
Internet connection to form ’communities’ or ’clans’ consisting of people that
(prior to the Internet age) he would not have the foggiest chance of ever meeting
with has all led towards a certain kind of ’identity management’ becoming the
average person’s only form of currency. To reiterate a previous statement made
in this document that would put this into perspective:
“In an information age, the primary currency is ’information’.”
Previous to the information age, the general public’s daily activities were more
or less indirectly governed by institutions through the willfull and conditioned
consent of that very same mass public. Institutions of ’intimicacy’, such as
dating, romance, and personal relationships, all followed certain rulesets, and
nearly all hinged on the ability of the average individual to retain their own
private feelings of intimicacy and affection - feelings and thoughts which are not
known to anyone but that person, and only that person alone.
In the information age, this long-cherished idea of ’inner sanctum’ makes
way for a form of ’identity management’ whereby one projects a digital facade
of one’s own identity online. Using the popular social networking sites, blogs,
Twitter and the like, people choose to input massive amounts of personal infor-
mation about themselves for what amounts to little or no commercial incentive
or personal gain - the primary impetus being to ’socialize’ for socialism’s sake.
By letting others know about your sexual escapades, letting people know about
their own personal break-up vis-a-vis Twitter and posting pictures of a party you
visited the other day are all ways of creating a personal dialogue that revolves
around you. As this document astutely points out:
“In other words, the labor of the new individual is a labor of self-
presentation. Strangely enough, this labor of self-presentation, which
used to be the domain of celebrities such as movie or rock stars, is
now a full-time labor for many individuals, who, for example, wear
their emotions on their t-shirts or sweatpants that read MILF in
Training, Jerk Magnet, Your Boyfriend Wants Me, or Juicy.” - Pub-
lic Intimacy and the New Face (Book) of Surveillance: The Role of
Social Media in Shaping Contemporary Dataveillance
One can see where this idea became about to the point where it rewired the
general public’s daily lives so drastically. For instance, witness the rapid ex-
plosion of so-called ’reality television’ shows (such as ’Big Brother’, ’Survivor’)
where supposed average common-day folk become the subject of attention in a
major hit TV series, where they compete with each other for prizes. Most of
the time this race to the top leads to a lot of backstabbing, heated fights and
general hostile behavior towards each other. What is central in all of this, is
that the people inside this gameshow are constantly being monitored. There-
fore, in order to become ’popular’ with the viewing audience, one has to project
an external ’persona’ of oneself - in order to stay interesting to the television
crowd, or sway the crowd if you will (similar to what gladiators used to do in
gladiatorial events in Rome).
By donning T-shirts with texts such as ’MILF in training’, ’Jerk Magnet’,
or ’Your Boyfriend Wants Me’, the fashion industry is capitalizing on this new-
found desire to ’self-project one’s own embellished persona’ to the outside world
- but in such a way that it binds the ’intimitate’ act/intent with this desire -
self-presentation. Whereas previously dating or intercourse between a man and
a woman was bound by a strict ruleset of how to pick up a girl and how not to,
in this ’information age’ the woman wears a couple of ’inner self’ status notifica-
tions on her shirt - such as ’MILF in training’ - signs which act more or less like
sensors for the men who, from a Network-Centric Warfare perspective, pick up
on these sensors through the ’information grid’, and then ’reespond’/’engage’
the object of desire in kind - in effect skipping the foreplay altogether.
One constant in all of this is an increase in voyeurism, but most of all the
eradication of an ’inner sanctum’ for your thoughts and feelings - everything that
matters when it comes to intimicacy, becomes ’personal’ - ’socialised’. Everyone
has a ’right’ to know one’s inner feelings, one’s inner thoughts, and one’s inner
likes and dislikes - presumably out of some need to become all ’interconnected’
like a ’global village’.
So, because the average John Doe or Jane Doe does not exercise much power
in the role provided to him by society, he instead makes this trip into the ’self’
and lets his whole world revolve around ’self-projection’ - the external hologram
of his inner self that he projects to the outside world, completely willingly, and
without any enforcement or mandate on the part of government. Rather, new,
free services such as ’Facebook’, ’Youtube’, ’Myspace’, blogs, Twitter, and the
rapid rise of the Internet helped bring all this about, one medium of exchange
after another one part of a jigsaw puzzle perfectly falling into place to form a
panoptical sense-and-respond society.
10.3 Dehumanization of surveillance and intelligence

gathering
“An important characteristic of the new surveillance is that it relies
on a machine based, automated collection of personal information.
Even the most innocuous transactions leave [a] data trail that can
be stored for later analysis(Gandy, 2002; Marx, 2004)” - Public Inti-
macy and the New Face (Book) of Surveillance: The Role of Social
Media in Shaping Contemporary Dataveillance
It is well understood by now that, by reducing people to mere numbers on a

broadsheet, the person is effectively dehumanized - he or she has become just
53
another insignificant number forming part of a larger population set. This same
dehumanizing procedure is now also being applied to scientific inquiry, data
mining, surveillance and spying, all of which is being performed by machines
(intelligent ones at that - cameras, sensors, UAVs) rather than a real private
inspector spying on you. Because storage is cheap and plentiful, it enables the
institutions in charge of surveillance camera networks to store everything for
future reference without the inconvenience of having to delete camera footage
of inconsequential days because the server is running out of storage space.
“Third, data mining rationalizes surveillance by removing hu-
mans from the interpretation process. The dehumanization of the
analyses is important: because it removes the so-called human bias
from the interpretation process. As such, when combined with the
fact that contemporary data mining relies on quantification of in-
formation (a seemingly dispassionate and objective method of inter-
preting the social world), this dehumanization projects an aura of
objectivity, consequently making it even more difficult to challenge
its premise (and the findings it provides).” - Public Intimacy and
the New Face (Book) of Surveillance: The Role of Social Media in
Shaping Contemporary Dataveillance
The institution would argue that this helps make the case for mass surveillance,
since ’human bias’ or ’abuse’ is taken out of the equation by removing the
human element - the camera or ground sensor does not act discriminatory, but
merely perceives a certain ’event’ (such as ’motion’, ’sound’ or an ’image’) and
based upon this triggering event, the datamining services can then kick into gear
and pull up relevant information about the ’object’ in question (for example, a
man or a woman that is caught in suspicious behavior). Anything that could go
wrong, and does go wrong mostly when talking about surveillance and potential
privacy abuse, is blamed on the human element. By having machines do all
the work, like the author of the article above states so eloquently, an ’aura of
objectivity’ is projected, making it difficult to argue against the central ’premise’
behind this method of surveillance.
Part VII. Explanation of concepts

Much of the literature available on the Revolution in Military Affairs is swamped
with acronyms. The reason behind this fondness for three- and four-letter
acronyms is because of their brevity (which comes especially in handy during
ISR missions - status indications can be relayed faster by speaking in acronyms
rather than entire grammatically-correct sentences and terms). But the side
effect is that to the layman - who is not familiar with all these terms and slo-
gans encapsulated inside these acronyms - military documents become almost
impenetratable.
With this in mind, following is a list of acronyms commonly deployed by the
11 Acronyms 54
Defense Department.
11 Acronyms
Term Explanation
BFT Acronym for: Blue Force Tracking.
C2 Acronym for: Command, Control.
C3I Acronym for: Command, Control, Communications, Intelligence.
C4ISR Acronym for: Command, Control, Communications, Computers,
Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaisance.
CCTV Acronym for: Closed-Circuit Television.
CIA Acronym for: Central Intelligence Agency.
CIO Acronym for: Chief Information Officer.
CO2 Chemical formula for ’Carbon Dioxide’.
COINTELPRO Acronym for: Counter Intelligence Program.
DARPA Acronym for: Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
DHS Acronym for: Department of Homeland Security.
DoD Acronym for: Department of Defense.
DoDAF Acronym for: Department of Defense Architecture Framework.
EBO Acronym for: Effects-Based Operations.
FCS Acronym for: Future Combat Systems. Outdated term for ’Brigade
Combat Team Modernization’ (BCT Modernization).
GIG Acronym for: Global Information Grid.
GIS Acronym for: Geographic Information Systems.
GPS Acronym for: Global Positioning System.
IOT Acronym for: Internet Of Things.
ISR Acronym for: Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaisance.
MOOTW Acronym for: Military Operations Other Than War.
NCW Acronym for: Network-Centric Warfare.
NCO Acronym for: Network-Centric Operations. A new name for the
concept ’Network-Centric Warfare’. (NCW)
NEO Acronym for: Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations. Applied in
’natural disasters’ like Hurricane Katrina (2005).
NLW Acronym for: Non-Lethal Weapons.
OODA Acronym for: Observe, Orient, Decide, Act.
OSD Acronym for: Office of Net Assessment.
PMC Acronym for: Private Military Corporation.
PSYOP Acronym for: Psychological Operations.
RMA Acronym for: Revolution In Military Affairs.
S&R Acronym for: Sense & Respond.
UAV Acronym for: Unmanned Aerial Vehicle.
UCAV Acronym for: Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle.
WMD Acronym for: Weapons of Mass Destruction. Is a smaller subset of the
broader category ’Weapons of Mass Effect’.
55
Part VIII. References

[1] Internet Of Things - An action plan for Europe. Technical report, Commis-
sion Of The European Communities, June 2009. URL http://ec.europa.eu/
information_society/policy/rfid/documents/commiot2009.pdf.
[2] Air Force 2025, 1996. Air University. URL http://www.fas.org/spp/military/
docops/usaf/2025/.
[3] Thomas P.M. Barnett. The Pentagon’s New Map: PowerPoint Presentation, June
2004. URL http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/182105-1.
[4] Yudhijit Bhattacharjee. Pentagon Asks Academics for Help in Understanding Its
Enemies - alexander h. levis. Science Magazine, 316, April 2007.
[5] James W. Canan. Military Networks Take Center Stage. Aerospace America, Oc-
tober 2002. URL http://www.aiaa.org/Aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=
267&ArchiveIssueID=31.
[6] Matthew Carr. Revolution in Military Affairs: It’s why we’re here - The man and
the doctrine at the heart of our adventurism. July 2009. URL http://tiny.cc/
vzj8j.
[7] Arthur K. Cebrowski. Special Briefing on Force Transformation, by the Director
of Force Transformation. November 2001. URL http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/
awcgate/transformation/t11272001_t1127ceb.htm.
[8] Larry Collins. Mind Control. Playboy Magazine, January 1990. URL http:
//tiny.cc/4xx71.
[9] Rhonda Copley and Eric Wagner. Improved Situational Awareness through GIS
and RFID in Military Exercises. In ESRI international User Conference Pro-
ceedings, page 8, August 2006. URL http://proceedings.esri.com/library/
userconf/proc06/papers/papers/pap_2350.pdf.
[10] Cori E. Dauber. YouTube War: Fighting in a World of Cameras in Every Cell
Phone and Photoshop on Every Computer. November 2009. URL http://www.
strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=951.
[11] Gilles Deleuze. Postscript On The Societies Of Control. December 1992. URL
http://users.sfo.com/~rathbone/deleuze.htm.
[12] Thomas Donnelly. Rebuilding America’s Defenses. page 90, September 2000. URL
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf.
[13] Nathan Eagle, Alex Pentland, and David Lazer. Inferring Social Network Struc-
ture Using Mobile Phone Data. In Workshop on Social Computing, Behavioral
Modeling, and Prediction, 2008. URL http://www.public.asu.edu/~huanliu/
sbp08/Presentations/Papers/04_eagle_SPB08.ppt.
[14] Terrill L. Frantz. Dynamic network analysis: Automap/ora/dynet - annual
tools/computational approaches/methods conference. In Inferring Adversary In-
tent and Estimating Behavior, Behavioral Influences Analysis Center (BIAC)
Workshop. Carnegie Mellon University, 2008. URL http://www.au.af.mil/bia/
events/conf-mar08/frantz1_mar_08.pdf.
56
[15] Shane Harris. Features - an internet of things. Government Executive, September

2005. URL http://www.govexec.com/features/0905-01/0905-01s2.htm.
[16] Jeremy Hsu. Intel wants brain implants in its customers’ heads by 2020 - re-
searchers expect brain waves to operate computers, tvs and cell phones. Popular
Science, November 2009. URL http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/
2009-11/intel-wants-brain-implants-consumers-heads-2020.
[17] Richard O. Hundley. Past Revolutions, Future Transformations - What can the
history of RMA tell us about transforming the US military? RAND Corpora-
tion, 1999. ISBN 0833027093. URL http://www.rc.rand.org/pubs/monograph_
reports/2007/MR1029.pdf.
[18] Samuel Huntington. The clash of civilizations? Foreign Affairs, 1993. URL
http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/48950/samuel-p-huntington/
the-clash-of-civilizations.
[19] Lukasz Kamienski. The RMA and War Powers. Strategic Insights, 2, September
2003. URL http://www.comw.org/rma/fulltext/0309kamienski.pdf.
[20] Steven Metz and James Kievit. The Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict
Short Of War. July 1994. URL http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.
mil/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=241.
[21] Janet Miller. Commander’s Predictive Environment. In Inferring Adversary

Intent and Estimating Behavior, Behavioral Influences Analysis Center (BIAC)
Workshop. Air Force Research Laboratory, 2008. URL http://www.au.af.mil/
bia/events/conf-mar08/miller_cpe_mar_08.ppt.
[22] George Orwell. Second Thoughts on James Burnham. Polemic, 1946. URL
http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/burnham/english/e_burnh.
[23] Tara O’Toole, Georges Benjamin, and John Thomasian. Bioterrorism Threats,
February 2002. URL http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/168814-2.
[24] David M. Rorvik. Bringing The War Home. Playboy Magazine, September 1974.
URL http://tiny.cc/hqgkt.
[25] Donald Rumsfeld, Richard B. Myers, and Pete Aldridge. Defense business prac-
tices, September 2001. URL http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/165947-1.
[26] Fred Stein and Brian Clark. Arming with Intelligence: Data Fusion in Network-
Centric Warfare, December 2007. URL http://www.objectivity.com/media/
data-fusion-and-network-centric-warfare/default.asp.
[27] Warren P. Strobell. The spy who funded me (and my start-up) - the CIA’s
venture capitalist in Silicon Valley. U.S. News And World Report, pages 38–
39, July 2000. URL http://www.novariant.com/news/pdfs/autofarm_feature_
stories/071700USNewsCIA.pdf.
[28] John D. Sutter. Why games will take over our lives. CNN, April 2010. URL
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/05/games.schell/index.html.
[29] Alvin Toffler. Future Shock. 1970. ISBN 0553277375.

57
[30] Seungjin Whang. Sense and Respond - the Next Generation Business Model.
May 2005. URL http://www.gsb.stanford.edu/news/research/supplychain_
whang_senserespond.shtml.
[31] Rick E. Yannuzzi. In-Q-Tel: A New Partnership Between the CIA and the Pri-
vate Sector. CIA, 2000. URL https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/
additional-publications/in-q-tel/index.html.
Index
9/11, 10, 21, 23 Cooperative Engagement Capability, 13,
9/11 Wargames 19, 20
Global Guardian, 23 Council On Foreign Relations, 8
Operation Tripod, 23 Foreign Affairs (magazine), 8
Vigilant Guardian, 23 Course Of Action (COA), 16–18, 35
Crisis management, 35
Analytic Services, 24
ANSER Institute, 24, 25 Data Mining, 33
Apple David, Ruth A., 24, 25
iTunes, 40 Deleuze, Gilles, 8, 9
Artificial Intelligence, 43 Delgado, Jose, 47
Asimov, Isaac, 50 Stimoceiver, 47
Department of Defense, 26, 28
Barnett, Thomas P.M., 21, 29 Office of Force Transformation, 10
Bentham, Jeremy, 8, 38, 48 Department of Defense Architecture Frame-
Hedonistic calculus, 48 work, 28
Panopticon, 8, 38, 41, 48 C4ISR Architecture Framework, 28
BioLuddite, 45 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA),
Blackwater, 26 31, 40
Total Intelligence Solutions, 26 Digital Rights Management, 40, 41
Xe Corporation, 26 DTCP-IP, 40
Blitzkrieg, 9 HDCP, 40
Boyd, John, 18 MPEG-21, 40
Burnham, James, 43 MPEG-7, 40
Bush, George W., 16, 23, 26 Digital Rights Management (DRM), 40
Domain Name System (DNS), 3
C2, 3
C3I, 3 Edge Magazine (magazine), 46
C4ISR, 3 Effects Based Operations, 15, 16
CAESAR Shock And Awe, 16
CAESAR II/Eb, 35 End-User License Agreement (EULA),
Pythia, 35 32, 41
CAESAR III, 35 Enterprise architecture, 28
TEMPER, 35 Supply chain, 13, 45
Carnegie Mellon University, 36, 41, 42 Zachman Framework, 28
Cebrowski, Arthur K., 9, 10, 29 European Union, 24, 28
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 24, European Union Copyright Directive
26 (EUCD), 31, 40
Cheney, Dick, 6, 16
Chief Information Officer (CIO), 9 Facebook, 24
Clarke, Richard A., 45 FBI, 23
Closed-circuit television (CCTV), 10 FEMA, 23
Cognitive capacity, 43 Foucault, Michel, 8
Cold War, 29 Fresco, Jacque, 44
Collins, Larry, 47
Game Theory, 3
Commander’s Predictive Environment,
Geographic Information Systems (GIS),
35, 37
19, 33, 35
59
George Mason University, 35 Xbox 360, 41, 42

Giuliani, Rudy, 23 Project Natal, 42
Global Information Grid, 3, 10, 20, 28, Military Operations Other Than War,
38, 41 37
Global Positioning System (GPS), 19, Minority Report (movie, 2002), 39
33, 35, 38 MITRE Corporation, 4
Google, 24, 26, 27, 35, 38
Google AdSense, 35 Nanofactories, 43
Google Earth, 19, 26, 27, 38 National Reconnaissance Office (NRO),
Guattari, Felix, 8 23
Gulf War Network-Centric Operations, 12, 28
Operation Desert Storm, 29 Network-Centric Warfare, 9–13, 19, 20,
27, 52
Heads Up Display (HUD), 50 Engagement Grid, 10–13, 15, 19,
Hedonism, 48, 49 27
Ashley Madison, 48 Information Grid, 10–12, 27
Huntington, Samuel, 8 Sensor Grid, 10, 12, 27
Hussein, Saddam, 16 New Federalism, 24
Hypervisor, 32 NGO, 24
In-Q-Tel, 24–26 Office of Naval Intelligence, 29

Information Operations, 17 Office of Net Assessment (OSD), 6
Information overload, 6, 7 OODA, 15, 16, 18, 19
Intel, 47 Operating System, 32
Intellectual copyright, 32 BSD, 32
Internet, 30 Linux, 32
Internet Protocol, 29 Operations Research, 3, 19, 38
IPv4, 29 Orwell, George, 43
IPv6, 3, 28, 29
Internet of Things, 3, 28, 29, 38 PATRIOT Act, 21
Object Naming Service, 3 Pavlov, Ivan, 50
Internet Service Provider (ISP), 31 Pentagon, 29
ISR, 15, 18, 53 Powell, Colin, 16
Predictive Battlespace Awareness, 19
Joint Vision 2010, 10 Prince, Erik, 26
JSIMS, 35 Private Military Corporation, 26
Project For A New American Century,
Kant, Immanuel, 45 21
KeyHole, 24, 26, 27, 38 Psychological Operations, 17
KH Reconnaissance satellites, 26
Quigley, Carroll, 8, 9
Lewinton, Richard C., 23 Tragedy and Hope (book, 1966),
LifeLog, 24 8
Loral Skynet, 26
Radio-Frequency Identification (RF ID),
Marshall, Andrew, 6 10
Marxism, 43, 44 Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID),
Maxim (magazine), 48 12, 29, 38
McNamara, Robert, 48 RAND Corporation, 19, 24, 25
Microsoft
60
Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA), Venus Project, 44

3, 5, 6, 9, 16, 17, 19, 21, 23, Vodafone, 5
29, 30, 32, 35, 47, 50, 53
War on Terror, 23 Warwick, Kevin, 44–46
Role-based access control (RBAC), 22 Weapons of Mass Effect, 16
Royal Institute of International Affairs, Weapons of Mass Destruction, 16
8 Wolfowitz, Paul, 6
Rumsfeld, Donald, 6, 10, 16, 22, 23 World War II, 3
Schell, Jesse, 41, 42 Y2K, 21

Sense & Respond (S&R), 12, 13, 15,
19, 38, 41, 45 Zeitgeist Addendum (documentary, 2008),
Situational Awareness, 13, 19 44
Skinner, B.F., 13, 41
Stimulus-response theory, 13
Skype, 30
Social Computing, 33
Dynamic Network Analysis, 33
Social Network Analysis, 33
Social networking, 32–34
Dynamic Network Analysis, 36
Facebook, 33
Hyves, 33
Myspace, 33
Social Network Analysis, 36
Sony, 32
PlayStation3, 32, 41
OtherOS, 32
PlayStation Network, 32
Soviet Union, 22
Stein, Fred, 4
Strategic Studies Institute, 15, 16
Sun Microsystems, 10
Supply chain, 14
System of Systems (SOS), 13
The Clash of Civilizations (book, 1996),

8
Toffler, Alvin, 5–7
Future Shock (book, 1970), 6, 7
Total Information Awareness, 24
Transhumanism, 43–45
Twitter, 9, 30, 51
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV), 11,

13, 15, 20, 29, 50, 53
US Air Force, 25, 47
US Army War College, 17
Utilitarianism, 48
Venture capital firm, 24

Rma en

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Rma en

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Revolution In Military Affairs - 1990 up

I Transition to the 21st century 3

II Revolution In Military Affairs / Conflict Short Of War 9

III Implementation of the RMA 19

IV The result of the ongoing Revolution in Military Affairs 35

V Next step for the RMA - Transhumanism/Singularity 41

VI Evil in the RMA 45

VII Explanation of concepts 53

Fig. 1: "Screenshot courtesy of the presentation - "Data Fusion in Tomorrow’s

Part I. Transition to the 21st century

2.1 Alvin Toffler

2.2 Andrew Marshall

2.3 Samuel Huntington

2.4 Other noteworthy writers

Gilles Deleuze (a disciple of Michel Foucault) was obviously acquainted with

Part II. Revolution In Military Affairs /

fare concept employs an operational architecture involving three

Network-centricity is a concept that was coined by Sun Microsystems4 . It was

3.1 Information/Sensor/Engagement Grid

Fig. 3: Network-Centric Warfare is characterized by three overlapping networks.

an assembly of noisy teenagers to flee a certain area), or a motion sen-

3.2 Sense & Respond (S&R)

Network-Centric Warfare / Network-Centric Operations allows for a new supply

3.2.0.1 Example The following is a military example illustrating how the

3.3 Effects-Based Operations / Shock And Awe

Terrorist attacks ought to be understood as consciously crafted me-

3.3.1 Shock And Awe

Shock And Awe is the most prominent example of an ’Effects-Based Operations’

Fig. 5: ’John Boyd’s OODA Loop (Observation, Orientation, Decision, Action

3.3.2 Observe, Orient, Decide and Act - OODA Loop

The OODA Loop is being used in combination with ’Network-Centric War-

3.3.3 Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)

Cooperative Engagement Capability refers to the capability by the military to

Fig. 6: "Cooperative Engagement Capability’: by means of the three-layered

Part III. Implementation of the RMA

The ’Revolution in Military Affairs’ required a ’raison d’etre’. Various think-

(see References, ’Bioterrorism Threats’[23])

3.4 9/10/2001 - War on Pentagon Bureaucracy

sation and management of surveillance satellites.

4 Privatization of the intelligence agencies/military

Fig. 7: In-Q-Tel was an important experiment by the CIA - create a private

4.2 Blackwater USA/Blackwater Worldwide/Xe

Fig. 8: Google Earth is a rebranded version of Keyhole’s ’Earth Viewer 3D’, a

of observing and surveilling the Planet.

5 Rollout of the ’Global Information Grid’

Fig. 9: Global Information Grid, Operational View-1 - image courtesy of the

5.1 The role of IPv6 within the GiG

5.2 The adversary and the archetype

use increasingly narrowing. Without an enemy, there is no war. Without a war,

5.2.1 Asymmetric threat

5.2.1.1 Data mining/clusters/social networks What binds the enemy to-

it gives them a strategic leverage against other corporations. For instance, to

5.2.1.1.1 Social Networking

than the higher classes) all having a certain uniformity of thought/purpose.

5.2.1.1.2 Datamining Datamining is being applied to social networks and

• the nature of these interactions (common conversation topics, interests,

(Geographic Information Systems and Global Positioning System in subsequent

Part IV. The result of the ongoing

Fig. 11: An illustration from the PowerPoint presentation ’Dynamic Network

Fig. 12: This slide from the PowerPoint-presentation ’Commander’s Predictive

coupling of computer networks that lend semantical meaning/relationships be-

tions Research discipline worden toegepast, namelijk: hoeveel mensen rijden er