But it did not entail one key thing...an opponent prepared for info-war.
Information age warfare implies something other than massive movements of industrial age weaponry. In its purest form, an information age war would be waged without firing a single shot.
I would say that IAW implies something in addition to rather than other than weaponry. There will be shots. All that information is useless unless you have the combat power to do something with it. Maybe in the very long term it will be wars entirely of nerds, but at least in the near and medium terms, men and equipment will be destroying and killing and occupying ground. What the info age does is dramatically change HOW they go about applying combat power. It is a force multiplier for friendly forces and a debilitator of enemy forces. But anything multiplied by zero is zero...there will be a need for combat power to be multiplied.
But I think you've shifted out of the mindset of information aged warfare here. You are back to industrial aged warfare.
I disagree. What the info age does is determine WHEN and WHERE it is important to surge. Either to support their operations or to stop ours.
China has a similar Achilles heal to exploit.
Partially true. We can destroy their ability to coordinate their operations by decapitation. But that does not mean that they will not carry out what they already know to do. They may not be doing it especially well, but that emphasizes the point that your version of Info war is not sufficient.
I agree completely.
What about the other predictions?
Isn't there a book similar to that?
I'm sure there are many. It isn't my brainchild, but it is a valid scenario.
What if our airpower is hundreds of small, autonomously controlled, robotic aircraft that spread thousands of sensor fused munitions that are programed to seek out and destroy vehicles with a specific acoustic signature? That would certainly be more useful than 500 or 1000 F-22's.
I think that is a very simplistic version of what might happen. It ignores all of the things that the enemy might do to confound it...like make quieter vehicles or mask the acoustic signature, or their SAM efforts, etc etc. But all those robotic UAVs will still need a logistics tail. The question can they stop the enemy before the enemy destroys them and their logistics is still a valid point.
I think you see IAW as a much more radical departure than I do. It is a radical departure, but we disagree about how radical it is. It certainly changes a lot. And it may open up the way to some amazing wonder weapons. But it will be built upon, not replace, the basic functions of military power.
I will seek out that book. But my first impression is that it seems similar to those predicting in the 1930's that the future is all strategic bombing.
For now. But again, in its purest form it should allow us to achieve our military objectives without firing a shot. For example, if we can completely isolate soldiers in the field from all levels of their leadership, will they be able to conduct an organized campaign? We did just that in many cases in Iraq. In one particular instance, we essentially isolated an entire Iraqi division along the southern end of the Iraq-Iran border. We cut them off, and drove around them. They slowly withered on the vine. After a couple weeks, the Brits sent a recon patrol to check their status. All of their equipment was in place, in perfect condition, and completely abandoned. There was never a shot fired. Instead, we collected all the equipment for later use. There is an interesting article in the newest Aviation Week and Space Technology Mag. It discusses recently revealed black programs, and gives a vague description of some of our more aggresive info warfare programs. We aren't just talking about the ability to know where the enemy is, or to cut him off from his command and control. We are talking about the ability to turn his own equipment against him. To literally take control of his command and control network and create such an atmosphere of chaos that he is no longer able to function. Imagine creating an environment which infuses such a sense of panic among the enemy's population, that you shut down his infrastructure with a flood of refugees. Or you manipulate his power grid in such a way that it destroys any piece of electrical equipment that gets plugged into it. With the exception of our special forces, and to a large extent the USMC, there are very few military organizations that can function effectively in an information vaccuum. And even the Marine Corps will eventually run out of thrust. How can you provide logistical support to a unit you don't even know the location of?
"We can destroy their ability to coordinate their operations by decapitation. But that does not mean that they will not carry out what they already know to do."
That assumes what they know to do is kill the enemy. But what if the nearest enemy is 4000 miles away sitting at a computer terminal. What do you do as a PLA general sitting in a Russian oil field (to use your scenario) with no communication outside of runners in vehicles that must travel hundreds of miles to relay messages. What do you do when 80% of your vehicles won't start because their electrical systems have melted. When the command authorities you rely on for instruction are absolutely convinced you've been destroyed on the battlefield, or worse yet that you've turned against them because all of their command and control resources tell them that is what has happened. You see where I'm going.
"The question can they stop the enemy before the enemy destroys them and their logistics is still a valid point."
Except the enemy must stop a threat that may be coming at them from 6000 miles away. If a single B-2 can take off from the middle of Missouri, release 80 small UAVs that each contain 100 sensor fused munitions that can render several miles of navigable terrain unpassable, how can the enemy disrupt the logistics train? And while a sensor fused munition can be reprogramed with a simple change to its computer code, changing the acquistic signature of a vehicle requires some real physical modifications. Reprograming a computer chip takes seconds. Modifying a vehicle takes hours or even days.
"I think you see IAW as a much more radical departure than I do."
That is definitely true. But again, I am the one whose service is being accused of being locked in a Cold War mindset. Elements of the Army are demanding they be given control of the A-10, while the leading edges of the Air Force are designing techniques that will cause Lil Kim in North Korea to be convinced MacArthur has been re-incarnated and is doing donuts in a Humvee on Kim Sr's tomb. If you don't think that is possible, try to get ahold of the latest Av Week. We are a lot farther along than just tracking enemy movements. If you sometimes wonder whether the T.V. is actually watching you...it just might be.