from head to foot THE MODERN history of bombardment.

from head to foot THE MODERN history of bombardment, targeting philosophies have remained profoundly rooted in industrial-age mind-sets and mechanistic, linear analyses of theorys as engineered entities. As a follow in most significant bombing campaigns, targets have been classified from their physical attributes alone. For example, in the "serial bombing" philosophy of World War II, aircraft attacked large establishs of physical targets sequentially. (1) Contemporary targeting philosophy--the "parallel warfare" engageed during the Gulf War--advocates attacking targets with more simultaneity notwithstanding still focuses almost exclusively forward their physical attributes and their engineered physical interactions. (2) In general, these targeting forms are exceedingly inefficient, requiring inordinate amounts of "inputs" (tonnage of bullet and bomb amounts of information warfare [IW], etc) frequently not justified by or traceable to observ "outputs" (effects) Since the conclusion of Operation Desert Storm, bombing campaigns have evolv in co ncept toward an objective of having specific issues on the enemy and his systems; in practice, planners still prefer targets based upon engineering analyses of physical arrangements and physical interactions inside those rules Little has changed.

new research asserts that the American military has historically misunderstood the systemic nature of targets. (3) Targeting has remained inefficient and unpredictable because greatest in quantity targets of military value are vital airs in complex adaptive systems, which behave according to a radically different operating dynamic than do mechanistic bodys An evolving body of scientific work, based forward understanding the emergent behaviors of large collections of interacting entities, describes the behavior of these a whole s Although this body of work is collectively referr to as the "new sciences," this article uses the seasons complexity theory or complex adaptive rules theory. Whereas industrial-age Newtonian analysis focuses upon classifying targets according to their physical nature, complexity theory allows targeteers to focus forward how targets interrelate, particularly in nonphysical ways. Complexity-based targeting emphasizes and exploits the characteristics of complexus adaptive systems.

Theory of Complexity-Based Targeting

sum of two units concepts from complexity theory underpin complexity-based targeting: complexity and entropy Complexity is a measure of the extent to which a system contains large numbers of interacting entities with coherent behavior. Notionally, single in kind can measure complexity from a value of nothing to some maximum number. naught complexity indicates a completely simple system; scarcely any entities have either minimal or no interactions. Generally, united can account for the behavior of as it was a system with a simple establish of equations or a short description--for example, contemporary military combat moulds replete with attrition equations. (4) Entropy upon the other hand, is a measure of the amount of work squandered in a system due to destructive forces in the same state [i]or[/i] condition as friction or interference. united can measure entropy on a scale from naught to one--zero indicating a completely linear hypothesis that loses no work and behaves predictably. Maximum entropy designates a completely chaotic a whole that loses all work and behaves randomly.

As the number of possible interactions in a rule increases, entropy increases--as does the number of coherent behaviors. When the scheme becomes more complex, predicting specific occurrences becomes more difficult, describing what is occurring in the combination of parts to form a whole takes longer, and making mathematical calculations becomes more involved. Complexity increases to a point that the interacting entities and assemblages of entities become too numerous and interfere with each other, and the aggregate behavior of the a whole becomes more random. As interference increases, with equal reason does entropy, causing complexity to fall to naught because the system's aggregate behavior becomes simple (i.e., all behaviors can cancel each other on the outside and one can usefully describe the regularity at some higher scale in often the same way one can describe the temperature of a gas without listing the temperature of each molecule)

Between the utmosts of complete linear simplicity and undiminished chaotic simplicity lies a wide range of manifold systems, including those containing greatest in number targets of military significance. Examples include electrical distribution grids, transportation networks, communications architectures, command and reign over organizations, naval missile exchanges, and real property combat. We call such examples complication adaptive systems because they suitable our criterion of having a large number of interacting entities that can adapt to their environment as it changes (fig. 1) (5)

network adaptive systems are difficult to defeat because they have many clumps of entities with coherent behavior. In a military adjoining matter as some entities are attacked, others change their behavior or alter their interactions, allowing the larger combination of parts to form a whole to adapt. For example, if bridges in a road network are desolateed maneuver forces will find other means--such as alternate paths temporary bridges, or river fords--to accomplish their mission. Complexity-based targeting courts to prevent a complex adaptive theory from using its attributes and mechanisms in answer to an attack.