1994: Army War College Paper Proposes use of Computer Generated Insurgents

a 1994 strategic paper published by the U.S. Army War College titled “Revolution In Military Affairs And Conflict Short Of War,” written by Dr. Steven Metz (who works for the RAND Corporation) and James Kievit. Recent events have made this paper even more precient than ever. The document outlines an eerily familiar scenario in which a group of revolutionaries within government hijack control of the levers of power and begin a program of pre-emptive war, psychological operations at home and abroad, and false flag attacks blamed on “…computer generated insurgent leader[s]“.

In July of 1994 the U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) produced the paper titled Revolution In Military Affairs And Conflict Short Of War that uncannily forecasted the future in a “hypothetical future history” written in the year 2010. The hypothetical situation contains many disturbing predictions, several of which have come true. After a series of terrorist attacks, foreign policy “fiascos” and various disputes between “supporters of multinational peace operations” and “isolationists”, a small number of “revolutionaries” recruits members in all branches of the U.S. government and shift American foreign policy to a practice of pre-emption.

Source

This possibly may/could explain why some of the current or future terrorists noted by governments cannot be found because they only exist in cyber space or on some CD Rom in clandestine office. It also would provide reasons for leaders to seek funding citing these threats when their agendas are elsewhere.

Sounds like Cyberwar to me.

I'm STILL watching...

reply to post by Heyyo_yoyo


It is a form of it and then some. Stemming from the War College itself this provides a far reaching look into the mindset(s) of those seeking to manipulate citizens via lies & deceptive practices in order to promote and propagate war and conflict for means other than what would typcially be justified thru traditional means & methods.

Computer generate ONLY insurgents and enemys?
How about using computer generation to invent crash sites, debris and the like. Remember this is from the War College itself, those who teach others how to fight and win wars/conflicts. And influence of those in positions of power with their material.

So you mean Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda cronies are simply computer generated images?

reply to post by starwarsisreal


I don't see where I said that so please do not try and fit your words into my mouth please.

Open your eyes (and mind) and understand how this could (and possibly could have) be used to generate an enemy for the sake of funding, personal and state agenda and the like.

Great thread, glad to see others keeping tabs on these sort of things.

Reminded me of another thread which their was an eery article.

American Military Coup of 2012

reply to post by ADVISOR


Thank you.

Kinda gives us an inside peek as to how war planners are thinking in terms of how to generate enemys in order to further their world or national madates. In my opinion, if they will generate enemys then they will generate evidence also.

reply to post by Humint1

This possibly explains why some the terrorist noted by governments cannot be found because they only exist in cyber space or on some CD Rom in clandestine office. It also would provide reasons for leaders to seek funding citing these threats when their agendas are elsewhere

I don't get the connection, there doesn't appear to be anything in the paper about enemies that exist only in cyberspace. Plus terrorism wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, invented on 9/11/2001.

Often times Generals and Admirals when they don't know for sure how to handle a situation ask for the War College to send them papers discussing how to handle a particular situation. There are also some lower officers and enlisted who spend their time at the War College reading papers and giving ideas to other higher ranked officers. These military researchers spend a lot of time gathering data and telling the Generals ways that have been suggested.

When I was in the military, I know that my commander often requested papers from the war college be sent to him via e-mail.

people are walking around with projectors that make a guy on the wall for people to wast bullets on its like those laser pointers that make words but its people shapes and doors the doors make you run into the wall hard most of the time

reply to post by Humint1


Exactly, great way of looking at the subject material. They call these concept operations, "alleged notional scenarios" in which battle drills and reactions are planned.

When they run the battle drills and are satisfied with the results, they may decide to make them contingency instead of concept, where they are enacted for real instead of practice.

Might be difficult for some to wrap their minds around, but that is how we trained for any and all types of threats. If those who serve did not, we would be in contempt of negligence of duty.

reply to post by ADVISOR


For sure, sounds like you understand the subject exactly. Also when plans are not ready or the times are not ready for those plans or contingencys, they get shelved and can be pulled out later in the future and put in play. I have strong suspicion that this is the case with many contingencys that for example are pulled out and presented in 1999 and presented only to get rejected. They go back in the books or shelves then pulled out in let's say 2001 and those plans that were rejected in 1999 are just what the situation, incident or agenda calls for in 2001 and it is put in motion.

Originally posted by Humint1
reply to post by ADVISOR

 

For sure, sounds like you understand the subject exactly.

Precisely.
I have conducted some odd training scenarios while active duty. Stuff we were not traditionally trained for, but capable of, as we proved more efficient than higher ups expected. Some very good battle drills, to know our military is ready for nearly every thing. Sad that people may perceive it as a threat, even though it is for the nations security.

Over all, it would be worse to not do these, and be unprepared.

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Humint1

 

This possibly explains why some the terrorist noted by governments cannot be found because they only exist in cyber space or on some CD Rom in clandestine office. It also would provide reasons for leaders to seek funding citing these threats when their agendas are elsewhere

I don't get the connection, there doesn't appear to be anything in the paper about enemies that exist only in cyberspace. Plus terrorism wasn't, by any stretch of the imagination, invented on 9/11/2001.

On page 20 you will find the cyberspace part:

...The attitude-shaping campaigns aimed at the American public, the global public, and the Cuban people went quite well, including those parts using computer-generated broadcasts by insurgent leaders--"morphing"-- in which they were shown as disoriented and psychotic. Subliminal messages surreptitiously integrated with Cuban television transmissions were also helpful.45 In fact, all of this was so successful that there were only a few instances of covert, stand-off military strikes when insurgent targets arose and government forces seemed on the verge of defeat. U.S. strike forces also attacked neutral targets to support the psychological campaign as computer-generated insurgent leaders claimed credit for the raids. At times, even the raids themselves were computer-invented "recreations." (These were a specialty of the Army's elite Sun Tzu Battalion.) Eventually it all worked: the insurgents were discredited and their war faded to simmering conflict unlikely to directly threaten the United States

www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil...

Well I am incclined to agree with you in the sense that groups can be formed here that don't always have the best intentions, but I DO NOT propose that we agree to any more of our rights to be trampled over as citizens just because there are crazy people out there

Will have to read this fully later, but it sounds very interesting.

Thanks for sharing.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Goathief


It is interesting. I'm still reading and researching...have a good one!

reply to post by Drunkenshrew


Thanks for getting back to Hooper on that. I had to run last night and couldn't get back to him/her.

What exactly are computer generated insurgents? The way I see it, acts such as the 7/7 bombing and eventually 911 have been blamed on your target of choice an existing target. Thats an rather old tactic.