Just to you know what we're up against... this blog about Rand War Games against environmental portals like realNEO is astounding:

RAND (not RAN) Study of Future Environmental Networks

Published by Sparki, June 12th, 2008 global warming 7 Comments

A friend of mine found this RAND Corp. study from 2005 and recently passed it along.

It’s a very wild scenario. The government and their think tanks are spending their time thinking about evolving organizing models and the future of our movements [I wish we spent more time on that and less time on divisive inflammatory attack politics].

The most interesting parts have been pulled from the 139 page PDF [see below].

[Disclosure: a lot of these thoughts and analysis are not mine, but I obviously agree with them]

Perhaps most striking is that their near-worst case scenario called a “transnational web,” sounded like the global justice movements best case scenario.

They write:”In this hypothetical future, the period from 2020 to 2025 witnesses a dramatic growth in the threat to the United States presented by radical transnational “peace and social justice” groups. Using the goal of creating a just “global civil society” as their rallying cry, large militant transnational actors appear, promoting radical agendas for the environment, nuclear disarmament, and Third World land reform.”

They paint a fictitious 2025 scenario of what the Transnational Web could look like in action. In their fictitious scenario they describe a climate network with groups in 80 countries; “World Environmental League (WEL), is spearheading a crusade to compel the UN General Assembly to approve a radical treaty for fossil fuel emissions reduction that would cripple many American and Western manufacturing industries.”
WEL engages in violent actions against the US and corporations and requires a military response.

It’s interesting that they understand the power of decentralized leaderless network organizing more than many social movement folks, who continue to organize in weaker top down organizations, nonprofits, parties and unions.

In the study they recommend a military “Netwar Army” response. Like the RAND book Networks and Netwars, they actually lay the ground work for a military response to international grassroots networks organizing for positive social change and challenging the power of governments and corporations, whether or not nonviolent and un-armed.

Essentially they view grassroots democratic networks and activism as a threat requiring a military response to maintain the deeply anti-democratic power of nation states and corporations.

Welcome to the future.

 

Alternative Futures and Their Implications for Army Modernization

From Preface:
We believe that one approach to long-range planning that can help the Army chart its modernization course involves the use of alternative futures. This alternative futures exercise is set in the 2020-2025 timeframe. We have consciously avoided assessments of the probability of each future, instead positing simply that each future meets the “not implausible” standard. Various “signposts” have been prepared to help determine which futures are becoming more plausible as time moves forward. In each of the futures, a central mission for the Army was identified, a force size and structure was built, and necessary changes to the existing Army Transformation Plan suggested.

Alternative Futures The Likely “What Ifs”

The six futures that we developed range from relatively benign cases-from the perspective of U.S. interests-to highly challenging strategic environments. We have grouped these futures into four categories that include the following:

• The “best” cases are U.S. Unipolarity and Democratic Peace.
• The “medium-good” cases include the rise of a Major Competitor and Competitive Multipolarity.
• The Transnational Web represents what we consider a “medium-bad” case.
• Finally, the “worst” case is Chaos/Anarchy.

Each of these possible futures, and its possible implications for the Army, will be examined in this document.

Transnational Web/Netwar Army

Here the role of the nationstate has withered to a large extent. Transnational organizations, some with criminal and/or terrorist intent, have risen in power. Some of these transnational groups represent ethnic or other groups whose interests span the borders of many nations. These groups are capable of various serious asymmetric actions against governments, be they powerful or weak states. The type of Army required in this future is quite different from a conventional force oriented toward fighting the army of another nation. Essential characteristics would include:

• A very robust cyberwar and electronic intelligence capability.
• A “crisis public affairs” branch to participate in information operations.
• Teams of special operations forces capable of operating against nonstate actors who frequently employ electronic means to wreak damage on state and nonstate opponents.

This Netwar Army would be considerably different from today’s force, possibly 40 percent smaller. The post-Army XXI elements would be mostly Rangers, Special Forces, and electronics and computer experts. Indeed, large portions of this Army would not be intended for conventional combat against the armed forces of another nation.

Transnational Web

Transnational Web is our medium-bad world and represents a more unorthodox view of the 2025 future in that it posits a situation in which the nation-state has lost a substantial amount of power to transnational actors, many of whom use the burgeoning Internet to coordinate their actions worldwide much more rapidly than could any national government bureaucracy. It is assumed here that a substantial amount of nation-state power has been usurped upward by transnational, globally distributed actors such as multinational corporations, transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), terrorist networks, special interest “peace and social justice” groups, and perhaps even ethnic diasporas. Many, if not most, of these actors have benign intentions in this world and pose no threat to American security interests. However, we posit here that a handful of these newly empowered groups do come to be hostile to the United States and other Western nation-states, and that military strategies for countering them become necessary. In this hypothetical future, the period from 2020 to 2025 witnesses a dramatic growth in the threat to the United States presented by radical transnational “peace and social justice” groups. Using the goal of creating a just “global civil society” as their rallying cry, large militant transnational actors appear, promoting radical agendas for the environment, nuclear disarmament, and Third World land reform. Almost all of these groups come to identify the United States as an arch-villain that stands in the way of their drive to reshape the global order. By 2025, however, one group in particular stands out as a threat from the perspective of the U.S. intelligence community.

It is the World Environmental League (WEL), which is spearheading a crusade to compel the UN General Assembly to approve a radical treaty for fossil fuel emissions reduction that would cripple many American and Western manufacturing industries and almost certainly spark a global recession. To push the proposed treaty, WEL spokesmen cite large amounts of scientific evidence indicating that global climate change is accelerating. However, there is an equally large amount of scientific evidence suggesting that climate change is not occurring, and this convinces the U.S. government that the treaty must not be approved. The WEL is a leaderless, networked organization that exists as a multitude of quasi-independent cells or “franchises” in at least 80 countries around the world. The WEL appears to have at least 15,000 members worldwide, with especially heavy concentrations of members in Western Europe and Southeast Asia. Most disturbing of all to the CIA is the fact that several WEL chapters appear to have organized covert action teams designed specifically to carry out terrorist attacks against the interests of certain multinational companies and nation-states. These teams have considerable expertise in explosives technology and information warfare. Communication between WEL cells takes place mainly over the Internet through specially encrypted email channels that Western intelligence agencies are able to monitor only intermittently.

Although most nation-states in the world are skeptical of the WEL’s radical agenda, a few of the more virulently anti-Western countries may be providing quiet support to this organization. Sudan, North Korea, and Algeria all may be involved in financing and/or training the WEL’s covert action teams. Tension mounts about the plans of the WEL in the late summer of 2025, after a successful U.S. campaign to kill the proposed fossil fuels emission treaty at the UN. Following the treaty’s rejection by the General Assembly, an Internet news release by the WEL condemns “American imperialism” as the main force behind global environmental degradation and promises to strike back at U.S. interests around the world. Within a few hours of the issuance of this news release, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents swoop down on previously identified WEL safehouses in New York City and San Francisco, arresting all known American members of the organization. However, the U.S. government’s information on the WEL’s operations abroad is still too thin to make any similar raids in foreign countries.

Signposts Economic

• Internet economic growth not slowing down.

Military

• Increasing number of nation-states perceive their main security threat as coming from transnational interests.
• Militaries in Europe, East Asia, and North America becoming smaller and more networked.

International

• Agendas on most global issues (e.g., climate change) are set mainly by transnational organizations.
• Almost half of Global 500 corporations eschew any national identity.

Scenario Forty-eight hours after the WEL news release, powerful car bombs begin to explode outside major U.S. embassies in a carefully synchronized pattern. Six American posts are hit: Mexico City, London, Madrid, Lagos, Hanoi, and Canberra. Four of the embassies are heavily damaged, while those in Canberra and Madrid are virtually obliterated. Over 400 Americans perish in the explosions and another 600 are injured. At least 600 foreign citizens are killed or injured in the blasts as well. Four hours after the last explosion, an Internet press release from the WEL claims responsibility for the explosions.

Forty-eight hours after the last embassy explosion, a United Airlines 777 bound from Chicago to London collides in midair with an American Airlines 777 flying from London to Dallas. The collision occurs about 80 miles northwest of Heathrow Airport and kills all those aboard both airliners (a total of 386 people, of which 75 percent are Americans). Five hours after the event, a telephone call is placed to Scotland Yard from a WEL spokesman claiming responsibility for the midair collision. The caller reports that WEL information warfare experts placed a computer bug in Heathrow’s air traffic control software, causing flight controllers to vector the two U.S. airliners right into each other during a dark moonless night over the English countryside. A quick investigation by Scotland Yard confirms a few hours later that the claim is authentic. Seventy-two hours after the midair collision, a team of eight masked gunman wearing the WEL emblem on their shoulders storms into a Microsoft research lab outside of Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The commandos kill thirty technicians and scientists (ten of them American) before leaving the lab. Seven hours after the Microsoft lab attack, a similar team of ten gunmen attempts to break into an IBM marketing office in Munich, Germany, during the on-site visit of four senior IBM vice presidents from the United States. However, an informant has tipped off German police as to the timing and location of the attack, and they are waiting. All ten WEL gunmen are killed ina few minutes.

On one of the bodies of the dead commandos, German police find detailed blueprints of several other American-owned corporate facilities in Germany, including a McDonald’s corporate training center in Frankfurt and a Coca-Cola bottling plant outside Hamburg. At the same time, a reliable human intelligence (HUMINT) source reports to the CIA that the WEL has been stockpiling nerve gas canisters at a remote base east of Khartoum, Sudan. It is not known if the fundamentalist Sudanese regime is aware of the existence of the stockpile. The same source claims to have been told that some of the nerve gas canisters will be flown to Europe in the next 2-3 weeks for operational use. To deal with the growing WEL menace, the United States has begun a massive cyberintelligence effort to determine the location of key WEL safehouses around the world as well as the identities of the leaders of the largest cells. Cooperation with foreign law enforcement is readily forthcoming. An effort to sway international public opinion against the WEL is also deemed necessary. Although the WEL’s extensive public relations campaign conducted on popup web sites and in chat rooms is not having much effect in the United States, there is some disturbing evidence of growing sympathy for the WEL cause among some of the more socialistic political parties in Western Europe, such as the German Greens. Finally, the U.S. National Security Council (NSC) approves plans for a worldwide series of special operations forces (SOF) strikes against WEL safehouses after the ongoing cyberintelligence collection effort is completed. The Joint Staff estimates that SOF operations in at least 10 countries will be required to severely weaken the WEL. In about 40 other countries, the WEL infrastructure is relatively vulnerable to attacks by local police and intelligence services.

This WEL terror scenario was chosen because it includes a threat that takes advantage of all the major globalization trends to make itself less vulnerable to national law enforcement agencies and militaries. It has no central command structure, operating instead with autonomous cells. It uses informal media outlets on the Internet to advocate its cause globally and also uses the Internet for communi-cation between its cells. This threat has taken advantage of the porosity of borders in the Transnational Web world of 2025 to implant itself in so many countries that it would take large amounts of international cooperation and planning before any knockout blow against its organization could even be contemplated. Furthermore, the networked structure and Internet communications capability of the hypothetical WEL would allow it to have more rapid decision cycles than most national militaries and law enforcement agencies. None of this is to say that the WEL or an actor like it would be invincible in 2025, only that such a group could indeed be quite formidable.

Disrupt IT