Information War, Information Peace.

• Author: Libicki, Martin C.
• Position: National defense policy in the electronic age

As the United States pursues international security in a networked age, it faces a fundamental choice between two national defense paths. One path originates in the ever-improving ability of advanced militaries to illuminate the battlespace in order to see it in fine detail and to spread these findings far and wide. Because precision munitions can better destroy objects which are made more visible, target illumination would seem to make conflict bloodier. The other path is information warfare, which is an attack on automated information systems and networks.

Indeed, information warfare is often cited as the leitmotif of early 21st century conflict. Because systems are the targets, such a path would seem to make conflict less bloody.

However, the reverse may be true. The systems that illuminate can, if networked internationally, make organized aggression more difficult. On the other hand, information warfare, by raising the risks to such networking, may encourage confrontation rather than prevent it.

That battlespace illumination and information warfare are apposite concepts is hardly obvious. Both are often linked under the broader rubric of the revolution in military affairs (RMA). The U.S. military, and presumably other advanced militaries, pursues both: the ability to illuminate the real battlespace; and the ability to confound the cyber-battlespace of foes, actual and latent. For national security, weapons compete for national resources, but they all work to the same end. However, at the level of international security the two are antithetical. Some systems make it easier for nations to resolve their differences or trust one another; others, by their nature, exacerbate suspicion.

This essay describes the basis for, and ramifications of, the battlespace illumination and the information warfare paths. It then examines some contradictions of embracing both. It starts with a description and reification of battlespace illumination and its implications in an emerging System of Systems,(1) which is the conjunction of military sensors, networks and weapons connected so as to work closely together.

If the System (or for other states, national security systems in general) becomes the center of gravity for modern militaries, it becomes the logical target of others, hence, the advent of information warfare, its premises and prospects. The essay then speculates on the extension of the System to others, friendly as well as less-than-friendly forces, the latter in the interest of mutual transparency. From this concluding vantage point, the antithesis of the battlespace illumination and information warfare becomes clearer.

GLOBAL LIGHT AND POWER

Global ramifications generally result from any defense path the United States decides to follow. The United States currently has the highest level of defense spending in the world. Its research and development (R&D) expenditures and information technology spending exceed that of every other nation combined. It commands a high-technology array of nuclear weapons, space systems, Command Control Communications Computers Intelligence Surveillance and Reconaissance ([C.sup.4]ISR) and long-legged logistics which serve as a shield over the Western Alliance. The indirect influence of the United States, however, may count more than its direct power. Its lead in this strange new world of information technology is largely recognized by others. The Soviet Union routinely tried to copy U.S. weaponry. The Desert Storm victory in the Persian Gulf, if anything, was an even more impressive testimony to the power of U.S. technology, which contributed to U.S. arms sales and may have added to deterring rogue states. As one result, any meme(2) that starts or gains credibility within the Pentagon is taken seriously everywhere else as the next wave of warfare. Others must either duplicate what the Department of Defense (DOD) develops, incorporate it or counter it. But no meme regarding battlespace illumination and information warfare will be ignored.

Militaries always undergo change as new equipment replaces old equipment. But the clutch of changes wrought by information technology could affect not just how militaries do their job, but what job militaries do. The use of information technology to erase distance enables an attacker to see and strike from stand-off range. To explain this requires some background on the components of precision warfare and its applications.

A revolution in military affairs can be traced back to the late 1970s, with the development of precision-guided munitions (PGMs)(3) and off-board sensors. Barring perturbations from a major war, both are likely to evolve through the first quarter of the 21st century In modern warfare, a target with an identifiable location or signature can be hit and most likely killed by such weapons. Granted, converting data to a kill is not foolproof. Jamming and spoofing may break a target lock. As well, targets may be out of range, may (rarely) outrun or (more commonly) outmaneuver the PGM; they may also be armored, bunkered or buried. They may also shoot back, such as the U.S. Navy's Phalanx weapon system against cruise missiles. Yet over time, the smart money has to be on PGMs as they get faster, stealthier, more maneuverable and more discriminating. Ultimately, sufficiently cheap PGMs may be used to saturate, and therefore defeat far more expensive targets.

Precision has many benefits. First, it permits one to destroy intended targets on the first shot, which prevents the destruction of unintended targets and allows one to go to war equipped more lightly. Consequently, it alleviates the need for a cumbersome logistics infrastructure. Shorter range weapons and laser-guided bombs require the shooter to see a target, and thus stand at risk. More sophisticated PGMs find targets on their own with internal sensors. Increasingly, weapons will be programmed to reach a given destination; most likely, they will evolve to where they can be directed on a continually updated track.

Precision also alters the basic metric of military efficacy from firepower to information: from power to light as it were. If seeing a target is tantamount to killing it, then seeing the enemy while remaining hidden are the two primary requirements of combat. The U.S. military has, by far, the world's best "eyes": space-based sensors; specialized aircraft;(4) unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs); sea-based and counter-battery radar; as well as a host of unmanned ground sensors. Over the next 20 years, the U.S. military will be fusing the various bit streams produced by such sensors into a unified picture of the battlespace that can be filtered and disseminated to any warrior that needs it. American forces can use stealth to remain unseen, but electronic warfare and operating beyond enemy missile ranges will also protect seekers and shooters. Stand-off operations make shooters harder to spot and reach, and thus give them more time to hide or find shelter.

The United States is likely to maintain a long lead over its rivals in terms of illuminating the battlespace to its advantage. But the underlying information technologies are available to all. Everyday electronic equipment may have great military applicability. For example, a 17 gigabyte digital video disk (whose 5 gigabyte precursors were introduced in the summer of 1997) is big enough to hold the entire United States imaged to five-meter accuracy UAVs and medium-range cruise missiles are international commodities. Commercial space-based assets can transmit data up and return one-meter imagery down. Thousands of engineers from third world nations trained in the West can integrate systems. The result may not meet U.S. standards. However, the difference between what such nations formerly had and what they can attain by utilizing readily available information technology may be more significant than whatever new capabilities the United States gains by riding the crest of information technology. The level of U.S. technology permits a revolution in its forces. However the level of technology in other countries may compel one in the United States.

In terms of application, information technology coupled with stand-off precision strike systems leads a mode of combat in which forces scan the battlespace, sift the few targets from the background, sort these targets by priority and weapon and then strike.

Such warfare works better if terrain is open (e.g., air, sea, deserts, plains, farmlands) rather than closed (e.g., forests, jungles, mountains, swamps) or cluttered (e.g., cities). Closed terrain requires denser and more heterogeneous sensors. Cluttered terrain requires complementing knowledge of where things are by knowledge of habits or past actions which both help differentiate targets from the civilian background. But even in difficult environments, a good system helps by monitoring more terrain in less time. It can also vector forces against dangerous anomalies and massed units, interdict their supply and highlight inevitable enemy mistakes that reveal obvious targets.

The centrality of information to modern warfare is prompting militaries to reconsider how they are organized. Today, the U.S. military tends to be platform-centric: the Air Force is built around aircraft; the Navy, around ships; and four of the Army's five combined arms are organized around platforms (helicopters, air defense batteries, artillery and armor)...