RESEARCH TOPIC

Distinguishing Different Generations of Warfare and the Evolving Landscape

of 5th Generation

Submitted By
ZUBIA SHOUKAT
B.S (Hons)

Submitted To
MAM MADIHA ZAFFAR

Class no
06

Semester
7th
Section
MORNING

DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

UNIVERSITY OF PESHAWAR
(SESSION: 2020-2024)

ABSTRACT:
Warfare has evolved over time, with each generation characterized by distinct technologies and
strategies. 5th generation warfare is the latest iteration, marked by a shift to non-kinetic methods
like cyberattacks and social engineering. Understanding the nuances of 5th generation warfare is
crucial in navigating the complexities of modern conflict. This modern form of conflict
transcends traditional physical battlefields, extending its reach into the digital realm and
manipulating the flow of information.
5th generation warfare is the new form of warfare that is raising its head. It is called as war of
narratives where there are distractions, there’s deception, there’s truth and some physical aspect
of it certainly adverbial elements within it that is not normal like military type capabilities,
media, propaganda etc.
To understand fifth generation warfare is more difficult than to fight it. Therefore, in order to
understand it first understands the historical perspective of other four generations of warfare.
These are different ages of warfare, all separated by different technology and innovation. 1st
generation of warfare is characterized by tactics like phalanx or line and column attacks of large
armies clashing together on open battlefield. This was first real categorization of warfare in
which groups acting like nation-states fought against each other. Technology progressed and
allowed humans to kill each other more efficiently. As 2nd generation of warfare was born with
rifled weapons, machine guns and other significant developments in the field of artillery,
practical example was the devastation of world war I. Then we have interwar period in which
humanity experienced yet more technological growth and development that leads to 3rd
generation of warfare characterized by Messerschmitt and b-17 flying fortress. Even within the
field of aviation, Bristol f2 became the spitfire in less than 9 years. On the ground level,
blitzkrieg strategies were used to achieve objectives. With mobile infantry and further
developments in combined arms warfare the third generation gives us World War II but in final
days of warfare a new style was building. The nuclear weapon and its use in combat lead to cold
war. Conflict in an atomic age took the form of proxy wars and this was the era of stealth unlike
use of brute force. This was called 4th generation warfare and can be explained with single word
“insurgency” and first defined by William S. Lind as it starts when the state loses its monopoly in
war.
“All over the world, state militaries find themselves fighting nonstate opponents such as al-
Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. Almost
everywhere, the state is losing. Fourth Generation war is also marked by a return to a world of
cultures, not merely states, in conflict. We now find ourselves facing the Christian West’s oldest
and most steadfast opponent, Islam.”
Then there are wars that exhibits two styles of warfare like Vietnam war like presence of
Vietcong, north Vietnamese army, patrolling of U.S soldiers through the jungles was
conventional style on the other hand entire doctrine of suppression of enemy’s air defenses was a
massive part of modern warfare, characterizing 4th generation of warfare which at last brings 5th
generation of warfare. But there is no consensus over the existence of such type of warfare.
Some believed in it while others denied it and consider that the world is still in 4th generation of
warfare.
Many scholars, practioners, strategists that are proponents of the concept defined it differently.
Daniel H. Abbott in his book “5th generation of warfare” defined it as war of perceptions and
information. He said that generation of warfare build upon one and another and exist at the
same time, each progressive generation of warfare does not totally replace the generation before
it but rather build on it.
William S. Lind was of the same idea that 5th generation of warfare is really just a collection of
tactics that should be nested under the fourth or even 3rd generation of warfare therefore it does
not really have one accepted definition or definition as a separate field of warfare. (Lind, n.d.)
Some argues that it is unique and not just the technological progression following 4th generation
warfare. It will be over or it will have transitioned to something else before most people even
realized it has even begun. It feels like war without conflict, war where there are no enemies and
no allies but causalities everywhere, a war in which actual combat is not really the main attack
but standing at a vending or voting machine is.
In 1999 two Chinese colonels of people’s liberation army examine the situation in the context of
conflict with the west and stated that;
“What we are referring to are not changes in the instruments of war, the technology of war, the
modes of war, or the forms of war. What we are referring to is the function of warfare”
Also, paper published by think tank 360ISR defined it as;
“We are no longer fighting a defined adversary in a defined battlespace for a defined period of
time. Instead, the 5th generation mission space is a continuous global battle of narratives that
will play out over both virtual and physical space and encompass a range of violent and non-
violent actions and effects.”
LtCol Stanton S. Coerr in his “Fifth-Generation War: Warfare Versus the Nonstate” explains the
symptoms of 5th generation warfare that the battlefield will be something strange cyberspace, or
the Cleveland water supply, or Wall Street’s banking system, or YouTube. The mission will be
instilling fear, and it will succeed.
There are some characteristics of warfare explain by Daniel H. Abott applies to civilian and
military communities alike.
1. Mass cyberattacks that are not attributed to an actor or nation-state.
For Example, n 2016, the Mirai botnet, a network of infected internet-connected devices,
launched a series of coordinated distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks against major
internet service providers (ISPs) and other online services. The attacks were so powerful that
they disrupted internet traffic for millions of people around the world. Increasing cyber-attacks
even at commercial and consumer level have proven the vulnerabilities in Scada System, in POL
petroleum oil lubricant production system as well.
2. Mass social engineering.
For Example, in 2017 WannaCry ransomware attack caused by a worm that spread through email
attachments. The worm encrypted files on the computers of victims and demanded a ransom
payment in order to decrypt the files.
3. Lack of “us versus them” nature.
This nature in cybersecurity has made it possible for organizations to share information and
collaborate on security solutions. This collaboration has helped to improve the overall
cybersecurity posture of all organizations.
4. Non-state actors becoming primary belligerents.
The characteristic that separates it from the previous generations of warfare is the nature and
power of non-state actors, it is not referred to terror group or cell because that were covered in 4 th
generation warfare, but it is referred to private companies and their relationship with other non-
state actors or state itself. Foe example, directing of all mainstream media sources by Biden
regime. In the past warfare’s, propaganda is directed from top to down that the nation state is
controlling and directing media organizations but there’s difference in a 5th generation war in
which we see governments with the training wheels and private companies with their hands on
the seat and saying good job.
5. Nation-states having the wrong tools for the job.
For example, The Stuxnet worm was a highly sophisticated piece of malware that was designed
to attack industrial control systems (ICS) used to operate centrifuges at Iran's nuclear facilities.
The worm was believed to have been developed by the United States and Israel, and it was
deployed in 2009. It was a very effective attack, and it caused significant damage to Iran's
nuclear program but the attack also highlighted the dangers of nation-states developing offensive
cyber weapons.
Therefore, there is need to be a healthy distance between power of institution and the monopoly
those institutions have on violence and citizenry.
Conclusion:
After all the ideas it is concluded as; 5th generation warfare is the war of ideas and narratives and
primarily fought in the information space. However, the actions undertaken in the information
space are not intended to be the final goal, but rather a way to affect the physical, kinetic
battlespaces. Cyberwarfare is a critical part of 5G warfare, but these tactics do not supersede the
overall function of it. Rather, actions in the cyber battlespace are a tool of both supplement
traditional forms of military warfare, while simultaneously serving as a tool that certain actors
can utilize to further their war of ideas. The ambiguous nature of this cyber realm most clearly
illustrates the uncertainty present throughout this style of warfare, and the struggle that is present
throughout societies as citizens try to make sense of their world around them. This ambiguity is
the key the “perfect crime” is the one that no one ever knows has been committed, and as such a
“perfect 5GW” is the one that the target never even knew occurred.
Liang, Q., & Xiangsui, W. (1999). Unrestricted warfare. Beijing: PLA Literature and Arts Publishing House
Arts.