For professional disciplines, "jargon" is essential in order to precisely express the meaning of the complex concepts used. However, since language can mislead as well as enlighten, it is just as important to carefully examine the terminology against the evidence, to ensure that it does serve a useful purpose. Perhaps this has never been so important as in our post-modern era, but this article makes very clear the eternal verity of objective truth. Thus, it appears, "kinetic" loses it's place in the lexicon. Or does it, entirely? In the UK, as successive defence reviews shrink the size of the professional army (almost a combat division) and the navy's surface fleet (with it's 1.5 aircraft carriers, ready at a moment's notice to launch a £100m fighter into Davy Jones' locker) because of the need to provide resources for non-kinetic, or hybrid or cyber warfare, or whatever, it may be worth remembering that, whilst computers can hack or be hacked, they generally do not land on your head from a great height. Other, kinetic, things do and at great cost to personnel and expensive equipment.

Expand full comment

The distinction between cause and effect remains murky. The enormous effort Russia and China have already put into malware and the 'capture' of others' systems, means that the West is well versed in their approaches, but less so in the effects: the polarising of views on NATO matters little excepting its effects on how NATO works. The enhancement of friction is relevant only when artificial friction exceeds the natural sort. The ability to overload commanders' decision-making powers has not yet been detected and publicised.

Expand full comment

When I see "kinetic", to me the opposite that springs to mind is "static", like the trenches for much of WW1.

Or better yet, the lines from Pink Floyd:

"The general sat,

And the lines on the map

Moved from side to side"

Expand full comment