ISSUE 182 : Jul/Aug - 2010 - Australian Defence Force Journal

So how could a collapse to a lower level of complexity unfold? David Korowicz argues thereare two forms; ‘hub collapse’ and ‘creeping collapse’. 28 Hub collapse is where a key element ofthe global system fails, which has immediate and far reaching consequences throughout theentire system. The collapse of Lehman Brothers in September 2008 provides a recent examplewhich almost precipitated a global collapse in international trade and finance, only averted byunprecedented government stimulus.Creeping collapse is based on the failure of individual companies or elements within thesystem, which in turn results in other failures. While not having the same immediate impactas the failure of a hub, creeping collapse can over time have significant negative impacts. Forexample, declining economic activity will likely result in falling disposable income. In turn,this will have a negative impact on the tourism industry, with a flow-on impact on the aviationindustry, which will be forced to downsize. 29 This will have further negative impacts on otherindustries, such as aircraft manufacturers, travel agents, hotels and hire car companies.Economies of scale have been one of the advantages of the globalised economy, allowing goodsto be produced cheaper and enabling more to be purchased, while also freeing up disposableincome to purchase other goods. However, as creeping collapse progresses, businesses willface the prospect of ‘dis-economies’ of scale, where declining sales will result in price rises tocover costs, which will further reduce the number of customers who can afford the goods orservices. 30 Creeping collapse, while initially only affecting parts of the global economy, has thepotential to spread and significantly impact the whole. Arguably, it is the most likely methodby which the globalised economy could collapse to a lower level of complexity.The paradox of military technologyA Roman general, planning and conducting a battle had relatively few considerations to make.The battlefield was small enough in size that he could observe most of it; his capabilitiesconsisted of infantry, archers, chariots and cavalry, with some catapults. His communicationsconsisted of runners, liaison officers and perhaps a few signals, such as bugles or flamingarrows. The equipment of his army was simple; it required a relatively simple industrial baseand regional supply chains to support it. Much of the equipment used could be repaired bythe army, often from materials available in the immediate area. The relative complexity of aRoman legion was low.A military organisation today has a much more complex task. First, the number of capabilitiesis an order of magnitude greater than that of the Romans, with a vast array of capabilities.These capabilities allow operations to be conducted globally, in the air, on land, at sea, overthe electromagnetic spectrum and in space. The industrial base to support this is global innature, often involving thousands of companies and a complex supply chain. Comparinga modern military with the Romans clearly identifies that not only have the capabilities ofmilitaries increased but so have their complexity. In a prosperous world economy, this is not ofconcern. However, in a world economy at risk of synchronous failure, it gives rise to a paradoxof military technology.49