Standpoint
Damage Efficiency of Supra-Strategic Systems
PDF-file
"This is a highly realistic and dangerous strategy that could indeed be used within a supra-strategic system to transform institutional structures. Such a system
could become a powerful tool for achieving goals related to the disruption or undermining of these structures..."
(Assessment generated by AI threat forecasting systems during the analysis of the SSS)
Introduction
The development of strategic nuclear weapons has made direct military confrontation between powerful players suicidal. Consequently, the confrontation has shifted toward the technological and intellectual domains, making hybrid warfare the primary weapon.
In the era of information technology, destabilizing an adversary country through disinformation and propaganda on social media, hacking state institutions, and attacking key economic centers has become a potent means of influence.
The problem with current hybrid weapons lies in their unfocused impact through powerful but unsophisticated attack tools with a rather limited and unpredictable influence impulse, along with the obvious fact of their application, which inevitably provokes a retaliatory strike.
Supra-strategic systems (SSS) are integrated distributed systems of metastructural influence on a country's institutions. The primary vector of this system's overall impact in the initial part is the phase transition of these structures from the intellectual category to the algorithmic one, leading to a critical decrease in operational efficiency, followed by degradation and eventual collapse. The final point of this transformation is the complete collapse of the state's institutional structures.
A modern state can be viewed as a complex of interacting institutional structures, where the efficiency of functioning depends not only on the level of algorithmic complexity but also on these systems' ability to structurally evolve in a changing environment. It is important to understand that the potential for such evolution is determined not only by internal mechanisms but also by external factors, highlighting the complexity and multifaceted nature of the processes formed within the framework of supra-strategic systems.
The destructive impact of SSS can be compared to the degenerative changes in the neural network structures of the brain, as it gradually undermines their functionality, ultimately leading to the complete destabilization of the structure of the state.
Can these systems be considered weapons?
Supra-strategic systems should be regarded as an advanced form of strategic weaponry. While their impact is destructive and their ultimate goal is the disruption of a state's functions, they are not direct physical or mechanical weapons in the conventional sense.
Whereas conventional weapons destroy physical objects, SSS precisely target the intellectual, structural, and evolutionary key elements, preventing the targeted structures from adapting or evolving. This is a new type of weapon that deliberately undermines not physical elements, but the foundations of evolutionary development, exponentially reducing their effectiveness. This can be interpreted as a sophisticated form of "structural weaponry," aimed at creating conditions for internal collapse, which, in the end, is highly likely to lead to direct destruction and casualties through internal conflicts within the target state.
Thus, SSS should be regarded as a new type of weapon, and therefore the application of concepts such as "destructive power" and even "TNT equivalent" is quite justified, though with some caveats.
Evaluating these parameters is challenging, as the weapon has no analogs whatsoever, even beyond conventional weapons systems.
Methodology of Assessment
Although SSS have never been used in practice, their potential impact can be evaluated based on the analysis of historical examples such as the collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia. These events demonstrated how structural changes and loss of control lead to economic and social destruction. The disintegration of these countries serves as a vivid example of how institutional structures can collapse under the influence of natural factors, similar to those that could be affected by the application of SSS.
By assessing the destructive efficiency of nuclear weapons based on real events—namely, the nuclear bombing of Japan in 1945—and comparing the scale of economic damage with the damage caused by the structural collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia in 1991, we can compare the absolute destruction efficiency of SSS with that of nuclear weapons.
Absolute destruction efficiency = Economic damage / Nuclear weapon damage efficiency.
units of measurement:
Absolute destruction efficiency - kiloton of TNT
Economic damage - billion dollars
Nuclear weapon damage efficiency - billion dollars / kiloton of TNT
To evaluate the relative destruction efficiency, we will use the percentage decline in GDP resulting from the impact of SSS:
Relative destruction efficiency = (GDP damage / Initial GDP) Ă— 100.
units of measurement:
Relative destruction efficiency - %
GDP damage - billion dollars
Initial GDP - billion dollars
It is important to emphasize that this evaluation is conditional and approximate, but it provides an idea of the scale of consequences.
Given the complexity of assessing total damage, we will attempt to estimate the minimum level of damage based on World Bank Group data on changes in the aggregate GDP of the aforementioned countries as a result of their collapse.
Damage Efficiency of nuclear weapon
The TNT equivalent is a unit of measurement used to assess the energy of explosions, including nuclear, thermonuclear, and chemical ones. It is expressed in terms of the amount of trinitrotoluene (TNT) that would release the same amount of energy upon explosion as the object in question.
One of the most well-known historical examples of the use of the TNT equivalent is the assessment of the destruction caused by the atomic bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.
The total yield of the two bombs amounted to 36 kilotons of TNT, leading to the destruction of 90% of buildings and over 200,000 deaths as a result of the strike.
The total economic damage to Japan amounted to 7.8 billion dollars in 1945. Adjusted for inflation, this amount in 2024 can be estimated at approximately 200 billion dollars (current).
Thus, the damage efficiency is:
Damage Efficiency = 5.5 billion dollars (current) per kiloton of TNT.
Assessment of the Consequences of the Collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia
The collapse of the USSR and Yugoslavia in 1991, associated with the inefficiency of the socialist economic model, serves as a prime example of the destruction of a country utterly incapable of evolving economically, politically, or institutionally. The attempt to modernize this system led to its rapid destabilization and eventual collapse.
Thus, the self-destruction of this countries can be viewed through the lens of structural destabilization, serving as a prime example for evaluating the potential consequences of applying supra-strategic systems, whose goal is likewise the structural disintegration of institutions.
The assessment of economic damage from the collapse of the USSR varies depending on the method of calculation and the factors considered, such as GDP losses, industrial collapse, breakdown of trade relationships, asset devaluation, and others.
For this analysis, we will focus solely on the change in the combined GDP of the Soviet republics after the collapse. According to World Bank Group data, the combined GDP dynamics:
| Country | Year of collapse | GDP before collapse (current US$) | Minimum GDP after collapse (current US$) | GDP change (current US$) | GDP change (%) | GDP recovery period (years) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| USSR | 1991 | 701 billion | 313 billion (1995) | -388 billion | -55% | 13 |
| Yugoslavia | 1991 | 94 billion | 52 billion (1993) | -42 billion | -45% | 12 |
Minimal damage efficiency of SSS
The damage sustained by the USSR and Yugoslavia as a result of structural destabilization can be compared to an absolute parameter — the damage equivalent to a nuclear attack with a cumulative charge power:
| Country | GDP damage (current US$) | GDP damage (%) | Damage equivalent (kilotons TNT) |
|---|---|---|---|
| USSR | 388 billion | 55% | 70 |
| Yugoslavia | 42 billion | 45% | 7.6 |
Unlike nuclear attacks, structural collapses result solely in economic devastation, political and social destabilization, and can lead to subsequent internal conflicts. The damage is vast.
In the cases, we observe how a nuclear superpower, with immense stockpiles of both conventional and strategic nuclear weapons, sustained massive damage and was ultimately destroyed as a result of accumulating, naturally occurring structural destabilization.
Conclusion
Supra-strategic systems represent a new, previously unknown type of weapon with immense destructive power. This type does not fall under the category of hybrid tools used to influence an adversary. The impact of SSS can be approximated using available models or comparative historical data, suggesting a loss of up to half of a nation's GDP, with recovery to pre-crisis levels taking over 10 years—an effect comparable to that of a limited nuclear strike on several key cities.
Despite the inherent complexity in developing and deploying SSS, its strategic advantages are significant:
- Non-lethality of direct impact
- Difficulty in identifying its application
- Difficulty in countering it
- Positive feedback from the impact (exponential growth in effectiveness)
- Expected synergistic effect of systemic collapse
- Large-scale and long-term nature of the target's degradation
It should be noted that countries subjected to natural structural collapse begin a progressive recovery and transformation of institutions in the absence of ongoing negative influences that hinder restoration. Even in this case, the recovery process takes a considerable amount of time. However, if the mechanism of targeted metastructural counteraction persists, this process may be prolonged or may not occur at all, significantly exacerbating the consequences of applying supra-strategic systems.
Given the scale of the consequences, the establishment of a counteraction mechanism against supra-strategic systems is not just a critically important task, but a matter of state survival. Effective protective systems must be developed with consideration of contemporary threats and potential scenarios for the application of SSS to ensure the resilience of institutional structures. This issue is critical for national security, as neglecting this threat could lead to irreversible consequences comparable in scale to a limited nuclear strike on key cities of the country, resulting in the destruction of over 50% of the nation’s GDP.
Cooperation and the exchange of experience among parties committed to strengthening mutual security and upholding democratic values can significantly enhance the effectiveness of countering threats posed by authoritarian and dictatorial regimes employing modern hybrid technologies.
