  A strategy is a plan, method, or series of actions for obtaining a specified
goal. A military strategy typically employs the threat or use of military force
in opposition to an adversary, and is called upon where large scale force is
viewed as the way to achieve such goals. Strategic thinking is traditionally
focused on which part or combination of land, air, and naval forces is most
effective. This may be too narrow an approach to accomplishing the ultimate
end, which is generally political influence or control--or preventing influence
or control by others--and almost never consists of physical destruction itself.
In order to broaden the discussion of military strategy, we consider here three
distinct effects of inflicting stress on an opponent: a) A fragile system is
damaged--possibly catastrophically, b) A robust system is largely unaffected,
retaining much or all of its prior strength, c) Some systems actually gain
strength, a property which has recently been termed antifragility. Traditional
perspectives of military strategy implicitly assume fragility, limiting their
validity and resulting in surprise, and assume a specific end state rather than
an overall condition of the system as a goal. Robustness and antifragility are
relevant both to offense and defense. While robustness and antifragility are
desirable in friendly systems, an enemy possessing these characteristics
undermines the premise that an attack will achieve a desired increase in
control. Historical and contemporary examples demonstrate the failure of
traditional strategies against antifragile enemies--even devastating damage
inflicted upon nations or other organizations did not weaken and defeat them,
but rather strengthened them, resulting in their victory. Underlying such
successful responses are socio-economic or political strengths. Our discussion
is a basis for scientific analysis of improved strategic thinking.
