Battlefield GEOINT:
Describing Why We Fight
Where We Fight, to Anticipate
the Battlefield of Tomorrow
Nathan Scott
5 May 2014
Agenda
•
•
•
•
Problem Statement
Approach
Assumptions - Geographic Spaces
Re-thinking Battlefield Analytics - Geospatial
Analysis of the Battlespace (GAB)
– Physical Geography
– Behavioral Geography
– Cognitive Geography
• Timeline
Problem Statement
• The US Army utilizes an antiquated analytical
process to analyze the battlespace. Focusing on
the unified use of geospatial technologies and
interconnected geographic spaces would best
align the Army to understand the battlesapces of
the future.
Approach
• Technical Spatial Analysis Turned to Hypothetical
• Redefining What We Know
– Rebalance and incorporate best practices
• Merge Fields
– Geography - Geospatial
– Mathematics – Statistical
– Psychology – Human cognition (why we do what we
do)
Assumptions – Geographic Spaces
• Physical Geography
– What Mother Nature presents in the battelspace
– Traditional terrain analysis
• Behavioral Geography
– What humans CAN do given the Physical Geography
– Comprehensive identification of all possibilities
• Cognitive Geography
– What humans CHOOSE to do given the Behavioral
Geography possibilities
Geospatial Analysis of the
Battlespace (GAB)
• Align Battlespace With Holistic Concept
– Everything has an impact on everything else
(Physics!)
• Utilize Geospatial Concept/Theory
– Technological approach with geospatial thinking
– Focus on databasing info for dynamic modeling
• Non-linear Battlespaces
– Physical, Behavioral, Cognitive cyclic and always
updating
Physical Geography
• Traditional Analyses Work
– Slope, soils, vegetation cover
• Transition to using established NSG databases
– Constant and consistent updates
• Standardize analyses via models/tools
– GIS community best practices
• Goal to create consistent outcome for all users
• Identifies what Mother Nature is providing in the
Battlespace
Behavioral Geography
• Bridges the gap between templating and
geospatial analyses
• Focus is on using GIS to determine
human/machine physical interactions w/ Physical
• Requires physical based modeling to determine
all possibilities
• Output is a comprehensive identification of all
basal human interactions (Behavioral) with
Nature (Physical)
Cognitive Geography
• Historical intent was to determine threat courses
of actions
• Shift in view to using GIS/GEOINT to predict what
an threat is most likely to do
– Probability based approach
– Utilize “big data” and psychology to create
probabilistic models
• Focus in on determining, from the Behavioral
“list” what a threat is most likely to do
Future of GAB
• Future work needs to focus on Cognitive
Geography
– GIS, mathematics, and psychology merge
– Begin to model what we know of human behavior
• Comprehensive system-based approach
– Sensor to Database to Algorithm to Interface
• Analytical re-thinking of how objects interact in
space
– Linear? Chaotic? Probabilistic?
Timeline
• May 2014
– Finish up research on Cognitive and Psychological human
interactions
– Incorporate final research into GAB future focus
– Continue Peer and Community Review of working
document
• June 2014
– Finalize all documents
– Re-Distribute for final reviews
• August/Sept 2014
– Present research
Questions ?