|Institution:||Swedish National Defense College|
|Keywords:||Military art and science; Falkland Islands War 1982; Campaigns; Krigsvetenskap; Militära operationer; Falklandskriget 1982; Chefsprogrammet; Chefsprogrammet 2007-2009; Uppsatser; Social Sciences; Samhällsvetenskap; SOCIAL SCIENCES; SAMHÄLLSVETENSKAP; samhälle/juridik; Social and Behavioural Science, Law; Chefsprogrammet. (ChP); Chefsprogrammet. (ChP)|
|Full text PDF:||http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:fhs:diva-1197|
Centers of Gravity (CoGs) analyses deliver vital input to the operational design. However, there are a great number of theories regarding the phenomenon which can create a certain degree of confusion. The diversity in theories may lead to misdirected mental energy where the focus is to discuss theories instead of using the theories at hand efficiently. The question is if the diversity in theory is an actual problem or if it just perceived as such? This research identifies the similarities and differences in the theories of Milan Vego and Joseph Strange & Richard Iron regarding CoGs, their sub elements and methods for analysis. The impact of the differences on the practical result is then surveyed by implementing the theories on adelimitated phase of the Falklands War, in order to conclude if the differences have a decisive impact on the product of the CoG analysis. The result of this thesis indicates that the diversity in theory is a perceived problem. The identified divergence does not reflect crucially on the CoG analysis and the variation of the input provided to the operational design is minor. The CoGs and the critical vulnerabilities identified are the same or at least similar, no matter which of the two theories was used in this research.