Warfare's structure is evolving. The traditional facets of warfare are undergoing a transformation: conventional methods of warfare are dwindling, while newer strategies and technologies of warfare, such as intelligence warfare, asymmetric warfare, media propaganda, and hybrid warfare, are filling the void, blurring the distinctions between combatant and noncombatant, as well as between war and peacetime. Carl von Clausewitz established the fundamental structure of modern warfare in his magnum opus On Battle. He described modern state warfare as "a duel on a larger scale" and clarified its intent as "a continuation of politics through other means," with its core elements of "state rationality, military command chance, and populist anger." William S. Lind, building on Clausewitz's thesis, characterized four centuries of warfare after the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, each with its own style of warfare. Lind's fourth-generation warfare and Daniel H. Abbott's fifth-generation warfare are the subjects of this article. It discusses various scholars' explanations of fourth-generation warfare (4GW). To begin, it defines 4GW as asymmetric warfare conducted by nonstate actors and nonstate culture groups, in which nonstate actors and mercenaries conduct asymmetric warfare and shadow wars in the strategic interests of aggressive states. The article then discusses alternative meanings of 4GW, which is often interpreted as combat on a moral basis with light infantry. By comparison, some researchers claim that 4GW is waged through knowledge and technological resources deployed across cyberspace. Following that, this Article discusses how to combat 4GW and how it is currently being waged. Additionally, the Article examines Abbott's fifth-generation warfare, a battle of expectations, and discusses how to combat 5GW and how it is now being waged. Additionally, this Article discusses how technical advancement is used as a weapon in modern warfare. Lastly, this article explained how some of the tasks listed previously could be outsourced by the government of PAKISTAN, introducing a new player in the ecosystem. There are lots of data points that could have a new perspective on the economy and massive public databases from towns, countries and government departments. The collection of data has been performed using qualitative and quantitative approaches. It is most likely that the using the principle of “access to Open Data could enable the government of PAKISTAN to improve the social sector in PAKISTAN.
‘Open Data’, Policy Makers, Strategic Planning, Development, Hybrid War, Technology, Transparency, Accountability, Defense, War and Conflict