The Mathematics of War

[sean69]

Can always count on TED lecture series for a great talk.

Physicist Sean Gourley, a Rhodes scholar at Oxford U., specializing in "networks and complexity", breaks down the nature of modern conflict (war/insurgency) using a simple statistical mathematical model that simulates group dynamics.

Perhaps a better way to look at things rather than blind ideological punditry and rhetoric?

 

[OnSlaught]

Nikolai Kardashev came up with a schema that described different Types of Civilizations that we might one day evolve into. They are categorized as Type 1, 2, and 3 civilizations based on their energy consumption and methods to harness it.

Right now we are a measly Type 0. As pathetic as that might seem it requires us to get past the threat of us blowing ourselves up using the nuclear technology we have and getting past that threshold.

Now you might ask why I even brought this up in relation to the video that was displayed. Well, notice at the end the guy says he doesn't know exactly what this tells us as far as whether to make a decision to either stay or move out, but that we should look at the structure.

The structure, I believe, is related to the amount of energy that is consumed. Notice that societies that are large and more robust are more apt to talk, i.e. U.S. and Russia or the former USSR. The cold war was just that, cold, primarily because neither nation wanted to lose their grip on power but who wants global annihilation besides religious fanatics?

Fragmentation can be equated with less consumption of energy and resources, and causes us, the larger, more robust nation not to be able to follow accurately where these insurgent groups will pop up next.

Big wars are easy to fight: Easy script and plot to follow, noticeable characters, and probable outcome.

Guerrilla warfare on the other hand: Unpredictable characters, complex script, and plot is blown to shit because who knows what the hell the outcome will be...

I personally believe that if we trick countries into bringing them clean, renewable energy that will force them to consume more clean energy rather than bringing them "democracy" then these threats of war will be minimized drastically.

We have to be honest with ourselves, it's cool to make a dandy mathematical formula that will predict the structure of insurgency, but that's not really bringing us that much closer to the much needed step of ending those insurgent wars.

These wars are fought over resources. Give a dictatorship or tyrant, or emperor renewable resources and the conflicts cease...key word being renewable. Then he will have to try to figure out another way to monopolize power. That's another story...

 

[melonpecan]

War isn't my thing but I appreciate you dropping the knowledge Sean.


It's something about all of this smart talk that makes me have a little bit more faith in the next generation...hopefully it's not misplaced...

 

[sean69]

Nikolai Kardashev came up with a schema that described different Types of Civilizations that we might one day evolve into. They are categorized as Type 1, 2, and 3 civilizations based on their energy consumption and methods to harness it.

Right now we are a measly Type 0. As pathetic as that might seem it requires us to get past the threat of us blowing ourselves up using the nuclear technology we have and getting past that threshold.

Now you might ask why I even brought this up in relation to the video that was displayed. Well, notice at the end the guy says he doesn't know exactly what this tells us as far as whether to make a decision to either stay or move out, but that we should look at the structure.

The structure, I believe, is related to the amount of energy that is consumed. Notice that societies that are large and more robust are more apt to talk, i.e. U.S. and Russia or the former USSR. The cold war was just that, cold, primarily because neither nation wanted to lose their grip on power but who wants global annihilation besides religious fanatics?

Fragmentation can be equated with less consumption of energy and resources, and causes us, the larger, more robust nation not to be able to follow accurately where these insurgent groups will pop up next.

Big wars are easy to fight: Easy script and plot to follow, noticeable characters, and probable outcome.

Guerrilla warfare on the other hand: Unpredictable characters, complex script, and plot is blown to shit because who knows what the hell the outcome will be...

I personally believe that if we trick countries into bringing them clean, renewable energy that will force them to consume more clean energy rather than bringing them "democracy" then these threats of war will be minimized drastically.

We have to be honest with ourselves, it's cool to make a dandy mathematical formula that will predict the structure of insurgency, but that's not really bringing us that much closer to the much needed step of ending those insurgent wars.

These wars are fought over resources. Give a dictatorship or tyrant, or emperor renewable resources and the conflicts cease...key word being renewable. Then he will have to try to figure out another way to monopolize power. That's another story...

Agree with most of what you've said here. Especially:

"I personally believe that if we trick countries into bringing them clean, renewable energy that will force them to consume more clean energy rather than bringing them "democracy" then these threats of war will be minimized drastically. "

Minus the "trick" part, LOL. History has revealed trickery to be an unsustainable endeavor. The examples are innumerable.

See Jarod Diamond's book, "Collapse".

However, "we" kind of need to get our own act together with respect to the energy issue or the above is a moot point.

I have to disagree with your dismissal of the study in question as purely academic.

You have to admit, the inference of the model is not immediately intuitive - which is typical when you're doing good science. And I think it's very striking that all insurgent type conflicts Iraq fit this model irrespective of geopolitical dispositions.

I think it's a very good primer for addressing the problem from a bottom-up approach.


"Give a dictatorship or tyrant, or emperor renewable resources and the conflicts cease...key word being renewable."

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Case in point - Africa.

 

[sean69]

War isn't my thing but I appreciate you dropping the knowledge Sean.


It's something about all of this smart talk that makes me have a little bit more faith in the next generation...hopefully it's not misplaced...

It's fucked up that a majority of people will be quick to dismiss this as "smart talk" or academic mumbo-jumbo.

Just like the academic mumbo jumbo of the 70's and 80's regarding preventative health care reform, the current yakity-yak regarding childhood obesity problem or the demographic dynamics of older adults in the US.

 

[OnSlaught]

As you can guess, my responses are in blue!

Agree with most of what you've said here. Especially:

"I personally believe that if we trick countries into bringing them clean, renewable energy that will force them to consume more clean energy rather than bringing them "democracy" then these threats of war will be minimized drastically. "

Minus the "trick" part, LOL. History has revealed trickery to be an unsustainable endeavor. The examples are innumerable.

See Jarod Diamond's book, "Collapse".

I used the word "trick" because right now all these countries we see as being threats to our democracy want to be left alone to their own politics, whether it's theocratic in nature or socialistic. We wanted to interfere in their endeavors under the guise of bring them "democracy" while exploiting their territories for their resources, destabilizing their regions, and leaving them as no possible threat to us.

However, "we" kind of need to get our own act together with respect to the energy issue or the above is a moot point.

I definitely agree with you here Sean...

I have to disagree with your dismissal of the study in question as purely academic.

You have to admit, the inference of the model is not immediately intuitive - which is typical when you're doing good science. And I think it's very striking that all insurgent type conflicts Iraq fit this model irrespective of geopolitical dispositions.

The only reason why I made such a statement was due to the fact that this is something that TO ME, has been visible from the very onset of our interactions and involvement in Iraq. We cannot win guerrilla warfare driven battles because the terrain is unpredictable, the enemies could be men, women or children, and the militaristic targets and villages are usually one in the same. No intel is ever really gained by way of satellite communication, cell phone, computer or any other electronic devices because these people operate on a more underground covert level.

Shit, even we won our independence from Britain as a country by being insurgents. That shit should tell you right there that you have to change your tactics of warfare due to the "structure" of the enemy that is presented to you. Another great example historically is the rebellion and uprising that took place in Haiti and the following victories against the British, French, and Spanish.

I think it's a very good primer for addressing the problem from a bottom-up approach.

I do agree with you on this as well. I'm not saying that the equation is meaningless, just that it isn't necessary to see that there is a pattern there that's been visible for quite some time. It should however be utilized to track the progress of various interactions we have with these countries and their immediate results or effects.

"Give a dictatorship or tyrant, or emperor renewable resources and the conflicts cease...key word being renewable."

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Case in point - Africa.

Remember i said renewable. Many of the resources that have been pillaged from Africa have been non-renewable resources, as well as the conflicts that have been fought over by the different nations and warlords.

 

[BigUnc]

Interesting but he misses too many marks

The groups are fragmented by design. Insurgents learn very quickly to keep their groups small. You do not confront a large conventional army man to man on a open battlefield. Defeat is certain. Autonomous groups will combine forces, share intelligence, tactics and logistics with each other but only on a case by case basis and if there is a benefit for them.

Using the number of deaths as a predictor is folly. What insurgents are concerned about is mission success and the return on investment. The only time the number of killed could be used as a gauge is when they attempt to discourage people from a certain behavior. Killing people lined up to take jobs as police officers would be an example.

His data set is incomplete. There is an abundance of open source data dealing specifically with this. Why he didn't seek it out is weird to me.

I give him a grade of incomplete.

 

[sean69]

Interesting but he misses too many marks

The groups are fragmented by design. Insurgents learn very quickly to keep their groups small. You do not confront a large conventional army man to man on a open battlefield. Defeat is certain. Autonomous groups will combine forces, share intelligence, tactics and logistics with each other but only on a case by case basis and if there is a benefit for them.

Using the number of deaths as a predictor is folly. What insurgents are concerned about is mission success and the return on investment. The only time the number of killed could be used as a gauge is when they attempt to discourage people from a certain behavior. Killing people lined up to take jobs as police officers would be an example.

His data set is incomplete. There is an abundance of open source data dealing specifically with this. Why he didn't seek it out is weird to me.

I give him a grade of incomplete.

So, what's the metric for "mission success" and ROI in this kind of war?

I'd think it would be toppling the incumbent government and seizing control, but I may be wrong. You might be on to something here.

Doesn't killing in war always have to do with "discouraging" people from certain behavior?

What other open source data are you referring to and how would you apply it to the model? Or maybe you have an alternative model?

I'm not a military general and I'm not being facetious, just curious.

 

[mcguyver]

 

[sean69]

As you can guess, my responses are in blue!

OK, cool. Your cleared some things up.

However, regarding your response on the Africa issue, perhaps i misunderstood you.

I thought you were saying that by providing African countries with alternative renewable resources, the West could gain a better hold on curtailing insurgent conflict in the region that may pose a threat to their ( the West's) "security" ... security often times referring to the that of their material interests.

In this respect, I'd have to say that I'm yet to see an African country where that has worked.

It's been attempted by way of numerous Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP's), Nigeria, with it's oil and gas resources, being a classic example.

 

[CT's Finest]

Just kidding, I may actually check this out later and see if there's anything I'd like to add to the discussion...

 

[BigUnc]

So, what's the metric for "mission success" and ROI in this kind of war?

I'd think it would be toppling the incumbent government and seizing control, but I may be wrong. You might be on to something here.

Doesn't killing in war always have to do with "discouraging" people from certain behavior?

What other open source data are you referring to and how would you apply it to the model? Or maybe you have an alternative model?

I'm not a military general and I'm not being facetious, just curious.

I would point you in the direction of the collected works of William Lind, John Robb, and others on this type of warfare given the name fourth generation warfare, 4GW for short. There are many models being thrown around. You pretty much have to use them as a aggregrate and go from there.

He's a short primer by John Robb from his book Brave New World

The New Global Insurgency
The resilience of 4G insurgencies lies in their ability to marry bottom-up leadership structures to increasingly lethal technologies while taking advantage of the very globalization they hate This combination leads to a harrowing cost-benefit dynamic: 9-11 is estimated to have cost Al-Qaeda half a million dollars, with economic damage to the U.S. in excess of 80 billion; this represents a sixteen thousand-fold Return On Investment. Disconcertingly, most of the trends driving 4G warfare are only just beginning to gather momentum; as they accelerate, they are likely to redefine not just warfare, but the societal fabric that underlies it



4G Insurgency Advantages
Capitalizing on the new "terrain"...
Internet-enabled communications: Insurgencies now routinely use the Internet to coordinate and plan attacks, thereby enabling flattened hierarchies

...bottom-up insurgencies...

...attack globalization's weak points
Porous national borders: 4G insurgents able to capitalize on globalization, which depends on transporting freight across borders with minimal hassle;

Decentralized organizational structures with long time horizons

Pay-as-you-go approach: Involvement in global crime enables self-financing of terrorist organizations

Integrated systems: Attacks against dockyards, oil pipelines, power-grids, etc., can disrupt economic life and even threaten ability of nation to govern

Increasingly lethal weaponry: In addition to increasingly potent explosives/weaponry, the successful execution of a WMD attack by non-state actors is only a matter of time.

Urban environments: Today's megacities are fertile ground for insurgencies, both vis-vis recruiting from conditions of poverty and also in ability to hide amidst population



Source: Robb, John, Brave New War

 

[sean69]

I would point you in the direction of the collected works of William Lind, John Robb, and others on this type of warfare given the name fourth generation warfare, 4GW for short. There are many models being thrown around. You pretty much have to use them as a aggregrate and go from there.

He's a short primer by John Robb from his book Brave New World

The New Global Insurgency
The resilience of 4G insurgencies lies in their ability to marry bottom-up leadership structures to increasingly lethal technologies while taking advantage of the very globalization they hate This combination leads to a harrowing cost-benefit dynamic: 9-11 is estimated to have cost Al-Qaeda half a million dollars, with economic damage to the U.S. in excess of 80 billion; this represents a sixteen thousand-fold Return On Investment. Disconcertingly, most of the trends driving 4G warfare are only just beginning to gather momentum; as they accelerate, they are likely to redefine not just warfare, but the societal fabric that underlies it



4G Insurgency Advantages
Capitalizing on the new "terrain"...
Internet-enabled communications: Insurgencies now routinely use the Internet to coordinate and plan attacks, thereby enabling flattened hierarchies

...bottom-up insurgencies...

...attack globalization's weak points
Porous national borders: 4G insurgents able to capitalize on globalization, which depends on transporting freight across borders with minimal hassle;

Decentralized organizational structures with long time horizons

Pay-as-you-go approach: Involvement in global crime enables self-financing of terrorist organizations

Integrated systems: Attacks against dockyards, oil pipelines, power-grids, etc., can disrupt economic life and even threaten ability of nation to govern

Increasingly lethal weaponry: In addition to increasingly potent explosives/weaponry, the successful execution of a WMD attack by non-state actors is only a matter of time.

Urban environments: Today's megacities are fertile ground for insurgencies, both vis-vis recruiting from conditions of poverty and also in ability to hide amidst population

Source: Robb, John, Brave New War

Ah. I see now.

Thanks dude.

 

[OnSlaught]

I would point you in the direction of the collected works of William Lind, John Robb, and others on this type of warfare given the name fourth generation warfare, 4GW for short. There are many models being thrown around. You pretty much have to use them as a aggregrate and go from there.

He's a short primer by John Robb from his book Brave New World

The New Global Insurgency
The resilience of 4G insurgencies lies in their ability to marry bottom-up leadership structures to increasingly lethal technologies while taking advantage of the very globalization they hate This combination leads to a harrowing cost-benefit dynamic: 9-11 is estimated to have cost Al-Qaeda half a million dollars, with economic damage to the U.S. in excess of 80 billion; this represents a sixteen thousand-fold Return On Investment. Disconcertingly, most of the trends driving 4G warfare are only just beginning to gather momentum; as they accelerate, they are likely to redefine not just warfare, but the societal fabric that underlies it



4G Insurgency Advantages
Capitalizing on the new "terrain"...
Internet-enabled communications: Insurgencies now routinely use the Internet to coordinate and plan attacks, thereby enabling flattened hierarchies

...bottom-up insurgencies...

...attack globalization's weak points
Porous national borders: 4G insurgents able to capitalize on globalization, which depends on transporting freight across borders with minimal hassle;

Decentralized organizational structures with long time horizons

Pay-as-you-go approach: Involvement in global crime enables self-financing of terrorist organizations

Integrated systems: Attacks against dockyards, oil pipelines, power-grids, etc., can disrupt economic life and even threaten ability of nation to govern

Increasingly lethal weaponry: In addition to increasingly potent explosives/weaponry, the successful execution of a WMD attack by non-state actors is only a matter of time.

Urban environments: Today's megacities are fertile ground for insurgencies, both vis-vis recruiting from conditions of poverty and also in ability to hide amidst population



Source: Robb, John, Brave New War

good drop...