The Mathematics of War

[kermitology]

This is astounding that war is so literally predictable.

http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/532

I wonder what alpha value pushes towards the conclusion of war?

[CaptainCrunch]

War has always been about math over desire. Oh sure the start of any war is all about emotional decisions, and even to the individual its all about survival instinct.

But at the end of the day its about math

Number of deaths + reduction in production + reduction in standard of living/overall population base = a numerical representation of national moral. If it drops significantly below the same calculation taken before the war starts national resolve drops and your country loses its war fighting ability.

Just like on the military side its all about force multipliers or the number of kills generated/number of actual combat troops = effectiveness of your military. If the enemy military is 10 times larger then yours, then your technology + training + logistics has to create a 6 to 8 kill ratio per active soldier in the field.

In the start of the Iraq war the American kill ratio and ability to demoralize Iraq's government in place = mililtary victory. In the afterwar fighting the kill ration by Iraq's insurgants and cost per kill accelerated greatly impacting moral.

Its all math.

But when you consider the force multiplier of one nuclear war head on a civilian center as a few hundred thousand to one, and the impact on civilian moral as huge, its a wonder that these weapons haven't been used more often. Because from a logical mathmaticall side, we should be nuking everyone from day one of any conflict.

[Thor]

Wow that's interesting stuff.

[onetwo_threefour]

He seemed to suggest that pushing it eitther way from 2.5 could represent progress. By going lower, smaller groups consolidate and strengthen, but then you may be able to negotiate because there's a more centralized leadership. (Perhaps like the Paestinian conflict, although there has been a lot of backsliding there if that is what has hapened. On the other hand, if alpha goes much higher than 2.5, you are dealing with a more fragmented less centralized enemy. A given group is much easier to defeat because it doesn't have as much support and is smaller, but there are many more smaller groups to defeat. Ultimately if a group becomes so centralized that it becomes a quasi-government of a movement, then it may become legitimized, such as the PLO. On the other hand if it becomes too fragmented, the underlying movement may completely lose cohesion and dry up altogether. I'm not sure if there are legotimate examples of either having happened, but I think that is the argument being made.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But when you consider the force multiplier of one nuclear war head on a civilian center as a few hundred thousand to one, and the impact on civilian moral as huge, its a wonder that these weapons haven't been used more often. Because from a logical mathmaticall side, we should be nuking everyone from day one of any conflict.

I've been saying this for years, but no one listens.

Just drop a small tactical one on the Mustard Seed and see what happens....

[icarus]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But when you consider the force multiplier of one nuclear war head on a civilian center as a few hundred thousand to one, and the impact on civilian moral as huge, its a wonder that these weapons haven't been used more often. Because from a logical mathmaticall side, we should be nuking everyone from day one of any conflict.

Because nuclear weapons are universally viewed as reprehensible by all parties, whether participants in the war or not. More people were killed in the bombing and firestorms of Tokyo in WWII than in the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and yet to this day there remains outrage that the US used the atomic bomb in warfare. My opinion.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But when you consider the force multiplier of one nuclear war head on a civilian center as a few hundred thousand to one, and the impact on civilian moral as huge, its a wonder that these weapons haven't been used more often. Because from a logical mathmaticall side, we should be nuking everyone from day one of any conflict.

This is kind of a good point showing that war is not all about math. If it were, Nixon would have nuked Hanoi. If the US nukes a smaller (are there any bigger?) country the global diplomatic meltdown would be tough to handle. The US prides itself on moral superiority in most fights (ie, North Korea, Iran, WWII, etc.), if it loses that it might find it more difficult to maintain it's undisputed superpower status. It needs allies to maintain that position.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by icarus

Because nuclear weapons are universally viewed as reprehensible by all parties, whether participants in the war or not. More people were killed in the bombing and firestorms of Tokyo in WWII than in the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and yet to this day there remains outrage that the US used the atomic bomb in warfare. My opinion.

Sure

However if we're basing war on mathematics and removing the human element, then nuclear f#cking weapons (see what I did there?) are certainly the way to go. The cost to build and deploy one which kills thousands or 10's of thousands is far more efficient then training transporting, feeding recruiting and arming the thousands or troops that would pull off the same kind of kill ratio.

whether is reprehensible or not, it is the most effective killing machine ever made.

[ok, ok,....I get it]

Originally Posted by icarus

Because nuclear weapons are universally viewed as reprehensible by all parties, whether participants in the war or not. More people were killed in the bombing and firestorms of Tokyo in WWII than in the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and yet to this day there remains outrage that the US used the atomic bomb in warfare. My opinion.

are they the same people that are outraged over the bataan death march, or the treatment of prisoners, both militray and CIVILIAN!

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Sure

However if we're basing war on mathematics and removing the human element, then nuclear f#cking weapons (see what I did there?) are certainly the way to go. The cost to build and deploy one which kills thousands or 10's of thousands is far more efficient then training transporting, feeding recruiting and arming the thousands or troops that would pull off the same kind of kill ratio.

whether is reprehensible or not, it is the most effective killing machine ever made.

I guess outside of a computer game, I'm not sure what the point is of a pure mathematical observation. It ignores trump factors, like the ethical/moral reasoning behind NOT using nuclear weapons. Sure, the US has enough nukes to kill everyone in the world mathematically. Of what value is this statement when it ignores the realistic practicalities preventing the US from doing this?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I guess outside of a computer game, I'm not sure what the point is of a pure mathematical observation. It ignores trump factors, like the ethical/moral reasoning behind NOT using nuclear weapons. Sure, the US has enough nukes to kill everyone in the world mathematically. Of what value is this statement when it ignores the realistic practicalities preventing the US from doing this?

I understand this, but if we're going to break down war by mathematic formula so that we can predict victory conditions or defeat positions, then you have to look at the math of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare as being on the top of the ladder in terms of weapons that should be wholly desirable to use in terms of the speed and cost that they can kill your enemies, drain their moral and destroy their industrial base and desire to continue any conflict.

The problem with nuclear weapons is more about size and percieved long term damage then the actual application of the weapon itself.

Maybe their needs to be a warning variety of these weapons. "Ok this first one is small, its clean and we dropped it outside of your city. Yes we shattered every one of your windows, and the EMP destroyed everything not shielded, but think of what will happen if you keep pushing us.

[edn88]

I thought these were the mathematics of war.


http://recreationalmath.com/Risk/index.htm

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I understand this, but if we're going to break down war by mathematic formula so that we can predict victory conditions or defeat positions, then you have to look at the math of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare as being on the top of the ladder in terms of weapons that should be wholly desirable to use in terms of the speed and cost that they can kill your enemies, drain their moral and destroy their industrial base and desire to continue any conflict.

I suppose my point would be, given the ethical/moral aspects of using a game-ender like nukes, is the mathematical prediction valid? You can do all the math you want, but it won't tell you whether or not the Iranian leader is truly crazy enough to use them if push came to shove. You can measure the Iranian army's supplies, morale, effectiveness, capabilities, training, defensive positions, readiness, etc., etc. But if one guy pushes one button, the 'math' goes sideways. The pyschological profile of the leader might be as valuable as the mathematical profile of Iran's defences.

That all said, I reaaaaally find force composition/math breakdown to be very interesting. I'm a big tactical/strategic gaming buff.

[Flash Walken]

Force projection of the nuclear variety is not a very reliable military strategy because of the blowback that you set yourself up, militarily and politically.

Using nuclear arms is a good way to completely illigitimize your objectives to those around you.

You also don't want to be the first to open that can of worms, because you leave yourself vulnerable.

Even during the latest gulf war, there were people pushing for the use of 'tactical' nuclear arms, and the resounding reply was that not only are they a poor tactical alternative because of their indiscriminate nature, as well as their effect of poisoning the terrain (objective), but it is a way of immediately turning the tide of public/worldwide support.

The biggest drawback of mass casualty weaponry like nukes is they make the terrain, which is always the objective in every war, unwinnable. What good is a territorial advantage if you are having to avoid it?

These are the mathematical reasoning behind avoiding using nuclear weapons. Tactically, it does not make sense to render the land you are fighting over unusuable.

[LChoy]

Techically, a Neutron bomb be more cost effective. It only about a kiloton in magnitude, so it'll leave most of the city intact. However, the lethal range will extend before the flash and blast damage. Kill off most of the enemy/people but leave the infrastructure mainly intact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Force projection of the nuclear variety is not a very reliable military strategy because of the blowback that you set yourself up, militarily and politically.

From a military standpoint it can be reliable, however the political aspect is what screws it up. I remember talking to a guy at a seminar a few years ago that served as a junior officer in the old soviet rocket forces and the reigning debate was not about using them, but about creating a big enough threat so that you could get away with using them towards achieving a tactical goal and not having the situation going from tactical to strategic.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Using nuclear arms is a good way to completely illigitimize your objectives to those around you.

True, but in a concept of true or pure idealogical warfare thats something that you don't neccessarily care about if you have a big enough hammer to defuse retaliation. Again, the question is always if we can use x indiscriminately why wouldn't we use it. The best example of that was the debate immediatley after WWII and before the Soviets got their nuclear weapons. The American's didn't perceive the Soviets as the threat that they would become and thought they could negotiate with a nuclear hammer, when instead if they had the resolve they would have taken Stalin out ahead of time.

Please note I don't believe this, I'm just putting it out there.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

You also don't want to be the first to open that can of worms, because you leave yourself vulnerable.

It goes to the ability to pose deterance after the first strike. The Soviet doomsday strategy was to combine the removal of American bombers and missiles with nuclear weapons in the 50's along with a plea after the strike that "We can't let this go on". The reason why arsenals got so big was specifically MADD. They didn't need even half the weapons that they had since they could bounce the rubble of a dead world several time, but its the perception of that ultimate doomsday retaliation or first strike that stopped both sides short of using their nukes.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Even during the latest gulf war, there were people pushing for the use of 'tactical' nuclear arms, and the resounding reply was that not only are they a poor tactical alternative because of their indiscriminate nature, as well as their effect of poisoning the terrain (objective), but it is a way of immediately turning the tide of public/worldwide support.

Actually thats true and not true. The problem with the use of tactical nuclear weapons is political, the decision to use them cannot come fast enough due to the requirement to get political permission to deploy the weapons. Because the battlefield changes so fast, by the time you get permission through the chain of command your goals and objectives and target groups have changed.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

The biggest drawback of mass casualty weaponry like nukes is they make the terrain, which is always the objective in every war, unwinnable. What good is a territorial advantage if you are having to avoid it?

Not sure I agree with that since warfare has devolved from the holding or occupying of specific territory to engaging and killing your enemy from a distance or tactic distance enough to avoid your own casualties.

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

These are the mathematical reasoning behind avoiding using nuclear weapons. Tactically, it does not make sense to render the land you are fighting over unusuable.

Depends on your objectives. If your fighting a war to seize territory its unlikely that your going to nuke it. If your fighting a war to defeat, destroy and force your enemy to back down, then you care more about kill ratio's and stripping your enemy of his war fighting capabilities and forcing him on reconstuction and survival as oppossed to retaliation and revenge.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

Techically, a Neutron bomb be more cost effective. It only about a kiloton in magnitude, so it'll leave most of the city intact. However, the lethal range will extend before the flash and blast damage. Kill off most of the enemy/people but leave the infrastructure mainly intact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

Why not just use a non persistant chemical weapon Sarin only stays in its deadly form for a matter of hours before it breaks down into less harmfull elements.

Its also a bugger to fight in a chemical protection suit.